Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/18/1999 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING HELD November 18, 1999 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4755 - EDWARD V. WETZEL 10 - Appl. No. 4750 - R. RIBAUDO 14 -Appl. No. 4759- MARYANN SEWELL 19 - Appl. No. 4685 - VINCENT TORRE 20 - Appl. No. 4760 - S & S. VITOLANO 26- Appl. No. 4723- SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER 28 - Appl. No. 4761- RICHARD POGGI 39 -Appl. No. 4749 - L. WINDISCH 50 - Appl. No. 4767 - WILLIAM KELLER, SR. Page 1 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 6:33 P.M.- TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING November 18, 1999 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) Appl. No. 4755 - EDWARD V. WETZEL This is an application (1) requesting relief from. Zoning Board of Appeals Condition #1 under Variance Determination rendered July 27, 1972, Action No. 1597 (Grathwohl and Pugsley) which states that there shall be seasonal occupancy only in cottages on Lots #lA, #5 and #6; the season to run from March 15th through November 15th (eight months); and (2) requesting a Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-244 for total lot coverage over the code limitation of 20% for a proposed addition to existing dwelling. (2) No improvements can be made without approval of the Board of Appeals by the provisions of the Ordinance to allow an additional 21 to 31 sq. ft. based upon the Building Department's October 8, 1999 Notice of Disapproval. Location of Property: 35 Second Street, New Suffolk; 1000-117-10-20.4 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is really a continuation of the same hearing we had on the last regularly scheduled meeting. Is Mr. Wetzel here? Mr. Wetzel, I'll ask you to stand up there and I just want to mention one thing. I see a gentleman that's raising his hand. We need you on tape so would you come up here. Not, not, you, you're welcome to stay there Sir, but, could you come up here, thank you. No, no, not you Sir, I apologize, yeah, not him. He's requesting to approach the Board. Yes? MR. SIGMUND: I'd like to know if there's anything going to happen on the SOUthampton Lumber?. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are going to read a Resolution. We are barred from opening the hearing as I mentioned to you on the telephone. The Resolution will not be read until such time that it comes up in the Agenda and that's all I can tell you at this point. MR. SIGMUND: But will there be any discussion on it at all tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can't take any discussion because there's no, there's, since the proper notices have not been applied for, or supplied to us I should say. Page 2 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. SIGMUND: So in other words, the people that are coming down, it would be foolish for them to hang around? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct and that was the purpose of my telephone call to you. MR. SIGMUND: OK, and I would suggest to you, I'm going to wait for some of them when they come to tell them they should go home. But, I would suggest to you, that as you go along in your meeting, I wish you would announce this on occasion because if any of them are sitting here, waiting to listen to this, at least they'll be notified - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem. MR. SIGMUND: To go home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. SIGMUND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Wetzel how do you do? MR. WETZEL: I'm doing fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. WETZEL: I'm really not sure, except that I'm here to seek relief for some issues that I've submitted requests for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. WETZEL: Appealing some of the rules of the Board, not as in an adversary thing but wanted to (inaudible), and the relief then would enable 'us, my wife and I, to fully enjoy the Town of Southold, New Suffolk in particular. So you're speaking, do you want me to speak of the three issues? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, whatever you choose to do, is fine with me. MR. WETZEL: Well it seems that there's three variances involved in my request. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the main issue, is the issue that you and I discussed on the telephone a week ago Saturday, and that is the issue that this Board in 1972 placed a restriction on your property which said, it'd,only be used Page 3 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing on a temporary basis over a normal calendar year. I mean I can read the copy of that, of that decision. MR. WETZEL: I have a copy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean that in any sarcastic manner. I'm just saying to you, that's where the problem lies. I have since, and I did speak to you that, I did tell you, that I did speak to the two existing Board Members the only two existing Board Members, that are with us on this earth at this time, one gentleman had retired from this Board after 44 years. I did speak to him and I did call a gentleman right after my conversation with you, in the State of Florida who winters in Florida and he is Mr. Fred Hultz and I asked him what the reasoning was behind the restriction of the Board. You know, the restriction that's placed on your property and the property next to yours and one other parcel of property within this, we'll refer to it as a subdivision because that's what the Board did at that time in 1972. And, he said, that the purpose of it was, that they did not want any enlargement or expansion or change, OK, in the normal seasonal uses of those particular cottages and I think he used the word substantial change, OK, and that's all I'm telling you at this point. MR. WETZEL: Well, it would seem to me then, that along the whole bay frontage plenty of houses that are going to be more substantial than my own, and the idea of a, it would seem also to me, that a it's restrictive and it's a particular to those particular cottages. That whole of second street that holds full time houses, in that little compound or subdivision, three houses have been set aside as seasonal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MR. WETZEL: It appears that that's kind of arbitrary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that and I'm not questioning the arbitrary nature of this Board, if that's what you're saying based upon there 1972 decision. But, you do have to take one thing into consideration, that these are relatively small pieces of property as oppose to some of the properties that you're referring to. And, you know, I'm looking at your piece right now and it seems to me, they'd be approximately 66 x 100, alright. MR. WETZEL: 55. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 55 in one spot, the side that i read, OK. Needless to say, we're here 'to listen to you and to accept or reject any information you're about to give us and that's basically it. Page 4 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. WETZEL: OK. It's 55 x 100. There's particular variances that I'm involved in. One is a sideyard setback. We're requesting 7 feet on the'west side of this little bungalow and the idea was to give me a space to put some room on the top without building a big monolith on the beach which is objectionable to everybody. The design of the house is nice and airy with two porches on the side. It does enable me to have a little space on the second floor but not the whole space because the house is so small that I have designed then a cathedral ceiling to give me an idea of space without taking a lot of groUnd ( ) and my encroachment on the west side is probably two more feet than the fellow that's right alongside of me, that's 48 feet between the two houses. My would be 23, his is 25. There's all nonconforming lots down there. When I do that, I also add 21 to 31 feet ( ) Building Inspector. That's 21 to 31 sq. ft, over the 20% lot coverage. There's no walks, there's nothing else up there. What you see is what you get. 20 x 40 has more or less and a 7 foot porch on the side. The other is hanging up there on the second floor. Small two bedrooms and then the seasonal occupancy which appears to me to be just a, does appear arbitrary. It may have been very good reasoning at that particular time because it was maybe more or less a beach community. But, I'm not sure that New Suffolk per se, is a beach community. I enjoy it that way. I love the beach, that's why we bought that house in 1977 from Celic Realty. We've enjoyed it immensely and ! would really like to take advantage of it and I need this relief in order to do this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Wetzel? MEMBER DINIZIO: No I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I guess I have no question. I would say that the word arbitrary has been bandied around here this evening and I think that's unfortunate because our predecessors on this Board were presumably acting on the basis of knowledge, thought, contemplation and they concluded that in permitting the folks who owned that square block to subdivide it and let their little cottages become individually owned and as we saw ultimately most of them turned into a year round houses the Board said, that they felt along the waterfront the houses should remain seasonal and I think we should honor that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Ms. Collins. I do want to mention one thing to you Mr. Wetzel. There is a letter from October 12, 1999 from the neighbor, Mr. Brophy, I'm sorry, Mr. Leary. MR. WETZEL: Leary? Page 5 - November 18, 1999 BOard of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. He does pose a couple of questions. I'm not necessarily requesting that you answer those questions at this time, but, I'm suggesting that maybe you should think about the questions and maybe send us a written response to them only because he a, in one of those situations, which is number 2, he says, the existing disposal system, lot #4 maintains a cesspool on the Wetzet property. MR. WETZEL: Incorrect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that incorrect? MR. WETZEL: It's incorrect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How close is it to the Wetzel's well point? have no questions about, I don't know. That I MR. WETZEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. WETZEL: Well you see he also and you also, talks about the workers in the Building Department maybe not keeping up to grip. I mean it's a, it's a letter, it's not a letter to solve a problem. The letter is, was issued to create a problem and I don't think the Board should look at that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we have to look at everything. But, a, I mean and in all due respects to you and what your requesting, if a person sends me a letter like this and ! am required to read it - MR. WETZEL: I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then, because it is part of the record and it's presently here and if you want to refute it, and you really should refute it in some way, if you don't think it's correct and that's what I'm asking you to do. MR. WETZEI: Nobody else has a cesspool on my property. Nobody else has a cesspool on my property and it's the same as I bought it. It's the same, the cesspool is the same, everything is the same and there's nobody else on my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll go to Mrs. Tortora. Page 6 - November t8, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. WETZEL: The issue of the seasonal and alright, ~ grant that that was a, that was a maybe an arbitrary is a hard word. I didn't mean to be that ( ) ~ come as I said at the beginning, non adversary I come thinking that we were you know, the community has not objected to anything you know, the people, my neighbors, some of them here, have come to support this particular movement. If nothing else, and as I say, what I'm proposing is not ambiguous. It's not a big luxury house, it's a bungalow and that's the way it's going to remain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that hoUse heated now at this time? MR. WETZELi Pardon me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is your house heated now? MR. WETZEL: No Sir. I have a, I put a stove inside. I would put heat in this house. It's going to be a year round house when we move out here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: What is the lot coverage that you're proposing? The total lot coverage? