HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/07/2001 HEARINGPresent were:
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
HELD JUNE 7, 2001
(Prepared by Paula Quintieri)
Chairman Goehringer
Member Dinizio
Member Tortora
Member Collins
Member Horning
Paula Quintieri, Secretary
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6:30 p.m RESOLUTION to open hearing. Re: Appl. 4950 -GEORGE KOUGENTAKIS.
Recess to August 16, 2001.
6:39 p.m. Appl. No. 4956 - ROBERT AND KATHLEEN LAWRENCE._ This is a
request under Article II, Section 100-26 for Lot Waiver to unmerge two parcels which
have been deemed merged as a single 40,500 *- sq. ft. lot due to common ownership as
confirmed by the Building Inspector's March 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval under
Article II, Section 100-25A. Location: 465 and 605 Eastwood Drive, Cutchogue, NY;
Parcel 110-3-20 and 21. Deborah Doty, Esq.
DEBORAH DOTY, ESQ: I am Deborah Doty; I represent Bob and Kathleen Lawrence
who thought they had two lots in Cutchogue. In 1969 they purchased the lot on
Eastwood Drive as tenants in the entirety, and shortly thereafter, in 1972, they built a
house on that property. Last year they learned that the lot to the south of them was for
sale, and they decided that they would purchase it to preserve their privacy; and also, so
that a'family member, probably their son, could build a house on it. They proceeded to
· contract and purchase the vacant lot without the assistance of an attorney. Had they had
an attorney who was versed in the laborings of the town merger law, (inaudible). They
purchased that lot as tenants in the entirety and sometime thereafter discovered that the
lots were merged. There would have been a simple ~r,_emedy at the time of purchase, had
they realized that they could've taken 1%, they could ve taken 51%} 49%. But they didn't
know. They are now here before the Board requesting relic Requesting a Waiver of
Merger. They do not intend now to build on the property, neighborhood, as you
undoubtedly know, is with a lot of small lots, in fact, none < in the.immediate
Page 2, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heating Transcript
Town of Southold
area is larger than the merged lot. There are only ten that are larger than the individual
lot that they were separated. Of the 32 lots in the neighborhood, only five, including the
subject parcel are vacant. It wouldn't have a heavy impact on the neighborhood, if there
were to be a house. Again, they don't intend to build on at this point. What they want to
do is eventually be able to sell it to their son, so their son can maybe move in next door.
So they are requesting a Waiver of Merger. It's as simple as that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms. Doty. Mr. Homing any questions of Ms. Doty?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins.
MEMBER COLLINS: No, questions. Just a point. The deed recites that it was lot such
and such in a sub-division created in 1962 called Eastwood something or other. Is it a
fair statement that block that you looked at between Pinewood, Midwood, Pequash and
Southern Cross, that they're all part of that sub-division?
DEBORAH DOTY: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you.
DEBORAH DOTY: I think, if you go down there and you know the neighborhood,
they're all about the same size.
MEMBER COLLINS: I lived on Pequash Avenue for eight years.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Did they pay their taxes? How many tax bills do they have?
DEBORAH DOTY: Absolutely. Two.
CHAIRMAN: See what develops throughout the hearing. Please do not leave until we
close it. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody that would like to speak against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 3, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
6:44 p.m. - Appl. No. 4957 - DONALD MCNEILL. This is a request for a Variance
under Article IlIA, Section 1 00-30A.3, Bulk Schedule ofthe Zoning Code, based on the
Building Inspector's April 30, 2001 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed lot line
change. Applicant proposes to reduce the road frontage of one lot from 122 feet to 102+-
and lot area from 19,534 +- sq. ft. to 14,512 sq. ft. and increase the road frontage and lot
size for the remaining lot. Both lots are improved. Location: 1380 Village Lane, Orient;
Parcel No. 1000-25-1-27.1.
CHAIRMAN: I need a motion to recess the McNeill application which is #4957 until
July 12, 2001.
MEMBER HORNING: I'll make that motion.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
6:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4954 - GENE WALKER. This is a request for a Variance under
Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Inspector's April 4, 2001 Notice
of Disapproval which states that the proposed deck addition will be less than 35 feet from
the rear property line and will exceed the maximum-permitted lot coverage of20%.
Location: 2530 Gillette Drive, East Marion; Parcel 38-2-26. The lot size is
approximately 10,500 sq. ft.
CHAIRMAN: You are sir, for the record.
GENE WALKER: Gene Walker.
CHAIRMAN: Pleasure to meet you. What would you like to tell us?
GENE WALKER: I have a house in East Marion; it's a 'l;í acre. I would like to build a
deck on the back. The lot was sub-divided back in the 1960's and now, similar changes
have been made that to build a deck you need to go by the by-lines.
CHAIRMAN: Weare aware of that, at least, in every meeting recently we've had an
application because of the shallowness of the lot. You may hear from tonight from my
colleagues, is there a particular way that you could shrink: the deck a little. I'm just
warning you. You may hear that from me, as we go down the line. This will be open to
the sky, and never enclosed. Is that correct?
GENE WALKER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio, any questions ofMr. Walker?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
Page 4, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transclipt
Town of Southo1d
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Do I read the drawings that you submitted right, that the deck
runs about 25' from the back of the house, outward? And, you have a 37' rear yard now,
and you would have about 10' when you're done?
GENE WALKER: Yes, ma'am.
MEMBER COLLINS: The deck is two levels? Works it's way down ITom the house,
perhaps?
GENE WALKER: Yes, ma'am. The back slopes down a little bit. Thereis a drop down
in the back.
MEMBER COLLINS: As your drawings show, it's equipped with a bar, a grill and a
sink?
GENE WALKER: Yes ma'am.
MEMBER COLLINS: Echoing what the Chairman said, my reaction is that it's a lot of
deck, and I think you should know that this Board gets, starts digging it's heels when lot
coverage starts rising. We've had two cases down there recently, where once the
coverage got around 23 ~ 24% we started to get intransigent. So I think, very possibly
it's going to be in your interest to think about alternatives. Think about what your
, alternatives are. I just want to tell you, I think that's where the Board's going to be
coming from.
CHAIRMAN: Which would mean that you could broaden the deck. It will still continue
the lot coverage but, at the same time, we're talking about the possibility of also gaining a
little more footage. When I say broadening it, I'm talking about not elongating it, but
broadening it to the fact that maybe you could go 12' ITom the line, instead of 10.8'. And
possibly shrinking it on both sides.
GENE WALKER: So you're saying you have a problem with.
CHAIRMAN: The total lot coverage.
GENE WALKER: When I looked at this I think it says on the plan he's looking at 28%.
Is what it measured?
CHAIRMAN: We have 27% and you're right Miss Collins, that's what I have, according
to the Building Inspector.
MEMBER COLLINS: I can tell Mr. Walker two things. We had a case on Gillette
within the last year or so, where similarly people wanted to add onto the back of their
house. They had an issue of coverage, and they had 21 % coverage to start with. We let
Page 5, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of South old
. them go up to just shy of 24%. That was kind of a stone wall. Your neighbor Mr.
Buskard, who has been before us extensively over the last year with his hope for a
swimming pool, and we won't go into the details of that because he's come out with a
nice solution. Nonetheless, he originally was asking for in the vicinity of25 - 26% lot
converge, and this Board told him at the last hearing, that we weren't interested in hearing
more than 22 Y1 or 23%. That was not a decision by the Board, that was the sense ofthe
Board members. I think you will find in our history, that once lot coverage gets around
24% our heels dig in.
MEMBER TORTORA: What is the existing lot coverage ofthe house?
MEMBER COLLINS: 18.6 according to our records.
CHAIRMAN: According to the Building Inspector.
MEMBER TORTORA: What is the square footage ofthe property without the deck right
now? The house without the proposed addition?
CHAIRMAN: It's a little over 10,000 sq. ft. It's 100 x 105. It's a little over 10,000 sq. ft.
GENE WALKER: If you look at the overall lot with the house it's 1800.
CHAIRMAN: With the house it comes out to 1800.
GENE WALKER: I don't know the actual I mean we can do the math, and get the
number based on 18.6% of2,500.
MEMBER TORTORA: What about the deck addition? What's the size of the deck
addition?
CHAIRMAN: Square footage wise?
GENE WALKER: Looking at the square footage, once again?
CHAIRMAN: You know what we can do, Mr. Walker, rather than putting you on the
spot, we can recess for 20 minutes, affording you a calculator.
MEMBER TORTORA: Ifit's that way, we can figure how to get us to 21 %.
CHAIRMAN: Well you're not going to get it to 21 %. We're talking around 24%.
MEMBER TORTORA: Do you know what the length and the width ofthe deck is?
GENE WALKER: Yes ma'am. You should've gotten a full set of plans on the deck.
CHAIRMAN: We have a set. They are in the file.
Page 6, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
T0W11 of Southo1d
GENE WALKER: There's a five-page set of deck plans that show all the measurements.
And as far as the actual square footage of the coverage, I don't know what that physical
number is, but like I said as far as calculation wise on a 27% total of 18.6.
CHAIRMAN: I think it tends to be a little confusing because of the cut-out ofthe
hexagon.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sure the Building Department had based it on something. I
have the same thing. I thought maybe that there was a calculation on what the actual
square footage of this was and we could figure it out.
CHAIRMAN: Well we can do one of two things at this point. We can recess it. You
can go out and work out some figures if you want. Or you can very simply tell us that
you'll accept alternate relief. And trom the point of view that we vote on, that's the figure
we'll give you. We'll give you a percentage figure, not to exceed.
GENE WALKER: Okay, so you would say I could revise this to a total lot coverage of
only like 24%?
CHAIRMAN: Would you go with 24%?
MEMBER COLLINS: Ifthat's where it carne out. What the Chairman is saying is that
we could, if you're agreeable, we could find ourselves after our discussion, saying X%
that's what we are willing to grant. It's up to you then, there's the separate issue of your
rear setback and how deep it is. But, it would be up to you then to design the deck to fit
the percent.
MEMBER TORTORA: Right now, ifI'm reading right, the depth of the deck is about 27
ft. is that right?
GENE WALKER: Yes ma'am.
MEMBER TORTORA: And the width is about 27% deep
GENE WALKER: . Yes ma'am the deck itself is about 23 ft. and then it does, yes ma'am
but then the hexagon juts out just a little bit.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's about 26.11 according to the plan you gave me. The width
of it would be 40 ft. That's 26 x 40 ft.
CHAIRMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I concur if you came back with a scaled down plan, we could do
coverage approximately 24 - 25%.
Page 7, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we could give him a number and he could fit it right into
that. I mean, what could you live with? It's 40 ft. wide and it's 27 ft., can you live with
25 ft.? You know what I mean?
GENE WALKER: Yes, if I could reduce that, let's say I reduce it to 25 ft. I don't know
with the numbers that would really put me, as far as.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And I don't think we would know either. But, if we could get an
idea from you tonight.
GENE WALKER: If you want to give me a few minutes, I can re-calculate and say take
a foot or two feet off here.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing is that we haven't granted any rear yard variances
for anything under 18 ft.
CHAIRMAN: That's a house without the
MEMBER TORTORA: Well that was the pool.
CHAIRMAN: Why don't we do this and see how it flies. I'll make a motion granting it
at 24% not closer than 12 feet to the rear property line.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second that.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
6:55 P.M. Appl. No. 4959 - DENNIS AND DESIREE O'CLAIR. This is a request for a
Variance, based on the Building Inspectors Notice of Disapproval regarding applicant's
applicant's new dwelling construction, and a request to amend Building Permit #26098
issued October 28, 1999 for two-story one-family dwelling, full cellar, 2nd floor
mezzanine, screened porch with trellis, attached three-car garage as applied for. The
Notice of Disapproval states that under Article III, Section 100-32, Bulk Schedule, the
height of one-family dwellings are restricted to 2 Y:z stories and proposed construction
shows 3rd story habitable space. Location: 1492 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue; Parcell 000-
97-3-11.8.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir, how are you?
DENNIS O'CLAIR: I'm Dennis O'Clair, homeowner and my wife Desiree. Also here
tonight is Dave McClure the general contractor, and also Craig Arm the architect for the
project. We are going for a variance which would allow us to maintain the mezzanine,
which is on the third story as it's been constructed. The mezzanine was designed
originally for our light into the second floor landing and the center stairwell. There are
four skylights, which are up in the ridge line in the back of the house. Without them the
Page 8, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of South old
stairway would be very dark in the daytime. If we were granted the variance, it would
not adversely affect the neighborhood, of course, because it only affects the interior of the
house not the outside in any way. At a meeting with the Building Department, Mike
Verity suggested that we make up a proposal to confonn. He suggested that we go for a
variance with the State instead. Wernet with Richard Smith who is the regional
architect, an on-sight visit with him and with the Building Inspector. We looked at the
space, and we addressed all ofMr. Smith's concerns, which were on egress. The window
up there is egress requirements. It's about a five- foot drop to the roof. Also smoke and
fire detection, he was concerned about that, but there is a smoke and fire detector in the
area; in the exact space. It is already connected and it is centrally monitored, and I have
documentation to support that. On that subject egress I had a conversation with Mr.
Goehringer about possibly getting a fire escape ladder. I have looked into that and I have
since already purchased one, and I have documentation to support that also. I am going
to submit both of those. If we don't get the variance, we have to put up walls to make it
confonn. It would really be destroying the architectural and design estheticsofthat
space. Also, cause further delays and financial, additional financial outlay.
CHAIRMAN: Let me just jump back to a discussion I had with you that Sunday
morning, when I came over and saw your lovely property and house. We had discussed
the fact that you had no problems placing the restriction that there would never be any
sleeping quarters on that third story. Is that correct?
