Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/19/2001 HEARINGSOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD APRIL 19, 2001 Present were: Chairman Goehringer Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Collins Member Homing Secretary Kowalski (Prepared by Paula Qui~ntieri) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4937 SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT Withdraw by applicant 7:19 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4837 H. CASHY and M. MISTHOS. This is a request for a Variance under Article XX!V, Section 100-239.4A to locate an accessory swimming pool' and hot tub construction less than 100 feet from the bluff of the Long Island Sound, at 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold; 1000-50-1~3. CHAIRMAN GERARD P. GOEHRINGER: Is there anything that you would like to say for the applicant council. CHARLES R. CUDDY, ESQ.: I'll wait until the opposition finishes. CHAIRMAN: That was Mr. Cuddy. Thank you sir. We are ready for your presentation sir. GWEN SCHROEDER: Hi, I'm Gwen Schroeder, I'm the Southold Coordinator for the Northfork Environmental Council. I would like to address the board about the application, specific application which is before you. As well as, express the Council's general philosophy on construction within 100 feet of the bluff. After going over the agenda tonight I can see my comments apply to many of the applications. NFEC believes that the board of appeals should exercise extreme prudence when considering granting relief from the 100 foot setback requirement. We believe that due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the bluff and adjoining e-flow systems, as well as, the potential impact the construction will have on neighboring properties; relief should be granted only in situations of hardship. NFEC does not consider the inability to construct a pool on one's property to be a hardship. The bigger picture must be considered. The board has the right to deny this application. Although the applicant's attorney correctly sights instances in which the board has granted relief in excess of the 26 feet that is being requested in this case, we ask you to consider the what the cumulative effects would be if every property owner on the bluff were to come to you for review of the 100 foot setback rule. When would be the time to draw the line and say no. With development pressures Page 2 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD escalating on the North Fork, I would say the time is now. Why do we have the setback requirement at all if we it is routinely allowed to be jeopardized. Granting relief should be the exception, not the rule. I just want to quote a statement of a publication put out by the New York Department of State. This is from the Long Island Sound Management Program, it is a draft from 1993. I quote, "Respecting the dynamics of shore line change is necessary to protect human life and properties and to gain both the economic and environmental benefits associated with a more natural shore line. The coast is not imperatively hazardous. It is the inappropriate location of development that creates a hazard for life and property. Avoiding an appropriate decision for locating structures near eroding land is the first and most usable way to respect the dynamics of changing shorelines Allowing the sound shorelines to operate at the natural dynamics system and restoring these natural processes also provides benefits of public access, scenic beauty, wetlands and water quality improvements and erosion and flood protection. Interference with the sound shoreline dynamics will continue to result in the loss of these and other benefits at public costs. Accepting these costs is only appropriate in areas where public benefits clearly outweigh public costs." Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Good evening, sir. Could you state your name for the record. JOHN CIARELLI: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is John Ciarelli. I am an attorney with the firm Ciarelli and Dempsey. We represent the neighbors on both side, adjacent to the subject property on both sides. I know that Mary Butz, one of our clients who owns the property to the west, has additional evidence that she would like to present at this time consisting of photographs and some comments. MARY BUTZ: First of all, it's a good camera it's really not a good photographer. These photos were taken on Monday, of, what I call Passover Monday. I happened to have been off from work that day. We met a neighbor of ours, Mr. Mallady, who is here. We walked up and down the bluff, yet again. Mr. Mallady does not walk the bluff as often as we do during the summer months. About 150 yards down from the site request for this pool, exists this (shows photograph). CHAIRMAN: We need to see it. You've got a glistening here Miss Butz. M. Butz: These are the steps that went up to the property. CHAIRMAN: We can keep this, right? M. BUTZ: Sure. The Lester property it's called. You can see what happened to the steps. You can see what happened to the land. You can seethe gullies. This is the chair rail going up and the gullies and the streams coming down. The absolute corrosion that's Page 3 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD going on, on this block. You couldn't stage that.' That really is what is going on at this moment. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, could you ask this lady (I'm sOrry) M. BUTZ: My name is Butz (spells it). MEMBER COLLiNS: You don't have to do it right now. But if these photos are going to be put in, I would like a clear annotation on the back of'each one of them. The date it was taken, you've told us, but I would like it on the document; and, where, you said about 150 feet from a place, M. BUTZ: 150 yards MEMBER COLLINS: Please when you have an opporttmity to, come in the office and annotate these pictures. Because, otherwise, they're just pictures. CHAIRMAN: We're doing that as you speak. What did you say the date was? M. BUTZ: I don't have a calendar. The 9th, I know because it was my day off. So I associate it only as that date. This year our holiday... CHAIRMAN: Can I have that picture back so I may...thank you. You may continue. M. BUTZ: Okay, I don't know ifI should move on to the next. I think I'll stop talking about, I was asked simply to speak about the photographs that I had. I took them myself. They were taken on apparently the date of the 9th, or whatever that Monday is. The one that just passed. I took them with a Canon EOS camera. I brought them to a local photography shop and had them blown up and mounted them. I wish I were better at it. But this is one of the primary concerns that we have with this variance. We have many other concerns as well that will come out as we speak. CHAIRMAN: Miss Butz, before you sit down, this is 150 yards from your property due east. M. BUTZ: No, I think it's more appropriate from the Cashy property. We are right next to them. So it is about 150 yards from the Cashy property, the property in question. CHAIRMAN: East of applicant. MEMBER COLLiNS: Which end of applicant's property? I'm not being bloody-minded we're being asked to consider the condition of the bluff and I want to know where. M. BUTZ: I'm not saying that at all. I'm just terrible with directions. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to ask a question Mr. Chairman. Page 4 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Surely. Can I just give these to council so he can look at them. you give those to council. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: What's at the top of this bluff. M. BUTZ: This particularly one? Someone's property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there a swimming pool there? Would M. BUTZ: Next door there is. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, in front of this here? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I'm curious to see what the relationship is between approval and erosion of the bluff. CHAIRMAN: You have to use a mike sir, and you have to state your name. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, before you speak sir, we need your name please. JOHN MALLADY: My name is John Maltady. I own the property ambiguous to the slide. They're on my rightwhen I look out my window. CHAIRMAN: That's east of your property? JOHN MALLADY: Yes, on the east side. I'm 1400, that's 1300, On top of the bluff there is about 110 feet of grass and then a house. I'm talking about the property, and then a house. There is nothing there, as far as, a pool, or weight on that property. The reason I came up is that I thought I could just clarify that, because Miss Butz didn't know that. MEMBER DINIZIO: What would be the cause of that erosion? JOHN MALLADY: I don't mean to be flippant, but if I was on better terms with mother- nature I might be able to answer that. I don't know, what I can tell you is that in the last three or five years, we have had an inordinate amount of water flowing through the area. There are a lot of underground springs up there. Mr. and Mrs. Lester, who are my neighbors to the east where the slide occurred, invested a considerable amount of money 11/2 years ago to let someone fix it. This spring, a northeaster came and unfixed it. I think what is important, also, is if you know the area and you can walk the area; I'm not saying you people should do this, because it's something that we do all the time, that from the point (we call it the point, Horton's point) which is about two properties east of this property we're talking about where the slide is just past that is where the Park District is, there is a little jetty. There are some rocks on the beach, this is where the Park District Page 5 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ends. From that area all the way down to Kemity, which is the old Betty Parson's house, Otto Lindemeyer was next to that, Lester (which is the slide), me and then three more Properties this spring for the first time, we have seen substantial underground water coming out through the bluffs. Every year there's been a little there. We've always had a little bit. There's been a little here, a little there, a little over there. This year, right now, every property you walk down and mother-nature doesn't define by property, as you walk down the bluff from the Parson's property which is 300 feet east of me, down to probably two properties past me which is to the west another 200 feet, there's a lot of water Running down because of the rainfall we had. That has nothing to do with should we build a pool or not build a pool. But, I think it certainly should enter into our thinking when we say, should we do something. That, maybe we should interfere with this bluff unnaturally, because, unfortunately mother-nature may haVe other things in store. But we just don't know. The bluff is not as stable as I've heard people say, "Don't worry, it's been there for a long time, it's not going to change. It has changed, it is changing; and unfortunately, it's changing right now. I haven't really questioned it, but I'd be glad to help you if I can. MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess, in answer to my question, this erosion has occurred naturally. JOHN MALLADY: I can't say it. MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, someone didn't build a house too close to that JOHN MALLADY: The house that's there has been there for, I would guess, eighteen or 20 years. It's back, well it's now not as far back from the bluff as it was 2 years ago. But it's probably, right now, it's back (a guess) 70 feet, 75 feet something like that. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to see if there was something on top. JOHN MALLADY: No, no, they did not do anything two years that said, oh look what happened. No, I don't think so, not at all. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mrs. Tortora has to ask a question. MEMBER TORTORA: I really appreciate listening to testimonies made which you live in an area. I'm going to pick your brain. JOHN MALLADY: Well, thank you very much. MEMBER TORTORA: How long have you lived there? JOHN MALLADY: This is eleven now. MEMBER TORTORA: Has your property eroded back from the bluff line during those eleven years? Page 6 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JOHN MALLADY: We have not, yet. I will have to tell you that, and you probably know, that when you get a slide over here, it has a tendency to go like that. We're probably right on the edge; and it's going to happen unless we do something, or combined we do something to do it. The property east of the slide property, has already been affected. Maybe five to six feet, no dramatic thing, but it's still affected. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not all properties, there's properties that there is obviously some sort of gully. Where there's that gully, then .... Has the overall line of the bluff within 300 feet of the Cashy property? Has that eroded? JOHN MALLADY: Has that eroded? MEMBER TORTORA: Would you say that's receded within the last ten years that she's been there? JOHN MALLADY: You'd have to be talking, to the east. I'm not, I can't say. I think that has happened. But I think I've seen areas where I though, oh gee, last year I thought there was more out here than there is right now. You know, that's not a gospel kind of thing, no. MEMBER TORTORA: In some areas that we've seen in Southold, we've actually seen very, very firm that we've seen. In some cases, we've seen foundations crack. JOHN MALLADY: Oh yes. You see it in Peconic. You see it right at the Lighthouse. You see the fence hanging off at the Lighthouse. That's a little further east. But, this is all just washing down, year after year, after year. The benches they put up last year, on the beach by one part of the Lighthouse, they're gone. They were washed down this spring with the run that hit the Lesters again. So yes, there are changes. For me to say I haven't seen it, doesn't really mean it hasn't happened. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING: The other neighbors aren't here, but to your knowledge, the house immediately to the west of the Cashy property around McKinsey, was that built before the applicant of JOHN MALLADY: Oh yes, it was moved there. Yes, it was there quite some time before. MEMBER HORNING: Before the Cashy house? JOHN MALLADY: The Cashy house is probably the newest house in the area, fight now. MEMBER HORNING: Okay, thank you. Page 7 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEAR1NG TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. CHAIRMAN: Sir, state your name for the record. CHAIRMAN: We know you're the next door neighbor. WILLIAM TOEDTER: William Toedter, and the next door neighbor to the east. To answer Lydia's question, I would say that our property from the bluff on down has had some erosion. It is difficult to see because of the undergrowth. But, as a youngster growing up there and living there for forty years, and walking through the forest and retrieving balls; I can tell you that throughout the whole property and the property now next to us that is being built, we have lost substantial amount of dirt over the years. MEMBER TORTORA: How long have you been there? CHAIRMAN: Forty years, he said. WILLIAM TOEDTER: Forty years, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: How much property would you guess. I'm just asking for a guess. WILLIAM TOEDTER: Property from the bluff on out, from our bluff point? When the house was built, fifty-two years ago now, I believe, what happened is that there was a bulkhead put in at the edge of the bluff there. We haven't lost anything from the bluff line. What we have lost is the portion of the soil that used to be flush with that, going down, has now dropped about five feet down below that bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: You haven't had a slide though? WILLIAM TOEDTER: We haven't had a slide, but, because of the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: Well that's still a slide. That's still an erosion. WILLIAM TOEDTER: But we haven't lost, I guess from the bluff line, What you consider sort of an edge we haven't lost that. But because of the .... CHAIRMAN: Last Saturday, I was back up to your piece of property, yours and your mothers. I spent some time looking over that edge that you were referring to right now. You certainly can see that there is some movement there. I hope you don't mind that I went up there. It is an absolutely magnificent spot. I did see some movement. There's no question about it. Any other questions of this gentleman? Ladies and gentlemen. Page 8 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD No. We thank you. DIANE RAVITCH: My name is Diane Ravitch, and I share the property directly to the west with Mary Butz. We purchased the house in 1999. The house was built in 1895. It is one of the historic houses of Southold. There's a photograph of the house on the wall right outside on the other side of the corridor. It's described as the Marshall Estate. Half of the house was torn down in 1932. It was next door to the Cahoon Estate, the two houses were side by side. The Cahoon Estate was ripped down, thrown away. Half the Marshall Estate was ripped down and the remaining half was brought, I think by barge, that's the story I was told to a second location in 1932. The house is an absolutely