Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/13/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING HELD January 13, 2000 Page I -Appl. No. 4766-JAMES WHEELER 7 -Appl. No. 4775- DERITH SUTHERLAND 11 - Appl. No. 4776 - DAVID ClCHANOWlCZ 15 -Appl. No. 4777 - SUSAN & STEVEN BLOOM 45 - Appl. No. 4778 - CRAZY CHINAMAN CORP. 55 - Appi. No. 4779 - DAVID & ANN CORIERI Page 1 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS January 13, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 7:04 P.M. - Appl. No. 4776 - JAMES WHEELER Continued hearing from last meeting. Rear yard setback of proposed dwelling location at 540 Chestnut Road, Southold. Mr. Jon Zoumas, Builder-Agent. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Tape started at this point) receive correspondence from your architect. MR. ZOUMAS: Architect-Engineer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER'. Engineer, right. MR. ZOUMAS: He went out there and looked at the property did a topo on it and he doesn't, think there's a water problem. The water will drain you know, natural wetland. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you have a discussion with him, after my disCussion With him on Wednesday, Tuesday? MR. ZOUMAS: NO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I had a discussion with him on Tuesday by telephone and he's a very nice man by the way. I told him I still had ultimate concern on the topo map. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that Mr. Tranken? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's Mr. Nicosia? MR. ZOUMAS: Nicosia. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Nicosia, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a I will admit to you what town run-off this town run-off. However, I asked him to relook at it. I probably had no right to do so. But, he told me he was going to relook. He probably was going to make a recommendation to put a couple of drains in some place on the property. MR. ZOUMAS: OK. Page 2 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's where we are, OK. So we can do one of two things. We can close the hearing pending the receipt of that which we probably should do and we'll give him a couple of weeks to do so and then make a decision so not to hold you up and you can continue this process. And that's my suggestion at this point, alright? If, there is a continuation of run-off after this, we're certainly going to ask you to tell the applicant to discuss with the Highway Super. But the major concern that I had was that there has to be some containing on the property other than that wetland area which is presently dry. MR. ZOUMAS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and the Board could put stipulations in also, that there'd be haybells around the foundation or ( )you know somewhere around the house during the period of construction until such time that you put you know some sought of storm drains in for the down spouts on the house. I don't know if we're going to do that or not. I haven't discussed it with them at this point but he told me that his feeling was that in dealing with this piece of property that if it was completely untreated, OK, there was a poSsibility that the water would run and would dissipate on it, and so I said to him, Well that's fine. I said, but I'm not suggesting that.you totally take every tree dOWn on this piece of property because I think it may exacerbate' the situation. So he kind of agreed with me after that discussion. MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what he said he was going to do. He said he was going to relook at it and that's where we are, OK, alright? So we'll see what develops. ' MR. ZOUMAS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to .speak against? Mrs. Price, yes? MRS. PRICE: I just have a question'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We hope we can answer it because the engineer is not here, OK. MRS. PRICE: i'm just wondering. I'm noticing that the setback from .the rear yard is supposedly it's suppose to be 50 feet and there only.allowing ~287 CH^IRM^N GOEHRINGER: Hm, bm. .~' : Page 3 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. PRICE: With this problem, why is that being allowed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is proposed. It's not being allowed. MRS. PRICE: OK, but is that a factor that we're looking at? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, sure. MRS. PRICE: I mean I think that's going to exacerbate the problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I just have to tell you that in the past we've done several things, alright. We have allowed people to construct the house without the deck and we tell them to come back later. Conceivably run-off is a concern to you. I assume privacy is a concern to you at this point. MRS. PRICE: Definitely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are also situations where either at this hearing or subsequent hearings concerning this deck, we put landscaping plans together so that there's an appropriate amount of three foot, six' foot, eight foot evergreens placed; 'you know so that s another s~tuabon. I don t th~nk we've made a decision at.this P°int. if we're addressing that at'You know, in a toll situation. I don't mean to be you'know, elusive or that's where we are at this point. MRS. PRICE: OK, but it is being considered, OK? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, sure, yeah. MRS. PRICE: Alright, and there'll be another meeting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' I don't know if there will be another meeting. We are waiting for another plari from Mr. Nicosia on your first issue of you concern regarding water run-off. MRS. PRICE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's what caused me to speak to him on MRS. PRICE: I believe there's another neighbor who is involved. He can't make it on .Tuesday Or ThUrsdaY 'nights and is unable to voice his opinion but the Riccos are very concerned about this also. cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do theY live' directly in back of you? Page 4 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. PRICE: They live to.the side and it's that big piece of property. It's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, yeah, they actually wrap around like this as it comes down. MRS. PRICE: Yes, yes:. I believe he spoke to-you today? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, he didn't speak to me. MRs. PRICE: He didn't speak to you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. What we're trying to do is try to the best of our ability to get this water to. stay on their property and we think that that's a positive. I think it's a positive stay. MRS. PRICE: Yeah. ~ CHAIRMAN 'GOEHRINGER: So, you know, we'll' do that. Do you want · address any issues On the'deck at this time? MRS. PRICE: I'm not infavor of the deck. I wOuld like them to hold on to their 50 foot setback. I mean it'-s just exacerbating the problem, -. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: 'OK. Thank you. MRS. PRICE: Thankyou. : CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Anybody else like to speak or against this? Any .- questionS from'the Board or anybody? No, OK. . . . . MS:. CoopER:. You'. know:; .I ...have, I'm sorry. ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:-yes. MS. CoopE'R:'Icame later. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: YoU have to uSe the mike, ma'am. . . -;, ,:,~ -,~' .:i,,- ?~ . . ,' . . MS': CoopER: i;rfi"(~°ming 'iate t0 this () Situation. '..My' name is Jean Cooper and I'm a reSide'nt of'the'ToWn of Southold. I was just curiOUs with the ch'anging · and zoning that we've done,. I was just as a general'-question as we go forward.. . with the TbWn-' Planning and So On. I know. that` the master Pian is called. for"' ~. -- upgrades of lot ~ize~: We~9e:reasoned, taken a lot of time to'rezone properties. ' We've taken, c°mmercial uses away frOm properties that use 'to be zoned Page 5 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings commercial and we've kind of changed everything around and I'm a little perplexed where we already have in place guidelines as to setbacks to try and maintain what the town has even gone beyond to try and make even better and we've got a 'situation where we have fairly reasonable setbacks which are not unreasonable setbacks and here we have a situation, we have a 50 foot' setback and for whatever reason it's on the table to change that 50 foot setback to something that is less, 30 feet less or 28 feet less than what it should be and I understand the need for the town to go ahead and accommodate property owners to go ahead and build within the type of homes that they want to build which is fine but l'do have a concern where on one, you know, the Zoning Board of Appeals where we can come knowing that we have these town guidelines. They're not new. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. cOOPER: Anybody' who buys a piece' of property, anybody who goes to their architect needs to build within these setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Hm, hm. MS. COOPER: We take that piece out. Now we're dealing with a situation, very nice people, very nice people, OK; we want to accommodate them to have changes in these.guidelines as far as the SetbaCks, but Ithink it goes against what the Overall goal;has been of the 'toWri to maintain qualitY of life and even if it exceeds.it:: Now it may be that'there are only'one or two familieS that are affected but I think.that the run-off is alsoa problem. Burl do have concern just in general that we go ahead and change zoning on properties but: then when we're talking about a major"setbaCk we're only' talking, we're not talking a variance for a foot or a foot and a half,-we're talking a major variance and just as a resident of the TOwn of SOuthold I don't, I would, not appreciate thOse.types of'aCtiOns being taken unless there is Some real extenuating circumstances tl~at it would have to-be:: -: - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Hm, hm. - · . ' . MS. COOPER: It seems to go against our master pi.an that we spent so much time and energy to put in place. So when you consider these va'dances and' so on, Ithink I would encourage you as my, you know, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: RepresentatiVe. - - MS. COOPER: ..Advocates' to really take into account it's not just an individual that WantS to b'dild 'maybe a bigger house and have' a bigger deck .'or so' on; It also affects the.'qUality of life because if one can dO it, anOther"can dO it and so Page 6 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings on and so forth. So just when you consider that, I'd like you to take that also into consideration: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, no problem. Thank you. MS. COOPER: .That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak? MR. ZOUMAS: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Zoumas, sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR.'ZOUMAS:. You're welcome. '. '" -~ CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER:'-Hearing no further comment I'll make-a motion clOSing the hearin¢~i"i~ending the receipt Of the new plan from MC!' Ni'¢°Sia. MEMBER HORNIRGi!' SecO'nd. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER': All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. MR.. ZOUMAS: I don't want to offend the Zoning of Southold, but this is a buildable lot, right? What I'm going to do, even if this thing does not go through, I don't own the property yet. So far I'm in like $5,000 in expenses. I will buy the property and I am going to stick, a ranch on it. I'm just letting these people know. Right now I,,m_ doing a beaubful four bedroom Wctona.- But Ive already spen $5,000 and I'm not :gbinglt° let that money go to Waste. ~' I Will buy the prOpertY and ,! am going to' 6Uild a-little ranchl on there, 1200 sq: ff:'i°.r 1100.'sq?ft.;':So. theY,ce g-oing t0 giveme a. Building permit: If I stay o~ the 28 f~ot'Widt~' of:tt'i'e house, front to back', and i can' go 60-70 feet long, .ther;e shoUld ,be no problem on the Building. permit.' They'might ask'me t° dO some drainS... I:m'Wiliing"to dO them;..'SO' i j(ist Want'tO. let"!ti~ese people kr~°w that no matter:what, iarn going to Page 7 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:17 P.M. -Appeal No. 4775- DERITH SUTHERLAND This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-244 for approval of the setback of an "as buil¢ deck addition at less than the code requirement of 35 feet. Location of Property: 1230 Waters Edge Way, Southold, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-88-3-19. J. Fitzgerald, Agent. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Ma'am, how are you? Would you - state your name for the record. MS. SUTHERLAND: Good and apparently I'm one of those people that are guilty of what these individuals were referring to and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only difference is that you have a pre-existing house. How long has your house been there? MS. SUTHERLAND: My house has been there since 1959. MEMBER .COLLINS: She hasn't tOld us who she is Mr. Chairman: cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:"oK, in.a minute. MS..SUTHERLAN:D:. '1 PU'~"chase it three years ago in October and one of the reasons '.! pUt'the de~k"0n wasr' really", because one Of 'my friends was handicapped and I thought he'd be able to go out on the deck, come :through the back door and be out on the deck and it's awfully pretty out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Could you just state your name for the record. MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry. Derith Suthedand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. SUTHERLAND: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Is there any anticipation of enclosing this at any time? MS, SUTHERLAND: Pardon? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: it for any reason? MS. SUTHERLAND: No. Enclosing the deck? Any anticiPation of enclosing Page 8 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, OK. MS. SUTHERLAND: No, never, no, it's too windy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any questions from any Board Members Starting with Mr.' Dinizio?. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER cOLLINS': I just wanted to make sure that I had the chronology right. I missed a few sentences. MS. SUTHERLAND: I have trouble, I- MEMBER COLLINS: Well I don't get amplified. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think i get amplified either. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're OK. There.on, you're'0K;~ · MEMBER COLLINS: YoubOUght the house in 19967. Is that'right? MS'. SuTHERLAND!' I" believe it was. MEMBER COLLINS: RoUghly, OK. ' MSi SUTHERLAND: Three years it was.. '~ MEMBER 'c'OLLINs::': The house has been there for a:.long time and then 'after '" you bought the house you. Put the deck on. You had what; some handy ,.man, ~. -.,your b:rother, in-laW, or. sOmebOdy'ju~t'PUt-the deck on"withbUt' a. . BUii'ding' MS. SUTHERLAND!. With°ut what?-- MEMBER COLLINS:.:' A'Building Permit. MS. SUTHERLAND: YeS, yes, "~ MEMBER COLLINS: OK: Why are you asking us to bless it-nOW? Letme just say, norma!ly people dO this. regularly and we hear from 'them when they want to sell the property bemuse thby neVer got a Building Permit sO the'deck has no Certificate of'OccUpancy and I'm asking you because you-went, ahead and'built without a Building permit;:whY are yoU trying to fix it now~; Page 9 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS."SUTHERLAND: Because to tell you the truth I really was not aware of the setback being, it's 47, the house is 47 feet to the road and I was unaware of the 10 feet and I believe the handy man was of a the setback for the town with run-in because it was 8 feet I believe over. That was my ignorance. MEMBER COLLINS: What has made you to decide to fix it? MS. SUTHERLAND: Oh, somebodY complained. Make it legal? MEMBER COLLINS:. Oooh, we have Code Enforcement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNiNG:-'No.,' questions: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. develops thrOughout the hearing. MS. sUTHERLAND: Thank You very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. We thank you. We'll see what Is there anybodY: else like to s eak in.favor? An bod lik You've g'otlto use the mike. State your. .P . ..~...~... y y e to, yes Sir. name.for the.record please. MR. WlNN: Norman Winn. I'm a neighbor on the next street over. AlSo I am the Vice 'PreSident. of our AssociatiOn, Bay Haven Property Owners. Berith's house happe~n~s tO.be or~ ikind of a little'dead end. I'd say maybe 100, 200 feet. tOps. it doesnt bOther.' anybody. There's only two 'other houses.inv°lved that co~ld be you want to say, impacted by it, but no (), they're on the' beach front, they're on the waterfront, she's off the waterfront and again, the straight endS about 25 feet past her house and believe me it has no impact at all on the neighborhood, on anyof the hOuses.and I kind of think that maybe it was somebodY eXpected from the town rather than somebody bloWing the whistle from the neighborhood because Derith certainly has been a valuable member of the community and an enhancement happens to be on our Board of Directors of the AsSociation and I don't think anybody in the two block assoCiation would ever, ever object..to her deck. CHAIRMANGOEHRINGER: ·Thank you...:~. Page 10 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. WINN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir? MR: FLINTER: My name is Henry Flinter. I'm also a neighbor, of Derith Sutherland. I'm the President of the BaY Haven Property Owners AsSociation. The property in question here when Mr. Winn says there are very feW houses on her side of the street, She is the only house on to Waters Edge Way. There's no traffic on the street. No foot traffic. The .property has been vastly a!~d' greatly improved since this 'lady took over it and I've heard of no-one in the neighborhood Whose raised any objection to the deck which has been there now at least a feW months and the only thing I can say is that I know of no-one against it and if everybody in the neighborhood were to be' told, I':think even~,body wOUld stand up and say that they would be in favor of the. Variance if you COuld grant it. ' - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank'you Sir. MS. SUTHERLAND: 'And I didn!t ask these guys to come here. I waslamazed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: '.~;~; Is:' there ar~Ybody elSe Would like .t° speak? Hearing no further comm.e-nti' i'ii make a motion closing the hearing, reservin~g MEMBERTORTORA: Sec°hd. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. All in favor? MotiOn Carried: See MinuteS for Resolution. ;.~ ~ - . ' Page 11 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:24 P.M. -Appl. No. 4776 - DAVID CICHANOWICZ This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-32, based upon the Building Inspector's October 19, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for the following: Two lots are proposed in this subdivision project containing a size of less than 80,000 sq: ft. each. The property is located in an Agricultural-Conservation ZOne District, along the nOrth side of Leslie Road (CTM #1000--97-10-2) and south side.of Main Road or State Route 25 (CTM #1000-85-3-10.2), Peconic, N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We see a gentleman moving toward the mike. If you just tell us Who you are please. We know you, but we need it for the. record. MR. FITZGERALD: I'm James Fitzgerald representing Mr. Cichanowicz. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. FITZGERALD: I think it would be a good idea to explain how this situation came to pass. In '1944, 1994, Mr.. Cichanowicz was preparing to sell the deVelopment rights to part of his proPerty to Suffolk COuntY. 'While retaining a line-of the Main ROad for his bUsiness, and'a Parcel to'be divided into two building lots, on Leslie Road, arranged for a survey, to be completed. The surveyor was instructed' in a general way to accomplish this division of .the proPerty. LOt #4 .on the current map was drawn in at the required'..two acres, from' the A.C. District. Lots #1 and 2, were. drawn in at the appropriate width of- 175 feet. But the lot line drawn was insufficient to Provide' lots of size reqUired in the A.C. District.. Since'the surveyor is now deceased, we can Only speculate that the area had it's orange and geometry of the lots. :If they were rectilinear they would be more than adequate in area: The round number depth of 500 feet for each of the lot seems like a figure that might have been chosen With the thOught 'that.:;even with the nine rectilinear shapeS it ought .to be ':more than enough but Obvi0uSly the arithmetic was never .dOne. ReSulting r~ap.,,Was used t0'"~repare:"the:'d'eedI ~f';deVel°Pment rightS' an'd 'the. db~'ei'oPment i-i'g~;~s?wei~:' lot nui:nber 3 a~ .area of"19:415' acres was sold t° suffolk cbur~ty and the;Tax M~Ps were modified acCordinglY. When Mr. Cichanowicz took first steps:to officially subdivide the property.the area came to life and it was noted that lots number 1 and 2 wei~e each only 73,~j36.sq. ft. in area while the minimum lot sizein the A.C. District is specified as 80,000 sq. ft. An attempt was made 'to resolve 'the diSCrepancy by requesting that the county sell back the. development rights to the small.area necessary tobring the two building lots up to minimum, size. I went to the Suffolk'County Planning Department in Hauppauge,' sPoke toga gentleman named Bob ReiChard. He said there was no way that they were either Willing or able to ever give back, sell back any property that had been handled in this lot.. So that s. hy we're here. The requi~:ed width of the ibts,~:the frontage in the preSent case, is not less than 175 feet in .the A.C. 'District and Page 12 - JanuarY 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings both lots we conSider as geometric figures as they're shown in the survey meet this requirement. If the lots were rectilinear, the height of the rectangles would be the same under 75 feet but with the non rectilinear lots however, we have a height of Only 146 plus feet because the angles formed by the intersection of the front and side property line. The area of each lot as ! said is 73,336 sq, ft. and the difference between this and'the required minimum is 6,664 Sq..ft. which is a deficit of 8.3%, each line would have to be only more than slightly, only slightly more than 45 feet longer in order to meet the 8,000 sq. ft. minimum. Tl~e difference view from the stand point of the property that was transferred~ the development rights transferred to the county, amounts to only 1.7% of the 19 somewhat acres. Mr. 'Cichanowicz states that he did not achieve any.financial gain in any way because of this discrepancy. The benefits to the applicant ifthe variance is granted is that he'd be 'the owner of two building lotS that he contemplated when he originally arranged for the survey by a licenSed professional expert. The variance if granted will not be a detriment to .thE; health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood of the community. The surrounding properties are deVoted largely to agricultural pUrsueS.'. The nearest existing residential 15roperties are only 1.1 acres'in size While the proposed lots will need be'm0re thadl.8 acres id'. size'. BecauSe .SUffoik'Count~ wili'not Sell back t° Mr. 'cichan°wicz. the develoPment' rights tol any of the' land ai~eady transferredI :the:. Sole .' ai~ea '-iinte.nded ;~0' P~'oVide"twb" bUildi~gl iota.!-banhot'' be inCreaSed in."size:: ilf [he Variance is not.granted,. 'Mi, i,Cich~n0wi.cz. Wirli sU~fe~: a se~/e:re' financial'burden bY r~ason .ofi::..b~ing, able to.' Sell only,: tine building,' lot. Tl~e relief re~uested is:' ~i°tsubStantial. As I ~nentibned ~a¢iier, the:a~a ~d~fi~it of each lot amounts to'onlY 8.3%.and.the shortage'of the length of the already long lots is only 4'5'feet. We re sure' that the smai ' in 10t Siz~ Wiil'not even be noticeable i.n ~'the area because not onl~ e' lot sizes on an abSOlUte'baSiS but. alSo because of the smallel the closest residential lots and infact.the environment will not be from that expectant if the two lots were of the required minimum size ~ s ail I have to say. . . . . -' . - _- . · CHAIRMANGOEHRINGER: Thank'You Sir. Would any'Board' MemberSlike to speak to this' gentleman?. - ME, MBER TORTORA;.. Yes, I do. it's pretty straight, foi:Ward applicati°n. The omy question I have is. the property sold to the county,' :'the' develOPment, rights Sold, is that also include the little strip adjacent to the proposed tWo lots that the (inaudible), s°'it includes ~everything. MRi'.FITZGERALD: Yes; it-does,-. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' I assume that's your ' : ' '" - ingress and egress't° the _ Page 13 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ClCHANOWlCZ: Right, to the county property, yes. That was required as we set up the survey map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only concern if I could just jump in here Lydia, is my recent, the recent correspondence from the Planning Board and that is, that. you have to make an application to them? MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, yes, we have not but we certainly will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, good, OK. MR. FITZGERALD: But a housekeeping problem Jerry, with getting the required number of prints of the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any problems with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .'Any other questions of this gentleman? No', OK, we thank You so much.'. Anybody.else like to speak in favor? AnybodY.like to speak against?. Yes David, sure why not.- MR. CICHANOWlCZ: David CiChan°Wicz, owner of the property and subject at hand.' Again, :Jim was pretty through on his submission as what. we're requesting.. Again~ our original, intention on this was to have legal two Size, legal tw° acre lots as required. It was a mistake by the surveyor's part. My brother 'think has the same situation on some other property but in this case we. did in' fact sell. the 'developing rights of the adjacent 19 acres to the county:. I'm not looking to. cause a major subdivision in the area. i just want to have a.couple of lOts. ! have a new'son. I'd like to'give him a lot and it would be nice to be able to .d°. S° I'd appreciate any consideration you can dO for me. MR. CiCHANOWlCZ: Thank you. MEMBER HoRNING: i have one question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: yes, 0ne questi°n: MEMBER HORNINGi: ,Just tell uS briefly, bow it came to be that development rights to'the county? MR': CICHANO,WICz: How it came about? Mr. Cichanowicz. you did sell. the Page 14 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MR. ClCHANOWICZ: Well, it started back probably in the early eighties I guess actually. ! was involVed with the ( ) South Farms and such. I didn't get involved with the business aspect of it and you know, we're looking, we have always been looking. We try to preserve as much land. as we can around the area as farm land and when the county was proposing this program it was a nice way to be able to generate some extra capital and maintain the integrity of the farm land around us, so, that Was a natural scenario for us to do so and so we put our applications in to the county for a request of and you know, they're looking to get as much open farm space ( ) as the town is on the main roads and this.is a main road, the property, so it fit into their 'criteria quite nicely. MEMBER HORNING: Hm, hm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further questions !'11 'make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: SeCOnd. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: :Yes i did. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, you did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ithink I against this? NO. ' . BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, OK. record straight. "'-: '- :._ . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' No problem. favOr?.' Did you. ask if there was anybodY against it? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. aSked everybody. Is there anybody. Sorry Jerry I want to keep the I havea motion in second. All in. Page 15 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:35 P.M. - Appl. 4777 - SUSAN & STEVEN BLOOM This is an appeal of the December 17, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, requesting an Interpretation and/or Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-245 with respect to applicant'S request to amend Building Permit No. 26151 issued November 12, 1999 for renovations to accessory building containing nonconforming "sleeping quarters use." The reason stated in the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval is that applicants' request to "repair foundation to include 'substantial renovation of structure' is not permitted pursuant to Article XXlV, Section 100-243A. Proposed construction constitutes a renovation prohibited by this section." Location of ProPerty: 7800 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-126,11-15. MRS. MOORE: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening. How are you Mrs. Moore? MRS. MOORE: I'm fine, thank you. We're fair through this weather. Unfortunately I loSt a client along the way. He left his office in the City at 3:00 o'clock and about 6:00 he called and left a message on my answering machine that he hadn't gone Very far and'that if he continUed he'd be here about five in the morning. So, ! hope he'S turned aroUnd otherwise maybe around.12:00 o'clock providing you're still here, at least they can get a hotel or sOmething. So i hope not to see him. i do have here this evening, lan Fafrweather'who is the architect on this project and the builder Mr. Palistina. We really worked very hard in not being here and I'll give you a little bit of background because I think that this should be treated as an interpretation given the Building Department some guidance because I hope not to have to be here on a similar, application again. The property was purchased with the pre-existing seal for the c°ttage. That is the subject of this application. Judge Farley is the prior owner. I had I think I may have given you a copy of an affidaVit from Judge Farley Which we .started with the Building Department and we were actUally able to get a Building Permit for the repairs for the foundation based in part of our explanati°n and our.. affidavit from jUdge Farley, that the cottage had been used, ~t s always bee uSed. In fact, Mr. & Mrs. Bloom they waited to close until Judge 'Farley s so who was living in the cottage as his year round residence was able to find alternative accommodations. So the cottage had always been used. As it turned out, when they purchased the property; their plan was to make some repairs to the cottage because Mr. & Mrs. Bloom intended .to live in there while their house was under renovation: They're are' two separate Building Permits open right now. One is, oh, you made it, holy cow. I told them you wouldnft be here till twelve. MR. BLOOM: .'1 appreciate whiCh.day? Page 16 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: OK, well now you've met Mr. Bloom. They started out with the thought of living in the cottage while the main house was being renovated. They're are lots of renovations proposed for these two houses. They met' with the arChitect and based on the type of repairs that were needed, initially there was some through the real estate transaction there was findings of either termite or insect infestation. So they knew right away that there was going to be a need for some repairs to the cottage. They proceeded to make the repairs and took down some of the internal walls to 'be able to expose the beamS to' the extent of the infeStatiOn, That was done and it's a great area whether or not a Building permit is required.. You know from your own home what amount of work most of us do without a Building Permit and this is not an unusual where you might have to rePlace a starter or the old cedar post that holds up the building, replace them with treated lumber. It was begun that way. The Building Department came and insPected and said, you know what, we reallyihink you need a Building Permit. The architects and the owners sat down and said, fine, we'll submit a Building Permit. We submitted the Building Permit and once the Building Permit was in place the Building InSpectors went out and.made an inspection and said, well now, we're not going to let you go any. further. We think you .should go to the Zoning BOard of AppealS. And part of the reason is, that they are in my opinion unilaterally going oUt there and .e~en"structure. dwellings. These second .Cottages, Second dwellings on the Pr°Pertie~i" As" they're out on the field, they're unilaterally determining that Should as a policy eliminate these' cottages and l think that it goes in derog~ it's you know, against the i~roPerty right, these.pr°party oWners' proPertY ~:i and als0 itgoes c°mp.l.etely contrary to what the code says. In my'app.icationI I referred you to 245 which is the Repairs and Maintenance Provision:.'. I 'think the !anguage.'is actually very'clear · But again, we're'here becaus ..... · ' · · ..... :'.,.:.' · : '.- · · . etc..the Bu~/d!ng. Department. ~t s not clear enoUgh., it says, that notwithstanding anY other-of the: foregoing, regulations which is all of' the pre-existing non-conforming: language that is in the code. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent nortii~l maintenance and repair of any bUilding or :carrYing out Up°n the issuance of a Building'permit of major structure alterations 'or demolition's neceSsary in ~the · .: in(erast Of-PUblic Safety,.' .And the' Way We'read that-is, if'you .'..have~:a 'C6itage and. '~ Y°:u"h~)e'~'.pre:exist'i~g C.~0. for 'that-'c0ttage, 01: .even' if 'y°~'"d°n :i ;;',h'a~e',~'' I~re;' eXiSting but you're entitle t° pre,existing Just by the fact, that:if y~SU 'niak~ an app!ication you'can provelthat it's.existed prior.to zoning and it's continued, yOU're entitled to' get a pre-C.c. With' that Pre'C.Oi, you are perrnitted"as a matter of law, and as a matter of the statUte to make nOrmal maintenanbe and repair. ~ YOU may have PartiCularly as the State Building COde chang~si.' and the m'~terials' imPro~,e, yOu may .have.:a. cottage. that has insulation ';3f:;!~ 'Certain grade and now becauSe of the repairs you make, well the Buildi'ng Department is not going to let you put in lousy insulation Or no' insulation. TheY're going to make you bring the building to its close to confines with the`. present.' Buiidin COde' And'that'S What.has.been done 'ParticularlY in this case.:"And'aS I Saidl gl haee the architect~ I have' everyone'here to Verify this 'and y0U.'have'thb'.:pla~s Page 17 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings that was submitted to the Building Department which are very detailed and explain exactly the kind of work that was done. There is no change to the footprint of the building. It is the standard maintenance of repairs that are necessary to make a structure safe and habitable. No-one is going to feel comfortable in a house that has less than adequate electricity. So when you're in your own home if you were to buy a pre-existing home, or a home from the a, constructed in the fifties, you may actually have to bring your whote e~ectrical syStem to code. There is no prohibition. Actually the code encourages that, that change. What I did is, ~, because it's so in my opinion, it's so black and white, I made a, I prepared a Memorandum for the Board's use and it refers to the basic rule of law, which is that regulations being a derogation of common law property rights should be strictly construed and I think if you read the code and you look at the section ! sited 3245, it seems very clear that notwithstanding alt the.other gobbledegook about non-permitted uses are non-conforming uses, nothing prevents you from repairing and making better a pre-existing use. in addition, l have many cases that have been cited and I hope it will be helpful to you when you're in the process of deliberating. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: As ! said, ! don't believe' that there's a variance application here.. I think it's.. Strictly an interpretation of what the Building Department believes t°be the Section that prevents us 'from making ordinary rePairS and maintenance t° a dwelling that h~s a Pre~c.o., If You have any questi~)ns i'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the original Pre-C.O., that's dated 12130/98, it shows an asterisk next the word, guest cottage it says, "please see attached inspection report." Do you have a copy of that inspection? MRS: MOORE: yeah, we submitted it to you. You have it in your file. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's here. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Oh: is it in there? MRS. MOORE: Yeah: it doesn't say anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. That's the inspection report ~ guess that's in front of meo MEMBER DINIZIO'. Yeah, it doesn't say anything. MEMBER' TORTORA: No, that's this. The.one that doesn't say anything. Page 18 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, the one that doesn't say anything, OK. That's alright, it may be my fault. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, it was attached. I looked to see what it might say to give us some guidance and it didn't say anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then if it's not an imposition, I'd like to speak to Mr. FairWeather. MRS. MOORE: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: Canl ask a question?. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a question of Mrs. Moore' first? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: secOnd there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. Fairweather, I apologize, just hold off one Yeah, I want to see if I got this right. MRS. MOORE: .Go ahead. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're saying, that a use? pre-existing use is a non.cOnforming MRS. MOORE: Well, when you're dealing with residential, OK, if you're saying, a pre-existing, are you calling a pre,existing non-conforming use? And, we can go through theoretics'On this until we are both blue in the face. You have typically a pre;existing non-conforming uses. Now the question is, is a residential usea.non'conforming use?. I don't believe ii is. ! think the fact:that, tl~'at can be debated 'is Whether or not dwelling is considered a n0n~conforming use. So that's why ! think that in all fairness the Building Department is:trying to eliminate secOnd dwellings on properties, 'That's understandable but the. use itself is residential so I think that you know, it's a great area whether or not you're considering it a non-conforming Use. It'.certainly has a pre-existing. C.C. It was constructed prior to zoning and under today's code, 'yoU 'Probably would · not'get a second dwelling,-~a full dwelling cottage on y¢u property..