Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/02/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD March 2, 2000 Page I - Appl. No. 4780-LAWRENCE & JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN 12 - Appl. No. 4784-JEFFREY KAYTIS 20 -Appl. No. 4787-JOHN McCOPPEN 22-Appl. No. 4786-DR. VALLO BENJAMIN 25- Appl. No. 4789 & 4790-PERRY & MELINA ANGELSON 31-Appl. No. 4788-LONG ISLAND VINEYARDS, INC. 35-Appl. No. 4785~ANTHONY PIRRERA 41-Appl. No. 4791-MARK & HELEN LEVINE 47-Appl. No. 4792-KATHLEEN TOLE & MARY DURKIN TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS March 2, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:33 P. M. - Appl. No. 4780 - LAWRENCE & JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN This is a request for a Variance under Article Iii, Section 100-33 based upon the Building Inspector's November 26, 1999 Notice of Disapproval regarding an application for an as built accessory storage shed located in an area other than the rear yard. Location of Property: 2225 North Sea Drive, Southold, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-54-4-23. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: we ask you to use the mike. your storage building? Good evening Sir. Good evening Ma'am. Could How are you? What would you like to tell us about MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well we didn't do that lightly. We did it with very careful consideration. We did it very carefully, particularly about conforming to every building code and every permit that we needed to get our home improvement. When we bought the shed, we were assured by the Vendor, that it was no problem as long as it was under 100 sq. ft. and therefore I didn't think I had any problem. Now I find out ! violated the code. The only thing I could do. I can't move it into the front. I can't move it into the back because I have the road, and ! have the water. The only thing ! could do, would be to move it closer to the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 10 feet from the house now Mrl Pearlstein? MR. PEARLSTEIN: It's 10, 10-1/2. I can move it to anything from 6 to 8 ft. closer to the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that may not be necessary. Let's see what develops throughout the hearing. We'll ask any questions of a. I just want to mention one thing to you, that we have sought of a precedent as it exists on waterfront lots and that is that we respectfully mandate that you not close up the other side yard, assuming this is granted, OK, so as to allow access to the waterside of the house. So in other words, we wouldn't be, if this was granted, we wouldn't be too incline to sought of speak. I'm speaking now for the Board if anybody would like to say something other than that, you're welcome to. But we want to see that other side yard left open. MR. PEARLSTEIN: I have no intention of closing it. I just want to mention one other thing. I have a list here of five houses on the same road we live on that Page 2 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings have sheds in their side yard, which obviously no-one has complaint about. I mean I can give you the addresses if you want to. But I just, there are five other houses on the same road with sheds on the side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you reduce that to writing for us? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Submit it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Submit it, yes. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: sometime, maybe. It doesn't have to be this minute, tomorrow MR. PEARLSTEIN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Pearlstein? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's my assumption that you didn't apply for a Building Permit because none was needed, right? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well, what the Vendor of the shed told us, just make it under 100 sq. ft.. and there's no problem. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that's so. What he told you was right. I think the problem just comes where you placed it. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well you see, i had no idea that I had limitation about where I could place it. MEMBER DINIZIO: No you wouldn't because you didn't apply for a Building Permit. No-one told you. I'm assuming the Vendor, you know, he just, he goes by if it's under 12 feet. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well, I should think that he would know these codes, wouldn't you? MEMBER. DINIZIO: ! would think that he would know what the codes are that affect him, Sir: MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well is he's selling me a shed, then 'it affects him. Page 3 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I agree with you 100% that the problem comes when up until probably six months ago, you had to apply for a Building Permit, and the Building Department then turned you down and that's, that's where - MR. PEARLSTEIN: Then I would have found out that I couldn't put in the shed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, right and then you would just come and you could of plead your case just like now and you would of more than likely have gotten it. MR. PEARLSTEIN: I probably wouldn't have purchased it. MEMBER DINIZIO: ..Oh, OK. I'm assuming you're happy with it. You want to keep it and ! mean are you happy with the placement of it right now? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well, the placement of it, is not terribly important. I can move it closer to the house if that pleases anybody. I mean if that solves the problem. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, but if we granted it where it is,-that wouldn't solve your problem? MR. PEARLSTEIN: 'Oh, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you store gasoline, or any other,, which most people do, you know, for lawnmower use or whatever the case might be. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Never. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Never, but- MR. PEARLSTEIN: I have no power tools, no power boats. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but I mean it doesn't necessary have to be you. It could be you or subsequent owners, OK. The farther away from the house, the better off you are. MR. PEARLSTEIN: H'm, h'm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So technically 10-1/2 is certainly an adequate amount away from the house in my particular opinion. So I think where you placed it is OK. MEMBER ~D'INIZIO: You're talking about depth too Jerry, not a house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What? Page 4 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: We're talking about - MEMBER COLLINS: it's not a deck, it's a house on stilts. MEMBER DINIZIO: No electricity? No running water? MR. PEARLSTEIN: No, no, just a storage shed. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just for Mr. Pearlstein's benefit. What Mr. Dinizio was alluding to, is the Town Zoning Code was amended about six or eight months ago. MR. PERLSTEIN: Which is? MEMBER COLLINS: In the interest of simplification, to say that for certain kind of things, you no longer needed a Building Permit. One of thethings for which you no longer need a Building Permit is a non-commercial shed of less than 100 sq. ft., that's true. But the code goes on to say nevertheless, you have to comply with the Zoning' Code but there's nobody as we saw, to tell you what the' Zoning COde says. That's the problem. We saw that problem when they amended Code and we're now going to see it here. It's a matter of the way the law was drafted. I would just say on the record, that I'm sympathetic to the idea moving that shed closer to the house, because I think the current location of the shed, shows why there is a code that says, don't put things in the side yard, it kind of clutters the scene, and so I'm in favor of the solution of moving it closer to the house because it's visually less of it in the front. That's all I have to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want it moved closer to the house? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, how much closer? MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, 5, 6 feet closer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: So that it looks more like it's part of the house structure and looks like it's a thing out there; Page 5 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How big is the shed Mr. Pearlstein? MR. PEARLSTEIN: 12 x 8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it on a foundation now? You have a cement foundation? MR. PEARLSTEIN: No, it's on a 4 x4 CCA lumber. MEMBER TORTORA: So it could be moved? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Yeah, it could be moved. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't really have any ol~jection to it's in its current location. Yes, esthetically it would probably look better as part of the house but should you want or future owners want to store gasoline there, I would like to see that 10 foot stay. What you've got actually. Where it is, is OK with me. MR. PEARLSTEIN: I can't speak fOr.future owners burl can tell you, that i'll'not store gasoline in that shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did want to mention for the record, that we did have one letter. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Yes, I known CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of an objection. MR. PEARLSTEIN: You sent me a copy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Sir, you bought the shed and you were not aware, you knew you didn't need a Building Permit at that time. MR. PEARLSTEIN: i was assured by the Vendor that the only requirement was that it was leSs than 100 sq. ft. floor'space. MEMBER HORNING: Right, OK, so then you put it in your side yard - MR. PEARLSTEIN: Yeah. Page 6 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER HORNING: Because you didn't know that you couldn't put it, is that right? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well and I certainly can't put it on the road side, there's not enough space, and I can't put it on the water side. MEMBER HORNING: Well that's what i'm asking. Why are you saying you can't put it in the rear yard? MR. PEARLSTEIN: I think that our deck is on the road side is as close to the road as any structure can be. MEMBER HORNING: Oh, you're calling that your rear yard? MR. PEARLSTEIN: The rear yard is the water. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MR. PEARLSTEIN: It's the beach. MEMBER HORNING: Right. I'm asking if there's 120 feet, if you didn't know you couldn't put it in the side yard, how do you know you couldn't put it in the back yard? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well I just think that again, esthetically ! don't think I want it on the beach. MEMBER HORNING: So that was an esthetic choice is what you're saying? MR. PEARLSTEIN: I guess so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to understand that this is like the first _hearing or-so, that we've had with these situations that occurred after this change has existed. We're just learning to understand how the situation came to be, you knoW, just so you're aware of that situation. MR. PEARLSTEIN: I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: develops. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. OK, we thank you and we'll see what else Page 7 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. PEARLSTEIN: You have that letter from one of my neighbors? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Do you want to comment on that? MR. PEARLSTEIN: No, only to say, that he hasn't shown me or anyone else, how my shed affects the quality of his life. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there anybody else like to speak in favor or against? In favor? Against? Anybody in favor first? No, OK, Sir, Ma'am, both, kindly state your names for the record, that's all. MRS. LAMPEAS: My name is Vickie Lampeas and this is my husband, Pete Lampeas. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just spell your last name please, for the record. MRS. 'LAMPEAS~. L A M P E A S, and I am here to represent my father, john Chihlas, who is across the street from the Pearlsteins and I have a letter here from him, which is notariZed that says, that We can speak on his behalf. I don't know if you'd like me to present you with the letter that he wrote? MR. LAMPEAS: Would you like her to read the letter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MRS. LAMpEAS: OK. I submit this letter as my written statement of 'disapproval and objection to application ff,4780 Lawrence & Josephine Pearlstein. It is my firm belief that the rules and regulations of the town need to be upheld to keep continuity in.our small and beautiful community. Variances should be given for reasons of necessity and not for casual conveniences. Mr. & Mrs. Pearlstein should 'be asked, to adhere to the law and move their shed to an area that meets the town code. That's eliminating one more deviation .from the rule to guide and insure the continuity of our wonderful community. ! am very disappointed that Mr. & Mrs. Pearlstein applied for this variance especially after reading an article written by Ms. Pearlstein which appeared in the January sixth addition of the Suffolk Times. In this article Ms. Pearlstein further highlights the importance of adhering to the Building Code; given that dilation to these codes result in a negative impact on the beautiful, on the beauty of our community. For your reference.attached to this letter is a copy of this article. Thank you for your support o'n this important.matter. Very truly yours, John Chihlas. cFIAiR~N GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Would you submit that. CoUld you just tell 'me'on the map where your father lives? Page 8 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. LAMPEAS: Sur. e. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. (Mrs. Lampeas is showing where Mr. Chihlas lives.) OK, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Is there anything else you'd like to say? MRS. LAMPEAS: Actually the only thing I'd like to say is, that from what I was understanding, bringing it closer to the house, is not really - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything is an option at this point. MRS. LAMPEAS: There is a .lot of room you know, in the back of the house before the tide mark. So I was just wondering if that was something you would - MR. LAMPEAS: My father-in-law is completely opposed to any structure in the back yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see,' OK. MEMBER HORNING: Does this shed obstruct the view? MR. LAMPEAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to make a generalization on that. As you are may be aware or may not be aware, we are not here to deal with the water view aspect, OK. The questions and the statements, I'm sorry, the statements that were made within .the letter in the embodiment of this letter are Certainly you know, viable reasons, and statements, there's no question about it. BUt we just cannot create water views or not create water views based upon these objections. MRS. LAMPEAS: Actually I Would of probably said differently only because 'when we're from the street, that's where it would block any people, any pedestrian.walking by: I realize that this isn't about view and if you were' to see any view at any point from my parent's house, you could 'still see over the shed, so that's not - MEMBER TORTORA: The initial question here is, in an area variance such as this is for this Board to weigh the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. You obviously are the community and whether it is a detriment, a visual detriment, an environmental detriment, a health detriment, they're all detriment, period. If you view them that way and 'if this 'Board agrees with that view. So my,question.to you is, how can we work outa compromise with the Pearlsteins. because they're your-neighbors and what can we get in: a Way of a compromise? Page 9 - March 2, 2000 .Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. LAMPEAS: Well I think by adhering to the town codes appropriately. I feel that speaking for my father, I know that he's not.the only person that feels this way, about this particular structure and you know, [ don't know if the. exact reasons of other neighbor but ! do know, that it's something that is not Visually attractive and I think that that's why these particular structures aren't meant to be in the back yard and you know, to anybody that walks, any pedestrian that walks by sees this and anyone that drives by sees this, either where there use to be trees and bushes that were cleared for this structure. MR. LAMPEAS: And it was also clear to me by Mr. Pearlstein, that he doesn't want to look at it, but why do we have to look at it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wait Mr. Pearlstein, we'll get you back up. OK, we thank you very much. Is there anYbody else would like to speak against? OK, Mr. Pearlstein, you want to say something? MR. PEARLSTEiN: I had no problem looking at it. I don't know-where that came from..This idea of putting it on the beach side is, maybe i just presumed that I couldn't do thatl NOw, I seem to be'getting the feeling from the Board that it would be permissible for me to put it on the beach side. MEMBER TORTORA; That's' Where it's legally suppose to be. MR. PEARLSTEIN: -Well ! thought they were environmental DEC reasons not to do that but I guess I was wrong. MEMBER COLLINS: He hasenough setback. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You still have to apply for it though. MEMBER TORTORA: In other Words you've got 120 feet to the high tide mark. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They have jurisdiction up to 300 feet though. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're still-going to need a permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, you need it in the way - MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, you have to go, have a hearing, and you know, MEMBER TORTORA: For what? BOARD 8ECRETARY KOWAL8KI: You have to go t0'.:{he· DEC 'and the T~.'~stee also if you put it on the beach, on the water side of the house. Page 10 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. PEARLSTEIN: i have to get what kind of a permit to put it on the beach side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to have to have the DEC probably waive the fact that they lack jurisdiction or that they waive jurisdiction. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think you need anything, BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 75 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: Everyone is talking at one time. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We check with the Trustees then, you know. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't need a Building Permit. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Trustees have jurisdiction - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we do this at this particular time Mr. Pearlstein. Let's ask you to investigate that aspect of it in reference to putting it in on that side, OK? During that period of time, we will go back and do a re- inspection and look at your rear yard area which is the area toward the water, and we'll have you back at the next hearing and we'll ask you what you found in reference to additional permits that may be required. We'd ask you to call the DEC and call the Trustee's office in those situations and then we'll know what the situation is. Would you mind doing that? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Anybody else? MEMBER HORNING: I'll make a comment. I mean it could possibly be put back of the proposed 1-1/2 story frame addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is now. MEMBER HORNING: Pardon me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is now built. MEMBER HORNING: Which is built. It looks to me like (-). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Page 11 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Or if he went both ways he would be out of the Trustee's jurisdiction by coming back 80 feet of the 120. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. MEMBER HORNING: Right. 75 foot is the difference. MEMBER TORTORA: So there are a lot of options. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AIright, so we'll be back to re-inspect it. Any questions Mr. Pearlstein? No, OK. We thank you for everybody's input and we'll reconvene this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting° BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could you just give a date with that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: April 6th. CHAIRMAN'GOEHRINGER: April 6th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do we have a second on that motion? MEMBER HORNING: Second, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. See Minutes for Resolution Page 12 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 6:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4784 - JEFFREY KAYTIS This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 based upon the Building Inspector's December 21, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for the location of an accessory garage in an area other than the rear yard at 2600 Paradise Point Road, Southold, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-81-3-15.4 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who is the attorney representing? Good evening Sir. How are you? MR. GOGGINS: Good, how are you? Good evening, William C. Goggins, attorney for the applicant. My office is located at 11775 Main Road, Mattituck, N;Y. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and in support of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about the garage Bill? MR. GOGGINS: We submitted plans regarding the garage. The property is located on Paradise Point Road. There is a right-of-way that traverses the westerly portion of the property, 50 ft; wide. It's used. by two property owners that traverses the right-of-way to their " Property. The prOpOsed garage is approximately 93 feet from. their westerly property line and 43 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. I don't know if you've been out there but it's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have. MR. GOGGINS:' Very wooded 'lot. It's over two acres. The problem is of course that the Building Department deems it to be two front yards because of Paradise Point Road and also the right-of- way, and they deem that a street apparently. Mr. Kaytis would like to deem the Paradise Point Road as their front yard before having their plans Put together and the zoning for the location of the house and garage. They had gone on the assumption that Paradise Point Road was a front yard and the right-of-way was merely going to be their driveway and so they designed their houSe in such a way that they could have the garage attached next to their house and when they applied for a Building Permit for the house and the garage the permit for the garage was rejected and we're here tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the doors to the garage face the house? Is that correct? MR. GOGGINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK and the extent of the utility in the building itself is electricity, only? Page 13 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. GOGGINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. By the way, it's absolutely a beautiful spot. There's not two ways about it. Mr. Homing, questions of these applicants or the attorney? MEMBER HORNING: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Just give 'me those distances again. The garage is how many feet from a - MR. GOGGINS: Approximately 93 feet from the westerly boundary line of the property. MEMBER TORTORA: On Paradise point Road? MEMBER COLL!NS: No, the dirt road. MR. GOGGINS: No, off of the right-Of-way. Paradise Point ROad is on the north side of the property. The right-of-way, transverses from north to south along the westerly boundary of the property and that right-of-way is 50 feet wide. They don't use the whole 50 feet. The actual road is abOut 20 feet, 50, 20 feet wide. This property has been owned by Mr. Kaytis' grandfather and that'there's been a subdivision supported at, Planning Board back in the sixties when this propertY was developed. MEMBER TORTO.RA: OK. My map it's hard to see the right-of-way. It's almost impossible to see it, if I got it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's it. When he's talking 93 feet, he's talking to the property line. Is that correct? ' MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The right-of-way truncates the property. MEMBER TORTORA: It's hard to'see on the map here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or transverses at the property. Page 14'- March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Here is the right-of-way, see? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just to get clear on what our problem is with respect to the variance, Mr. Goggins is speaking about the property having two front yards which I agree it does because rights-of-way create front yards. But the denial from the Building Department said the problem is that the garage is in the side yard as though they had not noticed the right-of-way. MR. GOGGINS: No, they did. I had discussions with Ed Forrester. MEMBER COLLINS: So we are facing a question of the front yard because if it were a side yard issue, and you just wanted a simple solution that would pacify the Building Department, we'd move the garage a little bit towards the rear of the house getting it closer to being in the rear yard where it's suppose to be. But if that's really, if the Building Department in fact takes the view that that is a front yard then, we have a front yard problem. That's'not what the denial says. MR. GOGGINS: That's not What the denial was. The denial was that - MEMBER COLLINS: The denial says, it's in the side yard. MR. GOGGINS: Well,. the denial says that you can't have any detached structures anywhere other .than the rear yard: MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and then it said, proposed accessory garage - MEMBER TORTORA: It says, it's located in the side yard. MEMBER COLLINS: Is Iocatedin the side yard. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I'm baffled - MR. GOGGINS: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Because he's not raising, he made of raised - MR. GOGGINS: That's right. He raised it- MEMBER TORTORA: He's not raising the issue of the right-of-way and - MEMBER COLLINS: Right, that's what I was asking.. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not what's before me - Page 15 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. GOGGINS: That's right. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as I'm concerned. It isn't. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, and therefore thinking it was a side yard problem, I was prepared to suggest as we did with that house down at Harbor Farm off of New Suffolk Avenue, shove the garage back a few feet and get it more like it's in the rear yard and everybody's happy. MR. GOGGINS: Well you know, not to interrupt you, the most of the Town Code there is no definition of rear yard so that the rear yard - MEMBER COLLINS: Yes there is. MR. GOGGINS: ! didn't see it. MEMBER COLLINS: Yard, rear. MR. GOGG1NS: Oh, it's under yard, rear. Anyway, what does that definition say? I would aSsume that the rear yard would start halfway to the house. MEMBER COLLINS: It's to the rear of the house to the property line. It kind of assumes it's a rectangular lot. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, but the Problem is, get it in what they would do with the rear yard. If you can bare it with us here. You'd have to push this, the front of the garage all the way back. Back of what looks like the stoop there because right now technically it looks like it's partially in the rear yard or at least MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm, a little bit. MEMBER TORTORA: In other Words, here, front yard, side yard and an imaginary line here, it would go something to this ~effect, would be your rear yard like this. So technically, if this was behind this, it'd be in the rear yard, There's only one problem with that and that's if you ever wanted to add on here and come back here, - MEMBER COLLINS: it's in the side yard.again. MEMBER TORTORA: You'd be baCk in the side yard again. Page 16 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But fortunately though, Mrs. Tortora, this is an extremely large house and I don't think they're looking to do that right at the moment. MEMBER TORTORA: They have a couple options here. MEMBER COLLINS: This, you know, I, I, Lydia and I are on the same point and I was raising the question because although 'there's a certain amount of oddness you know about the code and all of that, it is important for us to know, what we're trying to grant relief for. Is it because of the things in the front yard? Is it because it's in the side yard? MR. GOGGINS: it's mostly because when they had designed - MEMBER COLLINS: No, I'm talking about legally. where it is. I don't mean physically MR. G'OGGINS: OK, legally according to how it's written up, because it's in the side Yard. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the Way ! see it. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that's what the paper says. The paper says, it's in the side yard and that's.what we want to address and ! think we can address that with a compromise. May I ask another question?. You said the doors of the garage are goin. g to face towards the house. MR. GOGGINS: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: On the drawing that I have, there is drawn in with dotted lines What I guess are contour lines. They're not driveways. Where will the actual vehicular access come from? From that - MR. GOGGINS: I can show you on my survey. Apparently they didn't come out on the copies I had given the Board. This is an original, OK, and they'have the driveway coming in here, a circular._driveway. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, yeah, that didn't make it on to this. I see it now. MR. GOGGINS: Yeah, egress here. MEMBER COLLINS: So access is from the dirt right-of-way. MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, I didn't see that. Page 17 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. GOGGINS: Yeah, see this is the right-of-way goincj here and they want their driveway to come in this way. MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, see I didn't see that. MEMBER COLLINS: That's where I hit the mud, right there. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MR. GOGGINS: Right, and these are all contour lines. MEMBER TORTORA: This looks like it might be a septic tank. MEMBER COLLINS: That's the septic. But I think you can make everyone a little happier if you can move that garage back there. MEMBER TORTORA: Then Where it says, it's partially in the front yard, rear yard brushing the side yard. MR: GOGGINS: Well that's why we're asking for a variance, yeah. MEMBER TORTORA: Really. MR. GOGGINS: How further back would you want it? MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like it'd have to go maybe 4 feet before you'd have part of it in your rear yard. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well you'd have to go to the back of the house to draw a line like that. MR. GOGGINS: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Because the whole garage would have to be in the back. MR. GOGGINS: OK, so if we'd compromise we wouldn't have to move it that far back? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. Rear.yard starts rightthere Lydia. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, exactly. BOARD-MEMBER KOWALSKI: OK, that's the whole garage. Page 18 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: So he'S practically there right now. ! mean - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, the whole garage would have to be behind that line. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but if we compromise and let him have some of it in the rear yard, and some of it in the side yard- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: But you're forgetting something. This is also a front yard because of this road. It's two front yards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ladies and gentlemen, what's wrong with it where it is? MEMBER COLLINS: That was the other thing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jerry, it's two front yards. That's not a rear yard. MR. GOGGINS: Well, yeah. So if that was the case, if this is a front yard and that's a front yard, and thiS is a road, then the rear yard would be - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But it is, believe me. MR. GOGGINS: Would be to the right, would be to the north east where there' s no room. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For 21years it has been listed that way that I'm aware of. MEMBER DINIZIO: You'll have to move the house. MEMBER COLLINS~. Well, listen - MEMBER HORNING: Sir, whose right-of-way, I mean besides your driveway, whose right-of-way is it? MR. GOGGINS: Two people. It's the McDonald, correct? And the Anderson? MR. KAYTIS: Alexander. MR. GOGGINS: Alexander. MEMBER COLLINS: It is used. Page 19 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's why they call it a side yard. MR. GOGGINS: And Mrs. Alexander had bought it for a, as I remember it, proposed it to Mr. & Mrs. Kaytis. She was going to come up but Mrs. Kaytis told her she didn't have to. We can submit a letter from her if you'd like. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that's fine. Thank you. MR. GOGGINS: You're welcome. But we hope to try and keep the garage where it is because that's when they designed their house they did it in mind, that the garage being where it is and that's where the hardship would come in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, questions of Mr. Goggins? MEMBER DINIZIO: Does Mr. McDonald know about it? MR. KAYTIS: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: He does, he feels pretty good about it? MRS. KAYTIS: He's fine. MR. KAYTIS: He's fine about it. MEMBER DINIZIO: That'S who I would worry about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. We don't have any 'letters submitted, so. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I dOn't have any objections to it at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you, weql see what deVelops throughout the hearing. We hope to get to it tonight. It will not be at this particular moment, but, aldght? Actually we have a pretty slow start here. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution Page 20 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 6:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4787 - JOHN McCOPPEN This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 based upon the Building Department's October 21, 1999 Notice of Disapproval to locate an accessory garage in an area other than the rear yard at 870 Oak Drive, Southold, N.Y., County Parcel 1000-80-2-9 at Reydon Shores. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody here to represent Mr. McCoppen? Could you state your name for the record. MR. LEONARD: My name is Jayson Leonard. I'm McCoppen's agent, the contractor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this proposed garage? MR. LEONARD: We have a very similar situation to the last case. It's a located in Reydon Shores. 