DENNIS O'CLAIR: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN: That's the main thrust of it, and I do appreciate that ladder issue that was
of concern to me. I also want to say the pictures that you've given us, because it gives us
a greater understanding of what the situation is. We do appreciate that. So as long as
that's the issue, as long as those situations still stand, I don't have any particular problem.
So we'll start with Mr. Homing. Mr. Homing would you like to ask these nice people a
question?
MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible) how you ended up with the Building Pennit and then
with this predicament.
DENNIS O'CLAIR: Well we submitted the plans, which I have submitted copies of the
actual plans that were approved, I don't know if you got to see them, if not I have the
original set here. The plans were approved. There was a notation on the mezzanine area,
that said it must confonn to the 705 D 6, I think that's the zone that says it can't be larger
than 33% ofthe area. So the plans were approved with just that minor notation made on
them. So we got the Building Pennit, and then we built the house according to the plans.
Then it was at the traming inspection that the Building Inspector pointed out that the
building according to the approved plans, that it doesn't confonn. It was at that point that
I first became aware ofthat we had a problem with this. Because I wasn't aware of the
notation,what it meant or anything like that. That's why the Builder is here, he can
answer that question, if you have additional questions. But, it was at that point that I first
became aware that the space was too large and that we had a problem with it. Further
Page 9, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heming Transcript
Town of Southold
down the road, we said okay, we'll make it conform; we'll put up walls or something. We
put together a proposal and presented to the Building Department, because we didn't want
to delay the process. It was at that point that he said, don't bother making it conform, go
for a variance with the State, which we did and then it took about a month before Mr.
Smith could get back to us. He had to check something with Albany, etc. He said, it's
fine I can write a routine variance for that. I talked to Mr. Verity again, and he said well
that's okay I'm glad that he says its okay; but the Town of Southold doesn't allow third
story habitable space. So you suggested that we get the variance, and we got an okay and
everything; but then they turned around and said, well you got it but it's no good in this
town. So then it was several weeks after that we finally got Notice of Disapproval, which
we kind of feel like the Notice of Disapproval should've .come with our rejected plans.
We shouldn't have gotten the plans back with a notation; we should've gotten the plans
back saying no, with a Notice of Disapproval. At that point, we could have changed the
plans or applied for a Variance at the beginning of the process, not at the end.
CHAIRMAN: I think that was the question that you had.
DENNIS O'CLAIR: Sorry that I rambled.
CHAIRMAN: No, that was the way we wanted it answered. That was great.
DENNIS O'CLAIR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I've heard your ITustration before. I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to ask a couple of fact questions, understand I'm
entirely sympathetic to your situation. But, I think I have to draft a decision in this case,
and I want to get a few facts that I don't have. What's roughly the footprint of the entire
house on the ground?
DENNIS O'CLAIR: The square footage.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, it's probably 4600 feet, something like that?
DENNIS O'CLAIR: It's roughly 4600 feet.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay about 4600 will do. Let me go on. I read the plans to the
extent I could and I came up with roughly 4600 square feet. My only reason for being
interested in it, is to make the point that your mezzanine, which I think it was a landing,
is 166 square feet which is a very small percentage of the total size of the house. That's
just relevant to what we come out on this. In understand it correctly, your problem right
now why you need a variance under the Southold Town Zoning Code, is that our Code
Page 10, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
defines a 12 story, which is something you can have. In terms of, it's hard to read and it's
even harder to say, but it has to do with how high the ceiling can be in this 12 story. That
no more than half of the floor space can have a ceiling height of more than 7 12 feet.
That's my understanding of our definition of a 12 story. I think you could have a Yz story
if you put a silly little ceiling up, which you obviously don't want to, do.
DENNIS O'CLAIR: We have the skylights, and honestly, the way you've just described
it has never been mentioned before. The problem that we had is that the mezzanine, I
think the Code that they wrote in
MEMBER COLLINS: That's State Building Code, and your denial right now is under
our Southold Town Zoning Code. Am I not reading this right Mr. Chairman? Because I
want to write a decision that addresses the issue and the issue is the Southold Town
Zoning Code, which says this house has a third story and it doesn't have 2 12 stories
which is legal. The definition of a 12 story is something I had never had occasion to read
before this case. It's very difficult to read and it says it's a space within the roof framing
and then it defines it in how the ceiling can be. Since this is news to you I'm not going to
pursue it any further. I think, by my calculations, I think you're within a couple of
percent of actually complying with that requirement; it's just that you have this great high
ceiling going up to peak. I have no problem with your case; I really was looking to
gather a few facts for writing a decision. But, I think I'm blind siding you, I'm sorry.
DENNIS O'CLAIR: That's okay; it's not the first time.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio, any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN: No questions at all?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, did you enjoy your education? I mean you certainly got an
education.
CHAIRMAN: Just don't leave before we close the hearing, but we'll see if anybody else
has any objections or if anybody wants to speak in favor. Do either your drafts person or
your builder want to say anything in favor? Yes, Mr. McClure.
DAVE MCCLURE: Good evening my name is Dave McClure and I am the builder.
Before I ever went to contract with the O'Clairs on this I had seen the notation that the
Town had made on the plans; and it said that this area must conform with to the 705.1
Section G, I didn't know exactly what that is. I called the Town and I don't remember
who exactly who I spoke with, but at the time, they said it has to be built exactly the way
it is. Exactly the way it exists. In my mind I thought I wasn't going to change anything I
just wanted to clarify what that was. So that's why I went ahead and built it as it was
approved.
Page 11, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Hearing TranSclipt
Town of Sontho1d
CHAIRMAN: There's been no change, no variation at all?
DAVE MCCLURE: It's exactly the way it is.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor or against? Seeing no
hands I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
7:10 P.M. Appl. No. 4866 - NORMA MILLER Applicant-Owner is requesting a Special
Exception under Article III, Section 100-30A.2B and 1 00-31B,sub-sections 14a-d ofthe
Southold Town Zoning Code for approval of an Accessory Use as a Bed and Breakfast
for transient use of two bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than
four (4) casual, transient roomers, in conjunction with owner-applicant's residence.
Location of Property: 12920 Main Road, East Marion; Parcel 1000-31-14-14.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Miller it is my understanding that you are operating or in the process
of operating a two-bedroom Bed & Breakfast, is that correct?
NORMA MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you'd like to add to your Bed & Breakfast application?
NORMA MILLER: No, I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions of Miss Miller?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Let's see, if it's a two-bedroom B & B you need a parking space
for each B & B bedroom, and two for the family, if! have the Code right.
NORMA MILLER: I believe there is plans indicating
MEMBER COLLINS: You are showing five, and I think five is a tight fit on that piece
of property.
NORMA MILLER: I'm only one person and the guests will be two cars, that's three.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm just suggesting that I don't think that you need to provide five
spaces. I think you can satisfy the law with
NORMA MILLER: I was asked to supply five spaces.
Page 12, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER COLLINS: You were. By the Building Department?
NORMA MILLER: I'm not sure, I think it was.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, then I'm not going to fight it. I just think you're going to
have a hard time squeezing five parked cars onto your property; and I was suggesting you
only need to provide for four, under the law.
NORMA MILLER: Well fine.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: As far as access and egress, does the space provide that you, that
the cars will not back into the road?
NORMA MILLER: I believe the space is in back ofthe garage. I had originally said that
two cars could park there, so that you wouldn't be backing out of the driveway.
MEMBER TORTORA: That would be my only concern, that you provide room so that
parking and that they're not backing out of the driveway.
NORMA MILLER: I always turn my own car and come out driver first because of the
traffic.
MEMBER TORTORA: Sometimes we make that a condition ofthe approval often for
safety reasons.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: Do you use the garage for an automobile or other things?
NORMA MILLER: That's the subject of a variance for next month. It had been a
garage, and twenty-eight years ago it was, we had permits to make it a guest house. At
this moment it is storage.
CHAIRMAN: There will be an application before us next month to reinstitute that I
assume?
NORMA MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Miss Miller, correct me, is it Mrs. Miller?
NORMA MILLER: Yes.
Page 13, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
CHAIRMAN: I apologize. Mrs. Miller, what you don't want to do is conflict the two of
them. You want to deal with this first and then deal with the other later, is that correct?
NORMA MILLER: Actually, I had hoped to do the two together; but the Disapproval, I
had to file and get the Disapproval and it didn't get there in time.
MEMBER TORTORA: I would have preferred to look at them together. In reality it is
one piece of property.
CHAIRMAN: Well we can recess this, and open both of them together if you want.
NORMA MILLER: Well, if next month they
MEMBER TORTORA: All aspect of it would be defined. Whether it's parking, whether
it's the use of the property, whatever. It's all one piece of property.
NORMA MILLER: Yes I realize that, but if the B & B is approved tonight, then the
cottage will or won't be approved in addition.
MEMBER HORNING: Would that add another bedroom to your B & B?
NORMA MILLER: I was told this is not allowed. It would either be a guest cottage or I
don't know exactly what the decision ofthe Board would be. I was told that all of the
rooms in the B & B must be in the same building. I would like to use it as extra
(inaudible).
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you would probably want to just look at this, and figure out
which is more important to you, a B & B or this cottage. Think long and hard about that
before sink that or split this up. I'm going to do you a favor here. I don't think this Board
is going to consider that cottage if you have a B & B on there, in all honesty. I have no
personal feelings against it, but
NORMA MILLER: I have not choice really, because the cottage was done 28 years ago~
I can't turn it into a garage again, there was tremendous expense, and my husband did it.
I tried right after his death, I had all the papers from the Building Department and my
original letter from 1981, it's like a done deal, and it's just going to sit there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that's the exact reason. The reason which you are just giving
me now, which really have no relevance on the B & B would, if we were listening to both
those applications at the same time.
NORMA MILLER: Would the Board allow me to make that decision at that time?
MEMBER TORTORA: What Mr. Dinizio is saying is very critical; because in essence
what you're telling us is that have two uses on the property. Or you are proposing to have
two uses on a piece of property, which is not zoned for that. It is zoned for single family
Page 14, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transcript
Town of Southold
use. The Bed & Breakfast is permitted with what you are doing. When you want to
have, to convert an accessory building into a guest cottage you're talking about having
two principle uses on the property which is a Use Variance, and that is very tough to get.
NORMA MILLER: If the Board would allow me to, ifI'm inclined to do this. I would
like to have the B & B. I would make that decision for the variance for the cottage.
CHAIRMAN: So, in other words, we're still going to have a hearing in July.
NORMA MILLER: Right, I just find that I've finally accomplished something after
spending almost $6,000. and nine months. I think I would like a baby, a B & B.
MEMBER HORNING: Is that what you're expenses on the B & B, legal fees, is it legal
fees?
NORMA MILLER: No it was mostly design specialists because I was told that the
Building Department is overworked and has no time to speak to individuals. So I had an
architect, I've had two engineers; I've had, of course, plumbers and electricians. Would
you like to see the costs?
CHAIRMAN: Do you want a copy of this? Do you want it back?
NORMA MILLER: I would if you can.
CHAIRMAN: I just can't give it back to you right now. We'll leave it in the file all
right?
NORMA MILLER: I have the figures, but not quite precisely as that.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, so can we continue with the hearing, ladies and gentlemen? While
you are standing there is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this
application? Yes, ma'am.
P AT KONES: My name is Pat Kones. I have a Bed and Breakfast on Peconic Lane and
I've known Norma for years and I've been in her house. It certainly, in my opinion,
qualifies for a nice two bedroom B & B. As a member of the North Fork Bed and
Breakfast Association.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak for or against
this application? Yes ma'am.
MARIE BENNENATI: My name is Marie Bennenati, and I also have a Bed and
Breakfast and have known Norma for quite some time. I support her application and
hope that YQU approve it.
CHAIRMAN: Didn't we grant your application?
Page 15, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MARIE BENNENA TI: Yes you did. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion to
closing the hearing reserving decIsion until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
7:20 P.M. Appl. No. 4962 - ROGER J. and LESLIE W ALZ. This is a request for a
Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Inspector's May
2,2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding application's proposed second story addition to
existing dwelling. The Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a
nonconforming setback ofthree feet from the easterly side lot line and 9.9 feet from the
west side line, and as a result, the addition ofthe second-story represents an increase in
the degree of nonconformity. Location: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion, NY;
Parcel 37-6-5, Fairweather-Brown Architects.
CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? What would you like to tell us?
AMY MARTIN: I'm Amy Martin, part of Fairweather-Brown, representing Roger and
Leslie Walz. Unfortunately, they are not here tonight they had to be out-of-state. They
have owned this property since approximately September 1980. They wish to add a
second-story to this home, as they hope to retire in the near future. As the Board knows
that the area of Gardner Bay Estates in the waterfront area is a jungle of very strange and
unusual lots. A lot of cottages are on small non-conforming properties. This one in
particular is quite irregular in shape; it's a line #1238 lot with only 20 feet
. On the right side where the kitchen is proposed, there is there now
and it's sufficient to the property line. The addition that is proposed is a second story, yet
there is no change to the footprint, at all (inaudible) line #1278
The 6.2 property line and flat area around where proposed will remain a one single story
structure. The U shape will change a shed was making it 10 yz feet from
grade. Where it's presently 14.6 feet to the ridge edge at the sound. So it comes out from
the house, instead of going across. This whole section of area that they wish to remodel
is in the center of the home on the one side lot, in neither of the side yards. On the east
side there are a few feet from the property line and the neighbor told me that it angled and
that it ranged from 5 yz feet from his property line to about 12 feet on the water end.