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can we use your copy? MEMBER COLLINS: Sure, why not. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKk Mr. Wetzel, we have a copy here. Is this the same one that you have? MR. WETZEL: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you want to look at this? MR. WETZEL: It's the a from the Building Department? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MR. WETZEL: Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're welcome. MEMBER TORTORA: it's a total of 21 sq. ft. over the allowable lot coverage. MEMBER COLLINS: may be 3i'i ' Page 7 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MEMBERTORTORA: Pardon me? MR. WETZEL: 21 MEMBER COLLINS: I'm saying or maybe 31. If you look at it, there's some uncertainty as to whether the lot is 54, 50, or 55, 50 sq. ft. MEMBER TORTORA: Well there's two documents in here. That's why I wanted a clarification on this. I have a memo in the file dated October 5th and it says that the lot coverage applicant's calculations are 1134.4 sq. ft. or 20.439. So, I just wanted to know what we're dealing with as far as the access lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It look like less than 1% right? MEMBER TORTORA: That's what it looks like to me. Thank you. A couple of other questions. In looking at yes - MR. WETZEL: Here? MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't matter. In looking at some of the parameters that we have to view these types of applications, one of them is a, if you have any other alternatives, do you have any other alternatives to grant a variance to be able to use this house for year round purposes? What would you do if you're not able to get the variance for example? What happens to you? Tell us I'd like to know. MR. WETZEL: A friend of mine has offered me his house up in Connecticut during the months of November, December and January. I don't know whether I want to do that or not. I'd like to move out here because it's time for me you know, to move from where I'am at the present, Massapequa. It's not 100% necessary that I move but, I've been looking forward to this since 77 when I bought this place. Now we could alter to plan, or redraw a plan, put all the space that I need up on the second floor. It just changes the character of the house. I think what I tried to do is to draw some kind of a balance in the building, the structure itself, that it still looks like a beach bungalow and gives us the necessary room to do what we need. it's possible that we could do something else but I'm not a dumb cluck, I'm not going to say it, I don't know. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? sir? MR. BROPHY: You have a lot number at this time? Page 8 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're still questioning Board Members. As soon as we're done Mr. Brophy then we'll - MR. BROPHY: I have a little trouble with my hearing so - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're still questioning Board Members.~ As soon as the Board Members are finished with their questions, then you're welcome to come up and speak. OK, did you hear me? Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Sir, clarification here. In that subdivision, you're lot #5? Is that correct? And lot #lA are you familiar with that or lot #6? MR. WETZEL: Well, the one property is right alongside of me, just to the west of me, you know. MEMBER. HORNING: OK. MR. WETZEL: That shares the front. There is another bungalow that was attached to the big house. If you know that property it's a one big house, it's a rooming house and then there are a couple of smaller properties along the side along second street. I'm part of the, there's 1, 2, 3 houses on the front, one of which did not belong to that subdivision. But, I believe #6 is the one right along side of me and lA is back a little bit, you know. MEMBER HORNING: Tell us what your neighbors in those lots, what they do in their bungalows. They don't live there year round, do they? MR. WETZEL: No, no, but they have not objected to this particular year round request. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. All set. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. We thank you Mr. Wetzel. We'll see what happens during the hearing here and it appears that Mr. Brophy wants to say something. MR. BROPHY: Mr. Goehringer and Members of the Board, as you know I adjoin this property to the north. I have to say what Mr. & Mrs. Wetzel are temPting to do is going to be a benefit to everybody in the surrounding community, property values, good housing and I'd like that to be given some careful thought. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Thank you Sir.' Anybody else like to speak in favor?. Anybody like to speak against? Any other questions from any Board Page 9 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing Members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 6:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4750 - R. RIBAUDO Variance for bluff setback for proposed pool. Location of Property: 1920 The Strand Way, East Marion; 1000-30-2-56. Resolution from 10/14 calendared this hearing session. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At the request of Edwood Sigmund, I'm going to again mention to the audience that the matter of Southampton Lumber ,there will be testimony given by anyone tonight since the hearing itself has not be properly noticed by the applicant. So, if you are here for Southampton Lumber, you're welcome to stay here and see what the Board does. When we get to that point but, the hearing will not commence. The next hearing is on behalf of R. Ribaudo and we are speaking to the Builder. MR. SCHAEFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. Could you just state your name again for the record. MR. SCHAEFER: Richard Schaefer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Schaefer how are you? We thank you for your letter and is there anything else you would like to add? MR. SCHAEFER: No, I just, thought it was self-explanatory. You requested that letter with some of that information which we passed on. Mr. Ribaudo and Mrs. Ribaudo are here at this hearing. They weren't here the last time. They come from Jersey. They come from a further distance than I do, but, they are here and I have nothing further to add to that unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to ask Ms. Collins because Ms. Collins was the one that was basically concerned, we were all concerned, but I mean she was the one that posed the question. So, we'll ask Ms. Collins if she would like to proceed concerning the letter that was received. MEMBER COLLINS: No, Mr. Schaefer is right. The letter was self-explanatory. It confirmed what I think one could read from the survey, but, we wanted affirmation of that and I'll just say, and I'm repeating what I said at the last hearing that the application to the Building Department for the original Building Permit and indeed the application for the revised Permit moving everything a bit closer to the water, in both of those applications, the applicant as I read, the documents used this average line of the bluff, as the point from which to measure the setbacks on, but, it appears that on this particular property, the bluff, the literal bluff is, further south or further inland than the so-called average Page 11 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing line of the bluff which is exactly what you said. It's an average line of the bluff in the neighborhood and therefore the way I read it, the requested setbacks from the actual bluff are considerably smaller than a, than the, how should I put it, I guess from the statement in the Building Department material and if I'm misreading that, it's important that we know because I think that the setbacks from the actual, the setbacks of the pool and the house as proposed from the actual bluff as distinguished from being the setbacks from this average line, are considerably less than the ones that are being discussed here and I think that's important in our decision. I just want to make sure that rm reading this right. MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, that copy of the survey is from the original filed map. have a full size drawings and that's what it was. It was just a straight line - MEMBER COLLINS: A straight line. MR. SCHAEFFER: To point, to point, to point, all along that bluff. MEMBER COLLINS: Sought of tangential to the bluff, at various points suspect. MR. SCHAEFER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else have any questions of the Builder? OK, the applicant, surely Sir, how are you tonight? It's a pleasure to meet you. MR. RIBAUDO: From what I know of all of the other homes that are there and we've owned the property for about 22 years, all of the homes are built to the average line of the bluff, not to the actual line'because the actual line varies. From what I understand, I think we're 100 feet back from the actual back from the bluff too if you take a tape measure. So, what we're requesting is just that we can keep our house, the back of our house in line with all of the other homes that are there also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the question that should be asked at this point is, are you willing to except alternate relief and that is if we can't agree on the actual placement of the pool, that we could move it back a few feet one way or another, because we work on a unanimity basis? MR. RIBAUDO: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Three votes are positive and less than three votes are not and are you going to deal with it on that aspect? Page 12 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. RIBAUDO: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, very good. MR. RIBAUDO: The' only thing I might add. I'm not trying, I'm just thinking of the front setback is just as important as the rear setback. So what we were trying to do is line it up with the front. That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes Sir? MR. KLOTZ: Yes, my name is Robert Klotz, and we're adjacent to the property on the west side. This is neither for nor against. I'd just like to give an explanation of our concern. Originally when the plans were submitted, there was a revisement of this after they went to the Suffolk County Department and the house was then proposed to be moved away from the street and towards the bluff and the reason that was given by the person involved in construction is that he did not want to be between two homes where his vision would be limited and he'd have a tunnel vision between the two houses and we're just concerned now, that moving the house forward might do the same to our property on that side which (). It's just a concernl CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think we're really moving the house forward. I think what we're moving is the pool. The nature of the 100 feet here really affects the pool. It really truncates the pool directly in half. I don't think it actually, I'll be right with you Mr. Ribaudo, no problem, but I don't think it actually affects the placement of the house in much of (). MR. KLOTZ: That was just something that we were concerned about., CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Sir. MR. RIBAUDO: I think if we actually move the house further back from the bluff line to allow for the pool rather than move it towards the bluff line, because we want to put in a pool, we actually have to move the house forward a little bit. But, because our house is narrower of front to back than both our neighbors, it's still kept us in line with their fronts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. concerning this hearing? Seeing no hands decision until later. Anybody else like to speak I'll close the hearing, reserving Page 13 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 14 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 7:01 P.M. -Appl. No. 4759 -MARYANN SEWELL This is a request for approval of Waiver of Lot Merger under Article l~, Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code. The December 20, 1996 Building Department Notice of Disapproval states that: "under Section 100-244A(1) the lots in question SCTM #1000-51-6-36 and 38.1 were created by deed prior to 6/30/83 and conform to the minimum lot requirements set forth in Bulk Schedule AA