Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/14/1999 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING HELD December 14, 1999 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4766-JAMES WHEELER 15 - Appl. No. 4768 - GEORGE KALOGERAS 18 - Appl. No. 4770 - JAMES RILEY 23 - Appl. No. 4773 - MARGUERITE & JAMES SCHONDEBARE 25 -Appl. No. 4769- DOUGLAS MORRIS 27 - WINDISCH & WETZEL Deliberations 30 - Appl. No. 4765 - FRANK FIELD REALTY 47 - Appl. No. 4761- RICHARD POGG! 70 - Appl. No. 4771 - LEWIS EDSON L. 74 - Appl. No. 4763 - JOHN & MARY ANNE LUCEY 77 - Appl. No. 4626 & 4762- FAITH REFORM BAPTIST CHURCH 83 - Appl. No. 4764 - LOCKE McLEAN 87 - Appl. No. 4774 - D. CLAEYS BAHRENBURG Page -1 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS December 14, 1999 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4766 - JAMES WHEELER This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the Building Department's October 18, 1999 Notice of Disapproval of a Building Permit application to construct a one-family dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 40 feet and rear yard at less than 50 feet. This lot contains an area of 27,000+-sq. ft. with 221.58 ft. frontage along the south side of Chestnut Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel No. 1000-59-3-7. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. Could you state your name for the record. MR..ZOUMAS: John Zoumas. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. ZOUMAS: Good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. ZOUMAS: I'd like to build a house and we don't have enough front yard and rear yard. I couldn't get the permission to build the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I observed this property Mr. Zoumas, i found that it was certainly multi-typographical. There's a lot of Iow areas on this property. Are you attempting to build on the highest portion of the property? MR. ZOUMAS: If we go to the highest part, it's going to be a less of a back yard because the property gets narrow on the east side. That's why we kept the house towards the west. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? Page -2 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: No. I guess I was curious why a title search was submitted and whether there was some question of merger? MR. ZOUMAS: No, I just wanted to make sure it was single and separate. MEMBER COLLINS: Because there is this, there is this common name's ownership back in the eighties. But, I suspect it's somebody's father and I also suspect that you don't know, so I'm not going to ask you. MR. ZOUMAS: Hm, hm. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm also not going to worry about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing, just don't leave, OK? MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in behalf of this application? Yes Ma'am? MRS. PRICE: I'm againstthe application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. PRICE: That lot- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need you to use this. MRS. PRICE: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need your name please. MEMBER COLLINS: Name? MRS. PRICE: The neighborhood is crowded enough. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll get it in a minute. 2 Page -3 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. PRICE: Our privacy is being taken away from us. The biggest problem with that lot is that it constantly floods. The run-off from the flooding comes down my driveway and I've had a reputable damage in the past. It's flooding at this point right now with the rain we've had. It's going to be a big problem for me and I've lived there for quite a number of years and I have taken great pride in my home. I don't want my privacy ruined and I don't want the neighborhood overcrowded. I thought that was one thing we were trying to do out here was with the zoning was to give people a little bit of property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now where do you live? You live on lot 147 MRS. PRICE: I live on - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I need you name for the record, please. MRS. PRICE: I'm Charlotte Price, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. i knew you looked familiar. How are you Charlotte? MRS. PRICE: I'm fine, thank you. I live on lot 14 and 11. The run-off goes right down my driveway and it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is your driveway on 117 MS. PRICE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where is the house actually? On 147 MS. PRICE: The house sets on 14 and a little bit on, it sets I guess would be the major part of 14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. PRICE: That house with the setback, the improper setback would infringe on my privacy. The kids skate on that lot in the winter time. That's how much water is there. It causes a lot of damage to my driveway. Two years ago when we had that terrible rain, I had to have the driveway graded. I could not use the driveway for two weeks. Whatever they do on this property, they're going to have to build it up because they're going to be flooded and that's going to create more of a problem for me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what the builder has to say. 3 Page -4 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. PRICE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: -I just want to say this to you though. It appears that the lot is in single and separate ownership. I mean somebody will eventually build on it one way or another. However, the water contained in that aspect is something that we can control here and by putting a restriction on the application or in the decision I should say. So, that's an issue that we're going to be dealing with and we're going to ask the builder that question right now. Just let me continue the process and we'll go right back. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against this application? OK, Mr. Zoumas you back up again Sir, if you would. What can we do about the water situation? MR. ZOUMAS: Well, one thing we can do is, drywells if we had to. But, ! think, I don't think it's going to be a problem. We've built on worse lots. ! don't think th,a lot is that bad. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but the. neighbor is telling us, that there is a problem. MS. PRICE: Excuse me. I have three drywells on my property because of the run-off. So, drywells aren't really going to help. MR. ZOUMAS: But a, can ! just say something? I don't know hoW the water is going from that property going on the lady's driveway when we claim that the property is lower than the driveway. You know what I'm saying? There's like a couple feet, foot height difference there. So, I cannot see water going from that lot up to her driveway. You know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have a topo? MR. ZOUMAS: I just drove by- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have a topo on this thing? On this piece of property? MR. ZOUMAS: Well there is a topo on. I mean the heights are on there on the four corners of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ZOUMAS: There's 66 on the east side and you've got 68 on the west side and 70 ft. on the front on the west side. So, it's not that much of a difference. The property does drop off 4 feet from west going east. 4 Page -5 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but the question I have is, that you have a gully in the center of the property. It appears to me like where the 162 is shown from the house to the easterly property line? MR. ZOUMAS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How can you contain the water on that property so as not to cause a problem for someone else's property? MR. ZOUMAS: Well like I said, we can do drywells, you know, I don't - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not good enough for me. You've got to tell me what you're going to do. I'm not asking you to answer that question tonight. I'm asking you to go out and logistically look at it. We have a prime example tonight of almost an inch of rain of what is happening here. So, i would appreciate you're going down there. Not tonight, but, tomorrow morning and figuring out what you're going to do and get back to us on this issue, OK, because we cannot flood out neighbors, OK. As you know, once you defoliate that lot in a certain position, it's going to be the westerly portion of it, it could further exasperate the problem and we have a legitimate gripe here. I mean we're concerned about it ourselves. I mean you know we don't want to further exacerbate something. Here you have virgin soil and it's causing a problem now. MR. ZOUMAS: I understand, but, by building the house, how will it make it CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but we don't know. So, you know we've got to study this. Now is the time of the year to study it because now we have the greatest amount of rain. If we were sitting here in August, we wouldn't be able to study it because we didn't have any rain this summer. So, that's where the problem lies. So, we're can we go from here? Can we get an engineer to look at this, or what? MR. ZOUMAS: We could, but a - worse? I don't understand it. You know, the sand is a hole there already. will - How CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because you're defoliating it which is going further add more water. I agree with you, if you take four down spouts and you put those in storm, you know, those normal little coal (). That's fine, but, we have a problem with run-off running on to somebody else's property which has got to be contained. Now, the question is, is it running off the road on to this property which is then running on Mrs. Price's property, or, is it running from the - MR. ZOUMAS: I don't think it's running from the road. 5 Page -6 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I would feel much more confident if an engineer would look at this and find out what the story is, so that we can, I mean, I don't care if you put, you know, pardon me. Is there town water on this property? MR. ZOUMAS: No. It's a well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to put a well and cesspools, right? MR. ZOUMAS: Hm, hm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where are the well and cesspools going to go? MR. ZOUMAS: The well is going on the west south corner and the cesspool is going on the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In front of the house? MR. ZOUMAS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that leaves that entire easterly portion basically two-thirds of that lot that something could be done. Is that correct? MR. ZOUMAS: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the question I have at this point is then, you're going to have to give me some containment on that area, OK, and it's going to have to be certified by an engineer so that the situation doesn't exist with Mrs. Price and further cause a hazard to her and any other surrounding property owners. The preservation of this particular job is one that concerns us because conceivably we're here to protect the town. I've done it for 20 years and you know, I won't say I'm great at it, i'm not an engineer. But, I do understand water run-off and this lady has a legitimate complaint. So, that's what I need you to do. I need you to get an engineer to look at it and come back with some sought of water containment. MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I will, we will close this hearing as soon as we get something like that from you. MR. ZOUMAS: Do I have to go back on the hearing because I'll be working - 6 Page -7 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you can submit it by writing and we will close the hearing, OK, to any verbal testimony, and we will submit anything that we receive to Mrs. Price at her request. I mean she did come in. We'll get it to you somehow Mrs. Price. MRS. PRICE: Excuse me. Isn't it true, that in order to build this house because it is in a sump, they have to build up the property which is going to cause more run-off on my land, or are they going to be sitting in water? They've got build that property - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know if we can tape you up here. I need you to use that mike. I apologize. Why don't you use the mike and we'll talk about that in one second. MRS. PRICE: Isn't it true, that in order to build a house on that property, they're going to have to put it up on some land because they're going to have to fill in because there's in a sump right now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, MRS. PRICE: They're going to be sitting in water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will agree with you. Again, I'm not an engineer but, we're going to ask this question. But visually from looking at it, my point of view, yes, the house is going to be lower than the road. Alright, that's true, but, I don't know if he's bringing any filling, let's ask him that question. Are you bringing any filling? MR. ZOUMAS: We usually determine that when we build the house if we need it or not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, how much fill are you going to take out of the foundation? Ten yards? MR. ZOUMAS: No, you take more than that. I would take 40 yards out that you get from the cesspool. So you spread that around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, conceivably you could raise the grade to this so that it was even with the road. Is'that correct? MR. ZOUMAS: Relatively. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Around the house? 7 Page -8 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ZOUMAS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so that's where we are at this point. I can't answer the question until he actually you know does the actual - MRS. PRICE: Where the cesspool is going to be is that sufficient to my boundary line? Or, is that going to be on my boundary line? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The cesspool? MRS. PRICE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The cesspool is in front of the house. MRS. PRICE: It's in front? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's why I asked the question. I saw it here but, I needed it put on the record, OK, so that we had it. MRS. PRICE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My concern basically is, how the water is going from this property to your property? And, that's the reason why i'm asking him to get an engineer - MRS. PRICE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And find out what we're going to do on this basis. Personally what I would do. I would put cesspool rings in the middle of the lowest spot of that property and I would put drains on top of it and I mean big cesspool rings all the way down~ MRS. PRICE: I have three-drywells on my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but I'm talking 6 foot cesspool rings, big things, OK, and then build up the dike in between your property and theirs so as to allow the water to penetrate their property, but, not go on to your property. MRS. PRICE: And what about the overcrowding situation? That seems to be a problem in that neighborhood and I'm really upset that he's allowed to have these illegal setbacks. I mean he's too close to my property. He ruins my privacy and he's got a big two story house he's putting up. It's too much. 8 Page -9 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we don't have to entertain the variance. He could be held to the code, alright. And, we could put reasonable screening on so as to allow your privacy to continue. We have dealt with all kinds of screening, airight. We have required evergreens, 8 feet in height, a minimum distance 6 feet apart, or, 8 feet apart, be continuously maintained. If you are asking for something like that, and if the Board is so inclined to grant a variance, you know, we could deal with that aspect of it so as to create a you know, an environmental barrier between your property and theirs, meaning the new owners. He's just the agent. MRS. PRICE: Doesn't this devalue the neighborhood? crowding situation in addition to the problem with the water? I mean with the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, in my opinion, this person does have a hardship because of the property. There's no question about it, alright? The question is, hoWfar is this Board going to be able to go in granting the hardship, alright? And, interestingly enough you asked that question and that now goes into the next question I was going to ask the builder. So, hold on one second. Assuming the Board is not willing to deal with the setback situation as you want, arb you willing to accept alternate relief? MR. ZOUMAS: I don't know. I have to ask my customer. But, you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, would you do this then. Would you please ask your customer and then by the 13th, before, at least a week before the 13th of the meeting of the 13th of January, we need to see this engineer's report and what he intends to do about the water containment. MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If need be, do you have anybody else who can come? Why don't you send the engineer that night? MR. ZOUMAS: Well I could do that, but now it's getting to costly, you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you're not going to get the variance unless you give me an engineer report. MR. ZOUMAS: That I will, but you know, trying to get an engineer here - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's alright.' That's why i'm closing the hearing to verbatim testimony. I'm recommending to the Board at that point that I'm going to get this information. We're going to submit it to Mrs. Price and Mrs. Price will be able to sit in, not to discuss it, but, to sit in on the deliberation that 9 Page -10 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings we have, OK. Once the hearing is closed, it's only closed to verbatim. You're welcome to send us information in writing approximately a week before the hearing, alright, based upon the information that we've received and as for the overcrowding problem, it's a difficult question to answer. I apologize but, anybody else like to entertain that? MRS. PRICE: It's just a shame that the neighborhood is being destroyed because of all these homes that are going up. It's like the city. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to comment if I could. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I'd like to get a comment on the record too Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I just want Mrs. Price to perhaps be misled about the roll of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the nature of zoning in this town. In a nut shell, most lots in this.town pre-exist the zone that is designated for a (). Your neighborhood requires one acre zoning. Virtually non of the lots are one acre. That is the situation town (). So we have in the code some setback provisions that depend on the size of the lot and say if the lot is such and such a size here the setbacks and they don't hue to the real requirements of the code because it's unrealistic lots are too small and as our Chairman often says, no lot is square, no lot is flat. And, that's where we come into the picture because people who own a lot have a very strong presumptive right to build on it and if the lot is a legal lot and this is a legal lot and if they've got a funny shape lot where they can't meet the requirements and still build a reasonable house they come to us and we try and work something out. The lot is buildable and you can't make that go. away through us. I just want you to understand that. MRS. PRICE: Hm, hm, I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Lora. MRS. PRICE: But, does he have the right to ruin my property to build a house there? I mean is that part of you job to decide on that? I mean it has a direct ?negative effect on my property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well Ma'am, I could say this about that. YoU could build a house there and not even be before us. He, maybe because he wanted to build a larger house than is allowed that lot. But he can build a 24 foot wide house by I would say 100 feet long if he wanted to and make it two stories high. He wouldn't even have to be here. 10 Page -11 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. PRICE: How could he if he doesn't have the setbacks? MEMBER DINIZIO: He would make you setbacks then. He would meet the setbacks if he built a house 24 feet wide from front to back, and he could have 100 foot long house and still meet all the setbacks on this piece of property. He could do that. MRS. PRICE: And that would be OK, to ruin my property like that? MEMBER DINIZIO: That would be perfectly legal for him to do that and the only thing that says is, the person that's saying is ruining your property values, is you. You don't like it, but, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or illegal for him to build. MRS. PRICE: The flooding I don't like. I mean that is definitely - MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that the flooding is certainly something that we can deal with. But, I can say this much, that land as long as he doesn't change the topography of it, say within, if he gets a 75 x 118 foot square, rectangle there, the rest of it, if he doesn't change that, I don't see where he's going to have to, he's going to be able to contain the amount of water that's going to run across that piece of property on to yours, because it looks like that's the way it'goes. It comes from his property to yours. Is that correct? MRS. PRICE: Yes it does. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's been like, it's been probably going like that forever. So you can't just change the - MRS. PRICE: Well there is actually a pond on his property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: It'll probably always be there. MRS. PRICE: No, he's going to build a house on it. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, he's not anywhere near that pond. He's probably 100 feet away from that particular spot on that land. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's more toward the westerly portion. 11 Page -12 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: He's built, in my opinion, he's responsible, he's built on a higher part of this lot which granted is only 4 foot higher than the lowest part. If he pushed it all the way over to, i don't know, what is that Jerry, west, east? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, all the way west. MEMBER DINIZIO: To the eastern part of that property and now depending on what he builds, I mean I'm sure the water is not coming from there. I'm sure it's coming from Birch Road and just right down his property right on to yours. That's what it appeared to me when I took a ride out there. It's not coming from where he's putting a house but rather on the other part of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're going to attempt to do Jim, if i could just jump in here, - MEMBER DINIZiO: Sure, go ahead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is to stop that water that's running from this lot to your property. Now, if any other water - MEMBER DINIZIO: i just want to Jerry, I'm not going to settle for stopping water on this gentleman's piece of property because he does not have that responsibility here in my opinion. He doesn't have that responsibility. This has existed for quite some time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me. That's your opinion, OK? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, well I want you to know, and this lady to know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Price, that's an opinion of one person, OK? What we're saying is, if that road run-off is causing further problems, that's an issue that will have to be dealt with, with the town, the Highway Department. What we are attempting to do, asking for an engineer's report is to contain the water'from this lot so it doesn't go on your lot. That's what i'm doing OK, and that's where we are at this point. MEMBER HORNING: Is the town providing any road drainage in this neighborhood at all? MR. ZOUMAS: Well that's what I was going to say, most of that water right now is coming from the town and I'm being responsible for all this and I think I'm going there to build a beautiful house. I mean i can turn around right now and I can build a little ranch on that property and ( ) would be more mad about that than what I'm trying to do there, because if I just go to the Building Department 12 Page -13 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings with a regular house, 25 foot wide by 60 long, they'll give me a Building Permit and I'm just trying to do something nice. Build a nice house and it's not right because I'm getting, I waited six months for this permit right now. I waited three months for the Building Department to get it through and then they tell me well, I have to go for a variance and it's not right right now. I'm just - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We understand the situation Mr. Zoumas, but, you must understand our situation also, OK, and that is that an engineer will tell us how much water is coming off the road. If the town needs to put in some sought of storm drain there, they will do so. But, by the nature of the water, you know, the historical value of what's coming off of this lot, on to this lady's property is an issue that an engineer is going to have to determine. So, that's why we're asking you to have him look at it, OK, that's where we are. I mean I can't do any better than that and we realize that you know, I am in great hopes that the engineer's report that you give us is complete and that we can close this hearing on January 13 and that we will significantly be able to take all of Mrs. Price's concerns and we will go from that particular point on and you will be able to get your Building Permit the day after we render the decision. That's what I'm hoping. But, we cannot legitimately not deal with a situation where a property owner who has been flooded you know, it's a concern, it's a legitimate concern, alright, and that's where we are and you would also know, that if you built a 60 foot house, that you would have to put a lot more filling on this particular property. MR. ZOUMAS: I don't want to build it. I'm just saying CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you don't want to and we don't want you to, OK We want to do is make sur.e that everything here is as perfect as we can deal with and quite honestly, I have nothing against this piece of property but, an imperfect piece of property as the topography is concerned, alright? MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're going to get than engineer's report for us? MR. ZOUMAS: Yeah, I'll get it in by the 13th, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, a week before. MR. ZOUMAS: A week before OK. 13 Page -14 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, Mrs. Price if you would call our office around the 6th of January, and you know, I know that you live in the area so that yo~ can zip right through and we'll give you a copy of it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually the 5tho If we could do it the 5th of January, it'll be a full week then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, if need be and we need to speak to somebody we'll reopen the hearing to verbatim, but we would rather just as a matter of fact just close it on the 13th assuming that we have everything. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You can't reopen it unless you readvertise it two weeks before. MEMBER DINIZIO: Why don't we just leave it open? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to leave it open? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, she'd like to have her shot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AIright, we'll leave it open. Mr. Zoumas is not going to be here though, remember. He's going to be away. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd love to hear your comments on it, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, so we'll leave it open and we're going to be dealing with the report though,. MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright? Thank you Sir. MRS. PRICE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I'll recess the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting which is January 13th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. 14 Page -15 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:03 P.M. - Appl. No. 4768 - GEORGE KALOGERAS This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the Building Department's October 26, 1999 Notice of Disapproval of a Building Permit Application to construct addition to enclose existing breezeway and attach existing garage as addition to dwelling. The existing side setback of the garage is less than the code requirement of 15 feet, and total side yards at less than 35 feet. Location of Property: Captain Kidd Estates LOts 48, 47 and plo 46 (consisting of 36,911 sq. ft. in area), 900 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-99-1-8-1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera how are you tonight? We haven't seen you in a little while. MRS. RIVERA: It's been a couple of months. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ! got a little nervous then when I was seeing you back there I thought maybe you were coming in for a tennis court.or something. MRS. RIVERA: No, no. I wish I had this property to deal with, believe me. I'm here on behalf of Mr. George Kalogeras who asked me to have the garage setback remain "as is" on his application to enclose the'breezeway that attaches the garage to the house and also to change the garage to living space. He is short on one side by approximately 12" on one side and I believe 4" on the other as the house is existing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Having lived in the Mattituck area for 25 plus years. I'm well aware of this area and as you know I will yield to Mr. Homing and see if he has any questions. MEMBER HORNING: What is their intention of enclosing? MRS. RIVERA: He just bought the house approximately a year ago and it's a two bedroom house and he has six children ranging from 2 to 26 years old. So he needs additional bedrooms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, does that sufficiently answer your question? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: It's a one stow house and one stow garage. Do the plans contemplate going up as well as - 15 Page -16 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. RIVERA: No, not at all. It's going to remain as it is. The breezeway is covered as it is right now. He's just going to put windows, four windows and screens in there and remain there as a patio with a deck area. He just needs to enclose itwith a fascia- MEMBER COLLINS: No, the only reason I asked and I agree with you, I think the setback variances that are requested are not very big but, if the house were going to double in volume, go up and get filled in and turn into like some others along that road, then, the sideyard setbacks become a little more significant to the neighbors. MRS. RIVERA: It's cost prohibits it from (). MEMBER COLLINS: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somehow you know that. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do need from you the affidavit for the last two mailings. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Maybe you can send it in the mail to use, but, you have to mail the affidavits along with the receipts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're just going to see what develops Christine. You can stand right there. MEMBER HORNING: On the garage portion are you providing.heating or water out there? MRS. RiVERA: He's just going to probably put electric baseboard because they basically use all of the house in the summer time and so, they may put electric baseboard heat in there. MEMBER HORNING: I see, so, what you envision is this person will basically have someone sleeping in that room during the warmer months of the year. MRS. RIVERA: During the summer months. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. 16 Page -17 December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? It looks like an easy one tonight, Hearing no comment, we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. 17 Page -18 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:07 P.M. -Appl. No. 4768 -JAMES RILEY This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33C, based upon the Building Department's updated September 7, 1999 Notice of Disapproval of a Building Permit Application to construct a tennis court with a front yard setback at less than 50 feet from the front property line. Fencing for the tennis court is proposed at a height of 12 ft. Location of Property: 3600 Vanston Road at Nassau Point, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel No. 1000-111-5-12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: is there someone here? Yes Sir? Can I ask you to use the mike. What would you like to tell us? State your name for the record. MR. BURGER: I'm Ed J. Burger, I'm the General Contractor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? MR. BURGER: Good, how do you do?. My customers, the Rileys are interested in having installed the tennis court and they won't meet the front yard setbacks so we're requesting a variance for that reason. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I was at the site Mr. Burger, I found all kinds of trenches and so on and so forth being transversing this property approximately in the same area as this tennis court.' My question to you and we've learned from a tennis court in Mattituck which is up off of Ruth Road actually in the area where the last lady spoke about water run-off on these. What can you tell us about water run-off on this tennis court so it will not cause a problem to any of the surrounding neighbors or flood out a driveway or any of this sort? MR. BURGER: Well, the trenches that you saw, were for water and electric barns that we just recently installed. I mean the house is under renoVation. The house and garage are both under renovation, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Absolutely a magnificent piece of property. No question about it. MR. BURGER: What you saw, we put a new well in out of the road, the highest point on the land. We also put in a future water line for the Suffolk County if it ever comes up that way: That's what the trenches were about. As far as the run-off on the property, the property has excellent drainage. Natural drainage, right down to the Bay. So, I don't see any problem there at ali. There are new neighbors that are higher. The neighbors are higher rather so it's actually going right down to the right-of-way and where it's going now it may even stay that way. 18 Page -19 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is Mr. Cichanoiwicz your engineer? MR. BURGER: He's my landscape designer and we actually we've done some plans - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, good can we see those? MR. BURGER: For a screening and things like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that's great. MR. BURGER: The people want to do the right thing for the neighbors, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just while you're laying those out there. Where the problem came in with this tennis court in Mattituck was, it was a macadam tennis court and the neighbor to the west was concerned and in no way am I comparing this application to that but, I'm telling you that there was a concern because of t he amount of macadam and the way the properties were situated. You know, I'm sure this is going to be leveled there's no question about it. I just didn't want to cause a problem to anybody else. MR. CICHANOWlCZ: No, that's a good point, you know, except that there's going to be you know, a created run-off so. I don't see anything. This is a grand scale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, with vegetation? MR. CICHANOWICZ: With propose vegetation here. This is pretty much existing vegetation as it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll pass this down to Ms. Collins. MR. CICHANOWICZ: This is just a blow up of that (too noisy-inaudible). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have to speak up a little louder please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, this is Mr. Cichanowicz speaking. MR. CICHANOWICZ: :]'he vegetation as you see around the outer areas is the screen from the.neighbors. There's an adjacent hOuse to the I guess it's South, we have exactly south would be probably the only person that might object to this and we're looking to give a privacy screen for both people. Page -20 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER HORNING: Of what type of material? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Evergreen and particular native to the area you know, cedar. I did one other thing here. This is a computer image that would show what it would look like on a done process. This is as it looks as now, the neighboring house, and this is the same view when completely done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you a question on the record. Based upon the amount of grass that would be placed around this tennis court because this is the imaging you're giving me right here, do you foresee any water run-off problem? MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. ClCHANOWlCZ: No, because there's plenty amble room. The way this is situated we're asking for a 20 foot setback from the property line here and we got it as close as we could and we pulled it back from the road so that it would be more advantageous for drainage. This whole area inside would be all grass and that would absorb easily the water problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there, is there anybody in the audience would like to see this entire plan? I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't slighting anybody. MR. CICHANOWICZ: You can keep these. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i can keep these. Thank you. That answers one of them. One of two of my questions. Thank you Sir. Mr. Dinizio any further questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a question about these rights-of-way since the issue here to the extent that there is an issue, is the setback of the tennis court from rights-of-way, that the Building Department of course treats as roadS. The right- of-way, that's sought of adjacent to the driveway as you turn into the property does clearly go down to a house that's down by the beach and it is traveled. This would be to the right when you're on Vanston Road. MR. ClCHANOWICZ: That would be to the Collins' house, right? 20 Page -21 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: it's called Horseshoe Road. That really is a traveled road. I mean I think it probably only serves one house. MR. CICHANOWICZ: It serves two houses on that road. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, this one. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: But this other right-of-way, when I was there looking through the woods I couldn't see that there was anything out there. MR. ClCHANOWlCZ: It's not. It's really a walking path. MEMBER COLLINS: It's a walking path. It does not in fact serve. That's always an issue in these things, whether these are real roads. OK, thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nassau Point sometimes is a little difficult to figure out too because what was a road, now is a path, and so on and so forth. And, there's also a lot of road up there, that have absolutely no improvements to them at all. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well I think that piece of land in Horseshoe Cove at one time, somebody was probably thinking it was going to be developed, but, now it's nature conservancy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was going to be developed by a gentleman named of Walter Grabie and unfortunately his dredge went down in the 38 hurricane. I guess we could say fortunately. MR. CICHANOWlCZ: Do you want any extra copies that I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I think two is enough Dave, thank you. Let's just see what develops. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. George, I forgot to ask you. No? OK. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 21 Page -22 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 22 Page -23 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:13 P.M. - Appl. No. 4773 - MARGUERITE & JAMES SCHONDEBARE: A Special Exception is requested for a Bed & Breakfast accessory use as provided under Article Ill-A, Section 100-30A. 2(B) (ref. 100-31B) for rental of not more than three bedrooms, subordinate and incidental to the residency of the owners in this dwelling at 14580 Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Y., County Tax Map Parcel NO. 1000-50-6-2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Counsel how are you? We haven't see you in a little while How have you been? Happy holidays. MR. SCHONDEBARE: Fine, thank you, the same to everyone. Our application is for a B & B in the house. The Building Department came out for inspection, it's OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. SCHONDEBARE: And it's three rooms in the house. The kids are gone and we've got the house and the building. The bedrooms are there and the number of Vehicles would be the same as if the kids were home. In fact less when their friends are not over. Much less. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, we encourage B & Bs. We think they're good things and go to Mr. Homing. Any questions of Mr. Schondebare? MEMBER HORNING: Whose going to run the B & B? Yourself and your wife? MR. SCHONDEBARE: Yes. It's owner occupied. It's our home for 25 years and we're going to continue there, God willing, for another 25 years. MEMBER HORNING: Who's the breakfast cook? MR. SCHONDEBARE: Not me, I'll pass on that. You wouldn't have wanted it any way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're sure? MEMBER COLLINS: Ha-ha-thank you Mr. Chairman. 23 Page -24 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm only kidding. I should point out to Mr. Homing, that Mr. Schondebare was the Town Attorney at one time. Mr. DINIZIO? MEMBER DINIZlO: No, I personally viewed the house, it's suitable for a B & B. MR. SCHONDEBARE: Thank you Jim. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wonderful, wonderful. We thank you very much for coming in. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing and a - MR. SCHONDEBARE: Do you want this from the Building Department? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that would be delightful. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to see you. MR. SCHONDEBARE: Nice to see you all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 24 Page -25 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:17 P.M. -Appl. No. 4769 - DOUGLAS MORRIS This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlIi, Section 100-231, based upon the Building Department's October 21, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for fencing at a height of 10 feet, as an enclosure of owner's tennis court structure, instead of the Code height limitation of 6.5 feet. Location of Property: Private Right-of-Way #15), extending from State Route 25 (Main Road), Orient, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-15-9-3.4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone here representing Mr. Morris? Good evening Mr. McLaughlin. How are you? Happy Holidays. How have you been? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well this is a pretty straight forward application. In 1986 my clients obtained a Building Permit [o construct a tennis court on the property. They constructed it at or about that time. Nobody ever came back to get any kind of a C.O. for us until the property is on the market for sale now, and i go to get the C.Os. and of course we're missing one. I applied for it and get a letter of disapproval based on the fact that the fence is too high around the tennis court. I believe it's a 10 foot high fence that's been there along with the tennis court approximately 13 years. Nobody has ever objected to it. I think really kind of the minimal height that you can have and reasonably surrounds the tennis court and we're asking for permission to stay as it has for the last 12 or 13 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I have no problems with it. One of our Members did run into a rather disgruntle person when they were out there and I just would appreciate it in future situations and in no way is this slanted toward you, that when these people know that there's an applicatiOn before us, you know, they don't have to be totally gracious but, at least you know, - MR. McLAUGHLIN: The caretaker out there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we would just appreciate that in future situations here. Again, this is no - MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, I'll mention it to the owners. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. 25 Page -26 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I thought it look more like 12 feet than 10, but, I have no problems with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, it looks like a smooth hearing here. We'll see how it goes. While you're standing there. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 26 Page -27 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:21 P.M. -WINDISCH and WETZEL deliberations. MEMBER COLLINS: My concern about Windisch. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Which one are we on? MEMBER COLLINS: He's asking about Windisch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you have it done Lori, let me know what your concern is. MEMBER COLLINS: Well Jerry, no, I'm just confused about exactly what we're doing here. I went back and reread Linda's file this afternoon and what we know is, certainly in 1962, there were two houses, cottages, on the property. We know that in 1970, the one near the water was expanded and modernized, winterized and turned into a real house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And it got a C of O, after that work was done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And we know that when the former owner was going to sell the place in 94, he went in and asked for a Pre-C.O. for the cottage and he got the Pre-C.O. with this proviso on it, that it's non-habitable and I don't think it's in the record, but, I gather that that was the time when the Building Department told him to take the kitchen out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hm, hm. MEMBER COLLINS: Now, at our last hearing, counsel came in and was discussing old records and records that had been explored and Assessor's Cards and I looked at my notes, and, my notes said, I'm confused. And, I think that counsel was urging us to the view that since it's pretty likely that the cottage was there before zoning. It was certainly there in 62 and almost certainly it was there before zoning. That we should assume that it has a Grandfather right to exist even though the Pre-C.O. that it was granted in 94 says it's not to be used for habitation. And, I'm troubled by the whole in this argument. It's not like we found an old Pre-C.O., and old C.O., we never did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. 