Change in elevation on the part were irregular. Weare adding approximately 7 feet to
the garage end. -------------Jines from the two other sections. Basically the west end of
the Martin house will be, I'm sorry. The Martin house to the west is a 1-YZ· structure as it
exists and in the area there are other two-story structures. Up until recently to add on to,
a second floor to a home on the same footprint, it would have been allowed but the law
has been reinterpreted in a different direction.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Martin, you know me as not the person that would ever say
derogatory things, but this a phenomenally large structure. I think that in that realm, it's
hard to understand how large this structure is going to be without looking at it in some
way manner or form. I don't know what to suggest to you at this point, other than the fact
Page 16, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
that we understand that the house is a rànch now, a one-story structure. I stood at both
the base of the garage, the foot ofthe garage, and I stood at the area which is most closely
related to the beach; and I had trouble understanding the height and the magnificence of
what this house is going to be, as you are proposing it or your client is. I just don't know
how to deal with it at this point, and that's not a derogatory statement.
MR. BROWN: (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: Somehow, Mr. Brown, we never miss you at one ofthese hearings.
You've been very busy, haven't you?
MR. BROWN: Very busy. The footprint, in terms of the second-story addition, is that
when we started the design and well into the work going into the design, we had every
reason to believe that the Building Department was continuing to interpret this portion of
the Code involved here, in that, as there were no changes to the footprint, there was no
significant difference in terms of the NAH pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the
structure. It wasn't until we were almost finished with the 0 that we were informed by
the Building Department that they had decided to reinterpret that portion of the code. In
terms of the size, it is a very long house; there is no question about that. It's a very
narrow house. It's literally, in some respects a railroad car design. The addition that we
are proposing is purely two bedrooms and a recreation room on the second floor. We've
kept the roof as low as possible and still conform to State Codes in terms of habitable
space. In fact on the east side we are forced to provide a dormer situation in order to
maintain appropriate headroom for the egress window. We have kept; we changed to a
to a minimum, in order to allow, in order to provide second floor habitable
space. The addition, basically, runs straight through the center ofthe long portion ofthe
house. There is a small L at the south end, where we are actually moving a reversed '
gable and providing a one-story shed roof, one story shed roof Which actually reduces
the immediate impact on the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN: Well the neighbor is the one that has the greatest setback is that correct?
MR. BROWN: Y es. We have been informing our clients that the neighbor to the East
has had no objection. And they are the ones who to my knowledge, will greatly impact
CHAIRMAN: The problem I have is he issue of the East side, and the height of the roof,
where the drainage calculations ITom water, torrential rain, could in effect over shoot the
gutter and end up on the neighbors property, just because the height of the roof. I realize
that this is a fairly, it's not a low pitched roof, but it's a pitched roof now, and I assume
that's what's happening now. I just, in even looking at it, I don't want to further
exacerbate that situation.
MR. BROWN: I think it's necessary to exacerbate the situation. Certainly, while I
haven't, at this point, calculated the size of the gutter, based on rainfall, certainly there is
room for, in terms of the size of the gutter. Beyond that we have in the past employed
Page 17, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
what's called a French Drain, which is a trough built below the foundation of the
building, dug to a depth of usually 18", filled with gravel and a perforated pipe which
would run the drainage that was missed by the gutter off into a drywell. We have done
that in the past. We've done it in place of gutters in the past. This procedure is fully
approved by the D.E.C.and any other agency. Quite honestly, in terms of
the footprint, once again, there would be no increase in the amount of runoff; because
we're not changing the footprint one square inch.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but still, the pitch could be changed on the roofline
which could cause that aggravated situation.
MR. BROWN: Which could be regulated by type of
CHAIRMAN: Right, let's further see what happens. Mr. Dinizio any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I don't have questions. I'm just concerned that the Building
Department, having decided to take this position on interpreting the Code Section
increasing the degree of non-conformity puts us into a situation of almost judging design.
Under their old interpretation, if you had the setback, you could keep the setback and
people did humungous things with their existing setbacks.
MR. BROWN: You could even increase a footprint as long as you didn't
MEMBER COLLINS: As long as you didn't go any further than where you already
were. Some of the results ofthat were fairly awful. Now in your case they've taken a
different view, and I haven't really figured out how I'm going to sort it out. I'm not sure
where we are headed on this. I do share the Chairman's view, that I found standing there
with the blueprints and looking at the building, I was finding it very, very hard to see how
the new building, the new roof line and details fit with what was there already. I couldn't
picture the new building inside the old building.
MR. BROWN: It is difficult because of the position of the house on the property. The
only thing that I can suggest is that we could prepare a rendering of the proposed
structure based on a point of view of someone standing in front of the garage.
CHAIRMAN: It may be helpful, because we may have to reduce some of the roof lines.
MR BROWN: As I've said, we have worked very hard on keeping, understanding the
situation. We realize the house is tight enough. We did everything we could do to
minimize any change in the profile.
Page 18, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transclipt
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: While you're doing the rendering, could you do two other things too?
Could you use either a one by two or one by four and in both situations affix that to the
ridge end of both sides of the house, so we know what the total maximum height is, when
we go back and look at the property?
MR. BROWN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Just tell us when that is. I mean nothing to deface the present house, a
couple of nails, possibly spruce so it won't waiver in the breeze. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: One ofthe things I guess that we've been seeing as a Board
increasingly over the last couple of years is just this kind of a proposal where someone
has non-conforming setbacks and they have a ranch house, in your case, you're three feet
trom the property line, and they want to go up or they want to expand or whatever. It's
very difficult to tell what it's going to look like, although, I'm getting educated pretty
quick on this. The reason why is very simply, the results of some of the structures, and I
would have to red flag this one as one that could have that potential. It can be
humungouswhen you are putting two stories, huge structure on a very, very narrow lot,
three feettrom your neighbor's property line. Your neighbor may not object now, but
when he sees it he may feel differently. But, lean tell you one thing, we have been very
surprised atthe results of some of houses; particularly these two-story houses, when they
are enlarged to such magnitude, particularly when you're looking at three feet trom the
property line. Big house, small lot or long lot, one way or another it can be over-
powenng.
MR. BROWN: I would only say, I understand your concerns. Of the four houses from
the beach, the four houses starting trom the road, starting trom the neighbor to the west;
one is already one and a half stories, and one is already two stories. This would be
another two story out of the four houses, as you can see fairly clustered together.
MEMBER HORNING: I would say the Building Department is throwing it on our laps
to deal with a new way of interpreting.
MR. BROWN: I'm sure you can understand our sense of frustration about having figured
the plans and discovering when I went back a new interpretation changing the whole field
that you're planning on.
MEMBER HORNING: So do your plans have any alternative design plans?
MR. BROWN: At this point, I can't imagine that they did, because as I said, we had, it
was very hard trom the very beginning understanding the circumstances that we were in.
To minimize the impact of this addition, by, as I said, keeping the roofline as low as
possible to be able to provide habitable space on the second floor; and, in fact, not
incorporating the second floor onto the L-shaped portion of the south side.
Page 19, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
MEMBER HORNING: So what you are saying is that the overall proposed building
height is the minimum?
MR. BROWN: The minimum we felt we could provide and still provide habitable space
upstairs.
CHAIRMAN: So, in reality, what you're going to give us is a rendering of, you're going
to affix those boards so that we can see what the height situation is. My question is, what
is the timeliness ofthis application? Can we deal with this application in August?
MR. BROWN: Obviously, the only concern that I would have regarding that is that,
under normal circumstances I would say, if we were able to get a variance from you in
August, successfully, and have the Building Permit by September so that the work could
be done through the winter with no impact on the community, I would say great. But as I
understand it right now, the Building Department has a backlog of approximately four
months.
CHAIRMAN: But, you're still in line, even though you don't have
MR. BROWN: That may be, but I'm sure, you understand my concern and frustration.
CHAIRMAN: The problem I have is that the July calendar is oh-Ia-Ia.
MR. BROWN: Certainly, I don't want to make your lives anymore difficult. If August
is better for you, then August it is.
CHAIRMAN: All right, we'll take some testimony tonight, if you would bring us the
rendering or we can have it that night. But if we could study it at the same time.
MR. BROWN : You'll have it before the August hearing.
CHAIRMAN: Give us a call when you have the boards up, and we'll go back and take a
look. We always love to go to Gardners Bay Estates in the summertime. It makes you
feel like summer. Okay, we thank: you. I have to tell you sir, that you and Miss Martin
are wonderful ladies and gentleman, wonderful to deal with and, as always, in the past.
You are a true gentleman, it really is a pleasure.
MR. BROWN: Thank: you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor ofthis application?
Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes, ma'am? Good evening.
NORMA MARTIN: Good evening, I'm Norma Martin. We live directly to the west of
the Walz's home, and I have some comments and concerns I'd like to voice regarding this
pending decision. Because of slope in the way of the land, with their house being on the
highest portion of this slope, the height of their single-story house is approximately the
Page 20, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
same height as our house, which is a story and a half. I feel that adding a second story to
this existing single level structure will result in something that far exceeds the height and
detracts from the look of the surrounding dwellings. Granted as you look at the first four
homes on the beach, ours being a story and a half, theirs being a story and then the other
two-story house belongs to the fourth and it is on a considerably larger piece of property
than is the Walz house. Also to be considered, I should think, would be the impact from
the cesspool that would result in two bedrooms and one bath, that I understand are
included in the plans. This addition would mean that there would be five bedrooms and
two baths in this house. With our house situated directly next door on the downward side
ofthe slope from their existing cesspools, I wonder what affect it will have on us. I am
sure that when the Walz purchased this house, one of the things that impressed them was
the look of Gardners Bay Estates. This traditional and understated private community,
which has been in existence for approximately 72 years, has been achieved and
maintained through the years by the diligence and cooperation of the homeowners and
the Association. Although we have a Real Estate Committee, it is my understanding that
the Walzs have yet to submit these for review and consideration. I am concerned as tò
why they bypassed this most important step. It insinuates to me that they are not
concerned with what effect they have on their neighbors. When you become a resident of
Gardners Bay Estates and a member of the Homeowners Association, it is assumed that
you will abide by the guidelines that have been agreed upon by all; not develop your own
agenda and expect to be allowed to be exception to the rule. We already have a very,
very visual example just down the street on Old Orchard Lane; designed by the same
architects, I might add, of what can happen when a homeowners vision and architects
view of what is appropriate collide with what the neighbors feel looks best and is in the
best interest of the appearance of a community as a whole. It is for the above reasons that
I am opposed to these plans. Thank you for listening.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Good evening Mr. Martin, how are you?
RALPH MARTIN: By having this house with a second story on, will affect the cut-off
of any and all air circulation of our bedroom which are secured to the east of my home.
My bedroom, my grandchildren's bedroom, and the guest bedroom. By going up, you
limit the air; you lose some of the sunlight you might get. In wanted to live next to a
wall, I would have lived in New York City perhaps. I came out here, my wife and I did,
for just the way this Town of Southold is and was; and I hope that this Committee will
realize the fact that, that's the way I think our houses should be done, try and keep our
rural atmosphere. I remember we had two traffic lights in town, now we have four or
five. It seems to me that people like to move out here to the East End because of the rural
atmosphere and the way people are. Many times, often times, I won't say many times,
when people do move out here for what we have after they get settled, they want to start
to change and bring the West end into our community. It doesn't really fit, and it happens
it seems to me more so than not. We were never even addressed by the Walzs when they
thought they might wish to put a second story on the house, but that's their business. But
I still am a n.eighbor of theirs directly to the west, and my property line to my chimney,
the property line, is about three feet. So that gives us nine feet between houses. It's 6.6
from their house and my property line; and I believe from my chimney, which is next to
Page 21, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
two bedrooms, is about three feet, three and one half feet. Then to go up two stories with
a bit more, I think: it's just a little bit too much in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Martin, I would like to see this, your house and what you're saying
upstairs if you don't mind me making an appointment with you. Could I just have your
telephone number?
RALPH MARTIN: 477-0428
CHAIRMAN: They're going to put these ridge markers up, and once they're up, I'll give
you a call and I'll come over some Saturday or whatever at your convenience. Okay.
RALPH MARTIN: Fine, Mr. Chairman. I thank: you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to speak against? Yes ma'am.
JOAN A. BRIDGET EGAN: I have been a homeowner in Gardner Bay Estates since
1964. I couldn't agree more with Mr. and Mrs. Martin, and I think: one of the most
important highlights of what he said, is the fact that what happened with real estate
changing and the fact that a lot of people bought these summer homes, now they're
getting a little bit older, they sell the house west and they move here. Which is
understandable, I did the same myself. We couldn't go wide, we couldn't go deep, and
we went up ¡a story, a half a story. These changes and overpopulation and the progression
of these things. Hopefully the Walzs will live a long, long life and we don't have too
many children in Gardner Bay Estates that we have to educate. But if these things go on,
and they become year round homes, which is what I think: is what Mr. Walz wants, you're
going to have more, more, more. I think: that the changes that have happened in Gardner
Bay Estates; some of them, I don't know how they passed Zoning, that would be Mr.
Frenzel's property that is on Old Orchard Lane. It is a horror, an absolute horror. There
is nothing we can do about it, but I think: somewhere along the line here you have to say
stop. I think here, Mr. Martin and the other people tonight, including myself. I have
served in ev¡ery capacity in Gardners Bay Estates before it was homeowners, before,
before. Mr.¡ and Mrs. Walz have never even participated in any way, in any community
activities that I know of and I think: I would know of it. So all of these things can give me
a very sour grapes. I think: it's important that we maintain what we have and I'm sure
there's somt¡ solution to this. I've been in the Walz house several times, when the
V anripers h~d it, and I don't know, maybe they could do better with a basement, putting
things in a ljasement rather than going up. I think: it would also effect the air corridor as
far as ventill1tion for the homes going north, that might be Mrs. Frazier and it could go on
to the Colli*s home. I think: they're a lot of things other than just where the rain falls. I
think: the w¥ght, also, of putting this structure up there on a slope like that, it can have a
mud slide mµ.d it certainly could affect the Martins and I don't know the name of the
people who !live in the small home which could eventually effect our roads. It's a
progression !of things and I say stop. Thank: you very much.