870 Oak Drive, and there's a, basically they call it Roadway CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're familiar with it. MR. LEONARD. It doesn't have any name. It's a very narrow driveway that goes down the back of all the houses on Oak Road and there are every adjacent property around Mr. McCoppen's house has a garage on that street already. But once again as I said, like the last case, it's considered a front yard because the roadway is there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're 20 feet from the property line? MR. LEONARD: 20 feet from the setback from the property line on the comer of "the road, yes. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: How far are we from the other property line? MR. LEONARD: Originally we had applied for 3 feet but as it turned out when we staked it out, there's a large stream in the way, so we'd actually have to come in probably 6 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And again utility wise, only electricity? MR. LEONARD: Initially not even electricity actually. possibility in the future though. There's probably, a Page 21 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, we had virtually an identical case within the last year, a couple of houses away and we had no problem with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on a roll here. MR. LEONARD: I don't know if it makes too much difference, but actually at the last minute, I had a conversation with Mr. McOoppen this morning and he wanted explore the possibility of.turning the garage with the doors facing on the side. I don't see how that would make any difference it's - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So facing the center - MR, LEONARD: Just about square, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the lot. MR. LEONARD: Right, right. So facing the center of the lot rather than facing His existing driveway comes in and he'd be able to branch off in front of the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it makes sense. While you're standing there, we'll just ask, is there anyone else would like to speak in favor?. Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. See Minutes for' Resolution Page 22 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:00 P.M. -Appl. No. 4786 - DR. VALLO BENJAMIN This is a request for a Variance under Article i11, Section 100-32 based upon the Building Department's February 2, 2000 Notice of Disapproval to locate a proposed deck addition with a side yard at less than 20 feet. Location of Property. 29315 Main Road, Orient, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-13-2-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. Could you state your name for the record. DR. BENJAMIN: Vallo Benjamin. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? DR. BENJAMIN: Fine, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dr. it's a pleasure to meet you. It's a pleasure to be up to your lovely spot. What would you like to tell us? DR. BENJAMIN: Well we applied for a swimming pool and it's an extension of the house with an accessory building, and the deck, the existing deck on' the side of the pool is 7 feet, and the Zoning Laws are 20 feet restriction from. the deck to the other property, and on one side, so we applied for 20 feet, and .then it looked very awkward and mY architect suggested, that we ask for a variance of 4 feet on one side of the deck adjacent to the property of a gentleman by the name of Harold Reese, and at the present time is vacant and I called him and I sent him a letter, a registered letter as well to the other neighbors on the other side and he spoke to me around 6 o'clock and he told me it was OK with him. He had no objection on that 4 feet. So we're asking really for 120 sq. ft. of'deck as an extension so that there will be a kind of deck that is symmetrical, as well as to be enough to walk on it, otherwise it would be 2 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You did receive a copy of the evaluation of the bluff from Soil and Water Conservation? DR. BENJAMIN: Yes I did, and they had no problem with the location of'the pool and they suggested that the water when it's emptied, should be emptied on the opposite side of the bluff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which that will be one of our recommendation. We also ask you and' we request these mainly for the property owner and for our knowledge of anything they would recommend for you to do to possibly assist you in any erosion control and s° on and so forthl so we ask you to take a look at that eValUation. Page 23 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings DR. BENJAMIN: Yes, I will call them and I was very happy that they made some suggestions and we are going to comply with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, great. Mr. Homing any questions of Dr. Benjamin. MEMBER HQRNING: Nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER' TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: In considering what to do in order to have a reasonable size deck around the pool, did you consider making the pool a little narrower?. It's a 20 foot wide pool isn't it, which is - DR. BENJAMIN~. We did. It's about 19 feet. It became 19.8 actually. Sowe first made it a little smaller and to comply with the 20 feet, and then it was just a, it would make it 4 feet shorter. It would be quite narrow. MEMBER COLLINS: So what you're saying is, yes, you did consider making the pool narrower and felt that you rather try to get the variance for the setback than narrow the pool. DR. BENJAMIN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: is this a gunite pool, Dr.? DR. BENJAMIN:' Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr, Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: How high will the deck be off the ground? DR. BENJAMIN'. It will be 4 feet 6 inches above the a - MEMBER DINIZIO: Above the grade of the pool? DR. BENJAMIN: Ground. MEMBER DINIZI.O: OK. Page 24 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings DR. BENJAMIN: And we are going to cover it with a sheet of sheets of plexiglas because there was a problem with the continuation of the deck of the rail around the house, and the vertical separations were about 8 inches. So the code says, it's suppose to be 2 inches and there's a foothold kind of restriction to simply cover it with a sheet of plexiglas, which has enough strength and will cover the whole rail and there will be no way the children, or animal, or anyone, can get in over the 4 foot 6 inches. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to have the vertical - DR. BENJAMIN' Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Leading to the cart and then have the plexiglas cover that up. DR. BENJAMIN: Yes, that's right. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thankyou. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dr. we thank you. We'll see what else develops through the hearing, so don't leave yet until we close it. DR. BENJAMIN: Should I stay? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, stay. No, you don't have to stay tonight but just wait until we close the hearing. We'll see if anybody else objects, or anybody else makes a comment. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody else would like to speak against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 25 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:05 P.M. - PERRY & MELINA ANGELSON Location of Property: 350 Stratmors Road, East Marion, N.Y.; County Parcel Noo 1000-21-.1-12. Applicants are requesting: (1) Appl. No. 4789 - Lot Waiver under Section 100-26, based upon tlie Building Department's January 21, 2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that "the subject parcel is on List at former Section 100-12 and that the subject parcel is/was held in common ownership with adjoining lot SCTM #1000-21-1-10 at some time after July 1, 1997. Lots have merged." (2) Appi. No. 4790 -Variance under Section 100-244B to locate a proposed dwelling with combined side yards at less than 35 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. MR. ANGELSON: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: WOuld you state your name for the record. MR. ANGELSON: Perry Angelson. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. ANGELSON: Fine thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? (Mr. Angelson handing the return receipts). OK, we're ready. Page 26 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ANGELSON: Well we're going for, the property to the east is my in-laws' property which they purchased I believe in 1970 and about 8, 9, 10 years later, the property to the west of that became available, so ~ bought that one. It has been vacant up until this time when he gave to us and in the meantime it had merged together and we weren't aware of that until we went to get the Building Permit, so we want to unmerge the properties if possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was deeded to you sometime in 97? MRo ANGELSON: I believe last year. MEMBER COLLINS: 9/15/97~ MR. ANGELSON: 97 and on the Suffolk Tax Bill, it's a separate piece of property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the Board, do you want to handle this together with the combined side yards or do you want to ask questions regarding the waiver situation first? MEMBER DINIZIO: Does it makea difference? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, hearing no further - MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I have one specific question on the merger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Why don't youpose that? MEMBER COLLINS: There's a questionnaire that you filled in as part of the application for the waiver of merger and there's an answer on it that says, there are elements like Patios and something like that from the developed ~ot that in fact lapped over on to the wooded undeveloped lot.. When ! went to ~o.ok of course not being sure where the property line was, I couldn't tell is this was true. The reason the question is there is, where people have two lots and they've really treated them as one lot, you know, and it's also legally merged, that's a different situation than yours where you have woods and a house but are there elements of the developed lot but in fact lie on the legally on the undeveloped lot? MR. ANGELSON: No. MEMBER COLLINS: There not, OK, then I guess - Page 27 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. ANGELSON: No, there not. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, questionnaire. then I think the wrong box got checked on the MR. ANGLESON: Yeah, I'm sorry, no. You have a survey there. The house ,an the developed lot is about the same as the distance from the house that we want to build and there's just grass and a few trees. There's nothing - MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, any questions of Mr. Angelson regarding the waiver of the merge? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN-GOEHRINGER: Mr. HOrning any questions? MEMBER HORNING: NOne. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN'GER: OK, lets just zip right into then the combined side yard issue. Do you want to tell us why you're building 'this house the way you want to .build it? MR. 