Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/06/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD April 6, 2000 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4798 - JOHN & LINDA KOWALSKI 10 - Appl. No. 4793 - THOMAS TAYLOR 15 - Appl. No. 4780 - LAWRENCE & JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN 20 - Appl. No. 4802 - ROBERT & ANDREA MOHR 26 - Appl. No. 4801 - NANCY WEBER 35 - Appl. No. 4795 - CHARLES BRIENZA 42 - Appl. No. 4797 - JOHN XIKIS 45 - Appl. No. 4800 - JEFFREY GREEN 53 - Appl. No. 4794 - MARK LAMPL 65 - Appl. No. 4803 & 4807 -CHRIS MESKORIS & ORS. 70- Appl. No. 4804 - RAY & ASTRID GADDIS 84 - Appl. No. 4796 - RONALD & SUSAN MELAMUD 99 -Appl. No. 4799 - RUTHANN BRAMSON 103 - Appl. No. 4808 - PETER & MAUREEN MOORE Page 1-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS April 6, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:15 P.M. -Appl. No. 4798 -JOHN & LINDA KOWALSKI This is a request for a Special Exception to establish Accessory Bed & Breakfast use in conjunction with owners' residence as provided under Article Iii, Section 100- 30B(14) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 930 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-114-12-13.7. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Mr. Cuddy. How are you, Sir? .,What would you like to tell us? CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Good evening. I'm Charles Cuddy. I represent the applicants. This is a 2-1/2 acre parcel that is on the west side of Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck about 800 feet south of the intersection with New Suffolk Avenue. The application as indicated is for a Bed & Breakfast. The applicants have a one-stow single-family residence. They have three bedrooms that they would like to approve. The Building Inspector has been at the site and I understand the Building Inspector has asked us to put in a (fire) alarm system. We have done that and he has to come back and check it and that was the only thing that had to be done. This particular site has an extended driveway and parking area so that more than five cars can actually be parked, and that includes the present occupants of the home plus three additional cars which we presume will be there for the Bed & Breakfast. The site (building) has at least three if not four entrances and exits in accordance with the Code and it also has a window in each room that the Inspector has added to be adequate for safety purposes. Anyo~.e that is familiar with it realizes thabon both the north and the south side, there are buffer areas from the neighbors so there should not be a problem in causing any intrusion at all by having some additional cars there. But I would point out to the Board that we're talking only about three bedrooms, probably three cars, mostly on the weekends. That this is an area that has some traffic through it anyway because of the marina that's at the end of Old Jule Lane and being at the end of Camp Mineola Road, there should not be significant traffic. I would think that under the circumstances with the house setback, with the parking, I think would be more than adequate, with the minimal traffic that's there, based on the standards as set forth special permits, I do not think there's going to be any adverse effect upon the neighborhood. I don't think there's going to be any visibility in seeing the people, the cars because of the buffering that's there and I think that in any fashion there will be adverse impact upon the part of the community, community's residences, this is a residence. It is not going to be changed. There's no extensions. There's no additions. There's not alterations, and Page 2-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings I would submit to you that under the circumstances that this is an appropriate home to have a Bed & Breakfast in, and that there's no, that I can see at all, discernible adverse impact to the community. And I would ask that you approve it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you leave the dais or the podium I should say, you're referring to smoke alarms? MR. CUDDY: Yes, smoke alarms, that's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Let's start with Mr. Horning. Any questions of counsel? MEMBER HORNING: The smoke alarms will be battery operated with an alarm system or? MR. CUDDY: These are hard, hard wire system alarms. MEMBER HORNING: Two wire central channel. MR. CUDDY: That's right. MEMBER HORNING: Would recording dialer be 9117 MR. CUDDY: That I can't tell you but Mr. Kowalski is here and he can tell you. JOHN KOWALSKI: No, there's no dial. It's just electrical. The Building Inspector wanted all the alarms to tie in from the hallway for all. MEMBER HORNING: So anyone in the house will - MR, KOWALSKI: Everybody will (inaudible, someone coughing) in every:.~room plus the hallway. "' MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, actually it's a beautiful piece of property and a they certainly have more than enough space here, a lot of parking spaces. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZlO: I guess I'll just ask this question. How many children do you have? Page 3-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. KOWALSKI: Two. MEMBER DINIZIO: Two? They both live at home? MR. KOWALSKI: No, my one son lives up the Island in Stony Brook, and my younger son is going to move up to Stony Brook but he's too young MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. MR. CUDDY: And they're both in college. One of them just graduated. MR. CUDDY: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: This is an empty nest B & B. No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you very much. We'll see what deveiops throughout the hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against? Yes, ma'am. Please use the mike and state your name. ROBERTA KALOUS: My name is Roberta Kalous and I live at 1205 Old Jule Lane. We've lived there for 16 years and I'm approximately 200-300 feet diagonally southeast of the Kowalskis. Before I read what I wanted to say, I just found out a few things. Mr. Kowalski, states he has two children both who live up the island. My understanding is that he owns the house on the adjacent property. Neighborhood rumor has it that one of his children is going to live there. If what he just said is correct, what is he going to do with two homes? I mean it's none of my business. Mr. Kowalski also runs his business out of his home. So he's going to have his personal vehicle and his business truck which is presently parked on the property. So how many parking spaces are really left on the property? With regard to the- marina traffic. First of ¢11 for those of you who don't know Old Jgle Lane. There's one way in and out. The traffic to the marina goes down. So people very mdch stay there. You want to go for the weekend, like the rest of us in the neighborhood they go to the stores, they go to the movies and so on. If they're going to go past to the marina, on Old Jule Road, first of all I like to say John and Linda are very pleasant neighbors and I respect their planning together and I very strongly object to it. This is a residential area. The families are very (). In ( ) to senior citizens in no way should be subject to having a business variance. Whether Bed & Breakfast may not seem like much, it would most likely be advertised and people calling about it and they'll be ddving by checking it out. If I was going to stay somewhere, I'd check it out. When you come past the Kowalskis, there's a right hand bend in the road. I'm the last house before the bend in'the road. On my way here tonight, I stopped at home, someone made a U turn by my driveway, and as they sneaked by because they didn't make it to the driveway, they actually drove on to the lawn into the dirt by the bushes. People will come down to the Bed & Breakfast and they miss it, they say, OOPS, there it was. They're going to be making a U turn, in my driveway, and my lawn, and my flower bed. If you grant one Bed & Breakfast on Old Jule Lane, how many more are you going to grant? Page 4-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can answer that question. MRS. KALOUS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When the Bed & Breakfast law by special exception, some of my fellow Board Members don't agree with this, OK? But a special,permit, if you meet the specific confines or the requirements of the special permit, we really have a tough inability to stop special permit applications of this nature, and referring to the ones that deal with both accessory apartments and with Bed & Breakfast. So I can't tell you how many people will come in with them. But my particular opinion is, that as long as they meet the criteria, then we are obliged to grant them. But that's just my opinion. MEMBER COLLINS: Well. May I footnote, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: It's your opinion actually, I mean I agree with you entirely, it's also the law. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what I'm saying. MEMBER COLLINS: And I think, i think our, I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. MS. KALOUS: Roberta Kalous. MEMBER COLLINS: Ms. Kalous should understand the way the Town Code, I mean I appreciate your concerns. The Town Code says, in every zoning district, here are the uses you can have as of right, like single family dwellings and here are uses that you can have if you jump through, if you satisfy the requirements that are written into the code. If you satisfy those then it is as though the use were as of right. It's not like a va.dance. It's simply coming to our Board to show that you've satisfied the requirements the Town Board wrote into the code for a Bed & Breakfast or as the Chairman mentioned, an accessory Apartment and some other things that are irrelevant here, other kinds of uses. So that's the way the code works. It says, that a B & B is an accepted use in a residential district provided that it satisfies smoke alarms and safety requirements, and parking and so forth. I just think it's important for you to understand that that's how the code is structured by the Town Board. MEMBER TORTORA: it's just. Let me add, Lora, that there's also a whole section about under special exceptions of the general provisions of those codes. Under 264 I think it is. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just wanted you to be aware of that aspect. We're not trying to recite the law in front of you. MS. KALOUS: Well I'm about to read this, but I'm going to say, but I don't think that there's a house down there that probably wouldn't qualify, my own included. And if that's the case, then a Bed & Breakfast to me is business. They're making money Page 5- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings for profit. Why would you want to put a business in a residential area? Why would you want to invite, and let me finish reading - with all due respect- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me for bothering you. I just wanted to touch that point so that we wouldn't lose it. MS. KALOUS: That's OK. You just fueled my fire. Additionally, you're possibly inviting people into a residential area who may in some way be objectionable and who may feel that they are only there for one or two nights and not care about their behavior in the neighborhood. Overall commercial ventures need long term consideration. The area in Mattituck, the area of Rt. 25, (inaudible) to New Suffolk Avenue, it looks like Rt. 58 in Riverhead and Nassau County, and ! moved out here to get away from that. If you permit a Bed & Breakfast in a residential area, you're opening the way to continue business-oriented growth and undermining the monetary and esthetic values of the residential area. It's interesting that .many people and regulations do not permit a drive-through at the Mattituck McDonalds. A business in a business area. But it's permissible to put a business like a Bed & Breakfast in a residential area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What else would you like to say? MS. KALOUS: Can we go back to the vehicles and the second house if I'm not intruding on anybody's privacy? MEMBER HORNING: This is not for the second house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The application is not for the second house. It's for this house. MS. KALOUS: I know it's not but Mr. Kowalski owns that house. Mr. Kowalski owns- that house and my understanding was that his children were going to live in it and now he says they're not. The original rumor, the original neighborhood rumor and I emphasize rumor, and I don't necessarily believe rumors - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but, just wait one second, John. MS. KALOUS: Is he going to live in one house and going to sneak out to the other house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but the question is, what, to what bearing does it have on it? We're dealing with a Bed & Breakfast in the house that they presently reside in. MS. KALOUS: Which he has to live in, correct? Page 6- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and he does live in it. MS. KALOUS: OK. He owns a second house next door which as I said, rumor said he was going to live in it and now I understand one of his children is going to live in it. What guaranty can you give me or anybody else on Old Jule Lane that he's going to maintain residence in that house and not live next door and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He has to. He has to maintain residence. MS. KALOUS: Are you guys going to come there Saturday night and check it out? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can just tell you that he has to remain as a resident in that house. MS. KALOUS: You didn't answer my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would I come, I'm not, let me just say this to you. I'm not a Code Enforcing Officer. I can tell you honestly, i know both Mr. & Mrs. Kowalski personally. If they say they're going to live in the house, they're going to live in the house, alright and that's it. MS. KALOUS: I can be really tacky here, too, and say Linda works for the Town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course, she does. MS. KALOUS: You still haven't answered my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am not coming there on a Saturday night to check up on them, no. MS. KALOUS: Well, I didn't mean. Can I ask a general question since you brought the ruling to my attention about Bed & Breakfast? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, right. MS. KALOUS: Are Bed & Breakfast ever checked after you've approved whatever they can do? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sure Code Enforcement has gone to them yes. There's no doubt in my mind. MS. KALOUS: Alright, then we can move on to the vehicles. Is there going to be enough room to park on the sidewalk off the street? Right now we don't want, none of the neighbors, no-one in the neighborhood parks their vehicle in the street or (). Page 7-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right well that's because you really don't have, there's no guttered, no true gutter on that road. You're absolutely correct. MS. KALOUS: True. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Therels also no true curb on the road. MS. KALOUS: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Mr. Cuddy, thank you. MR. CUDDY: Just for purposes of the record. The house that's being built isn't finished and it won't be finished probably more than a year. There's no plans to have the child live in the house. There's not even footprints for it at all right now. Virtually it's an investment. People can build houses and they do. So I don't know that it has any relevance to it, but if they want an answer and if you want an answer, that's the answer. I have particular familiarity with Old Jule Lane. ! do work for Strongs Marine also. I don't know and I go early in the morning and late at night to Strongs to drop things off. I don't know, that there is that volume of traffic that's coming down the road to start with. I don't know that anybody is going to make a U turn at this woman's house. But I would point out that her house is south of the applicant's house. That people that are going to use the Bed & Breakfast actually use the Bed & Breakfast would probably not be going her way. They'll be going north to New Suffolk Avenue to leave. If there are occasional people that come down the street, whether they come down the street to go to Strongs Marine or come down the street to visit some other friends that's going to happen. None of this will stop that. Meanwhile it may be redundant, I would point out to the Board that precisely if some Board Members would say, this is an allowed use by special exception in a residential area. The Town did not confine it simply to hamlet areas. They said that it could be disbursed throughout the community and I think that's- appropriate and that's what this application is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. KALOUS anything else you'd like to say?. I don't mean this in a cavalier aspect. I understand your concern and ! understand you're moderately upset. I'm not trying to - MS. KALOUS: I understand what you said. I understand what he said. I still don't agree and I know that experience even with the house next door. Before you miss the driveway, I'm on the last house before the bend on that road, it's the logical place to make a U turn. Actually unless you want to go to the bend go all the way around Old Jule Lane, back to Old Jule Lane, (inaudible), if you don't make it in my driveway, you ain't going to make that U turn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything that I can do to make you feel better in the dealing with this application? Page 8- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. KALOUS: The only thing that would make it better is if you said, one more Bed & Breakfast in a strictly residential area is the only thing that would make it better. My last tax bill was over $5,200. If i have to put up with it being like up west, the $5,200, I might just as well pack up and go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora has something. MS. KALOUS: Can I just say one thing, i'm not trying to give them a hard time. MEMBER TORTORA: I know you're not. MS. KALOUS: It's just I put a lot of effort in 16 years in being there. MEMBER TORTORA: Let me speak for a second, Jerry. Your right isn't with this particular application except for the fact that Bed & Breakfasts are permitted in residential zoning. MS. KALOUS: No, it wasn't. My fight is with this one, maybe coincidentally turned out to be the first one, maybe because I was enlightened when I said, do you do more than one? The answer was yes. So now I kind of extended it. Because every time somebody applies then in the immediate area I'm going to come down here and we're going to go through this again. MEMBER TORTORA: Unfortunately or fortunate, whatever, i just want to make something clear. The Town Board approves this legislature and they approved it so the Bed & Breakfasts can be located in residential zone in the Town of Southotd without exception. There is no exception. When they said to the Zoning Board of Appeals, OK, here's what you have to in order to prove this, you have to make sure there are fire alarms, the windows are certain size, there's enough parking and you know, you have those parameters in. Like the Chairman said,~ if they meet those parameters that's our guideline. So, we're really not in a position to say no. They do meet the guidelines. MS. KALOUS: I understand that. MEMBER TORTORA: A 1,000 one acre lot and there's no parking you'd say no, you didn't meet the guidelines. We can't approve it. MS. KALOUS: I understand that. In fact, when Jeff Strong wanted to change (), i stood in the same spot and said yes to him. So I'm not a mean person. But like I said before, that traffic goes past, they stay down there, they're a lot further away from the residences. There's a difference. Page 9-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: What I'm saying is that we could do in this application what Jerry said, to help you to burden (). MS. KALOUS: I'll ask the same question. ( ) impact and she said, actually you should be flattered because that means you live in a good area. MEMBER TORTORA: That's right. MS. KALOUS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll close the motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 6:38 P.M. -Appl. No. 4793 - THOMAS TAYLOR This is a request for Variances under Article XXlV, Section 100-244B and Article III- A, Section 100-30A. 4, based upon the Building Department's February 7, 2000, Notice of Disapproval and a Building Permit application to locate (a) a proposed addition to dwelling with reduction in the existing non-conforming side yards, and (b) to locate northerly portion of garage partly in a side yard, at 2755 Westphalia Road, Mattituck, 1000-114-10-20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Mr. Taylor, how are you Sir? MR. TAYLOR: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. TAYLOR: When we bought this house we only had one child, now we have two. We have virginal bathroom and one extra small bedroom. VVhat we want to do is make the house so that we'll both have a bedroom that will be more functional for the children and have a second bathroom. In doing this, we want to improve the general looks of our house, and when we did this we decided that the porch around the front would tie in addition to the old house. Unfortunately the porch I now found out, doesn't meet the zoning requirements. In taking away the porch, the dynamics of what we created does not exits anymore and it doesn't look the same. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an enclosed porch? MR. TAYLOR: No, it would be an outside porch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I don't have any problems with it. We'll start with Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, this is sought of more of a question to you Mr. Chairman in a sense to the Board than to Mr. Taylor. If I read these plans correctly, the distance from the stoop on the west side of the house, on the left-hand side when you're looking at it from the street - MR. TAYLOR: That would be the a - MEMBER COLLINS: Where you're going to put the porch. MR. TAYLOR: That would be the south side. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, south, OK. I got confused. The distance from that stoop to the property line is drawn on here as 19 feet, and the porch is shown as 19 feet 6" from the property line. Page 11- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's the possibility the house isn't completely skewed on the property. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, well, it's drawn, it's drawn straight. MR. TAYLOR: It is off centered. MEMBER COLLINS: Here's my point Mr. Chairman. The code lets you build this porch as long as you don't increase the degree of non-conformance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And non-conformance means that you don't have the setbacks that the code says you're suppose to have. And I guess the question in my mind is, technically whether the side yard is measured from that stoop or not. I know steps can intrude into a yard without sought of counting. My own feeling is, that he's not increasing the degree of non-conformance by putting the porch in and I just wanted to see if anyone on the Board sought of shared my sense of this in which case, it's really not a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a technical issue and the reason why, because the porch is attached to the house now. So therefore, it really is. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: However, in reality it really isn't. So, it's, it's - MEMBER COLLINS: Wait a minute. What really isn't? You mean the degree of non-conformance, you mean, yeah, yeah. ! mean I certainly do not have a problem with it because of that. I think they've already got a 19 foot side yard. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we're going 19' 6' here. MEMBER COLLINS: Well it's going to be bigger. They don't increase the degree of non-conformance. MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, the stoop is 5-1/2 feet from the house. be 5 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. The porch is going to MEMBER TORTORA: But it's the total. MEMBER DINIZIO: You have a total side yard, right? Page 12-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, exactly. MEMBER DINIZIO: We're Io~king at. If it were 20 feet you'd be OK. MEMBER TORTORA: The thing i'm a little confused about is, the Notice of Disapproval says, it "requires 35 feet", and they're proposing 28. i don't see 28. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well 20 - you're right they don't have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're right, there is no 28. MR. TAYLOR: I think when they measured it, they probably measured off the ho,use. I'm not sure. MEMBER TORTORA: Well that's the question because the code requirement is 35. So what are the actual side yards? You've got how many feet next to lot #17 MR. TAYLOR: Lot #1 to the right side? MEMBER TORTORA: It would be to the west. MR. TAYLOR: That's 5 foot. 3 inches. MEMBER COLLINS: 5 foot 3 inches. MEMBER TORTORA: So you get 5 foot 3 inches - :CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 19' 6".: MEMBER TORTORA: And 19' 6". That's going to be 24' 9" - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: So that's the side yards and that's the variance you're asking for, not 28, correct? .MR. TAYLOR I would imagine. I ...... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's 24' 9". I don't think I have any questions after this Page 13- April 6, 2000 ::Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins are you done with this gentleman? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I just wanted to make sure the Board is all sought of - agree that the Notice of Disapproval doesn't agree with the survey and I sought of accepted the drawing as what we're working with. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, that's because in the drawing that he originally had submitted with the application, there's two seven copies, it says, 20. Right on the drawings it says, 23 and 5 which is how the Building Department got 28. This is a new drawing that we were given tonight. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, no, I was reading one that said, 19 when I went and looked at the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yeah. But we're just saying that that was the original one. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: I don't seem to have an original one. Oh, I see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I go on to Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER COLLINS: I think that's a 23, misread it's 28. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that's a possibility. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, 23 and 5, 28. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, yeah, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for coming over here with it. MR. TAYLOR: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wanted to make sure we cleared up this issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? Page 14- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. Mr. Taylor we're going to ask in the audience if anybody has any objection and we may have you back up here. If not, we're going to recess, actually we're going to close the hearing. We're going to hold .~.~ the determination because we have a vew lengthy calendar tonight. We'll have-a~~ Special Meeting within a week or so and it's either going to be on the 12th or the 19th. We have determined that at this time and after that you'll get a decision in the mail. ! mean you're certainly welcome to call after the 12th, which would be the 13th or the 20th, OK? But don't be concern if you don't see a decision tonight. We thank you for all the information you've given us. MR. TAYLOR: Without wanting to, there's another section. We're think of putting my garage in the side yard, in the back. What [ want to do is, I want to build a deck on the back of my house and there's very tittle-living space and i'd like to just make (coughing) usable on the back of the house. So, if ~ go out 12 feet it's usable, it goes into the garage only 3 feet. So, that was the second part of it. I want to make sure that that's included. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Right, we're aware of that. We have it highlighted right here. MR. TAYLOR: Alright., thank you CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? It looks like we're on a roll Mr. Taylor, OK? 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 15- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 6:44 P.M. - Appl. No. 4780 - LAWRENCE & JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN Continuation from March 2, 2000. (Request to approve shed location at 2225 North Sea Dr., Southold, 1000-54-4-23.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir, how are you? ~-~ MR. PEARLSTEIN: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're sorry to belabor you're hearing process here but we understand that the DEC doesn't want this moved any farther. MR. PEARLSTEIN: The DEC suggested we don't have enough elevation off the high water mark to move it to the waterside. That wasn't an official answer but that's the .response I got on the telephone. And the Trustees, I don't know if they've written you a letter or not about non-jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, OK. They may or may not have. I don't have it in front of me here. But ! did want to mention to you so the option is still opened either moving it closer to the house, or, leaving it where it is. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well I'd be very happy moving it closer to the house if you'll permit that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. PEARLSTEIN: And in fact, one of my neighbors suggested moving it next to our back deck which would even give it more on the line with this site from across the street which is also an option that I'd be willing to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In other words, inthe notch of that deck? MR. PEARLSTEIN: In the notch of the deck, exactly. I submitted the pictures and the letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. So, that's basically under your picture window, or your bay window there? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Just about, yes. It would be seen from the bay window, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, you'd be seeing the roof of the storage going from the bay window? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Yes. Page 16- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a good option too. AIright. problem to you? I mean you can get somebody to do it? That doesn't cause a MR. PEARLSTEIN: I'll get it moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. While you're standing there does anybody on the Board have a question of Mr. Pearlstein? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I, yes. So you're saying, you're willing to move it? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Oh, absolutely. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's no problem at all? MR. PEARLSTEIN: No problem, no. MEMBER DINIZiO: OK. MR. PEARLSTEIN: in retrospect, i wonder why I didn't. Why I didn't put it there in the first place. MEMBER DINIZIO: Me too. Well I'll lay it that way then, OK? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Anybody else? We thank you Sir. We'll let you know what the determination is in the very near future. Anybody else like to speak for or against this application? Would you just use the mike so we can get you on. MS. LAMPEAS: Hello Mr. Chairman. I spoke the last time. I'm Vickie LamPeas. ! had spoken on behalf of my father who is now here. That suggestion actually came from my father to place ..the shed on the side of the house off the lawn on the back side and but also in that notch and there is no window if the shed was to go right up against the house, whatever, it's a ( ) mess. But I have, may ~ approach? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MS. LAMPEAS: I have drawings here. Just a little sketch, very simple and this is figuring if that could be just turned there and then it would be where the a property - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you spell your last name? MS. LAMPEAS: It's a LAMPEAS. That's my married name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Right. Page 17-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. LAMPEAS: Thank you. I'm just wondering if this is actually going to happen if it's followed through? Mr. Pearlstein states that he will be moving it but is that the new location that it would be moved to? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would say that there's a great possibility that some of us would certainly request that..It sounds like.,,a real good idea to be honest with you. MS. LAMPEAS: We'd also ( ) consider it be a back yard. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm wondering why we even have to make that decision now Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well because a portion of the building could protrude a little bit into the side yard area ~ MEMBER DINiZIO: It would be behind the rear yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As long as it's parallel to the house, yes. But if it's not parallel to the house - MRS. LAMPEAS: It's also (coughing) to the back yard and I heard what Mr. Pearlstein said, as far as the, you know, the water, but I realize that the house is there and I just figured that that wouldn't be a problem to have a shed where the house is going to go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK, we'll ask that question of Mr. Pearlstein. We thank you. MRS. LAMPEAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pearlstein, will you make this parallel to the edge of the house or will it protrude into the side yard a little bit? MR. PEARLSTEIN: That could be done either way. If the only way I would be permitted to do it parallel, that's what we'll do. I could do it either way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well how do you want to handle it Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO;: Well I can tell you Mr. Pearlstein, if you did that tomorrow you wouldn't need a decision from us. MEMBER TORTORA: That's right. Page 18- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings :, MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, but it's well to give him one for the sake of the Building Department. MEMBER DINIZIO: abeyance and then MR. PEARLSTEIN: Well, no, I'm thinking, you know we could hold this decision in go there and check it. You're saying, that it must be parallel to the house? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MR. PEARLSTEIN: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean you're putting a 12 foot building in an 18 foot space. It doesn't look like it's going to be that difficult - MR. PEARLSTEIN: No, I just hoPe that the DEC doesn't object to that because that would be putting it a little closer to the water. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but you wouldn't be increasing that because you have that deck there. MR. PEARLSTEIN: OK, right, that's correct, and that deck has been approved by the DEC. I just want to acknowledge that Mr. Chilis did actually make that suggestion and I it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mr. Pearlstein would you just check with the Building Department please before you move it. We'll hold the hearing open just in case there's any change in this and we'll close it to any verbal and we'll just close it as a matter of fact at the next hearing and just check with the Building Department on the distance from the foundation that they may want it and so on and so forth. MR. PEARLSTEIN: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And if you are able to get it in we'll refer to it as a footprint area so it's parallel with the foundation. I don't think you need a variance as Mr. Dinizio has said. And if you're not, let us know by letter, or by call, and we'll deal with it at the next hearing. MR. PEARLSTEIN: Good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright Sir? MR. PEARLSTEIN: Thank you very much. Page 19-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. State your name for the record please. Anybody else like to speak? Yes Sir? MR. BETSCH: My name is John Betsch. I have the property, I'm the new owner of the property next door to Mr. & Mrs. Pearlstein. The last time I was not able to be here. I wrote a lette~Jr~, opposition of it. I just want to clarify if I can all of it. Being a new property owner, I had not had the pleasure of socializing with Mr. & Mrs. Pearistein. So my opposition is strictly in compliance with the code based on maintaining property values. Based on the price (coughing) I want to maintain higher standards. So obviously now this is a change towards the adjacent to the house and I'm in total agreement with this consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Seeing no additional hands I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting closing it to verbatim testimony ..... , MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 20- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 6:52 P.M. - Appl. No. 4802 - ROBERT & ANDREA MOHR This is a request for a Variance under Article Iii, Sections 100-31A and 100-31C(1), based upOn the Building Department's February 29, 2000, Notice of Disapproval and ..,:.Can application for a Building Permit to construct a storage building related.-to applicant-owners' proposed agricultural use of the property. Location: 630 WabasSo Street, Southold; Parcel 1000-78-3-64. Zone District: R-40 Low-Density Residential CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. I ask for you to use the mike. What would you like to tell us? MR. MOHR: I'd like permission to build an 1840 antique barn to grow Christmas Trees and fruit trees and to store antique farm equipment, and two antique pick-up trucks that have a value of about $40,000. Breservation of the past. Essentially a hobby and there was a question about a 50 foot frontage and 50 foot back to the building which I was able to build and modify. 130 feet piece of property. The building will be 28 and it'll be a 50 footage, 50 foot frontage and rear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are not sure but we think your application is really a Use Variance Application. MR. MOHR: OK. There was confusion because I ( ) initially prior to the purchase if there was an indication there wouldn't be an issue and then when I purchased and got the Building Permit, there was a question of whether or not it was appropriate and then they sent me for a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I would like you to do though over the next couple of weeks, before the next hearing is, check out the Use Variance Standards. MR. MOHR: I'm not sure what that means. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know we're going to give you the copy of them OK? Standards are relatively strict. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well that's the form he filled out. The Use Variance form. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically he's applying for a Use Variance. MEMBER COLLINS: He didn't understand what was required. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean he should consult an attorney is what you're saying? Page 21- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Standards that we're going - Well he should either look at the Use Variance MEMBER TORTORA: No, he filled out an Area Variance. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: application. He did both. There's both ,,o¢:.,them in the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need you to look at the Use Variance Standards in order for you to continue with this hearing because there are strict standards which I need you to address under the Use Variance aspects of this application and you may or may not want to consult an attorney regarding this but Use Variances are not given all the time from this Board. They're very sparingly given and this is not a sarcastic statement. This is a pragmatic statement. You're a very nice man. I just want you to be aware of that situation, OK? And what we normally do on situations like this, is suggest that people look at these in order to understand what is needed from you in order for this Board to deal with an application of that nature and we're going to take some testimony tonight. But we're really going to reconvene this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting which is May 4th, and we're either going to go with it in reference to you know, what you're going to present to us. I'm not going to go with it anyway but I mean we're either going to be able to deal with it or we're not going to be able to deal with it based upon the Use Variance aspect. MR. MOHR: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we'll refer to the standards. Alright Sir? And we'll take some testimony tonight but we'll ask anybody else that we'd like to get going on the hearing. There's a lot of people here would like to voice their opinion on it. Thank you Sir. MR. MOHR: You're welcome. :. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Sir, would you come up and use the mike please. MR. WENZEL: My name is Walter Wenzel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. WENZEL: I'm a new resident in Southold. I moved here in September and we strongly object to change the zone with this particular piece of property. Our backyard property line, and Mr. Mohr's backyard property line, are parallel to each other and will, with a lot in between. We moved here in September and probably build a new home. The first thing we want to do is offend our neighbors. The first thing we don't want to do is offend our neighbors but we feel we must speak up. We Page 22-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings ::i.::?-,~-: can see the equipment in the dome shaped storage shed right now. I don't believe they're performing right now. There are two buildings with, ( ). So I don't know whether it was approved, or not approved but as far as I know, they weren't. Storage shed, sitting at our kitchen table we can view these from our den also. We feel it is not appropriate in our neighborhood especially since the properties in ~ounding area is residential or residential homes. We worried what other. equipment and building might be put there. We were so happy we moved to Southold that we feel fortunate to be living at Laughing Waters, a residential community, beach and part of a vacation community and we are thrilled that we live there. We'd hate to see it changed from what it is now. One couple of closing thing I want to say is, one question i have, if this property can be changed to Agriculture Zoning, is that going to be a different tax rate? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't answer that question. MR. WENZEL: (). I'm not sure about that. Another thing is that why we have, we can't change the property with prior agriculture property in Southold, District of Southold Township now. Are we so much about to try and save thousands of acres (), which probably is more in residential neighborhoods. Let's save what we have without creating more. I'm against all of this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to react to that? MEMBER COLLINS: I just, Mr. Chairman I'd just like to say for the sake of the neighbors who are not obviously have no reason to be versed in our Town Code. The case that's here, is based on the fact, that Mr. Mohr went to the Building Department and asked for a Building Permit to put up the bui!ding he described on his property. The property is zoned residential. If Mr. Mohr wants to grow things on the property, he has every right to do so as I read the code. The issue here isn't that. The issue is here, that he wants to put up a building. The Building Department said that's an accessory building. You can't have an accessory building if you don't have a principal building. You can't have a garage if you don't have a house, etcetera. And that's the issue here. The issue here is not changing the zoning of the property. We are not talking about re-zoning. That's not in our power. That's the Town Boards' power and I just want to make clear what the issue is here and it's whether he wants an accessory building where the code says, you cant' have one because you don't have a principal building which is why the Chairman told him you're asking for a Use Variance and Use Variance is very hard to get. it's where we say, OK, the code says, you can't use the land that way. You can't put an accessory building on it without a principal. But because you have proved hardship and a whole lot of other stuff, we'll let you do it. We hardly ever do it. And that's a Use Page 23- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings ' :::; . Variance and that's what the Chairman advised Mr. Mohr he's after. I just want to make sure that you folks understood what the legal context is here. We are not talking re-zoning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Ms. Collins. Yes ma'am. State your name for the record when you get to the mike. MRS. ALBRO: My home is adjacent to the lot in question. Our bedrooms, windows are 20 feet from the property line. What I really want to know is, we put all of this in writing is that being considered? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Always. MRS. ALBRO: Yeah, OK, beCause I know many people have and I know we want to put the ( ) put in?~because I'm not good like this. ~.~, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're doing pretty good. MRS. ALBRO: But I just wanted to make sure that was being taken into consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need your name again. MRS. ALBRO: Albro. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. ALBRO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ma'am, I'm sorry, go ahead. name for the record, please. MS. LOFRESE: Cathy Lofrese. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How do you spell your last name? MRS. LOFRESE: Lofrese. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MS. LOFRESE: (Changed tape) While I bear no ill will towards Mr. Mohr or his family I feel he should be aware of the misgivings of his neighbors. This is area is zoned residential and to change the atmosphere of this area by putting up a Yes ma'am, state your Page 24-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings structure other than a home, I feel wouldn't be appropriate and I also think that if that was allowed to be done it would set an undesirable precedent not only in Laughing Waters but also in Southold Town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. LOFRESE: Your welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else? Yes Sir. MR. BECK: My name is Victor Beck. I'm a resident of Laughing Waters in Southold. i submitted a letter because listening to my neighbors and quite a few people in the area talk about this situation regarding this application. ~ went down yesterday and looked at the record and in the record there was indications there that this would be considered as an agriculture area. ! know, I understand what she just said, however, based on that and plus it says right in here in your Agenda for tonight, "building related to applicant-owners' proposed agricultural use of the property", and according to the agricultural use of the code that I saw in the record yesterday, that would allow a person who had that to grow anything they wanted, to raise live stock, including sheep, cattle, pigs anything they'd like and to sell it and to have a commercial operation going on there. My folks live in this area for a 30 - 40 years. They've owned property there. I've been there for a number of years now and in dealing with some of the other issues in the area I have occasion to go back and look at some of the records of the Minutes of some of the Laughing Water Property Association Minutes back about 30 years ago, and they were rustling with and dealing with a places that were like junk yards and people who you know just was commercial properties and things to try and improve the rule of nature of the area. This I feel would simply be a step in the wrong direction if passed. So I respectfully request that you deny the application, i don't agree with this. ! think it's a step in the wrong direction. I don't know the rules, i'm sure their fine people but I think this is not. if he wants to do what he wants to do, it doesn't sound ¢like he's going about it the right way. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? OK, one other question of you Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Tortora would like to ask you. MEMBER TORTORA: From what I understand I didn't see anything in your application talking about an agricultural operation. Is that correct? MR. MOHR: That's corre~. MEMBER TORTORA: You're looking to store antique cars? MR. MOHR: No, two antique pick-up trucks, two antique (). - Page 25-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Have value from an antique stand point? MR. MOHR: I'm a hobbyist. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. The growing of trees is for your own personal use - MR. MOHR: They're already in. MEMBER TORTORA: And it's as I believe you described yourself hobbyist? MR. MOHR: Absolutely. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I wanted to ask you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Alright hearing no'further comment I'll make a motion recessing this for the next regularly scheduled meeting. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. Page 26- April 6, 2000 Board ;of Appeals Hearings 7:08 p.M_ Appl. No. 4801 - NANCY WEBER This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A, based upon the Building Department's March 2, 2000 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a Building Permit to locate a proposed pool at less than 100 feet from the top (or crest) of the bluff at 160~;The Strand, Pebble Beach Lot No. 137. East Marion, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-21-5-7. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hi, could you state your name for the record. MRS. DOHERTY: Hi, I'm Jill Doherty. I'm here on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Weber. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MRS. DOHERTY: Well, you have.~.~_two plans in front of you. The first plan is, putting the pool horizontal, and it was suggested to us, to put it parallel to the pool. And that's what we did, and that's fine and we have it as close to the house as possible without interfering with the oil tank. And we feel that it's as far away from the bluff that we can make it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a liner pool or a gunite? MRS. DOHERTY: Yes, a liner pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. You are aware that we requested any outflow from the pool go toward the road or in some sort of a storm drain? MRS. DOHERTY: On the latest plan that you have there is a drywell. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. MRS. DOHERTY: Which is the on the road side of the plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The deck around the pool is what, ground level? MRS. DOHERTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and the pool will not be linked to the house in any way, right? MRS. DOHERTY: No, it won't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any questions, any other further questions. Will start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions? Page 27-April 6, 2000 Board:Of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The pool now that it's turned around sideways, and I have to tell you how gr;ateful I am to~.~you for staking it. This was very, it's very refreshing to go to a site and be able to see what we're looking for. Any rate, the pool is now arranged sideways, is something over 60 feet from the bluff I think. That's right? MRS. DOHERTY: Approximately, it's uneven. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I realize it's uneven. We stepped it off and I thought that I came off, up with that. I just want to make sure I had that number right. No, I have no other question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I was just trying to get the distance from the bluff to it. 60 feet? MRS. DOHERTY: Approximately. MEMBER COLLINS: Lydia, on this property the actual bluff and the so-called tide line of the average bluff in fact, are essentially in the same place. We've had properties up there where people have been measuring from the average line of the bluff, and it turned out it was out in space. But yours, I think, the number is a real number to the actual edge of the bluff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? ,MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes Sir. State your name for the record. RICHARD TROWBRIDGE: bench? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm Richard Trowbridge. Sure, Could I approach the DR. TROWBRIDGE: This is material I prepared for the Board. It might help you this evening. Page 28- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. These are both the same, right? MR. TROWBRIDGE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, there different? MR. TROWBRIDGE: Different. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. That's one package. Just give us one second to distribute these. Very good, we're ready. DR. TROWBRIDGE: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, I'm Richard Trowbridge. I am a relatively new member of your community. I moved here in 1997 to work at Plum Island. I lived one year in Greenport before I bought my home in Pebble Beach Farms in Eas~.Marion. You are indeed very fortunate to b,ave the natural resources that make living here so very enjoyable. Is it any wonder that you want to protect them? But it must be a real challenge to do so because you have to accommodate so many different needs. It must be awkward at times for you to tactfully find ways that will make everyone happy and still abide by the Town's Codes. ! can well understand just how difficult it must be for you to make sure these beautiful resources remain unspoiled for our grandchildren and their children. I hope that what I have to say to you tonight will help make your job a little bit easier. The Board of Directors of the Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association inducted me to be their Vice President three months after I moved into Pebble Beach Farms in 1998. I am now the Association's President. Many of the property owners have contacted me about pools being built on the bluff. So i am here representing not only myself but the lot owners too. Pebble Beach Farms is a development containing 143 lots, each approximately one- half acre in size. T~here are 83 homes in Pebble Beach Farms. This development has been experiencing significant growth these past two years. The properties on top of the bluff overlooking Long Island Sound have been very dramatically altered by the construction dudng this past two years. There are 33 lots located on this bluff. Currently there are twenty five (25)homes occupying this very narrow stretch of water front property. In the past year alone, we have seen four (4) new houses built on the bluff. The owners of another home on the bluff made a very significant addition to theirs. Of these twenty five (25) homes overlooking the sound, seven have installed swimming pools within 100 feet of the bluff's edge. These seven were installed prior to 1997. A current review today,~of several lot owners indicates that they installed theirs prior to 1987. I have been told that one of the lot owners who began construction this year has asked for and received a variance to instali a pool between his home and within 100 feet of the bluff's edge. Now we have before us another two new applications for a variance from the Town's Code concerning building within the 100 foot setback from the bluff. Page 29- April 6, 2000 Board of ~Appeals Hearings So to summarize, we'll have a total of ten swimming pools, two of which are being applied for tonight on a bluff containing twenty five homes. All of these swimming pools will be within 100 feet of the bluff's edge. AI;I this recent construction on the bluff has had a very deleterious.impact both on the. community and to the top of the bluff. People buy property abutting the sound believing that the bluff will not fall down, believing that the beach at the bottom of their bluff will remain nice and clean to sun on, to play on, and to store their boats and beach furniture on. Past experience has shown these to be very unreasonable beliefs. What has happened to our community's beaches during just the past two years since I've lived at Pebble Beach Farms has demonstrated that the winter storms are relentless in their attack on the sound's beaches and its bluff. The community's beach has experienCed significant erosion each year. Prior to my moving to Pebble Beach Farms, contractors were able to clean and groom the entire stretch of beach below the Pebble Beach Farms' bluff. In contrast, only half of the beach could be accessed for cleaning and grooming last year. A simple walk along this beach reveals that both this bluff and the underlying beach are under considerable attack by the elements we have no control over. Property owners are already asking, how are we to restore the beaches below their bluff? They're asking us to divert the money from what the Association has set aside to maintain the community's private roads to reconstruct their private beaches. The Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District's representative has stated in his March 28th letter to you, Mr. Chairman, that it does appear that storm tides reach the toe of this bluff. That is an understatement. One only has to visit the bluff during one of the many storms out of the southwest or west to witness the devastation such tides bring. What will happen to the bluff if it is attacked from the top too? Is it too hard to imagine a Pool breaking and emptying its contents over the bluff? After all, these pool contain at least 90 tons of water. Indeed, just the weight of water alone in these pools make them very significant structures, or, maybe a thoughtless and greedy pool contractor will pump a pool's contents onto, or, over the bluff's edge so he can cheaply clean the pool. He most definitely will not pay to haul this waste out in a tank truck. Would he empty over 20,000 gallons of polluted water into the community's street? Would that not be like someone pumping the contents of his .cesspool onto hisneighbors' lawns and streets? Where else is he,to dispose of a pool's contents? After all to him it's just dirty water. What is it to you and me? Does he care? Page 30- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings It is for these reasons that I have decided to come before you this evening to speak about these two new applications for a variance to the Town's 100 foot setback rule as it relates to the bluff along Long Island Sound in Pebble Beach Farms. I understand that the Town of Southold defines what a bluff is in Chapter 37 of its . '~;,,Code, titled, "Town of Southold Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law." The Code~was adopted by the Town Board in October of 1991 I believe. This code defines the ~andward limits of a bluff as being twenty five feet landward of the point of inflection to the top of the bluff. The point of inflection is that point along the top, of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline. Consequently, the bluff includes all land between the top edge of the bluff and 25 feet from the bluff's edge landward. The town's fathers have in their wisdom seen fit to add an additional 75 feet to this line to.;-,thereby provide a 100 foot setback. ;Article XXIII, Section 100-239, 4(A)(1) states: "ali buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds an upon which exists a b~uff landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than one hundred feet from the top of such bluff." Is it possible this 100 foot setback was created specifically to protect the bluff from being encroached upon and destroyed by our desire to have everything built on the bluffs? If that was their intent, why are we giving variances to it for things like swimming pools? I have analyzed each of the two applications for a variance to this code. My observation to the Lempl's application for a variance, will be stated at the time the Board has schedule for their application to be heard. My observations of the Weber's application for a variance follow. Two findings are immediately evident when one examines the Weber's application for avariance to the Town's Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a pool being built within 100 feet of the bluff at 160 the Strand. The first is that the three surveys in the Weber's file are nearly 25 years old. The remaining drawing cannot be considered a survey. It is not dated, and does not contain the name of the person who drew it. The second is that all of the paperwork associated with the Weber's application was processed in less than five weeks, whereas a local attorney needed nearly three months to get the Lempl's application processed. ~*'.