Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/03/2000 HEARINGPage INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING HELD February 3, 2000 1 - Appl, No. 4783-GERARD & MARY GRALTON 10 - Appl. No. 4782 - DANIEL.& MAUREEN MOONEY 19- Appl. No. 4783- GRALTON HEARING RECONVENED 24 -Appl. No. 4781 - BRUNO CIPPITELLI 34 - Appl. No. 4782 - MOONEY HEARING REOPENED 43 - Appl. No. 4779 - DAVID & ANN CORIERI TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS February 3, 2000, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 7:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4783 - GERARD & MARY GRALTON This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, regarding an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval dated January 13, 2000 for the location of a proposed dwelling with a setback at less than 15 feet from the nort..herly side property line. Location of Property: Corner of Bay Avenue and Sterling road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; County Tax Map No. 1000-138-2-11; a/k/a as Lot 114 on the Subdivision Map of Nassau Farms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating this house, proposed house, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. We'll ask Mr. Krupski, we understand he's representing. And how are you tonight Al. MR. KRUPSKI: Good thank you. I'm Albert Krupski, I'm representing my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Gerard and Mary Gralton. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you cio? MR. KRUPSKI: They would like to build the house on this lot on the corner of Skunk Lane and Sterling. The way the lot's situated, it's a narrow lot and a long lot and the way it's situated to reach the front yard setback which would be on Sterling Road to get the 40 feet, the house is placed 10 feet off the side yard or backyard, or whatever you want to call it, the opposite yard to the front yard. But 'it would be the front yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think, I think the Build, I, we don't, I try not to get into this issue, OK, but I believe the Building Department is calling it side yard. MEMBER TORTORA: What's he trying to make it 40 foot Sterling Road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, ten. MR. KRUPSKI: They say it's located 10 feet off the North - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, because the Notice of Disapproval reads that you need 15. Page 2 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings R. KRUPSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. KRUPSKI: So there here for relief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Tell me why they're not asking to put the house any closer than 40 feet to Sterling Road? MR. KRUPSKI: Is that possible? MEMBER COLLINS: It's another variance. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a corner lot, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's another variance, that's all MEMBER TORTORA: I mean just to make the side yard. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, it's a trade-off given the size of the house. You either ask for a Variance on the north side or you ask for a variance on the south side and I guess the Chairman's question was, what were the considerations? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, it's a corner lot. That's why he's ( ) on Sterling. MR. KRUPSKI: I think they just wanted to keep it off the berm. If you notice that the property to the north is built on and that house is 9 feet off the property line and the lot size is smaller but similar in shape. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm, OK. MR. KRUPSKI: And I think the road setback is more important and that's why. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually what you did was you carry-the complete setback of the road as it moves that little jog toward the north is what you're telling me, to the north. In other words, you carry the contour of the road. MR. KRUPSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: house. So that you're straight forty on both sides of the Page 3 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. KRUPSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any questions of Mr. Krupski, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, that was my question. It was clear that locating a house on a lot this narrow is a matter of trade-offs and my question was, what were the considerations that made you honor the front yard setback of 40 feet at the cost of needing a variance? And I guess your answer is, that staying away from the road was important so you were happy to comply with the setback requirement. MR. KRUPSKI: On the road side. MEMBER COLLINS: On the road side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other issue of course is, you have wells down there, no town water, right? MR. KRUPSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So therefore the placement of the cesspool system is placed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services and that's where the house starts, some ten feet, we'll call that north east of the cesspool system. MR. KRUPSKI: H'm, h'm, and they have that a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sewer system, excuse me. MR. KRUPSKI: They have the approval from the Health Department. MEMBER COLLINS: Is that then a reason why, aside from wanting to stay away from Bay Avenue as well, why you didn't consider placing the house closer to Bay Avenue? The lot gets wider and so the so-called side yard would get a little bit wider but I presume the cesspool location dominates that. MR. KRUPSKI: Yes and I think it's also more or less in line with the neighboring house from setback to Skunk Lane. MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're all set to be a certain amount of footage from his or her, well next door. So I mean that's why the placement is I assume where it is. Page 4 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. KRUPSKI: I would guess. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I would guess. I mean conceivably, the best spot would be for it would be at the tail end of the lot somewhere down Sterling. Burl think they chose to put it here because based on the line of where the configuration is I assume. I mean, you didn't ask for it to be placed there right? MR. KRUPSKI: I didn't personally. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. MEMBER TORTORA: I think it has to do with the flood zone line. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I noticed that. MEMBER TORTORA: To get the cesspools back away from that which pushes the house back from Bay Avenue. That's what it looks like to me Mr. Krupski and see where the edge of the wetland is Lora on that heavy foot line on the edge of the wetlands to where - MR. KRUPSKI: It's right across the street. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly where the flood zone line is. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. I think just studying the plan it was pretty clear, that if you wanted to build a house on that lot, there was a lot of constraints and that's what this reflects. MR. KRUPSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing, thank you. MR. KRUPSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Could you just use the mike Ma'am. It's not going to do any good to use, you'll just have to spe.ak louder, we apologize. MRS. MITCHELL: My name is Maurine Mitchell. My mother, Guiliana Faraguna owns the house just north of this property and when we built the house, I believe Page 5 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings the zoning was 11 feet and I guess we got a variance to go to nine. i thought we were at the 11 foot mark but I can't substantiate that. First and foremost I feel that Zoning Laws are suppose to protect the rights of property owners and I feel that our right to the house is close to the property line and is sought of infringing on our ability to enjoy our property. I really do feel it's going to decrease the value of our property. Perspective buyers are going to come to our house and find this other large house basically in our back yard because this house is going to run the length of the property and ours runs the other way. So if we're sitting on our deck, we'll be looking right into their kitchen window. I don't really feel people buy houses in Cutchogue and especially in the area where we have the house to be right on top of one another, that's what suburbia is about. You know, this is the country and most corner lots in our area are more square and more generous and have more room around the actual house so people can still maintain you know, privacy on the property. I was going to bring up that the house is proposed to be setback 40 feet from Sterling Road. Why not put it close to Sterling and at least maintain the minimum 15 feet from our property line? I would think it's not going to effect the property value of the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: is that what you're looking for right now? MRS. MITCHELL: At a minimum. ! mean when we bought our property I remember when we put the house up in a 79 or 80, at the front of the property, the owner of this piece of property wanted to build and ended up not being able to do so because of the wells and septic and the wetlands and t~e zoning restrictions and I'm curious as to what has eased up to make it possible now when it seems to me the Zoning Laws are more stringent then they've ever been. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: An existing of, existence of substandard lots. So there's still quite an existence of substandard lots. MRS. MITCHELL: Right, so again, one of my arguments is going to be you know, any use permitted is going to be 2 acres the minimum and OK: this one was divided (more than one person speaking) in the fifties, but clearly to build on this lot will affect the worth of the area and I mean the neighbor's enjoyment of their respective property. Not just mine, but the one that would also be to the east of this property. I also feel that there's plenty of houses for sale in our area and why we're allowing a house to go up on a lot that is so difficult to build on 1 have a question about that. I mean with so many houses for sale, why allow new construction especially when there are so many constraints that would impact you know- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a question.to me? MRS. MITCHELL: Yes. Page 6 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, can I respond if you don't mind? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was just going to but you go ahead. I'll always yield to you Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: I wanted to respond to your comments Ma'am because we hear this regularly and I think you don't appreciate the importance of property rights. The town is full of lots which by today's zoning requirements are too small They exist, they are legal and because they exist and are legal they are buildable if people can deal with wetlands, if they are wetlands and if they can get the County Health Department approval for their septic systems. Sometimes when the lot is funny shaped, they do come looking for a setback variance. That's the case here. I must say, in my experience the size of the variance that these folks are looking for is pretty small. We've had ones where we did exactly what you were mentioning. They wanted the variance on one side and we said, well why don't you take, we'll give you the variance on the other side. It is not our job to say, oh, this lot is too small. The neighborhood is too crowded there are too many. it's just not our job and I'm very troubled when people put out the notion we're doing things that harm the community by being not enforcing esthetics. It's not our job. MRS. MITCHELL: I can understand your job and ! do apologize. I didn't mean to suggest that. I guess I'm just throwing out ideas and where i'm coming from and I understand that the lot exists and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As a legal lot. MRS. MITCHELL: Pardon? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As a legal lot. MRS. MITCHELL: Yes, yes, as a legal lot and I understand that and I do, you know again, I would have to bring up that at a minimum, if the zoning finds the side yard as 15 feet, you're impacting another property owner by asking you know, or granting a variance of 10 feet, but if you just move the house which you feel is insignificant a number of 5 feet towards the street, then you're not really impacting any property owner, except the people who own this property. SO I feel it is a significant amount. It's 33% of zoning law in this case so we can do it on either side. To me it's a significant amount. To you it's not a significant amount in which case I feel - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well to certain Members of us. She's speaking for herself. MEMBER COLLINS: I may have spoken tumultuously on that. Page 7 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Well here's the other alternative. He's going to have to have, in order to build this house, and we would like him to build this houseo It's not a large house, it's a small lot. He's going to have to have a variance because of the size of the property. It doesn't, I mean, it's cut and dry. He's got 40 feet on Sterling Road. That's the front yard setback requirements. So in order to build a house to come towards Sterling Road, he'd have to move the house 5 feet. I guess that would be South East, 5 feet and that would take care of your problem but I don't know if that's a feasible alternative for the applicant. MEMBER COLLINS: Lets hear from him. MR. KRUPSKI: If l may? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. KRUPSKI: This is on Ms. Mitchell's comments and it's kind of surprising because she said something about moving out to the country. Well this subdivision was filed in 1935 and the lots in that area are very small and it's, it's not like it's wide open spaces there and she's representing the Faragunas. Their lot is actually smaller than .the applicants' lot here, Graltons' lot. And their setbacks are 9 ft. on one side and 12 ft. on the other. Side yard setbacks. They have a cottage that has a one foot setback to the back of the cottage. So this isn't, I don't see where a 10 ft. setback on the property line is out of character with want's right next door. MRS. MITCHELL: Well as for my perspective is it we're just the size of your house - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to connect it. MRS. MITCHELL: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you're welcome to react but you have to face the Board and we can't get involved in a conjecture situation. MRS. MITCHELL: OK, I don't, I realize this house will most go up and I don't want to have bad relations right off from the start with my neighbors, but we're not talking about the side of one house abutting the side of another which is the case as you go down Skunk Lane or Bay Avenue, You have side versus side, versus side, and you have everyone's backyards, you know. We're talking about the side of my house versus the length of theirs and so when I sit on my back porch, I will literally look into their kitchen window from what I can tell from the plans. These plans and this footprint and ~ think it's not apples to apples kind of thing. Yes, we have the cottage in the back which we can only use for Page 8 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings storage. We have no, you know we can't use it for guest, we can't rent it out, so I don't see that that could cause anyone any harm because it's literally away from that cottage. The way that we're set up here, for me it's a privacy issue and you know, with 9 feet for me to my property line and 10 feet, you're talking less than the length of this room between these two houses and as I said, if it were side to side, we wouldn't really have that issue. You know we need to be able to have our own privacy but I just strongly feel that we have a privacy issue and a property value issue for our home. MEMBER HORNING: Jerry, may I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER HORNING: What kind of offering in materials on the property line at issue? Is it wide open right now? there? are there in between Was there anything MRS. MITCHELL: Our home? Yeah, i mean there's two large trees in our backyard and right now it's a wooded lot, so we have nothing planted and you know I think that whether you move the house or not, I would like to see some sought of privacy hedge or fence go up because if it's just wide open then it will almost seem like the houses are built on one piece of property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Question from the Board, a couple Members of the Board is, Mr., Krupski, are you willing to accept alternate relief? If we can go into the front yard 5 feet, as this lady is requesting? I don't know if we have to readvertise this. It's an issue that we have to still discuss. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If the consensus is we don't, we can deal with that aspect of it right here and if not, we would have to hold it off to March. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't think you have to. MR. KRUPSKI: I'il have to confer with my mother and father-in-law. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well why don't you talk to them. If you don't want to talk to them here, you can talk to them outside, we can reconvene. MR. KRUPSKI: Can we have a few minutes? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, why don't you talk to them outside. We'll reconvene in ten minutes right after the next hearing. Is that alright with you Ma'am? Page 9 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MITCHELL: Yes. MR. KRLIPSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. I'll have a motion recessing for ten minutes. MEMBER COLLINS: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second. All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Motion carried. Page 10 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:17 P.M. - Appl. No. 4782 - DANIEL & MAUREEN MOONEY This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-244B, regarding an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval dated January 5, 2000 to locate proposed deck construction with setbacks at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and proposed lot coverage over the 20%. Location of Property: 575 Pine Place, East Marion, N.Y.; County Tax Map No. 1000-37-4-16; a/k/a as Lot 145 and p/o 146 on the Map of Gardiners Bay Estates, Section 2, Filed Map No. 275. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Mooney, how are you tonight Sir? MR. MOONEY: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a very nice a, except it was a very cold day when I was out there to your lovely house and your beautiful view. It was about 8 degrees and the wind was blowing and a, but the view was there. A great magnificent view of the - MR. MOONEY: Orient Harbor and Bug Light. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bug Light, oh, unbelievable, unprecedented. MR. MOONEY: I have only one card back and I have a permit back from the Trustees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did see that tonight but I'll take another copy of it. Thank you. MR. MOONEY: The other card should come back I believe and the receipts I believe you received from my office by mail. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're OK, with that? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, we're OK. MR. MOONEY: The Gardiners Bay Home Owners Association was given notice of the hearing and they also, ! forwarded them a copy of the plan. We have a Real Estate Committee there who reviews and approves plans for any Building Permits in the area of the Homeowners Association and they approved my plans for the deck and the covered porch. The DEC .has issued a letter of Non- Jurisdiction and the Trustees at their meeting last week approved the plans with the exception that they wish me to put in leaders, gutters and drywells to catch the run-off from the roof on the covered porch that's already in. That is from the Page 11 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings existing roof as well, but there are no drywells. The plan that we submitted to the Building Department was basically, the house was built in the fifties, and in the fifties people didn't have decks, and in 2000 and the nineties, people all have decks. The hoUse really would benefit I guess esthetically from a covered porch. There's no front door. If you noticed that there's only a little side door going into the kitchen and the house has never had a front door, so we would like to do is put on a covered porch and eventually put in a front door in the middle of the house. We haven't made, we're not aware yet to be honest with you, but we figured if we had the porch on the house we would at least be able to at some point in time, put in a front door and make the house look tike a house with a front door. So the porch is basically esthetic and it comes out only 10 feet. It's not a very large porch but it would be a covered porch. To get to that covered porch there's a little area off of what is a screened-in porch now and we were going to put an open deck on that, so that the roof line of the house would at least have some character to it, and the architect was the one who told us to do this. One of the things that I would suggest. I know there's an area variance here as well, because of the size and the coverage and the lot. The open deck to the west, south west, a little deck which is 12'3" x 9'11". If the Board wish, that could be reduced. It would be just like a walkway. 5 ft. wide rather than 10 ft. wide. It's not 11, make it 5 feet and that would cut down on some of the coverage in the lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the one adjacent to the concrete steps? MR. MOONEY: Yes, that's correct. The other question on the porch if you look, the porch it says, is a stone driveway. Under that stone is blacktop, OK? I don't know, the blacktop at one time and then they put stone on top of it. So that if you put the porch over that driveway portion is basically not doing away with any greenery or shrubbery except for that little spot on the south east, where I said, the open deck is as you come up to the front. On the other side which is the pond side on Spring Pond where we propose to put an open deck. The view there is, I believe you might agree beautiful. It's an incredible view. It's a lovely place. I would be the first one to say to you, it is a large deck. I understand that but if you look all around Spring Pond, you will notice that all of the houses on the other side and even on our side, many of them come very close either to the bulkhead, those that are bulkhead, and some of them that are not bulkhead come very close to the water. The community was built in the thirties, forties and fifties for the most part, and most of the people took advantage of being close to the Spring Pond. Our house when it was built did not. Also on the area on the question of the area variance, our lot survey shows a small lot than we actually have because there's a big porch in the front there that has been part of this property for years and years and years, although it's not included on the tax map. If you look where the road turns to come down on to Beach Court there, so there is a little more area really on the lot than really appears from the survey and from the deed and description. Page 12 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say to you in reference to the other decks in certain areas, we constantly deal with those because a lot of them are not legal, OK? I'm just telling you. MR. MOONEY: I know that. I'm aware of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I think what we have to discuss with you is, first I've got to ask you the queStion. When you were discussing an overhang, you were referring to which deck? MR. MOONEY: The covered porch and which will be in the very, can I approach? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sure. MR. MOONEY: It's not really an overhang. It's just a covered porch. This here would be a covered porch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Th'is whole'front? MR. MOONEY: This front, just the front of the house from there to there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In that line right there. MR. MOONEY: From that line to that line, would be a covered porch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MOONEY: It's more esthetic than anything else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. MEMBER TORTORA: it's a porch? It's not a deck then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. MOONEY: It's a porch. No, it's a porch. It's going to be a porch. MEMBER TORTORA: Is that right Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Over here? Page 13 -January 19, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that. I understand that 100%. MEMBER COLLINS: We don't need it. MEMBER TORTORA: We don't even have jurisdiction there unless we want to reverse and make another - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, I understand that. MEMBER TORTORA: But going further here, let's go to the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not just talking here. We're talking generically in general. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's go to 100-245 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: And talk about because we've had this a long time. There's a lot of old structures in this old town. There are a lot of non- conforming buildings in this town that were built prior to zoning and the heart of the matter is we all know this section of the code can be very interpretive. But to me 100-245 says, the common sense interpretation of the code. You have buildings. These buildings have been there for 50 years. They have to be repaired to be made safe. It isn't a question of whether they need a Building Permit. MR. FORRESTER: rm not disagreeing with you. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not a question whether they need a Building Permit. That's a separate issue that we have to separate out somewhere. It's a question that they have to be maintained. You're going to have to replace the heating system. You're going to have to do all of those things and to me in my mind, that's normal. MR. FORRESTER: That's normal and I agree when taken singularly, everyone of those things that were being planned for this structure. They've been done when it was needed or when you know, at a different point in time which would constitute a normal repair. Taken in and tying it all together they would constitute, I use the word renovation or reconstruction. MEMBER TORTORA: But even that section of the code says any build shall not be deemed to prevent normal maintenance or repair of any building or the Page 14 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Well look at the Trustee Permit because they're - MEMBER COLLINS: I haven't looked at that. MEMBER TORTORA: Permit is, if you look at there, just as you're looking at this diagram it's - MR. MOONEY: 42 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly the way I look at it, it would be 55.6 x 10 and the proposed deck at 36 x 16.3. MR. MOONEY: It's a covered porch. MEMBER TORTORA: Those are the two. That's what you're looking at. MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm, and my question is whether 55.6 is the correct nu tuber for the length of that structure when we're talking coverage? MR. MOONEY: It's from there. This is the existing structure. It's 40 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's to here? MR. MOONEY: That's to there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that excludes this 14 feet, this 14.2 that you were talking about? MR. MOONEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll show this to the Board. MR. MOONEY: OK. I'm sorry I ripped it on you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's alright. We'll pass this down. MR. MOONEY: I understand - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You go ahead Mr. Mooney. MR. MOONEY: The Board's concern obviously as we just heard in the first application. I know almost every application I've ever been here on, the precedent is setbacks and that's the reason I went to the neighbor and said, is it OK before I started doing this, and they all said yes and everyone that I spoke to Page 15 - January 19, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearing MR. FORRESTER: Yes, had these been performed as they applied and not to the current owner, maybe the prior owner, had allowed it to get into this condition. I'm not putting, I don't know how we got into this point in time. But I do, because it wasn't proper. It was these normal repairs were not performed and getting back to my former point, I was historically and consistently we have gotten, we started at 240, 100-240, which sets up the purpose and ( ) is non- conforming. The section of the code is, it is to, you know to a, the word I always use in other words, I know that got me in trouble here, was to reduce I think is the word they use - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The degree of non-conforming. MR. FORRESTER: Reduce or minimize the impacts of use ( ) which do not conform. So that's the intent. So following with that intent, we go down until we got non-conforming uses after that and we've got non-conforming buildings with non-conforming use, stop there at this point and to address this issue. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I say something on when you talk about the New York Fire Code. MR. FORRESTER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Several years ago I went to oh, one of the (), the New York State Association of Towns and they were discussing the issue of non- conforming and I'll throw in opinion number 3. One of the things that was presented was that when you are upgrading a building, you're upgrading the electrical, you're upgrading the plumbing, you're upgrading putting in handicap access. In other words you're bringing it up to standards. You are bringing it into conformity. You are decreasing the degree. MR. FORRESTER: You're bringing it in to conformity with the State Code, not necessarily (more than one person speaking at one time). MEMBER COLLINS: Code, yeah, but not, that's not what non-conformity means here. This is use. MEMBER DINIZIO: This is use. We're talking about use of this property. MRS. MOORE: No, but, could I just, it's my turn to speak. It's not, that's not inconsistent because the language that the code uses is coming right out of the New York State Building Prevention of Fire Code. I wanted to let the Board know, that there are two sections of the Building Code. Alteration, which says, any change, rearrangement or addition to building other than repairs. And the State Code goes into great length as far as what a repair is defined as. And repair says, replacement or renewal excluding additions, which we all agree Page 16 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: The north side. MEMBER TORTORA: The house and the proposed new porch - MR. MOONEY: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: You would cut it back but that's not going to - MR. MOONEY: You can leave it by the front porch. You can leave it either wit[: the front porch in the front and just go back 24 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, but that's not going to do zip as far as your a, your a- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Setback. MEMBER TORTORA: Your setback. MR. MOONEY: It does in the one corner. MEMBER COLLINS: At the north west comer where he's got a built porch. MEMBER TORTORA: It's the width of it. It's a - MEMBER COLLINS: The 13 foot, it, it, it affects the setback a little bit. MR. MOONEY: H'm, h'm. MEMBER COLLINS: We're all over this. I would say - MEMBER TORTORA: Go ahead Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I would say, you know Mr. Mooney, you said, you think that perhaps setbacks bother us more than coverage but I think that's probably not true. I think.the Board is frequently asked for coverage numbers that we very much don't want to give because we don't like creating a, every lot is different but you still worry about creating precedence and my experience on this Board is, that it gets to around 24% and the heels start digging in here. So I think we care about coverage every bit as much as about setback and perhaps one cares little less emotionally about setback when it's setback from an established bulkhead than when it's setback from somebody's neighbor. MR. MOONEY: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: So, I just want to make that clear. Page 17 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. MOONEY: Yes, I know, I mean, I know this Board does a very good job and takes a lot of care and a lot of concern over what they do in every community and if this Board has an alternative, that they think they could live with, ! would hope that I could live with that too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, why don't you do this. What you offered in reference to what the two cuttings, OK, that we're discussing right now, or, the two shortings supposedly, why don't you take it outside, we'll recess your hearing for a little while. Recalculate the figures. If you don't have a calculator we'll lend you a calculator, OK, and we'll lend you a ruler if you want. it doesn't make any difference. I know you're an attorney and I know you definitely can do this and even if you weren't an attorney I'm sure you could do it, OK? MR. MOONEY: Maybe better. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So and you know, in 20 minutes or so come back to us with the new calculations on lot coverage, and then we'll discuss you know, the setback situation if we can live with those numbers. Yes? MEMBER TORTORA: Let me ask a question. If you came back with 14, keep the 36. If you came back with 14, there would be something about a little over 400 feet off of it right off the bat. MEMBER COLLINS: No, Lydia. Your arithmetic is, i'm afraid wrong. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it' off. MEMBER TORTORA: No? MR. MOONEY: If I came down 30, it'd be - MEMBER COLLINS: 72. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 72 sq. ft. MR. MOONEY: Suppose I came back- MEMBER TORTORA: No, I mean it would - MR. MOONEY: Suppose I came back 14 x 24? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what - Page 18 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Do some arithmetic. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do some arithmetic. You want this back? MR. MOONEY: Yes, that's all I have because I didn't bring one. (changed tape). (Recessed) Page 19 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:35 p.m. - Appl. No. 4783 - GRALTON HEARING RECONVENED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What are you going to tell us? MR. KRUPSKI: So is it my understanding that this could be done tonight? That the house will be setback 35 feet from the road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears to me that the - MR. KRUPSKI: More towards the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, I apologize. I didn't mean to cut into your conversation. It appears to me, that we do not have to re-advertise. That we can grant alternate relief and that you are correct. ! just don't know if we'll have a motion tonight, OK, depending upon the evening situation. So that's where we are. MEMBER COLLINS: You can try for a motion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can try for a motion. MR. KRUPSKI: I'm in favor of the alternate relief. MEMBER COLLINS: It makes sense to me. MR. KRUPSKI: You need then a corrected survey? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I mean it would be in our written decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be a written decision. MEMBER TORTORA: We have a survey here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, you could probably mark that survey up for the Building Department. MEMBER TORTORA: We have a survey here so we know what we're doing. We don't need a - MR. KRUPSKI: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You could probably.pen it in right in the Building Department and it's not affecting anything in the Health Department situation, so. MR. KRUPSKI: No, it's not. Page 20 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: The description of what we're doing would be in the decision. MEMBER HORNING: We're talking about having a side yard setback of 15 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: And a front yard a reduced .into - MEMBER COLLINS'. Giving a variance in the front yard. MEMBER TORTORA: Instead of the variance being on the side yard, the variance would be in the front yard. MR. KRUPSKI: True, alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. KRUPSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any other discussion from this lady'? Pointing to you Ma'am. MRS. ROCHON: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you haven't spoken you have to tell me your name. MRS. ROCHON: I'm Patty Rochon and I recently bought the property on Sterling Road. I bought a, the lot and I was just wondering if this is the first variance that was brought up or sought for this property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For this property, yes. But innumerable amounts over the last 20 years in Nassau Farms. MRS. ROCHON: Oh, no, just for this lot, because when we bought our house we were told that nobody would ever be able to build on it now. I remember Mr. Geiger saying that but I just thought'that there were so many restrictions that it wouldn't happen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It really is relatively a rather large lot I have to tell you. It's over 20,000 sq. ft. and so. Page 21 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. ROCHON: Yes, it's long and narrow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That subdivision it's not a small lot. It just has you know, more traverse, it's not traverse soil but it's a - MR. KRUPSKI: It's the last lot which makes it the hard lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but a, I have to tell you, that at one time the Building Department was granting vacant lands C. Os, which meant the lots were legal. MEMBER TORTORA: Years ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Years ago, OK, and the opinions of those vacant land C: Os were never correct. MEMBER TORTORA: They didn't need anything but people misunderstood them as meaning, oh, this is a buildable lot but they really weren't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And in this case, this is a buildable lot we assure you and these people are - MEMBER TORTORA: No variances have been issued. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No variances have been issued. MRS. ROCHON: OK. Would I be able to get a copy of that now? I know I should have come earlier in the week? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A copy of the proposed plan? MRS. ROCHON: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have an extra one Mr. Krupski? MR. KRUPSKI: I don't think so but you can take a look at this one. MRS. ROCHON: Oh, i did see a copy. I was just wondering if I could get a copy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can make you a copy. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We can give you a copy tomorrow. The machines are off right now, so. Page 22 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. ROCHON: OK, so I should just stop by? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Tomorrow. MRS. ROCHON: OK, thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, can we have an affirmative or answer to, the question of the location rules, etcetera? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Is there any other concern from anybody else in the audience? Seeing no hands, what's the matter? MEMBER COLLINS: I asked Linda to turn on the copy machine because I got stuff that'll need to be copied later. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, seeing no hands, I'll a, the question is, do you want to vote on it or do you want to, whose hearing is this? MEMBER COLLINS: It's not mine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The queStion I have Lora is, will you do the findings and terminations if we vote on it ? MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. We did this on New Suffolk Avenue about a year ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I just can't do anything until the secretary comes back. She has to record the - MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, sure, I'll do it Jerry. MEMBER TORTORA: So, and a, it'll be alternative relief? MEMBER COLLINS: Alternate relief and we've - MEMBER TORTORA: Well essentially, so the question is, is there alternate relief ? Yes, there is. We're granting a variance in the front yard. MEMBER COLLINS: We're granting a variance they didn't ask for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From side to front. MEMBER COLLINS: Rather than the variance they did ask for. Yes, it's alright. I'm sorry Jerry, I asked Linda to go turn on the copy machine because if we get Page 23 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings to one of the cases that I wrote decisions for I want to make copies because I wrote two versions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Linda, we're going to, instead of recessing this hearing, we're going to close the hearing. I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 24 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:43 P.M. -Appi. No. 4781 - BRUNO CIPPITELLI This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-30A.3 based upon applicant's request for a Building Permit to construct additions and alterations, and the Building Department's November 9, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that the proposed single-family dwelling with additions and alterations will have a side yard at less than the 15 ft. code required minimum and less than 35 feet for total side yard area. (The use of the cottage as a dwelling will be removed and the same building would be added to the principal building for not more than one dwelling on this lot.) Location of Property: 220 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue; County Parcel #1000-104-10-7; also referred to as Lot No. 182 on the Map of Nassau Point Club Properties1 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore how are you tonight? MRS. MOORE: Good, I have a whole packet - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There are seven copies in here Pat of everything? Oh, this is the affidavit? Is this for a, oh, you don't have seven - MRS. MOORE: No I just sent that in by mail. Your Affidavit of Posting and Mailing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, this is a letter of an Affidavit of Information. MRS. MOORE: No, I'm submitting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But we don't have enough for the Board Members to read? MRS. MOORE: No, I only have one for your records. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So they won't have it until tomorrow or a couple of days. MRS. MOORE: That's fine, no, I'm going to go over it. It's part of my presentation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're ready. Page 25 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Oh, you want me, am I ready to start? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we're moving right along here tonight - MRS. MOORE: I apologize. I thought you were getting ready. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Even between our recesses and our hiatus periods. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. This is a short record. First and foremost I'd like to introduce Robert Cippitelli. Bruno Cipiitelli is the father. Robert is the son and he also has the benefit of being in Law School right now so, this is a fun experience for him. I just hope you be nice to me so that he doesn't turn around and go into some another career. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're always nice to Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: That's true, you are always nice. I received your request for copies of C. Os and surveys. Everything I could find and I received that request I think yesterday. It came in the mail, or, maybe it got faster but I actually saw it yesterday. In that time I really, there was a lot of detective work in trying to put together the history of this property because Mr. Cippitelli purchased the property in 96 and any history before that, there really was no-one that i could ask. I found in the records of the Building Department, a Mr. Andrew Carlin who is an attorney but also the prior owner's son and I was able to reach him and I prepared an affidavit because obviously it was all based on telephone conversation and my swearing to the discussion I had for the record. He gave me a great deal of information and I'll go over it because there has to be some clean-up here with respect to the cottage, in that when we went back to look at the surveys and C. Os., we found that there was an error made as far as calling it a cottage. It's an out building structure and I really, and as ! go through you'll have to identify its use better. To begin with, lets see, Mr. & Mrs. Carlin purchased the property in 1950 and they themselves constructed the house and a garage which is the structure that has siding, that the surveyor has called a cottage. In 1962, Mr. & Mrs. Carlin began to construct additions. They built their first addition and in my affidavit I list the specific Building Permit number. I gather the Building Permit, a copy of the C. O. and the Building Permit Application for your records, that correlates to each addition that was done. The C. O. in 62 was issued by Howard Terry and other than looking at the application, the C. O. itself says, private one family dwelling. However, the Building Permit Application shows that it was an addition that was done to a pre- existing cottage, house that was built as I said, in the fifties. So that was the first C. O. that was found of record. In 1983, Mr. & Mrs. Carlin built a bedroom