-~,So to _that ...- .extent, you wOuldn't be able to get it today. Is it non-conforming?.' Pre-existing non-Conforming? Well i think, you know, two lawyers could argue.both sides of that issue very well:,. "' " ~ '" ' MEMBER DINIZIO: I know.. =: '?: '" Page 19 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: And I'm not sure I can give you a final answer. The fact is, they have Pre-C.Os. so that you know, it's legal. It's recognized and the cases that I give you say, hey, when you have a Pre-C.C., it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. There is no elimination of it unless the owner purposely eliminates it or terminates its use for the period of time the statute calls for. If you close, let's.do like a pig farm, OK, that's a real easy zoning example. You have a pig farm and pig farm is not alloWed in a residential neighborhood and you decide, you sell the pigs and you clean up the pens for a year or two, whatever the statUte calls for, well could you reactivate a pig farm?, and you might have trouble. But a residential dwelling, the use is a residence. How can you suddenly claim that you eliminated that second dwelling unless you purposely and I have an application' that I just filed, Cippitelli. That is one where there's a second dwelling on the property and in fact, what they're choosing to dO because the dwellings are so close to each other, they are going to combine' the two, make connect the second dwelling as part of the main house and bring it alt.into as a principal dwelling. That to me is clear that well you're eliminating that second cottage but 10 years down the line, he can't come back and say, you know what, I had that seCond.dwelling on the property, I want to put it over here. ! Want to rebuild it.-..That's another clear examPle, well that's really not permitted. You know, one main dwelling is what you're permitted. MEMBER DINIZIO: So We Could argue both ways. MRS. MOORE: So we .could argue that issue. MEMBER DINIZIO: But I think you're saying, that pre-existing - MRS. MOORE: Well, I.didn't even come to that because you have a Pre-C.C. MEMBER DINIZIO: '.Right. MRS~ MOORE: There are Certain and again that MemOrandum gives, you what the law is on Pre-C.Os. YOu are permitted to keeP that and the fact.that I 'mean you see it'all the time, you get applications constantly Which are for expansion of a PartiCular Pre-existing: non-conf~rming Structure and you knoTM, yOu ~ome'in for the variance that we need because you're building out on the footprint.... That's OK, I. can understand that. You may need variances, you may argue because when it comes to expandir~g even a nonLconforming use, and again, vce argue the point whether residence is nOn-conforming or . not, the law says; hey; ..you know you can increase it and it's not 'considered an expansion of that non- conforming use. There are cases On that, that suPport that and in fact, most of the cases deal with 'commercial USes because those are the Cases that seem to go to' the Appellate DivisiOn because they're big money cases. Mom and pop residence don't generally go there:. So yoU. have to take the law' that's created on these big major you know .' cases, and aPply it to the residence, Anyway ! Page 20 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings would like you to send a message you know real simple. Send a message back to the Building Department that says, and i'm going to call it and I told Mr. Bloom, I'm going to call it the Mr. Bloom case because you know, that's going to be the one. It's going to be a message going back to the Building Department saying, if there's a Pre-C.O. and there's no expansion of the footprint, that's a real clear example, OK, even if you want to limit it to the footprint issue, you may not even want to limit that because the pre-existing gives you certain Status, give them the damn permit: They should be able to repair and maintain the structure because that's the whole purpose of the State Code is when you're making improvement, you're making improvements meet code. They should be I mean the house is still going to be a dwelling and it's still going to be occupied. It should be safe and it should be habitable and it you know, you shouldn't have termite infestation. You should have proper electrical. You shoUld have proper insulation. Those are normal things that the State Code, it's the policy of the State and the Town in adoption of New York State Fire Prevention Building Code is to make structures habitable. It doesn't make sense to think of it any other way. You know, you don't make improvements that are .going to degrade the Property, Only. improve it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well i have One more thing I'd liketo, a statement that Fd like t° make is that I would like to have the Building Inspector come here and explain his reasons for the denial, i mean I see it as there, in his denial, in his disapproval, he saying, repair a foundation to include Substantial renovation. A foundation, that's a structural change. I understand that that would be in a non- conforming building something you wouldn't want to do, that you coUldn't do without some kind of.appeal. MRS. MOORE: Not necessarily. MEMBER. DINIZIO: I'mnot neCessarily sure_ .... MRS. MOORE:' Even with looking at that section, you know, the 240 a,"l have the section that I cited, I think those is real clear that notwithstanding the fact that you may have non-conforming if it's'a repair or a replacement and the DEC does this all the time, in kind and place, you know, you don't have to go through the DEC regulations if it's in kind and place repairs a bulkhead. I mean there's a recognition 'that you're not going to allow things to deteriorate. That you're going to keep them and keep them to code and make sure that things, you know, stay the same, if not better.' So 'I'm - MEMBER. DINIZIO: No, but I'm concerned about this like unwritten policy that you' say they ha~,e concerning you know, second dwellings and not wanting them and.going about you know, disapproving. I'm concerned about clarifying Page 21 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings that as this law applies and that it says, you know they want, it says right here as I'm looking at the disapproval, to amend the permit to repair a foundation to include substantial renovation of structure. Now. you know we could go back to them and say, look this particular application doesn't apply. But if we're sending him a message then which ones do apply? I want him to tell me, how, you know, why you shouldn't get it. He disapproved it. i don't know what his interpretation of substantial is. I certainly would like to hear him because more times than not he makes sense. MRS. MOORE: I understand. Well they look to that 50% rule, OK. i think that's where, I think he cites back Section in the I could pull out the certifiCate ~ MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, well it's not here on this, but I mean, I MRS. MOORE: i'm sorry, do you have to leave Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Momentarily. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In a little While. Please excuse us. MRS. MOORE:' 'OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: I see thaL Pat I see that and I see in your, ~ see you handed in y°u know, .what the cost of the renovation to be. What the'cost of the building is and it looks like it's about a third or so. I understand that but ! still if, if you know, if you're.going to make a statement that says, that they have an intention to do what there doing, what Obviously there doing, but I mean I want him to stand up and either tell me that and then make a decision based on that or, I don't know Which way I could go. I could do an interpretation. ! would have to give you, actually give you a variance to do it. My own opinion, - MRS. MOORE: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: And I would request that we have a Building Inspector here, if that's a pcSsibility. MRS. MOORE: Well I don't, I mean, I leave, that's always your decision. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah. MRS. MOORE: I don't want Mr. Bloom to have to you know, waste another month of you know, waiting for the Building Inspector who could haVe been here tonight. You know, I think that, again, when.you're dealing with a Pre-C.O:, the codes speaks for itself and I think that's (). Ed is a good guy. I mean I had a niCe conversation with Ed. I showed him the Section of the Code that I think Page 22 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings applies. I had him nearly convinced. I mean he was really ready to do it and I guess in the back room when he and the other Building Inspectors, Ed and John get together, they cite you know, the general policies which are, to eliminate pre-existing non-conforming use and that's the position that they take which is - MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, but I don't see that. MRS. MOORE: Like I mean, look at Windisch. I mean we had the Windisch case which was just last month. That was one where they unilaterally said, take the kitchen out, take you know, make a non sleeping quarters because that was what they, looking at their file at the time, they didn't feel comfortable, you know giving, allowing a use to continue, OK. They said, well you know, if you want a C.C., because what happens is, most of the time this comes up when property owners are deciding to sell their house and they're right in the middle of a closing waiting to close and they're waiting for a Building Permit or a C.C. and then they have you, you know, just where they want you and they say, well do this and you can have your C.C. Well may times there's not time or you know, the ability for someone to say, wait a second, that's not right. Mr. Bloom had the, has a where it all to come back and say, wait a second that's not right, you know and that's why we're here. MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree to that. The only thing I don't agree to is, insinuating, I think that's a little hard, but saying that this is a policy in using that. MRS. MOORE: Oh, sure. Go ahead he may be able to help because he was out on the field'. Mr. Polistena: Hi. I'm Frank Polistena and the builder involved. Possibly what might sought of shed some light here. When we took the paneling off that house, that cottage, there's no sheetrock there. Whatever work we've done, whatever way was sought of like you know, haphazard. So when the inspectors came in, it looked like we were doing a major renovation because everything was exposed. But in essence all we did was remove paneling similar to the paneling we see here and it looked like we guttered the entire structure which I you know right away made clear to Gary Fish that we did not, that we just pulled paneling off. So right away he assumed oh, this is a major renovation. ! don't know if that helps shed the kind of light on this that you're looking for because you said you didn't understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I know how far you can go, OK. I'm perfectly aware how far you can go before you're actually changing the structure of the house. That includes tearing down sheetrock right to stud walls, OK. What I don't quite understand. I do understand but what I don't quite like about the offering of Page 23 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings opinion that they're going about town doing an unwritten policy of getting rid of these structures. MEMBER TORTORA: That's hearsay. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, I agree with you. MEMBER TORTORA: That's absolute hearsay. MEMBER DINIZlO: But on the same token, I want to know what the Building Insp, how this Building Inspector came to the conclusion, that they should be before us if indeed that is being offered as an explanation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just suggest one thing to you? Let's have a meeting with the Building Inspector. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I won't agree to it. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's incumbent upon them and certainly not going to be fair to the applicant if we're having meetings with the Building Inspector. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They've offered to go to our meetings. They have offered. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No this has nothing. First of all we're not talking, we're not talking a specific situation. We're talking a generic situation. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's too late Jerry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have a specific case, Jerry. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I say something? This is a request for an interpretation of the code. I'd like to get the facts before we render any opinions. I'd like to have a chance to ask the attorney questions. To ask Mr. Bloom questions. To ask the architect questions and Mr. Polistena to get a record before us before we go on. I really would. MRS. MOORE: OK, we're ready. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'm only. I mean ! only ask questions. I only made suggestions I'm not - MEMBER TORTORA: No, if we want to have the'Building Department i have no problem but I'd like to get a record of this. Right now we've gotzip. Page 24 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to jump in here first, or do you want me to- MRS. MOORE: Do you want to ask questions? MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Polistena - MRS. MOORE: OK, come on up. MEMBER TORTORA: What are you replacing in the house, exactly? MR. POLISTENA: OK, first to address a - MRS. MOORE: Would you like the architect to tell you based on the plan? MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like the builder to tell me. MR. POLISTENA: OK, first .to address what you're calling foundation is, the whole structure was on piers, wooden piers, locust post. So that's what we found to be the first most eminent problem. So we changed all of those post and put in a 6 x 6 treated post on concrete footings. No, no, concrete foundation, just cement footings and then 6 x 6 piers and that's now supports the entire structure. Then, we, you know also at that point found some termite damage and started proceeded opening the paneling up and I found termite damage along with insect infestation. So there was also paneling on the ceiling. Again, no sheetrock, just paneling on the ceiling so I started pulling that down and I found a couple of huge wasp nest so I removed all of the insulation and paneling and then had it scraped and I mean that's basically what you see right now. It's just all bear walls and we also found some strUctural things that we felt were inadequate and we were hoping to upgrade you know, I don't know if it was originally you know a barn or something and they didn't put in proper headers over windows. Stuff that's real obvious. That because we removed the paneling that we would have liked to improve. You know we've already invested a lot of time and money into it. MEMBER TORTORA: You're replacing the beams, post, what? MRS. MOORE: You have replaced a header. There was a header - Page 25 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. POLISTENA: Interior wise we were hoping to change the headers of both the windows because actually there is none. There a couple of 2 x 4s laying flat because there is absolutely no support. That's all pre-existing. MRS. MOORE: What year was that building constructed? 40s, 50s? MR. POLISTENA: I can't answer that. MRS. MOORE: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I can't hear the answer to that. MRS. MOORE: I know it was the wrong answer to the. He also added col!ar. ties. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. MRS. MOORE: OK. When was the building built? MR. POLISTENA: And there was an overhang right by the front entrance that the roof rafters just kind of blend together. We were going to put a header in across there which is on the drawing that we submitted because again, it was just something that's inadequate, inadequately supported presently. But we weren't changing the room configuration. We weren't doing anything and we hadn't done any of that at this point, it just looks like. You know all hell broke loose just from removing paneling. MEMBER TORTORA: What a, this is the chronology here is not clear. When the Building Department came out and they did the inspection of the foundations when' they issued the "Stop Work Order" or they verbally said, stop everything. MRS. MOORE: Yes, because they saw the a, when they came inside it was apparently up to that point, had they come inside yet? MR. POLISTENA: No. MRS. MOORE: OK. They had seen the post being replaced from the outside and that's when we went in for a Building Permit and at that point said, well the Building Permit should include everything that was exposed at the time. So that's when the drawings were done as the drawings and the repairs, the headers, the support beams. The things that were .going to be the structural element that were necessary to make the building .safer._ It was all submitted as part of the plan that is in your file. So when they got that set of plans they looked at it, they reviewed it as part of their Building Permit'Application and Page 26 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings said, you know, well now we think that you need to go to the Zoning Board because whatever the Section they cited - MEMBER COLLINS: 243. MRS. MOORE: 243. MEMBER TORTORA: 243. Is there anything else that is not included in what you've given us that you plan to do in the renovation work on the cottage that's not included in this packet, or the plans here? MR. POLISTENA: Well, I mean, depending on how all this goes, I think there's a possibility of changing some of that fixtures in the bathroom. MRS. MOORE: No, fixtures are not there. MEMBER TORTORA: I see. Any heat? MRS. MOORE: I think the-heat is a, well there was central heating - MR. POLISTENA: Well let's just get (). MRS. MOORE: Yeah, there's a, there's a, presently there's a heating system that it's a gradient, ? - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it was on the wall. MR. POLISTENA: Correct: MRS'. MOORE: Oh, on the wall and it's being replaced? MR. POLISTENA: Well we were hoping to replace it. MRS. MOORE: Right. What else, a, electrical is being upgraded. MR. POLISTENA: Right. MRS. MOORE: And that's it. MEMBER HORNING: Is there a kitchen in the building? MRS. MOORE: Yeah, there was. MR. POLISTENA: Yeah and it's fairly new, so it wasn't nothing intended maybe a counted, op. Page 27 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Right, that's architectural. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need to take approximately a three minute recess at this point, OK. MRS. MOORE: OK, no problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need to address the gentleman in the back who are here from Southampton Lumber and George is going to leave us. He's going back tonight. We wish him well on the trip back. I don't mean that in any sarcastic manner George I assure you. MEMBER HORNING: Well it's a big boat, but. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This gentleman is going back to Fishers Island for the people who are unaware of that and he is our Fishers island Member and our representative and we wish you the best George. MEMBER HORNING: I have a few more minutes. MRS. MOORE: So, we'll take a break from our hearing and let you deal with. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I just want to mention two words to them because I have been a little remised I probably could have mentioned this before. We do apologize bringing you gentlemen out on this night. We really thought that we were going to deal with this. it appears that we're putting our thoughts together. We're going to start to deliberate but we doubt if we will have anything coming forth at this time. Ed I was unaware of this until about five minutes to seven tonight and that's all I can tell you. So in lieu of anything else we started this process and that's where we are at this point. So that's where we are I apologize for not mentioning it earlier. That's all I can tell you. Is there anything else anybody would like to do prior to reconvene? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just mention the name of the hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was Southampton Lumber. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Motion to reconvene on the Bloom hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any other questions of a - Page 28- January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: We haven't finished. Do you want to hear from lan and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to hear from Mr. Fairweather. Go ahead, do you want to question Mr. Polistena? MEMBER COLLINS: No, actually I want to question counsel. I have two things in mind. One is to clarify the time sequence which has been mentioned earlier this evening but I want to make sure that it's in the record with clarity that satisfies me. And the other is to just try to pin down your argument. I plowed through the papers in the file and what my notes say is plus what I heard from you tonight. After these folks bought this property they concluded that this cottage is not in very good shape? MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And so the first decision was to repair the footings? MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And you believed or they believed that this could be done without a Building Permit? That this was a repair that - MRS. MOORE: He contemplated. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. And started the work and at some point along in there with the work under way, for whatever reason I don't know and it's not important, a Building Inspector visited the property, saw the work and said, this work needs a Building Permit. MRS. MOORE: The reason is as Mr. Palistina pointed out, they pulled down the internal walls wh ich - MEMBER COLLINS: No, I thought that came later. In my notes, in my notes, - MRS. MOORE: When did you take down the a - MR. POLISTENA: I think it might have been a combination and too, that we did open an interior wall but he did come when we were doing the footing.. MEMBER COLLINS: You were doing the footings? My notes say that you started working October without the Building Permit in the later part of it around the 20th of October a Building Inspector visited the property, said, stop the work and said, you need a Building Permit for this work. You applied on October Page 29 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 25, and you got the Building Permit. It was issued in November and it was a Building Permit to repair the cottage foundation. MRS. MOORE: Correct. Well actually our plans were, were there more than foundation plans? I don't remember. MR. POLISTENA: Originally they were just the foundation. MEMBER COLLINS: Just the foundation, right. It was a Building Permit to repair the cottage foundation. On November 17th, the Building Inspector stopped the work because the cottage had been guttered and this violates Section 243 in that it is a reconstruction of a non-conforming use and that goes to this whole business of taking the paneling down and he looked on it as having been guttered. OK. Then according to correspondence here, you submitted to the Building Department in effect a request to amend the outstanding Building Permit which was to repair the foundations. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And the amendment was to take in the rest of the job? MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And my file at least doesn't have a copy of your request for the amendment but that's alright I can see obviously from the case what it would say. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, it was done by ( ) plans, right. MEMBER COLLINS: And then on December 17th, the Building Department having considered this request to amend formally rejected that application to amend saying, that what Jim was reading before, that this project to repair the foundation is in fact a structural alteration. Here it is, da, da, da. MRS. MOORE: Right. Not to be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered or moved unless the use of such building is changed. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, what their denying is, that their denying a repair, amending the repair foundation permit to include what they call substantial renovations of a structure. MRS. MOORE: Right. Page 30- January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to get that into our record so that it was clear so that when we're thinking about it, we'll know where we're at. Now you builder wants to add something. MRS. MOORE: Wait we may have to - MR. POLISTENA: I just because I know it's important to you, the chronology of everything, it sought of sounds like that we continued work after we initially stopped. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I didn't say. I was not implying that at all. MR. POLISTENA: Well according to the dates because he submitted the "Stop Work Order'' . From the point that Gary first came there we had a verbal understanding that I would not do anymore work. That I haven't done anymore work from that point on. So we never did anything you know, to a, you know, not go along with what you may have stated. MEMBER COLLINS: Let me tell you why I'm going into this chronology. When it comes time for us to make a decision, it helps to know whose on first base and I just wanted to - MR. POLISTENA: Good luck. MEMBER COLLINS: Good luck, Frank, now that made me lose my own train of thought. MRS. MOORE: You were at the Notice of Disapproval - MEMBER COLLINS: Here's the point that I have in mind. The Building Department gave you a Building Permit to repair the structural foundation of the building. That was given. MRS. MOORE: Hm, hm. MEMBER COLLINS: It was there. I mean you didn't ask for it in the first place because you didn't think you needed it but once you asked for it you got it. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: The issue has arisen not because of the repairs to the foundation of the building which some people might say, is a major structural (). That's not the issue. Page 31 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Right. Well we fought that battle and gave them Judge Farley's affidavit which said: hey, this is a pre-existing use. We gave them the proper C.O. and no, actually we were able to convince them to give us that a initial Building Permit, so. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, that's because MRS. MOORE: No, it's chronology wise that's why you know, we - MEMBER COLLINS: OK, but what you really are facing now is a denial on a stop of the rest of the project of cleaning up the inside of the building. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: What they term substantial renovation. MEMBER COLLINS: What they call substantial renovation. MEMBER TORTORA: Which is not prohibited in the Code Book. MEMBER COLLINS: Right. There's a lot of words flying around here tonight. I'm not trying to be boring, but - MRS. MOORE: And understand we're not trying to be (). I'm not trying to be, I mean the Building Department and I work well together. That's not a problem. I think it just helps not to' have clients come in unless they really have to. MEMBER COLLINS: I think OK, I think that the essence of your argument is that although Section 243 clearly says, that this building which I definitely think is a non-conforming use. MRS. MOORE: OK. You're on that side of the argument. MEMBER COLLINS: Well because a second dwelling unit is not a permitted use in a residential lot, OK. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. MEMBER COLLINS: And in that sense it's a non-conforming use. This building can't be "reconstructed or structurally altered". That's the wording that the Building Department - MRS. MOORE: Under 243. MEMBER COLLINS: Under 243. Page 32 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And what you're relying on is that what you're doing, is not reconstructing it. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Or structurally altering it. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Are we down to bedrock here? MRS. MOORE: Yes. To me structurally altering or reconstruction is going beyond the parameters of what is already there. You know, footprint wise. Expanding footprints. Changing the height of the. building. If'you're adding a floor.to a building. If we were asking to put in four bedrooms on to a cottage that use to have one or two, that to me is something that we clearly have to come to the Zoning Board and seek variances. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, I, I wasn't really asking you to elaborate on it. I just really want to pin down, pin doWn what you're argument is, and your argument is, this is not the reconstruction that is prohibited. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: This is a normal maintenance and repair. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Which may go into, i, I think you're also relying on the proviso that you can go beyond normal maintenance and repair if it's in tile interest of public safety. MRS. MOORE: I think I said that. MEMBER COLLINS: You're also relying on that. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. MRS. MOORE: I don't think it's applicable in this case but, the .language is clearly there. Page 33 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: You don't think that's applicable? You think - MRS. MOORE: I don't think we've gone to that structural alterations that you know, the language. I think that we're really, we're supporting walls better with extra beams. MEMBER COLLINS: ! guess my final point would be. The reason I was really pushing on the chronology is that I think that one could I'm not, one could make the argument that repairing the foundation supports of the building as a structural alteration and getting rid of termites and wasps nests isn't even though it requires tearing out the walls. But it appears - MRS. MOORE: Well the reason for the change of the foundation was because of termite infestation. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, but it appears to me that the Building Department has let.you have. the foundation work. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: But that's not the stiCking point? MRS. MOORE: That's done. We have the Building Permit. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So if we don't agree with the interpretation. We don't agree with your interpretation. You are asking us to - MRS. MOORE: Yes, clearly the application includes a variance as an alternative because actually your application form generally deals with things as a variance. It would be, I think it would help the Building Department tremendously to know how to treat pre-existing structures because they are as l say, faced with these on you know, a regular basis and certain parameters would keep your applications to a minimal to those that actually are expansions. Not repairs and maintenance of existing structure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore as you know, in some areas we agree and in some areas we don't agree. MRS. MOORE: OK. Page 34 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I have to say in general that this section of the code as it has evolved through the 1989 change was a nature of a major lawsuit in 1985 of which I had to very simply go to Federal Court and testify, OK. MRS. MOORE: On the Zahra case? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, so I don't see that there's going to be any major changes on this until such time that someone actually clearly revisits that section of the code, OK, and goes through the A, B., C, of what we have, OK. Where we have it, when we have it, the illuSive 50%, how it's determine and so on and so forth, OK? In that situation we had the firm of Sidney Baum from Smithtown come out and evaluate that building, OK, and that is the only true way, OK, is when you have either an architectural firm, an engineering firm look at it and determine it, OK, because it's then borne upon their license. They clearly state if it has reached that' threshold of 50% or if it has not, and that's where the issue really lies and then if you had that statement and you took that to the Building DePartment, that would be the proof and I think that's, what i'm saying to you, I think that's what we have to use, OK. We have to haVe the evaluation done prior to the actual start of the job by the. engineering firm and then submit that to the. Building Department and say, this is it and I think that would of cleared Some of the PrOblems. here.: MRS. MOORE: OK, I don't, go ahead because I think you went into that. CHAIRMAN 'GOEHRINGER: I've been trying to speak to Mr. Fairweather. I never had the pleasure of meeting you. It's a pleasure to meet you. I've spoken to you on the phone when I've called for Bob a couple of times. MR. FAIRWEATHER: Yes. you have. The genesis of this whole project ( ) infestation by termites of the foundation and the problem with termite infestation is you don't know how far it's traveled. So the only reason the paneling'was taken down on the inside of the cottage was to find out the extent of the damage and that's really the only reason that was ever done. We just didn't want the cottage to fall down and that's why the foundation was as we present. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING.ER: Did you look at the actual structure prior to any commencement of any work? MR. FAIRWEATHER: Yes, l did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You did. What did you actually see .in the strUcture? MR. FAIRWEATHER: Well basically the cottage was built from (.' .) posts which couldn't have been more than about 6~ from the ground and around the Page 35 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings parameter the actually soleplate was sitting on the ground which is as you all know, an invitation to insect damage and you discover the extent of it insect damage and the only way to save that building was to remove those walls and replace them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was a choice made to use 6 x 6 CCA as opposed to putting a conventional crawl space foundation in. MR. FAIRWEATHER: Well we never intended to fix the cottage up in the first place and it seemed the most expedient and most effective way to purchase it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so basically to make it a year round structure, what are they going to have to do? Seal the floor beams, the floor joints from the outside? MR. FAIRWEATHER: I'm not entirely sure what the intention is ever to make it. It's going to be a summer cottage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I see. MR. FAIRWEATHER: And to have an existing small heating system and which we were going to replace. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. FAIRWEATHER: Since the paneling has all been taken down on the inside, it just seems like an expedient approach to put insulation in there. As far as insulating underneath the building, I don't think we've ever even taken it that far. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it will probably be used as a seasonal structure. MR. FAIRWEATHER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: Weekend, it's a weekend retreat also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I just want to tell you for the record that if you want a chronological order, how this building evolved, OK. I grew up on the road and ~ present, my wife and myself, own a house on there. We don't occupy this house, OK. I've owned that house since 1984. However, I grew up on a road very close to this road and this building was very simply a storage building in the early sixties and it evolved from that particular point on and somewhere in the mid sixties, the heating system was installed, in that side wall and you know, basically grew from that particular point on. I certainly knew Judge Farley and I Page 36 -January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings pass by that house almost every morning and so I've known it over 40 years and that's it. The long and the short of it, OK, but at this particular point, did you, have you calculated any percentage based upon this illusive 50% to feel that you are still under the 50% or I'm not asking, I'm not putting you on the spot Mr. Fairweather, I just - MR. FAIRWEATHER: It's difficult. I don't think it's more than 50%. I don't really don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well you have numbers. You have numbers, between 12,000, 50,000 for cost and $48,000 is the estimated value of that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those are dollars. We're talking percentages. MEMBER COLLINS: That's what you're going to base your percentage on. MRS. MOORE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: HoW can you base your percentage on that? can put g°ld studded stUff in'there and it could be. MEMBER DINIZlO: Well that's how they base it on. You MEMBER COLLINS: It seems pretty reasonable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can't mix oranges and bananas. MRS. MOORE: We just know how much construction costs and materials and so forth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're just trying to get an idea of some of the questions we're going to ask the Building Department when and if we have this generic meeting. Meaning on generic terms. MRS. MOORE: Right, but again, I still go back that if you have, if you're not changing the dimensions of the building and you're not changing the use of the internal layout of the building and you're only making what are common sense State Building Code improvements to it. That to me should be a clear, you knoW, a case of yeah, Building Department should be encouraging repairs like that , not sending us in here for variances. I think Mr. Bloom would like to address that for just a moment but a, it's frustrating because you know, we. tried every step along the way to say listen we're just making repairs you know, and Page 37 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings the field crew I think really you know, dug in their heels and said, no you know, we don't agree, go to the Zgning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who were you going to ask the question to? MEMBER TORTORA: The attorney. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, are you done Mr. Fairweather? MRS. MOORE: Well we're all here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm going right to the Notice of Disapproval. I'm looking at the words and I think the real heart of the matter here, is in the wording in the code and the heart of the matter has to deal with three words in their disapproval. Enlargement, reconstruction, altered or moved, four words. MRS. MOORE: OK, and none of them seem to apply here. MEMBER TORTORA: Well here's what I think they're, I Would speculate they're hanging it on and that's under Definitions 113 Structural Alterations that refers to the change in the supporting members of a building, beams, columns, footings, foundations, etcetera, or bearing walls. What a is trouble? MRS. MOORE: Yeah but I think, yeah and you're whispering changes to the members and stuff. We're not changing. We're bracing, we're replacing when necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're beeping up. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well she's adding, yeah. MRS. MOORE: Supporting, we're maintaining what is there and that's where it's so, you know- MEMBER TORTORA: Well then if we stick very clearly with the wording here, because that's what you're asking for. You're asking for an interpretation and ! really don't have a problem on giving one on this one. Then I would go down the list. It's not an enlargement. We know that. You're not moving it. We know that. MRS.' MOORE: Right. Page 38- January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Are you reconstructing it? No, you're not reconstructing it. So the only question really is, are you structurally altering it? That's the question. MRS. MOORE: Let me recheck. Are we structurally altering? MEMBER TORTORA: I mean that's what's in my mind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Structurally altering the foundation. MEMBER TORTORA: That's where the question lies. MRS. MOORE: Yeah but what is a structural alteration? To mean it's changing dimensions of a structure. MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no, it's a define term in our code. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a define term. It's not way out there. MEMBER COLLINS: Can we have a little cross ( ) here? MEMBER TORTORA: You got it. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why I was pinning down the chronology because the Building Department gave them without any flack, a Building Permit to do the foundation work and this denial i mean you know it's written in kind of a shorthand bUt what they're' saying is, there exists a permit for repair a foundation and these folks what to amend it to do some other stuff and that they're really denying the other stuff. So ! think they've given them the foundation is not structural. MEMBER TORTORA: I do too. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why I was going through all that stuff with counsel. MRS. MOORE: Oh, not necessary. It's great. You guys are clearing .up every issue on your own. MEMBER COLLINS: But structural alteration Mrs. Moore is defined in the code. MRS. MOORE: You're right. ! forgot that it says, a define term, right. MEMBER COLLINS: And this work on the footings fits the term, but - MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, but you had approval for that. Page 39- January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: It's not before us. MRS. MOORE: We have approval. But again, look at the paragraph of the code that says, you can still do that if it's intended for public safety, if there's a reason. The State Building Code is the reason, so. MEMBER TORTORA: Well it depends on what strength you interpret the word "or" and I don't mean - MRS. MOORE: Well, alright let me go back to that Memorandum. The Code runs against the drafter. It doesn't run against the property owner. There are certain property rights. MEMBER TORTORA: There's an entire difference in the meaning of the word "or" and "and". If you look through this very carefully, you can very well interpret that to mean, a Building Permit of major alterations, ( ) and demolition, or. MRS. MOORE: Yeah you can read it - MEMBER TORTORA: But common sense would diCtate and/or hopefully it would dictate in all of these cases because I'm sure that, it's only my opinion that the drafters of this code who a, it wasn't their intention to allow buildings to rot. MRS. MOORE: Right and by the fact that we've got these cottages all over town that continue to exists it (inaudible) for that people fix them up just like your normal house needs maintenance and repairs and the intention is never to get rid of it. These cottages are very valuable. Demand a very high price on the market. It really is to a house on that, a waterfront house or even any house that has one house versus the dwelling of a private you know, it really becomes the, the, a private quarters for family and friends. Which would you decide? I think if I had the money I know which I would and I really wish the code still allowed for that but apparently - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'd just like to move along. Mr. Bloom wants to say something? MRS. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Bloom. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do Sir? MR. BLOOM: How do you do. Thank you very much. I apologize again for being late, but I a judicial notice with the LIE traffic and the night and the freezing weather everybody it was a brutal trip. Page 40 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're happy you're here and safely. MR. BLOOM: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: And you made it. MR. BLOOM: I made it. I just want to give a little bit of my own personal perspective on when we bought the house. We fell in love with the property. We a, it was the first one that we, we loved a number of them that we saw and we liked the Farleys very much. Never in our wildest did we think that we Would have to do anything with this cottage, it wasn't even remotely considered. We thought it was a great thing to have. Our kids visit. I' know they're going to want to stay perhaps separately. What we found ourselves doing is when Frank to a look at it and lan took a look at it, we just wanted to live there while we were doing the renovations to the main house. We thought it would be an easier way for us to come out and stay here and still see the work going on. When we got into it, I can tell you this whole thing, we didn't think we'd have to do anything and now we're winding up doing what we're doing. We're obviously not going to be putting in gold studs., God for bid. We want to keep it as limited as we can. But, I feel it's kind of a backward situation it's upside down. If fOr example, I could understand the Building DePartment coming out and saying I understand you want to live in this cottage. Yes. Well it has a C of O, yes, but you're not up to code so we're going to direct that if you want to be here and you don't want violations on it, yoU have to do the work we are now challenging you about doing. To me, it's like an Alice and Wonderland situation because i'm in effect - being told, without a Zoning Variance I can't do certain work, to get the hoUse to an effect comply with code and be safe and I would think they'd be out here -- _ telling me I've got to do that before they condemn it. The other thing is that .'-:.~.; when we first saw the house, I remember walking into the house and Tom Farley, Jr. has been living there. I was watching the Super Bowl with him at one point and some Other college games and I never, again I never thought of it and he has been living there. When we saw the hornet nest up over the paneling it" scared the hell out of me frankly. I thought he'd been living here all year, all the time, that's'where he was and again, it just never occurred to .us that there was anything like what we're doing now. We're not looking at the one job more than we have to. We're not as we went down the list, we're not moving it, we're not changing its exterior appearance. As little as we can do, we just Want to upgrade the things that lan and Frank have talked about. So I hope that this puts it a little bit of perspective. We're not trying, in fact, I can understand if the Building Department had said, well we'll approve what you want to do inside and then we go ahead and start putting in foundation work. I could see then they would have a problem perhaps. I still think it's, we're just really replacing what was there. But for them in effect to have passed judgment on the main event issue. I mean a really big thing like structural piers. It's not as big. as it sounds really and then stop us from doing what, just taking down a paneling just Page 41 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings for the reasons we've given. It's just, it's, it's really, you know, it hard on us, but I mean I guess they're doing it in good faith. They really want to know what we're doing is OK to do and so that's ali I really have to say except to thank you for your questions and giving us this hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? MR. GOGGINS: I would like to. i've been listening to this whole thing. I'm Bill Goggins. I too grew up in that area Jerry. I'm familiar with it. What the Building Department does is that they interpret that if you could, they described it before they have a window and instead of having a header when they build it years ago, they just put a flat 2 x 4 above it and that's what constituted their window area to install a window and what builders do now, they see that and they say, gee that's not structurally sound so they put a header over it. The Building Department looked at that and said, well that's structural because you put a header on it. ! just had a problem before (changing tape) construction they woUld just put a 2 x4 above the window and the 2 x 4s around the window and then they would insert the window in and that was enough for them. In today's code, you have to put a header in above the window to 'make it structurally sound. So'what these builders are running into is, they're taking the sheetrock or paneling off the wall and there's no header and they say, gee how can that be, we have to put a header in to make it structUrally sound. The Building Department determines that that header makes it structural and therefore you need a Building Permit. ~ just bought a building through a corporation with some other people on the Main Road in Mattituck. It use to be called the Glenwood Hotel. It's got a C.O. for a hotel and a lodge. I started ripping down the old plaster and lap off the wails and we saw that the same situation. There's no header over the windows, i've already ordered 30 windows to be replaced in the building and a Building Inspector showed up and saw my builder putting a header in over one-of the windows and he said, oh, that's structural. You need a Building Permit. So now I have to spend $3,000 on plans. I have to go through a process there 'and possibly a process here to do what I should be entitled to do anyway. And 1 think it's a. problem throughout the town and I think most people just you know pay their couple hundred of dollars to get their Building Permit or on a Commercial situation it's over $1,000 at least and I think it would be great if there is some clarification at least on that point. But I know what they're doing. They, you know they see that it needs a header, they put in a header. They see an old timber that is eaten away by' termites and they want to sister it. They want to make it stronger. I don't know what the code or what the town wants. Whether they want to promote to keep these structures to make them structurally sound or they want them to be (). I don't know. But I know from'my experience that'S what the Building Department does. If it needs a header, it's structurally needs a Building Permit and if there was, i don't know if you're going to grant an interpretation or grant a variance for them but if there is some language and Page 42 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings whatever you do as to whether a header is structural. I mean if you need a Building Permit that would be great and I think Mr. Dinizio had a great idea, talk to the Building Inspector and clean it up so that people like the BloomS or anyone else that have this problem at least as far as that's concerned with the windows can have some guidance because the code as you state doesn't you know state specifically what's structural you know, but according to members of the Building Department and I'm not saying they're wrong or they're right. They're saying that if you put in a header above the window it's structural and therefore you need a Building Permit, so. I don't know if that helps anybody or hurts anybody but that's been my experience with the Building Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Bill. MR. ,GOGGINS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I would like to make a comment. I still would like to have the Building Inspector come in and comment on this particular application. That- I'm saying that in that there are always going to be gray areas, always and we can't tell the Building Inspector specifically in all cases what Mr. Goggin says that he's doing which is, don't tell them that they can't put in a header when they can put in a header or that's a structural change. If we, as lay people, are going to say to him that that's not a structural change. If we're saying that to him, then I don't think we're qualified to do that. My preference would be that to make a decision on this particular application based on both sides of the stow. I heard one side but I didn't hear the other. I heard people tell me what the other might be doing but I didn't hear the'other side of the stow. I really think that we ought to hear the other side of the stow. And I'm sure they would be more than willing to come in and explain to us in a hearing and certainly in a hearing so that Ms. Moore can rebut whatever they say and certainly the Building Inspector can have his say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that at this point I have been listening to this for 18 years and I have it's not that I don't want them to come in. I don't particularly have an interest in having them come in but, !'11 leave it up to the Board. It's a Democratic Organization so, that's the stow. MR. BLOOM: May I just say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Bloom, quickly. Page 43 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. BLOOM: I'm not familiar with the procedure enough to really comment with the with real knowledge but it seems to me they could have been here this evening to address the question that you're asking and my wife and I have been standing still on this renovation you know this renovation and repair for -(voice was fading). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now what happened? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, Jerry, if you make noise with that microphone it cuts off that one. MR. BLOOM: It's just a question that we have been sitting ididly for months and this is a hearing obviously it's very important to us. I came out to be here. I was going to bring Judge Farley but because, he wanted to be here but because it was so late I just couldn't stop, get him and bring him and honestly I feel that if the Building Department felt strongly enough about it I think they should have given a comment and that would have made it easier for all of you to make a decision and certainly they could have been here to address each question and I wouldn't have to sit back until such time as they are able to address them. I understand your desire to meet with them but I'm sitting here. I just want to get this thing done. There's a lot that we've had to endure not having it and Waiting for them you know to act, frankly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i made the motion. I need a second and it's up to you ladies to second, to close the hearing. I am not trying to negate Mr. Dinizio's opinion or his concern in any way. !'11 move the motion at thiS time. All those in favor in closing the hearing: MEMBER COLLINS: Aye. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm going to a, we're going to deadlock. Let's discuss because I have to go with .Jimmy on this one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. well then what you do is this. Let me just explain to you what you do. On the 19th we have a Special Meeting. You ask the Building Inspector to come in and that's in, OK. 7:00 o'clock you ask the Building Inspector to come in on the 19th Special Meeting, we'll continue this hearing at this point and then we'll, I'll make another motion recessing the hearing until, is it next Wednesday? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The 19th of January. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next Wednesday, yeah. Page 44- January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: That's only five days. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's alright. MEMBER DINIZIO: All I ask is that Ms. Moore be allowed to rebut whatever he says. In other words, I don't want this closed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The hearing remains open. MRS. MOORE: No, no, no, it's going to be a continuation hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, and I want it clear that if they don't show up I still need to hear that. MEMBER TORTORA: We're going to continue the hearing next Wednesday. That's you know I'll go with you on that one. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: You already made the motion recesSing it, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I need a second. MEMBER TORTORA: Is this to - MEMBER COLLINS: To recess it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: To recess it to the 19th. MEMBER TORTORA: I second it Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 45 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:47 P.M. - Appli. No. 4778 - CRAZY CHINAMAN CORP. This is a request for a Special Exception under Article VII, Section 100-71B(5) for permission to establish apartment use over an existing professional office, pursuant to Article IX, Section 100-91(B)(4) of the "Hamlet Business Use District". Location of Property: 11775 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y., County Tax Map parcel No. 1000-141-4-36. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Goggins, how are you tonight? MR. GOGGINS: Good. How are you? William C. Goggins, 11775 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952, for the applicant, Crazy Chinaman Corp. I'm.also a stockholder in that corporation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you want us to give you a Special Permit for an apartment that you have on the second story of this building. MR. GOGGINS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Os, OK, and what I am housekeeping issue. OK, we have been discussing the issue of C: of attempting to suggest to you is very simply a MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make comment first, i know we were discussing this. This property is Zone B. MR. GOGGINS: I can correct you on that. It's Zone Residential Office. it was zoned Business prior to 1983-1984, the zone changed a massive plan. But now it's a Residential Office. There was some confusion. The Board, not the Board but the office thought it was Zone Business. They informed me it was ZOne Business. I said, I don't think so but if you say it is, it is, you know better than i do. So then I send the letter to please amend my application and say it's Zone Business and not Residential Office. But now when I went over it with the office I proved to them, that it was in fact, Residential Office. So, it is Residential Office. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, Jerry I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you but ~ didn't want us to go ali around. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, that makes a big difference. Page 46 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I and this is some historical background. When I started on this Board exactly 20 years ago, it was my understanding and this has nothing to do with your application, except it does in the end and that is and what I was making basically as a generic statement that when we grant a Specia~ Permit everything has to be perfect, OK, and that means either residentially or in a business sense, alright? Now I probably have not been in this town as long as you have but, and that's not a sarcastic statement I assure you, but, during the years that I frequented Cortese Barbara Shop next door, OK. I knew the lady that lived in this house. It was then sometime subsequent to that and I will put a time around 1990 that Mr. Fletcher Charmers moved his office into that building and I know that you bought that building from him? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He and his wife, or he in general. MR. GOGGINS: He. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He, OK. MR. GOGGINS: And as ! said, I think he bought in 1981 or 82. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and then he moved in and then was - MR. GOGGINS: Moved in and started his office on the first floor and lived on the second floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. right. Needless to say, in 1989 it became, it went to Residential Office, and when you bought the building you bought it with a Residential C. of O. ? MR. GOGGINS:. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. What we are asking you to get is a C. of O. for your main stow for your office which you have no problem getting but, we need you to apply for it, so that we can give you the Special Exception for the second stow and that's what we're asking you to do at this point and that was a discussion that we had with the Town Attorney tonight just to make sure we were going in a forward direction on that basis, OK, and so what I'd like to do is just hold this hearing in abeyance until such time that you get that C. of O. so that we have everything in place on this property. MR. GOGGINS: Alright. I said I thought that and maybe I'm incorrect, maybe your memory is better that Mr. Charmers had been operating his office, under ( ) Charmers at the site since 1983 or 1984 and that was prior to the issuance of Page 47 - January 13~ 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings C.Os. for office space and when I purchased the property, Mr. Charmers firmly believed that it was zoned business and I corrected him. I said, no, it's Residential Office and he said, well it's been in business you know before and 1 continue to use it as a business and !'11 continue to be a business. Anyhow ! understand that that's the (ram?) of a non attorney of somebody who doesn't know the code but knowing that that office was in place prior to the time when the code was changed to change to Residential Office, knowing that it was an office of prior to the time the town decided they needed C.Os. for these type of things, I was always on the assumption that ! was a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Conforming. MR. GOGGINS: Non-conforming use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. No, actually conforming, yeah, yeah, yeah.' MR. GOGGINS: Conforming use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's true but I mean so ! don~t care if they give you a Pre-C.O. or a regular C.O. it doesn't really make an difference. But what I'm saying is that to go into the Special Exception aspect, you got to have a C.O. for the present use that you have. MEMBER TORTORA: For the residential office. MR. GOGGINS: I understand. MEMBER TORTORA: It's just a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, that's all we're asking for. And we're going to continue that realm because that's basically what we have been doing aldght, throughout the whole situation and you know, just ask them to come down to look at it. They'll g~ve you the Pre-C.O. and then we'll continUe the'hearing and grant a- MR. GOGGINS: What are the requirements of getting a Pre-C.O.-on an office?. Again, sometimes the Building Department doesn't really have a clear criteria and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ask them to speak to. me. MEMBER TORTORA: You have an office right? MR. GOGGINS: An office, yes. Page 48 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: A residential office? MEMBER TORTORA: And it's zoned Residential Office. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Yeah, but today I think you need a Special Exception if it's a new office. MR. GOGGINS: For example, on a pre-existing residence, OK, the Building Department will not give you a pre-C.O, unless you have a smoke detector. Unless you have 5/Sths in sheetrock above your heating system in.the basement and unless certain things are brought up to code. Sometimes they want to ( ) the code and sometimes not and I guess I don't know, maybe i'm asking the wrong people but so if you want a pre-C.O, for an existing office, I mean what criteria they use other than the fact, that you give them an affidavit saying that this is an office prior to 1989. it's an office now. Give me a use. Are they going to say, oh, well, you need a sprinkler system? You need handicap access now. You know you need to increase the size of these windows because you don't have egress over here. I just want to know if you know - MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. MR. GOGGINS: Whether a criteria would be - MEMBER TORTORA: But your conforming. You're not a non-conforming use. You're a conforming use. MR. GOGGINS: Well the problem that I having with. this other building in Mattituck is that it's got a C.O. for a Lodge. It's Hamlet Business. They're running a plumbing office there and storage space foreVer. They've had an apartment there forever and the Building DePartment has told me, oh, well, if you're going to have an office you need a sprinkler system and you know, you need x, y, z, which f.o me I look ( ) because I don't really need that but that's what they determine it should be. But that's a separate issue. With this office I just if you know of any criteria I mean ! don't think there is other than.the fact that your an office, you've been an office and we're going to walk in and say, well we see the law books and the library and we see your desk with piles of paper on it, yes it is an office. I mean what is the criteria of an office? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you also have one other thing. You have Mr. Charmers who still is around at times. So, if you need to get an affidavit from him, you get an affidavit from him. You know what I'm saying? It's not like the person has, is deceaSed and no longer exists. I mean he's a man my age, you know what I'm saying. Page 49 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. GOGGINS: No, I understand. No, I can find him. I still represent him in certain matters. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't want you to think that this is a punitive thing from our point of view and I'm not really speaking for the Board at this point, for me, OK. What we're saying is that we just want everything status quo in these situations where we have to deal with Special Permits. MR. GOGGINS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we're not saying that it's not status quo. We're just saying that we need the C.O. MR. GOGGINS: Alright, I mean not that I know it's not punitive. I know we all want to do what's right. I want to do what's right on the code. I guess what I'm asking is, if the Building Department says, I need certain things that I don't think they need, can I make that an amendment to the existing application and go forward with it, without having to- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll certainly deal with it. Discuss it, sure. MEMBER TORTORA: You mean if they say, you need a sprinkler system, you're - MR. GOGGINS: Let's say they say, well now you need a sprinkler system if a, you know. MEMBER TORTORA: Can you appeal to us? MR. GOGGINS: Well no, can I say no, that's' it, I look at you and say, no that's not - MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that's New York State Building Department. MR. GOGGINS: I understand that, but it is, you know, has anyone ever come into here and ask for a Permitted Use, a Special Exception for a permitted apartment above an office? Has anybody come in here in the last ten years for this? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One or two. Page 50 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, we have one right here in Southold that we did. MR. GOGGINS: Yeah, I mean and so, you know, and in the past no-one has ever, ever, applied anything? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one down there next to the Methodist Church.. MR. GOGGINS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That really unique brick building. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It use to be an attorney's office above. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the one. MEMBER TORTORA: And the other one next to Tonyes's Building. MR. GOGGINS: Yeah, Wayside got apartments above. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, next to it. MEMBER TORTORA: Next to Wayside. MR. GOGGINS: The one next to Wayside? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the other side of Wayside. MR. GOGGINS: OK: BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's not recent though. Those are prior codes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tonyes was. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Wasn't Toneys over retail stores? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER TORTORA: No, he had upstairs and downstairs and then he wanted downstairs, downstairs. Page 51 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: To be office use? MEMBER TORTORA: He wanted three stories. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, but it wasn't office use. I think it was CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Toneys is next to Wayside. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, but he wanted more. MEMBER TORTORA: He wanted the sky. MR. GOGGINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, the point is, they may have made him put a railing up or something. But that, I mean, I don't think there was anything extensive (more than one person speaking) MEMBER TORTORA: As far as ( more than one person speaking) usually that's a standard. BUt that's a standard anywhere. MR. GOGGINS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean you're going to have to comply with anything the Building Department wants in the apartment anyway. You know what I'm saying? MR. GOGGINS: Yeah. MEMBER TORTORA: Smoke detectors and stuff like that and outside access for fire and safety. MR. GOGGINS: Right. Well I still have to get the written approval from the Town Fire Prevention Safety. But that would be the Building Department too? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It probably is. MR. GOGGINS: Or Bob Fisher, I guess. OK, I also have pictures of the house ! can submit to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely MEMBER TORTORA: Because we'll leave this open. We're not going to close it. Page 52 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins you had a question? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe I'm being picky, lam being picky. We're much more familiar in the sense that they show up fairly frequently with accessory apartments in residences. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But they have C. of Os. MEMBER COLLINS: They have an express requirement in the law, that there be a C. of O.- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Prior to January 1, 19847 MEMBER COLLINS: That existed prior to January 1, 1984, to show that it hasn't been dreamed up lately, right. In the language in the code relating to apartments, not accessory apartments, above retail stores and offices, there isn't such a requirement because they aren't asking you to prove that the use goes back certain amount of time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: Now, clearly in the real world, one should have a C. of O. for uses, no question about it, but I can see personally that if it turns out that the C. of O. for the office use is going to become a major hurdle for Mr. Goggins, that we might revisit the question of exactly how seriously we want him to have a C. of O. for the office use. MEMBER TORTORA: Problem. Here's the problem because you know, when we chit chattered with the Town Attorney. Here's the problem. The use is permitted in a residential office district above - MEMBER COLLINS: Right, above an office. MEMBER TORTORA: A business office. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand that. We have to establish that there is a business downstairs. MEMBER TORTORA: And usually when we write the approval we say, has a pre-existing C.O. for bla, bla. that complies with the parameters. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand. I was just putting in my two cents. I agree, we need the record to show that there is an office downstairs. Page 53 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Charmers? What if you had an affidavit from Mr. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, ! don't want to precip - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That still is not a C. of O. MEMBER TORTORA: The C.O. on the accessory apartment just for a point of clarification on that 84 date. The reason that was put in the code was when it was enacted by the Town Board at that time. They didn't want it going - MEMBER COLLINS: Going to a new vote. Of course. I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was sought of to take care of the larger houses in Town. I did the law. MEMBER COLLINS: The only other comment I thought Mr. Chairman you just might want to mention to Mr. Goggins, he's already mentioned this business of the written, explicit written approval from the Fire Inspector. i notice that what you did in putting your application, in, was to use the application form for an accessory apartment in a residential house and you crossed out some things that are inapplicable. But it's still kind of amish marsh of, there's still stuff in here that's not applicable and - MR. GOGGINS: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: I just thought for the record you might want to revisit this and make sure that your application actually tracks the requirements that apply to your apartment rather than to one in a house. Just recite the stuff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, give us an idea. Your house, or your office should be non-conforming anyway if it pre-existed prior to the change in the code anyway. So, that's why I'm giving you the suggestion of the Pre-C.O. rather than the C. of O., OK, and just give us a shout when you get it and we'll reconvene the hearing, OK? MR. GOGGINS: Alright, so should we adjourn to the next date or is it - MEMBER TORTORA: Whenever you get the, whenever you get something from the Building Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, let us know and we'd be very happy to put it on for February 3rd, if you get it. Page 54 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But we have to know two weeks before that. I have to readvertise. I rather you recess it with a date. It's easier. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we'll - MR. GOGGINS: I'll file it tomorrow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll recess it to February 3rd. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, it's easier. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, that way we don't have to readvertise it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And if you don't get it that time, we'll recess it to March. Again, we hope you get it, OK, right away as expeditious. I mean it's winter time, they can't be as busy as they are in the summer. MR. GOGGINS: Oh, there very busy over there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know. MR. GOGGINS: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I'll make a motion doing that ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER COLLINS: Recessed to February 3rd? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 55 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:07 P.M. - Appl. No. 4779 - DAVID & ANN CORIERI This is a request for a variance under Article III, Section 100-33 based upon the Building Inspector's November 8, 1999 Notice of Disapproval. The variance requested is to locate a swimming pool in a side yard area rather than the required rear yard or front yard of this waterfront parcel known as 412 Park Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y., County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-7-9.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need an affidavit of posting from you nice people. MR. CORIERI: I overnighted it UPS. You should have gotten it yesterday. I have a copy of the receipt. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. We didn't get it yet but probably tomorrow. OK, we'll get it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you gentlemen state your name for the record. MR. ClRRITO: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. My name is Michael Cirrito. I am an attorney and I represent the applicants David and Ann Coded who are the fee owners of 412 Park Avenue, Mattituck, also known as Sec. 123, BIk. 7, Lot 9.2 in the Land and Tax Map of the County of Suffolk. This is an application for an area variance to permit the construction and maintenance of an accessory inground pool at the westerly side yard of the property in variance Article III, Section 100-33 which requires such accessory uses to be located in the rear yard. The proposed use to locate this pool in a location with over the required 10 foot side yard. The front setback will be 12 feet from the adjoining westerly property line. We have here a plan which shows you the proposed placement of the pool on the westerly side of the property. The applicant would agree that this variance was granted to put a chain-link fence separating his property line from the westerly property owner's line, put a sufficient barrier of pivot hedges along this line shown in the diagram and also utilize the pool without the use of a diving board. This would be an inground pool leveled with the ground. Now I am informed by the Building Department and so is my client, that as of right, we could place a pool in this area of the premises but what we would have to do is we would have to connect it to the house by way of a deck and we would have to raise the pool 12" or 1 foot from the ground, and that manner does not become accessory use but part of the existing structure of the house and that is a right that we can do; We do not wish to do that. We believe that would be more intrusive manner in which to maintain this pool more intrusive upon the person who lives on the westerly property line, the pool would be raised one foot above the ground. If you were on the deck you'd be looking into the hoUse of the neighbor next door. He could see you, you could see him. It would be much better for the neighbor next door Page 56 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings and for the property owners in this location if the pool were inground level with the ground and we were able to put the barrier on the westerly side to prevent both noise and the appearance of a pool at that location. Now you can see from the application from this diagram, the pool will be located where the garage is located at a parallel line to the existing footprint of the garage. That garage screens the pool from its observation from the house that's in front and also from the street. It also allows the property owners to utilize that garage area as a pool house and changing room. There's a little room inside the garage area now that was used as some sought of a pool area. They would a door in there and use it as a changing room with a garage that also screens the pool from both the wind and both the view of the neighbors. I will intend to show you in this application that this site, and the placement of the pool at the Site of the property is really the only place that the pool can be placed on this property without the necessity of a Variance and if you can take a look at the full diagrarn that we have regarding the property, you will see that if we put the pool in the rear yard which the code would permit, the distance from the house to the bulkhead in the rear yard is 83 feet. A DEC regulations require a 75 foot setback from the bulkhead for the placement of the pool, and this requirement would only leave 8 feet for the conStruction of the pool which is an impossible requirement. So the pool cannot be placed in the location of the rear yard where the code otherwise says it should be placed. The easterly side portion of the premises is here. You may not know, but there is a 25 foot right-of-way that exists on the easterly side Portion of the premises. There is a right-Of-way for access to the beach from the house in front and also for the construction of several lots on the other side of Park Avenue, houses that are yet to be built. The Regulations of the Town. of Southold require that there be a 50 foot side yard setback from this right-of-way since it's considered a pUblic right-of-way. So that the pool would not be able to be located in the easterly side of the premises because of the existence of the 25 foot setback and it's impossible without a variance. Additionally, to put the Pool in this location would be more intrusive. There would be no privacy from the neighbors which exist'from the east at all. There would be no privacy from the roadway which is here and people can see the pool in that area and no privacy for the individual Mrs. Dexter I believe who presently now lives in the house in front; She'd be able to have a clear view of the Pool. Additionally, placing the pool at the access to the right-of-way, is an attractive nuisance for any children or anybody else is going to walk along the pathWay to use the beach. They'll have a pool. that will be located 10 feet from the right-of-way. We have families and other people going to the beach and I don t th~nk that w uld be an appropriate place to place the pool. Additionally, there,s a cessPOol that exists that is located on the easterly side of the premises and very few hues located one located on the fror which is something wou~d have:to be a 250 year old Linden tree, specimen Linden tree with de of the 'premises and there's another raises. That tree would have t° be removed do not want to do and the 'cesspool front yard which is here and there is a house Page 57 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings that is owned by Mrs. Dexter. The pool cannot be placed in the front yard setback since it requires a 50 foot setback. It's impossible to place the pool with a 20 x 40 foot pool in a front yard that requires a 50 yard setback. Additionally, 50 foot Setback, excuse me. Additionally, there is another 250 old Linden tree that exists there that would have to be taken down and the existing well which would have to be relocated. And again, the use at this front yard will be intrusive to Mrs. Dexter who lives in front and will be able to be seen from the road. Now I understand, that the Board has received a letter from Mr. Holman regarding his objection to this application. I'd just like to comment that because i believe you have all received it. Mr. Holman is the individual who lives on the easterly side. Excuse me, the westerly side of the premises. First of all i have to comment about the letter and frankly the applicants and I personally am somewhat upset about it in that he claims that we did not provide him with the proper diagram of the premises. Your code stated and your Zoning Board Secretary stated that we should send him a diagram which shows where the pool is going to be located. We didn't send him a diagram that.is this large. We sent him one that shows where the pool is going to be located which sufficiently shows that the pool is going to be located near his property line. So I don't know how he was objecting to that when we were following what I believed was the instructions that we had received. His letter does not state why he would object to having a pool at this location. The inground pool we are saying we will place there with a condition that it be property screened from our neighbor to the'west and it will be completely screened and not intrusive to him and it does not impose any blocking of his view or any problem with his recreation or use of his yard. The fact that we would put the pool into the rear of the premises he would be able to see it more readily when he uses the beach, when he uses his rear 'yard then we would if we placed it where we want to in the footprint that follows the garage footprint with the proper screening and fence as we propose. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a lap pool? MR. CIRRITO: No, this is not a lap pool. It's a 20 x 40. Now if we place the pool in the location which we're able to do as a right, in the same location and put it up 12 feet, as I stated before, this would be a more intrusive use of the premises. I have to say something also. Mr. Holman's property sits at this property line but his house is not located here. This is his driveway. We measured off the distance this evening, His house is located 30 feet from his property line. So, if you include 30 feet from the property line to where his house is and then the 12 feet from where the setback is, or where the pool would be setback, there's approximately a 42 foot distance between where the pool be located and his house would be located and the recreation area of. his. house is not located on his easterly side, but located on his westerly side where his patio is, his deck on the westerly side of the premises. So he would not even be able to 'see the pool when he's outside using his premises that's located on the other side of his home. I have for the Board's review photographs that ~'d like to put Page 58 -January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings into evidence. With the Chairman's permission the photographs are number 1, 3 & 4 excuse me of the Linden trees that I was speaking about, 250 old specimen trees. This photograph is a photograph of the rear of the house. You can see how the bulkhead is very close to the premises and also, that we would not be able to put the pool in that with the 75 foot setback that is required by the DEC. This is a photograph of the portion, the easterly portion of Mr. Holman's property showing that there is a garage and driveway located at that side and there is approximately, exactly, we measured it off tonight, 30 feet from there to his house plus then the 12 foot setback to the pool. This is the rear of Mr. Holman's property which indicates that hiS patio is actually on the westerly side and not on the easterly side of his porch is there. And finally, I have to state something on ( ) especially at this late hour. One of the reason why my client is putting a pool in this location to begin with, is that when he purchased the house a year ago, he had a beach at that location and it was a nice and sandy beach and although it wasn't the biggest beach in the world at high tide he had 3 or 4 feet there. Since he has purchased the home his neighbor to his west Mr. Holman, has constructed a jetty that is higher than permitted by his permit which we suspect may be longer, it may not be (inaudible) as yet to be discovered. But that jetty has completely and utterly wiped out Mr. & Mrs. Corieri's beach. To that Iow tide there is nothing but mud and at high tide the water is 4 feet on the bulkhead and I have photographs of the scene as it presently exists and I find Mr. Holman's objection to this application in view of this, rather dishearten. I 'read the code with respect to an area variance. Of course it would be a benefit to the application if the variance was granted and would not be detriment to the health, safety and general Welfare of the neighborhood of the community. There would be no undesirable change produced to the character of the neighborhood and the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by some other method. We cannot place this pool inground on any other place on this propertY. This variance is not substantial and will not have an adverse impact on the environment and is not a self-created hardship. And before closing, please grant this variance. The applicants are. here. MR. CORIERI: I'd like to say one thing~ I have maps for you, prepared by Plantings By The Sea with shrubbery and everything that differs from your map there. There are six copies there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just address the issue of the pool in general. I personally know Mr. Holman only by meeting him at the mail box on a Saturday morning and I do know him through another friend and that basically is the situation. Uniquely the hypostasis here is the pools create noise and noise upset neighbors and so on and so forth. The ability of taking Out the diving board certainly is one issue. My point and let me just digress here for a minute. We have taken extensive testimony on pools. The most extensive one was a gentleman who was Vice-President NBC, Nassau Point and actually signed Johnny Carson's Contract. We spent four hours on that pool and that pool Page 59 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings overlooks the Great Peconic Bay and that was in the early eighties and we've discussed pools from one point to the other ( ). I was wondering if these applicants would be willing to put this pool a little closer to the garage, possibly shrink it down I or 2 feet to give us a little more area between there and the property line, and as you said, remove the diving board? And possibly you know the landscaping plan I haven't had a chance to digest but maybe, on that basis there's a possibly that we could work this thing out. MR. ClRRITO: We would be willing to. I'll discuss it with my client. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well this is only my suggestion. Remember there are four other Members. MR. ClRRITO: Welt let me tell you what we're willing to do. We would be willing to adhere to any reasonable conditions the Board may put on this application. We could move the pool somewhat closer to the garage. We could narrow the pool and we discussed this before we came 2 feet from his (). We would agree to any reasonable type of landscaping plan that you had that would make you feel secure that Mr. Holman have enough of a buttress between his property that he would not (). We could dO it and we would agree to do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any questions of this attorney? (Change tape) Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I just a, you say that it will affect Mrs. Dexter if you put it in one area which looks to me like it would be hundreds of feet away and you don't think that will affect Mr. Holman. I'm just wondering how that gels? MR. CIRRITO: Well let me explain to you. I don't think you're viewing the property appropriately when your saying it would be 100 feet away. Mrs. Dexter's house is very close to the back of the property line. And in fact, if you look at her house from the rear, she has a.large screened in porch area and a large wooden porch area right at the back of the property line. Now you need a 50 foot setback from the front yard property line to place the pool. But assuming you say OK, we're going to let you place it closer than 50 feet. Then in order to do that it would be right in Mrs. Dexter's pool. It would be right in Mrs. Dexter's yard. in order to properly screen it, you would have to take this entire lawn and screen the pool back here with some sought of vegetation. On her deck she would be able to look over the vegetation unless you have it grow 10 or 12 feet. And she would be able to see that every time she took a look at the Peconic Bay because she does have somewhat of a waterview from her deck. That's why she built it up. MEMBER DINIZIO: You would be entitled to'do that without a variance. ' ' Page 60 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CIRRITO: Who would be? We would be? No, we couldn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not really sure where the front yard is going to be determined. Please don't get involved with his front yard. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it really wouldn't make too much of a difference. You can - MEMBER TORTORA: I think it's already established. MEMBER DINIZIO: On a water you can put a pool in the front yard. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: In the front yard. MR. ClRRITO: OK, but you can't here because you have a requirement of a 50 foot setback. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, well that's what I'm asking you. That's why I'm asking. MR. CIRRITO: If you take a 50 foot setback from here and ! measured it out. MEMBER TORTORA: It's already established because you have a garage and a shed so the front yard is already established by the other buildings on the property Jim and the front yard - MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not concerned about that. I just - MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm saying the front yard is - MR. CIRRITO: 2-1/2 inches on this map is 50 feet unless 'my addition is incorrect. The setback that would be required without a variance in the front yard, would be to this line. It would be approximately to this line. That means the pool would have to be placed here. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MR. CIRRITO: Which means you would have to get rid of the 250 old specimen MEMBER TORTORA: That's a front yard setback. Wait, let's stop right now. You have pre-existing buildings on here. A number of buildings as a matter of fact that have already established where your yards are. Your front yard is Peconic Bay. That's established by the location of your shed, the accessory cottage, and a number of other things here. This is already established. That Page 61 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings was probably established when this property was subdivided and a variance was given many, many years ago. But the front yard is the Bay according to the survey you're showing me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No. MEMBER COLLINS: No. MEMBER TORTORA: No? MEMBER COLLINS: We're not with you Lydia. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He has two front yards. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Then he's got a framed shed in the front yard right now? MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. That whole driveway area is all front yard. That whole thing. MEMBER COLLINS: He's got accessory structures in the front yard that meet the front yard setback. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: That's OK, he can do it. MEMBER DINIZIO: There's nothing wrong with that. MR. CiRRITO: The setback is about 20 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: No, we're talking about, yeah, the setback from the property line. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: I think the front yard is the one facing Bay side. I always call Bay side the front of the house too. So I MRS. CORIERI: And agree with you. MEMBER COLLINS: But a, well it's more than a - Page 62 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but I'm not concerned about front yard. It's lots on the water are allowed to put the pool in what most people construe to be their front yard. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have two rear yards. MR. CIRRITO: I have a house on Nassau Point. I just made an application to put a pool there. My front yard which is the non waterside, which is granted and the reason I was able to easily do it is, I have 200 feet or if I come to anything I can put it back 50 feet from my street. MEMBER DINIZIO: The principal setback. MR. CIRRITO: But the Corieris can't do that because if you come 50 feet into the street, they have to, it would be impossible tO put a 20 x 40 foot pool in that area. First of all we'd probably be abutting onto the driveway. You have to get rid of the 250 old tree. You'd have to demolish an existing framed shed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are the trees marked on there because we don't have that on our maps. We would need them. MR. CIRRITO: Yeah, ! penciled them on that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: AIright, maybe you can get one of those for US. MR. CORIERI: It may be on the landscaping- MEMBER DINIZlO: No, I don't see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We would need that for the record. MRS. CORIERI: ( ). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. MR. ClRRITO: No, there not on the map. What I will do is I will leave this with the Board. It has the trees in it by hand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Page 63 -January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ClRRITO: The trees I showed you which were the photographs, two photographs. The first one is this tree here and the second one is this tree here. If you drive by the property, you're welcome to visit them. Their huge and their wonderful. We've been informed by the ( ) there 250 old specimen trees. We do not want to get rid of them and I don't think you could put a pool here without destroying the shed and what good does that do for Mr. Holman if that's the objection because this is now in the front of his house. ~ mean he's got the same - MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not supporting Mr. Holman. I'm saying that there are other areas on this piece of property that you would not need to have a variance for. MR. ClRRITO: Well isn't this the best way to put it on the property in conformity with what the Board wants to see generated on the property? You have it behind the garage. It cannot be seen from the street. It cannot be seen by the neighbor on the ( ) which is what it is, in the front, and it's very secluded and if you put the proper screening here it can't be seen by anybody and I think that's what you're trying to accomplish. It's the least obtrusive place to put it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I think the least obtrusive place would be in what you call your front yard. MR. ClRRITO: Which is - MEMBER COLLINS: Overlooking the Bay. MR. ClRRITO: The Bay side? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, overlooking the Bay. MEMBER COLLINS: Where everybody wants their pools. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I think is the least obtrusive place. I mean I suspect, that there is more going on in this application than simply a pool from your comments. MR. ClRRITO: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: In my opinion, I'll tell you what. I want you to be able to accept alternate relief. I'm going to ask you if you will because i suspect that there's other things going on here beside the pool and if that's the case now you're looking at this big piece of lot. I mean you can take out some of your driveway and put the pool there. Page 64 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CIRRITO: How would you take out some of the driveway? MEMBER DINIZIO: Backhoe, backhoes do wonderful things. MR. CIRRITO: No, no, how would you do that? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd do it with a backhoe. MR. CIRRITO: Where would you do that on this. MEMBER DINIZIO: That would not be my concern. My concern is, that you build this piece of land here, you used up every bit of space and you want to put this pool in side, squeeze it in side yard, 12 feet away from your property line, 42 feet away from what I suspect to be the man's bedroom. I'm not sure because I couldn't tell from the house where the bedrooms are. That's what ! see, that's what I see here. Now if that's not so then just tell me. But there are other areas that you can put this pool and I'd like you to consider it. MR. CiRRITO: Let me just comment on that. I disagree with you. First of all remember, we can't put it in the Bay side because you need a 75 foot setback from the bulkhead. So, it's impossible to put a pool in. You're left with 8 feet before your reach the house: You cannot do that in this area. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Unless you ask for a variance. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MR. ClRRITO: Unless you ask for a variance from the DEC. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, not necessarily. You have a bulkhead there, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, but, but, continue Sir. MR. CIRRITO: I don't see how you can do anything with the driveway. You can fit one car down this driveway now and one car to make the turn. There's no way that you can do anything with this driveway to effect it to be able to utilize an egress and ingress to the property and that's why I disagree with your statement to do something with the driveway. I don't think that the best place to put this pool would be near the 25 foot right-of-way beach that can be seen by the road. That will be seen by the people using the right-of-way and I mean it's right out in the open. Again, you have to get rid of the cesspool. You have to get rid of the Linden tree to do that. ThiS use that we have is the best use-for the appliCant and there's nothing more here than the fact that it is the best use for the applicant and i have to object rather strongly .to the comment that there is. My Page 65 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings clients want to locate the pool at that location because the garage is located there. They have easy access from the house to the pool. From the pool to the garage. They put a nice changing room in the garage. You don't have to build any accessory structure. You want to put the pool out in no man's land on the front of the property some place, then you have nothing but a pool but a hole in the ground. MR. CORIERI: I'd like to bring out two points. One, there's a safety path here involved. As you know we have a permit to build a porch around the house and we have a 10 year old daughter and she's going to be in the pool and it's going to be convenient for us and it's safety for her, because we're going to be sitting on the porch and a guard will be in the pool and probably a friend or two and we want to watch our children. If it's way out in front, that isn't going to be as easy for us to do. And the second thing is, that you know, Ann and I, were going to put the pool on the property and called in two people. One, John Feller who did the architectural plans for the porch and the other one was Peter Sterling and they both convene and they felt, that out of all the spaces it was possible that this was the best place for the pool esthetically and convenience wise and for US. MEMBER TORTORA: You know, I'm sympathetic to your concerns about wanting to watch your children and wanting the pool to be close to the house and along that vain in looking at this, the proposed porch, why not move the pool closer to the house? Why not move it closer to the porch? Why not take the porch back a little bit so that is incorporated? That would take it away from their line, help your purpose, help you watch your children more. MR. CORIERI: The porch is built and the pool is 4-1/2 feet from the porch which 4~1/2 feet is what Peter Sterling said would be a decent pathway. So as you're walking through the path between the pool and the porch it's 4-1/2 feet. So we did do that. We tried to-move it as close to the porch as possible. Giving the setback is 10 feet and for the Building Department, if we.were to construct the pool 12 inches above the ground and connect it to the deck to the porch we could go to 10 foot setback. But what we want to do is put it into the ground and come 12, because we have the room to go 12 feet, another two feet and do it that way. And the suggestion of possibly shrinking it a little, is feasible. MEMBER TORTORA: What can you get on that side realistically? What could we get that 12 feet up to? MR. CORIERI: Well two feet, to get to 12 feet to 14 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: And if we, there's no room in the pathway or in the proposed porch area that for any reduction because as you can see, I think the Page 66 - ,January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings Board Members are very concerned about this type of setback. Particularly on this Side - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you line it up a little more with the garage. MR. ClRRITO: If you, if you push the pool, this is not a rectangle piece of property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. CIRRITO: As you can see from this diagram which the plantings are, it slants in towards the deck. so if you m move the pool closer to the garage, then what you'd accomplish is you not only gained and shrunk the pool two feet, you not only gained the two feet, now 14 feet, but you also gained approximately and I'm not looking at the scale, probably another 2-1/2 feet because of the way the lot is configured. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what ! was thinking. Even if you - MR. ClRRITO: So now you have 16 feet. Now you have to remember you have another 30 feet to the house so you have 46 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say one thing. Privacy is a factor I assume in this pool. That is the reason why you've not asked us to grant you a variance of the opposite side of the house adjacent to the right-of-way. Is that correct? MR. ClRRITO: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so I guess the best thing to do then at this point is to move it as close to the garage as you possibly can to give us the greatest area between there and the property line that you caB. MEMBER TORTORA: Give us that 16 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, and give us, I don't care if you onion skin the plan over the top or whatever you can give us that .we have as a record, OK, MEMBER TORTORA: But it has to be good enough to be a part of the permit file to go to the Building Department. Make those clear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, I'm sure that, I'm not asking you to go out and do a whole set of brand new - Page 67 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ClRRITO: No, no, I know what you need. What you need is a site plan like this showing where the pool will be located and showing the side yard setbacks. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MR. ClRRITO: We'll do that. I will have that to you within a week to ten days. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, good. Our meetings are relatively close together anyway at this juncture. MR. ClRRITO: Do you want us to appear at another meeting for this? MEMBER TORTORA: If you have it by next Wednesday, we can look at it again then because we're going to have a Special Meeting next Wednesday night. MR. ClRRITO: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, only if we have to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Only if the Board ~ecess it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, let's recess it to February 3rd. MEMBER DINIZlO: if you took that pool and cut it out, if you took this and cut it out and just paste it where it would be I'd be satisfied with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well. MEMBER DINIZIO: As long as you can get 16 feet from the edge of that pool to the house. MEMBER TORTORA: You've got to bring it in - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, do it the right way. Let's, I know you're in the middle of construction right now, OK, but it's wintertime anyway. So I mean hopefully the ground is not going to freeze and hopefully you'll be able to build it in February. So let's, bring it to us on February 3rd. MEMBER TORTORA: And the with them, the planting and landscaping plan. MEMBER DINIZIO: But why can't we just vote on it as alternative relief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can but we want to see it on the plan. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we wouldn't do that at alternate relief. Page 68 -January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But Jimmy he needs it anyway to go to the Building Department. MEMBER DINIZlO: Right, well then he could go. MEMBER TORTORA: Not until we see it. MEMBER DINIZIO: He can go on Wednesday. Next Wednesday we can say, no you can't have this. You can have it as long as it's 16 feet away from the property line and he's on his way. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well they want to see where, where it's going. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's do it the right way. Not that that's not the right way. That's the short cut. Let's do it the right way. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could we have a copy of the map that you sent to the neighbors because usually we don't have people sending a different map to the neighbors. It's very rare and this way we have it in the record. MR. ClRRITO: Which is a copy of the a - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: A copy of - MR. CIRRITO: The landscaping map. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Which we didn't have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We didn't have until tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean there's a lot of digestion that we have to do here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Does it show property lines and the distance from the Bay? They didn't see any - MR. ClRRITO: Yeah, sure, see, right here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, because usually you have to show all distances from all property lines. Where's the Bay on here? MR. CiRRITO: This is the, his property line to the - Page 69 -January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The side line? MR. CIRRITO: Correct. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Where's the Bay side? MR. CIRRITO: The Bay side would be here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: it's missing. MR. CIRRITO: The Bay side is missing? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So it's really not a full map, OK. MR. CIRRITO: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just so you know. And how do you spell your name. MR. ClRRITO: Cirrito. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Cirrito and first name would be Anthony? MR. ClRRITO: Michael. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Michael, sorry. MR. ClRRITO: 58 Fulton Avenue, Hempstead. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, thank you. MR. CIRRITO: I'll try to submit that map as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you. We're sorry you have to go back to Hempstead tonight. I hope you're going to Mattituck and not. No, I got to go back. We have to bring him back. That's the MR. CORIERI: problem. MR. ClRRITO: Could I have my pictures back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you want your pictures back. MR. CIRRITO: Yeah, I think I have an Executive Session with the Trustees on this. Page 70 -January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, that's very unfortunate. The condition of my legs meant that I could not go looking around to the a, I only got as far as the garage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Well, you know what we can do. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm very interested in the appearance of the Bay side of the property and I couldn't get there. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have negatives of these, right? MR. CORIERI: I don't know. MEMBER COLLINS: Let me see the pictures now. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have two weeks to get it. We don't meet until the 26th of January. MR. CORIERI: They have copies of them. Oh, here, OK., you can keep those. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a couple? MR. CORIERI: We have a couple, yes. But I don't have one with the mud. Anne do you have the roll to make the a - MRS. CORIERI: If I took it on my camera I have the roll. MR. CORIERI: You've got the roll, that's fine. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, it doesn't show me what I was actually interested in anyway. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, OK, they can take it? MEMBER COLLINS: It didn't show me what I wanted to know. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You want to givethem back? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll give it back to' them. MR. ClRRITO: If you give them back, I'll resubmit them. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Cirrito, the law tells us that the Zoning Law is what you take as a given and then you recognize the fact that properties vary in shape Page 71 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings and height and conditions vary and slopes vary and all of that and the Zoning Board of Appeals exists to try enable people to accomplish things they want to accomplish even though the Zoning Code won't let them do it. But one of the criteria we're suppose to look at is whether the people can do it without variance and I had the feeling that your presentation tonight said, well yes, there are places on the property where in principal we can do it without a variance and there are other places on the property where we can put the pool and we need a variance and you sought of ruled all of those out and asked us to conclude that this is the best and that's probably not our mind said. I think our mind said is, do the people need a variance to accomplish what they want to accomplish or can they accomplish it without a variance. If they need a variance what's the variance that does the least harm perhaps? And that's why I think that your sought of can't be on the Bay side, can't be on the right-of-way side was to my hearing a little too dismissive. ! think you've gotten a sense from this Board that probably the Board is going to be sympathetic to put in the pool in the place where your clients want it with some squishing and moving. But I was still personally and I'm not going to pursue this now because it's too late. I was personally interested in pursuing the question a little more length of why it couldn't go in some of the other places and I just wanted to tell you in our defense that I don't think Mr. Dinizio's comments about you know, what's so bad about here are out of line. I think we're doing our job when we tell you you've got to think alternative. MR. ClRRITO: I just didn't want the Board to get the wrong impression that this would be placed at that westerly property line in some way to spite our neighbor to the west. That's really not the intention. The intention is that that is the best place to put this pool when you take a look at this property and you see where it is. I do think that if you take a look at the survey, putting it in any other location can't be done either without a variance or without a pragmatic problems dealing with the removal of the cesspool or removal of the trees, or removal of existing. structures that are there and probably the best place to .locate the pool is there because it is the least obtrusive use to of placed the pool when you consider neighbors from the west, neighbors to the north and neighbors to the east also. No-one will be able to see the pool from that area. It's blocked on three sides. One by screening and two by structures. So that's what I meant, i just didn't want anyone to get the impression that this was being dOne somehow to get you know even with the neighbors. MEMBER COLLINS: Yah, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: The screening I just want to ask a quick question. I'm half blind for one thing. ! couldn't read it quickly on this landscaping map. The chain-link fence is that going to have evergreens in front of the chain-link fence? In between the chain-link fence and the pool, is there going to be any screening? Page 72 - January 13, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CIRRITO: What we were considering doing was- putting the chain-link fence on the property and in front of the chain-link fence on our side of the property, placing I said privet hedges and if the Board requires that it be evergreen - MEMBER TORTORA: Usually we do. MR. CIRRITO: Or arborvitaes, we can do that also. MRS. CORIERI: We've been finding.that the evergreens on our property are being eaten by deer and the landscape and the gardener is the one who suggested that privets do very well out there and during the winter the pool wouldn't be used so it's not like it would be. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it'll be behind the fence. MRS. CORIERI: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: The deer won't get in. MEMBER TORTORA: It's the visual, believe me it's the visual. MEMBER DINIZIO: You'd have to have that pool completely surrounded by a fence. MRS. CORIERI: Right, Mr. Holman'next door has a vegetable garden with a pretty high fence around it and the deer jump over it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, well I hope they don't jump over into your pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The way you eliminate that is, you put a little fence higher with almost those little, bird things with just and tie pieces on it and that scares them. ! just want to make one statement about your bulkhead situation, just an opinion. I have to close the hearing. I want to recess this hearing. I'll make a motion recessing it to February 3rd. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. End of heari~ ~c~ECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TO%VN CLE~e ared by Lucy Farrell