as of the date of lot creation. The lots in question are located in an R-40 Zone. Under Section 100-25A, Lot 1000-51-6-38, area of 29,661 sq.ft., has merged with adjacent lot 1000-51-6-36, area of 1.6 acres as they have been held in common ownership at some time since July 1, 1983. Street Location: 1935 and 2255 Milt Creek Drive, Southold, N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Doty, how are you? MS. DOTY: Fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you. I haven't seen you in a couple meetings. MS. DOTY: That's right and I haven't been eating out either. My schedule has changed. I have an Affidavit of Posting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. DOTY: This is yet another situation where we have an elderly owner who unfortunately is deceased, but a, she was unaware of the Merger Law and her two lots which she thought were two lots merged. They have been in common ownership since 1971. According to her daughter who is not here, lives in Washington, D.C., her mother was extremely meticulously careful with respect to her possessions and assets. I don't believe she was represented by a local lawyer at any time so, unfortunately she has ( ) and can't (). The dwelling is on the smaller lot which is .9 of an acre and the vacant lot is about 1.6 of an acre. She's like many, she was like many people in this town still today. I had a client come in last week and say, could I get two separate tax bills? And i said, well you may get two separate tax bills according to the Assessors, but according to- the Town Code, your lots have merged. I don't know that I would be before the Board on that lot. The size of two separate I°ts is wholly consistent with what else is in the neighborhood. The large lot, the vacant lot, is the second largest Page 15 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing in the neighborhood, and the house lot is the fourth largest in the neighborhood. The larger lot is large enough when you consider setbacks to build a house on it, if they decide to do that and they have no plans to do that, I might add to the building. The purpose of getting it separated again is, that Ms. Sewell can give one lot to her son and one lot to her daughter. If the lots were to remain merged, the 2.5 acre lot would be inconsistent for the size of the remaining lots in the neighborhood in that it would be significantly larger than almost anyone there. There reallY would be no significant increase in the density in the neighborhood. There are four empty lots if you classify the vacant lot as a separate lot. So, if all four got built on that's four more houses in an. already built area and the economic hardship is, that what they thought they have, they no longer have. Basically they lost a building lot. With regard to alterations of the contours and environmental issues those of course will have to be addressed whenever built on, but, at this point, no plans to build on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea what specific area the gutter involved in reference to taking square footage away from that lot? MS. DOTY: Yes I do actually. '1 took the liberty of~asking John Ehlers the surveyor in Riverhead to do a very rough sketch and these are not necessarily accurate figures but, they are based on the Van Tuyl surveys that you already have. And, it says, that the gutter as it then existed was 7500 sq. ft. I have copies for the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, thank you. We do appreciate this Ms. Doty. MS. DOTY: You're welcome. The dotted lines reflect the setback from the gutter for a building and so, the funny shaped thing I guess to the west would be the building area between the two lines. Now again, that's the size of the gutter back when that first survey was done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I proceeded to walk toward the gutter and then saw the poison ivy and it was at that point that I retreated and I said, it's at this point that I will ask counsel. MS. DOTY: Counsel didn't even get that far. John Ehlers didn't get that far, he's never been out there. But, I think if you approach it from the other direction or even from the road, you can see more of the size of the gutter and it obviously varies according to the dampness of the season because there's road run-off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, good. Dory? Mr. Dinizio any questions of Ms. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Page 16 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well you did read my mind because my question was, why it Would not be feasible simply to move 7,000 sq. ft. from the larger lot to the smaller lot making the smaller lot conforming and making your merger problem go away in effect. MS. DOTY: But the merger has already happened. MEMBER COLLINS: Well yeah, but I mean as a solution and an easy way to get them unmerged I guess you would say. And, what you're saying is, that because of that all that wetland on the east side of the big lot if you took anything away from the west side of the big lot, there wouldn't be any room left to build a house. MS. DOTY: We might have problems. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MS. DOTY: We don't know that for an absolute fact. MEMBER COLLINS: No, but I see the argument. I consider it a pretty (). Thank you. MS. DOTY: Again, the intention was not to build, just to restore what they thought they had initially. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, but of course what they had was two separate lots and what Ms. Sewell wants to do is, fix in her will, leave one of those to each child, and one child is going to get a vacant lot which he might very well find a salable asset and you know I think we have to assume construction when we unmerge. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Some time. MS. DOTY: Probably. But, I don't know when. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The ~/acant lot certainly is a very, very, beautiful piece of property. There's no question about it as well as the other lot there's no qUestion about it. MS. DOTY: That'~ whole area is beautiful. page 17 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it really is. Anything else Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora. It's like untouched almost. MEMBER TORTORA: Same thinking. Even if you subtracted that 7500 sq. ft., because the total area is 65,006. Even if you subtracted that 7500 to make the house lot a conforming lot, you, because you wouldn't even have to be here if you just, you know, went in for a lot line change on that and a - MRS. DOTY: But the merger exists. That's our problem. They have one lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. We're not here for a subdivision line. MS. DOTY: We don't have subdivision rights. I have discussed the idea of moving the line with my client frankly. But, we needed the pleasure of the Board before we made a decision and since you're ( ) you know, can we shift the line? If you say, yes, you can have two lots but move that line. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have any idea, actual idea how much building land, buildable land you have lot at this point? MS. DOTY: I didn't get the ( ) idea either. I haven't physically and I'll grant you the surveys are all 68 and 71, so who knows what's happened since then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is a well vegetated lot though. It's doubtful that much has really changed except for a possibly along the water area. MS. DOTY: Yes, I agree. But, as I said, we did discuss the possibility if the Board were to grant a waiver of merger, possibly with a condition of moving that line if it works, then, you know, I'm not adverse to making two conforming lots. I believe in conformity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. DOTY: I'm,speaking for myself. I don't think the client would say no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. '- Page 18 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. Please, I wasn't taking this away from you. I didn't know if you were done or not. MEMBER TORTORA: No, that's alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just moving it along. Ms. Doty we thank you. We'll see what else develops. MS. DOTY: I'd like to wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, you too. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'1t make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 19 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, at the request of a person in the audience that the Southampton Lumber Application will not proceed tonight, if anybody is here for that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For a hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For a hearing, right. 7:12 P.M. - Appl. No. 4685 - VINCENT TORRE This is a continued hearing, regarding APplicant's request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31C(2) to convert use of accessory barn to retail sales of owner's art and a gallery for public viewing in this Agricultural-Conservation (A- C) Zone District, at 100 Sound Ave, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-120-3-1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Resolution is accepting request for the Application to be withdrawn which is Vincent Torre, 4685. I will offer that as a Resolution. MEMBER DINIZlO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 20 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 7:13 'P.M. -Appl. No. 4760- S. & S. VITOLANO This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 based upon the September 7, 1999 Building Department Notice of Disapproval, for the location of a proposed accessory two-car garage in the southerly side yard area (instead of the required rear yard). Location: 435 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-115-17-17.23. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. Would you state your name for the record. MR. VITOLANO: It's actually Steven Vitolano. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, did I say Vincent? I'm terribly sorry, I was on Vincent Torre. How do you do, I apologize. MR. VITOLANO: We're seeking permission to build a detached two car garage and as it shapes up it would be wants referred to as the side yard as oppose to the rear yard. My only question is, do you folks have the most recent sketch that I had sent you along with the last packet which is an update of the original plot plan? MEMBER TORTORA: No, but is it the 12th? MR. VITOLANO: Yes, I believe so. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes we did. MR. VITOLANO: I just want to point out, that the original plot plan actually cited it closer to the street whereas the update pushes it back. You know what I'm saying? About 30 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's already 130. MR. VITOLANO: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the natural course of action in a situation like this is, in having a lot of this size in magnitude, you know, it's not the biggest lot, it's not the smallest lot, OK. I'm not referring to subdivision now. I'm saying, that it is a well sized lot. Why can't you attach the garage to the house? MR. VITOLANO: That would be pretty involved, I mean to attach - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean the house is very beautiful. Page 21 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. VlTOLANO: Structurally and architecturally, it would be very difficult to attach it. We tried to build a home that looks old and in order to do that we put a detached garage would be more consistent with the topography out here. So, that was the reason why we chose to go to detached garage. To attach it to the house now, would be structurally very illogical. It would look odd and it would be very involved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does this application violate any Code and Restrictions that you have in the subdivision? MR. VITOLANO: No, it does not. They approved it. (). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: I didn't hear what he said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it does not. MR. VlTOLANO: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She was merely asking me what you said. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I didn't hear what you said after, no, it does not. I didn't hear your words after that. MR. VITOLANO: Yeah, we had'to submit to them and did it simultaneously with submitting actually to the Building Department, when they ( ) our home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. OK, this appears to be a two story garage? MR. VITOLANO: Correct. Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: More or less? MR. ViTOLANO: I don't know what two story means. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's a cape style roof or a gable end roof so I mean you have half of the square footage upstairs that you are downstairs. MR. VlTOLANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the purpose of the upstairs storage? Page 22 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. VlTOLANO: Just nothing actually. We're doing it more for our protection purposes and ! mean to have some space up there. I can use it for storage, for furniture and stuff.' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the garage doors will face toward the road? MR. VlTOLANO: No, the garage doors will actually face toward the house. So from the road you'll see, you know, the side of the garage, and it will be consistent With the rest of the house. Same siding, same roofing, you know, it will look like a house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The garage will contain what utility other than electricity? Anything else? MR. VITOLANO: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it. MR. VITOLANO: As far as utility, i'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Water, no water? MR. VITOLANO: No, just electricity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Horning. Any questions of this gentlemen? MEMBER HORNING: What is your reasoning for not having it in the so-called back yard? MR. VlTOLANO: Well, we could. Obviously that's a possibility, it would put it very far from the street. It would make for a very long driveway and would put it very far away.from the house. As it is, on the proposal it's over 130 feet from the street. Putting it in the rear yard would make it over 160. So, it would be pretty far away. It would be very far from the house. It wouldn't be the most convenient thing. I mean it's something I would choose not to do if we didn't have to. MEMBER HORNING: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I a like the revised plan. Page 23 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. VITOLANO: Pardon? MEMBER TORTORA: I like the revised plan. The last plan that you submitted. i think it's a big improvement over the original submission. MR. VITOLANO: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Vitolano when I went to look at the house i didn't walk into the property. I just looked at it from the street. The way you have the garage lined up now, it's basically adjacent to what I would call on the sketch the rear wing of the house, or the tail of the house. MR. VIOLANO: Sought of, yeah. MEMBER COLLINS: What is that part, is that where the kitchen is? Is that where you want to go to from the garage? MR. VITOLANO: That's fairly room. Yeah, it would be nice to be able to walk from the garage into that if we could. MEMBER COLLINS: I guess what I'm getting out is, the question that's been raised here which is the code says, accessories are suppose to go behind the rear line of the house which is the rear yard and at this point you have your garage so that its rear line lines up basically with the rear line of the house and so the garage is extending like almost 30 feet from the rear line of the house and I guess my question is, exactly what would be really inconvenient or troublesome about moving the garage further back? You said, it would give you a very long driveway and that's true, but, you know it's not like we have monster snows we have to clear. MR. VITOLANO: It would also look odd. I mean just putting it that far back on the property on that particular corner with the garage doors facing away from the street, I think it would look strange. I mean it may sound self serving but, if you could picture it, the location where we're asking to side it kind of balances out the house, whereas, if you put it in that rear corner, you know, satisfying the rear yard requirement, it's in my opinion, I'm not an architect, but I think it would look kind of add actually. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to elicit your views. Page 24 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. VlTOLANO: No, it's a good question. A part of that is the fact that it does put it a little further.from the house. Yeah, it's not the end of the world if you have to walk another 30 feet but, if we can you know. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before we go to Mr. Dinizio, the actual height shown on the plan here is, 23 feet 3 inches to the ridge. Does that sound correct? MR. VITOLANO: I have to double check before I say yes or no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you do that and call us tomorrow please. MR. VITOLANO: Yeah, the architect did say that he satisfied the height requirement. I think there was, they take a mean between the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MR. VITOLANO: Does that sound right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. VlTOLANO: An even (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that is the correct figure because 18 is the mean and that is center roof. So, that's correct. MR. VlTOLANO: You need a confirmation on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think I have it. I don't think I need it. MR. VlTOLANO: I'm just wasn't sure if I understand the question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My question was I can't read the 23. I don't know if it reads 23 or 28. But, after looking at the mean, it appears that that is at 18, so I think we are correct at 23. MR. VITOLANO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: However, if you check-your plab and you find that differently, somewhat different, would you call us tomorrow? Page 25 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. V~TOLANO: Yes. Your under the assumption it's 23 and if it reads as an $ I'll double check it, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. VlTOLANO: I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Mr. Dinizio: MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much. Anybody like to speak for the application? 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. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 26 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 7:20 P.M. - Appl. No, 4723-- SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER This is a request for an Use Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-242G, to establish lumberyard use in a Hamlet Business (HB) Zone District, based upon the Building Department's January 12, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for the following reason: "Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years or has been changed to a higher classification or to a conforming use, nothing in this Article to the contrary notwithstanding, the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall have been granted by the Board of Appeals." Location of Property: 13650 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y., Parcel 1000-114-11-24.3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the hearing that we were going to try and reconvene and that was the hearing of Southampton Lumber. We are at this particular time, I am suggesting to the Board, that we give Southampton Lumber until the a - when is the January meeting Linda? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You haven't set a schedule for the New Year yet. Probably a - MEMBER COLLINS: I assume it's the third Thursday. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, prObably the second Thursday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll use it as a January meeting, whenever we set it later. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think it's the 11th or the 12th, I'm not sure, I've got to look it up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we will recalendar this. We do not have a hearing tonight because 'the neighbor notices were not properly filed so the resolution basically and I have this in hieroglyphics, so i apologize if it comes out this way but, to recalendar this to the January meeting at which time if the notices under Article 58 of the Town Code have not been complied with the Board will then make a decision. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I would ask just one thing that the neighbor notices be turned in before we advertise it. Page 27 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and I offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER COLLINS: You want to emphasize on that Jerry. I think, that we will make a decision at that time they, or forced shortly thereafter based on the record as is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that is correct. I have of course the entire resolution as we have prepared. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, but I wanted people to understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which I wasn't going to read at this point. MEMBER COLLINS: There would be no further record held. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, so that's where we are at this point. So, I offer that ladies and gentlemen and I would appreciate if somebody would second it. MEMBER HORNING: I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, thank you. All in favor? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Anyone oppose, no? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution Page 28 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 7:21 P.M. -Appl. No. 4761 - RICHARD POGG! This is an application requesting Variances based upon the Building Department's September 23, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, under Article XXIV, Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, Article III, Sec. 100-33A.4 and 100-33B.1; for the reason that "...Existing structures are nonconforming on this lot in an R-40 Zone by virtue of the existing setbacks and present lot coverage." The ~ot coverage is proposed to exceed the present lot coverage nonconformity (increase from 25% to 2.9%); the setback for the proposed addition to the principal b building is one foot, more or less (instead of the code requirement of ten (10) feet; the setback proposed for the addition to the accessory structure is two feet (instead of the code requirement of three (3) feet. Location: 1740 Village Lane, Orient, N.Y.; 1000-24-2-18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe Ms. Moore is already in the position. MRS. MOORE: I'm am in the position. I'll give you the green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ah, yes, the important green cards. Thank you. MRS. MOORE: Before ! begin I haven't read today's paper. I don't know what they did with continuation of last weeks. Very briefly because it's really not relevant to this application in that all the same variances would be required. However, just so that you understand, the owner has been in the process of planning this renovation, this reconstruction for months and they began with, really with the very first person that they spoke to was somebody from the landmark preservation group who came in in specimens and didn't think that there was any problems and actually gave the blessing and then when the house was started, this appliCation was in two phases. There is the house that's being renovated and then the small balcony and the garage. That was the two Building Permits were separated for obvious reasons that they didn't want to 'hold up the renovation of the house while they were going through variance procedure that we are here for today. The house renovation was stopped after the Building Permit was issued because the landmark group was concerned and wanted to have some kind of hearing process with respect to the recommendations to the Building Department. We had a very nice presentation by Rob ~Brown on Sunday and after that hearing it was very clear that the neighborhood, that the community was very supportive of the renovation project and ultimately the approval was issued or. the recommendation was granted to the Building DePartment. That permitted the demolition of the house and the reason for the demolition was that the house as it was being, the siding was removed to expose clapboard siding and certain parts of the structure were being eXposed for renovation. It was being discovered little by little that the Page 29 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing house had been constructed right from the beginning over a little shack and structurally it was just inadequate to support any kind of renovation. So ultimately, that's the house, the actual timbers have been demolished I think as of today, are in the process of being demolished, and if you have any questions with regard to that process even though it really doesn't have anything to do with you but, certainly your human, you read articles and you think what's going on, this is terrible. We've all learned that we should not listen, we Should not listen to what we read, we should not believe what we read and ultimately the ( ) has been granted. Rob Brown is here this evening. He's the architect on the project and he can certainly answer any of your questions and more specifically, what we're doing and what we're here for today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We met with the Town Attorney tonight prior to this hearing. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And based upon the fact that this issue of sleeping quarters in the garage, is an issue. We will take Mr. Brown's testimony at that point. But, we would like to cease the hearing at that point until such time that you have the proper Notices of Disapproval indicating that the sleeping quarters are being requested and that's what the Town Attorney .had mentioned to us at this point. So if you would merely just go back to the Building Department and have them do that - MRS. MOORE: A we'll continue the hearing and renotice. I guess they we~'e aware of everything that was submitted right from the beginning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somehow, they inadvertently didn't place it in there and it should be there. That is a request on his part and so we're going to comply with that request. Since Mr. Brown is here and a - MRS. MOORE: Well will put in all of the testimony as if it were in place. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, I would like to stop it at that point and then reconvene it next month when we have that. MRS. MOORE: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: On those, along those lines because this the Notice of Disapproval was written back on - MRS. MOORE: September 23rd. Page 30 - NoVember 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: In September, right and at that time there was obViously no plans to gut the house and this Notice of Disapproval was written you know based on that. So, the question is now are you planning on reconstructing the house in the identical footprint? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And so the - MRS. MOORE: It's the exact same application. That's why ! consider that. We actually, that was one of the first things we thought of. Well, if, because the demolition obviously wasn't made obvious to us until they had proceeded with a certain amount of the renovation project and it was real clear that what they're doing is, building a replica of what they had. Instead of renovating where you're taking the timbers and adding new materials to those timbers, it's a replica of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: So essentially if it's going to be in the same footprint - MRS. MOORE: Exactly the same footprint. MEMBER TORTORA: Then, the question I would have is, do we need to update this notice because this is -? MRS. MOORE: Not as to that - MEMBER TORTORA: Well it's - MRS. MOORE: Well you'll have it. If they're going to reissue, they can look at it, but the exact same plan is gOing to be submitted. I mean the exact same plan was submitted which is being used today. Rob can explain that to you but, the same plan is being used for the reconstruction as the renovation because of the degree of the renovations at the time. Really there's very little other than what, my understanding is, that the timbers just can't support the structural alterations that were originally proposed. MEMBER TORTORA: Well I jUst brought that up because the nature of the application has changed since it was originally submitted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, -aren't you concerned procedurally that the Building DePartment is now going to take the position that the provision in Section 242 about nonconforming buildings with conforming uses and it says, sure you can Page 31 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing remodel, reconstruct and what not. But, then it goes on to say, that if has been damaged beyond, I have to look it up, you know the provision I mean? MRS. MOORE: I do know the provision. MEMBER COLLINS: It has to do with I mean this happened. There was a house here up on the North Road, nonconforming setbacks and what they wanted to do, was knock it down and rebuild and people do want to do that and the Building Department said, that this provision required them not to do it, but the new building had to have conforming setbacks and the case ends up with us for setback variances and - MRS. MOORE: And I think didn't you come to the conclusion that when you're building the same footprint that you're permitted to rebuild. At least that's what the message is back to the Building Department. They understand that really the intention of the code is - MEMBER COLLINS: The only reason I'm raising this Ms. Moore is simply if we're going to make sure that we have Building Department denials, disapprovals for the project as it now stands. That you make sure that out of the blue they aren't going to hit you with that after, served after, the fact. You want to get the ducks in the road. MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is a good point. I do thank you, both ladies for the whole issue here because this major problem occurs with functional obsolescence, or significant deterioration which is the case here. It is not fire damage, OK, and so that seems to be somewhat of a gray area sometimes with the Building Department. MEMBER COLLINS: I think it's gray. MEMBER TORTORA: We had a similar case up on the North Road. MRS. MOORE: I think you've had similar cases about according to rule that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, notwithstanding that fact. MRS. MOORE: But that wasn't the intention. The intention of the code is, not to prohibit a pre-existing nonconforming structure, because we're not talking about a use that's nonconforming. We're talking about a structure that's nonconforming and there is no provision. There's no, I think it's 24ZA deals with a, there is nothing prohibiting someone from being able to rebuild a pre-existing Page 32 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing nonconforming structure. That's the intention I think of the code and I think the language speaks for itself. I think that over and the conflict has always been, why do we differentiate between fire damage and intentional reconstruction? ! don't know, I never understood that. It never made sense to me. But, nonetheless, for my, you knowl for my client's purposes 242A clearly allows them to rebuild~ as long as it's within the same footprint. And, ! think that's been your kind of, the theme of running through your decisions over time that there is a recognition of pre-existing use. · MEMBER COLLINS: This may be .indeed what we've done in the case or two that I can remember, but it seems to me, that the Building.Department was taking the position that the language that says a nonconforming building which has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of 50%, and they took the view, that if you knock it down in order to rebuild it, that's damage of other causes. We're just warning you to make sure that - MRS. MOORE: Listen- MR. ROB BROWN: Excuse me, it's my understanding, that we have a Building Permit. MRS. MOORE: Oh actually yes, we do have a Building Permit. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, really for the new building? MRS. MOORE: Do we have a permit for reconstruction for the a? I know we have a demolition permit. MR. ROB BROWN: That's my understanding. That I have to clarify that with the contractor because he has the permit. It's my understanding, it's a Building Permit. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, we're not trying to make your life more difficult. MRS. MOORE: No, believe me, every day I go to the Building Department. There's something new, so, you know, no offense to them but, they always look at the code and you get somebody that looks at it a little differently and then you know we're sitting here and a lot has come before you in the last two years because more and more they're getting more and more conservative and saying, well if it's any, you know, if they read it and it's, isn't clear to them, you get it and I don't think that there's any way of writing anything that is so clear to them, that we avoid you, In any case, one aspect of the Notice of Disapproval since we're going back to them, I'm going to point out to them, that them is a provision that has been listed which I don't believe is even implicable. It's that 10 foot Page 33 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing minimum setback for side yard of principal structure. We have the balcony is on the inside as you can see from the plans, the balcony is on the inside of the patio, the existing patio, so we're not further encroaching any side yards. The balcony really only affects the lot coverage issue which a, because of the size of this property, that I have already stated in my application, that we already eXceed the lot coverage by way of the structures that exists and that a, the applicant has, is renovating the building with a little extra balcony and the garage renovation that causes it to go a to increase the lot coverage, really very minimally but, all certainly in proportion to the size of the building and the size of the property, and similar properties in this area. But nonetheless it does reach the lot c°verage of 29%. ! believe it's 29. i'm trying to find it in my notes but, a, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just had it here myself. MEMBER COLLINS 29.9 is what mine reads. MRS. MOORE: 29.9, a little over 29. What I'd like to point out is with respect to the standards. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. Orient, I'm sure all of you know, the village has very small lots with very old homes and that's probably why the issue of landmark preservation came up. The properties that sit on, that front Village Lane are for the most part 99% of them are nonconforming. They are very small and the houses on the property, some are probably, they look like they are, they appear to be 90% lot coverage. I'm sure it's less than that but, visually you have the, there'very small lots with very large houses on them and the houses are again in keeping it looks, it's a very quaint village and a, and that the design and the architectural development of Village Lane are small homes with significant lot coverage. We, as I pointed out, Mr. Poggi and Mrs. Poggi are here. They can discuss if you like, the specifics of the garage but,' as I explained in the application, Mr. Mudd is actually is building the house now. It's a flaming it, doing all the rough framing, doing all the work except for the fine carpentry. Mr. Poggi plans to have this be a labor of love, that he's going to, they're almost fanatical in the wonderful sense of the word, but, really trying to renovate, restore, beyond renovation now, but, restore, do a replica of the original structure and the architectural features of that period of time. So, it's going to be a very lengthy process with a great deal of detail work and his goal and his hope is that he can use the barn as his carpentry workshop while he renovates the house and as a, and we've already discussed the second story, that the plan is to use the second story as accessory to the main house. The original house was a shack and very small and over time there were renovations done to this house. But in all, tl3e house that they're, the replica of the house they choose is going to be a one bedroom home. So, again, the dimensions of the house are actually quite small and a charming but, not a lot of living space and what they propose to do was to Page 34 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing have the second story provide that accessory space, the living space for the house. Again, customary accessory to the main house, no kitchen, only a bathroom and while they're going through the renovation they've come out, work over the weekend and days that they have off, they will be working on the renovation and over a period of time once the renovation is complete, they still have that lovely space that they can use for family, for family friends, and, that has been an issue. I know that we keep harping over is~the nature of the second story area, living area over a .garage and I want to point out and ask you to please look carefully at the definitions in our own code, which deals with accessory use and certainly what we propose to do .here is consistent with what is an accessory use.. It's all part of the same property. It's accessory to the main dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could we just continue this train of thought at the next hearing? I apologize, but, I have a time limit situation that i have to deal with tonight. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's number 1 and number 2 because of what the Town Attorney has requested I would just and i know we're going into that situation in the next hearing with you. MRS. MOORE: That's fine, I'll skip over this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All of which you know, kind of. MRS. MOORE: Well I'll try to a, my arguments are somewhat integrated and I'll try to be just specific as to the lot coverage. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be' achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than area variance. As I said, the structures already exceed the lot coverage by a slight percentage. They're at 25% and we are increasing it by 4.9. There is no other alternative other than not building which will avoid the issue of the lot coverage. The area variance is not substantial as I've pointed out. The existing lot of 20, the existing lot has 25% and we're asking for 29.9. Again, that's as a matter of how substantial it is. It is very insubstantial. And we will have no adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The property will continue to be used as a residence. The addition is a balcony which if you look around, the properties in that area most property, most houses there have balconies. The neighbor to the, as you face the house, the neighbor to the right has a very lovely balcony and if you look around that seems to be the renovation of a structure of choice. We can deal with lot coverage with the garage but, you want me to discuss that at the next hearing? Page 35 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I do want to point out something. What do we have. 1 of an acre here? MRS. MOORE: We have the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .12 according to the Assessor's record. Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I have 4490- MRS. MOORE: 4,485 sq. ft. - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, at 7500 are precedence is 28.5 OK. MRS. MOORE: For lot coverage. But, you may be dealing with a lot that is one acre. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, that's 7500 sq. ft. MRS. MOORE: Oh, 7500 sq. ft. property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's 100 x 150, roughly, alright? 100 x 145, OK. We're at 2805, that was prior precedence from this Board. Some Board Members may not agree with that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean 50 x 1007 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry it's 50 x 100 and 75, a 50 x 145, 50 x 150, 7500 sq. ft. So, you knOw, we are significantly pushing that number and I'm just mentioning that to you at this point and that may be an issue you want to address at the next hearing. At this point, I'm going to ask the Board Members if they would forgo any questioning of the attorney at this point and to go on to hear the architect's presentation and we'll reserve our grilling of a - MRS. MOORE: Me to another time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, to another time. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Good evening Sir, how are you? MR. BROWN: Fine thank you. How are you all? Page 36 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this project? MR. BROWN: Well I'd like to start off just by clarifying the answer to Mrs. Tortora's question about the house. I have here the plans for the house which are the plans for originally for the renovation and with the exception of some structural notes because obviously we had to do additional structure work. We did use the exact same plans for the Building Permit for the new construction work. Would you like to see these? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we have them? MR. BROWN: Sure, these are for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's great. I appreciate it. MR. BROWN: The issue that Mrs. Moore presented regarding Mr. Poggi being able to use the garage as a workshop to complete the work on his house is to my mind one of the fundamental issues. The, the a, just a little background on the house itself, the original piece of structure, the first structure that was eventually to become that house was built in 1870, and it was added on quite horribly over the years. My belief that the garage was probably built in the forties or fifties and is a very uninspired one car garage. Certainly not fitting in the village and it was my belief that in any case some cosmetic would be able to be done on the garage and given the proportion of a one car garage suitable to the 1950s, a very difficult undertaking. So actually making the garage a little bit larger makes it far easier to give it some sought of character relevant to the village. I would also just remind you of what was Mrs. Moore said, that the house is very small and the additional space regardless of what it's use in my opinion for a familY certainly is justified whether you consider it as a workshop or whatever. One of the other issues that we're dealing with here is, that you can't have a basement because of FEMA Flood Plan Regulations. In fact, the original work on the renovation of the house required us to lift the house approximately 18 inches as I recall to bring the structure in compliance with flood plan regulations which also required us to fill the crawl space in the basement to level with exterior grade level. So it's impossible for us to have the basement at that location. We are not, and I'd certainly be open to any questions that you might have about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The balcony which is part of the lot coverage - MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know we've dealt with balconies before and I believe in projects with you Mr. Brown if I'm not mistaken. Page 37 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. BROWN: That may be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. May or may not be a stumbling block based upon the lot coverage, so, it's an issue that really should be addressed in reference to the actual need for the balcony. I, I, you know, at this point, it is above the ground, I don't know, I don't know how it becomes a part of the lot coverage calculation. MR. BROWN: By definition of lot coverage in zoning, it does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BROWN: The irony there is that it would be over what is a patio and as I'm sure you're all aware, for some reason a patio is not considered lot coverage but a deck which may be just a few inches above that is. So i guess it's really a matter of interpretation from the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I don't have any other questions. Any questions of the architect at this time? From anybody? MEMBER TORTORA: The only question is so the intention of architecturally for the garage is to not have it 1870 but more like 1950s? MR. BROWN: No, no, the existing garage is 1950s. We're trying to bring it back the way it is to the character of - MRS. MOORE: Carriage house. MR. BROWN: Yes, a carriage house suitable to the a, well I would say that the facade of the house that most people recognized over the last several years was probably built in the 1910s, 1920s and that was what we intend to recreate which we intend to restore and our hope was to give the garage something of the character of that era. To make it a piece with the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else? OK, thank you Sir. Anything else? Can we hold everything else in abeyance? MRS. MOORE: You don't care about what went on with the demolition of ( )? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not interested. MRS. MOORE: You're satisfied ( )? Page 38 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER If somebody else wants to hear it. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, yes, we appreciate that, OK. We thank you very much. We wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and we'll recess this to the next regularly scheduled meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Which is ? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody in the audience that is going to speak either for or against this, will not be at the December 14th hearing? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion as I had just mentioned. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 39 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 7:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4749 - L. WINDISCH (Continued Hearing) Variance regarding proposed arrangement of building and change of use from non-habitable to habitable (sleeping quarters in an existing accessory building.) Looation:1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold; Parcel No. 1000-70-5-39. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a hearing that was carried on from the last regularly scheduled meeting and we did receive your statement in here which we'll refer to it as a brief I assume, or some - MRS. MOORE: No, affidavit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, affidavit, pardon me, affidavit. I apologize MRS. MOORE: That's OK, sworn to affidavit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's true. Oh, that's right, it even says, affidavit, I apologize and what else would you like to add. MRS. MOORE: Well actually Mr. & Mrs. Windisch are here. Late this evening, they're having been aware of this because between 4:30 and 6:00 o'clock, when I went home, I was able to reach Paul Caminite who had represented the seller's to the Windisch and we looked in his file to try and make to sense of some of the COs and history of this property because I looked in all of the records from the Building Department. There were, it just, a lot did not make sense and I just took it for town records and somewhat accepted that fact until I spoke to Mr. Caminite and he gave me from his file a great deal more information than I think puts the two cottages or the two houses into clear light. It turns out that Litsh was the original owner of this property and from the, from his records, it looks like the cottage was first constructed with a second waterfront home already built.. And, what we found is, a survey prepared that Litsh sold to Barry in 1962. There was a survey prepared by Otto Vany Tuyl and Son, from 1962, that shows the house where it presently exists with I believe some renovations since then, the garage and a one story house. So in 1962 these two structures were on the property. There were two houses on this property which again makes more sense when I went to review the Health Department Record and we found that everything appeared to be pre-existing. What we also found from Mr. Caminite's file is a title report from 1962 also which is when, which was issued by Intercounty Title Guaranty Mortgage Company, which probably is a predecessor to Chicago or Fidelity and in that title report, it has a description but most importantly it has what is called a survey description, a survey reading. When a, the title company even at that'time, goes out and looks at the 'property. I know Mr. Goehringer knows this well but, for the sake of anyone else whose not page 40 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing familiar with the process. A title company will send out their inspectors and will record the conditions of the property to make sure that it's consistent with the survey that they have in their hand and sure enough there's a schedule a description that shows survey by Otto Van Tuyl and dated November 8, 1962, with a two, with