,
,
CHAIRMA"f: Anybody else, we are going to recess? Go ahead sir.
!
I
I
i
Page 22, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heming Transclipt
Town of Southo1d
FRANK THORP: I am Frank Thorp; I live at 180 South Lane, two houses to the east of
the W alzs. ~ also represent my brother Edward and his wife Virginia at 80 South Lane
who is the immediate house next to the Walzs. A couple of things, my house, which is
the two-story house referred to, is only five feet from the property line. The Walzs deed
does not require them to submit an approval of plans. That was in the original deed.
Some of the original deeds to the Gardners Bay Estates Company did not
require certain things, including 8-foot setbacks from the side yard. Obviously, in this
particular deed did not require the approval of the company for building plans which
were then passed on to the Association. My brother and I strongly approve of the plans
that have been proposed, we feel it will greatly enhance the community and will maintain
and, perhaps, even add to our property value.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, yes, you have one thing you
want to say?
AMY MARTIN: Just wanted to give you one thing. We had our draftsman acquire the
properties of the surveys of the two adjoining properties just to show you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comment at this hearing, I make a motion
recessing until August 16th, 2001.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
8:00 P.M. Appl. No.A953 - HENRY L. FERGUSON MUSEUM, INC. This is a request
for Variances, based on the Building Inspector's April 11, 2001 Notice of Disapproval
which states that a permit for an addition to the existing museum building is denied for
the followirig reasons: (a) Article III, Section 100-32 requires a minimum front yard
setback of60 feet; and (b) Article XXIV, Section 100-243A.I a for the reason that the
proposed addition will increase the size of this nonconforming nonresidential building,
resulting in ¡an increase in the overall building footprint of more than 15 percent.
Location: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; Parce19-4-11.1 Stephen L. Hamm III,
Esq.
BARBARA HAMM: Good evening, I'm Barbara Hamm and I represent the Ferguson
Museum. I have an Affidavit of Sign Posting for you and five (5) sets of papers. .
CHAIRMAN: I knew you looked familiar; from the Lynch application.
BARBARA, HAMM: I'm on that tonight too, and Steve still isn't coming back after the
Southampton Lumber fiasco.
,
MEMBER COLLINS: Tell him we miss him.
Page 23, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transctipt
Town of Southo1d
BARBARA HAMM: The memo was submitted in support ofthe application of the
Ferguson Museum for a variance to permit the construction of an addition to the
Museum, which is located on Equestrian Avenue in Fishers Island. The Building
Inspector denied the application for a Building Permit at the premises because the
addition would constitute the expansion of over 15% of the overall building area of a
non-conforming building with a non-conforming use; and because one of the new
additions would reduce the tront yard setback with an already non-conforming distance
of 41.5 feet, to 29 feet, which is a 12.5 foot reduction. Exhibit A is the Notice of
Disapproval and Exhibit B is a variance that was granted by this Board in 1999 to permit
the expansion of the Museum. Exhibit C is a letter trom Valerie Kincad to Bagley Reid,
who is here today, dated June 2, 2001 which explains why the Museum has redone their
plans. The plan they are coming up with now is a more long-term plan for expansion of
the Museum rather than a smaller plan, which we had presented in 1999. These are
highlights of that. The legal public trust responsibility of the windows weren't correct in
the first plan, what the Museum contains. The former plans contain no collection storage
areas. We need appropriately sized collection storage areas to prevent potential damage.
collection safety was a conèem in considering changes to the design. As the
structure had been designed there were too many parts of the building which could not be
seen by centrally located Museum personnel. There were several galleries and hallways,
but the built-in station at the entrance you could not see. The new plans provide almost
unobstructed viewing of the entire Museum when you go through steps. In adding the
deck and the viewing station, which are on the survey, the Museum plans several
objectives trom that. Some Exhibits, such as geology specimens and live art exhibits are
best kept physically separated trom paintings, photographs and documents. The Building
Inspector determined that the current plans differed so substantially than the one
approved in 1999 that further variances would be required before a Building Permit for
the revised plan could be issued. As indicated by the Affidavit of Architect, Jacob
Albert, copy of which is here as Exhibit D, the proposed additions are designed to
provide new galleries for the marine exhibits and exhibits on the history of Fishers Island.
To create space inside the existing building for a library, to provide a more accessible
inviting image to the entrance of the building. The entrance would be an open type of
entrance, and to expand to include the services to the computer use now offered. As
Exhibit E, there's a letter trom Mr. Ferguson, Charles Ferguson the President of the
Museum stating that the Museum has become a very important segment of Fishers Island
life for both the summer and the year-round residents. The Museum should be granted
the requested variances because the benefit to the public would outweigh any negative
impact. The Museum building is a public facility which has become an important
institution on Fishers Island. The public will be served by the new Library and new
space for existing exhibits. The addition will also create space for future expansion. The
Museum properties, technically the R80 zone district, a residential zone, but it is at the
border of the commercial HB zone district. The setback trom the street is at 29.0 feet, if
the Variance is granted, about half of the 60-foot requirement. However, the setback of
the building on the property adjoining on the northeast, in the HB zone is zero feet, as
indicated on Exhibit F. Relative degree of expansion: The existing Museum building is
situated on a parcel consisting of 3.79 acres of about 165,000 square feet. More than
twice the lot area of the minimum required in the R80 zone district. In fact, the applicant
Page 24, June 7. 2001
ZBA Public Heming Tlan$cript
Tox~ n of Southold
owns even more continuous land and approximately 4,000 square foot parcel adjoining
on the north, designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-9-4-7. The question of the
existing Museum building is approximately, currently 2340 square feet and uses 1.4% of
the total lot area. If the variances are granted, the proposed additions would use 5,553
square feet with 3.4°,'o of the total lot area. Much less than the maximum coverage of
20%. Environmental Features: As stated by Mr. Albert in the Affidavit and as can be
seen from the site plan prepared Chanel, O'Conner and King, construction ora more
contbrming rear yard will be closer to the pond and wetlands that are located on the
northwesterly portion of the property. Moreover expansion on that side of the existing
building would involve substantial disturbance to the surface and would necessitate
removal of several mature trees. While the deck and gazebo will be erected at the rear of
the building, those structures will have a very slight impact if they are designed to take
advantage of the slope in that area, as well as the existing natural surroundings. There are
several trees that are there fight now and the gazebo would be built in those trees. The
proposed construction is there for much more environmentally sound than construction in
conforming locations would be. I have prepared a map xvhich shows the different, where
the Museum is noxv is here, the proposed addition in 1999, xve super-imposed the
proposed additions for 2001 on that.
MEMBER HORNING: I brought the survey of what we did approve.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hamm, a quick question. Could I equate this Museum to something
like a library if reference to use or would there be less of an intense use?
BARBARA HAMM: I have Bagley Reid, who is on the Museum Board, and I'm going
to let him answer. But, prior to that~ we have somebody who needs to catch the ferry.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that, and we should let this lady speak.
BARBARA HAMM: Okay, and she would like to explain the model.
ALLIE REARDON: Hi, I'm Allie Reardon, there are actually two designers on this
museum, and I did the interior. I live on the Island year round. One thing that's very
obvious is that the variance that was granted in 1999 really did not think about long term
use and the community. So, basically this is the model, if you would like to see it. This
actually shows very well the drop-off and slope that Jacob Albert talked about and the
· viewing station. In the back of the Museum is a bird sanctuary. When you are in the
present Museum now, you really don't even see the bird sanctuary in the back. So what
we're trying to do is take advantage of the bird sanctuary. Because one of our largest
collections is a large portion of birds. One thing that we really did have to consider is our
current curator is a security so, safety for the collection and his being able to view while
they are in the Museum is very important.
CHAIRMAN: Can we keep this tbr a little while?
Page 25, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heming Transclipt
Town of Southold
ALLIE REARDON: Yes. One other thing is that, the Museum was designed; one thing
that was a large driving force in the design is that the Museum is now parallel to the street
because, so we wanted to give it a visible presence in that area.
CHAIRMAN: We're familiar with Equestrian Avenue, because we definitely go there
every time. Of course, we are familiar with your, because we see you in August every
time we go up. Yes it does blend in also. So Ican see what you're saying. Mrs. Tortora
has a question. Oh it would be for the attorney, okay. We thank you for your
presentation. Does anybody have any questions of this nice lady before she has to go?
No. Mrs. Ham, back to my original question. Mrs. Tortora is holding for a question. Use
of the building is somewhat similar to that of a library or lesser intense use?
BARBARA HAM: My understanding is that the articles in the library are needed for
Fishers Island Estate. It's not a general public library. Bagley Reid is here, who is on our
Museum Board, who can answer specifics on what the volumes are.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman I can answer that. The Library gets a lot more use
seasonally, July and August, but the Library is open to the public year round. People
come and go from there all year round.
CHAIRMAN: Do you agree with that?
BAGLEY REID: Yes, I would. It's not a heavy through load of traffic. It's here
primarily to Fishers Island. George, I would guess the most we have is probably 200
volumes in there.
CHAIRMAN: Is it frequented by children as much as it is frequented by adults?
BAGLEY REID: It sure is. You're talking about the library?
CHAIRMAN: The Museum itself.
BAGLEY REID: The Museum itself? I would guess that 80% are children. It's a great
hands-on.
CHAIRMAN: They go right from the Hey Harbor Club right over to the Museum?
BAGLEY REID: Whatever, the sandy beach area, bring their barnacles in.
MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I am just looking at the Notice of Disapproval; the first part ofit
was that sighting the bulk schedule that you require a front yard setback of 60 feet and an
existing fro~t yard setback shown at 41 feet. But, I thought this Board granted this
Page 26, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
variance frQm the tront yard in 1998, 1999; and in reading the Decision, I see that, yes,
we did.
BARBARA HAM: Yes, you did.
MEMBER TORTORA: Then the issue is mute.
MEMBER HORNING: It's a new non-confonning.
CHAIRMAN: It's not mute, because it's a new non-confonning.
MEMBER TORTORA: No the variance comes with the land.
MEMBER COLLINS: That's for the setback.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's correct.
BARBARA HAM: Mrs. Tortora, this is in a different spot, I don't know i£that makes a
difference.
CHAIRMAN: Well that brings that non-cOnfonnity issue on.
MEMBER ¡rORTORA: Yes, but, read the Notice of Dispproval, All I'm saying is that in
my opinion that don't need a front yard variance.
MEMBER HORNING: The setback remains about the same.
CHAIRMAN: Actually it's alittle more. The other one was 28.8. This is 29.
BARBARA HAM: What we're asking for is 2/1 Q's of a foot less than the original
variance you granted.
MEMBER COLLINS: I understand Member Tortora's point, but, if we are going to get
into that, I, of course did not go back and read the old file, the old decision; but it would
appear that although it was a non-confonning use then, just as it is now, the Building
Department, didn't pay any attention to the fact that this was an expansion of a non-
confonning!use. There was no denial. The only denial was the tront yard setback. This
time around" the law has, in the interim, been amended to make it easier for a non-
confonning!uses like this to expand. As long as they don't expand too much. That's the
15% thing. II would say, I agree with Member Tortora, we address the setback, we
concluded ~bout the setback. Whether it's legally a done deal or not, it certainly is
morally. B1jlt, the thing they're raising this time is that it's too much of an expansion, and
we have to Mdress that, and that's why your numbers of percentage of the lot that's
covered areirelevant. You have a sympathetic audience here.
I
I
I
MEMBER tORTORA: It's 2/1 O's of an inch. I'm not inclined to go measuring it.
Page 27, JW1e 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transciipt
Town of Southold
MEMBER COLLINS: And it's less now.
MEMBER HORNING: That section ofthe Code is hard to interpret too. I read it and
then they go on to talk about a 30%.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, it's new stuff.
MEMBER HORNING: It's very hard to decipher what exactly.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I wanted to say. I'm personally concerned we're
looking at the second part of the Notice of Disapproval on the variance granted on the
setback.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins, do you have anything you want to say?
MEMBER COLLINS: No sir.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ham, we'll see what else develops throughout the hearing and we'll
close the hearing, at that point, if anybody else has any other discussion. Is there
anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody else
that would like to speak against the application? Have the neighbors shown any
disagreement on this application? Just state your name for the record again?
BAGLEY REID: I'm Bagley Reid, and I've lived on Fishers for twenty-five years. I am
a member of the Board ofthe Ferguson Museum. We've gotten, what I think, is a
wonderful support from the neighbors translating, not only enthusiasm, but their almighty
dollar, quite a financial donation from the neighbors. (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: We began to see this building much before these two applications,
because every time we went over Serge would point the building out. Weare
definitely aware of it. He would jam the breaks on in the middle of the road, and he'd
say, "There's the Museum, we have an application and I don't want to have to explain it to
you again." Then he'd tear off. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the
application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision
until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
8:20 P.M. Appl. No. 4955 - ANTHONY AND CAROL MITAROTONDO. This is a
request for Variances, based on the Building Inspector's March 23,2001 Notice of
Disapprova~. Applicant is requesting a side yard location of an accessory structure
Page 28, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing TranSclipt
Town of Southo1d
instead oftile require rear yard. 950 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 111-14-
15. Proper-T-Services.
CHAIRMAN: We're up in Nassau Point is that correct?
JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes
CHAIRMAN: I had the distinct pleasure of visiting this piece of property on a Sunday
morning, an extremely beautiful piece of property. I realize the only thing before us is
the movement of this playhouse.
JAMES FITZGERALD: The need to move the playhouse is on the fact that the
Mitarotondo's are going to install a pool and that it will, in effect, overlap the area where
the playhouse is now located. Because of the unusual shape of rear property line, which
is the line of wetlands there's very little useable rear yard space. When the space for the
pool is used up, there's no flat rear yard space left in the area immediately behind the
house, it's the only area that is outside the D.E.C. 75 foot setback requirement and in the
rear yard, and it's not suitable for the location for the playhouse. The house that has been
the playhouse has been there for sometime. The new proposed location is only about 40
feet from where it is now. I think because ofthe topography again ofthe property with
regard to the road, that passers-by will not really notice any difference in the location of
the playhouse.