addition and again I referenced the Building Permit number, and in 1985, a Page 26 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings sunroom and deck were added. Again, I refer to the Building Permit number in the affidavit. The son tells me that they hired a local contractor, paid him. The contractor did properly file for a Building Permit but they did not discover that he had not followed through with the Building Department and got C. Os. at the time. So what happen is, in 94, the son remembers going through bank at that point, and, it was at that time they were cleaning up the paper work and they realized that no C. Os. were issued. So they issued the C. Os. for all of the additions at that time. And again, you'had asked for all C.Os. on all the structures and that's what we discovered. So that, the main house was cleaned up at that point. What happened is, Van Tuyl Surveyors, which as you know, is out of business right now, in 94, approximately the same time, probably due to the bank's financing, they would have required a survey. The surveyor went out there and from all aspects or looking at the exterior of the property, he identified a one story frame house and a cottage with a porch and a shed and in fact there was a handicap ramp going into the cottage. The - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is not really a cottage. MRS. MOORE: Which is not really a cottage. The surveyor called it a cottage but we all consider a cottage being a habitable dwelling. It is not. I mean it's not used that way, It's not, it was-not created that way. Mr. Cippitelli hasn't made anychange to the existing structure other than the, about a year and a half ago, he started cleaning up the property because as he described it, it was a fixed me upper when they bought it. They put a new roof on the cottage. We'll call it a cottage since the surveyor calls it and put siding on it. But other than that, there were no other changes to the property. It was more manicured. It was cosmetics more than structural. Apparently in 89 or so, Mr. Carlin tells me that his father who had some problems with his eyes, became legally blind. Flis a, he was no longer permitted to drive and his mother never drove. So the garage was no longer necessary. He ended up, the prior owner removed the garage doors, enclosed the structure, added a screened in porch and put a hot tub inside that structure which I believe the hot tub is still there. MR. CIPITELLI: It's not. MRS. MOORE: Oh, it has recently been taken out but it was there. So I stand corrected in my application because I also assumed that the cottage was what I'm use to being which is the dwelling, the second dwelling and in fact, it was a an existing structure that had been modified over the time, but it's not a habitable dwelling. That doesn't necessarily Change our application in any way because we are trying to preserve existing setbacks and what the architect has proposed for the owner, is to take the existing structures because the foundations are still good. Take the existing structures and renovate so that it's one single family residence. So that the existing setbacks of the garage get a, the structure gets connected to the main house and you have a nice size house. Page 27 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings You have the set of plans in your file that show the design and of the proposed construction. So now clearing up some of the, and again it was misunderstanding also on what exactly the cottage consisted of. I'd like to go back to the standards of an area variance so ! can clean up the record and make sure our standards are met. To begin with that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties if the variance is granted. As I said, and I've given you the history here, that there are two existing structures that are certainly the garage is a signif, it's almost a third of the size of the existing house. So it's a significant structure. I notice that maybe and I'm sure you noticed in your field inspection, that the most affected property owner on the westerly side, the structure that appear from the road, I only want certain dipped into the property. First is a large shed, or, at least from the outside it looks like an oversized shed or garage? MR. CIPPITELLI: It's a shed. MRS. MOORE: It's a shed?, OK, a large shed and that's close to where the existing cottage is. Then the house itself is pretty close, it's further in towards the water. So, there will be no impact on the adjacent property owner, in that the house, the Cippitelli home is going to built towards the road, on the landward side whereas the adjacent property is for the most part, situated closer to the water. So they're approximately 100 feet apart and so there will be no impact here. There was a, the survey shows a shed that had been on the property line at one time. That's been removed. The handicap ramp will also be removed when it's a, when the Structures are put together. So in fact, there will be certainly a major improvement to this property and the size of the house is in proportion to a very large but narrow piece of property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question - MRS. MOORE: Oh, the ramp, oh, I'm sorry. The shed is still there. The ramp has been removed, but the shed will be removed, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the atrium heated? MRS. MOORE: Atrium heated? MR. ClPPITELLI: I don't remember discUssion whether it's going to be heated or not. He called it an atrium. I was led to understand it was going to be more of a hall light. You know, like just a regular hall light connecting the room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I asked that is because you have glass sliding doors on both sides. Page 28 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CIPPITELLI: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it appears to me, that if you have glass sliding doors on both sides, then it may not be heated. So what we're talking about is, an unheated room connecting two segments, one existing and one existing as a storage building and I don't know if that really makes it an integral part. I think that room has to be heated. I think it has to be one integral part of the entire beam. MRS. MOORE: They would have no objection to heating it. It's more of a seasonal house. You guys come out in the winter but not as often. MEMBER TORTORA: Is the footprint of the a either of the houses being expanded? MEMBER COLLINS: No. MRS. MOORE: No. MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't think so. I just wanted to make sure. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, no they're planning. My understanding from Mr. Ward is, that they're using the existing foundation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you actually shut down the house in the winter time? MR. CIPPITELLI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's heated year round, OK. That question was to Mr. Cippitelli who is present. Your first name again is? MR. CIPPITELLI: Robert. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Robert. Thank you Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: The second standard is, the benefits sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Really the only other alternative to combining the two structures is, demolition of the second.structure and there is a solid foundation. The structure is to be used and the design works well for the family. So it would certainly be a detriment to the owner to not have that structure and combine the two. If the house has limitation obviously when in living area, if they're limited to the footprint or further back. The only way to expand this house to meet the needs of the family, would be to remove the garage, the cottage structure Page 29 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings because you can't expand. We're not going to expand forward and because it is an existing structure. Is it two stow? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's two stow, yes. MRS. MOORE: So you can only go back a certain amount. So it really makes sense and I think the architect to that into consideration in taking the two structures and making one unified residence. The area variance is not substantial in that we have existing footprints. Existing setbacks. We are not increasing the degree of the non-conformity. The variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Again, this house has been designed and maintained away from the water and has no environmental impact on the water. It is an existing structure with a well and sanitary system and will be maintained as such. The alleged difficulty was not self created. Well, certainly our owners took the property in the condition it's in. The prior owners, the Carlins started out by building this house in the nineteen fifties. So, the setbacks were established long before zoning was in place and each subsequent addition seemed to have been done in an consistent orderly manner. The house looks like a normal house. Inside apparently is a lot of jigsaw puzzles but for the most part of the outside it looks like an ordinary home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If I learned anything from Ms. Collins, i've learned on a wrap-up situation and I don't mean to hold you in an affix place here, OK? To wrap this thing up, you're telling us, that I thought you'd like that MS. Collins, the 15 feet that exists, that you're asking that should exist, which is reduced now to 5-1/2 ft., on the side yard because of this pre-existing, you're saying, it's a pre-existing structure. MRS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And when did we say that was constructed? MRS. MOORE: The family remembers 1950. The house and the garage were built at the same time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: And when was the cottage built? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the cottage. MEMBER COLLINS: That's the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The cottage is the garage. Page 30 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Right. The affidavit will clarify this as you go through the record but., cottage was the definition the surveyor used. The structure is the same. MEMBER TORTORA: And when was this built? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The same time. MEMBER HORNING: What materials is the garage- MEMBER TORTORA: They were both built in 19507 MRS. MOORE: I'm sorry. MEMBER TORTORA: They were both built? MRS. MOORE: Correct. Both structures were built in 1950. MEMBER TORTORA: That answers the question. MRS. MOORE: That was Mr. Carlin's recollection. Both were done at the same time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George the question is they're both wood. MEMBER HORNING: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: And just to follow-up on that, just for the record. The reason that the garage, now cottage, looks much better than the house is that it was recently resided and reroofed. In fact, they are contemporaries, the two buildings. MRS. MOORE: Yes, absolutely. MEMBER COLLINS: And the issue here is, 5-1/2 feet versus the minimum 15, you need in the R-40 Zone. That's our issue, right? MRS. MOORE: Well, the issue is, yes, we're reducing the principal structure from 15 foot to 5-112 feet. However, it's because we're connecting the two. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MRS. MOORE: We're maintaining the existing setback. Page 31 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Right, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, I don't have any problems with this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you're connecting it with a permanent building which will be heated integral with integrally with both units. MRS. MOORE: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that setback will be 16-1/2 feet? MEMBER TORTORA: 16 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: 16 for the house. MEMBER TORTORA: It's 16 and 5.5. MRS. MOORE: The house on this survey says 14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one on the proposed plan by Water Associates sayS 16-112. MRS. MOORE: The surveyor says 14. i don't know the degree of - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it says 16. MEMBER TORTORA: No, it is 16, believe me. MEMBER COLLINS: 16. It's right in the middle of the words, "Black Top Drive". CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right between Black Top Drive. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, it's 16. You've got 16 and 5.5. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that's the issue. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So in the finding the application as, and so if the Board was inclined to grant it, we would make sure that the connection was complete, alright. MRS. MOORE: Yes, fine. Complete that it would be heated? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it cannot be just like a trellis situation. Page 32 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: It's not a breezeway. MRS. MOORE: Oh, no, no. That is a- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but, Pat, the point that I'm bringing up here as to glass sliding doors on both sides, that is an unheated porch connecting two units, OK? This has got to be a part of the flow. MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Making it one complete house, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: We're taking away two structures and creating one principal building. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Good, that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, alright, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? MEMBER COLLINS: Could I, one other comment Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to make sure I heard counsel say, that the little shed on the left-hand side of the so-called cottage which according to the survey is over the property line is going to go away? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: It is definitely not an esthetic - MRS. MOORE: No. MEMBER COLLINS: Benefit? MRS. MOORE: It detracts from the esthetic ( ) issue. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Page 33 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, no-one else would like to speak? Anybody like to speak against? No hands. We'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much, thanks for everything. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 34 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:02 P.M. -Appl. No. 4782 - MOONEY Hearin.q Reopened MR. MOONEY: I did the calculations. I redid the calculations. The covered porch is 10 x 43. It's 430 sq. ft. The deck on the east, if I cut it down 12 x 5, approximately it was 12.3 x 5, it comes out to about 60 feet. 50 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. MOONEY: The open structure is 1536.6 ft. 12x5. deck is 16 x 24. That's 384 feet. The existing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What does that give us? MR. MOONEY: Taking 24% of the lot area, oh, that comes out to 2410 sq. ft. 24% coverage would be-2471 sq. ft., 23% would be 2368. So it's about 23- 1/2%. MEMBER TORTORA: There's only one question I have and I go back to your Trustee Permit is for a deck that is two decks, for 55 x 6 x 10 and another one for 36.3 x 16.3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 55 includes - MR. MOONEY: 55 is the house plus the deck to the west, which is 12 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: No, no, look at the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, here it includes this one. MR. MOONEY: You take 43 and 12, it's 55. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's this and this, which makes the 55. MR. MOONEY: That's 55. MEMBER COLLINS: 43 and 12 is 55, as sure as hell. MEMBER TORTORA: But this is separate? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's separate. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, and it's actually not a deck, it's a porch? Page 35 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, the 55 which is showing, which is really 43 is the porch. MR. MOONEY: 43 is the covered porch, the other 12 is the area to get on to that porch basically. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER HORNING: And the reduced lot coverage would be - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 23-1/2. MEMBER COLLINS: 23-1/2 roughly. MEMBER HORNING: Produced by shorting up the width of the proposed deck. Is that what you're saying, 16 x 24? MR. MOONEY: It would be 16 x 24 rather than 16 x 36. MEMBER TORTORA: But you, why not, there's nothing you can do on the width, what is it 167 MR. MOONEY: It's difficult to do that. I'll tell you my experience with that. I'll be very frank with you. I had a deck on another house that we had. There are three children in my family, my wife and i and my father-in-law. We have a picnic table outside that sits the six of us. When you get below 16 feet and one time I had it in a 14 foot area it was difficult to sit and get people to go by back and forth and that's the reason ! thought 16 was more appropriate than something smaller. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but you're only 14 feet from the bulkhead to the water there. MR. MOONEY: I think a lot of the other homes in the area are similar. MEMBER TORTORA: I know they are, I know they are, but they've also had problems. I know the location. It's a beautiful area and I mean you literally sitting in the water there. MR. MOONEY: I mean the Association I asked them and they said it was fine with them. So, I mean they certainly - Page 36 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the one thing you could do Mr. Mooney is clipped the corner of that deck. You could clip the corner to give, it could be clipped and you could end up with a little more than 14 if you clip the corner. MR. MOONEY: Clip the corner? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. MOONEY: Clip the corner? I mean I'm a realist you know, ! don't want to come back - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It might even look nicer. MEMBER COLLINS: You mean rather than a right angle have a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Put the corner on 2 feet on both sides and then whatever that comes out on a triangular basis. MEMBER TORTORA:. You know a 14 foot deck a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, but if he clips the corner, the 19 is OK, if he clips the corner. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Which one, this one? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. See if he clips the corner here. MEMBER COLLINS: He can get rid of a few feet. MR. MOONEY: You're talking about what the west end? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: He can rid of a few feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, he's going to get rid of a few feet. You're going to gain footage there without taking more away from the deck. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The north east deck? MR. MOONEY: The north east, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's cutting this corner right here. MR. MOONEY: North east, right. Page 37 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 2 feet by 2 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: And what do you have here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's gone because we're not going 36, we're only going 24. MEMBER TORTORA: So we don't actually know the closest distance on the, we would not know the closest distance. I'm trying to think of how you're going to write a decision because you - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll measure it. It's going to be about 16. MEMBER COLLINS: May I ask a question Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Mooney you know when we get worried about lot coverage, i think probably the thing that bothers us is the cluttered look - MR. MOONEY: Oh \, I understand that. MEMBER COLLINS: And I just wanted to ask you what this is going to look like? On the front of your house you've got the garage downstairs and obviously the garage is going to stay there. So you're going to have this porch and you're not going to be filling in below it. You're just going to have legs holding it up, pillows. MR. MOONEY: You know the plans don't show anything and I talked about this very recently with my wife if there would be some way to do something to make it look more esthetically pleasing than looking underneath the deck and if I got, you know to get a permit obviously, unless I put trellis or something like that which I could do to make it look nice. MEMBER COLLINS: Let me say I don't have any ax to grind. I really was just curious what it was going to look like and on the view side, where you have the open deck- MR. MOONEY: I would put trellis underneath that. MEMBER COLLINS: I'd assume you would put something more to give it a - MR. MOONEY: Oh yeah, I mean ! think I'd probably like to do that under the porch as well in some way. If you go down to the Delaware Shore, not so much Page 38 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings the South Shore here, the houses are all usually have a porch on top and something, a screening below so that you don't look at the concrete block. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's go back to that because that's. When you went to the Building Department you told them you wanted a porch on that side? MR. MOONEY: Yeah I presented the same plans to the Building Department with my permit application. MEMBER TORTORA: Because they have your application for permit to construct a deck addition, and historically Mr. Mooney, the town has viewed a deck as open to the sky. That's one of the concerns. MR. MOONEY: Well I presented the same plan. They have three copies of them in fact (). The exact same plan is what I presented to them with the application for a Building Permit. MEMBER COLLINS: The architect's plan shows the roof. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me be honest. I understand what you're saying Lydia. A deck is a deck and a porch is a porch and it's still lot coverage and it's still setbacks. So I mean you know it's one horse of another color. MEMBER TORTORA: Well we always have this thing that it'd be opened to the sky actually. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And that's what's in the Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to calculate this if we are so inclined Mr. Mooney, that we're going to be talking about 16 at it's closest point if you clip the corner of that deck. So whatever way you've got to clip it, it's got to be clipped to make you 16 feet from that bulkhead, where that bulkhead that jogs in a little bit on that one side. If everybody is agreeable to that. Is everybody agreeable to that? MEMBER TORTORA: What are we talking? Total lot coverage? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Less than 23-1/2. MEMBER COLLINS: Approximately 23-1/2. We don't know- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Approximately 23-1/2. Page 39 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: I think it's going to be very incumbent upon us to make it clear in the decision what the closest distance to the bulkhead - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is 16 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely. MEMBER TORTORA: It can be at anyone given point - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 16 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: On that side at those two particular points Jerry. MR. MOONEY: Whatever the Board decides you know- MEMBER HORNING: Jerry would you make that clear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm making it clear. 16 feet at the job. That's the closes it can be. ~ BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's the north east corner. MR. MOONEY: I can have the surveyor come in and resurvey that and stake it so there's no question - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's the best thing to do. MR. MOONEY: Yeah, I don't want to have problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean even if you have to instead of clipping it, you have to pull it back and invert it and then come back to a right angle, that's fine too. But my suggestion is, that you come back and maybe you can just almost round it. MR. MOONEY: Unfortunately, my neighbor on the north, Mr. Abbott, had to cut down his deck about two weeks ago because he apparently got it or built it 20 years ago without a permit and the DEC came along and fined him. They had, they made him remove it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, they do that by aerial photographs. MR. MOONEY: Yeah, yeah. Page 40 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Since we're talking about setbacks from the bulkhead, you know Mr. Mooney has proposed and we obviously agree, that that deep 16 foot deck on the north side of the house will be only 24 feet wide, and not 36 feet wide. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: That's going to change the measurement from the outside corner of that deck to the bulkhead which is now drawn at 13 feet, it's going to be a bit bigger and that's - MR. MOONEY: Yeah, it may be close to 16 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: It may be close to 16 and I think, you know, I think we should get all of the clear before we write up a decision. MEMBER TORTORA: That area will be cleared up. You see the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The little jog. MEMBER TORTORA: The jog in the ( ) is now at 147 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well he has agreed to reduce it to 16. MEMBER HORNING: If we agree that we'd have 16 foot minimum, the setback from Spring Pond, that would cover it, would it not? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, it's 19 (More than one person speaking). MR. MOONEY: I understand exactly what you're saying. You want it no less than 16. MEMBER TORTORA: On those two corners. MR. MOONEY: Which you want me to follow this plan. You don't want me to go CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Out'. We don't want you to go out 16 from the 19 to the 16. MR. MOONEY: I absolutely understand that. Page 41 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: And I think the point we're making is, that since we have to write a decision and we write the decision to be precise. We want to make sure we've got the right numbers so you can grasp the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me Ms. Collins. i apologize. I seem to have a tendency to cut in on people and I don't really mean to do that, honestly. MEMBER COLLINS: Talk on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you just, since what you have given us, OK, is a hand drawn copy, take a clean copy of thing and incorporate all of that into it and then just give it to us. We'll close the hearing pending the submission of that and I mean conceivably in reality you can't put post in this time of the year anyway. MR. MOONEY: I'm not going to do it now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're going to do this at the end of March anyway, when the ground thaws a little bit and then we'll vote on it in the March hearing and we'll go from there. Is that alright with you? MR. MOONEY: That fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright with the Board? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MR. MOONEY: When is your March hearing? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: March 2nd. MR. MOONEY: Oh, you'll have it way before that. MEMBER HORNING: We're talking alternative relief then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: So this is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I've got it all written here inside the file if anybody wants it. MEMBER TORTORA: What are we going to do, close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Close the hearing pending the receipt of this. Page 42 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. MOONEY: So that there's no, I mean you understand what I think we're talking about, and hopefully you're talking about - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well unless you just want to recess it and we'll reduce it to writing. Lets recess it to end verbal and we'll recess it - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean recess it. What do you mean recess it- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Recess it to the next meeting to any verbal comments. We're not going to reopen it per verbal. We're just going to close it at the next meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, he means, that he's going to keep the hearing open but you don't have to come back for discussions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's the same thing. We might just as well close it pending the receipt of it. You were going to give it to us anyway, 62 days is going to run but it doesn't make any difference to us because we're going to make a decision on March 2nd, pending ( ) and that'll be it. MR. MOONEY: Thanks very much and has a nice evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thanks you too. Anybody else like to speak in favor or against this? No, Ms. Moore? Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Somebody second that. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 43 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4779 - D. & A. CORIERI Request to locate accessory swimming pool structure in a side yard area at 412 Park Avenue, Mattituck. (Continued from 1/13). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have something else for us here? MR. CORIERI: Yes I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Howareyou? MR. CORIERI: Good. How are you doing? I have three, so if I can give you one. MEMBER COLLINS: My college isn't here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning is leaving us. He's got to meet the ferry. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, could you refresh my failing memory? Did we adjourn this hearing pending receipt of something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, the hearing remained opened. We recessed it to tonight. MEMBER COLLINS: The hearing remained open. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We recessed it to tonight. MEMBER COLLINS: And we were going to recess. I didn't say, I used the wrong word. And what we had asked for was a drawing showing the proposed pool in a somewhat different position? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MR. CORIERI: So what I did, I complied with the request for a 16 foot setback which is, as you go back it's actually 20 feet, but 16 was the minimum, i shrunk it to 18 width and then I had to shrink it another 2 feet in order to fit with your 16 foot setback from the house. So it's smaller, it's a smaller pool than, originally we were going to try and do 18 x 40. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, so you kind of like, oh, I see. Page 44 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CORIERI: The only thing I did do because if you notice half steps on the deck side that were originally in the pool? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. CORIERI: That you never saw on the other plans. I figured to give me a little more room in the pool, I could pull the steps out and put them on the deck side of the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just clear something in my mind. What is that dotted line that runs down on that side? Is that another right-right-of-way-way? Oh, those are overhead wires. MR. CORIERI: No, that dotted line is intended to be setback lines. MEMBER COLLINS: 10 foot for an accessory. MR. CORIERI: The overhead wires are in front of the garage between the framed shed and the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I apologize. It just confused me looking at it. MR. CORIERI: Yeah, and you can get a good idea of the 16 feet off the (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Questions on this ladies and gentlemen? We'll start with Mrs. Tortora this time. MEMBER TORTORA: No, you're not. Just let me look at this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's certainly unique. There's no question about it. Ms. Collins, question, or do you want to study it too? MEMBER COLLINS: No, this is what I think we were expecting we would receive and I don't think I have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio is ill tonight which you might have heard us say and that's the gentleman that sat at the end, OK? He has the flu so what we will do is a, let me just reiterate one thing. You're planning on doing what on Mr. Holman's side in reference to a privet? MR. CORIERI: Yeah, a privet or an evergreen. It doesn't really make any difference to me. Six feet tall and proper screening and maintenance between Mr. Holman and our property. Page 45 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: We're now actually closer to Mr. Holman's property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're not. MEMBER COLLINS: What. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. Look at the, you were 20 feet before. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER COLLINS: Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: Wait a second. Isn't this the- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We were 12 feet before. MEMBER COLLINS: It's 12 feet. MR. CORIERI: It's 12 feet, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sorry, I was looking at the other survey. Sorry guys. You're right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you, that we recently did one of these, you know, in the last 8 months, a year, down in Cedar Beach and although we haven't been back to look at it, I think it looks, it's appropriate for me. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry Jerry, what is the point you're making? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i'm making that although that one was in the actual water side. - MEMBER COLLINS: This is the one on the rather bluff a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I mean the heights are the same, you know you have that two stake bulkhead and so on and so forth and of course it was a much smaller lot. This is certainly a better compromise than that was but of course they didn't have any position to put it you know, other than where they were putting it in at that point. I have no objection to this at all. Page 46 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Well, if you're going to go on record with your view, I will go on record with mine, which is, I can't vote to grant this variance because the State Law tells us that we have to consider available alternatives, and grant the minimum relief necessary and I think there are alternatives and this is not the minimum. I can't go along with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: I have a question since I was looking at the wrong survey. I'm not quite sure how you picked up the four feet. I know you straighten - MR. CORIERI: How I picked up the four feet? By moving it from 20 foot width to 16 foot width pool, by knocking 4 feet off the pool. The pool originally was 20 x 40 and now you see it's an L shape and the deep end of it goes to 16. MEMBER TORTORA: 18 x 6 on one end and - MR. CORIERI: No, 16 feet on ( ) and that is where, now as the property goes back, the property gets, as the pool is even perpendicular with the house, property line gets fuller as you' go back. MEMBER TORTORA: It's 18 feet on one end like this and then it comes down to 16. MR. CORIERI: It's 18 and then it comes down to 16, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: In the first drawing Lydia, the side of the pool towards the west was parallel to the property line, the whole length of it. He's now swung it a little bit to make it parallel with the garage so that's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And parallel to the deck. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and to the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Porch. MEMBER COLLINS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you .have no objection to the Board placing normal landscaping statements of what was just priorly made and that is evergreens, 6 feet high, - Page 47 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CORIERI: No, we plan on doing the evergreen 6 feet high and plantings by the sea as viewing. So it won't be done by me. i won't be breaking my back doing that. Somebody is going to do the professional landscaping job. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and that would be the edge of the pool back as a - MR. CORIERI: Well actually yeah, we'll probably go from the front of the garage all the way down to the edge of the pool and screened in properly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Lora, what are you in the interest of trying to get something on this, this evening, - MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry i - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's not going to happen this evening. MEMBER COLLINS: It's not going 'to happen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's not going to happen this evening because Jim is not here and this is an area that we're gong to discuss with George because he just had to leave when we commence this hearing, recommence this hearing. We'll carry it over to March 2nd and we'll make a decision then. We have no other choice. We apologize. MR. CORIERi: OK, I understand that. Procedure, do you need any ( ) or - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Three, three out of five. MEMBER TORTORA: We need three. There's only three of us here. We're dwindling fast here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We consider us to be the nucleus. However - MR. CORIERI: When you take a look at this, and look at your considerations, the reason why I shrunk the pool down all that way was because of safety factor. Sit on the porch, and I can watch, and I have safety things in my brief case which you probably don't look at and how to place the pool and how to place the pool close to access to a house, placing it in the sun which is where the sun is going to be and I can't even place it back here but that would be the north side. There wouldn't be any sun there. But it's all important from a safety stand point where you can watch the children and you don't have to be looking across the lawn. Page 48 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a gunite pool? MR. CORIERI: It's a gunite pool. It's to be done by Islandia Pools and in the alternative which I don't want to do is raise it 6 to 12 inches, connect it to the house. With that scenario I would be raised up overlooking the property. Now I would be raised and I don't want to attempt it. But now I would be right over that. I don't want to do that. I certainly could do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lets talk about elevation off existing grade. What are we talking, 4 inches, 5 inches? MR. CORIERI: What? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The height of the pool over existing grade. MR. CORIERI: Oh, I don't know. This is what ,John from Islandia told me. He said you can do it between 6 and 12 inches over the existing grade and so I haven't researched it at all. This is what the lslandia Pools told me. That the Building Department would give them a permit. First they were going to give them a permit saying, OK, but we were going to go right up to the 75 foot line and then he went in for a permit and somebody told him the Building Department would give it to you but move it back 5 feet just to be sure. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But it's still side yard. You have to move it back behind the rear line. MR. CORIERI: Right, nobody told him that and (too many people speaking at one time). You notice how many times the surveyor has done this is because they say, OK, OK, and then everytime someone comes in, somebody else would take a look at it and say, no, you can't do that. So, that's how we ended up here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But there's no alternative? MR. CORIERI: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Lets get something clear here. This concept I know that you have Mr. Coded about the idea that if the pool is made an integral part of the house, by being hooked on to it, that that's part of the house and the house setbacks count and you can satisfy it and there's not problem, it's not the side yard and I understand that. MR. CORIERI: And that's not my intention. Page 49 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, but it's sought of a base, it's one of the base lines as if it were. The point is, that if the pool is built as you propose it, any and we say the pool can't be any Closer than 16 feet to the property line which is what your drawing shows. MR. CORIERI: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: You have the issue of what's surrounding the pool. MR. CORIERI: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And if it's anything that rises above grade, if it's patio bricks or bricks in the ground, fine. But if it's, you know a little deck, that's above grade then, it's going to count. MR. CORIERI: No, this is going to count as square footage? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Setbacks. MEMBER COLLINS: And it's going to count for the setback. It's going to violate your 6, it's going to get you closer to 16 feet. MR. CORIERI: Oh, yeah, no. You see the pool as it exists now, all around the pool will be bluestone. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to make sure you appreciated that. MR. CORIERI: If I have to raise it, then I'm going to have do the decking and connect it. I don't want to do that. I just want to put it in the ground. I want to put bluestone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not speaking for Ms. Collins but I think she meant to say, I think what she was alluding to was, that if you intend to put a deck on the west side, you know, that decreases the setback situation that we're trying, that I'm trying to increase. MEMBER COLLINS: Right. MR. CORIERI: No, no, I'm not going to put a deck in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And when I say, that it's going to be ground level, my opinion has always been and it will continue to be, that the ground is not level no matter how you slice it. So, one end may be 6 inches and the other end may be 2 inches. Page 50 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CORIERI: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But it's going to be basically as close to the ground as you can build it. MR. CORIERI: Yes, you got it, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean the height of a bull nose which is the culping which goes over the top of it, is going to be really the only portion of the pool that would be sticking out of the ground, except for whatever the distance is for the level on that specific area where it's going. Is that correct? MR. CORRIERI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that answer your question Lora? MEMBER COLLINS: Oh yeah, I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Coded understood that when we said 16 feet where it was measured from and it would be measured from - MEMBER TORTORA: Are we closing it, or are we recessing it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, unless you want the other Members to be able to put some input in, it's up to you. MEMBER COLLINS: You mean questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not questions of Mr. Corieri but - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Of the new map. They haven't seen the new map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They haven't seen the new map. MEMBER COLLINS: Well they can have input so long as it's a public meeting and talk. MEMBER TORTORA: Well then, we better recess it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lets recess it without a date.' I mean until the next regularly scheduled meeting and we'll just look at it and a, if you don't want to come out you don't have to be, but if you want to come out, you're welcome to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's not what Lora meant, I don't think. Page 51 - February 3, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: I said, why don't we close the hearing? I don't think anybody feels the need for anymore testimony, so we don't need the hearing to remain open. When we deliberate whether it's at our next public hearing or at a special meeting, it's a publicly announced meeting. We can talk to each other to our hearts content. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only concern I have with that Lora is - MEMBER TORTORA: There not going to do anything until March 3rd and the other two - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The weather is still lousy. The weather is lousy and it may get. as bad as it was the past tw° or three weeks and there's always a possibility in the winter of canceling a hearing and then the time runs and then we run into a problem. I would rather just recess to the next regularly scheduled meeting for the purpose of showing this map to the Board Members and take any input on their part. If we have any other concerns then we'll deal with it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You want to make that motion then please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes and if it's alright with you guys. I'll make a motion recessing it to the next regularly scheduled meeting and we will if you care to show up or if you don't, we're just going to close it as. a matter of fact. We're going to show the map to the BOard Members. We're going to say, if you have any verbal input and - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: because it's still a public hearing. He probably should be here though CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You probably should send a representative and we'll just zip it out at that point and this certainly is a much more favorable situation in my opinion. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who would like to second that motion? MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. THE SOUTHOLD TO"~ TE 7-/¢-~ HOUR ~o "l,~rk, Town of Souihol~ By Lucy Farrell