amazing antique structure. It sits on a very low piece of land and the question came up at the last hearing, why were we so concerned about this pool. In addition to the other forces and concerns the neighbors have, the particular concern that I have is, that we will be .looking at a wall that encloses this pool that will loOk like a structure on the L.I.E. We will be, because of the grade, their pool will be over our heads. Their pool will be eye- level with our second floor. I have an office on the second floor, and when they have parties, I will be eye-to-eye with people on the patio. When we are in our yard, we will be looking at their underside. From our yard, from our door and from our windows, we will be looking at a wall that is 30 feet wide and 8 feet high. This is such an esthetic intrusion, that we feel that this is a terrible invasion of our privacy, our tranquility, and will have most certainly a detrimental effect on our property value. I can't imagine that when we saw this house and feel in love with it, that we would've fallen in love with it had we seen a structure 30 feet wide and about 8 feet high attached by this 70 foot long structure towering over our heads. From the ground it will be obsessive kind of barricade over our heads. So, when I think about this looming over us, this forbidding fortress-like structure that is about to be built, it is very frightening, it's very upsetting. I can't think of anything that could mitigate the esthetic ugliness of this structure. Thank you. I'll be glad to answer any questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Yes, MEMBER TORTORA: You're primary concern is the visual impact of the wall? DIANE RAVITCH: I think it would be, A: very ugly, and because it is so ugly and imposing on our privacy, that it would damage our property value. I think, that therefore, it is something that we find very intolerable. MEMBER TORTORA: If there were no wall involved, would, the proposed pool be a concern to you? DIANE RAVITCH: Well it would be hard to imagine, I mean, everything that they've shown us now. since they first brought this forward, has involved this large structure facing us. The change in the grade, this wall, the change in the grade that is particularly oppressive and it is hard for me to imagine that this could be changed in such a way that It would not be looming over us, because of the change in grade. Their property towers Page 9 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Over us. Their deck is 12 feet over us. We currently have a four-foot bulkhead between our property and theirs, which has trees in it; and behind that four-foot bulkhead, would be an eight-foot bulkhead, at least eight feet. Thank you. I don't know if this will convey it, but this is, standing on our property, this was taken on the same day, April 9th (showing a photo) standing on our lawn and looking up at their deck. You can see the four-foot bulkhead, in front of us, it's five-feet in some places, but then, above that is the deck and the pool will be built up almost to the same level as the deck. The deck is 10 feet over the current bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: We can keep this Miss Ravitch? DIANE RAVITCH: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN: We are ready for you council. JOHN CIARELLI: Thank you. I would like to offer to the board that a real estate appraiser has testified, I believe, on the second hearing of this matter. I had asked him to review the changes that the applicant has made to the proposal. Essentially lowering the elevation of the deck of the pool, approximately 2.4 feet and moving and shifting some of the components of the application to the east. Aside from the fact that shifting, I think that shift was in response to some of the concerns about noise. Those concerns were merely shifted over to impact the neighbors to the east, more than the neighbors to the west. That really didn't solve the problem. But, I want to offer a letter that Mr. Gibbon, who still finds a negative effect on the property value associated with the project even though it has been modified to a certain extent. I know that this is the fourth night that you have been here, considering this application. CHAIRMAN: We really hope we can close it tonight. JOHN CIARELLI: I hope so too. We have looked at some of the decisions that this board has made considering similar applications. Not in the same area, because, this area really doesn't have any pools. I believe that the record contains evidence to the fact that, of the thirty-six properties that comprise this neighborhood, there are only two pools. One of them is, incidentally, immediately to the west of the Ravitch/Butz property; but that pool is almost at sea level. It's slightly higher than beach level, because, right after the applicant's property, the property continues to slope down; whereas the Ravitch/Butz property is much, much lower. The property to the west, is even, it's probably the same dimensions or lower. So that pool is down near the water, probably an elevation of 10 or 12 feet. Quite frankly, I don't know where the other one is. The aerial shows it could be a significant distance away. So this is not an area that is characterized by common use of swimming pools. I know you have considered these types of applications in the past, you have looked to see what the neighborhood has looked like and whether pools are common in the area. The pools are not common in this area. As a result, it's our contention that there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Miss Ravitch Page 10 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Has spoken to the esthetic impact of this project, actually the.pool is propos'ed at an elevation of 44.8 feet. I believe that at the property line, the elevation is approximately 35 feet. At some places, there is a 3, 3 ½ or 4 55 railroad tie retaining wall. There will be another 7 or 8 foot railroad tie retaining wall. It's going to extend, I mean I don't need to describe it, because Miss Ravitch described it quite adequately. It's a significant structure, it will have a significant esthetic impact. It's going to have the kind of adverse effect that you look to on previous applications to see whether this would unjustifiably intrude on the neighbor and we believe that it does. Shifting the hot tub to the east only adds to the burden that our clients to the east will have to endure. There's a hot tub, so there's going to have to be a heater. There are pumps, and the noise that is going to be generated, not only from the people who justifiably and understandably will use the pool, but from the equipment that is associated with. Nobody here wants to deprive anybody of the right to use th~eir property. In this particular case, it's just that they have maximized their right to use their property by building the house where and the way that they did. You have also considered, in the other applications, whether this benefit that they want, the pool, could be achieved by some other way. Right now you might say, they can't achieve it any other way, because that deck is built right to the 100 foot line. But, in reality, they could have achieved this some other way two years or three years ago when they conceived of and built this house. So, answer to that question, is yes. The applicant could have reasonably sought the benefit of a pool by not building his or her house up to the hilt, right up to the line. The site plan shows that the deck and the house are built right up to that 100 foot line. That wasn't invert ant, that was intentional. The applicant will say that was a result of restrictions, health restrictions that were out of our control. We don't believe that it was out of their control. Another thing you also consider is the size and the substance of the variance. I believe, consistent with your other decisions. I also believe consistent with, Mr. Cuddy has said on the record, that it's undisputed. That this is a substantial variance of 26% of 100, 26% of the setback as being encroached on. Are there physical and environmental impacts, negative impacts, associated with this application. Obviously, Mr. Mallady's comments were compelling and we appreciate the support from the North Fork Environmental Council. Because, as a general concept, I know you know, that this is a problem. The town has to consider these types of setback variances different than they consider setback variances that do not have potential environmental consequences. So that it's one thing to allow someone to vary their sideyard to accommodate a porch or a shed; and, it's another thing to vary the setback variance as it is set back off of a bluff line or a coastal erosion area. So, for