CHAIRMAN: There's not going to be any change in the playhouse? It's still going to be
a playhouse; it's not going to be a cabana or anything like that?
JAMES FITZGERALD: No, I don't think so. The problem is this, because ofthe
unavailability of rear yard because of the D.E.C. setback requirements. Side yards on the
other hand are relatively large, much larger than the available space in the rear yard. The
property itself.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions of Mr. Fitzgerald? Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no problems. I concluded just eyeballing from the road
that it would probably be less visible when it's move than it is now.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing?
MEMBER HORNING: The proposed pool is that,
CHAIRMAN: That is not before us.
Page 29, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
JAMES FI1ìZGERALD: The pool is in the rear yard.
CHAIRMAN: and it's 75 feet from the high water mark. So which meets 239.4 of the
Zoning Code.
JAMES FI1jZGERALD: The relocation of the house an important factor in the timing of
the overall project. The Mitarotondo's are very anxious to get going with it, it's been
hanging around a long time. We would appreciate whatever you can do to move it along.
ANTHONY; MIT AROTONDO: I don't have much to say. I have some pictures of the
place where it would be moved to.
CHAIRMAN: We'll take those sir. A pleasure to meet you.
ANTHONY¡ MIT AROTONDO: This is the house, which you probably remember
seeing. Thi~ is the view from the road. This is where we go; this is the flat part, which is
the side yar~. This is just something I was sketching before, this is the only useable
piece, and this is what it would look like if you were to have the sketch done.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this
application?
MEMBER TORTORA: Motion to approve application as applied for.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
8:25 P.M. Appl. No. 4844 - DONALD BUSKARD Application withdraw at applicant's
request.
8:26 P.M. 1\ppl. No. 4906 - V. AND R. LYNCH. This is a request for Variances under
Article III< 'Section 100-33 and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building
Department1s May 10, 2000 for a swimming pool in a side yard location on February 12,
2001 Amended Notice of Disapproval for a deck addition and step area at less than 20
feet from the side property line. Location of Property: Crescent Avenue and Avenue B,
Fishers Island; 1000-6-2-9 and 6-1-15, combined as one lot. Stephen L. Ham III, Esq.
CHAIRMAN: I have a specific request, and that is that we are getting close to making a
decision on ¡this application, of course, we have as you are aware, received a letter from
the neighbor who has now no longer raised any concern regarding this application. It's
important tUat you express to the Lynchs' that when we hopefully grant this application, if
we could kihdly come up in our August meeting and just take a look at it in whatever
stage it's in ~t that point.
!
i
BARBARAI HAM: I'm sure that would be fine. I don't know if the builder is there
everyday, Mr. Thompson, would that be okay.
!
I
I
i
Page 30, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
CHAIRMAN: Yes, just as long as you express to them that when we're over there in
August we would like to look at it only because it gives us further understanding of when
these things occur, of what we are faced with. I'm not saying that we're all voting for it,
but I'm just saying in general, that's what we request.
BARBARA HAM: Last time I was here, there were several issues raised ofthe pool, the
way it was faced. The pool, it's equipment, and the run-off issues. First, I have an
Affidavit of Sign Posting, and the next I have the Affidavit from Mr. Strauss. He
supports the pool in the direction of east/west as the fonner pool was because that would
have the least impact on the topography. That's the last point that you see on the
landscape plan.
CHAIRMAN: There's a huge retaining wall on that one side, isn't there?
BARBARA HAM: I don't know. Weren't there also some issues about the fencing
around the pool? And there's a four-foot fence around the pool and a retaining wall that's
at it's minimum four feet, and depending on the sloping, goes up to seven feet rrom the
house side of the pool. The contours on the landscape plan, that's been provided for you,
are proposed contours; however, when they're compared with existing topos shown in the
1999 map, which is on this Affidavit, you'll see that there is very little grading necessary
if the pool granted in that direction,. the east/west direction. There was a question about
run-off that's not collected in the drywell, nothing should reach the swale. There's a
swale on the bottom, and if it did it would collect there and not cross that road Crescent
Avenue into the sound. There is an extensive planting scheme and it should be adequate
to control and run-off. The pool and the house are in the same situation that they were
when the previous owners, the Gattas, lived there. So as far as the builder said, they
didn't have any difficulty with run-off into the sound, there shouldn't be any with this
plan.
CHAIRMAN: What the problem was, there were no erosion controls taken during the
winter to capture any of this. Had they had put more extensive hay bales in certain
strategic locations. You just can't lay hay bales down. You have to drive rods into them
to hold them in that location. They did not do that, and that is the reason why this ended
up in the road. When I say this, I'm referring to their soil. That was concern that the
Board had at that time.
BARBARA HAM: You'll see on the plan there are extensive plantings and boulders put
throughout the property with retaining soil. The house was built on the existing
foundation so very little re-grading is required.
CHAIRMAN: I don't think the necessary topography of the property was ever changed, I
think it was just kind oflike defoliated to the point where everything is going to be
changed. It probably was done at the wrong time of the year. That's my opinion. That
was the concern that we had when we looked at it.
Page 31, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER HORNING: Well our other concern was that the contractor was wrong in
timing providing a landscape plan with the actual contours and an idea of what
landscaping was going to be done.
BARBARA HAM: I'm sorry it took so long.
CHAIRMAN: Just remember, this decision is going to be hinged to the fact that, ifthis
Board votes in favor of it, that all of this landscaping will be in place and all of the water
run-off that has existed, the soaking ofthe road and so on and so forth, will be totally
eliminated.
MEMBER HORNING: I do bel.ieve that can be accomplished.
CHAIRMAN: Well, they're probably going to have to sod the lawn. I mean that's one of
the ways it's going to have to be done. Or grow it instantaneous one; one way of another.
So that's where we are. Was there anything else you would like to add?
MEMBER HORNING: No. I do go by there quite frequently. The erosion is continued,
as you pointed out, throughout the winter and into the spring. With the heavy rains that
we've had, even though they have some kind of system containment out there.
BARBARA HAM: I have some very in depth, color drawings. Would you like that?
CHAIRMAN: That would be great.
MEMBER HORNING: When it's done, it will be magnificent.
BARBARA HAM: Yes, this is the Crescent Avenue side. There's a trench. I have a side
view of it, also.
MEMBER HORNING: The pool will not be there, my colleagues, in August.
CHAIRMAN: I'm not as concerned about the pool as I am about the other thing. Ifthe
wall is up, and so on and so forth.
MEMBER HORNING: Both are in progress now.
CHAIRMAN : You realize that everything has to be shipped in, so it takes a little bit
longer. Okay. Any questions of Mrs. Ham? Any questions in the audience, for or
against? Okay, I'll make a motion closing the hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
8:35 P.M. Appl. No. 4960 - MICHAEL REDDINGTON. This is a request for a
Variance, based on the Building Inspector's March 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval under
Article III, Section 100-33 for permission to locate a tennis court structure in a front yard
Page 32, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
area at 5700 Nassau Point Road (and Wunneweta Road), Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-111-
12-2.1. Fairweather-Brown Architects.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Good evening, my name is Richard Vandenberg. I actually
live in Southold and are personal fuends of Mike and Helen Reddington. I also am a
local attorney. I represented them on the purchase with regards to this property. I got a
call yesterday, from Mike. I'm really here pinch-hitting for him, because they are
expecting their fourth child. I guess it's any moment now. They live up in Manhasset.
So he asked me to please come down and see if I could perhaps offer any response to any
questions that you would have. I do have with me, this is a faxed copy, and Mike tells
me that he spoke with Mrs. Kowalski about the fact that he was going to be faxing these.
There is one card that we got back from the letters in Garden City. I think he had already
filed the Proof of Mailing Affidavit, as well as, the Posting Affidavit, as well as the slip
showing the fact that the card was mailed to them in the proper term. He faxed me a
copy of the survey, and he explained to me, briefly, what they are trying to do here. It's
one ofthose parcels where they've got kind of that two front yard scenario.
CHAIRMAN : We actually had a lot of those. What happened was, I was over on a
Sunday morning and I met with builder. A very nice chap, actually his wife and his son.
I expressed to him that, with proper screening, I don't really see that this is a problem. I
noticed in the file that we have not received any correspondence from any neighbors that
have indicated that they have a specific concern about it. One thing I forgot to ask was
the height of the fence. Are you familiar with that?
RICHARD VANDENBERG: My understanding is that and it's really more of a
procedural question that I have. I understand that the denial was with respect to the
placement of the tennis court alone. I was not sure if the issue of the fence was going to
be before the Board.
MEMBER TORTORA: It will eventually if it's too high. It may not be here now, but if
you plan on using more than a four foot high fence.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: I think what the original intention, as he explained it to
me, was that they plan to have like a temporary curtain type structure. His conversation
with the Building Department was, it didn't seem to them to file because of this
temporary type of structure.
CHAIRMAN: I think he's going to put up windscreen.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Right, something like that. I think though, and I will say
that they had considered, they are considering putting up like a cyclone type fence, which
would be four foot on the sides and eight foot on the ends.
Page 33, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Yes, the eight-foot's going to have to come back, because it's in the front
yard.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Okay. It's a black cyclone type fence. That was kind of
the thought, but I think that immediate plan which he had talked about initially when they
put up the whole design, was this curtain type structure.
MEMBER TORTORA: I have a couple of questions. What's the size of the tennis court?
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Unfortunately, my faxed copy of the survey is rather
small.
MEMBER TORTORA: Mine is no larger.
CHAIRMAN: Could you furnish us with that?
MEMBER COLLINS: I expect it's 5500, if you take the 52 foot setback from Nassau
Point Road.
MEMBER TORTORA: The width ofthe lot is 150 feet.
CHAIRMAN: We're going to have a meeting on the 20th anyway. So as long as you get
it to us by the 20th of July that's alright.
MEMBER TORTORA: The dimensions of the court?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: My next question is, why can't you move the court back closer
to the center of the property to get it off of Nassau Point Road.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: I think that one ofthe problems is that there is a garage in
the parking area and there may be a to move it somewhat further back, increasing the 50
foot. - That may be possible I'm not exactly, again, my faxed copy of the survey is really
poor.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing I'm thinking of is down the road, you have
sufficient area here to move it back, and eventually down the road you are going to come
back. So let's see if we can get it as far back from Nassau Point Road now.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: You can very simply do that by letter.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Sure, I'll have him review that.
Page 34, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
MEMBER TORTORA: Give us the size, give us the maximum distance that you can go
from Nassau Point Road, bearing in mind that it is a front yard area.
CHAIRMAN: And any screening between there and the road.
MEMBER TORTORA: Correct
RICHARD VANDENBERG: You mean proposed, like natural screening that type of
thing.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, Aphrodite, Douglas Fur or.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: I think he's directing it to Briarcliff, and I think they plan
to maintain whatever natural screening there, but also continue to do landscaping.
CHAIRMAN: We'd like to know that.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Absolutely.
MEMBER TORTORA: Also, do they plan on having any lighting.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: I don't think they plan on having any lighting
MEMBER TORTORA: That's not going to explain that.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Well, I'll tell you that they don't intend to have any
artificial lighting.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins do you have any questions?
MEMBER COLLINS: No. I'd second the request for more information on what they
have in terms of screening; and I agree with Mrs. Tortora, thatthe further back it can be
from the road the better. I recognize looking at the lot, that's the front of the house, they
probably don't want the tennis court on the front steps, but you should find out how far
back they're willing to take it. The existing natural screening on Nassau Point Road is
very scruffy. I would expect that, as part of their overall plan, they're planning to do
something about it. Certainly, we would like to know what they have planned.
MEMBER TORTORA: The depth of the lot from that side is 475 feet, 450 on the other.
The depth of the entire lot is 450 or 475. So I think we can get back further a few feet.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: I have a survey here that says 60 feet. I have one that is actually shown
by the surveyor; by John C. Ehrlers it says 60 feet. So we're back eight already.
Page 35, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
To"lVIl of Southold
RICHARD VANDENBERG: My recollection of the property is there is a slight grade, I
think.
CHAIRMAN: There's a grade toward that private road. But the property itself is
actually flat. I think that's about it. Mr. Dinizio, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question. If you're not putting a fence around it what did
they get denied for?
MEMBER COLLINS: From the front yard.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can't put asphalt on your front lawn?
MEMBER COLLINS: You can't put an accessory structure.
CHAIRMAN: There's also a wall 'on one side, because ofthe elevation factor.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can get denied for a wall?
CHAIRMAN: Sure you can get denied for a wall.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They got denied for a tennis court.
MEMER TORTORA: It's in a front yard; it's an accessory structure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What makes it a tennis court though. I'm trying to figure out what
makes this thing a structure, if you just lay down blacktop and painted it green, is that a
tennis court, is that a structure?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Anybody can do that.
CHAIRMAN: We determined that around 1985 on Arrowhead Lane.
MEMBER DINIZIO: By the fact of what you do on the asphalt. That's what makes it a
structure?
CHAIRMAN: No. That the tennis court is a structure, regardless if you put on a
temporary fence or a permanent fence. It is still a structure. It uses lot coverage and
that's the way the Board interpreted it. I happened to be on the Board at that time, and I
would be very happy to draw you to that case, if you would like to see it. What's the
difference between that and a swimming pool? A swimming pool
Page 36, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER DINIZIO: What's between this and a driveway? What if you just took it and
extended it to Nassau Point Road, what would be the difference? It could be a parking lot
for his cars.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can I see the survey that you are looking at?
CHAIRMAN: We had one on Salt Marsh Lane, which was exactly the same thing in
Peconic, if you remember.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess my thinking is why don't we grant this guy a fence?