'ANGELSON: Well this is a, we've been looking for plans for homes for about 7 years n°w and we finally found one. It turns out that it's five feet wide in the lot that we have and in order to put our cars into the garage we need 5 feet on that one side. The house, the lot to the east of it, is my in-laws' lot, they're the ones who gave' us the lot. The closer we are to them the happier they are and rne too believe it or not. I have a great relationShip with my in-laws, so I mean, they don't have any problem with that at all. As far as, I mean if anything, it Would affect them, if anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRI'NGER OK, so, for the purpose of the public here, we have a 20,000 sq. ft. lot, it's .063 but you know, your actual size yard should be.35 and you're asking for 30, total side yard. Any questions of Mr. Angelson on this aspect of it? Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. C°llinS? MEMBER'COLLINS: No. Page 28 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on a roll, OK. Why don't we, we'll ask you to sit down and we'll see if anything develops throughout the hearing and if you want to rebut anything that goes on, you know, we'll ask you to stand back up again. MR. ANGELSON: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. It's a pleasure to meet you. is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone that would like to speak against this application? Sir? Could I ask you to come up and use 'the mike and state your name. MR. KANEV: Good evening' ladies and gentlemen. My name is LloYd Kanev. My wife and '1 own the property directly to the north and to the west of Mr. Angelson's property that was merged. Before I just give you an observation. here, is it an R-40 zone that that's located in that property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, that rm not Positive about. Ms... Collins just clearly stated to me that this is really a non-conforming area, so there - MEMBER ToRTORA: The area or a - ? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, he's talking about the entire planning area. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, it's R-.40. MR. KANEV: That's specific properties that I'm referring to When I looked at the Zoning Map it looked like the R-40 and that was included in the R-40, BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, we checked that. office one day and.we looked that up. It was R-40. You stopped by the MR. KANEV: Yes I did. Now, my question is, can you build a home now on an R-40, a 20,000 sq. lot in an' R-407 CHAIRMAN-GOEHRINGER: Sure. Page 29 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. KANEV: You can, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Well that's what he's here for. MEMBER COLLINS: Of course he can build Lydia. MEMBER TORTORA: Wait a second, wait. Yes, if it's unmerged. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, yes, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Right now there are two lots that are merged. MR. KANEV: Even though the zoning says, you need 40,000 feet? MEMBER TORTORA: That's why he's, in other words here's the story. Yes, the zoning says that he needs 40,000 sq. ft. He has two lots, old lots that are merged as one lot and he's here to request this Board to unmerge them so that he can build on a lot that's about 20,000 sq. ft., 20,063-sq. ft. That's what he's here before this Board for. Does that answer the question? MR. KANEV: Thatis perfectly permissible, if it's unmerged? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If it's unmerged. MEMBER TORTORA: If it's unmerged. MR. KANEV: Then I wish him great luck. My only observation was that I moved out here 10 years ago because I loved the ruralness of the town and I loved the fact that it's terrific zoning which kept houses from popping up at almost .every corner and I would love to see it stay that way but if this is within the legal rights of Mr. Angelson, I have no intention against him building here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yOu. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, let me just footnote this. Sir, so you don't go away with the wrong impression. A lot is buildable if it was sought of created legally under the law and the town is filled overwhelming filled with lots that were created long enough ago. That they are much too small by today's requirements for the zone that there in. But to have ruled them unbuildable, would have been a seizure when the zoning went in. They didn't do that. So the lots remain buildable. Mr. Angelson has the particular problem with the lot he wants to. build in is merged with the one next door. But you know put that aside because you know we see those cases all the time. These mergers that happen to be because no-one knew that's a separate issue. The fact is; that a 20,000 sq. f. Page 30 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings lot in a 40,000 sq. ft. zone as long as the lot came into existence legally before a certain date, it's absolutely buildable. MR. KANEV: That's terrific. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no problem with this. Thank you. MR. KANEV: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else would like to speak for or against this application. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Actually both hearings. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. Page 31 - March 2, 2000 · Board of Appeals Hearings 7:15 P.M. -Appl. No. 4788 - LONG ISLAND VINEYARDS, iNC. (Castello di Borghese, LLC, Owner). Applicant is requesting a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-231A based upon the Building Inspector's December 6, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for fence height. Applicant is requesting an "as built" fence above four feet in height as an enclosure of an existing tennis court structure built under Building Permit No. 18977-Z. Location of Property: 4780 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogure, County Parcel No. 1000-102-1-3.4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you ready Ms. Wickham. MS. WICKHAM: This is the Affidavit of Posting that was signed which I think has been returned to you. If not, I'll make sure it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: regarding the tennis court. Thank' you. What would you like to tell us MS. WICKHAM: I would like to tell you. that I've had a couple of these tennis court fence-applications in my .history, probably, only two or three and every time they come up, it always amazes me, that there's nothing in the code that does address the fact that if you _have a tennis, court, you might want to have a fence around it and it seems strange that you haVe to come tOthe Board Of. Appeals to get it. I guess that's because the town has decided not to allow a tenniS court fence under' conditions because it is larger than a normal fence under conditions that would protect .' the neighbors: SO, that's why I think you have to be afl. er each instance to do that. In this particular case, we have a tennis court that'S on . a very large piece of property and I 'don't believe there are any neighbor issues that woUld be a problem'. It's not a very .large fence and in terms of overall size. The parcel itself is actually over 80 acres. The particular tax lot'that this property, this tennis court is .on is only 5 becauSe it was divided when the. deVelopment rights were sold by the business office for the two tax lots but We're dealing with a very large parcel whet. her .it's 5 acres or 80 acres. Property .on which there is a tennis court the fence is located ! believe about 4'5 feet off the line. Up until a few .years ago, there .were no neighbors. Now, there are a couple of houses in the woods on the east side where the woods~ development has been created. Those.houses were'built well after the fence was Put upand they're quite away back in the 'woods and I believe there's woods on both sides of the boundary line that was a pretty sheltered fence. There's only a portion of the fence, the one end, particularlY which is well over 4 feet because of the ' J W slope of the land. '- The tennis court was built somewhat into a hill. ! don-t kno if You have any questions that. I can' answer for you: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well unfortUnately we 'always have questions but I realized that you're here because o[ the~ height, of the tennis court.:. Howe~er, if the'apPliCar{ts or, at'thiS'moment going ~" light it,'thei;e c0dld boa P~ssibility that the neighbors would object to it. Page 32 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. WICKHAM: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no intention of this? MS. WICKHAM: No there is not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was the only question I had. We'll start with Mr. Homing, any questions of counsel? MEMBER HORNING: Who uses the tennis court? MS. WlCKHAM: It's used privately. Up until .a few months ago, it was used by Hargraves. I imagine the family that owns it now, would use it private, it's not a very elaborate tennis court. It's a nice court. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBERTORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN G'OEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Ms.' Wickham the file includes a copy of the original Building Permit Application put in by Alex Hargrave in 1990. MS. WICKHAM:' Quite a While ago. MS. COLLINS: And in his application, he drew up dotted line around the tennis court and Said there would be an 8 to 10 foot fence here around two-thirds of the court which is customary as we all know. When the Building Department, ! presume' all of this has come up because there's no C. of O. that covers the tennis court and that came up when 'the property was being transferred? MS. WlCKHAM: Actually it came up because there was no C. O. for one of the buildings and at that point they did a scrub of the file and here we are. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, yeah, so, the tennis court has been there for 10 years and.it was built pursuant to this Building Permit and the Building Permit says, "build the tennis court as applied for", or whatever and as. far as I'm concerned, they told the Building Department they were putting up a fence. The BiJilding Department said, "you can do it as applied'for" and I was just wondering if you had: argued that with them? Page 33 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: ! mean I'm personally scandalized to tell you the truth. MS. WiCKHAM: Mr. Hargrave wasn't too happy either. MEMBER COLLINS: ! think the C.O. for the tennis court is owed to you as of right but - MS. WlCKHAM; Thank you. MS. COLLINS: I was just curious to know whether it had come up. MS. WlCKHAM: I think it was more of a question of the delay on all of the proceedings, that they wanted everything clear. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you, we'll see if anything else develops, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? MOtion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 34 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4779 - DAVID & ANN CORIERI Continuation from last meeting. Proposed pool in side yard at 412 Park Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-123-7-9.2 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. & Mrs. Corieri, we know that this has been a long time. I see that this time you've brought (unfinished statement). The purpose of bringing you back only was not to bother you and make you come all the way out to your week-end house sought of speak, OK, but was very simply because we were lacking two Members of the Board and if you want to give us that presentation again, or, if you want to say anything Mr. Coded, it's entirely up to you. For the Board's benefit, these people moved the swimming pool into the position (this is for George and Jimmy's benefit), do you have any questions of these nice people? Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions, George, after looking at the revised plan? MEMBER HORNING: How did they come to get it revised? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is where they moved it 16 ft. and put it Pretty much in line. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They move it to 16 ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: TO 16 ft. from at its closest point. 4 ft. off of the deck and almost totally in line, with not only the deck.' on the house but also in line with the garage. You have the most recent copy? I just want to see if you have any questions, that's ail. Alright, we are sorry' that we brought you out here for this, but it was of necessity in case there was any particular question and.we hope to have a deciSion for you in the very, very, near future. Now that the ground has pretty much thawed out, assuming that we render a decision, ] assume you can start this I n the very near future. Wedo appreciate it and we, i do apologize personally for bringing you back out again. Just closing the hearing. Any questions from anybody else in the audience regarding this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. See Minutes for ResolUtion. Page 35 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:35 P.M. Appl. No. 4785 - ANTHONY PIRRERA This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code based on the Building Department's January 18, 2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that applicant has applied for a determination of merger and is disapproved for the reason that "the subject parcel has merged with an adjoining parcel SCTM #1000-15-3-16 pursuant to Article II, Section 100-25A." Location of Property: 1525 Soundview Road, Orient, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-15-3-17. Also referred to as Lot 18, and part of Lot No. 19 shown on the Map of Orient By The sea, Section 2, filed November 21, 1957. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're ready. MRS. MOORE: I've just submitted to the Board certified mailings and Affidavit of Posting. I gave you an ex, for the most part an extensiVe background on this property. Mr. Pirrera has owned the parcel since 1985, May 22, 1985, and during that time I'm sure yOu'.re very familiar with the zoning proceedings that have gone On since then. But at the time in 85, when he acquired the Property, first of.all there are several arguments that support the .waiver application. Two legal arguments 'and then this common sense fairness. The first legal argument is that with respect to town law, there is a grandfather~ and when there's an upzoning, subdivision maps under the Town Law of Grandfather' for two years and I noticed that from the ordinance that's set forth July 1, 1983, being the date that the upzoning occurred in' the town would be two years from that date, that most of the old subdivisions even if they were not on the exempt list. There were all kinds of efforts to protect the old subdivisions because there was a recognition that really in the eighties, all subdivisions Were recognized. MOst of the old subdivisions were recognized in the town. If you take the July 83 date and add two years.to it, the May 22nd transfer date .occurs prior to that. So as far as the legal consequence of the.upzoning, this lot in and of itself, would of been protected. I believe that the merger lawis reallY intended for situations like this One, where you have a husband and wife thatare on one parcel' and a wife owns another and they intend all along to maybe ,buy it, to maintain them as being single and separate and Iow and behold certain things you can't control and that is' you know untimely death and when the merger occurs inadvertently, many people don't realize that a merger has occurred until they go off and' try to sell the property. In this particular case, you have two transfers that occurred. Since the prior owners in title to the'applicant, Mr. Pirrera,. the GiarraputOs family owned these pame!s., the house_ next door. For those of you who. went to.insPect the property, the'lot that We're' talking about is clearly a spec for its distinct lot which is next door to the hOuse parcel. The subdiViSion in Orient is all very identifiable: ' This Iqt. falls. right next to the Park Orient Association property~ So, it's' ~eal' clear fromm, the isokbf-it;' 'anybody iOoki'~ig '"at thi~~ p~i-~hat'i(~s ~till a separate parcel. Mr. Pirrera purchased it in 85, leaving it with a separate parcel. Page 36 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings The owner sold it as a .separate parcel, then transferred the house at separate times. So this occurred now, at this date, because Mr. Pirrera is selling the parcel and when a single and separate search is done, and with the law, the waiver of merger law that was put in the books in 95, somewhat clarified 95-96 clarified the merger section and established here identifiable points in time when merger may have occurred to upzoning, it finally ! think became clear that maybe a merger had occurred back in 85, if you follow the letter of the statute as you go along. But again, I think that as a matter of law, the merger still hadn't occurred because of that two year provision under the town law with any upzoning. The second legal argument is that merger is a creature of statute and in 85 I don't believe that the merger law had been put in the books yet. The law itself that provided that merger which occurred, there were upzonings. But not necessarily a merger law. That merger statute took a while to get into the books and certainly occurred, the legislation occurred after Mr. Pirrera had purchased the property. So for that legal reason as well, this property should not be considered merged. As a final argument, certainly the waiver of merger, provides that the least mechanism for this type of situation, wait a minute I ~ost my breath, excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you hold there, we'll ask you some questions while you composing yourself. MRS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, any questions of Mrs. Moore? MEMBER HORNING: Is there a right-a-way between those two lots? MRS. MOORE: No,'there isn't. CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: What happened George in that situation to my knowledge was that the Health Department required them to make the lots larger a~;;one point. MRS. MOORE: The Orient said subdivision got - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It got actually upzoned in size, OK. MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's why you see that; OK, that was basically Health Department requirement to my knowledge.. MEMBER HORNING: Sothe driveway would COme in'from SoUndview Road? Page 37 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: It's right on, yeah, it's right on the street. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Just one thing, There was no "merger law"? There was a single and separate law that was in effect in the eighties, rm well aware of because I use to write articles about it because I live on a lot in a subdivision and ali the people in my subdivision rushed around to get stuff in single and separate ownership. But yes there was a law in the books and it was known as a single and separate law in the eighties and I'd be more than happy to show you. MRS. MOORE: OK, well, yeah, I'd like to - MEMBER TORTORA: There are a lot of people just - MRS. MOORE: It's a question of how that was interpreted and whether or not it is called merger, and single and separate. MEMBER TORTORA: No, it's, it's, that's'really, i think you'll agree; that the court's view the issue, has historically Viewed it as a single and separate issue. And that's the way it's viewed in court. Whether we'call it a merger law or a single and separate, it's one and the same. It's a duck and it quacks. It is the same thing. So, I don't agree that there was no law there. MRS. MOORE: OK. Professionally, I disagree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I do want to mention for the record, that we did receive a letter of objection from Bruce & Barbara Benson. I also want to mention regarding notwithstanding law, Mrs. Tortora had, but itwas an exempt list of what I think she is alluding to, OK, and if you weren't onthe exempt list, you know what the ramifications were. MRS. MOORE: They weren't, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: One of 'the pieces of written material pUt in in this CaLSe, mentioned in somewhat of a confusing way, well this subdivision was on a actually this subdivision is Section 1 and it was Section-2, that was on'the old list. I just Want' to make sUre that we're clear on that. Page 38 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: OK, when we were looking, it wasn't clear if it was Section 1 or Section 2. MEMBER COLLINS: The old subdivision map, the one that confused Mr. Homing because it shows the shift of lines, says, Section 1 on it. So that was why I knew this was Section 1. Anyway, so I don't think this subdivision was on the list. MRS: MOORE: I think that's why we ended coming here because there was no section on it. MEMBER COLLINS; Yes, yes. MRS. MOORE: We couldn't find their exemption to it. MEMBER COLLINS: Do I have any other question? No, I think this is a pretty simple case. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Only this. I agree 1'00% with what you said and I've been saying that ever since but I - MRS. MOORE: Nobody listens. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you can (more than one person speaking) about that CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that's not true. MEMBER DINIZIO: I would love for you to continue to try. Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE: You're welcome. I would like to address the neighbor's letter and I thank the Board for faxing it to' me today so that I would know that it had come in. I'm sympathetic with their objections in that [hey bought that house thinking that they were going to have an unobstructed view of the sound. However, this lot was for sale for quite 'some time and they had the opportunity to buy it, if they wished to. Secondly, they made a point about it being in common ownership but in fact if they had researched the question, Mr. Pirrera had owned it since 85. So it. would of been in a single and separate ownership from the adjacent piece. So, I don't know why Someone would haVe. told them that it had, yOu know,,all one piece of property with a hoUse because really to, I think they boUght, the' letter referred to 96, I believe that'they boUght it98~.. It~was late nineties and. certainly yoU. wOuld Of, to tl~e'World it wc~uid~ °f apPeared that this was a separate lot owned by Mr. Pirrera that had no complications to it at all; Page 39 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings So, I'm respectful and sympathetic and I think somebody gave them a snow job but - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I thought that was the way the Notice of Disapproval was written up. Didn't they say, it's been in common ownership? MRS. MOORE: Well, yeah but- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's what they're quoting. They read it in the paper. MRS. MOORE: Yeah. OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's why you're here. MRS. MOORE: You know that's not to criticize them. I was under the impression the way I read the letter, it deemed that somebody had told them that it was somehow in common ownership and it's really - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, I thought they just read it maybe in the paper or something you know, but. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: throughout the hearing. OK, we thank you, we'll see what develops MRS. MOORE: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like. to speak in favor of this application? In favor? How are you Ms. Doty? MS: DOTY: Hi, Mr.' Goehringer, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. DOTY: I actually represent the Contract Vendee in 'this matter. Actually that's not why I'm here. I'm here for the next hearing.