that reason, even though there is no engineer to say that the installation of this pool will have an adverse impact on the stability of the bluff, we all are confronted with natural forces that override all of these concerns. And certainly there would have been an engineer, two or three years ago, to say that on the Lester property, the installation of a pool wouldn't have an adverse impact on the bluff. But then again you had natural forces undermining the Lester property. You can see that. You can see that if you go there. You've heard it from Mr. Mallady. Erosion for no apparent reason other than natural causes. That should send a red flag up'with respect to this application. It should send a red flag up with respect to your decision as to whether you are going to allow an encroachment on this setback by 26% for a pool, which we might distinguish from a house or some living area. But, this in essence is a pool. It's not critical to the use and enjoyment of one's property, Page 11 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD where pools are uncommon in the area. And where there, obviously have, it's waterfront property. So the question 0fwhether a pool is necessary for the use and enjoyment of a property, is a question that has to be answered in the context whether or not this is waterfront property. Is the need self-created? Mr. (line 74, side A, tape 2) I respect, the need is not self-created, because we had to comply with the health department's 100 foot setbacks between wells and septic systems. Rather than constructing the building tight to the line, that 100 foot line, the applicant could have modified the design to accommodate the Health Department and accommodate the future need for a pool. It's not enough to say that the Health Department imposed 100 foot setback. We couldn't do anything about it.. This hardship itself created, because, in the face of Health Department regulations, the applicant still decided to build this building to the hilt. It's a large house, and they built it without consideration for future needs. That's really a significant amount of concern. If they anticipated the need for a pool, then they failed to make provision for it by building the house to the line. If they didn't anticipate the need for a pool, then it couldn't be that important to them. They've chosen to use their property in this way, and they have realized the use and enjoyment of their property. We've heard that the NFEC concern that this is an undesirable precedent; Mr. Mallady has said that on previous occasion. We feel that if this board grants a various of 26% for a swimming pool, not for a house, it will be in effect changing the line to 26%. We feel most respectfully that there are few structures that might be presented to you for a vatiance that would less justify an intrusion or encroachment on this bluff than a swimming pool. So that by granting this for a swimming pool from 26% to 74 feet, you're neve~ going to be able to deny any kind of accessory structure for 74 feet. You are in essence changing the line in that area to 74 feet. I don't believe that's justified. Your neighbors do not deserve to be subjected to these adverse impacts on something that either wasn't a significant consideration to the applicants a couple of years ago when they built the house; or it's an example of that, I hate to say it, development maxim let's build to the hilt and then we'll ask for more later. We urge you to deny the variance for all of the five reasons that the statute tells you to consider and we really appreciate the time and effort you've made considering this application. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MARY BUTZ: I just would like to inform everyone on the Zoning Board, that this is the only piece of property that I own, the only piece of property that I own. 'I sold a house in Bay Ridge invested my money and looked for three or four years to find this house. Losing 10% of it's value will have dramatic impact on my fiscal well being, for an incidental item. So, I just want that to be known. It's not my vacation property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Council. Mr. Cuddy? We would like to wrap this up tonight, if it's all right with you. CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: My understanding is you want to close the heating. Page 12 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: That is correct. CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Often when I sat there I look at you, and you look at us, and say that probably you would like us to go quickly and quietly. I will try and do both, but I would like to say a few things considering the testimony that has been given. We appeared here many months ago, and when we did, there were certain things that were brought to our attention by our opponents. We attempted to make every effort, at the chairman's urging and the board's urging, to compromise with our neighbors. Our neighbors had indicated to us that, by letter, it was in offering; and currently, they've had a change of mind, as well as, a change of council. I'm disappointed, but I would like to say to you I now understand what a moving target is. When we first came, people were worded about drainage; they were worried about bluff stabilizations. They were worded about noise. We virtually didn't hear about that as to this property. We heard about bluff stabilization a football field and a half away, 150 yards. That's not this property. It's not even close to this property. But, that was what we heard from them. You have before you conservation statement from the county, an unbiased source, saying that it isn't a stabilization problem at this particular site. The noise issue has seemed to abate, somewhat, after our noise expert testified. There is, in fact, not really a noise concern. We're going to hand up shortly the statement of Mr. Penesis who is here tonight, but that's gone. Each time'that we did something, they countered, so that we now have a whole different scenario before us. We're now worded about the esthetics. We have our landscape architect here. I think he can testify shortly, very quickly. I think he will show you, not only are we on level piece of land, in lieu of the site; but that we are going to, we said to you we will, have sufficient foliage there so that this will block this very big concern that seems to be apparent now. I would like to go back, because I want to tell you that we made the effort that you asked us to make with our neighbors. Neighbors who write us saying, through their attorney, that they want to make an effort to resolve this problem. So we moved the pool, we moved the hot tub, we shorted the pool. We said to them we would put in more landscaping. We did all of those things, and, on the verge of finding out that we had a compromise, we had none. So all of this time, there appears to be a sham. What they're saying to us is, under any circumstances, we don't want the pool. It would have been nice if they came forward and said that four to six months ago. They could have done that. Instead, we've been led down this path where we're going to find a reason, any reason at all to stop it. I don't think the reasons are sufficient. We!ve gone through, we've had testimony. We've had testimony from engineers, including your engineer, who really didn't disagree with our engineer. We've had testimony from a noise expert. We've had evaluation testimony. We've had virtually all the testimony that was necessary, under any circumstance on a bluff case, to obtain approval for a pool. What this amounts to is someone who has a house much further into the bluff than our pool will be, telling us that we shouldn't use our area. But, when they talked to us about what you should have, whether you should have a pool or whether you should have a deck. Let me tell you, if we'd asked to put a deck in this pool. Or anything that would be improving to the bluff, they would be here opposing us. They would be saying to us, don't come to the site. Theirs is a general upset, it's not a specific upset. Page 13 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD They don't want a pool. They don't want us to use the area where our pool will be. · Whether it's a patio, whether it's a volley ball net, they just don't want us to use that area. I don't think that is opposition that's sufficient to defeat the pool, and I would hope that you would not either. Because, then anybody, fi'om any neighborhood can oppose an application; would say to you, we don't like it you should defeat it. Because, that is essentially what has happened here. I would point out to you, again, that we attempted to work with them, we, because they really didn't