CHAIRMAN: Because he hasn't applied for the fence.
MEMBER TORTORA: This says April 8, 2000, and the one you have here says April 8,
2000. They're two different surveys.
CHAIRMAN: That's the reason why I wanted to say to you that we're back 60 feet
already.
MEMBER TORTORA: This one says 60 feet. Yours says 52 and mine says 52.
CHAIRMAN: We're going in the wrong direction. We want to make sure we're going
the other way. You want to go West young man, go West. Toward the garage.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chair, what's the purpose of the update on the Notice of
Disapproval?
CHAIRMAN: I have no idea.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: I think the intention was, you realize after he had submitted
the application for the tennis court, the issue was you're going to have to put up a fence,
you might want to put up a fence. He says, well we plan to do this screen which is a
temporary structure, which the Building Department said you would require a permit;
they wouldn't have any jurisdiction over it so to speak. It was suggested to him, why
don't you put it in for a regular fixed fence, because you're here before the Board anyway.
So I think he was hoping to be able to amend, regardless of disapproval.
MEMBER HORNING: But he did not do that?
RICHARD VANDENBERG: No, and that's why I am ambiguous before the Board on
that issue, technically, but I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN: So you'll get back to us before the 20th of July?
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Absolutely. We'll plan to provide you with the
information about the maximum distance that we can move it back. What the plan is for
Page 37, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transclipt
Town of Southo1d
the natural screen, and the permanent And that there will be no artificial lighting. If we
do that by letter prior to the 20th, no further appearance is necessary?
CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN : We are going to close the hearing pending receipt of that. Thank you sir.
RICHARD VANDENBERG: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to
speak against? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, pending the
receipt of the information from council. .
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
8:48 P.M. Appl. No. 4961- ROBERT AND PATRICIA WINCHESTER. This is a
request for a Variance, based on the Building Inspector's May 14, 2001 Notice of
Disapproval under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A, which states that the existing
structure has a nonconforming setback ITom the front lot line on East Club Road, and
second story addition shown at 36 feet, outside of the building footprint, from front lot
line, an increase in the degree of nonconformance. Applicant proposes to add a second-
story addition at less than 50 feet from the front property line. Location: 6675 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-111-15-7. Fairweather-Brown Architects.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Martin is back.
AMY MARTIN: In this case, we have another situation where with the exception of a
very small addition, a two-story addition we are asking for a Variance to construct the
second story addition. In this case, we are on a much larger piece of property as the
previous application. The problem, the Disapproval is because a front road setback on
East Club Road which is basically a paper road for a right of way for the community to
get to the bluff above the beach. So it is a non-existent road as it stands. The interesting
thing is, the new two-frame addition as it's next to the porch is 36 feet from the tie-line.
The new second story expansion is 19.6 feet from the tie-line. My way of thinking, and
maybe I'm incorrect, the Winchester's are taxed for that half-moon that goes to the
irregular road line of the paper road. That provides another 18 feet to the road itself, if
you measure the furthest comer. Knowing that, we actually asked for this disapproval,
knowing that things were going up now, with improper setbacks to quicken the process
and we were granted on the basis of the tie-line.
CHAIRMAN: What you're saying is there is 18 more feet there.
AMY MARTIN: There's another 18 feet.
Page 38, June 7, 2001
. ZBA Public Healing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm ignorant about the word, tie-line.
AMY MARTIN: I think it's a surveyors tool for showing, there is no way of properly
lineation that paper road, because it doesn't exist. The line was drawn from the water
comer of the property to the street comer of the property to measure it.
MEMBER TORTORA: Let me back that up. Are you saying that the tie-line is your
property line?
AMY MARTIN: No. I'm saying that's the surveyors tool as it's shown on the plot plan.
You see where it says tie-line.
MEMBER TORTORA: Where is, you say the road doesn't exist. Is it an official road?
CHAIRMAN: It's a paper street.
MEMBER TORTORA: Does it appear on an official map?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
AMY MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, where is the right of way of the road?
CHAIRMAN: Some place in that situation.
AMY MARTIN: Part of where it's drawn by the surveyor.
CHAIRMAN: And it meanders down.
AMY MARTIN: And the Town Map has this drawn as such, and the surveyor has taken
from the Town Map. But the road does not exist a blade of trees and bushes that
people walk through ftom the community to get to the bluff.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well that can be a pain in the neck. How can you measure the
distance of the inadequacy ofthe setback if you don't know where the right of way is. If
the right of way was established.
AMY MARTIN: The right of way is drawn on the Town Map, and that is what the
surveyor has used.
MEMBER COLLINS: Can I stick my two cents in? Lydia you looked at the surveyor's
survey. The surveyor's survey shows the property line in dark. I suspect if we went and
read the deed, we'd find something mysterious that tried to describe that curved line.
Then there's the tie-line, which is a straight line, which is used for certain purposes. I
agree with you, I'm never quite sure what they use tie-lines for. The Building
Page 39, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
Department measured the setback to the tie-line and not the property line. I don't know
why.
AMY MARTIN: The Winchesters pay taxes including that whole section?
CHAIRMAN: Therè's a bank there, so what they did was basically run it on a straight
line which is basically, I assume the top of the bank.
MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, the Notice of Disapproval says, second story
addition shown at 36 feet outside of the building from front lot line.
MEMBER COLLINS: They're calling the tie-line a lot line, that's the point.
MEMBER TORTORA: Front yards are measured from the right of way, not the property
line, not from tie-lines, but from right of ways. It can be, you have 18 feet between the
tie-line and the right of way and you have 36 feet, you don't need a variance.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes you do.
CHAIRMAN: Yes you do.
AMY MARTIN: 37 feet 6 inches. We're two feet six inches short of the proper amount.
MEMBER TORTORA: Lara are your following where I'm going?
MEMBER COLLINS: I missed some arithmetic. 36 and 18 is 54.
AMY MARTIN: No, but they're also saying the other part we're going up a second story.
MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, they haven't spoken ofthat. That's one thing that has me
quite distressed.
MEMBER TORTORA: They're not addressing that. We spend a lot of time interpreting
the Code and where yards should be measured from in prior decisions last year.
CHAIRMAN: When there are accesses adjacent to them.
MEMBER TORTORA: We concluded that yard measurements according to our Town
Code are to be taken from the right of way. In this instance the second story addition
showing 36 outside ofthe, from the lot line, the measurement is not correct. I don't know
how we are going to resolve this.
CHAIRMAN: We're going to just grant it. We can't read too much into some of these
things.
Page 40, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transclipt
Town of Southo1d
MEMBER COLLINS: In your interpretation, they didn't need the variance because the
Building Department misread the map. That is water over the dam. To the extent that's
right, we'll just grant the variance.
AMY MARTIN: And we waited ten weeks for a disapproval.
MEMBER COLLINS: What's perhaps more troubling and is sort of neither here nor
there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let's not mention that.
MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, is what their up to.
CHAIRMAN: Anything else? Please don't leave until the hearing is closed. We don't
know ifthere's any opposition. Have you received any opposition in your office?
AMY MARTIN: We have not.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor ofthis application?
Anybody would like to speak against this application? Whose application is this?
MEMBER TORTORA: Mine.
CHAIRMAN: Why don't you.
MEMBER TORTORA: I move to approve the application as applied for.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
* * *
8:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4921- DORIS ANDERSON (owner) AND JOHN HURTADO.
Applicants request variances under Article XXIII, Section 1000-239.4A.1, based on the
Building Department's December 20,2000 Notice of Disapproval, for a new dwelling
with setbacks at less than 100 feet trom the top of the bluff, less than 30 feet for
combined side yard setbacks, and less than 40 feet trom the tront property line. Location
of Property: 34000 Lighthouse Road, Southo1d; 1000-50-2-2-. Mr. Hurtado, applicant.
CHAIRMAN: This is a hearing that we had prior and who is representing whom?
GAIL WICKHAM: I wanted to first of all, address two items that were raised by the
Board during prior discussions and correspondence. One addresses the concern about the
location of the retaining wall with respect to the location of the bluff. You have in your
file a letter trom Mr. Fischetti, our engineer, indicating that the angle of the bluff
relative to the setback of the retaining wall indicates there is not hazard to the bluffs
stability. Mr. Fischetti is here to answer any questions if you have them. There was also
a concern of that the location of Coastal Erosion Line, and we have in your file a letter
Page 41, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
trom Mr. Metzger, Peconic Surveyors, who had plotted that line on the survey. It was
slightly different than the line plotted by Mr. Ehlers to the west, and Mr. Metzger has
indicated that the location is correct and that the differential is because the bluff size of a
line on a small map give the slight variation when you are transposing locating on a site
specific map like this. I think it's the methodology which is not the problem, but the data
trom which the infonnation is taken. The line of the bluff is the same on both maps and
there is only a few feet differential between the two surveys. If you have any further
questions, I can answer that.
CHAIRMAN: We can say that it's in the area of the retaining wall, is that correct?
GAIL WICKHAM: Yes, it is, in the close vicinity. In fact, the retaining wall was
suggested by the Board of Trustees, that was not the applicant's proposal. They thought it
was sensible to have it there to enable the slope away trom the bluff to be more
advantageous to avoid drainage. It is a fairly low retaining wall to begin with. The
issues that you have before you specific of a variance of three. One is the bluff setback
of 50 feet. While that is a variance from the requirement, it is comparable to the
adjoining properties. Fortunately, there is a very stable vegetated bluff here. Mr.
Hurtado ascertained that fact trom Chuck at land use company before he even
got involved with this piece of property to make sure that the bluff line and its stability
were in good shape and he was assured that they were. So, we are trying certainly not to
exceed beyond the general line of the existing houses, and expect that with the erosion
control measures e to be taken, that would be an appropriate location for the house. The
second item is the side yard of 15 feet on each side. You will notice that there is a 15-
foot side yard on each side. But only on one point of the house on each side. There is an
excess of 15 feet as you go further away from the bluff, in fact, it goes back to 20 at the
rear at the east side and it's actually 20 feet trom the northwest side of the house to the
edge of the side yard. So on average we do think it would be tumbled in the 15 point.
The reason that house was angled that way was really to square it with the line of the
bluff. Ifwe had gone exactly with the 15 on one side and the 20 on the other, because of
the angle of the side yard, the house would not have been square to the bluff. So that's
why that resulted. The third item on the variance has to do with a 36 foot tront yard.
That is trom the lighthouse road side. You will note that this, in fact, is Soundview
Avenue considerably more. The 36-foot setback pertains only to the very extreme
southwest comer ofthe house. It's only a few square feet ofthe house that is actually
inside the 40-foot setback line. If you have any questions, hopefully Mr. Fischetti, Mr.
Hurtado or I will be able to answer.
CHAIRMAN: There was some letter that I had read which said that there was a question
about the legality of the lot. We are assuming that this is a legal lot, is that correct?
GAIL WICKHAM: I'm not aware of any issue as to it not being a legal lot. Are you
talking about a single and separate issue?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, or that the lot was a remainder lot and was never supposed to be built
on.
Page 42, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of South old
GAIL WICKHAM: I'm not aware of that.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. I guess we should ask Mr. Fischetti some questions. Thank you
Miss Wickham. Mr. Fischetti, how are you tonight? We haven't seen you in a couple of
weeks. What specific erosion control measures do you suggest that a property owner
owning a piece of property as this contract vendee is anticipating at this time, should take
in lawn surface, terracing supposedly.
MR. FISCHETTI: Right now the Trustees have given the major recommendation which
is to have all the grading pitch backward. That's the latest erosion control message that
they have. We're containing all the roof run-off, we're containing all the driveway runoff,
and as long as that bluff is stable, as long as the rest of the runoff from the rear yard is
pitched backward, which is the reason for that retaining wall, that bluff should stay just
the way it is. That house will not have any on that bluff.
CHAIRMAN: Does anybody on the Board have any questions of Mr. Fischetti?
MEMBER TORTORA: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham, anything else at this time? Anybody else like to speak in
favor ofthe application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Tohill, how
are you?
ANTHONY TOHILL: Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Board, I'm Anthony Tohi11.
I'm here this evening representing Preall, which is the immediate neighbor on the east
side. My presentation will be brief and I hope, to the point. We have a number of very
nice concerns. The first one is the size of the house. The second is the exact placement of
the house. The effect of the size and the placement on the Preall house is effectively to
dwarf it. That's not entirely Mr. Hurtado's problem. The Preall house happens to be quite
small. It's only 12 feet high. However, by moving from the 100 foot setback from the
bluff to 50 feet and placing it exactly where it's placed has affected the outdoor living are
of the Preall house is effectively no longer an outdoor living area. Because it will always
have shadow, it will never have afternoon sun. For those of you who have visited it, you
will notice that there is a deck on the seaward side of the Preall house which is the whole
living arrangement with the house. We would ask that the Board, as it has in the past, in
applications exactly of this kind, consider moving the house landward, 10 feet if it were
possible. The affect of that would be to give space to Preall. Allow something from the
light and air from the west to the Preall deck and also give space to Reinigerwho is going
to feel this house squeezed on the northwest comer. I just want to show you now, I'll
hand up the drawing that we have prepared; and it shows you some of what I'm talking
about, in the sense that it shows the size of the proposed Hurtado house relative to the
Reiniger house and the Preall house. You can see from that drawing what's happening
here. You can also sense if you stand on the lot, that if you simply come to a Lighthouse
Road with that Hurtado house, 10 feet, the effect would dramatically change the adverse
impact on the adjacent properties, both properties, Reiniger andPrea11. I have asked
Page 43. June 7, 2o01
ZBA Public Hcanng Transcript
Town oi' Soutbold
Patrick Given, an appraiser to deal with the question of the placement, as it's proposed.