27 Page -28 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: And reading this draft decision, I'm not sure what it is we're doing. It says, we're reaffirming the pre-existing C.O. and that pre-existing C.O. says, non-habitation. Is that all we're doing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: See I was with the understanding, that we were discussing another C. of O. But, i will modify this and discuss it with you later. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, because I, I, alright. You see my confusion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, alright. MEMBER COLLINS: In a nutshell I think counsel had us believing, that an old C.O. had somehow either been discovered or could be deduced or imputed and i don't think so. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I didn't get that impression. My impression was, that the Building Inspector asked them improperly to - MEMBER COLLINS: In 94 to remove the kitchen. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, to remove the kitchen and they wanted to sell the house. That they, well they were under duress at the time, that the kitchen existed and the Building Inspector acknowledged it, that it did exist and he asked them improperly to take it out. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I mean, if that's MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what, that's how I - MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and if that's what we think, and then that's what we should recite and that's not what this draft does because I think what you're saying is, that counsel's argument is, that we should take the position that the house was there, it had a kitchen and they shouldn't have told them to take it out. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, that the kitchen pre-exist zoning. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I mean fine, but, I want us to be absolutely clear about what we're doing and I don't think this does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can ! have Windisch? MEMBER COLLINS: So, let's - 28 Page -29 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you read Windisch and see if you can deal with that one. Do you have Windisch for me? You didn't give me Windisch. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I did hand you Windisch, Jerry. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, it's Windisch we're discussing right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, not Windisch, Wetzel. Frank Field Realty. I know that we didn't take the 20 minutes and we'll call it in one minute. MEMBER COLLINS: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 29 Page -30 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:29 -Appl. No. 4765 - FRANK FIELD REALTY In this proposal to locate a new dwelling in addition to other dwellings on this 22,526+- sq. ft. lot, applicant requests Variances from the Zoning Ordinance: (1) under Article iII-A, Section 100-30A, to add another dwelling on this 22,526+- sq. ft. parcel; (2) under Article Ill-A, Section 100-30A, to remove prior Zoning Board of Appeals Conditions set forth in Appeal No. 3303 issued February 14, 1985 which restricts the property from adding another dwelling; and (3) under Article IliA, Section 100o30A.2(1), based upon the Building Department's August 27, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: "Proposed construction of single-family dwelling not permitted pursuant to Article IliA, Section 100-30A(1) which allows one-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. Proposed project is located on a lot that has an existing one-family dwelling and a separate two-family dwelling (per Zoning Board of Appeals #3303). In addition, proposed structure has front yard setback of 22 feet and a side yard of 13 feet, lot is non-conforming (22,524+- sq. ft.). Article XXlV, Section 100-244B requires a 40 feet minimum front yar,d setback and a fifteen ft. minimum side yard setback." The setbacks proposed for an additional dwelling on this 22,524 sq. ft. lot are less than 25 feet for both sides, and one side yard 'at less than 15 feet. (This notice is based on the original application filed with the Building Department and Disapproval August 27, 1999 and does not include a request for a futUre minor subdivision or set-off division. ) Location of Property: Linnet Street and Brown Street, Greenport Driveway Park Lots 26, 28, 59, and 60; County Parcel No. 1000-48-3-20.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're ready now. MR. OLSEN:. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Mr. OIsen. We're sorry about the confusion. MR. OLSEN: That's alright, I've been sitting out ther. e since 7:00 o'clock. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I didn't have my glasses on. I couldn't see out that far. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We didn't see you out there. What would you like to tell us about this application. 3O Page -31 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Gary OIsen and I am the attorney for the applicant, Frank Field Realty, having my offices at Main Road, Cutchogue. The property which is the subject of this application is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-48-3-20.1. This property is comprised of a four ~ot, four subdivision lots, on an old subdivision map, known as Map of Greenport Driving Park which was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on December 1: 1909 as filed #369. Lots 26 and 28 face on Brown Street which parcels have been improved with a one story framed two family house. That's one house on two parcels. Lots 59 and 60 face on Linnett Street. Lot 59 is improved with a two family. I think with a two story frame house and Lot '60 is vacant and is the subject of this Variance application. The owner, Frank Field Realty is under contract to sell Lot 60 to the Kiwanis Club of Southold and a Habitat for Humanity of Suffolk. Pursuant to a contract of sale dated August 24, 1999, for the purpose of building an affordable house for a needy family in the community. The sale price of this lot is $5,000 and is subject to the purchasers obtaining a Building Permit, or a determination from the Zoning Board permitting the construction of a single family residence on Lot 60. I have previously submitted as part of this application, a copy of the contract of sale, and a survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors for the Kiwanis Club revised OctOber 29, 1999 showing the proposed house location on Lot 60 as well as the structure on Lot 59 and the one structure on Lots 26 and 28. An application for a Building Permit to construct the house on Lot 60 was submitted to the Southold Town Building Department and was Disapproved on three grounds. (1) The proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article II. IA, Section 100-30A.2.A(1), which allows one family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. For taxing purposes all four lots have been combined into one tax lot. it's known as Tax Lot 20.1. The second ground for denial was that the proposed project is located on a lot that has an existing one family dwelling and a separate two family dwelling (per the Zoning Board Decision under file #3303). The third ground for denial was that the proposed structure has a front yard setback of 22 feet and a side yard of 13 feet on a non-conforming lot. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B requires a minimum of 40 foot front yard setback and a 15 foot minimum side yard setback. I wish to give you a brief history of the property in question. Each of the lots on the subdivision map are 50 feet wide by 112.61 feet deep, for a total of 5,631 feet, sq. ft. per parcel. All four lots were purchased by Frank A. Field on March 22, 1975 and on March 17, 1984, he conveyed title to Frank A. Field Realty, Inc. by Deed filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 954; Page 349 and a copy of that Deed was sUbmitted to you as part of this application. Frank A. Field Realty is the current owner of all four lots shown on the subdivision map. When the property was purchased by Mr.. Field, there was a trailer on Lot #60, which is the lot in question and I have an old property card indicating that, showing on the property card, there was a trailer on this piece and it had its own tax lot number. It was 1000-48-3-8. I'd like to submit that to you. 31 Page -32 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. OLSEN: As I've indicated, when the property was purchased by Mr. Field there was a trailer on Lot 60, a two story flame house on Lot 59, along with another one story frame house on 59 and another one story frame house that was partially on Lot 59 and partially on 28. On October 1984, an application was made by Frank Field Realty to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals proposing to remove one of the buildings on Lot #59. The other building that partially was constructed on 59 and partially on Lot 28 and to build a two family residence on Lots 26 and 28. That application was granted under Appeal #3303 dated October 26, 1984, subject to conditions. One of the conditions was that Lots 28, 26, 59 and 60 of the old 1909 subdivision of Greenport Driving Park, not exceed a total of three one family dwelling units. Another condition was that there be no division or set-off of land unless subsequent approvals were made to the Zoning Board of Appeals and any other appropriate agencies. It is the conditions of Appeal #3303, that require this application to the Zoning Board. I'm respectfully requeSting that the Board reconsider the conditions set forth in Appeal #3303 and permit Lot #60 to be set-off and to permit a house to be constructed on said parcel. On May 31, 1984, the four lots on the subdivision map were combined into one tax lot, 20.1. These four subdivision lots are located between Linnett Street and Brown Street in Greenport in an R-40 Zone. The Variances sought in this application are area variances and since the decision of the Zoning Board in October of 1984, under Appeal #3303, the law was changed concerning the standards in obtaining an area variance. The new and current statute no longer includes the term "practical difficulty" or any particular test and now provides that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider two basic things. (1) The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted; and (2) the detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood ,or community that would occur if the variance were granted. The new standard is now a balancing test and the Zoning Board of Appeals must consider five factors in determining whether an area variance should be granted. (1) The first factor is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties if granted. It is respectfully submitted to this Board, that the granting of this application will in no way change the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed house is a one family, one story house, containing a kitchen and dining area, a living room, a bath and' three bedrooms and I have a copy of the proposed house plans which I'd like to submit for the record. Also, I do have another receipt, a green card from the post office which i'd like to submit too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. For the ladies and gentlemen in the audience that are concerned about this hearing, we will recess and allow you to 32 Page -33 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings look at these plans, put them down below for about five minutes when Mr. Olsen is finished, MR. OLSEN: A review of the Suffolk County Tax Map shows that most of the other parcels in the area are the general size and shape of Lot #60 of the Subdivision Map known as Map of Greenport Driving Park. Most of the lots in the area are improved. I am submitting here with a chad of other parcels in the area designating there district, section, block number and lot number. Whether there improved or unimproved and they're area size. A review of said chart, clearly demonstrates, that Lot 60 as a separate building lot, would be in keeping with the general size, shape and area of the other lots in the community, i've done this two ways. I've prepared my own chart and Scott Russell of the Zoning Board who happens to be - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Assessor's Office. MR. OLSEN: What? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Assessor's Office. MR. OLSEN: Assessor's Office, who also happens to be the President to the Kiwanis Club has also done something similar. I think the way he did it probably is a little clearer than what I did. But, I'll submit both for the record. I only have one copy of what he did. There's a bunch of what I did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. OLSEN: Concerning the setback issues, the proposed 22 foot front yard is a larger front yard than the 15 foot front yard at the present house located next door on Lot number 59 and it exceeds the average setback of the other houses on the block. It's also respectfully submitted that the proposed 12 foot side lines are not a substantial variance from the required 15 foot minimum. The proposed house will be attractive, and it would be an asset to the community, which is already well established. Actually as part of the decision of the a, in fact in your old file 3303 there was a trailer on this Lot 60 and there's nothing specific in that decision that I could find that says, that trailer must be removed and actually on January 24, 1986, the Southold Town Clerk's Office issued another six month permit extension for the trailer which has since been removed. I'll submit that to you also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know that wasn't an exact condition but a, there was an agreement at the hearing to remove it. 33 Page -34 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. OLSEN: The second factor that the Board must consider, whether the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other' method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. In light of the conditions set forth in the Zoning Board's Decision, number 3303 and in light of the fact, that Lot number 60 is a substandard lot on an old subdivision map, that could not possibly conform to 1999 Zoning Standards. The applicant's only recourse to build on Lot 60 is to apply to the Zoning Board for Variances. The third factor to be considered is whether the area variances are substantial. This is a well established neighborhood with a variety of different types of houses, some well kept, some not so well kept, and the proposed house would be generally in keeping with the size and shape of other parcels and houses in the neighborhood and in fact, my opinion would be an asset to the neighborhood rather than a liability. The fourth factor the Board must consider is whether the granting of this variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is respectfully submitted that there would be no adverse impact to the community to permit a house on Lot number 6(:), particularly since the lot is serviced by Public Water and Public Sewer Systems. The fifth factor to be considered is whether the applicant's difficulty was self-created. It is respectfully submitted that since the property is substandard and not comply with 1999 Zoning Standards that the applicant's difficulty is not self-created. Further more, the statute states, that even if the difficulty was self-created, that said consideration shall be relevant to the Zoning Board's decision and shall not preclude the granting of an area variance. In addressing the b'alancing concept which the new statute provides that the Zoning Board consider, I would like to make the following comments. As the Board is aware, there is a real need in thiS community for affordable housing. The granting of this variance would give the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals an opportunity to make a real contribution along with the Southold Kiwanis Club and the Habitat for Humanity which would provide affordable housing for a needy family. Mr. Field is making a real contribution to this community in agreeing to sell to the Kiwanis and.the Habitat for Humanity this parcel for $5,000. The funds to build the proposed house will come from the Southoid Town Kiwanis Club as well as the Habitat for Humanity and obviously also there's going to be sweat equity which will be provided not only by the Kiwanis Club but also by the family selected to benefit from this project. As you are well aware, it's impossible to find affordable building lots in thiS community and certainly nothing in the $5,000 range. I understand from Members of the. Kiwanis'Club, that the Club has been actively looking for an affordable parcel to commence this project for over two years before it was able to enter into a contract with Mr. Field for the lot in question. The Kiwanis Club has been advised, that if this 34 Page -35 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings application is granted bY the Zoning Board, that Public Water will be made available to this parcel as well as Public Sewage Disposal. I also wish to bring to the Board's attention, that the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on October 26, 1999, adopted a 2,000 Community Development Block Grant Budget. Included in said budget, is an allotment of $8,000 for this Kiwanis Housing Project. This budget allowance will also be supplemented by $5,000 in the home program for a total budget for this Kiwanis and Habitat for Humanity project of $13,000. All of this of course hinges on obtaining a favorable opinion from the Zoning Board. I'm submitting here with a copy of the Town Board's Resolution for your records. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: In conclusion and reviewing all the standards which the Board must consider it is respectfully submitted that there is no valid reason not to grant this application and in granting the application, the Zoning Board would be making a real contribution to this community in enabling the Southold Kiwanis Club and the Habitat for Humanity to proceed to build an affordable house for a deserving family in the Township of Southold. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Alright in an attempt to have the Members who are concerned, showing concern about this, I'm just going to lay everything out on the table out here and we're going to take about a five minute recess. You can page through it, take a look at it. I'd just appreciate your putting it back in the same place that it was in. So I need a - MEMBER HORNING: Make a motion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Motion. MEMBER HORNING: How much recess do you want? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Five minutes. MEMBER HORNING: Five, so be it, I'll make a motion. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. 7:55 P.M. FIELD REALTY Reconvened. 35' Page -36 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with anybody else who would like to speak in favor of Frank Field Realty in favor, anybody else other than counsel? Good evening Sir, how are you? MR. ADIPIETRO: Good evening. Bob Adipietro, a Member of the Kiwanis Club. I was on the Committee. That I spent in excess of two years searching for a piece of property in order to accomplish what we described here tonight and it was an uphill fight. We came up dry numerous times and this was the first opportunity we had to get this far with respect in finding a piece of property that would be suitable for this endeavor. So, I really hope that you'll give serious consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Sir, can ! ask a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir, Mr. Dinizio has a question. MEMBER DINIZIO: What were the other problems that you ran into? MR. ADIPIETRO: Uh, money, money and money. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you elaborate on that a little bit? MR. ADIPIETRO: Just couldn't find a piece of property that didn't have problems with respect to needing a variance or have other problems entailed and we tried to find property that we could.get with respect to County Tax Sale. I was in touch with Dave Abatelli, Greenport, with respect to property that Greenport Village might have available for this purpose and he wasn't able to provide us with any. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, you couldn't find any ones that were taken from taxes or were they too expenses? MR. ADIPIETRO: No, any lot that was suitable was grabbed up for more money than we were ever able to come up with. MEMBER DINIZIO: About how much were you willing to spend at the time? 36 Page -37 o December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ADIPIETRO: Well, the property that we had pursued, was in excess of $25,000 and everything went higher than that. i mean it was just out of our range. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was this the one on Fifth Street? MR. ADIPIETRO: Yeah. I mean every time we thought we were getting close, something came up to throw a monkey wrench into it, and when I got together with Frank Field and discussed this possibilities, we knew it was going to be a long struggle, but, we were hoping that we'd be able to pull it off and do one and maybe with one under our belt, we might be able to be in a position to track down other parcels of property for a higher price that we could possibly follow up with others. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else like to speak in favor. Yes Sir. Would you use the mike if you would. State your name. MR. DESMUNDE: My name is Jack Desmunde. I was last years President of the Kiwanis Club. This project was brought to our attention two years ago under the Administration of Dave DeFriest. What appealed to us initially about this project was the fact, that it wasn't a give away and perhaps that has less to do with your giving its approval, but it may have more so to do with anyone's disapproval perhaps. Affordable housing always meant to me something you could afford. Giving me something that was given away and ! sometimes personally have resented the idea of affordable houses because I worked very hard for the little that I have. I think this project appealed to us because of the nature of it .is, that it's giving the working people. It's.giving the people and asking them to put something back into it. The mortgage is held by, there's a second mortgage held by Habitat for Humanity which in would effect keep someone from getting a house, having it given to them, and five years down the hall profiting from it. They will not have enough equity into it until after having lived in this ten or fifteen years. It gives, I think for someone who may be the beneficiary of such a house would be in effect, they would be the owner, they would be living in this house, this would be their house, and ! think they would have a great deal of pride in a house like this because I think my feeling is, they would fee very fortunate of having something like this. They would take very good care of it and it would be a benefit to the neighborhood and it would be a benefit to any neighborhood in which they live. I think that's an important thing and I think that should be stressed and ! .feel anyone who may have 37 Page -38 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings reservations about whom may live in this house and motives and motivations behind it, may be somewhat relieved to know that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May I just ask you, is that second mortgage self liquidating after a certain period of time? MR. DESMUNDE: I honestly Sir, I don't know enough about that. I'm a plumber contractor. It's a little bit out of my league. What was explained to us, was in simple laymen terms, was that someone couldn't take this house. It may have a market value of $100,000 and after having it signed over to them it would take them 10 to 15 years to have an equity in it. If they were to turn around and sell it for the first year or two, they would probably profit by about $2,000 which you know, would probably wouldn't pay a month's rent, you know in the current rental market. That's how it was explained to me and my understanding of it. I'm sur,s there are people who could probably explain it better but, that's my understanding of it and these are the things that appeal to us. Those who may not know a great deal about Habitat for Humanity, the people who would be getting this house, it's going to be a simple house, it's going to be a one bath house, it's not going to, it's going to be on a slab, it's going to be I believe you know, it's rather small but, the people who will be receiving this are going to be asked to put 500 hours back into the program. They'll be working on this house, they'll be working on other houses and they'll be working on houses throughout the island in order to put this equity back into it again and I think considering I've seen a lot of work over the years and programs that I felt were give away. They were given to people who didn't have to put anything into it, who were merely recipients and perhaps weren't, weren't actually appreciative perhaps or I might feel that was the case. In this case I feel it's going to be given to someone. They're going to have to work for it, and they will be appreciative of it and ! think they'll make very good neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Who is building, who would build the house? MR. DESTINED: Southold Kiwis Club is a quite large. We have quite a few tradesmen in our Club. We have several builders, we have four electricians, I myself am a plumbing contractor. We have a fellow who has a back toe operation, actually excavation and drainage company, and we have bankers, we have real estate people, we have people who are in the field, in the trades. The way this thing works, is the Habitat for Humanity feels that through donations 38 Page -39 ~ December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings and materials and what not, this house can be done brought in at a cost of about $50,000. Now being in the trades, I know that a house of this size would easily on the market go for an excess of $100,000. But, this can be done between the donations and what not for about $50,000. We're expected to come up with half of this. A good deal of this is going to be done though our trades people in our Club. Myself, I'm going to donate my time as a plumber and perhaps ! can strong arm a couple of the guys who work for me into coming in on a Saturday and Sunday. As a slab house, it's going to require some trenching and some cast iron work. I've got a guy who is a local jeweler, well known, who is, can't wait to get in there and do this with me, and he's going to have a shovel in hand and he's going a and he's a ( ) and you know I think, that most of this is going to be done through our Club. We have all kinds of different organizations, churches and what not. That we were asked by Habitat for Humanity that they'd like us to accept their offers of help,. Some of our trades people feel that we could probably do this. In fact, we're going to donate our own time. We'd like to go in there and do it without having to have a seminar and be teaching people as we do It. But, the nature of this is that we're going to pretty much do this through Southold Kiwanis Club and whatever donations we can get through our local businesses and what not to help us do this. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak. Good evening. MR. VANDEBURG: My name is Richard Vandeburg. I'm a resident of Southold Town and I'm also a Member of the Club. I just wanted to add my additional support for the idea because I think it represents something that is in almost every aspect what's good about a project like this. The ability to involve the community with the help of our Club as Jack said, primarily a lot of the Members of the Club are trades people but, we are going to reach out to the community, others as well, in the community, in the neighborhood, to participate into join us in the development of the property. As Jack also mentioned, the owners, the prospective owners whoever they may be, have to prove their worthiness through Habitat and as you probably all know, that Habitat is a well established foundation that has had great success in this area. So, I think it is important to not lose site of the fact, that this type of a project could have a real beneficial impact upon the community and it should just, we should make sure that we keep that in mind rather than being too constrained about prior decisions that have been made that would otherwise close the door on an opportunity to do something really good for Southold Town and I just wanted to add. (Changing tape) 39 Page -40 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Would you state your name for the record who you are Sir? MR. JOHN DINIZIO: John Dinizio. I put the two family house he has now. i'm right across the street. The two family house now is hooked up to the sewer and there's no sewer on Brown Street. So, apparently that sewer runs through that lot right now to be hooked up, that they want to build on. I'm not aware if they're familiar with that and there's also a drainage problem there. I mean since he's built that two story home across the street from me, I've had a lot of trouble. I've spent a lot of money, the town has spent money putting drains in. You're going to build another house on Linnett Street and the water from Linnett Street comes to Brown Street. So, the towns going to have to spend more money putting drains in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Good evening Sir. Would you state your name for the record. MR. MORRIS: Good evening. My name is Douglas Morris. i'm the house to the west. First, the lots too small. The town already turned it down as being too small. He signed the thing in 85 that he wasn't going to build on it. So, why did he sign it? I own four lots across there. The town joined my lots together. When my sister and I went to split it we had to ask for a Variance and we had homes on it. Also the a, Humanity, I'm on the North Fork Housing Alliance~ We donated two pieces of property to the Humanity. Two homes were built on it. One block across, the guy moves to Texas, renting the house out for $1,000 a month. He's paying $125 mortgage. He was making good money. We complained to Humanity, they told us it was none of our business. And, we donated the land. So, I don't know about this protection with them. And, that's what I've got to say. It's too small of a lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else? MR. PAUL DINIZIO: My name is Paul Dinizio, Greenport and Ninth Street. When you make decisions like this are your decisions precedents, like you know, in other words, you set the standa rd for a neighborhood? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no,. In this particular case there is an existing decision that was rendered as this prior gentleman had just mentioned and ! have to be honest with you, we don't usually change those decisions. Tonight, during the period of time that the applicant hadn't come in, there was an application down in New Suffolk, alright, where an applicant asked us to waive a condition which had to do with the seasonal status of the house, OK, we did not waive that condition. That condition still stands. So to answer your question, ,40 Page -41 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings our decisions go with the land, OK, but they do r~ot necessarily create a precedence for a community in my opinion. MR. PAUL DINIZlO: So, you gave this split. If you approve this split, then everybody else in the neighborhood who has joining lots can split their land? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't answer that question. Maybe somebody else might want to. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean you did such a good job on the one several hearings ago. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, no, the simple answer is no. This is a single case. A .single set of facts, a single applicant saying, for the following reasons, please overturn a prior decision and let us subdivide. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: Yeah but regardless for the reasons of what is being used, you're splitting a land that's already merged together, right? MEMBER COLLINS: I don't please, let's not debate. You asked a question which was - MR. PAUL DINIZIO: Well you know, I want it to be, because I'll tell you, - MEMBER COLLINS: Then I'll be quite, go right ahead. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: December 9, 1983, I had a merged piece of land, 300 foot away from this piece of property, there was three lots. I got denied to be able to use those three lots exactly like they want to use it. So, I had to apply for a variance to make two lots out of three. Then, I also applied for a variance to make three units on these two lots, t that's the same as Mr. Fields wanted to, with 3,000 sq. ft. more in area and got denied on that. So, ! have an ax to grind here, OK. MEMBER COLLINS: I never would have guessed that. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: OK. So, now, in my summation, I'm juSt riding around the neighborhood, OK, we have eleven property owners, with approximately 16 lots involved if they were to split off, OK. Now, with this approval, was does that do to our neighborhood? Does it make these eleven property owners richer? Most certainly, most certainly doesn't. I'm for anybody making money, OK. But, what else does it do? I own a house on Brown Street. My brother does. My nephew 41 Page -42 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings across the street does. We all have extra land that we could build on and have units. Is this going to happen? No, I already have proof here, that I can't get it done, OK. That's one thing. Now did the Board ride passed this piece of property, or, ride around the neighborhood and everything? Did they look at the other two properties that Habitat HUmanity built? CHAIRMAN. GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: OK It would behoove you to ride passed one of them and look at it. Here again, ! own a house by contractee in between the two and I am financially affected by them two houses. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where are they Mr. Dinizio? MR. PAUL DINIZIO: On Linnett Street. I mean, excuse me, on Front Street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, could you just leave us with the tax map numbers tomorrow morning and we'll ride by? MR. PAUL DINIZIO: Ah, I guess one of the questions was that Mr. Morris hit upon is, how long does this person have to live there in this Habitat Humanity home before they could sell it? You know, are there some restrictions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was a question that I had regarding the second mortgage. But, we can ask the Kiwanis Club to get that information for US. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: I mean because the one that they built, the guy made a lot of money on it, and like he said, he lives in Texas now. So, I'd like to have one of them dealS myself. ! think that's pretty close to everything I want to say, but I also want to say, that it's admirable what people want to do as long as they're doing it in somebody else's neighborhood, OK. We are financially invested in that neighborhood and we see our profits going down the drain with something like this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: May I answer Mr. Dinizio's question which was, would a decision made here for instance, permitting what they're asking for, to subdivide, would it determine the fate of the neighborhood? Would it automatically mean 42 Page -43 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings that everyone in the neighborhood with a similar situation could do the same thing? And, the answer is, no, thank you. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: How can this Board legally defend that? I mean, when you give it to one, you have to give it to all, don't you? MEMBER COLLINS: Every piece of land is different. No, I'm not getting into a debate, excuse me. MR. PAUL DINIZIO: Ha, I'm sorry, they're all 50 x 112. It's like Mr. Olsen said, they're ali the same thing, it's land. Land is land. They don't make anymore of it. Whatever is there is there. So, I'm sorry, I disagree with you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. OIsen, could you get us whatever type of mortgage situation exists with the a, Habitat Humanity so that we could understand what the situation is? I assume it's a sliding scale, if you sell the property within a certain period of time, the equity goes back to Habitat Humanity. Is that correct? MR. OLSEN: I'm not sure of the details as to how the mortgage works. But, we were going to have a representative of the Habitat Humanity's Group appear tonight, but, unfortunately because of a funeral or something, he couldn't come. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But could you submit that to us within the next couple of weeks? MR. OLSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'd appreciate that. Thank you Sir. Sir, for the record, your name? MR. JOHN DINIZIO, JR.: John Dinizio, Jr. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. DINIZIO, JR.: I also live on Brown Street. I just want you to know, the houses on Front Street. They're not attractive properties. They don't have true property value or add anything in the neighborhood, and they make it sound that Mr. Field is doing such a great thing. It's a piece of property that he signed off and can't build on, .that he's giving $5,000 for and he doesn't have to pay the taxes on it anymore. I mean this isn't like he's doing something absolutely wonderful putting a small house on a property where it doesn't belong. I also have a double lot on my property and if I do meet the specifications of doing what he's doing, I would also like to build a house right in front of our property. 43 Page -44 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Remember, we would appreciate it if you would give us those tax lot numbers of those other parcels that you have mentioned so that we might ride by them. MR. DINIZIO, ,JR.: They're all combined now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not tonight, just give us a call with those two tax lot numbers or addresses or whatever. MR. DINIZIO, JR.: I can point them out to you right now, if you'd like me to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, fine. Come on up. Here's the map. MR. DINIZIO, JR.: Ah, let me see here now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me mark it. MR. DINIZIO, JR.: 26, 24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. Thank you Sir. Anybody else like to speak against? Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: My name is Scott Russell. l'm President of the Southold Town Kiwanis Club and just to go back so over some history. I actually, when this thing was first brought to the Club, two years ago, I didn't like the idea for a lot of reasons. I became President this past year and this was done two Presidents ago. It started to look attractive to me for several reasons. Number 1, I didn't like the current trend of the affordable house and programs in the town. I thought that this would be an opportunity to actually place an owner into the home. But, I have to be honest, a lot of what you're saying tonight makes sense to me and I would ask the Board to consider postponing any decision on this so that the Kiwanis Club could re-evaluate our proposal to go out and I actually would be very interested in knowing if Habitat Humanity has in fact sponsored houses in this town in the past and hasn't done a good job governing the use of that housing. I'd go sit with them next month. To be quite frank, I haven't been aware of that. I think the rest of the Club probably hasn't been. We're a service organization. We're not here to advance and we're certainly not here to divide the community. I would love the opportunity to re-evaluate this with my Club Members, to look at the other houses if Habitat Humanity has sponsored them and they haven't done a good job with the oversight and then maybe we should reconsider our proposal. But, in the meantime I would ask the Board to delay any decision so that we can do that over the next month and probably also meet ,44 Page -45 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings with Mr. Dinizio and some other members. We want to be able to include their concerns in our plans. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm very familiar with Habitat Humanity. I'm concerned, I'm interested in the information that i requested from Mr. Olsen. As per your situation I completely concur that that's probably the best idea that I've heard at this point. I do have admit to you, that I met with the representative from your organization at least a year ago and I told him personally, in just my opinion, that i did not think that this was a good site and I just wanted to say that for the record only because it goes back to the same question I had with the gentleman before and that is, this Board really doesn't like to change, OK, decisions that were rendered concerning pieces of property in this town. Sure if a variance is needed and another foot or two is needed, or whatever the case might be to put on a bedroom for a child or whatever the case might be or a family member that has become incapacitated, that's a different situation than actually creating a lot as in the case here and so that's where we are. if no-one has any objection, I'11. make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled - MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to give some incite. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. MEMBER DINIZIO: It may be helpful to you too Scott, in that you know about what you just said, about us making decisions or, reading you know, past decisions from the Zoning Board which we did tonight. We actually denied a person from living in their house for three months of the year because we have, not me personally, but, the Zoning Board made a decision, that it was to remain a summer cottage, and that was a condition to create a certain subdivision, OK, and we denied that, and I'm looking at this application thinking the same thing. That the person who had this application before, OK, gained some efficiencies from saying, that he wouldn't build on that lot. Number 1, he got the house, a two family house on a single lot, but he gained efficiency in that he didn't have to build two basements through the whole nine yards, and I'm thinking now, that it's pretty disingenuous of him to come back now for $5,000 you know, he gets to be the good guy and basically build on a lot that's not buildable when we sit up here month after month and tell people who have much larger lots, that their lots are merged and of course you know how I feel about that and so does the Board. I mean I wanted to give you some insiders. You're going to think about it, certainly think ~about it with respect to that also. MR. RUSSELL: You know I'm a Board Member of another department and I have the same problem. I could certainly sympathize with that. The difficulty is when you render a decisions in that people come back and they want to kind of 45 Page -46 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings amend those decisions, or amend those agreements down the road. There's a certain issue of credibility that the Board has to maintain and I'm completely symypathetic to that. The reason I think we pursued this was because from our view the $5,000 seemed well below what we would be able to find on the market and also the fact that we viewed, it wasn't Mr. Field that was really pursuing the construction on this lot. He's just simply the contract vendor to sell to us and it was actually, we thought we would ask the Zoning Board of Appeals not to simply reverse a decision or an agreement they made with Mr. Field but, to rather review it in a new light, in a new day, with a new owner, which would be Habitat Humantiy. But, I do have to say, that I'm completely concerned about the issues they raised tonight and I think myself along with the other Members would like to know as much about that as possible and that's why we were hoping to maybe delay this so we can review this, and maybe review our goals with the Club and see if Habitat Humanity you know, certainly live up to the expectation we have of them if not for this, for another project. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I'll continue with my motion to recess to the next regularly scheduled meeting. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can we have a date with that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that is January 13th. We thank everybody for their courtesy. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 46 Page -47 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings · 8:23 P.M. -Appl. No. 4761 - RICHARD POGGI Hearing continued from November 18, 1999 regarding lot coverage and setback variances only. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore how are you tonight? MRS. MOORE: Fine, thank you. To begin with, I had sent you a letter that address the issue we dealt with the last time because the living space over the garage and Mr. Poggi met with neighbors and particularly adjacent property owners that had, seemed to have objections with respect to the living space and he and his wife agreed, that they would remove, they would not use the area above the garage for living space and it would be used as storage. I spoke with the Building Inspector, they had no problem with the Notice of Disapproval that had been issued in order to proceed with that in mind. What the issue then that we've got are lot coverage issues and then the setback. With respect to the lot coverage I did a great deal of research with respect to the properties, the adjacent property in particular and looked at the lot coverage of the properties along Village Lane. 'It's a, Mr. Poggie was kind enough to give me aerial photographs and they're wonderful photographs that I'm going to submit for the record. One can see that Village Lane is a pretty cluttered area. They're very small lots with large buildings. Very stately, very beautiful homes, it's a beautiful neighborhood. But they're quite large homes on relatively small parcels. Mr. Paige's parcel is the smallest out of all them. The one property, Sarah Wigs, which is identified as Section 24, DST. 2, Lot 16. Wait, Section - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Block2. MRS. MORE: Block 2, thank you. I'm so use to doing it in writing. That parcel shows as having 30% lot coverage. They are, that property has two, it's two houses to the west of the Pogo parcel and in looking at the tax map, the parcel is almost double in size and it contains 30% lot coverage. Thereafter is Mr. Deutsch, and I apologize if I mispronounced his name, lot 17, that is a larger parcel but really' it's because it has the extra square footage behind the Poggi piece and what we see on that piece is, a, according to the Assessor's Office a 23% lot coverage. But visually, it contains a very large house, two story house with a balcony, very similar to what Poggi has proposed. A very large accessory structure which is identified as a storage building. However, it has plumbing, heating, electricity and a living space. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the tax number on that? MRS. MOORE: That's 24-2-17. That's right next door. If your facing the Poggi property, it's to the right. 47 page -48 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Yeah, i know that one. MRS. MOORE: It's a very lovely house, it's been renovated, everyone here has exquisite taste so it's not a reflection of their taste or their - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you say, 24 or did you say, 21 and 177 MRS. MOORE: 24-2-17. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, oh, oh, 17, OK, go. ahead. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The other one was 16. MRS. MOORE: Yes. And it also in addition to the large accessory structure identified again as storage, it is the garage. So, there's a separate detached garage as well. That is remarkable that that property only is a 23% lot coverage because of the size of the houses and the sizes of the structures, a number of structures. But, without a survey tobe exact, I won't, I can't argue that fact. The last piece that I want to raise, is the Milice parcel which is 24-2-22. That is a Zoning Board decision, 4209 from 1994. That lot, pardon me? MEMBER COLLINS: Last year. MRS. MOORE: 94. MEMBER COLLINS: I wrote it. MRS. MOORE: Was it 94, 99? Did I misread my own handwriting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I got 98. MRS. MOORE: 98, OK. That parcel is actually doubled the size of Poggi which is, the parcel size is 8,346 according to their survey. The parcel originally had a lot coverage of 23%. They requested a garage and the lot coverage was increased to 26%. If you look at, and again, I'm going to give you the aerial photographs because sometimes a picture is worth all the words that I certainly can't express. The aerial photographs that I've submitted, identified, I wrote in to help the Board identifying the parcels that I've listed and in addition to the Poggi parcel, the Poggi's house is under construction when the photograph was taken and the one photograph that I have, let me identify it as sheet 1, shows that the house size is actually very modest. It's the original house that's been reconstructed. So, the original house was started out as a cottage and various uses along the way but it's relatively small when you look at the size of the 48 Page -49 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings homes that are surrounding on Village Lane. I also have a photograph of the garage that shows, the existing garage and what one sees when you look at the garage and the significant structure of the neighbor's property, Deutsch, the Deutsch parcel and the accessory storage building, that's right next to the garage and the comparable size of the two. The photographs of the Mitice parcel that is the one that is subject to the variances again, it's a beautiful house and it really looks like a great deal more than 26% lot coverage. But, these parcels are so small, that when your calculating lot coverage, you're dealing with a hundreds of square feet, so when you have a parcel like Poggi which is 4,456 and you're calculating lot coverage, any small amount even a shed can bring the lot coverage way over and that's what we've experienced because the buildings that are proposed, the garage and the house, are modest and in character with the surrounding community. So I have the three photographs and I'll bring it up now. For the Board I have an outline. I made 5, 6. Well, ~'11 give you all the ones I have an outline of the lot coverage calculations with the photographs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I need to discuss something with you when your done. MRS. MOORE: OK. Just one more point I'd like to raise and that was something that came up at the last hearing which is, whether or not these decisions are precedent setting. I think in this particular case you have a very unique situation. You have the smallest parcel on the entire lot. Really there is no other parcel that I identified in the tax map book that is as small as the Poggi parcel. The structures are again, reasonable in size, but, automatically bring the lot coverage to what ! know the Board I think routinely holds as a rule of thumb, prefers to see, I know that the last time you mentioned, wel~ 26% is the most we granted on this street and I think that if we were dealing with a lot that was comfortable in size to all the other lots on this street, ! could reasonably explain to Mr. Poggi, listen 26% is a pretty reasonable amount. But when your halving the size of the parcel, and compare it to all other parcels in that area, the difference between 26% and what we're requesting 28.9 is a very insignificant amount of square footage added square footage that actually adds a great deal of usefulness to the property owner and that's really in the balancing test which you consider. So, I would hope that you weigh that heavily when you're considering the lot coverage calculations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question I have is two-fold. Number 1, is the applicant willing to accept alternate relief, OK? You don't have to answer that now but, - MRS. MOORE: I discussed it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, yes? 49 Page -50 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: We always. I always advise clients to listen to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the next issue is, the Notice of Disa, I'm sorry, the Public Hearing Notice that we had for the last meeting, because we have a problem here that the house is no longer there, and some of the neighbors who have called the office have raised a question. Is the house in its original position? Because it doesn't appear to be a foundation survey and you know, I don't know, maybe - MRS. MOORE: I have the arch, I have Rob Brown that's the architect, he'll provide the details on the plan and in fact, I think Rob will point out to the Board, well I'll let you speak. I don't want to speak on your behalf. MR. BROWN: I'm Rob Brown, architect for Mr. Poggi. Mr. & Mrs.. Poggi. The new foundation was surveyed and submitted to the Building Department and approved prior to framing continued on the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there is an existing new survey somewhere along? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Showing the - MR. BROWN: Showing the foundation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BROWN: And for as for the house not being there right now, it is essentially completely framed out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, as of last week it wasn't when I was there. just saw a brick foundation. MR. BROWN: The roof is framed up. I think one of the dormers hasn't been done yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. Do you have anything else Mrs. Moore? MRS. MOORE: No, I think just briefly we have maintained the existing setbacks. So the Notice of Disapproval dealing with setbacks and whether or not we need a variance for setbacks, the balcony doesn't deal with any setbacks whatsoever. 5O Page -51 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's lot coverage. MRS. MOORE: Right. It just dealing with lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now lets take a worse case scenario in my particular opinion, OK? And, that is, we waited until the house was completely framed so that we could understand this balcony aspect and see to what degree that impacts the lot, you know, along with the garage and so on and so forth. Do you have any objection to that? I mean you have an active Building Permit right now anyway, right? You're operating - MRS. MOORE: On the house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the house, yes. I mean that's just an opinion on my part because I have to tell you that we of course have two applications on tonight. This is one and then we have the last application in that I did seriously go around and actually everyone of those parcels that you just mentioned, all of which are absolutely gorgeous places along with this house, I'm sure it will be. I'm beginning to look at the whole situation in general and ! would just like to see what the impact is going to be in reference to the lot coverage and to what we're going to actually settle on in an you know, in a unanimous type or at least a three vote situation here in reference to lot coverage. MRS. MOORE: I know the impact was that we're, we'll probably, do we, i don't understand practically how it works. I mean we're going to be done with the framing of the house, which brings us, do we put a balcony on, or don't' we? Because that's the whole point is, - MR. BROWN: That has an impact on a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The construction. MR. BROWN: The construction on the back of the house. MRS. MOORE: Yes, and we've already have had a significant delay on the construction schedule because of history difficulties. So we're coming on to the winter season that any delay I think would be really a hardship on Mr. & Mrs. Poggi. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll go to Mr. Horning. Mr. Horning any questions of Mrs. Moore? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. 51 Page -52 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, I'm reading my earlier notes about exactly what the variances are for and I have the 29.9% number in here and that comprises the addition to the garage - MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And this, the balcony's contribution to the coverage is a very small number. MRS. MOORE: Yes and in fact it covers an existing patio - MEMBER COLLINS: It's like 50 sq. ft. MRS. MOORE: 50 sq. ft. MEMBER COLLINS: I think, I sought of just want to isolate what the issues really are here. But, the addition to the garage is the biggie from the point of view of ground coverage. MRS. MOORE: Right, correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And they have now withdrawn the concept of having the garage be accessory living space. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And it's purely going to be a garage and storage space and a work space. MRS. MOORE: Right, the stairway, the exterior stairway has been modified. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, it's now a pull down stair. I saw that in the plan. So really the whole, from the point of view of lot coverage, they've got what 25% existing, I think? MRS. MOORE: Yes, 25 is existing. MEMBER COLLINS: Right and the garage addition accounts for most of the almost 5% increment to coverage. MRS. MOORE: Yes. 52 Page -53 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: And they want the garage as now planned. I mean I just want to get this out. MR. BROWN: Yes, but let me just interject one think is done what Mrs. Moore was saying before. The 50 sq. ft. of balcony which is an insignificant number in square footage is actually over 1% lot coverage. MEMBER COLLINS: That's right 4,000 sq. ft. MR. BROWN: Because of the smallest of the lot and I think that's important to bear in mind. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, OK. The denial from the Building Department also mentions setbacks but, it, I know it had seemed to me, that there was not a - MRS. MOORE: No. MEMBER COLLINS: There was not a setback issue there because they were not increasing the non-conformance. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And we sought of finessed discussion of setbacks. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, well it's not an issue so - MEMBER COLLINS: Right and the Chairman just asked and was confirmed that the house is being built in the same spot as the original house. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so it's really the size of the garage, ! think, OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it is the size of the garage but, these people need to have that balcony put on, you know, tomorrow or the next day before you know, so we either got to grant this thing or not grant it, or, somehow take out the garage so that you can get that balcony built. And, I agree with Mrs. Moore, that you know, if the lot were so small to begin with, I mean let's face it, Orient could never be built again. I mean I go by there all the time - 53 Page -54 - December 1,4, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Everything is non-conforming. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. I mean you drive by Orient and never again in the history of Southold Town will you ever see a place that that's unique and this place in my opinion is going to fit right in with all of that. You know, to delay it another day in my opinion would be a sin and again, we're talking about 50 feet, 50 sq. ft. We're not talking about all that (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right for the balcony. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. I mean my assumption is, that you can do that tomorrow, right? You can put that .balcony on. MRS. MOORE: No, we, we'll be over. We already got 23%. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I'm talking about - MRS. MOORE: Oh, the construction. MR: BROWN: Construction wise, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: You would want to do it tomorrow, put the deck - MRS. MOORE: Yes. This project was intended two months ago. So, yeah, completion. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that's the only comment I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the only unique part about the whole situation Jim is, the fact that in dealing with the percentages, we are going to recite a total percentage that we are all happy with, OK, by accepting alternate relief if we cannot get a three vote situation in favor of the 29.9 OK. So, what they're telling us is, that it's not coming off the balcony. It's going to come off the garage if it comes of f of anything~ Is that correct? MR. POGGI: Yes. MRS. MOORE: I think his wife has to make a decision. MR. POGGI: The balcony is so insignificant to this project that someone is going to (). The balcony is an important feature~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, so that's where we are. OK, so we'll proceed with the remaining portion of the hearing and we'll ask if anybody else 54 Page -55 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Yes Sir, just state your name for the record please. MR. Deutsch: My name is Peter Deutsch. I'm the property owner of the house immediately to the north of Mr. Poggi. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that 16, I'm sorry, wait a minute I'll tell you in one second. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 17. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 17, OK, yes. MR. DEUTSCH: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Moore, thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard. I appreciate that. I~m not a lawyer as will become immediately apparent. They're may be arguments that I'm going to present this evening that don't have any merit. I apologize. I also apologize if I lost my objectivity in this exercise but, I will try to do my best to give you a fast summary of the opinion not for just myself but, for the people in Orient. I'd like to give you a little bit of background just so that you have the prospective owners. In mid-summer I can't give you the exact date but, Mr. & Mrs. Poggi shared with me the plans that they have for this renovation prior to the Landmark Preservation Commission issue arising. I looked at the plans. I encourage them. I found the quality of the work to be a vast improvement of the condition of the house that they purchased. I indicated at that time that I saw a problem with the structure that they were at the point talking as an accessory building. That i felt almost certain, that they would have to get a variance to go ahead with that and I indicated that ! thought the variance would be difficult for them to get. Subsequently I received a legal notice prior to the November 18th, meeting and ! reviewed the file and found that the plans had not significantly changed. That they were indeed intending to use the single car one story garage and turn into a two stow habitable building with a workshop below and I came to that meeting to oppose it and subsequently Mr. Chairman, you asked them to go away and do two things. First of all return with a change of use variance and secondly to considering that they were asking for 29.9% lot coverage and your previous precedent had been established significant you know, I thought you'd stay stated 28.6 this evening. The figure 26% came off but, in any event, you asked them to go away and get their thoughts in a (), if I can quote you. On the following Saturday, that was a Thursday, the following Saturday having spoken with a number of my neighbors, I asked Mr. Poggi to come and talk to me because it was our feeling that he needed to know, that we were going to oppose this variance and at that point he had not started the framing of the building, construction of the building, although it had been torn down, that it was our feeling that if we were able to discuss the issue with him, 55 Page -56 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings prior to starting the construction of the main house, that it could conceivably save him money and difficulties if he were to reconsider the house as oppose to acquiring a separate building which would become habitable. And, we had a good discussion and ! think we spoke candidly to each other and we recognized that given if we had been in opposite situations, that indeed he would have opposed the variance as well. So we had a meeting of the minds, Subsequently, well I should just, in that meeting, I wanted to point out to him, that we were going to oppose it. That the probable outcomes were two. One that he was granted the variance and they other that he was denied the variance. In the instance if he was granted the variance, he would have offended the community and would have to Five in the community where he had done something that was against their wishes. In the instance where he was denied the variance, i felt it was an opportunity for his to feel further victimized considering that he already brung the ( ) to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And, I felt that either one of those outcomes yeas a lose situation. ~ urged him in that meeting to reconsider his plan for the main building so that he could have adequate accommodations in the plan of the main building and not require a variance. He indicated at that meeting, that he could not, and would not reconsider the plans for the main house. Subsequently on the Tuesday ! spoke to him by telephone and he indicated, that he on further discussion with his wife and with his counsel and with his architect, had decided to go forward with the variance application as indicated this evening, not asking for habitable status above the workshop. And he asked me to tell them that ~ would not contest the application. I said, I was delighted that he had reconsidered, but, that I would reserve judgment until i saw the plans anticipated. On December the first which was the day after the plans were submitted and the application was submitted for this hearing, it became apparent to us, to myself and to others who .I subsequently talked to, that the plans are largely the same. ~n fact, the drawings are the same as the once that were submitted in the first hearing. '~he removal of the bathroom and the removal of the staircase, and the request that it be seen as storage space rather than habitable space, are the only significant changes between the two applications that I can see. Mr. Chairman you asked for two things. One was that they come back with a change of views and secondly, that they consider carefully the 29.9% lot coverage. To the residents of Orient, this looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. We believe that they've come back with a duck. I'd like at this point give you a petition and I'd like to read the names on that petition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. DEUTSCH: I'm going to a, I'm going to leave off the street descriptions in the entrusted property but, you have a copy of the petition now. "Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We, the undersigned, wish to welcome Mr. Poggi and his family to the community of Orient, and wish to encourage him in 56 Page -57 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings his restoration of the property at 1740 Village Lane. As indicated in the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing, November 14th, into the demolition of the existing building, his intention is to restore the property exactly as it was. We are concerned, that the current application for a variance will result in the construction of an accessory building which will immediately or at some point in the future be used as a second habitable structure. We urge you to consider carefully the detrimental effect that allowing Mr. Poggi to build this two story accessory structure will have on our community and we ask that you reject the application." This is signed by Peter Deutsch, Charlotte Deutsch, Sarah Wiggs, Bud Clibutt, Kathy Caffrey, Hilda McNeil, Donald McNeil, Jerry Woodhouse, Joyce Holzapfel, Joyce Holzapfel, Robert Van Nostrand, Mary Van Nostrand, John Tuffer, Timothy Frost, Alison Millis, Walter Millis, (continued on Petition in the record as though fully written here). You may ask who are these people? I have a chart to just briefly summarize who these people are represented by terms of tax map so that you can see to some degree what coverage we have on this petition. (Change tape) Considering the time of year and considering that Orient is a, has a very large summer poPulation, ! apologize that I wasn't able to get more signatures on the petition. I firmly belief, that what I'm presenting this evening represents a large if not unanimous part of the community in Orient and if you wish me to pursue geeing more signatures, I would feel encouraged to do $O. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not the case. I just want to make a brief statement concerning your presentation. This Board takes and I'm not speaking for the Board, I'll speak for myself and anybody would like to speak in favor or against this, you're welcome to do so. This Board takes the habitation of accessory structures very, very, seriously and very rarely if any. In about the last twenty years that I have served on this Board and that'll be twenty years as of 1/1/2000, give or take a month, I think we have granted four uses in accessory structures and they were temporary uses as a matter of need for family members. So I just want you to be aware and take that back to your community so that they are aware of that situation. As for a person, this has nothing to do with this hearing. Placing habitable status either through sleeping or complete habitable unit, that is an area that we don't very simply deal with once it is done, or, if it is done, it's an issue for Code Enforcement as it is in any of the other ten towns in Suffolk County and Southold being one of those towns, and I want you to be aware that of being a, and this Board has heard this "nauseum" and I'll restate it again. Being a fireman in the town of Southold 'for 32 years, I take it even more seriouSly because just an example of the Venus Garilitis issue on the Southshore and all the rest of the situations that hs~ve existed with these buildings not being built to code, it is a great concern. At one time, one of the Supervisors in this Town, some' ten plus years ago, wanted us to vary the State Construction Code. i sat in that seat right there, and ! made it quite evident, by very simply taking that State Construction Code and 57 Page -58 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings displaying that in front of that SupervisOr and telling him, that I had no intentions of doing that based upon my particular philosophy. The issue was 15 years ago concerning the habitation of these units, which they are not units, they are structures and the nature of those structures cannot exceed that of a hobby. If a person wants to work on your car, they want to build a piece of furniture, so on and so forth. That's what accessory structure is to be used for. I do it every day because I like working on older cars, which I have a few. They're not vintage, they're just old. And, that's the extent I utilize my garage and that's the extent I utilize this structure that I'm talking about. I do appreciate the presentation. Does anybody on the Board have any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER DINIZlO: Yes, Jerry I'd like to just re-enforce what you just said. and a, you know petition, the reason given for those people to sign was just, that no- one didn't want somebody living in that structure. Is that so? MR. DEUTSCH: I should also indicate in this case, we do not accept the variance as presented to you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I mean, no, your petition, which is very clear in what it says, I'm just trying to verify, that what your petition said, was that you object, or, those people object to somebody living, they suspect that somebody will live in that structure. They do not want somebody to live there? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For sleeping. MEMBER COLLINS: Read us your preamble again, MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah read that again. MR. DEUTSCH: "We are concerned that the current application for a variance will result in the construction of an accessory building which will immediately, or, at some point in the future be used as a second habitable structure. We urge you to consider the detrimental effect that allowing Mr. Poggi to build this two stow "accessory" structure will have on our community, and we ask that you reject the application." MEMBER DINIZIO: So the reason that you don't want the accessory structure is because you're afraid that somebody is going to live in it. MR. DEUTSCH: Well we're saying stronger than that. But, we feel., that the current application in front of you, is a cynical approach to get around the change of use variance. Our feeling is, that coming back to you with the same set of plans without the bathroom and without the staircase, is simply addressing 58 Page -59 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings the concern that we voiced to them directly about it not being a habitable structure. MEMBER DINIZIO: So your objection to the application is, that you don't wan'[ somebody living in that structure? Is that, - MR. DEUTSCH: That's absolutely correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's it, that's it, that's all you objected to? MR. DEUTSCH: No, no, I have not finished my presentation. I simply got to the petition. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, But I just wanted to be clear that those people signed all that because they're upset, they don't want another person or, another family living in there renting in the summer? MR. DEUTSCH: They, they do not want two habitable structures on a lot of any size. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I wanted me to be clear on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you may continue. MR. DEUTSCH: My understanding is, when you consider applications, you do so on the basis of five points. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hm, hm. MR. DEUTSCH: I'd like to address those five points, if I may. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. DEUTSCH: The effect on the change of the character of the neighborhood to the detrimental of nearby properties. We do not accept the description of this building as storage space or workshop. We ask that you treat this application as it appears to us as a second habitable structure. If you compare the two set of plans that are being submitted to you. Initially on November the 18th and again tonight. The only significant difference is, that the bathroom has been omitted, the external staircase is being omitted and they have applied for a storage space rather than a change of use which is what you asked them to come back with. Nothing has changed in the plans for the main house. Mr. Poggi has taken a three bedroom house which he purchased and is proposing to build a one bedroom house in it instead. Nothing has change in the lot 59 Page -60 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings coverage. We ask that you recognize that intent is for this to be the second bedroom ultimately whether they do it now with a variance that you grant them change of use or, they do it subsequently once the building is constructed. The second habitable structure will place a strain on the density population on the sewage in that area and I'll address this separately in the environment and on the water table. It also as you pointed out Mr. Chairman, places the owners for Code Enforcement on the neighborhood. The community has clearly indicated how they interpret the application. They have asked that you enforce the zoning and protect the integrity of Village Lane.. In addition, we are concerned about the description of the workshop. Houses are renovated all the times without a permanent workshop having to be built. We ourselves have completed a renovation of a ( ) house without a workshop. This property is located in the center of a historical residential neighborhood and a very quite one at that. By his own description, this workshop will be the state of the art. The equipment that Mr. pOggi is installing, is of a commercial grade and in the opinion of the builder, currently working on the construction of the home, very impressive. Although Mr. Poggi is not as far as I know, a carpenter by trade. He does work in the construction industry. Our concern is that if we allow Mr. Poggi to install a professional commercial grade woodworking shop, in order to restore his property. Once the property is complete, the workshop will remain. Mr. Poggi we underStand, wishes to do much of the work himself and we respect his ambition. But any attempt to convert the use of a one car garage into a permanent fully operational woodworking shop should most definitely be resisted as out of character with the nature of the neighborhood and a determent to nearby property. The zoning in this neighborhood is residential and the impact of allowing the construction of a permanent woodworking shop and installation of this type of equipment is clearly detrimental. What I've done here on the top of the diagram, is indicate to you the type of sounds that can be heard from this particular location and for the record for those of you who haven't seen the chart, we'll have to, this is not a scientific study. I'm simply trying to point out, that we have within audible distance of the location of this woodworking shop, the sound of water laughing on the beach. We can make an evaluation as to whether or not the sound of chop saws; table saws, power sanders, drills and so on, so forth, is greater or less than the sound of water laughing on the beach. But, if you accept that it is greater than, at least 21 homes in the radius of that sound, will be affected by this workshop which encumbrances 50 people. If you accept that those same sounds are greater or worse than church bells, within the radius of church bells from the location of this workshop, 43 homes will be affected and 80 people will hear the sound of the workshop. If you accept the ( ) slapping against moss which can also be heard from the location of this workshop, is less than the sound of saws and sanders, and drills, then 80 homes will be affected and 180 people will hear the sounds of this workshop. And finally we can hear the traffic from the main road and that is questionable 6O Page -61 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings whether or not in my opinion is not (inaudible) worse. But if you accept the 173 homes will be affected and 388 people will be (inaudible). The point that I'm trying to make is that the nature of this "workshop" is not for carving decoys and our concern is that ultimately it may not be purely for hobby. The second point that you ask people to evaluate when they submit a variance has to do with whether or not the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other methods. The house that the applicant purchased at the beginning of 1999, is a small house, on a small lot. According to Mr. Poggi's lawyer, the restored home will have only one bedroom. Hence, the need to provide a second bedroom for the famiiy. However, when Mr. Poggi purchased the property, the house had three bedrooms and the decision to reduce the number of bedrooms from three to one in the renovation, is entirely the applicants. The need to place a second bedroom in a separate structure has been created by the p~ans submitted to the Building Department and is not a pre-existing situation. If the applicant has a need for additional accommodation, in our opinion, this should be part of the plan for the house and Should not require a variance that would De clearly and contravention of the zoning for this residential area. The code requires that each lot have a single habitable structure on it. We ask you to uphold the zoning in this case. The third point addresses how substantial the variance is. The area variance is substantial and Mrs. Moore has addressed this in great length. The issue of whether or not the lot is small and whether or not all the lots in Orient are small seems to me can be argued to support either argument for or against. In two out of the three instances that Mrs. Moore addressed, Sarah. Wiggs and my own property. All of the buildings that make up the coverage are pre-existing. They did not require a variance at any time. My building was restore between 1991 and 1994. No variance were applied for. The buildings were all on the same footprint as pre-existing structures~ The exception to that of course is the ruling that you had last.year for the Melax property. When you went from 23 to 26%. The lots are very small. They are already overcrowded. Mr. Poggi's lot is already 25.5%. You need to consider whether allowing him to go 29.9% is going to improve the neighborhood and to improve the issues that we have to deal within this very high water table area where the septic systems and the water are extremely ~ragile. The applicant's lawyer suggested that an increase of 25 to 29.9% is not substantial. In fact, the property is already overbuilt. The zoning allows for a lot coverage of 20% and therefore the applicant is in fact applying for a variance of nearly 10% above that which is allowed. I'd like to show you just to give you a context, I have seen a number of you driving past the property. ! would like to give you a couple of boards that show you the impact of this particular application on the immediate surroundings. This is a the scale pilings five photographs and indicated in red I've shown you where the main structure is going to be. I'm not claiming that these are 100% accurate. This is just intended to give you a general look. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll put these down Mrs. Moore. 61 Page -62 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE~ Because I can't hear what he was saying. MR. DEUTSCH: This board essentially shows you the immediate area and the proximity of other buildings and in this particular photographs it shows you the degree to which the lot will be built and here I'm going to come in and talk about the problems with septic systems specifically. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. MR. DEUTSCH: So in your deliberations we'd like you to consider if you would not just the percentage coverage of this lot, but the implications that it has for the surrounding lots as well. The fourth point that you ask people to consider is, the effect on the, the variance will have an adverse affect and a significant impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There's a problem here which I'm afraid I'm not in the business, i'm trying to understand it. But, my understanding and at the last meeting Ms. Collins, you raised the point as to whether or not they had a Building Permit to proceed because the building had been ~lamaged beyond 50%. They showed you at that meeting that they did have a Building Permit and that they were going to proceed. My understanding is, that if you put up a new building, the new building needs to confront existing Building Codes and that in order to go ahead with that Building Permit they must have had a Board of Health inspection and an approval from the Suffolk County Board of Health. My concern is that with two separate building applications in place, whether the Board of Health was aware that the intention was to build to a degree of 29.9% on a very small lot and whether or not they would have been able to get a Board of Health approval with that separation. In other words running two building applications in parallel they could get an approval from the Suffolk County Board of Health for sewage and water for a code, building in modern code, but then to come back separately and apply for a lot coverage of 29.9%, does that jeopardize the Board of Health approval for the sewage system? Do I make myself clear? That this is a very small lot. That the ability to put in a sewage system that complies with the Board of Health could severely be jeopardized by increasing the lot coverage to this degree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask was there any demolition of the existing cesspool system that you know?. MR. DEUTSCH: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I actually was asking everybody, thank you. 62 Page -63 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. DEUTSCH: Under the environmental consent I'd like to reintroduce the concept of the noise which I addressed earlier. Again, this is an extremely quite neighborhood. I mean this is probably within the Town of Southold one of the quietist residential neighborhoods that exists. Is there a means by which we can monitor or control the noise factor and the effects of that in terms of environment? It doesn't appear to me that the Town Code restricts noise to that degree. But it does appear to me, that if we address this issue in consideration of allowing an accessory building to be turned into a woodworking shop we can cut it off early. The third point I'd like to address in connection with the environment, the effect on the environment is that immediately adjacent to the area that this building is going to be expanded into, is an existing septic system which is our septic system which is built virtually on the lot line. We have three septic systems and a grease trap that go back to the turn of the century and are extremely fragile. Any attempt to build a building up to the lot line even though it may conform to pre-existing setbacks severely jeopardizes whether or not my septic system is going to work, and I've identified them on the material that I've already submitted to you. The distance of the septic system to the lot line the grease trap is 4 feet 6 inches away. The first septic tank is 5 feet away. The second septic tank in the system is 2 feet from the lot line and the third system is 14 feet from the lot line.. If you add the setbacks that are requested to that, my grease trap would be 7 foot 6 from the structure. The septic system Would be 7 foot. The second septic system would be 4 feet from the structure and the third septic system would be 16 foot from the structure. I'd like you to take into consideration, in considering this variance, the effect of the high flood plane. This area of Orient is effectively built on marsh land that is as Mr. Poggi found when his contractor went down to put in footings for his new construction, a water table barely 6 feet below ground. The high water table makes it very difficult for septic systems to function. The fifth and final point that you ask people to consider when they apply for a variance, is whether the alleged difficulty was entirely self-created. When Mr. Poggi purchased the property, he surely recognized the limitations of the house and the lot. Zoning Regulations have not changed since his purchase. We fully recognized Mr. Poggi's rights to do what he pleases with his house as long as he recognizes the restrictions that are inherit to his property and the codes imposed by Town Law and by the Building Department. However, the current application for variance is clearly the result of a plan that neither recognizes the limitations of the size of the property nor the authority of the zoning currently enforced. We feel that the difficulty is entirely self-created and as such, should be rejected. I'd like to point out, that in the house Mr. Poggi purchased, immediately prior to his buying the property with a family of four and prior to that, another family of four liv~d so there is, there has been an attempt to shoTM that there was 'hardship because of the size of the lot and the size of the house. That there had been precedents said in this in a phone he indicated 83 Page -64 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings to me, I don't like to conform, it makes me angry. I concur with Mr. Poggi conforming is difficult. There's a balance that has to be struck between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community and it's yours and the people's task to try'and determine what that balance should be. it seems to us, in the community, Mr. Poggi has been able to do something that very few people have done up until now, which is to form a body of opinion, that crosses all' the special interest groups in the community and unites the village in unison to oppose Mr. Poggi's Variance Application. A lot of people who signed this petition, felt very, very strongly, that individual property rights are very, very, important. That they are being presented with the case as I have outline it to you today, felt that in this instance, the demands placed on the community, and the demands inherent to the application, were far outweighed, excuse me, far outweigh the rights of an individual property holder. I'd like to close in asking if, in this instance, the Zoning Code is not upheld, under what circumstances would you uphold the code?. We have in all five of the categories that you've requested us to address, outline I believe a reasonable argument to deny the variance. We have a petition with much near a hundred signatures, that indicate, that we, as a community do not accept Mr. Poggi's claim, that this is going to be an inhabitable structure and we ask that you consider this very carefully in your deliberations. Thank your for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.. Is there anybody else would like to speak against the application? Mrs. Moore we have a substantial amount of visual evidence and other evidence. I would appreciate it if we could finish this at the next hearing, but it's entirely up to you. I mean I'll close the hearing right nOW. MRS. MOORE: Well I think before you close the hearing, I'd like an opportunity to rebut many of the things that were said. We'd like to clarify the record, i know Rob has some points that he'd like to put on the record. This has been a long process. I know the Board. i know that your intelligent. You can decipher through hyperbole, speculation and extrapolation that has been submitted and I'm not going to go through and identify each and every item that has been presented on the record. I will point out that and I think most of the Board Members in questioning this gentleman, would identify the point specifically which is that I believe he misled his neighbors. He, after a meeting, where Mr. Poggi specifically met with him because being the one neighbor, and Mrs. Terry I know the neighbor to the other side, specifically called me and said, I'm very much in favor of Mr. Poggi's project and she wanted to be here tonight, she was here last time and didn't have an opportunity to speak. She actually called the Board if I know her to be true to her word, and expressed her support. So really it's coming from this neighbor here who you know the old saying is, do as I say and not as I do. All I need you to do, is to look over to this property and look at the storage "storage building" and the wood burning stove and the habitable 64 Page -65 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings space over that area and certainly Mr. Poggi and the neighbors have been very tolerant of his actions on his property. Again, the neighbors' petition was addressing use of how, use of that area, use of the space above the garage is habitable space. That was eliminated early on and redesigned to the extent that a bathroom was removed, an outdoor, an outside stairway was removed and partitions were removed. So, it's not a duck and it's offensive the way it's been presented because I think Mr. Poggi has all along tried to work with the community, has gotten a great deal of wonderful support as was a hearing that we participated in with the Landmarks Preservation. The community is very supportive. It's close knit and I think that the petition the way it was worded appears to be somewhat supportive, we want a, you know we welcome you, we hope you will follow you know, the rules and we encourage you to be honest and forthright and that's how people signed it and that's the way I read it when it was read on the record. As far as the sanitary system, it's pre-existing. A sanitary system as you know from the Health Department can accommodate four bedrooms. This property is going to be under utilizing their sanitary system and yes, the original house actually had two bedrooms I understand with a room downstairs on the first floor that was used as a bedroom but, it really wasn't. MR. POGGI: It had one large room, a little bedroom and one other bedroom. MRS. MOORE: So it had the use of three bedrooms, but, in space it's using the identical space and they've converted the two smaller bedrooms to a large bedroom. They're creating a replica of the house and it's admirable. Yes, it would be very nice to change the design of the house and make something that is larger and allow for more living space but that's not what they wanted. They wanted a replica and really bringing almost a, they had originally hoped to take the original structure and restore it. But, as it turned out, it was rebuilding what was originally had been proposed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you a question. Based upon the testimony tonight, that Mr. Deutsch has presented, any review of this you could reduce to writing if you wanted to send us a brief or whatever. MRS. MOORE: Send it in writing. Yes we could. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'd want to get going? Yes, I'd like to get going tonight too. Why don't you have Rob, Mr. Brown come up. MRS. MOORE: Yes, Rob will come up and point out some things. I don't like to turn this into a litigious situation where you have two neighbors fighting. I leave it up to you to sift through what has been submitted, narrow down to the true issues and then based on what we've submitted, I think you can approve our application. Rob, do you want to address the points? 65 Page -66 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. BROWN: I appreciate your patience. I'll be very brief and actually Mr. Moore covered several of the issues that I wanted to discuss. Mostly the idea of changing the design of the house as was being reconstructed. To my mind, it creates an unreasonable situation. There may have been families of four .living there in the past. I've seen houses that small with far more people than that. That doesn't make it a desirable situation by any means. Redesigning that house to accommodate the use. The reasonable expectation that Mr. Poggi had of having a personal workshop would require him, first of all it would be incompatible with the inside the house, especially that small. Creating more bedrooms or workshop in the house would require being larger rooms would bring us here anyway in terms of an area variance which is what this is really all about and it would require a change of design which would take us back to the .Landmark Preservation and Mr. & Mrs. Poggi who have already been very patient much farther back. The workshop is for personal use. In terms of the Department of Health, they're not concerned with lot coverage so much as they are about the number of bathrooms and bedrooms. We are in fact reducing the intensity. If there was a family of four there and there's going to be two people living there now, obviously the demand on the system is being reduced. And, the hardship I would suggest is the size of the house. I think that covers the issues you know that we've spoken to that I wanted to address. Thank you for your patience° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. BROWN: The carriage house could certainly, workshop could certainly be insulated for noise. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was my next question. MR. BROWN: That's easily done. I would also remind you, that the design of the petition as the existing garage is, it's a slab on grade. So, we're not digging down any farther than we need to in terms of impacting the water table or septic systems or anything of that nature. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's three feet? Is that correct? MR. BROWN: Yes. And I would also suggest, in terms of the character of the neighborhood, and from point of view, this is a tremendous insignificant condition is the proportion of the size of the garage as it is. It is far from in keeping from the character of the Village of Orient: And what we're trying to do is create a visual impression that is far more in keeping, and I think it would be a pleasant and welcome addition certainly compared to the 1950 garage that's standing there right now. Thank you. 66 Page -67 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thankyou. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We would like to a -. Do you have a question Mr. Poggi? MR. POGGI: I would like to say a few words if you'll let me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes and we're going to have to ask you to make them relatively brief at this point. I apologize. Yes, I have absolutely no objection to you to submitting a statement to us. MR. POGGI: Well, I would like to say a few words. I think I have that right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think you have the right. I completely concur with you but you also have been represented by counsel. Counsel has significantly spoken in both hearings and we just want to get it going. I have given counsel every opportunity to present anything that she would like to discuss to the Board in the way of a summation and you know, and I'll leave that open for you also, OK? I have to tell you, that in sitting here, you and I'm not speaking for the other Board Members but we after a period of time, we need to change the situation. MR. POGGI: I'm going to be very brief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK> MR. POGGI: I'm overwhelmed to say the least tonight. My wife didn't attend this meeting because she is a little sick over the whole situation we've been put through for the last 6-1/2 months and she didn't want to hear anymore negativism, brought up about this labor of love that we tried to do here. When we came to Orient 3-1/2 years ago, we wanted to live on Village Lane. I'm 63 years old. I plan to retire in a year from now. Yes, I have a woodworking shop. I love woodworking, that's been my hobby for the last 17 years. I have very sophisticated equipment which I've accumulated and spent tons of money on. I worked for 4-112 months to try and restore this property. I wanted to restore it. I'm 85% over my budget. It's going to cost me another $150,000 to complete this job. After the last meeting I spoke to the astute. I found tonight Mr. Deutsch made a great presentation on his behalf, not on my behalf. Everything that we have done here, we have done firSt not even in ourselves but for the community to restore this house in this community and keep the community and our neighbors in mind. i was offended with his comments to me that Saturday 67 Page -68 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings morning at his house but I took it on the chin like a man. ! am a business person, but I do run a large corporation and I find that every day of my life i'm challenged and I don't like to conform sometimes. In this situation I have conformed in every way stated and followed. I have significantly changed that residence. I have significantly changed the garage, or carriage house or whatever you want to call it. I am the father of four grown children, who are all college graduates and I have six beautiful grandchildren. This is my retirement home, it's not' their retirement home. I don't intend to put anybody living up in that space. I intend to go out when I get some free time and work in my shop and I intend because the space is only 1140 sq. ft., we've also increased it just another 80 sq. ft where we're going to live in. We've made it nice and comfortable for ourselves. We've spent tolls of money to do this. Rob Brown has done a magnificent job in creating an old new Victorian house which can be but add charm to the community and be an asset to the value of my neighbors. rma strong man and a very powerful man in myself but I'm not for my wife and my family. I don't like to be challenged in the sense that I have to be told what to do. In this case I was told what to do and I conformed to what I was told to do. If my neighbors don't want to talk to me, that's their privilege. I have done nothing to offend them or degrade anything. All i have done is put tolls of money in my energies and my life. Me and my wife thought we were young people when we started this project. I'm getting older everyday. Everybody has tried to make this a bad project. The newspapers have tried to smear my name and my family's name. i've tried to withstand it. I don't want to withstand it anymore. I don't want to have to look at my next door neighbor and say any bad detrimental words to him. I have a neighbor on my left who is the nicest person in the world but would like anything but only have happiness for me and my wife. Mr. Deutsch has been a very good neighbor up until this point and I'm sure he'll be a good neighbor after this point with his wife and really ~ have no ill feeling towards anybody. I have no ill feelings towards the Historical Society or anybody in this community. All I want is peace and quite. I want to retire in this community. I want peace in this C°mmunity. I want to put my money in this community and ! want to do anything I can in anyway to gratify and make the charm of Orient better than it is. There is nothing in my mind, that I want to destroy anything here. But I wish you would all take this into consideration here and if ~ have to I will not leave (). I can't for myself and for my wife, I can't. My wife is totally sick over this situation. I think we've been treated unfairly and tonight I think we were really treated unfairly. But I'm going to walk away. I'm going to turn my chin again and I think you all and I wish you all a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and thank you again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Same here. Thank you. Anybody else? OK, seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. 68 Page -69 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you all for your courtesy. All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 69 Page -70 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:35 P.M. - LEWIS EDSON (Mary Kirsch, Contract Vendee) This is a request for a variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the Building Department's November 8, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for a permit to locate dwelling with a setback at less than 50 feet from a private right.- of-way shown along the east side of the property. Location of Property: 9720 Main Bayview Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel No. 1000-87-5-24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Changed tape) Mrs. Moore you're representing Mr. Edson? MRS. MOORE: I promise I will be quick, efficient and as long as you don't ask me too many questions out here in five minutes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You just have to give me a second to find the file because it was taken out of order. I'm ready. MRS. MOORE: Mary Kirsch is right here. Mr. Bergolini is here as well, the designer of the house. We have a situation where a, I'll tell you right up front, Mr. Edson has placed the time is of the essence. For those of you who know what that is it's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not again. MRS. MOORE: Please, it's taken us a very long time to go through the regulatory process which actually it went very well in the normal time frame. However, it takes several months to get the DEC. We have DEC apprOval. We got Trustee Approval and because of the right-of-way that runs along the easterly side of the property, we need a setback variance. It requires a front yard setback on a side yard and we have placed the house at the only possible location which is setback, from the wetlands on the adjacent property. We did obtain DEC approval with the placement of the house where it is. The house is very modest. It has minimal decking around it on the side which is intended for complete handicap accessibility, accessibility in general around the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why is that? MRS. MOORE: Well, my one client will say, he actually doesn't require handicap at this time. He's certainly looking towards the future and the marsh area here as well as the adjacent wetlands we'd like to maintain a decking that provides for access around the property without the need to go a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this a geometric conforming? 7O Page -71 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Yes. MS. KIRSCH: Octagon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Octagon. MRS. MOORE: Octagon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. MOORE: It's a very simple application. It speaks for itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody on the Board have a.question of Mrs. Moore regarding this? MEMBER COLLINS: A just one. The problem is, that there's a right-of-way creating a front yard. Alas because I'm on crutches apparently I didn't get down there. I know the area but I don't know the specific property. Does that right-of- way do anything other than serve the Edson property that's down on the creek? MRS. MOORE: I do not believe so. I think that that right-of-way is for the back Edson piece. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one on the water. MEMBER COLLINS: The one on the water, yeah? MRS. MOORE: The one on the water, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. It's not like a traveled road? MRS. MOORE: No, no. MEMBER. COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one that's the traveled road then is the one farther because I went down the right-of-way, you know, I believe it does probably service more than just that lot. MEMBER COLLINS: Really? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I mean I don't know if that really has significance here. 71 Page -72 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I was just questioning how much - MRS. MOORE: Well, it looks like there's an encroachment which I have to point out to Mr. Edson because of the time frame on it, so I think he has to clean up some problems here for us. But, there is a dirt road that looks like it probably gives access or has been used to the adjacent property owner, but I don't know if that is in fact a shared right-of-way, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you trying to extinguish this portion that goes across the front of this property? MRS. MOORE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No? MRS. MOORE: But we don't, no, we're over here for is a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I n~ean, you're, you're not trying to extinguish this? You're going to leave the right-of-way where it exist? MRS. MOORE: We bought the property subject to a right-of-way - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MOORE: Subject to rights of others. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everything is subject to whatever exists on the property? MRS. MOORE: Correct. It is our understanding from Mr. Edson, that the right- of-way is for the purposes of access to the back piece that is owned by his daughter I believe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, does that answer your question? MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I don't mean to read more into it. Anything else? That's it? MRS. MOORE: No, I would really ask for your indulgence if you could approve the decision tonight it would be greatly appreciated that way we can go back to the Building Department and get a Building Permit to then go back to the Health 72 Page -73 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings Department and get our final approval. So, for the water zoning. So, we still have a ways to go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know about tonight, but we'll get there. MRS. MOORE: No, best you can. Thank you. I promised five minutes, less than five minutes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that true Mr. Arnoff? MR. ARNOFF: Seven. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Seven. MRS. MOORE: OK, that's not bad for me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I haven't finished the hearing. Is there anybody would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 73 Page -74 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:40 P.M. - JOHN & MARY ANNE LUCEY (Mary Santacroce, Contract Vendee) This is a request for a Waiver of Lot Merger under Section 100-26, based upon issuance of a Notice of Disapproval by the Building Department in applicant's request to build a dwelling on a substandard lot, by the following reasons: A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983... Subject lot is nonconforming and held in common ownership with adjacent lot SCTM 1000-139-3-4.1 and 3.1. Location of Property; 2850 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y., County Parcel 1000-139-3-6.1 consisting of 30,000 + sq. ft.; Mattituck Heights Subdivision Lot Ref. 17, 18 and 19. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Arnoff, how are you? MR. ARNOFF: Good evening Mr. Goehringer, quite well, thank you. I believe the Board has the necessary Affidavit of Posting and the Affidavit of Mailing together with the green cards. The application is quite simple. It's interesting because I recall during my 10 years as Town Attorney and I don't like to go back to that necessarily with the Board, but I said, other municipalities had inactive legislation to deal with inadvertent mergers of lots prior to even the passage of Zoning and little did I know, that this type of an application would cross my desk from of all people but the formal secretary to the town. My client here tonight and her husband - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why you never make statements like this piece of property is unique. MR. ARNOFF: That's correct. However, the single and separate search which you've been given a copy of litigate that the two contiguous parcels were required by the Johnsons back in I believe in 1944 and 1939 or somewhere in the thirties, and they were held by them until Mr. Johnson died at some point and Mrs. Johnson had these parcels and quite innocently I might add, about a year ago decided that' her niece and nephew, the Lucey, should have the vacant lot which she always thought was a vacant lot that they could something with next to her home. Low and behold when Mrs. Santacroce and her husband came to me, I said, I don't think so, we have a problem, OK, that's why we're here tonight. Addressing 100-26 of the Code which provides 'the vehicle 'to deal with the waiver of merger, I think it's clear from a review of the application and the contiguous parcels, you.will not see any result that there will not be a significant result increase in density of the neighborhood. It's an additional house in the 74 Page -75 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings neighborhood. It's certainly consisted, as a matter of fact, it's larger than almost every lot in the neighborhood except the contiguous lot I believe on the other side of Mrs. Johnson's property which is insignificantly amount larger. Clearly Mrs. Johnson and everyone else involved will suffer an economic hardship by not being able to do something which she thought all along she could of done and by the way as Mr. Goehringer and the Members of the Board knows, at a certain point in time before the promulgation of zoning she could have certainly done this and checker and what wouldn't be checker board she could of split up these lots prior to zoning. And paragraph 4 of the 100-26 nothing is going to change the contour and slope of the lot. We're not going to do that. You'll see that the application of my clients to erect a house will require no setback variances at all. But the house fits very nicely on the parcel. It does create and there's no question about that, by the granting of this application, we create two substandard lots. One with an existing house and one with a house to be built. There's no question about that. But all of the houses in the neighborhood are significant. I mean all of the lots in the neighborhood with one or two known exceptions are significantly smaller. I can and if the Board wishes me to, ~ can quickly go through your criteria, but I don't. I think there obvious what the criteria are. They still deal with 100-26 and I would just ask the Board if it has any questions, i'd be glad to answer them. My client is here. I think this is an application which should be granted. I don't think It's controversial which i is unlike most things that I get involved with unfortunately, but a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN'GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. MR. ARNOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. 75 Page -76 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 76 Page -77 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:46 P.M. - Appl. No. 4626 & 4662 FAITH REFORM BAPTIST CHURCH (Peter Jacques, Owner) Applicant is requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for "Meeting of persons for worship in meeting hall and office" and has applied for: (A) A Special Exception under Article IX, Section 100-91B(6) and/or Interpretation under Article IX, Section 100-91A(12) Permitted Uses with regard to use as an "Auditorium or Meeting Hall; and (B) Variances based on the October 14, 1998 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval which states that the application for permit to occupy part of an existing building as a house or ship is disapproved on the following grounds: "(1) House of Worship is not permitted in an HB District pursuant to Article IX, Section 100-91A, B and C; and (2) Insufficient lot area. In the HB District 20,000 sq. ft. is required for each use, Article IX, Section 100-92. This lot is approximately 21,500 sq.ft, and is occupied by one tenant at this time, see attached site plan." Location of Property: 13000 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-114-11-12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who is representing? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Pat Moore is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat Moore? Yes, I'm ready. MRS. MOORE: I have to say as a lawyer, you know maybe if ! was talking to the Town Attorney an issue of the church case and the issue that's presented to you is very exciting for a Zoning Attorney because it is what you read about in case law and in literature and treatises about Special Permits and uses and so on and so I'm going to start with the .fact that we began this process with first asking for an interpretation and I think as an interpretation we could resolve it all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But before you do that. MRS. MOORE: Sure, alright, go ahead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just realized the possible conflict, OK. And, the conflict is that Mr. Reeve, Roy Reeve who was the President and owner of Roy Reeve Insurance deeded this building to me. The building adjacent to this one, OK. Not specifically to me, but in 1986 I believe it was or there about - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: To the Mattituck Park District. 77 Page -78 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the Mattituck Park District which I had been a Member of the Mattituck Park District since 1977. MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And at that time I was the Chairman of the Mattituck Park District and it appears that I'm going to be the Chairman of the Mattituck Park District again in the year 2000. Do you see or does anyone on this Board see a conflict with the possible contiguous nature of this? You are very simply applying for this as tenants on this property. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE: Correct, yeah, we're occupants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anyone in the audience have a problem with my sitting onthis case. OK. MRS. MOORE: No. Peter Jacques, which is it, Peter, OK. Peter is here as we~l. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've 'had a very good relationship with Mr. Jacques and his father. So, I'm just mentioning thaL MRS. MOORE: OK. I'll let you decide that issue on your own. But we have no objection. To begin with the Zoning Code provides that a House of Worship or at least our position would be, that a House of Worship can be placed, can be any place, anywhere people choose to gather to worship their God and what we have found is that for example, in Riverhead, there's a farmer worship that every Sunday, the farmers gather at a person's house~ It's listed on the Bulletin of one of the Churches that is at a certain time at Lyle Wells' house there is a meeting and they have their farm worship. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the Old Steeple Church. MRS. MOORE: Yes. 131 permits Religious Institutions in Residential Zone RO on large parcels generally, but i believe that that is intended to be more if you were building a Cathedral or building a Synagogue or a Mosque, you'd want a large piece of property. I don't believe that the Code looks at occupancy of an existing building as being prohibited in the Code. If you look at the site plan requirements it's the functional equivalent on a number of parking spaces whether you have a meeting hall, an auditorium or a place of worship. So, in our own Code we recognize that meeting for whatever purposes occupies and uses the space in the same way. So what we have proPosed to the Building Department initially in occupying this building was we're taking the old building, Peter Jacques building and occupying it, and if we were meeting all of us 78 Page -79 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings decided to have a book club we could meet there without any problems and with no Special Permit as a permitted use. But, as soon as the Faith Reform Baptist Church chooses to gather there and express religious issues all of a sudden now the use is no longer considered permitted. I think that that's a problem in our code and I think that that's something that for an interpretation the Board could say, no, you know, the code, the use of occupying a space whether it's to meet as a religious body or to meet as a group. As long as the use is a permitted use, it's a functional equivalent and you can occupy the space. I'd like to read to you a little bit about a, it's a land use regulations. It comes right out of the book and it says: "Initially as you know if the Zoning Code has conflicts it runs against the Town, not against the applicant. Land use regulations that are aimed to get activities that constitute the exercise of religious beliefs are particularly suspect because of the constitutional protection afforded religious expression." The zoning treatises are filled with paragraphs about the special treatment that schools, churches, religious groups, they enjoy in our zoning. Finally, a quote that I just love this, "that the authority local government to regulate land uses is based on their police power to regulate in the interest of public health, safety, morals and the general welfare. Since religious land uses have been held by the courts specifically to promote these interest, local laws on land use decisions that exclude or severely limit religious uses may not constitute a valid exercise of police power authority of local governments." That comes from desk book Pace University School of Law prepares has a book that is a very good handbook for Zoning Board and it's called Well Grounded. I take the language from there. So, if you get beyond and don't feel comfortable with the issue of whether or not it's a permitted use even though ~ firmly believe that you could say that it's a use that's permitted in the Zoning Code. Then, we look to it as a Special Permit Use and the inclusion of a Special Permit Use in an ordinance is, tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the General Zoning Plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. That is the law and Special Permits. Do you want me to go through all of the Special Permit criteria? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MRS. MOORE: You don't need for me to do that? Has there been any discussion? I don't know where you're going with this so I could either go - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: thing I tell you. For the record, OK. This is the most ridiculous BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're suppose leave it back. MEMBER COLLINS: Progress Jerry. 79 Page -80 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to share with you progress, OK. And, Bruce Anderson as well as everybody else Will understand this and please excuse me for saying this. MRS. MOORE: That's OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For exactly 20 years when you pull yourself up to this podium, this God awful thing hits you in the kneecap, and would you believe 20 years later, that God awful thing is still there. All they did is take out the Other thing and put another God awful thing back in there. MRS. MOORE: You know why? Because the someone else sat there (laughter). Supervisor sits there. If CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have such pains in the kneecaps from this podium and it's beyond the realm, OK, needless to say. I have to tell you, that the Faith Reform Baptist Church is a great neighbor. They are very, very, nice peoPle. Revered Chris and every member of that community are the nicest people I have ever had a building next to. And I don't own the building as I said, it belongs to Mattituck Park District. My only queStion to you is, are they renting the entire piece of property, which includes both buildings, or, are they just renting the front bUilding? MRS. MOORE: At this time the artist is still in the back building that's considered a separate detached ( ) building. Mr. (having a discussion with someone). Now, they are the only occupants now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was the only question I had. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need both their names for the record. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. Chris Hatton and Peter Jacques, Jr. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I don't have any other questions on this. Any questions from any Board Members? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I read the Memo that we just got about office. I agree, that you know, it's just a place where people gather and there's really no reason why you cant' consider that unless ( ) raises some kind of legality, I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reality, we've had churches that have had a variety of things. This is a church that meets, so far as I can see, - MRS. MOORE: in the existing structure. 8O Page -81 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, to pray, OK? And I'm not going to get involved in. It's none of my business and that's basically the situation, alright. But I think this was put in the code on the basis of all of the variety of things that some churches do. I'll give you an example. One church had a drum and bugle call next to a residential district, and I can tell you it's over on Grange Road which is North Bayview which doesn't exist anymore, OK, and that was a great concern to the neighbors of Grange Road. So, there are a variety of things that go in to Special Exceptions of this nature. MRS. MOORE: Well are we dealing with this as a Special Exception, or are we - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't made a decision yet. MRS. MOORE: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Are you soliciting input? I'd just assume - MRS. MOORE: I'd like to know where you're going? MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, I'd like to - MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I don't think we are. MRS. MOORE: I don't want to waste your time on a Special Exception - MEMBER COLLINS: I'd would tike to expedite this thing partly because it's so late. I think this Board would be very loath to unnecessarily get into writing interpretations and opinions that get into religious meetings and other meetings. It's totally unnecessary because this building being the building that it is, being used as it is, I think we should in my opinion have no trouble at all saying it's an auditorium and meeting place and we would therefore take the kind of action we took with Rudy's Coffee Shop and say, if it's the definition of something that's permitted as a right end of case as far as the use goes, and I would also add, that we recently had another case in downtown Mattituck in the Hamlet Business District, where a second use was proposed on a lot considerably smaller than this one and our opinion said in effect, that's normal in downtown Mattituck and that's where I'm coming from. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was that Raynor Suter Hardware? MEMBER COLLINS: Raynor Suter Hardware. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. 81 Page -82 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Yeah, I have a problem with the Building Department's interpretation of number of uses because one owner can have multiple uses on a property and many tenants could have one use, so that it's really driven by square footage and site plan more than use. MEMBER COLLINS: They're being careful but we did recently, just vew recently draft the very issue. MRS. MOORE: Good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there anyone else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further conversations or hands, seeing no further hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page -83 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 10:00 Po M. -AppI. No. 4764 LOCKE McLEAN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-244, based upon the Building Department's March 24, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, and applicant's proposal to relocate and alter single family dwelling with a front yard variance rear yard setback at less than forty-five feet. Location of Property: Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-10-10-5. (Please note: Map was amended about 9/99 eliminating need for front yard variance and removing front patio.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are ready Sir anytime you would like to come up. MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y., for the applicant. I'd like to hand up to the Board at this time, an attachment to be given to the Affidavit of Mailings on the green cards that I got back in to the clerk and I'd also like to give you it's not really an amended map, it's more like the clarification of site plan so that when you're discussing this you'll have something up to date, and the reason that I do that is because there's been some great deal of confusion as to what's going to happen here. I thought to ( ), that the application was fairly straight forward. First of all, you have an oddity here when you look at that. You have three roads going around the property. The Zoning Code was only designed for two roads for the two front yard aspects. So you have three roads. So the Building Inspector then determined that if you have a front yard some place, you must have a rear yard. So he determined that you have three front yards and so he determined that this was the rear yard. When I first got this application and worked with the builder for the applicants Mr. & Mrs. McLean, I saw that as a problem and I'll come to the typographical thing in a moment. The next thing I saw is that they were going to locate a patio and that original thing that you have has a patio. Well the Building Inspector determined that the patio was going to be in the front yard, was going to be less than the required footage, and he would have to have a variance for that. So when I clarified with the builder, was there going to be a patio there? He said, yeah we were thinking about it and it was back and forth and then it was whether it was going to be in the front or the back of the house. A great deal of confusion. The surveyor, Mr. Strauss over in Connecticut located in the front and said, well as long as it's a patio and it's going to be zero elevation, no problem. Well then, since that caused some consternation and I have Mrs. McLean here tonight, they have eliminated the patio in any way because they have understood as I have always, that for patio which is zero elevation, you don't even need a Building Permit. So, they're not going to put a patio in and what you see there, is exactly what's going to be done and he did clarify because it is only one residence, the 'existing residence there is going to be removed up the hill if you would, a few feet away to its location there and the 83 Page -84 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings house modernized. The map that you have in front of you now by Mr. Strauss is fairly detailed on everything, and in fact, I went so far as to have the builder contact the Sinclairs who are next door which I always viewed as a side yard but, it's now the rear yard which we're asking for the variance and to see if they would have any objection to the location of the house at that point which is the most logical due to the typographic consideration and I won't belabor all those details with you here because I think the application does cover them in writing which I know you've read and they said, there's no problem with locating the house, that it's far enough away from their house and they've viewed it as a side yard. The principal thing that Mrs. McLean wants me to emphasize you tonight. They really need to do this because it's incoming in their yard with golf balls, and literally incoming and you can't sit out there during the summer months such as golf season. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean in the present location? MR. LARK: The present location and that's what really was the driving force to move this thing. You can't move the golf course. You cant' build a fence high enough. The erratic golf balls do come across oriental and that was the driving force. In fact, also in the summer time - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean can't change the golfers? They're heartless? MR. LARK: That was really it, because I was surprised. I thought the traffic was their main consideration which is a problem. Just in the summer time though because that's the main ingress and egress to the ferry and so, that, that has gotten quite noisy over the last couple of years. But the golf balls I guess which is too much and where it is now, it is a much safer location and you still end up as I pointed out in the application. You have public water there, you have one house on one lot. It's not changing anything except reorienting it and and they will because of the particularities of the Zoning Code although that is subject to interpretation since it is written for two side yards, I mean two front yards, they, he's determined that that's the rear yard. We only can get a 34 feet and then so therefore, hence the variance request from the 75 feet required in the code. It's 60 over 60,000, slightly over..So, it goes into that particular section of the code. Not to delabor anything, if the Board Members have any questions, I would be most happy to answer anything that you have and if ! can't answer it, the owner is here, Mrs. McLean is here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: NO. 84 Page -85 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I just read my notes that were formed on the file up until you gave us this and I said I was confused as to deck versus patio - MR. LARK: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And which was on which side and which is on the other but based on this drawing, the only variance you need, is that 34 foot in what's functionally the side yard, but technically the rear yard. MR. LARK: Yes ma'am, that's absolutely correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MR. LARK: That's the nut of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George, anything? MEMBER HORNING: No, the contractor gave me some photos of the site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great, we'll review those. Just for the record. As you know, for many years you have been dealing with much of Fishers Island and you know that there are a tremendous amount of houses on Fishers Island and a tremendous amount of vacant lots that still exists that have three front yards and so it's not, it's not ununique to us to see this type of situation, it is, it's unique that you're moving the house that distance to get away from the bothersome situation that your client has to deal with, but it's certainly grounds for a hardship. MR. LARK: No, but my interest and comment with the Building Department was we must have a rear yard if you have a front yard. But, he couldn't answer the question, what happens if I have four front yards? He didn't want to deal with that. And a large enough parcel, he didn't want to deal with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Reminiscing that situation. Just quickly, I stopped asking that question in 1984. And I'll tell you the reason why. We were dealing with a swimming pool down in Mattituck and there was a doctor involved and he could not understand why it was denied. So, after 45 minutes we both just left and that was the extent of it. But, I'm glad you cleared up that issue. MR. LARK: Sara, do you have anything to say? This Mrs. McLean for the record. 85 Page -86 - December t4, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MRS. McLEAN: Hello. The only thing I wanted to say was that if we could possibly get a decision tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George had mentioned that to us. MRS. McLEAN: It would make an enormous difference to us because we have to dig a new foundation and we'd like to do it before the ground freezes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. McLEAN: Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 86 Page -87 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 10:08 P.M.- Appl. No. 4774- D. CLAEYS BAHRENBURG Applicant is requesting a Variance under Article III, Section 100-30A. 3, based upon the Building Department's November 16, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for an "as built" raised patio around swimming pool, and with new construction reduces the existing lot coverage from 5,173 sq. ft. to 5,116 sq. ft. (23.6%, or 780 SF. over the allowable). LOcation of Property: 300 Private Road #14, Orient, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-24-2-20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Anderson, how are you? MR. ANDERSON: I'm fine. Here is a variance request that was filed on behalf of the applicant and an issue here is a question of lot coverage. Of course this is very much different than the other application you heard in Orient. The two very important respects. The first respect is, that there's no question of use. It's residential, there's no double occupancy, none of that exists. Secondly, the coverage proposed here, because Mr. Bahrenburg is redeveloping his home, the coverage of result is actually less than what we start with. An issue here, and what causes our current problem, is a patio that surrounds the swimming pooll Hopefully you have the survey in front of you prepared by John C. Ehlers. That patio measures 874 sq. ft. He included 874 sq. ft. that accounts for 4% of the lot coverage. So if the patio were to disappear you would then find yourself under the 20% which is the restriction and we wouldn't be here. This particular patio is interesting because in this area because the ground is Iow. The grade around the patio was built up so if one looks to the north side towards the side yard the grade feathers up to the patio surface. And the same thing to the east side which faces this is over the rear of the lot, the grade comes right up to the patio surface. And what you have is a masonry wall that surrounds the other two sides. And that masonry wall, I went out and measured it, is 20 inches. As the Board knows, it has dealt with this issue of patios before and the Board did adopt a position on this which reads with respect to patio is that, the height of the patio shall be limited at the zero inches flush level with the ground at one end and limited to a height of 16 inches from ground level at the opposite end with at least 50% of the entire structure below grade. The patio would also be flat and level and meet safety requirements. The prog that this doesn't meei is the 50% of the .entire structure built below grade. I'm not sure whether that refers to placing a patio within a hollow and i don't understand where that came from but, the second thing is the height of 16 inches with the masonry wall being 20 inches, that doesn't help us much. The masonry wall I speak of by the way, is just a flat rock landscaped wall. It's very popular these days. it's sought of, you see them throughout town in many places. And I 'suppose what could be done is the grade could be lifted around the patio to bring it into compliance with respect to this requirement. I suggest though, that the variance should be granted based on one very key point and that is the coverage reduces the way 87 Page -88 ~ December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings Mr. Bahrenburg is developing the property, redeveloping the property results in less lot coverage than what he currently has. And so for all those reasons, 1 submit the variance should be granted. There would be no need for alternative relief I presume because if you were not to agree with me, I suppose we could build up the grade we wouldn't be here in the first place. But I think it's such a reasonable request and because the coverage does decrease as a result of this proposal, I think that would be sufficient to the Board to act upon. Now, as part of your process, we notified the basic neighbors and we received two letters of support. The first one was from Linton Duel an adjacent neighbor who offers full support towards this appeal and the second letter received was from Charlotte Hanson who is the President of the Oysterponds Historical Society and it reads that, "1 recently received, by Certified Mail, a copy of Mr. Bahrenburg's Southold Town's Zoning Board of Appeals application for a variance concerning the proposed improvements to the above referenced property. The Oysterponds Historical Society, adjacent property owner to the above referenced property, offers no objection to the variance appeal. Mr. Bahrenburg has been a good neighbor to the Society, frequently offering his home and grounds to the Society's fundraising endeavors." So, what we're left here with is, I'll submit these for the record. So what that simply leaves us with is a proposal that grade the property at the greater conformity than it is today with the full support of two of the adjacent neighbors. Both neighbors are here tonight. They felt strongly enough to favor the application that they would appear. So i want you to know that they're sitting in the background here and we're very gracious for their presence and we're grateful for their support. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record. The percentage over is what? MR. ANDERSON: Well the percentage over is 23, well the total percentage ,of the lot under this plan is 23.6%. The existing coverage was 23.86%. And, the pre-existing nature of this parcel the amount over would then be 3.6% which is percentage point less than what we have now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER HORNING: What leads to the lot coverage reduction then in terms of looking at this map here. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, reduction of the footprint of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Because you're tearing off the back of the house and changes and doing alterations. MR. ANDERSON: And I would suggest, if the Board is agreeable to our variance request, that it reference to survey before them. My personal view is 88 Page -89 - December 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings that I don't know that I would have rejected the Building Permit Application in the first instance so that when we'd come back to the Building Department the survey is referenced and hopefully there's no misunderstanding. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to be sure that we know what survey Mr. Anderson was referring to. I mean the one that I have been going on is by John Ehlers, looking for the date. MR. ANDERSON: The last revised November 16, 1999. It has two boxes over on the right-hand side that says, existing areas and proposed areas. MEMBER COLLINS: I got that. Actually my is last revised 11/5/99, not 11/16. MR. ANDERSON: OK and the difference that you're referring to refers to the first floor elevation? Or, oh, t'm sorry, a flood plan note, that has nothing to do with this application. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, OK, fine. No, it seemed to me that this was what you should be resting your case on. I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. MR. ANDERSON: In coverage it is. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: It is. CHAIRMAN GOF_.HRINGER: OK, great. Thank you Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions? No?, OK. Anybody else in the audience like to speak in favor? Good evening again, Sir. MR. DEUTSCH: Yes, I'm Peter Deutsch. I'm also a neighbor to Mr. Bahrenburg. I'd like to indicate my support for his application and I find that his improvement to his property is in keeping with the aspirations of the community and our personal aspiration as well. 89 Page -90 - December 141 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak. Yes ma'am. MRS. GERI WOODHOUSE: I'd like to speak in support of it. My name Geri Woodhouse. i'm a neighbor about four house away. I'm also one of the people who just helped to organize the Orient Historic District Preservation Association on behalf of them I'm going to give our support to this application as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good, thank you. Anybody else tike to speak? Anybody like to speak against the application? ! have to ask that question. You have to excuse me. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. End of hearings. Prepared by Lucy Farrell Town ~,~r~ Town 9O