~ . It seems that someone who is intimately familiar with the workings of local government has been able to get the Weber's Building Permit submitted on March 2, get a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department on March 2, submit a Page 31- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings ~ Request for a Variance to and get the request accepted by the Zoning Board's office on March 6, and have a hearing for a variance scheduled for April 6th. On the basis of knowledge and belief, a recently retired employee of the Town of Southold has been instrumental in having these papers processed. That being the case, why haven't the appropriate public disclosures been filed With the Building Permit and with the Application to the Zoning Board for a variance? It appears that the file does not contain all of the material that the Southold Town Board of Appeals Instructions for Variance Applications requires. The required Questionnaire for filing with the Z.B.A. Application, does not answer questions F or G, much less provide a copy of the Building Permit, and map of the plannedadditions to the existing building as approved by the Building Department. The file contains three drawings that are being presented as surveys. One drawing, "Plan A" is penciled in on the left edge, depicts a pool that is situation such, that the 32 foot length is parallel to the northeastern edge of the Weber's property line. This pool is completely surrounded by a four foot high fence immediately adjacent to the pool so that complete access to the rear yard is available. The second drawing labeled, "Amended B" depicts the 32 foot length of the pool's edge to be parallel to the northern edge of the property. For example, parallel to the rear to the existing home. Again, this pool is completely surrounded by a fence immediately adjacent to the pool so that the rear yard is completely accessible. The third drawing is dated March 29, 2000, depicts the 32 foot length of the pool's edge to be parallel to the northern edge of the property line and parallel to the rear of the existing house. This pool however, is completely surrounded by a four foot high fence such that the entire rear yard of this,property is fenced in. The fence in this third drawing appears to extend a significant distance seaward from the bluff's top. Why? Not one of these drawings has the Coastal Erosion Ha~.ard Area Line on them. Why? Doesn't the law require this to be on all such drawings? The three drawings are a modification of a survey prepared in 1975. This 1975 survey has been altered, and has had additions made to it. Such alterations and additions could be interpreted as violations of Section 7209 of the State's Article 145, commonly referred to as the "State's Education haw." The drawings submitted state, there are no dwellings within 100 feet of this property other than those shown hereon. That is not true. There is a dwelling on lot #136. Page 32-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings The drawings depict a two stoW frame house and garage. That is not true. This property currently contains a two and a half stow frame wooden house with a basement. It was modified according to a Building Permit, Permit #23836 issued in December of 1996. An examination of the rear of this house shows it to have three full floors above ground. This building is currently being prepared for further significant alterations according to Building Permit #26173 issued in November of 1999. It is not c~ear which of these three drawings was submitted to and rejected by the Building Department. Possibly the drawing labeled "Plan A." Which of these three drawings are to be considered in the appeal? Shouldn't the only one to be considered be the one that was submitted to and rejected by the Building Department on March 2? The only indication that there is another alteration proposed for this property, is a copy of a drawing with "proposed two stow 'addition~ noted on the plan. This drawing is not dated or stamped with the information required in Section 7209 of the Education Law. Consequently, it can't be considered a survey. Not one of the surveys, drawings, or, plans submitted with this appeal comply with the State's Education Law. The submitted drawings do not show the conditions as they exist today° They show conditions that existed in 1975. Two of the three submitted drawings do not show where a dry well is going to be situated. Such a dry well will be necessary to accept the fluids that are generated when the pool's filter is cleaned by being back flushed. The third survey dated March 29th depicts a dry well in the southeast corner of the rear yard. Will this dry well be nearly adjacent to the cellar hole that will be dug to accommodate the new construction that has been approved to this home? This is the only drawing to show a dry well and this is the only mention of a dry well in this proposed construction. The submitted plans do not show how the septic tank, distribution box and leaching field will be relocated and affected by the proposed new construction on this site, their relation to the pool and its dry well, or their relation to the property's driveway. The submitted plans do not show where the pool's chemicals will be stored. Will a separate shed be built to store these hazardous chemicals? The submitted plans do not show where the pool's heater is to be located. Will another shed be built to house the pool's heater and fuel supply? What fuel will be used to heat this pool? How will the fuel be transported to this shed? How wilt the heater's fuel be transported to the rear of the house? Page 33-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings The submitted plans do not show where the pool's pumps will be located. Will they be placed in such a way that the noise they generate will not be a nuisance to the neighborhood? The Building Department says that the proposed construction is within 51 feet of the bluffs top. A.:representative from Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District states, it is 71 feet to the bluff's top and 58 feet to the stairwell. The owner's surveyor states, the distance to be 63 feet. Who are we to believe? The Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District used Proposal B or 2, for comparison to what they found at the site. Assuming this Proposal B or 2 to be the one labeled Amended B, this drawing does not show where a dry well will be placed. A pool of this size, assuming it to have an average depth of six feet, will contain 23,000 gallon of water..This is equivalent to 91 tons. A very., significant structure by anyone's standards. How is it Suffolk County Water cannot provide new homes in our development with water yet can supply water to fill swimming pools? The Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District representative states that the pool's water is not. to be dumped over the bluff in the event the pool has to be emptied. How are you going to guarantee this never occurs? What assurance do we have that these pools will never be abandoned or neglected and thereby become a health hazard? The property owners state that their pool will be surrounded with four foot high fences with self--closing and locking gates. Yet a recent inspection of the pools in the neighborhood revealed that the gates of the fences surrounding these pools are neither self closing nor locked. Indeed, one pool in the community is only surrounded by a snow fence and that is lying on the ground. What assurance do we have that the owners will not enclose their pool for year round use? On the basis of these questions, discrepancies and observations, I request that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the Weber's application for variance to the Town of Southold's Code governing building within the 100 foot setback of bluffs. Building a pool on the Weber's property will represent a threat to the integrity and well-being of the bluff, will pose both environmental and health hazards to the community and will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood in a deleterious way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thankyou. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Trowbridge, one quick question. Do you officially represent the Property Owners Association? You said, you were the President. Are you speaking for them? Page 34- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. TROWBRIDGE: As President? Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: As President? Your Board has authorize you to take this position? MR. TROWBRIDGE: My Board has not authorize me to do anything because they have not had a meeting, i'm sure they'll have a meeting. I'm having a meeting with them on Sunday. I am the Board's President. I think this is an appropriate way. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to know where you fit into the scheme of things. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I think what we'll do is a, we'll ask the applicant, or the agent~0r the applicant to place on the survey the SCCM line and to come back on May 4th, answering any questions that she so chooses in your application. If that's alright with you? MRS. DOHERTY: Yes, that's fine. I just want to note, that there is a survey. I don't have it with me but the Building Department file has a survey with that line on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, why don't you bring that in for us. MRS. DOHERTY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And then we'll deal with it and will afford you the copies of everything that this gentleman has said and you can answer the questions you so choose to answer, and we'll reconvene the hearing at that time. During that period of time we will then make a decision if this gentleman represents the entire association or if he's just representing himself as President of the Association. Thank you. ~ MRS. DOHERTY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak? (none) OK, so I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until May 4th. See Minutes for Resolution. Ms. DOHERTY submitted a copy of the Coastal Zone ..Hazard Map tQ, the Chairman for the record, and agreed to submit a survey with that line on it. Page 35- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4795 - CHARLES BRIENZA This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlII, Section 100-23914A(1), based upon the Building Department's January 20, 2000 Notice of .Disapproval and an application for a Building Permit to locate a new single-family dwelling at less than 100 feet from the bank (or bluff) of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: Lot 5 on the Map of Lands End, a/kJa 1240 Latham Lane, Orient; 1000-15-9-1.5. Fairweather-Brown, Architects. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody here like to speak? How are you? AMY MARTIN: I'm fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record please. MS. MARTIN: My name is Amy Martin. I have the honor and glow of being from the Office of Fairweather-Brown. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I see you have one of the participants back there. Does that mean we can't grill you? MS. MARTIN: I would prefer you grilled him. Basically I'll do a very short thing rehashing a letter that I did submit. This premises is, consists of .95 acres. It's located on the east or waterside of 1240 Latham Lane, Orient. It's a proposed single family residence and garage and has lot coverage of 8.1%. It is presently an undeveloped lot between two different directions. The neighbors to the south have been constructed over wetlands as opposed to erosion line and it crosses on to the Brienza property by approximately 15 feet. The Brienzas had applied to both the Trustees and to the DEC to continue the pre-existing of revetment an additional 40 feet and to the area described by the Building Department as a bluff. The extension was approved by the Trustees and denied by the DEC. In the letter of denial they state, the DEC states, "The excavation needed to install a revetment is unsteady approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of beach that is not exhibiting the characteristics of erosion but is accreting at this time." Meaning that there are more, there's more sand gathering there than eroding. Also, we have received a letter of non- jurisdiction from the Trustees. OK So the next thing we have is the topographical survey and shows that the bluff that is mentioned by the Building Department is approximately 35 feet from the southem;:boundary of the neighbor's revetment and at the Coastal Erosion line and .it's between 8 and 9 feet with the beach being listed at an elevation of 5. Basically and i have submitted a typographical error. There is really only a 5-foot difference for that 35 feet of coast between the top of what they're saying is a bank or bluff and the 8 foot section of the beach below it. So there's only 35 feet. There's a little bit of difference. Page 36- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. MARTIN: So because of the letter of denial which we received, it says that the house because there is a bluff would have to be 100 feet from the bluff, it wouid basically put the house almost on the street. Therefore;~not abiding by any of the setback rules or regulations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you refer to the revetment, you're referring to the stone wall, is that correct? MS. MARTIN: Yes, in order to build one of these, you have to totally dig out and go about 8 feet below the surface of the ground. So the DEC has recommended a toe wall for the whole length of the property along because they see no problem with erosion at this time and in fact you've got tons of erosion on the neighbor's property. But as it stands, there's only 35 feet of the two hundred and - I forget how many feet waterfront property there is that is the least bit elevated, Everything else is a gradual slope, in fact, you'll have to climb over the recommended wall to get to the beach because the rocks will be higher than the rest of the sand beach and the slope that goes to it. So what we're asking for is that you consider this application. It's a one and a half stow house. It's not, as ! said, it's only going to take up 8.1% of the bluff. As far as coverage it's actually further back from the coast than one of the neighbors as proposed and we would like and it's conforming to all of the flood regulations at the proposed site. There is a very small envelope that this house can be built on and it would go bY the building lot and we would like to have our clients given permission to build this house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Just wait one second. We'll see what the Board Members have to say. I think you did fine, that was great, OK. One of the kindest men on the Board, we'll start out with Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious Ma'am. I was there today and I got a little confused because I did not see any notice of the hearing on the property. MS. MARTIN: i picked it up at three something today. ~ have it right here. I brought it- MEMBER HORNING: And it was there yesterday? MEMBER COLLINS: It was~here yesterday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I saw this nice lady walk in with it. MRS. MARTIN: It was and the notice that I got said, please return it to the hearing at the time of the meeting. So, I mean, the poster, to return the poster back so that Page 37- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings ?,, was the only envelope of time I had to run out there and I assumed everybody had been out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine, that's fine. MEMBER HORNING: Well I didn't see it,.. MS. MARTIN: I'm sorry, it was there until about 3:00 o'clock. MEMBER HORNING: I'm quite sure I found the right place, right on the curb. MS. MARTIN: Right, there would be six ( ) there but the other one was just taken in the wind from knocking it around. MEMBER HORNING: And the brush was cleared quite a bit from the road anyway. MS. MARTIN: Yes, there is a notice here from the Soil Conservation. There was no appreciable factor - there were no trees cut down there. The underbrush was cleared so that the property could be effective. Nothing was touched by the bluff, by the front of the water, you know the non-bluff as I once referred to it and a - MEMBER HORNING: Was there any vegetation existing there taller than what is there now? MS. MARTIN: No, no. It's all sumac and undergrowth and things that you know, are indigenous but not doing much right now. Nothing towards what's mowed down that was towards the shore lines. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just looking at the survey. One was the Ingegno survey didn't have the garage on it. And I think the house is 50 feet from the road? And then the other one was Mike Hammer dated, very hard to see. MS. MARTIN: I think the original survey - MEMBER TORTORA: In 97. MS. MARTIN: It was one that was one that was proposed for the sale of the property. The site plan that we've given now is the proposed house and garage that has been designed (inaudible). MEMBER TORTORA: With or without the garage? Page 38- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. MARTIN: With the garage. I meant together, it's still 8.1% of lot coverage. The garage is an attached garage. It's not a separate structure. MEMBER TORTORA: This is different than this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER .One has the attached garage. MEMBER TORTORA: A, well this is at an angle, see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: This, I have three different - MS. MARTIN: There was, OK, there was a different one that was submitted originally because there was a ruling that the flood plain slightly crossed about 7 feet of the porch on the south side, so we had to use the house slightly to the, excuse me, rather on the north side, and we had to move the house to the south to comply with the flood plain. MEMBER TORTORA: So, i guess my question is simple. Which of these, this survey, or this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going with the site plan, right? MS. MARTIN: The site plan that is a dated - MEMBER TORTORA: i just want to know what I'm looking at? MEMBER COLLINS: 2/10 (). ~CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one I have is February 18, 2000. MS. MARTIN: The one that has the toe wall on it. The only one that has the toe wall on it is the present application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's February 18, 2000. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, mine says 2/10. MEMBER COLLINS: 2/10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but, he's stamped it on February 18th. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, stamped it, yes, right. Page 39- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings : ~. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, so this is not accurate, the other two are not accurate? MS. MARTIN: Right, it's the one with the toe wall, because the DEC made us changed the application from the revetment to the toe wall. MEMBER TORTORA: And what is the setback? MEMBER COLLINS: 104. MS. MARTIN: The setback is approximately 50 feet I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, 50 feet plus or minus. MS. MARTIN: The proposed dwelling is approximately 50 feet from the top of that proposed problem site. · MEMBER TORTORA: And what is the, and 60 feet is the closest that you are 'From Latham Lane? MS. MARTIN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: That's it? MS. MARTIN: Yes, we are, there's a very small building envelope, and we made it smaller a considerable amount. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the size of the property? MS. MARTIN: It's not quite .95 acres. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 41,376.64. MEMBER TORTORA: So essentially you need a variance one way or another? You came close to the road, you would then need a variance. MS. MARTIN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: A front yard variance? MS. MARTIN: Yes. We' would:prefer not to come closer to. the r. oad as most of the homes there are not built right on top of the road. It's more pleasing to the community that it not be on top of the road and to have it probably setback from there. MEMBER TORTORA: But it would be possible to come back closer to the road? Page 40- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MS. MARTIN: A small amount. (Changed tape). MEMBER TORTORA: What is a small amount? ROBERT BROWN, ARCHITECT: The house that adjacent is probably closer from the front yard but of course we have to maintain the similarity in the neighborhood. We would move the house as far forward as you would care to allow us, but the 100 ft. setback from what the Building Department refers to as a bluff in effect would not. MEMBER TORTORA: We have had a lot of people lately that have houses on the bluff and (changed tape). .- MRS. MARTIN: What we are trying to ascertain here is really a bluff, for all intensive purposes, the bluff, there is a five ft. grade difference for the 260 ft. waterfront piece, and there's 35 feet of which 15 is already covered by the neighbor's revetment and with the DEC saying there is such a problem here and already have the Suffolk County give us ( ) place, and everything else that it's allowed to be in the zone it is. MEMBER TORTORA: I just wanted to know alternatives. ROBERT BROWN, ARCHITECT: Sure. The bottom line is we'll move the house forward if we have to. MRS. TORTORA: And we have a letter from the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. They also say that you may want to review an erosion plan before construction for a brand new dwelling. MR. BROWN: Well, it was the DEC's recommendation that (). MRS. TORTORA: You have 60 feet - when you get a variance of 40 feet and come back in years to come (inaudible statement) from the top of bluff. That's why ~ asked about alternatives. MR. BROWN: Well as it is right now we are required to maintain 100 feet. The line in front would be in front of what's now the bluff. MRS. AMY MARTIN: The only other thing is we're trying to determine and there was no writing anywhere that said what constitutes a bluff, and I think I'm not sure that a 5 foot grade difference is a bluff and I mean not doing another one whether the 200 foot bluff I mean it's very obviously a bluff. Page 41- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: I think that's in the Coastal Erosion Section of the Code. MR. BROWN: In any case, our point is that the 5 foot grade of this over a width of approximately 5 feet does not constitute a significant here. MEMBER TORTORA: ihave no more questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just sought of like to say a few things to kind of get them on the record because Mrs. Tortora was talking a lot about bluff an.d one thing is our Code doesn't define bluff. It defines it as Mr. Trowbridge pointed out to us, it defines it in Article 37 which is Coastal Hazard but the Zoning Code does not tell us to look at Article 37, it says, if it isn't defined look in the dictionary. And the dictionary says, steep and precipitous and words like that. At any rate I'm very sympathetic to having climbed through those bushes, my jungle fighter mode, and down on to that beach, I feel very sympathetic to the position that the provisions in our code that refer to bluffs and setbacks from them, don't apply to this property. ~ think that's a little slope on the beach and I just sought of wanted to get that in the record. MS. AMY MARTIN: Thank you. The only other thing I didn't mention is that where ! started to say the bluff is there for no smaller than 5 feet, 35 feet is the line and 3 feet towards the beach for the remainder of the 220 feet of the coastal hazard line and the coastal hazard line is 40 feet, 45 feet inward of the high water line, that's the bluff line in writing. 