He prepared an Affidavit, I'm going to hand the original to the Chair and a copy for each
of you, in which he simply that on his review of what he can see, there would be an
adverse impact on the property value of Preall, in particular. So again, if it were
landward, that would make a difference. There are some housekeeping issues here. One
is that the lot area is nowhere described on any of the documents that I can see. It
appears to me, as a lay person, not to be in compliance with the minimum lot area
requirement for that area; and there is no single and separate search. So, technically,
there is a housekeeping detail which should be attended to. Second problem, it seems to
me, is that there is no plan nor is there any sectional drawing that shows you from
a side view what will happen when the retaining wall get hung along the seaward edge or
landward at the top of the bluff. You know from the drawings that Mr. Fischetti prepared
that there would be, not Mr. Fischetti I'm sorry, it would have been the surveyor's
drawing, that there is a drainage ring between the seaward side of the house and the
landward side of that retaining wall. You do not know how water will reach the drain,
because you do not see any side view; and if you do look at the dimensions called the
elevations, you will see that it's a northeast comer us 65 feet from the top of the bluff.
The northwest comer over by Reiniger is 64 feet. Out on the it's 60 feet at the
southeast comer. Somehow the house is going to be, at first floor elevation, 73 feet. So
now 64 feet to 73 feet is 9 feet difference. That's a big difference if you stand on a little
tiny lot like that lot. You could fall into any comer by just leaping. You have no data
any where iii the record explaining how the lot is going to be finished, how the water mn
off is going to take place. When the test code was excavated there for the Health
Department, was being excavated there, it just so happens I went by and I spoke the
contractor who xvas digging the test hole. But that hole went down probably 30 feet with
the crane. I asked him at what point did you hit water. I was interested because the
survey shows Mark McDonald test hole shows water at 32 feet. The contractor tells me
he hit water at 12 feet. If you walk down the set of stairs from parking lot toward the
beach, you will find on your left side, maybe twenty steps down, broken concrete rabble.
If you look carefully, the broken concrete rabble is there because there is a real seepage
problem coming out of the fact of that bluff, lfI shoxv you now a couple of pages from
the Aubrey 1998 Shoreline Change Analysis for the Town of Southold, you will see that
that bluff is not the stabilest portion of the Long Island Sound, and in fact, has suffered
negative changes, persistently. I should mention of the three pages I handed up, one is
the cover sheet, the second one is portion of the map of the so called trans-sex and you
will see the property that we are talking about right now, right next to the zero at the right
hand side of, right by the word Horton Creek. The trans-sex were set every 100 feet,
starting at that point literally where we are. Just a coincidence in this 1998 study, and
they went west to the western boundary line of the Town, every 100 feet. So that the
trans-sex when called out on the next and last page would be the first 500 feet literally
with that set of stairs I just described from the Lighthouse Parking lot, about right in the
middle. It shows that there has been shoreline change. That's not happening because it's
an entirely healthy shoreline, that's happening because that shoreline does have some
perched water clay problem and the Mark McDonald Test Data on the survey does show
that there is clay starting at 2 tA feet in that area. The contractor told me that when he
was digging the Health Department test hole that he encountered tremendous amounts of
Page 44, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
clay and had difficulty with the bucket of the crane because the clay was so heavy. We
would ask if you consider on the basis ofthis, three things:
1. Would you consider moving the house back toward the street, at least ten feet.
2. Would you consider just as a extra precaution, acknowledging that perched water
problem. Acknowledging the seepage and acknowledging, as Gail Wickham did
report, that bluff is not right now falling down. When we went to examine it, it
appeared to us to be holding up. Move the drainage hole landward in a manner
that corresponds to the moving of the house landward. And ask that the
housekeeping measures, that I indicated earlier particularly, the cross-section of
the fill plan be made part of the record and approved by the Board.
Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Thank you. Yes, sir? Go ahead sir. You are the
gentleman that spoke the last time. You live in the house closest to the parking lot. Can I
have your name again?
MR.REINIGER: Reiniger. At that time, my concern was the septic system, which you
said you were going to have somebody professional look at.
CHAIRMAN: We don't do septic systems. The Suffolk County Department of Health
does that.
MR.REINIGER: But someone is going to look at it and say that it's safe. My
understanding is that the septic system is already put in. Right?
MR. HURTADO: No, we did a test hole for it and put sand down.
MR. REINIGER: I thought you told me you put the septic system in.
CHAIRMAN: We have to deal with that up here. That was very simply a test hole.
MR. REINIGER: I'm still very concerned about a septic system that will ruin my water
system. I have such a small piece ofland.
CHAIRMAN: What you need to do is discuss that with Suffolk County Department of
Health Services.
REINIGER: I call them directly? Okay. The next thing that upsets me.
CHAIRMAN: Just do me a favor, ask them for the SO number for this application. Ask
either Mr. Hurtado or, S. O. number for their application.
REINIGER: What I understand is that legally one can build a 900 square foot house on
that piece of property.
Page 45, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of South old
CHAIRMAN: It's whatever we determine that could be built in reference to the setbacks
that apply. They are presently requesting to minimize those setbacks.
REINIGER: So if they didn't ask for something, they could build a 900 square foot
house.
CHAIRMAN: I don't know what the square footage is.
REINIGER: What I don't understand is that how there are laws protect property and
someone comes along and asks for variances on every single solitary issue; and
completely rearranges the whole scope of the neighborhood. There is no where else on
that bluff, or in that neighborhood where houses are that close to each other, no where.
You have a house with 15 feet and another house with another 15 feet all ina row, on one
little tiny piece of property. I personally just don't understand what the point is of having
somebody make bigger laws, so that we just change them when someone has a desire to
do something.
CHAIRMAN: The question that I asked council, Mr. Reiniger was, is it a legal lot. We
assume that it is a legal lot. We are going to ask her before we leave tonight to indicate
to us. We are going to look at the deed, examine the deed. Unfortunately, as no lot is
flat, as I've explained to this Board, also no lot, except in a sub-division, usually meets
sizes and conformities to size. Particularly along Peconic Bay, and particularly along the
Long Island Sound lots end up to be very, very, very irregular sizes. The purpose of this
Board and the purpose of the establishment of this Board in 1957 was to allow a relief
valve for these types of properties. So, yes, they are requesting multiple variances. We
haven't granted any variances at this point. We are still in a fact-finding position. Until
such time that all the questions are answered, nothing will be rendered ftom this Board.
This particular applicatìon will not, the hearing will not be closed tonight, because of
other things that we are going to be requesting. You must stay with it, at that particular
point. I sincerely hope that that gives you some food for thought. This is not a
derogatory statement. At the same time, a better understanding of why we are here. We
are not here to grant multiple variances, but in some cases, some ofthe lots, this happens
to be an extremely irregular lot. It comes up like this, it turns this, and the road goes on a
diagonal. It's very irregular. I mean the sides don't match. That's basically the situation.
So, I understand your situation, all I can tell you is.
MR. REINIGER: It's just a shame to ruin two other people's homes so that one person
can build a whole different than what - one could build a 900 square foot home there and
be within, what somebody else thought was correct.
CHAIRMAN: It's my understanding, and I could be corrected, but I think what you are
referring to is the minimum square footage, which is 850 square feet. I'm telling you, I
believe it's 850 square feet.
Page 46, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR. REINIGER: Some ofthe neighbors have been around talking and I hear some
people talking, and I was told that this particular piece of land, the actual area to build a
house was 900 square feet. They also couldn't build it because of the septic system. That
he would have to wait for the city supplied a sewer system. Then he could build a 900
square foot and not be in violation of any setbacks.
CHAIRMAN: That's why it's important to come to these hearings, so that, again, not a
derogatory statement, but to gain as much information because we are still in fact-
finding.
MEMBER TORTORA: The other thing to remember is the Board is going to grant the
minimum relief necessary. That's what we're charged to do.
MR. REINIGER: In essence you're here to protect me too?
CHAIRMAN: We try to protect everybody.
MEMBER TORTORA: But that's what we're charged to do. And that's what we'll try to
do.
CHAIRMAN: We cannot stop him fÌ'om building a two-story house.
MEMBER TORTORA: That doesn't mean we have to grant all the variances or any of
them for that matter.
MR. REINIGER: You've been to the property, and seen how
CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was crawling around the wall one Saturday morning and actually
ended up in your fÌ'ont yard, actually your rear yard, and the water side. I was dodging
the poison ivy bushes at the same time. Yes ma'am.
WOMAN: I'm just a lay person; this is the first meeting I've attended of the Planning
Board.
CHAIRMAN: Zoning Board ma'am. Could you just state your name for me please?
MILDRED BOYCE: My name is Mildred Boyce and I live on Soundview Avenue. I'm
not personally involved with this, thank God. My only connection is that I walk my dogs
up everyday to the lighthouse. I've been appalled by what's happening in this two by
nothing lot. All kinds of trees taken down, holes in the ground, it doesn't look large
enough to build on. I'm a concerned citizen, and I feel very sorry for people on either
side. The gentleman who just spoke today, he told me about his cesspool. I think that's a
really, really important issue. He's, perhaps, not going to have clean water ifthe cesspool
is allowed to be put in there very close to his well. Everyday I shake my head and say,
this cannot be real, that these people, whoever they are, are going to build here. It's just
beyond belief.
Page 47, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Healing TranSclipt
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham can we ask you a question?
MEMBER TORTORA: The size of the house?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: The size of the house is approximately, between 1800 and
1900 feet on the first floor, and the second floor is slightly less than that.
MEMBER TORTORA: Overall dimensions?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: 40 x 45 or thereabouts. I'm sorry I don't have the exact
dimensions. You have them in your file. You have a plan.
MR. HURTADO: The size ofthe house of 40 x 49, but it's kind of.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: If you multiply 40 x 49 you will get a larger square footage.
MEMBER TORTORA: 2,000 square feet.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I don't think it's much over 1900, it's thereabouts. I'll be glad
to get you an exact number.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, let's go through typicals. It's a very small lot, with a lot
of variances on it. Let's talk about a little smaller house.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Well, if! could just address some ofthe comments that were
made while I'm trying to answer your question. The variances on the side yard and the
£font yard are minimal. It's really the 50-foot on the bluff setback that is the significant
variance here. That was just the concern of the gentleman who just spoke, being
requested to put it in align with the existing houses. There's really nothing to prevent the
owner on the east that Mr. Tohill spoke on behalf of, rrom extending the side of his
house. And, in fact, Mr. Hurtado indicated to me while Mr. Tohill was talking that ifthat
gentleman ;as willing to covenant against building up, he would be willing to move his
house back, as what's suggested. In terms ofthe actual size ofthe house, I think it was, it
seems to be the style today to build that type of roomy house, and I don't believe we're in
a lot coverage situation. While I'm focusing on those comments, I think Mr. Tohill's
suggestion of putting the drain further back is a very good one, and we'd be willing to do
that. Regarding your concern about lot itself, I do not have a progress report, but I would
be happy to give you whatever you need in that regard.
CHAIRMAN: What about the plan that he's requesting in reference to the filling and
removal of soil, and so on, and so forth?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: I think again, that was largely generated, as a result ofthe
Trustees desire to have a retaining wall there. The retaining wall is going to be about
Page 48, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heating Transctipt
Town of Southo1d
three feet above grade. That plus the 15.6 feet will bring it to 69. Do you have those
grades?
CHAIRMAN: You're going to submit it to us?
MR. BURT ADO: I like to answer it.
CHAIRMAN : You're going to answer it. Okay. Does that mean Ms. Wickham, that you
are telling us
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I haven't answered the question.
CHAIRMAN: I want to get into the alternate relief thing.
MEMBER TORTORA: I want her to answer this, because, I want to know yes or no.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I think one that's important is that proximity to the bluff be
more or less where it is proposed because of view, and the gentleman didn't understand
why Variances were requested. Well, that was so we could be in line with the bluff.
Could you give me a minute to ask my client specifically your questions?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I'll tell you why. Because we're supposed to look at the
minimum relief necessary and I'm just concerned that down the road you may want a
deck, you may want a pool or a tennis court.
CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any place for a tennis court.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Ifhe shortens it, it does require a whole new plan. If you're
concerned about additional structures, then certainly that's something that could be a
condition of the Variance. Did you hear what she said about a pool or a deck of that
nature?
MR. HURT ADO: I'm not proposing to build a deck. You mean for the future? Would I
have to come back to the Board for that?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: In terms of going closer, extending new structures closer to the
bluff, yes, you would have to come back to the Board. I don't know that we would be
expecting to get a further extension of that setback reduction. In terms of what could
happen on the other side of the house, I don't think he gave it another thought of it. I
don't know why you'd put a deck back there anyway.
MEMBER TORTORA: One ofthe things that we started to look at, and believe we've
learned the hard way, is when you're looking at new construction, you're asking for a fifty
foot setback ttom the bluff that's a substantial variance. Then we also have to say, down
the road, there is a very real possibility that he's going to want the deck. Why is he going
;;:J
Page 49, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of South old
to want a deck? Because all the neighbors have decks, etc. So that fifty feet then
becomes
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hurtado, we're referring to a raised deck as opposed that's ground
level.
MEMBER TORTORA: So what I'm looking for is the minimum reliefthat he's willing to
accept. Ifhe's not willing to accept anything other than a 40 x 50 foot house, I may feel
compelled to say no. So it's a very important question to you.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: If! could point out that the setback from the neighbor's house
on the east is less than what we're looking for. The setback ofthe neighbor's house on the
left is considerably less.
MEMBER HORNING: You're referring from the bluff?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: From the bluff, the setback from the bluff, yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know their particulars. I don't know the particular
environmental factors of those lots, how they were created or anything. Each lot on the
bluff has a unique set of circumstances and I personally think, my neighbor got it, I want
it. The whole shoreline is very unique. It's different from Goldsmith's Inlet to Horton's
Point. I don't know the personal circumstances of both ofthese lots and what's involved
with it. This particular lot has been owned by Mrs. Brown for, I believe over forty years.