two one story framed houses, a garage, a pump house and a dock and the dock extends into Jockey Creek. So, at the time in 1962 this, the cottage and the house were in there. So, contrary to our previous understanding of the histo~, of this property, the C.O. that we had provided for you that is dated from January 14, 1970 appears to be the C.O. a full C.O. for the cottage and the way we identified it is that it, on the C.O. and I have this packet for you for your file but just to help me, there's a Building Permit number that's referred to. When we looked at the property card which today when you look at the property card all the property cards are stapled together. But, the property Card that was there has a C.O. Permit Number on the property card that has the photograph of the cottage. So, it appears that the C., there was a C.O. for the cottage which the seller was not even aware of when he collected for Mr. Windisch, he collected the C.Os. He saw one that was a single family house and they applied for what they thought they didn't have, which was a Pre-C.O. for the cottage and what happened is, that Mr. Barry, Mr. & Mrs. Barry I think were both in the Nursing Home at the time and they didn't have time to argue the point. Everything was given to Mr. Windisch and the Building Department and I find they do that even today and it's very offensive to me but, they will presume the worst and make you sort it out here at the Board and what they chose to do at the time, was they went to look at this cottage and for their own purposes I think tried to solve the problem, well there's two houses on this property and we're going to solve the problem of having an exist, another full dwelling on this property, they had the broker remove the kitchen from the property in order to issue a C.O., a Pre-C.O. So, they were given the choice of not having any you know not issuing a permit or taking out the kitchen issuing a Pre-C.O. and putting a condition on that Pre-C.O. that it be non-habitable. I think that was wrong for them to do at the time. CertainlY because of the history that had they looked into it, may had found that, or, certainly could have asked questions about the existence of those two houses at the time and it was really clear I mean from looking at the picture of the Assessor's Record, that that cottage had been there for an awful long time. The house may have been renovated later on and that I don't know. Again, the C.O. and the permit history of the Building Department, is very, is not very conclusive one way or another, but, it looks like at least from the footprint of the main house, it shows as a one story house with a porch and I think the house now is like a split level and there's, is there a porch? No porch, OK, so, at one point in time, the renovation was done to the main house. The cottage I,o, oks like for the most part there may have been some work done to it and that s the sense i get frOm the C.O. i,n 19~© because I went baCk to the testimony given at the last hearing and Mr. Windisch testified Page 41 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing that when he took out, was fixing up the cottage he found the insulation which was asbestos insulation, no rm sorry it was a, what was the insulation? MR. WINDISCH: Fiberglass. MRS. MOORE: Fiberglass insulation. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's Mr. Windisch right? MRS. MOORE: That was Mr. Windisch speaking.' BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, thank you. MRS. MOORE: The fiberglass insulation I believe was in the seventies, i don't think that there was fiberglass insulation in the sixties. So, here is the packet which I was very pleased to find because it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wouldn't you be better off taking this back to the Building Department? MRS. MOORE: If I thought I could go to the Building Department, show what I had and not have them send me back here, I would go there. I just, I mean, certainly I could - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But Mrs. Moore, we're not ferocious people. MRS. MOORE: What? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not ferocious people. We're not here to a - MRS. MOORE: No, no, no, don't take that the wrong way. No, what I'm saying is that there really is nobody to speak to at the Building Department with respect to the history of things and having them make these kind of decisions, I'd rather have it come from you and say no, based on the record we discovered that this is a pre-existing and the Health Department, I think there's no issue of sanitary because the Health Department has already given you the affidavit that they're two houses, pre-existing as to sanitary systems as well. I think it's best if it comes from you because there's a good record there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you are saying, that the cottage probably has a Pre-C.O. on it? MRS. MOORE: No, what I'm saying is, that the cottage had a C.O. and the Building Department looked at that C.O. that was in the file from 1970 and I think Page 42 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing logically you look at it and you say, oh, that's for the house because the house may have been renovated at about the same time. But, the Building Department records in all fairness to the Building Department now, really are bad and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, wait a minute. If the building has been there for more than 40 years. MRS. MOORE: Both buildings have been there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Both, yes, I'm talking about the cottage now - MRS. MOORE: Yes, the cottage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because we know it's been 60 or 70 or whatever, OK? That's really a Pre-C.O. MRS. MOORE: Yes. Well that's what they applied. What happened is, Windisch, when he was ,buying the property, the sellers had an obligation to provide C.Os. for all structures or, Pre-C.O. They made an application to the Building Department at that time and the Building Department went out and inspected and said, you know I'm not going to issue a Pre-C.O. unless you take out the kitchen and I'm going to. make it non-habitable. I don't know why Mr. Boufis did that or what authority he had to do that other than sometimes they ,have a tendency to try to correct what they proceed is a zoning pre-existing conditions and they'll push - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: When was that done Pat? MRS. MOORE: The Pre-C.O. was issued in ninety - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ninety-four. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Ninety-four, thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: And was the C.O. dated, the original C.O. MRS. MOORE: Seventy. The only C.O. that exists that we could find that was issued is 1970. BUt, both houses were them in 1962. So, it looks like at different points in time, they may have made applications and said, well be better have some documentation for this and a C.O. was issued for a single family dwelling. Page 43 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, the, this is all going to require a certain amount of reading things side by side. But, the C.O. that you just gave us this evening that you just turned up, which is dated - MRS. MOORE: No, the C.O. I had given you before actually. MEMBER COLLINS: No, not this one. I never saw this before. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, that was the only C.O. I had. MEMBER COLLINS: January 19707 MRS. MOORE: Yes, the January 1970 was my wrongful conclusion. I think we all actually assumed that that was the C.O. for the main house. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: No, not really. MEMBER COLLINS: No, we have a C.O. for the main house in our file. MRS. MOORE: What's the date of that one? It should be January 14, 1970. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why I said, these things require reading side by side. MRS. MOORE: Yeah I know. It took me a long time to put them all together. MEMBER COLLINS: The main house in 1970 they applied to expand what was then a cottage and turn it into a house. This is the house on the creek. I think that's pretty clear in the record. Oh, God, this is going to take us all - MRS., MOORE: Oh, no, no. I'll try to explain it very, again more clearly. Partly it was my fault in the history that I understood or Mr. Windisch and I understood the history to be. We thought that the main house was built after the cottage and that the C.O. that we had was for the main house and that the condition of being able to build that second house was to some how limit the cottage. That was our understanding, trying to piece together that they were (inaudible). As it turns out, that is not the case. In 1962 there's a survey that shows both houses, both single family homes existing on the property and the only a, 1970 C.O. which was the only one that we ever found appears to be for the cottage only because the Building Permit number that it refers to appears on the property card that attaches the cottage picture on it. So, we're assuming that based on that, that's what they were looking at and that's the Permit, because they're probably were some renovations to the cottage in that period of time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can't extrapolate a file out of that Building Page 44 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing Permit Number in the Building Department? MRS. MOORE: Yes you can but I, actually I looked at it and I know that Linda looked at the files but not, I'd have to go back and look at 49, 80 years - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean you can go back to the Building Department and pull that file from the Building Department, can't you? MRSi MOORE: We did it once. But now based on the facts that we have before us I'm going to look at it again and make sure that it'.s consistent with what we're find, you know, with a which C.O. MEMBER TORTORA: The Building - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There seems to be one file missing from the Building Department that they can't find. MEMBER TORTORA: Just let me understand this. The Building Department's number on the C.O. is 4968Z is the same as - MEMBER COLLINS: No. MRS. MOORE: If you'll just bare with me. I have here the C.O. number. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, correct. MRS. MOORE: OK, right. The reason I, I'm trying.to figure out which house it belonged to, we went to the property card and there's the same number and the back of that property card had the cottage on it. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MRS. MOORE: So, that again could be just the way it was, so, again, we're trying to come to factual conclusions based on documentation and it's a somewhat, the one thing we do know, just that survey provides is, that both houses were there in 1962. The Building Department I think was in error when they applied for a Pre-C.O. and the Pre-C.O. wasn't granted without taking out the kitchen and putting the non-habitable on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have another unique introduction here and that is that Mr. Terry is available and could be asked that question and I have to tell you Mr, Terry is a very fastidious individual. He is the gentleman that signed one of those C. of Os. So why don't you go and approach him 'and ask him that question? Page 45 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MRS. MOORE: I'll call him and I'll look for him. I tried to, I looked in the book for Lidsh's and Barry and I didn't find those names. But, I didn't think of calling Mr. Terry. MEMBER COLLINS: Could I just again ask - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER COLLINS: The last time I said, this is it and you said no. This C. of O. that's dated. October 1970, you believe, and I understand why you do, is a C. of O. for the cottage. What we're calling the cottage now, the building in question. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And I think you also said, that when a the former owner, that's a - MRS. MOORE: Barry. MEMBER COLLINS: That's Barry who was selling to Windsch in the middle nineties - MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: That it was believed by the parties involved that there was no C. of O. for the cottage and so the Building Department was asked to issue a Pre-C.O. - MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Which they did but in return they required this non- habitable take out the kitchen language. That's your bottom line? MRS. MOORE: We know that part of it. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MRS. MOORE: As far as which C.O. this belongs to, I think, at least, the reason I say that that the numbers come out to the cottage. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, I - Page 46 - NoVember 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MRS. MOORE: A worse case scenario, the cottage still has, I mean it was, it hadno C.O., it had issued akind of Pre-C.O. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand, no, I understand, I understand what you're saying and we do haVe the application that was made for the Building Permit to. expand themain house. MRS. MOORE: I saw that. MEMBER COLLINS: In 1970 it was different because the Building Permit was issued I think June of that year and the Barrys were turning it from a summer cottage into a full-time house. We know that because they were up to the Zoning Board of Appeals for 280A approval on getting a pathway back from the main road to that house. MRS. MOORE: You're talking about the house by the water, or the cottage? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The house by the Water. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, the house by the water and in that testimony they said, we have two summer cottages on the property and it's clear then they decided to turn the one by the water into a bigger house and they got a Building Permit and it's obvious that the numbers are different from the numbers associated with the C. of O. So, that's your case that the cottage not only was there, it had a C. of O. MRS. MOORE: Right.. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, OK. MRS. MOORE: I haven't seen, you know something, I don't know, I wasn't aware of your 280A, was it 280A they got? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, unless - MRS. MOORE: It was an easement that I heard about but, I had no idea, I just heard about it tonight. There's no date on it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's no date? MEMBER COLLINS: No date. This routinely Linda looks and - Page 47 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MRS. MOORE: I know, she's wonderful. MEMBER COLLINS: This is a transcript of the hearing that their discussing access and the Board comprises Gillespie, Grigonis and Holtz, oh - BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI: It looks like 1970, September 10, 1970 to Barry. MEMBER COLLINS: So, it's the same time that he was - MRS. MOORE: About the same time. That's when it seems he was renovating the - MEMBER COLLINS: That he was turning the waterfront cottage into a full house. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, yeah. MEMBER COLLINS: I assumed it was about then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're going to continue this process, is that what you're telling me? MRS. MOORE: I can check with Howard Terry but, it sounds like what you already answered that question because you had a 280A application. I wasn't aware of. That the transcript referred to permits for the main house which are different permit numbers than this permit number, that's this 'C.O. number. So, that to me there's you know, how many here are you going to get? You're going to get one for the cottage which that makes sense because the, and the other one is for the house and I don't know maybe the missing file is the one with the C.O. for the main house after the renovations - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, wouldn't it be delightful to get in, I didn't mean to cut you off, an affidavit from Mr. Terry saying, yes there was. MRS. MOORE: What, yes, there was two houses here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, yes, there was a C of O. MRS. MOORE: I can, it would be delightful if you want me to get it, I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know he's - MRS. MOORE: I just don't know, I haven't spoken to Mr. Terry and I'm kind of taking my chances that hopefully he'll remember. I mean Mr. Terry's C.O$. they Page 48 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing kind of have a reputation that when I do closings Mr. Terry's C.Os., usually say one family dwelling, there's a garage, there's a deck, there is you know, numerous structures but, all he ever wrote was single family, you know, one family - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's all he was concerned about. MRS. MOORE: Exactly because at the time that made sense, that's all he cared about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Being a Southolder, which he is - MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, he's still actively a Fire Policeman in his Senior years and so and I've seen him at several fires directing traffic, ! think you should take a stab and at least discussing it with him. MRS. MOORE: I have no problem. I'd be happy to. I'd be honored to, I don't think I ever met him. MEMBER TORTORA: Can we still close the hearing, pending that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure we can close the hearing pending this. MRS. MOORE: Oh, good, that would be good because I've exhausted how much I can research this file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He, he is a very nice man. He truly is. I enjoyed working with him. I was not a part of the town at the time but, my permit on my present house that I live in was in 1978 and that was one of the last permits that I can remember he wrote prior to his retirement. MRS. MOORE: if you just with all due respect if I can't, give me a time frame only so that if I can't get it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two weeks. MRS. MOORE: OK. I mean I'll try to reach him tomorrow. MEMBER TORTORA: If you can get it, if he remembers, if, if, if. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, there's a lot of ifs. Page 49 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He'll remember. MRS. MOORE: I mean it can only help. Believe me if he doesn't remember, don't want him to make it up so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He'll give you a litany of who owned their property. MRS. MOORE: I'm sure, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AIright, so that's where we are. That's wonderful. Is there anybody else would like to speak? OK, seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, pending the receipt of the information if Mrs. Moore can get it. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 50 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing 8:20 P..M. -Appl. No. 4767 -WILLIAM KELLER, SR. This is a request for Variances under Article Iii, Section 100-239. B and Article XXlV, Section 200-244B, for approval of existing rear yard deck addition located at less than 75 feet from a bulkhead, and with total side yards at less than 25 feet. Location: 1550 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, Parcel No. 1000-106-01-32. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Keller you would like to tell us that your deck has been there for how long? MR. KELLER: Since the house was built in 1965. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I happened to be down there on one of those real windy days last week. MR. KELLER: Cch, boy were they windy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You live there year round? MR. KELLER: Now we do, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, really. MR. KELLER: When I purchased the house this year we sold our house in Medford and moved out. Couldn't afford both of them and we liked this one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So were you ever aware - this has nothing to do with this hearing - at the time that we had that severe erosion problem down there in the bulkhead which is 14 feet deep in some cases? Actually it was undermining in those areas. Were you familiar with that at ail? MR. KELLER: A little bit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A little bit. Needless to say, that's not the case now. We're happy it's not. MR. KELLER: No, it's just about (coughing) of the bulkhead actually showing the tremendous amount of beach grass from the bulkhead out to the high tide mark. MEMBER TORTORA: Your an accreted beach? ,MR. KELLER: Pardon me? Page 51 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: You're an accreted beach down there now? MR. KELLER: True, yes~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so what we're saying at this point is that there is no Change in the deck. There~is anticipated no change in the deck. The deck has been there and that is it. MR. KELLER: Yes and the only proof that we have of that is I think it's in the Assessor's report card? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. MR. KELLER: There's a picture and a little sketch and if you look you can see that on either side of the house there are no houses. That was about 1965 when the house was built and it doesn't appear on any of the application for the Building Permit so there is. no, I have the C.O. for the house. It doesn't say house and deck to satisfy my mortgage. I need to use the C.O. for my mortgage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was my next question. Why are you doing this? MR. KELLER: Because like I said, I purchased the house this summer contingent upon my keeping my mortgage I have to get a C.O. for the deck. So, they're holding some money in escrow. When I produce the C.O. then hopefully I will get my money. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Keller in reference to this situation? MEMBER HORNING: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The deck shall remain open, is that correct? MR. KELLER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: It's about 95 feet from the deck, from the high water mark? I mean from the bulkhead on the survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not from the bulkhead, my God. MR. KELLER: No, but the deck was built prior to the bulkhead. Page 52 - November 18, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: From here to down here, it sure is. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, to the high water mark. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't ever measure to the high water mark. We measure it at bulkhead. MEMBER COLLINS: Bulkhead. There's a bulkhead. MEMBER DINIZIO: Forget it, it's not 90 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From the bulkhead, it's 30, it's a, I'm still trying to' read it here, I think it's - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's 46.6? Oh, no, it's the other one. MEMBER COLLINS: 34.8. The house is 46.6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 34°8 yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck Was there before the bulkhead? MR. KELLER: Yes, Sir. MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be bulkhead? MR. KELLER: If I remember some of the paperwork that was done? I think I saw a receipt in there for 1973. This house I purchased from my wife, my wife and I purchased this from her family. They passed away. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You just said on the record, the deck was there before the bulkhead. MEMBER ToRTORA: Really? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He just said it, yeah. MEMBER HORNING: You purchased it from your wife's family? MR. KELLER: Yes, we purchased it from my wife; it was an estate actually. We bought it out of her brothers and sisters. MEMBER HORNING: How long was it in the family, this estate? Page 53 - November 18, 1999 Board 'of Appeals Hearing MR. KELLER: They bought the piece of property in 65 and built the house. MEMBER HORNING: So, it was in their estate that whole time? MR. KELLER: Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no, my father-in-law passed away about 10 years ago. My mother-in-law passed away about 3-4 years ago and we were maintaining the taxes. You know a summer house. And, we finally put up for sale and we decided to buy it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting, good. OK, hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution Appl. No. 4724 - JOEL & MAXINE HIRSCH -Application withdrawn at Applican'ts request. End of Hearings. Prepared by Lucia Farrell from tape recordings. P~ECE~[VED AND FILED BY ~HE SOUTHOLD TOWN ¢"'r~r:~ D ~