want us to work with them. I have decisions With me, a letter, that granted pool and deck variances in the last eight years on the bluff. On the blufffrom Mattituck to East Marion. Most of the decisions are in the last three or four years. Half of them are pools, half them are decks; six poOls, five decks. Nearly all of them involVed narrow lots. Nearly all of them involved a more substantial than 26% variance. I say to you, that in each case, when we went through criteria similar to what you have in this case, and you've found that these did not disturb that criteria. I'm sure you've proven that met the criteria. I believe that that's the case here. I believe that we have a similar situation. I believe that we have testimony that supports the same findings that were made here. I'll hand these out, and I ask that you, in considering this application, recognize what the applicant has done. Recognize that the applicmnt has made the effbrt to work his neighbors, and he was effectively rejected then. The applicant here is not asking for an intrusion on his neighbors. The applicant here is doing what many other applicants do, and that is trying and makes use of their property. Yes, they're making use of their (Side A, tape 2 line #422) but there's nothing wrong with that that I know of. I really would hope that the board would look very carefully at the arguments that have been made, because they keep moving. When one argument isn't good, we throw another one at them. I don't think there is a specific argument that prevail against this pool. I would Mr. Bosman to testify briefly about the landscaping which has been brought up tonight, because of the enormous wall that is going to be on level with the pool. Is going to be around the retaining area. But all of that is going to be screened. We said that before, we're saying it now. That, in itself, certainly (inaudible) MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Cuddy, I just want to say one thing. Yes, this board has reviewed applications for setbacks from bluffs and __ on'Long Island Sound, from Mattituck to East Marion. However, I think, and all of the board members should agree, each area in our Township and the shoreline is very different. We look at them very differently. In some areas are and in other areas, when the board makes it's decision, it looks at that particular error, not on all the past issues. The other thing I wanted to ask you is, one of the things we always look at, is alternate locations on the property. I don't know how much we've discussed that with you, so let's discuss it now. What has prevented you from putting the pool in the front yard? MR. CUDDY: The cesspool and well are there. MEMBER TORTORA: The cesspool is, I'm talking about the relatively, because it's a waterfront lot you have a choice of which area you want to concern, the front yard or the rear yard. I'm talking about the area south of the cesspool. MR. CUDDY: So putting it out towards the street? Page 14 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. CUDDY: Well, number one, I think the distance between the cesspool and the street is not significant. It's perhaps, it's that mark under here. That wOuld have a lot to do with trying to get a pool in that location and to set up all the things that you normally need for a pool. I think it would be difficult to put it in that location. MEMBER TORTORA: Because of?. MR. CUDDY: Because A; of the cesspool, and B; of the, where that would have to come out of that side. Ijust think it would be hard for them to. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm serious. Is there a certain requirement of a certain distance that a pool has to be from the cesspool? I'm not aware of it. MR. CUDDY: Well, I think then you get into a information question, as to, how much the pool is, versus where the cesspools are. I think that would be a problem. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, it's a fuzzy area to me, but that is one of the things that MR. CUDDY: I would be glad to push on everyone here to comment on it. MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like the elevations are relatively stable in that area. MR. CUDDY: I'll have him comment so you can CHAIRMAN: State your name for the record. By the way, I didn't swear you in, but you're officially sworn in. (___?): The entrance to the park area, to the drive area is landscaped totally and would involve large tree clearing on the property. Since there were a lot of trees that were cleared to put the property in. MEMBER TORToRA: Is the area fairly level then? ( ?): It's level behind the stone wall, but it does slope down. MEMBER TORTORA: Is the elevation clear like 57 all the way over to 54 does not look like it's, anyway the elevations look much higher than the area where the proposed pool is, much more unstable. (__?) It seems rather level in that area, but it would involved a lot of land clearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could I have your name please, I'm sorry. Page 15 ApriI 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD GARRETT BOSSEN: My name is Garrett Bossen. MEMBER TORTORA: Under the criteria that we look at, it's very simple; that there is no other alternative location on the property that would not require variances. MR. CUDDY: (INAUDIBLE) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I'm not catching what you're saying. MR. CUDDY: ! said I would give you an engineer's statement so that you have that for the record. The buffers will have the , because I believe that there is a problem putting it in that location. MEMBER TORTORA: I would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, while you're still there, normally, and of course, I haven't discussed alternate relief either. This applicant also has the ability to take a portion of that deck down and put this pool as close to, structurally as close to the house as possible. Which would push it way back into the, in the house area. That's another alternate location. MR. CUDDY: To remove the deck? CHAIRMAN: A portion of the deck. Yes. And actually put the pool underneath the deck, closer to the house. Let me just back track, okay. I haven't looked at your list of places that we've granted variances on. Okay. Let me just mention two things to you. We take houses in Mattituck on the 150 foot highest location above the sound very seriously, because there is a significant amount of erosion in those areas. If the major portion of the applications that you've given us that we've granted are in the pebble beach area, we find those to be a little less environmentally unsound; because, they have series of lips on their bluffs. Some of those bluffs in the pebble beach area have almost three lips. It's a gradual contour with lips going down before you get down to the actual beach area. Although the height is similar, in reference to the height. We're just mentioning ~ that, that's some of the reasons why we've, dealt with that. It appears to me that in this specific area, Horton's Point, has always been an area which has some significant erosion. I'm not saying that this applicant's properly is specifically, in Horton's Point; but, it's within the area of Horton's Point. We'do have an application before us just on the other side of the steps that lead down to the beach at Horton's Point Lighthouse. The conservation has commented on it and asked us to go to another agency. So, I consider, and correct me if I'm wrong, and that's the reason I'm bringing this issue up. I consider Horton's Point very similar to Mattituck. All right. Let me just give you an example. I have a father-in-law who lives on the bluffs in Mattituck. His property is about 162 feet high. He, in the mid-80's had to move the house back 140 feet. That house now sits back Page 16 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 140 feet. The reason why I consider these to be very similar is because, I think, they had very similar soil content. Although, I think Horton's Point is rockier, at the beach area than some of the beach areas in west Mattituck. When I say west Mattituck, I refer to west of the inlet. They have a similar clay situation. When you have erosion and the clay strips, the sand strips away; the clay comes out and is exposed, the clay shears off in certain places. That's why I consider Horton's Point similar to Mattituck, in that respect. It also has similar height analogies. So, I'm just saying in general that there are some areas in town where we have less environmental problems and there are areas where we have more. So, we take a look at those a little more stringently than we do others, and, of course, we deal with soil and water conservation, significantly. One of the main concerns that ! had with your applicant's property was that of drainage and that drainage field that exists. Of course, we've addressed that issue to a certain degree, in your mind. I'm not sure I'm totally agreeable with it, based upon significance of that wall, a bank that exists between the Butz/Ravitch end of your applicant's house, in the respect that I've just never seen a drainage system like that before. Toward the bluff, but, that's not a ...... 