Mrs. Anderson, I mean.
MEMBER TORTORA: And it's probably pre-existing, non-conforming setbacks. But
this is a brand new house. So we have an opportunity to do the best we can with it, and
that may mean granting minimum relief necessary.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I understand that, all I'm asking is that it be somewhat
comparable to what is.
MEMBER TORTORA: Within fifty years ago?
MR. REINIGER: Mine was built in the 1960's.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Certainly the size of the lot to the west is very, very tiny.
MR. HURTADO: Are you suggesting that we reduce the size of the house?
CHAIRMAN: She's requesting to reduce the size of the house and move it back toward
the road a little bit.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I do want to point out that the neighbor on the east could
certainly, because they have a pre-existing house, double the size of that house by
Page 50, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transclipt
Town of Southo1d
building up another story or two. In looking at a piece of property with two houses that
have been there a long time that are tiny, we see what's happening to some of these small
houses out here. People are expanding them. We're bit looking to exceed lot coverage;
we're not looking to exceed the distance back :ITom the neighbors that's presently existing.
The house owned by the gentleman Mr. Tohill represents has no windows whatsoever on
our side of the hòuse. It's not something that's going to affect the way the house is built
now.
CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, since this is lengthy, I want to put my two cents in. Ms.
Wickham had said before that there are three variances that they are looking for here.
Sideyard, setback on the :ITont yard :ITom the Lighthouse Road side, and setback from the
bluff. I'm inclined to agree with Ms. Wickham that the :ITont yard setback and the side
yard setbacks, in terms of feet and what the Code says, are not big deals. The neighbors
are very unhappy over the fact that it is legally possible to build a two-story house on this
lot and that if the house, in fact, were slightly narrower than it is, you wouldn't have a
side yard setback problem at all. The neighbors don't like it. People don't like change,
they don't like big houses. Weare not the Planning Board and we are not the
Architectural Review Board. I think, I agree with Ms. Wickham that the big issue here is
the setback from the bluff. We all worry about the bluff, we worry about drainage, we
hear :ITom engineers right and left, I don't know who's right. We try to do what we can to
keep drainage away :ITom the bluff. I think that matters, and the neighbors should not
look to us to be an Architectural Review Board, and the neighbors possibly expect us to
stop building on a legally build able lot.
CHAIRMAN: Ms. Collins, let me just say something to you. We have granted
swimming pools at 45 feet as long as they're not hinged to the house. We don't grant
houses 45 feet from the bluff and this is 50 feet. We don't grant them at 50 feet.
MEMBER COLLINS: That's the big issue, I'm agreeing with you. Agreeing with Gail
Wickham.
CHAIRMAN: You're agreeing with Gail Wickham, and we're telling you we don't grant
them at 50 feet.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, now are we going to become
unpleasant, don't become unpleasant. Ms. Wickham said before that she felt, that of the
three variances her client was seeking, the side yard and front yard setbacks, although
variances were not big deals, but that she recognized the setback :ITom the bluff was a big
deal. I do too. That's all I am trying to say.
CHAIRMAN: And what I am trying to say is that number one, we don't grant them at
50, usually. And we don't grant setbacks at 26, so something's got to go.
MEMBER COLLINS: 26? It's 36.
!~,
Page 51, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heating Transctipt
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Parson me, if you move ifback 10 feet, it's 26.
MEMBER HORNING: The ~ituation appears to be that if you do nothing in terms of
making changes. It's basically an approval or denial from the Board. The Board is
asking for an alternative relief situation if, in fact.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I'm taking that all in. I'm trying to come up with something
that we might suggest. It appears that the house on the left is about 35 feet from the
bluff. It appears that the house to the east is about the same distance as we currently have
now, but with the angle ofthe front of the house curved out, it may even go out further.
So I don't see why he couldn't move it back, certainly to be in line with the house on the
east. That would put it much further back from the bluff than the, in other words, he's
suggesting that perhaps shorten the back of the house that's not as big towards the road.
Get rid ofthe front yard setback issue, because you're right, if you push it back you have
a bigger front yard issue.
MR. HURTADO: That front yard of36 feet, that would not be a problem if! didn't want
it parallel to the bluff. If I made it 20 and 20.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, but if you cock it then you're going to be up in the side yards move
severely.
MR, HURTADO: If! cock it I'd be at 40. I had it at 40, but I didn't like it. The only
variance I would have needed for that house was the setback from the bluff, if I had made
it 15 and 15 on one side, and 20 and 20. But I wanted it parallel to the bluff, so I said let
me just go for that variance.
MEMBER TORTORA: What you're actually going to do is, that will give you the four
feet in the front yard.
MR. HURTADO: The four feet in the front yard, it would also give me no side yard
vanance.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I look at the footprint ofthe proposed house and the house to
the east; I don't see a significant difference. I think the difference is that one is two-story
and one is one-story. Again, there's nothing to prohibit a single-story from going up.
CHAIRMAN: What we're saying Ms. Wickham is, the house is just too big.
MEMBER TORTORA: The house is 35 feet from the bluff, under this new
interpretation by the Building Department, yes there is he's going to revert back to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for an expansion of a non-conforming use.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Then you play around with the numbers.
Page 52, June 7,2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm only telling you, Gail, that's what we saw a lot of.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Let me play around with the numbers, in terms of whether it
is 50%.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, No. This is different now, Gail. If you're house is in a non-
conforming setback, any part of that house, you can't go up, down, sideways or out
anymore; not like you used to be able to.
CHAIRMAN: Could we ask you nice people to maybe go out and work on this a little
bit. We want to hear what Mr. Fischetti has to say regarding Mr. Tohill's situation, and
then we're going to deal with a couple of housekeeping items, and we could reconvene in
five to ten minutes or something like that.
MR. FISCHETTI: I was saying to Mr. Tohill on this grading, that there really is not any
grading change on this site, except for the retaining wall that was requested by the
Trustees. There are no changes. In essence, what's happening is the grade at the line
where the retaining wall is 66 feet. The new retaining wall would be 69.2 feet, and we
are pitching that back, sloping that back to where the drain would be. We could move
that drain back five feet, I think: that would be fine, there's no problem with that. The
other grades around the house are consistent. It shows on his plan that the grade around
the house is 70; the topo line that goes to the center ofthe house is 70 feet. There really
is no change of grade as its proposed, except what's required just to get that retaining wall
pushed back. I give you a cross section and a retaining, a grade that's okay with you.
CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask you, you're telling me that a new wall is going to be built
landward of the existing wooden timber wall? Is that what you're telling me?
MR. FISCHETTI: No. What's shown on this plan is the new wall. There's no wall there
now. That's going to be constructed.
CHAIRMAN: I saw something out there.
MR. FISCHETTI: You may have seen the next door neighbor's.
CHAIRMAN: The neighbor's wall, maybe that's why it was in his front yard.
MR. FISCHETTI: So again, we would be glad to give you a cross section of the all that's
going to show is the retaining wall pushed back and the rest of the grading.
CHAIRMAN: How deep is this retaining wall going to be? Is it going to be like "a three-
foot wall?
MR. FISCHETTI: It's a timber wall and it's basically three- feet high. That's the reason
it's timber, because you can build those minimal, with a concrete wall you have to go
down and put footings. This is a timber retaining wall, this is minimal. I was there
Page 53, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Heming Transclipt
Town of South old
during the excavation of that test hole, and there is clay in that area, it's perched water
and the water does, I would assume the perched water will drain out horizontally. That
clay and sand and gravel is, in essence, will hold that bluff. That's what causes that
bluffs stability is that clay. That's very stable. We do have some wash-outs over there,
because when the water comes out it will wash out in certain areas. The clay will add
stability to that bluff. Any other questions, I would be glad to answer them
CHAIRMAN: None of this type, thank you. Mr. Tohill, what else would you like?
Does that answer your question, that there will be no re-grading?
ANTHONY TOHILL, ESQ.: Ifthere is no change in the grading, then the return over on
the Preall side, I think the wall on the west side connects to the Reiniger wall, I think.
CHAIRMAN: That was the one I stumbled over.
ANTHONY TOHILL, ESQ.: That was the one you stumbled over, but I guess they
connect. Obviously, there is still the change :trom grade :trom 64 on that side, and 65 on
that side; to a finish grade of 69?
CHAIRMAN: 68 I think you said.
ANTHONY TOHILL, ESQ.: 69. It's still coming :trom someplace, and it's an unusual
way to do something as significant as this; because ifthe pitch is not exactly right into the
grade and the filter cloth breaks down like they do in every single situation when you get
heavy rain like last Saturday morning at 6:00. The water's going to probably
beyond each ofthe adjacent parcels. We're sick and tired of this. That's where we're
headed.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, I just don't know how to remediate this situation, at this point. If!
could figure it out at this point, I would tell you; but other than asking Mr. Fischetti to
reduce all ofthis to writing so that we have it in the file, that's the only thing I can do.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Mr. Hurtado indicated, again, he really would like to be able
to accommodate the Board's concerns. In terms of cutting down the house, if he cut the
:tront yard area of the house back to eliminate the :tront yard setback variance, he could
take five to seven feet off of the :tront yard by forty that's two to three hundred square feet
of reduction. He would have to redesign the house and see exactly where, in that
dimension, it would fall. But it would be five to seven feet less feet offthe :tront yard
area, :trom the street side.
CHAIRMAN: So, therefore, the setback would be what?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: From the road it would be forty feet, at least.
CHAIRMAN: So the house is still going to stay in the same location is what you're
saymg.
Page 54, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: In tenns, yes we would like to maintain that average setback
ftom the bluff as the adjoining houses. Again, I think the side yard variances are really, I
hate to use the word academic, but I
CHAIRMAN: I'm going to go down there Saturday, and I'm going to spot, I will be on
the right piece of property this time ladies and gentlemen. I will spot exactly what I
think to be the equal location ofthe house of Mr. Tohill's client. It is at that particular
point, that we're working, at least at that point, because we are forward of that point at
this time. That's one of the concerns that I have.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Forward of the easterly house? Yes, that's true. The house is
in line with the line between the two houses.
CHAIRMAN: So, okay, I mean this is a very, very odious task. I shouldn't have to do
this. Find me what it's going to take to be in line. Let's discuss that first. Come on up
Mr. Hurtado.
MR. HURTADO: The house that I'm proposing is forward of the house to the east, but
it's not forward to the house to the west. What I did to get that is, I just took a ruler and
just kept the point of the easterly and the point of the westerly, and that's the point I
established.
CHAIRMAN : You see what's interesting here is, and I know of only one other house and
that's in Mattituck, that has that oval ftont. That is what is putting you out forward ofthat
house. I'm not asking you to take away oval of the ftont. I'm asking you to push the
house back, so that the center point of that oval is in line with the house next door. Let's
see what the numbers look like.
MR. HURTADO: I mean, if your deliberation could allow me to move the house back
ftom the bluff ftom fifty to fifty-five but keep the same house, then you'd probably have
to reduce the front yard then ftom thirty-six to maybe thirty-two.
CHAIRMAN: Do you really need a 1800 square foot house on the main floor?
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not getting any give here. We're looking for give. Give is a
good thing, because without give, you get a no.
CHAIRMAN: Well, it's only two votes of no.
MEMBER TORTORA: Give is good.
MR. HURTADO: Well, I'm trying to do that, but I'm giving you alternatives and you
don't like those.
CHAIRMAN: Let's, at this point, we'll reconvene this, that's all we can do.
Page 55, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transcript
Town of Southo1d
MR. HURTADO: If! could make one other suggestion perhaps you would do that. If!
was to take off or move it back to 50 x 55 and then leave the rront ofthe house where it
is. So I'm just reducing the size of the house five feet. So instead of rrom the street side,
I'm moving it rrom the bluff side. That I could probably just take this existing house and
just make the rooms a little bit smaller.
CHAIRMAN: All you can do is play with the numbers, that's all you can say. I mean
play with the numbers as to the vote here, because you need three people to vote. So it
goes back to my original discussion in an asymmetrical fashion, and that is, will you
accept alternate relief? That's basically the issue.
MEMBER HORNING: I think the suggestion rrom the Board seems to be pull it back
rrom the bluff at least five feet.
MR. HURTADO: I would be willing to do that.
MEMBER HORNING: And we'll see what else happens after that.
MR. HURTADO: But, if! move it back rrom the bluff, if! understand, there's a
consequence to that. That consequence is that you still want that thirty-six to be there, so
I'm losing five feet from the overall house, which I could live with if I understand what
you're saying or what I'm suggesting.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, let's see what happens. Depending upon if Mr. Tohill's questions
have been answered and Mr. Fischetti's going to reduce the grading situation to writing,
then we could close the hearing tonight.
MR. HURTADO: Well, Mr. Tohill suggested twelve feet; I guess I'm suggesting five.
CHAIRMAN: We're going to deliberate and whatever the numbers come out to be, is
what we're going to end up with okay. That's the best I can give you. We're not
appreciably going to destroy the overall plan. What we're going to try to do is build
something in that everybody is somewhat happy with at this point. Okay
MR. HURTADO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Mr. Tohill anything at the end. No. Okay. Mr.
Fischetii you will give us something in writing?
MR. FISCHETTI: We'll try to make it better, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for your cooperative nature. I'll make a motion
closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. We will note entertain the deliberation
on this application until June 20th. So anything you can give to us before then, we would
Page 56, June 7, 2001
ZBA Public Healing Transcript
Town of Southold
appreciate. If you would ask councilor yourself to send it to Mr. Tohill, we would
appreciate it.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Do you want us to submit a revised sketch?
CHAIRMAN: Only if you want to, but I need it before the 20th of June.
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN: Did you want to say something Mr., no. Okay.
END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Prepared by: Paula Quintieri