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You just thought you get up anyway. MS. DOTY: I thought I would just raise the issue that the problem here is really the retroactive nature of the current code provision and it behooves this Board and Ms. Moore and myself to' urge the Town Board or Code Committee to write an exception for a situation Where two. adjoining parcels have been in single and separate ownership such as this since 1985, where.the people who are not related in any way, shape or form. So there should be:an automatic exemption Page 40 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings for this and I would also like to just chime in merger by death as well. I don't think anybody should have to pay the Town or an attorney to appear before this Board in this kind of condition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak also in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll close the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See minutes for Resolution. Page 41 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:55 P.M. - Appl. Mo. 4791 - MARK & HELEN LEVINE This is a request for Variances under Article XXlII, Section 100-239.4 and Article III, Section 100-33, based upon the Building Department's November 26, 1999 Notice of Disapproval and February 9, 2000 Amended Notice of Disapproval. Applicants are proposing a new dwelling and accessory swimming pool, both prop.osed with a setback closer than 100 feet from the top of the L. I. Sound bluff, and the swimming pool is also proposed in a side yard rather than a front or rear yard location. Location: 2510 Grand View Drive, Orient, County Parcel No. 1000-14-2-3.7; also referred to as Lot 3 on the Map of "Grandview Estates at Orient." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess will start out with Ms. Doty by asking you the proverbial question. Why not the 100 ft. setback which was originally applied for, or is this going to upset you? Would you rather just do your presentation first? MS. DOTY: No, I figured that because actually that is my first issue by itself in my presentation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, we're relatively elated tOnight in the two of course Dr. Benjamin we sent a Soil & Water Conservation and so we did the-Levines, OK? And in both situations, they' came' back relatively you knoW, constructed with comments but in both cases relatively OK, with their evaluations to the bluff. MS. DOTY: H'm, h'm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i'm just making that as a comment. MS. DOTY: I did decide over the week,end and i was surprised to see how strong ybu felt up there and how Iow the erosion appeared to be. It's a large lot as you know and I represented the Levines when they purchased the lot. And as frequently happens in contracts on vacant land out here' now a days, the COntracts are contingent upon the issuance of a Building Permit and there's a time frame, and (inaudible) lot waivers and when you're on the buyer's side', that's not any reason to hold it up. In this instance we made it to Health and DEC, TrUstees and. everything else and we submitted an original application to build 100 feet .back from the bluff and the plans used in that instance were eSsentially a Set of zoning, plans. If you can check any number of permits on file, (inaudible)~... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we're'calling a building envel~pei or postage S[amp Or' whateVer.other 'phrase you want.to refer to. Page 42 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. DOTY: Exactly. If it seems to be my night to pick on the code, but if the town had a provision like East Hampton has, where you can get a letter of buildability, then we wouldn't have to make the Building Application and go to the Building Department and so on and so forth. Basically what they say, if you follow the zoning code and get your Health Department approval, etcetera, you can build a one-family house on the property. MEMBER TORTORA: We had a vacant land C. O. in this town at one time. MS. DOTY: Mr. Corrieri had one in his hand and said it's buildable. MEMBER TORTORA: And what happened was, people thought that their land was buildable, when in fact it didn't mean anything. I don't even know why it was there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because Southold Savings Bank requested it prior to the purchase of land .or else they wouldn't lend any money. That's the reason why. MEMBER TORTORA: So we had it for years, it created absolute chaos. We finally got rid of it. MS. DOTY: In this instance it's you know, we got Health Department approyal, we got everything. We were under the pressure of'time to get the Building Permit approved and my clients do not want to spend the time with an architect designing their house. They didn't have that luxury. They signed the contract a, I don't know' October and close to ( ) which is not a lot of time for one ( ) parcel. In any event, that's why that Building Permit was there and that's why a, what reason I'm here is now to seek to change that Building Permit and we 'should have amended that Building Permit. We're requesting that the house be 75 feet from the bluff which is a 25 foot closer stated than allowed by the Zoning Code. One of the reasons for this is that there's fairly short grade .on that parcel and even 25 feet will help to raise the house up so that you can get the view of the sound.. Any number of houses up there or parcels up there had variances granted for substantially greater distance than what we're requesting, 60 ft; 70 ft. but we're asking to put the house closer to the bluff s° we can maximize the view. We're also asking that the pool be permitted in the side yard and realizing we didn't put that in, but the reason to have the Pool in the side yard is, if it's in the front of the house, the house goes further down the hill, and the view. is even more. limited by virtue of the .pool being there. If it's in the back of the house where it's Permitted, i mean the front yard, it's further, the pool is down the hill, and you've got to climb up the hill to get to the house, or, it's in the mid~ileof the Parking space, and if we raise it to the level, of [hen it!s ~:eallY' a' I~t"of (irnaudible):' i. i mean whether. the in the Page 43 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings side yard and it would just go. I understand there will be no decking attaching the pool to the house. It will be a patio, landscaped. Another reason to put the pool and this is a strange reason but in the summer time, the sun sets in the north and if the pool were in the front yard, by the road, it's conceivable that there would be a shadow cast by the house across the pool. If it's on the west side of the lot, the shadow should not hit the pool, which depending on whether or not you have skin cancer is logical. Another problem is the shape of the property is like a cone. If the structure is back further, it gets (inaudible). So there's a little more room up by the bluff, plus you get privacy. If you look at the neighborhood, any number of houses have variances there. I think it's 6 out of 11 lots between lots 1.9 and 3.11 have some sought of variance construction from the setback on the bluff. We're not asking for a significant setback, we'~"e just asking for enough so that we can fit the house up high enough so that you can see down (inaudible). I think when the Board balances the various needs and ~)enefits to this application it would make sense I and request that the Board grant the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record we have a letter from Nancy & Robert Hungerford saying that they have no objection to the variance or the placement of the pool. For my particular benefit although it does involve the issue of the pool in the .side yard on waterfront property of this nature, I would rather see it in the side yard. I don't like the impact of the weight of the pool on the cliff of the bluff and that's just an opinion on my part. MS. DOTY: I ( ) some discussion and possibly changing the code to permit a side yard on waterfront parcel. That's the rumor (). MEMBER TORTORA: The pool, the pool? MS. DO'I'Y: That's all I know. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:-Ask. for the Affidavit of Posting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do we have an Affidavit of Posting? MS. DOTY: We have an Affidavit of Posting and I was going to submit it along with the reasons for the pool location. I also have a tax map which has information listed on it regarding all of the. other variances that have been issued. : CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The house approximately 1, 2, 3, the fourth house dOwn we had a Very lengthy agonizatio, n of the 'Swimming pool. I believe the names are on.here. MEMBER CO.LLINS: Crokos? Page 44 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Crokos. We had - MEMBER COLLINS: They came and went, came and went. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We muSt of had three or four hearings on that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That was an 70 feet setback. There's a copy in the file. MS. DOTY: There's an Affidavit of Posting on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Before you leave Ms. Doty, we'll ask Mr.- MS. DOTY: Incidentally, the architect is here if you have any quest!ons. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Horning, any questions of Ms. Dory? MEMBER HORNING: Is the pool above grading at all or, is it naturally'like that? MS. DOTY: It would be a - MEMBER HORNING: So the only thing above grading would be fenced around the pool? MS; DOTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins, questions? MEMBER COLLINS: The Chairman mentioned, that the Hungerfords had sent a let. ter to us saying~ they had no problems with this. Has anything been heard one way or the other from the neighbors to the west on whose side the proposed pool lies? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They may be here, we don't know. No? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that the one card that didn't come back yet, the green card? MS..DOTY: That could be the one card that hasn!t'come back yet from Rockville Oentre. Page 45 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not raising it to make a big fuss. I just figured if anyone was going to say something, it would most likely be them. MS. DOTY: I have not heard anything from them and I think, which number is that? Is it 6? I am missing one card. It has not been returned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 3.6. MS. DOTY: And ! think that's them. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, their 3.6. OK, I was just curious. MS. DOTY: You've raised the Hungerfords and you know the neighbors to the east. Theirs is a pre-existing dwelling. I mean it's an old house. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, it's an old house on the bluff. it's an old beach shack that's been renovated quite 'nicely I might CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was the original summer home for the Sledjeski family. MS. DOTY: Right,-OK. It's right on the coastal emergency zone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. DOTY: (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll go back to Mrs. Totora and we apologize for skipping over you. MEMBER TORTORA: That's OK, i just don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing and we may have you 'back up. We'll see what happens. Does Mr. Fairweather want to say anything for us? MR.'FAIRWEATHER: I think (inaUdible). MS. DOTY: add. Page 46 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Levine, it's a pleasure meeting you. Is there anything you'd like to say? MRS. LEVINE: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's Amy, his wife. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you're Mrs. Fairweather. I apologize. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTOA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. Page 47 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:05 P.M. - Appl. 4792 - KATHLEEN TOLE & MARY DURKIN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A and Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk Schedule based upon the Building Inspector's February 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants are pFoposing to construct an addition to an existing dwelling for garage purposes with an insufficient front yard setback. Location of Property: 750 Pipes Neck Road, Greenport, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-53-1-16. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening. Could you state your name for the record? MS. TOLE: I'm Kathleen Tole. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? I had some anXious moments finding your place. I actually ended up in the front yard of the house next door because you know, of course I missed that little road, you know you're suppose to go down and then I realized that I was definitely at the wrong, house.. Didn't get shot, so I turned around and regrouped a little and got over to your place. What would you like to tell us? MS.-TOLE: Probably the application pretty much states it all. It's a very- simple use. We cannot be detached, we're so close to the property line and to put tile garage at the highest possible elevation is really the only location. By the way, the property that is closest to where we wish to place this garage is a right-of- way. It'S deeded right-of-way and in addition to that the property adjoining it on the other side is too close, for development to be wetlands. So there will be no further development anyway, there's visually (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I just wanted to say for the recOrd that we normally don't grant something this close to the property line. I just want you to be aware of that. So we may ask you if you would allow us to grant alternate relief and that is through the process of coming up with a amount of footage whatever the three of us come up from a unanimity point of view would be a stab that we would take in reference to actual footage. MEMBER TORTORA: Or look at another road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Well she just said, that they can't put it in another location. MS. TOLE: No, I would just ask that you consider something else. We have the entrance to the basement that Will end up being enclosed in this garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right,. ' Page 48 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. TOLE: Therefore, actually take away because that must be enclosed because of Fire Laws or something. That also takes away from the square footage within the garage that is usable for the vehicle. So, we had kind of work that into the thought process here designing this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, let me just ask you, where is the actual entrance? Is it the gravel road that's going to go right in from that side. MS. TOLE: Yes. Was the truck parked there when you were down there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. TOLE: There's parking in the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 3 foot would be for an accessory garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know. MS. TOLE: And it's directly between the house and where the car was is where the entrance to the basement is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Questions Mr. Dinizio of this nice person. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it's pretty close but a, I don't know how you can work it out any other way. No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a one stow garage. M'S. TOLE: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a little bit more about this 50 foot phantom road right- of-way out there. You mentioned that 'it's deeded. So, it does exist in people's deeds. I'm not grinding an ax here, I'm just trying to- MS. TOLE: I understand. As a matter of fact I haven't of course reviewed everybody's deed, but when I purchased the .Property I was told that that portion is the exclusive right,of-way to our property. MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. Page 49 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. TOLE: So there is no other user to that right-of-way. Aisc, although it seems to gain access to water, if you're down there at Iow tide, it's not feasible MEMBER COLLINS: And you were saying that therefore, we, I think can assume the lot, you never know, that no-one would be able to build on that land relatively close to your property line. MS. TOLE: Well my understanding is that if a right-of-Way such that, is not built. And also it's so close to the wetlands there. I don't believe it's allowable. MEMBER COLLINS: The wetlands you're referring to are sought of to the, there's your house, sought of up that way, to the northeast I guess. MS. TOLE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean I was down there. I know the area but I didn't tramp away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was Iow'tide when I was there even though it was still freezing at the time. It was certainlyvisible. MEMBER COLLINS: So just for the record, could we just say a little bit more about alternative locations. I mean the logic of the location you've chosen is clear. That makes sense. You have the problem that .the Board feels uncomfortable about such a small setback for principal building. Would you just tell us why you feel the location to the east or to the,' there isn't a compass grows on here - MS. TOLE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: To the east or to the south to another side of the house wouldn't work. MS. TOLE: The other side of the house that is not facing the waterway the distance to the property line is even closer. Therefore, it woUld just bring the garage that much closer to - MEMBER COLLINS: You mean on the - MS. TOLE: I think it would overlapthe property line. MEMBER COLLINS: You mean on the sideWhere the stoop and the chimney are? Page 50 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. TOLE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and how about the other sides that face - MS. TOLE: The other sides are a much lower elevation than this part of the property plus it encroaches the water. We would have to then gain access down there, eliminate more natural areas as far as I'm concerned, that i wouldn't wish to do. There's also the septic of the cesspools down in that general direction which further (). So there were a few things there that made it difficult. We would have to bring in a driveway probably a different way and it would just disrupt plantings and various things including the shore plantings. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the reason why you've only made the garage 20 feet deep? Is that basically the reason? MS. TOLE: We don't need much more. It's a garage is a garage. And we want to keep it as ( ) as we can, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well would it encroach on more windows in the house? in other words, would it take away from more windows in the house if you made it longer and narrower? MS. TOLE: Yes, it would Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All of these questions that we're asking you, you know, are questions that are helping us understand the situation. MEMBER TORTORA: I guess what I'm concerned about, it is the garage those 3.'~.~eet which is the distance from here to there from your neighbor's property line. I'~°n't know whether his property is close or not. I can't assume that it is or isn't. But I do know, that I have never granted a variance or a garage 3 feet. from the property line. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean a garage addition. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well., which really makes it part of the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Principal .structure. Page 51 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: It is and it's just, I mean we're talking - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We did - MEMBER TORTORA: That's not even enough to get a ladder. In other words, if you wanted to repair the garage, you would be on your neighbor's property. That, that's kind of a reality. MS. TOLE: If I could explain about the buildable part. There is an effort to sell that very large parcel and it's over ten acres that is ( ) with our property and they've already done borings and all which are substantially away. They're pretty much behind the house that's next door. It's to the north west of us. So, they've already decided that if property is to be built, that is where the house will go. So I certainly know that there is no intention of building. That's what ! know, you'll have to take my word for that, but that is what's expected. And by the way, we were sensitive to the idea people's property. We're very sensitive to that and we made overtures to the existing owner. Would he be interested in selling us that parcel and we could have this ( ) because he has that entire area for sale. He said, well it's really no benefit to 'me to sell a little piece. So if he didn't wish to sell it. However he, to my knowledge, has not many objection to this building. MEMBER HORNING: If he has the whole place for sale, why wOuldn't he sell it? MEMBER TORTORA: It's sold, correct? MS. TOLE: I don't know. I don't know. I was curious. I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Tole what was the purpose of attaching it to the house as oppose to leaving it as a free standing building which of course you could build within the 3 foot realm? MS. TOLE: I don't feel we-have enough room to detach it. We would have to bring it down to that much lower elevation. I mean the building would be at risk. It would damage the property itself. I just felt it made more sense to actually connect it to the house making it that much closer to the house, away from the property line. I didn't see any other choice really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, would you allow us to grant alternative relief in this situation? MS. TOLE: I'm not sure i completely understand what that means Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it means that if we could'only get a vote of 5 feet, that's your new side yard; or your new front yard and that would then take away from the building. Page 52 - March 2, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. TOLE: Well if the choice is that or nothing, well - CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: I don't mean to be so demonstrative in saying you - MS. TOLE: ! understand. I just hope that when you do consider that, that you do consider that interior dimension that I'm using. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. TOLE: So that I'll be able to gain access to my existing crawl space because I do have to put a car in the garage, and it will be very tight. I don't want to have to get out of the car and step into my basement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. We thank you. MS. TOLE: Thank you Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody tike to speak against? Hearing no further questions, i'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. MS. TOLE: Just let me mention one more thing. The property that we own abutting is, we've only owned the house for one year and a half now. We have maintained that property. We're the only people that maintain it and the former owners the Kamaikos, had maintained it for 35 years. So I just want you to know that it has been maintained. Nobody else has expressed pleasures down there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. End of hearings. By Lucy Farrell RECEIVED AND FILED BY DATE 7-/~-~ HOUR Town Clerk, Town o~