8:15 - MEMBER HORNING LEAVES THE HEARING. CHAIRMAN: So in reality, there are still additional concessions that, we do appreciate that you mentioned the fact that you did try to arrive at some happy medium with the neighbors. But, in general, there are still additional concessions that your applicants could agree to that would place this in a different location. Either, adjacent to the house, or in the location that Mrs. Tortora was referring to. I am just mentioning that in general. That's it. MR. CUDDY: I just want to comment a little bit on the stabilization issue. The testimony has been, by knowing you, their side or our side, that it really poses a problem. Also, by the soil conservation people. I agree, that that's certainly a very serious consideration. That's why the first thing we did was to go to them and say this was a problem. That they would probably agree with us. The answer was no. The answer from their engineer was that, it was not a stabilization problem. The answer from conservation bureau was that it was not a stabilization problem. I understand there are fences that do have that problem. It could occur any place, at any time. Unfortunately, The house location of other people will also be effected by that type of situation. What we are saying here is that we're going distance into the bluff, not a great distance into the bluff, and that bluff from all testimony that we had, it is stable at that point. And I believe that's true, based on the testimony. We would, again, be pleased to have that effect once more. I believe there is even further evidence, that other agencies don't believe that this particular site is the problem. You can see, granted the stairs; down that slope. Based upon (inaudible). So, I think all the evidence would show, that at some length the stabilization would be effective on this particular site. I understand Mrs. Tortora has a serious problem because of (inaudible). MEMBER TORTORA: That's a requirement under the law. Page 17 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MR. CUDDY: I understand. I absolutely will move aggressively so that, hopefully, you will be satisfied. ! would like for them, taking a lot of time (inaudible) qUestion about this walt in a different situation. CHAIRMAN: Could I just touch one last area on that, and I'll leave it at that point. As I said to you before, I have never seen a drain in that situation, where it's been placed in the lowest area of the property tOward the bluff. We have had testimony from Miss Butz who has indicated to us, that she has had water in her basement of her house. I truly, truly, honestly believe, and I know the drainage calculations that you have given us. I know the significant tailing of the drains that are going to go back on that side of the property. I honestly believe, that that particular situation really has caused some of the water intrusion in the Butz/Ravitch house. That's my opinion. That is not an opinion by anybody else. Based upon the fact that that drain sits there. That's just it. I'm going to leave it at that point. MR. CUDDY: I would add one of the things, Mr. Penesis was here last time. He made a short statement; I'll give you a copy of it to the opposing attorney. Just simply bringing his testimony so that you have it. I had also given to you, and I don't think I mentioned it on the record, that Mr. Ingegno had given us a statement, indicating the location of the pool and the well and this close to the house. I just wanted to confirm that with you - MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. CIARELLI: With respect to the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation report, I disagree with Mr. Cuddy, in the sense that I don't believe it's a green light for this project. The technician points out many potential hazards, potential causes of erosion that can be created by this particular project. I think, also, that all of the issues that you've spent a lot of time over the last year considering are still before the board. We don't wish to abandon any of the significant concerns; like the drainage, like the noise. Potential erosion is not a new issue that was created tonight. These are concerns that moved on throughout this proceeding. I know that noise; it's in the record as a particular concern with Miss Ravitch, who works there. I just wanted you to know that We have given this serious consideration. We have given the applicants these serious considerations. We have given everything that has been presented to you over this period of time, serious consideration and still consider them serious issues. I am sure, with respect to whether people certify things as adequate and competent, I'm sure the D.E.C. gave the Lester's a permit with their steps that we see in those pictures are on the downside of the slope. They felt in good faith, that the slope and the terrain there was sufficient to hold those steps and to keep them stable over the years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead. MR. TOEDTER: I just like to correct something. Jim Toedter, again. I think, Bob Hyatt's daughter, Jerry, who lives on the property said it best when all this came up. She Page 18 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD said, "It's a shame 10 or 15 years ago we, as a community, would get together and talk about changes. Even if Mr. Lindermeyer was making a change to his property 150 yards away, we, as a community, stopped by and talk to him. At no point has council, has the property owners, from the day the house was built until today, approached the Toedter household about any of these issues. Until last meeting, we were not represented by council. Until last meeting, until the pool was shoved over to our side of the property, for council to say that we approved that as neighbors, is totally inaccurate and a false statement. We, at no time, had a chance to do, talk with the property owners, or talk with the council to give a blessing to something that would be so close to our property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir? MR. BOSSEN: Is there a picture showing the, CHAIRMAN: Yes, right here. MR. BOSSEN: From the time that I, previously, that you received the last meeting. From the point where you see on this picture, where these evergreens are, it would be another row of 9 feet each, doubling up this row here. And then, at the point where it ends, would be approximately 25 to 15 foot barrier. Then the line would continue on up to the point, almost to the end of the neighbor's house. Far enough, so that when you are in the pool area, you would not be able to see people in the pool. You would not be able to see the neighbors. So this view would not be there. This view would have all these trees in this location. The retaining wall would not be shown, you couldn't see that. You wouldn't be able to see anything. Unless you were peeking through the bushes look at the neighbor's property. CHAIRMAN: Any questions for this gentleman? You must pose the questions to the Board sir. MR. BOSSEN: Let me address that. At the point that I was contracted to design the planting plan, the only issue that was posed to me was to screen the neighbors to the southwest. Upon hearing the concerns of the other neighbors, I would be most definitely planting upon the eastern side of the property, similarly, to screen out noise, sight, anything that would be a problem on that side. At the point when I drew this, it was not a concern; it was not addressed to me. But it will be when the design is planted; there will be plantings on that side of the property. CHAIRMAN: Thank YOu. Any questions of this gentleman? Just a minute, Diane. Any questions of this gentleman, ladies and gentlemen? Okay. Miss Ravitch. MISS RAVITCH: Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity, I am Diane Ravitch, to speak to a point that Mr. Cuddy made. He said that we did not complain about the noise. I think the record is very clear, that we were very concerned about the noise. I have to Page 19 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TO~VN OF SOUTHOLD submit that I am a professional writer, I have published seventeen books. I have a book that came out in September. I am writing another book now. I work in Southold. My office overlooks the area where the pool will go. I will be at eye level with the people walking around the deck. I am very concerned. We moved here, because we wanted to retire here and I wanted to write here. I thought this would be an extremely quiet, tranquil environment. I did anticipate that I would be eye level with a deck, a patio and a swimming pool and a hot tub. I respect their right to use their property. But I would suggest, if you look at their map that has been submitted, there are other places they can put a pool. But, I am very, very concerned about the noise. I am sure it will be intrusive. And I thought, that technically, the noise expert was dubious to me; because I have a location. My location will be turned up, literally, 12 feet from, well we're 6 feet from the property line) unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Yes, last, quick comment. UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: Could I just say something, because my testimony was brought up? CHAIRMAN: Okay MR. PENESIS: Dan Penesis, I testified last time. I understand that Miss Ravitch is a writer. I don't know what it means that, it's dubious, what I said. The allegations that were made by Mr. Petrnlli, "regarding the activity of the water and the bowl of sound energy rolling down the hill." I would be glad to repeat that. The activity that is going to take place there, in the pool, is, frankly, no different than kids playing ball or people having a party. That's what I said. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir. Quickly, please. JOHN MALLADY: I'm John Mallady, just, very quickly. One or two comments to Mr. Cuddy, was that maybe a moving target is hard to find. I was here the first night of the first hearing, and I said basically what I said tonight. We're concerned about the bluff, we're concerned about slide, and we're concerned about erosion. Now, if he didn't remember that -- CHAIRMAN: Please, mister - sir. There is no theatrics here. JOHN MALLADY: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman I apologize. #2 Mr. Cuddy made a comment that he felt, that while they tried to work out some sort of a compromise here. Now he's to the point where he thinks that no matter what his client'wanted to do, it was going to be, that with no. I would agree with that 155% from my perspective. Because, if he wants to do anything that's going to invade that bluff; I would say, I'm against it. I'm sorry, I'm against it. I don't care who was building it or what it was, or what it was going to look like. I also take a little bit of a front; I've been described, as "he's a football field away, who cares". I care. Thank you, sir. Page 20 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: We want to thank everybody. This has been a very extensive hearing. MEMBER TORTORA: Your written reasons why no other alternative is acceptable? CHAIRMAN: You will give those reasons to council, at the time that you submit them to us, to Counsel, once you receive them, Sir, you can have five business days to respond to them. Please send your response to Mr. Cuddy. MR. CIARELLI: Of course. CHAIRMAN: So we will close this hearing to no further testimony. We will officially close it on May 3"d MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you all very much. End of Hearing. CHAIRMAN: We realize you're all here; we just have been sitting here since about 6:15. We're just going to take about a three-minute recess and, we'll be right back. 8:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN: Motion MEMBER TORTORA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, Aye (all) 8:40 p.m. AppI. No. DORIS ANDERSON (owner) and JOHN HURTADO. Applicants request variances under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A. 1, based on the Building Department's December 20, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a new dwelling with setbacks at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff, less than 30 feet from combined side yard setbacks, and less than 40 feet from the front property line. Location: 3400 Lighthouse Road, Southold; 1000-50-2-2. CHAIRMAN: We are to review the letter from the Soil and Water Conservation, which I believe I mentioned tonight at the prior hearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're going to recess that with a date? CHAIRMAN: Yes, recess it to June. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have to give a date. May 31st you were going tO... Page 21 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN' OF SOUTHOLD SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:43 p.m. Appl. No. 4924 - JOHN M. and MAUREEN JOHN. Lot Waiver request for property located at Captain Kidd Estates, Mattituck. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald, we asked you to interpret something for us from the Assessor's Card. MR. FITZGERALD: Those are two different lots. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you'd like to add to this hearing? We thank you for bringing this in. We didn't mean to bring you out tonight. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't have anything new. I would just like to, if you like, I will comment on the comments from the __ who are against it. Would that be appropriate? CHAIRMAN: As long as you do it relatively quickly, if you don't mind. MR. FITZGERALD: The comments, in general, indicate that the people who signed the petition think that the Johns should have, or did, know about the change in the zoning regulations in 1983; when, in fact, they didn't own the property in 1983. They may have read it in the newspaper or something like that, but they didn't own the property until 1985. One of the points that they make in the petition is, referring several times to the small size of the lot. Eight of the people that signed the petitions have lots which are the same size or smaller than the lot we would like to have formed, by the waiver of the merger. They're the lots which I indicated at the last meeting. That would fall under the original sub-division which was approved by the town. So I think I have indicated each of the requirements, under Paragraph 100-26, I think is to be found acceptable, if the merger is met. There will be no significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. There would be two houses instead of one house built on that property, which would be less than a 5% increase. It's the same density that was anticipated in the subdivision, which was originally approved. Both lots would be consistent in size with the other lots of the neighborhood as indicated. In the immediate neighborhood, looking at the map with the colored annotations that I gave you last week, there is 38 lots in that area. Only 10 of them are larger than the proposed merged lots. Economic hardship, in a situation like this, you can generally expect to realize 30% less selling the property as one large lot, than you would selling it as two individual lots. Whether that be now, or fifty years Page 22 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD from now. Someone mentioned last time that, in addition to the time when the properties were in joint ownership of Mr. John and his sister, there was another time previous to that when they were held in Mr. John's father's ownership at the same time. So there were two separate periods when the merger would have taken effect. The transfer of the property from the father to the daughter and the son took place in 1985, which was past the 1983 change in the zoning law. Natural details that carry for the land and carry for the contours and so forth, will not be significantly changed, because it is anticipated that they would be used as building lots. The requirements of the waiver of the merger are essentially the same kinds of things that the Building Department requires when people applying for a permit to put a building on the property. I rest my case. I would be happy to answer any of your questions. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from anyone on the Board regarding the agent for the applicant? Miss Collins, Mrs. Totora, Mr. D? No, okay thank you sir. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application. Yes, could you use the mike and state your name? JOHN EPIDY: My name is John Epidy, and I live on Ruth Road, which left of Zena and Ruth. The reason that I'm here is that, I would like to thank the Board, first of all, for disapproving it to begin with. Because, of the law change in 1983 I believe. The reason Why it was put there, it was to save God the rest of the neighborhood. It was there to save God from overpopulating it and, in doing so, we would have more freedom. It would no longer start to look like Queens. If this is to continue, I could apply for a lot that I've got; and I could say, hey guys, let's cut it in half. Let's make it 50 by 125 and I could build two houses on that property. This is not what the purpose of that law that was instituted by in 1983. Mr. John knew it when he purchased it. He knew everything about it; and when they inherited the property, they also knew it. They knew it while the man was alive. How do I know this? I'm his son-in-law. There's my wife, over here, and she will verify the fact that Mr. John did know about it. I would like to thank you, first of all, for that postponement. I think that was very, very nice of you. I was away, and I appreciate it. Second of all, I would like to thank you for abiding by the law. Because, there has to be a time where we have to say no. CHAIRMAN: Just remember, John, we haven't made a decision yet. That was the building department. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry, I just wanted you to be aware of that. We held this in abeyance so that you could speak. Just so you know. We didn't make a decision. JOHN EPIDY: Oh, all right. No, I said the first decision. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the decision that was made, the zoning that was made. Page 23 Aphl 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JOHN EPIDY: Absolutely, that's what I was referring to. I'm not referring to now what's coming up. I'm here to say that you should continue. I'm proud of you guys. You held steadfast the first time, and I hope that you do so the second time, with no pressure on. It's just seems to be a continuing of I want it, I want it, I want it; and it's all over money. No one is getting hurt here as far as dollars are concerned. Now, as fax as a continuation, I don't know if it really goes on, with these small lots. Just the last month and a half, there was a hole built. It was just one lot, right down the coruer from me, adjacent to my brother's property. Do you know that they just come in there and they just mow everything right down, right down. Everything is discarded. They've got machines; they come and take the trees, shred it and cut it right down to the ground. Here comes the guy that's supposed to put the cesspools in. In three sections, 4 x 8; that's 12 feet into the ground. They take that dirt and they just move it around, like it's going out of style. They also have to do the same thing to put in a basement, to include the footings and the wall. That lot doesn't look the same, no way, no how. What are we to do here? We have additional cesspools, instead of one; we're going to have two. Instead of one house, we've got two. One road in, one road out. Cox Neck Road into our area, Cox Neck out of our area. What does it do? More cars. They have one family, they have four cars. So I would like the Board to consider what I have to say, and rule the way you went the first time. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be changed. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. JOHN EPIDY: Thank you very much for listening to me. I certainly do appreciate it. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak on behalf of this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision to later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4930 - JANE ROSS AND JON SCHRIBER. Request for addition to dwelling and recent Amendment to include an additional variance under Article III, Section 100-244B, for the location of an "as built" pergola structure located I the front yard an existing patio construction at less than 35 feet from the front property line, at 1295 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk; 117-3-10. CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is 4930 on behalf of Jane Ross and others. I believe we asked you a question last time, sir, regarding the pergola. Could you state your name for the record again, sir. ROBERT LEONARD: Robert Leonard, Boulevard Planning East, Architects. Page 24 April 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: What are you going to tell us about the pergola? ROBERT LEONARD: Okay, We're trying to maintain the pergola in the condition it's in. Currently it's 96 sq. ft. of coverage. As you can see from the photos I just handed out, the only thing touching the ground are the six columns. It's an open structure. Yes, it's too close to the road. Because of the location of the house and the property, it's a long and narrow lot. The only place we could do the proposed construction and maintain this pergola, anything we could do would require variance relief. CHAIRMAN: That was the purpose of my asking you that question, okay. My suggestion is that you go back to the building department; and, you get a second notice of disapproval. That we treat both of the applications together, we'll hold this one in abeyance. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I already advertised it, because it's the same disapproval as the front yard. You don't really need a new one. But, if you still require it, it's okay. CHAIRMAN: It's not necessary, in my opinion. I apologize. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify what we just said. The Notice of Disapproval that started this was for this addition they want to put on the house. It was a setback from the road, was the reason for the disapproval. If I understand what you're saying is the pergola's violation is also that it is too close the road. Therefore, Linda, in fact, advertised it as a package deal. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Somehow I was aware of that, but I didn't think of it at this point. I apologize. Okay, continue. Sorry, I apologize. MR. LEONARD: I'm going to kind of explain the pergola and the addition. I already spoke to you about the location of the house and the property. The only place we can Build without a variance would be towards the water. The side yard where, or the front yard, where it sits, is treated more like a side yard, the way they use the property. That's where we're proposing an addition for the rear of the house. That's also where the pergola exists. As you can see in my application, we already have permission from the D.E.C. for this screen porch. If you go to the screen porch, approximately half of the screen porch, 152 square feet of a 285 square foot proposed screen porch, will be in need of variance relief. It's going to violate the 35-foot front yard setback. We feel the application for both the pergola and the screen porch, remains in the character of the neighborhood. Most of the lots surrounding here have the same difficulty. They're small lots, and the houses are tucked to one side or the other. If you've been there, directly Page 25 Ap~51 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD across the street, to the west, there is an accessory garage that actually sits about two feet from the street. If the variance is granted with the pergola and the proposed screen porch, we'll still be only covering 13-½% of a maximum 20% lot coverage. CHAIRMAN: I go there everyday, I keep my boat across the street. So it's an area that's very, very dear to me. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions of the agent? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I guess not. I understand the property, I'm not sure how I feel about the addition, but I do understand it. CHAIRMAN:' You understand why we did what we did, so that we comprehensively got both things together. I guess what we'll do is, we'll very simply ask if there is anybody else that would like to speak in favor. Seeing no hands. Would anybody like to speak against? There's nobody else in the audience, except that nice young lady in the back. So then, we'll close the heating and hope to have a decision for you in the near future. We thank you for, this a milestone in itself, by our illustrious assistant here, for co- advertising this and getting it done. The office sent me notices to the neighbors and everything. CHAIRMAN: That's wonderful. Okay, we hope to have a decision for you in the near future. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I need somebody to second that please. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION CHAIRMAN: Can we help you with something (directed to woman in the back)? (UNKNOWN PERSON) (Inaudible) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think what he's saying is that was on the agenda, but they're not going to address it now, I guess. CHAIRMAN: We're still working on a decision. We hope to have it on May 3. I don't know if it will be before or after the hearing. I mean, if we intend to entertain it or not. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody,want to address, anything toni.ght, before we 1.eave? END OF HEARING