7 feet further down the beach, so it's just, it's from most of the property it's a great distance from the coastal hazard line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 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 HORNING: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 42- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:45 P.M. -Appl. No. 4797 -JOHN XIKIS This is a request for a Variance under Article IliA, Section 100-30A(13) and Article XlIIA, Section 100-239(A)(2), based upon the Building Department's two Notices of Disapproval dated January 24, 2000 and an application for a Building Permit to locate a proposed deck addition to dwelling which will exceed the 20% lot coverage limitation of the Code and located at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 55585 County Road 48 (a/Wa North Road), Greenport, 1000-44-1-13. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone here representing? Good evening Sir. MR. CHARNEWS; Clement Charnews. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. What would you like to tell us? MR. CHARNEWS: Have you been to the site. looked it over and what? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I have. MR. CHARNEWS: I guess Mr. Xikis and his wife are here tonight. We're sought of looking for kind of like what his neighbors have, a deck more or less you know, have a table and be able to move around a little bit. You see originally when the house was built, I guess it was built I think in 1981, there wasn't a wooden bulkhead at the bottom yet. The builder, or the architect, I'm not sure who decided to kind of leave the board a little bit and build a deck that way. It's kind of proven to be a little you know just too narrow. If this was in1990, the wooden bulkhead went in and that sought of changed things a little bit and you put the plantings down there to hold the- soil and so forth. But without the, but the deck is so narrow and a couple of spots it's very narrow. I guess if you were there, you saw it narrows down, widens up, narrows down, it's just really inadequate to do what he wants to do and if he had shown it to me, I guess it was last year, there was one part I can extend on the counterlever, which really didn't seem like good building practice to do that because you're sticking out too far. So the type of construction I proposed is almost like building a self standing structure. More like a dock to hold those. You know right along side of this existing counterlever deck to give them the additional walk that they need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not step down but the same elevation? MR. CHARNEWS: Yes, exactly, the exact elevation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you say the elevation is above grade that the deck would be? Page 43- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. CHARNEWS: Above grade? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. CHARNEWS: Oh, boy, of all the measurements I took, probably not that:one. It must be a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just an estimate. MR. CHARNEWS: It must be 8, 9 feet down from the deck to the bushes. MR. XIKIS: I guess over 10 feet. MR;, CHARNEWS: Over 10 feet CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Over 10 feet OK. Alright we'll start with Ms. Collins. Ms. Collins any questions of the builder. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I climbed out on the rock wall and saw the situation. No Mr. Dinizio? question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER DINIZIO: No. not going to be enclosed in any way, is that CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is right? MR. CHARNEWS: No, exactly the way it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody else like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Page 44- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. Page 45- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings ': . 8:00 P. M. -Appl. No. 4800- JEFFREY GREEN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based upon the Building Department's March 2, 2000 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a Building Permit to locate deck.at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead at 480 Williamsburg Drive, Southold, 1000-78-5-10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. State your name for the record. MR. LIEGEY: My name is Mike Liegey. I work for Jeff Green. Mr. Green proposes to add and to repair a built in deck to consider 5 feet of the setback from the bulkhead on the western corner of his property. At the western corner only because the deck can be ( ) the 75 feet and on that westerly corner it would about 67 feet from the bulkhead and that's basically it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any chance of moving the hot tub to the opposite side of the deck? MR. LIEGEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And to limit the amount of plantings on that side? There's some concern about the navigability of the canal and the ability to see over it. MR. LIEGEY: See over the existing trees that we have? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Not existing trees, new bushes that may be placed in and so we thought if you - MR. LIEGEY: -Oh, there's no additional bushes going to be planted on the property, for that size of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's not a problem moving the hot tub to the opposite of the deck? MR. LIEGEY: No it's not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to call him? MR. LIEGEY: We did discuss the possibility. We can move it over to other location, it may be the middle of the deck. Page 46- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's alright. We just rather not have it on that corner because usually people that have decks, excuse me, hot tubs, want to screen them for privacy purposes and we'd like to leave that side open, if we can. MR. LIEGEY: The only plantings that are in question is already there. There's no additional plantings planned for anywhere around the deck. The only additional other plantings will be coming in the front of the property which is toward the driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. We'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER HORNING: Nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs., Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We'll have a decision for you in the near future and what we're merely going to ask you to do is what I just asked and that is move the hot tub away from that corner of the property. You know, in my opinion. MR. LIEGEY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that that side remain open visibly. MR. LIEGEY: As it exists presently? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As it exists presently. I mean you know, certainly you're elongating the deck. I mean so on and so forth. We understand that but for navigability purposes we rather not have anything there and that's some of the issues that have been brought up. People have called me and I'm bringing it up. I represent, I not only represent the six council people that appoint me but I also represent everybody in Southold Town that calls me. Page 47- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. LIEGEY: i don't think that should be a problem if we move it to the middle of the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record. MR. MORRISSEY: Good evening. My name is Brian Morrissey. I'm here on my father's behalf. I also reside at 265 Elizabeth Lane which is adjacent from the canal of the property that concerns Mr. Green. Now, one thing on this application that I notice here, is that he has 80 feet 6 inches. You know the corner of the house to the bulkhead. . ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, right. MR. MORRISSEY: OK? Now on the other end there's you know, there's no measurement there but it's got to be about 40 feet. So it's a lot more than the application. It says, he needs 8 feet of space to put everything in there. If you can just see it's about half the distance from that corner going to the water because it's a corner lot. You have water on that corner there. The 80 feet is going south. The other direction is going west. Now my father- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You do concur with the 67 feet 6 inches though for the deck on that corner? MR. MORRISSEY: No I'm not, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't agree with that either? MR. MORRISSEY: No, absolutely not. But I'm just saying that you know, this here is absolutely wrong because you know, this other measurement is conveniently left out. Now I have a little something that my father who is in Florida sent me. He asked me to read his statement because there's been a few things going on with this whole construction from the beginning. It says, as he asked me to say. "Dear Board Members: Since I am unable to appear in person I would like to take a moment to make my opinions known to the Members with regard to the application in question. This project was started in the spring of 1999 and continued into the summer with no visible Town Permits posted. When things became excessive we asked the person in charge, for the name and telephone number of the owner. During the telephone conversation with the owner I was basically told to mind my own business and that he had all the Town Permits needed and then some. My neighbor and I checked with the Building Department and found that no Permits had Page 48- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings been issued. The work had been started with flagrantly disregard with existing rules subsequently where it was stopped after about two weeks after they went down there, somebody came and shut them down. Also there was a lovely tree on the property that had been cut down to improve the owner's view and other trees planted deliberately to obstruct the view of the neighbors to hide his hot tub and deck activities. The damage may have been with the house but I do think that in addition of a deck and a hot tub may cause an environmental problem with wetlands approximately 30 feet away from the bulkhead. Doesn't New York State and Federal Environmental Protective Agency have rules concerning a large deck, adding hot tubs, cutting down trees and planting trees? I hope the Board will consider my criticisms for making any additions to the existing property that will be detrimental to the environmental. Someone in Southold had the foresight to make existing rules and regulations concerning buffer zones. These comments should not be overruled. I trust the Board will be governed by the existing rules and vote accordingly to preserve the quality of life." There's a couple of other things that I really what to say but I seem to have lost my trend of thought right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who did you say you were representing? What's your father's name? MR. MORRiSSEY: Charles Robert Morrissey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And where does he live Mr. Morrissey? MR. MORRISSEY: He lives at 265 Elizabeth Lane, which is across the canal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MORRISSEY: Also too, about the bushes there's an existing wail. I don't really know if it would apply but it says on corner lots, that shrubbery should only be at a- height of 2-1/2 feet above the average street level where it's causing obstructions to traffic and roads but also I'm saying that it causes obstruction to a waterway navigating in and out of you know Corey Creek. And we do have some pictures too that one of my other neighbors will present to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, next person. MR. SPITZENBERG: My name is Bob Spitzenberg and I live at 375 Elizabeth Lane, the first house next to the Morrissey. We are also across the canal. Now the issue all along on this matter has been the planting of six shrubs. One has one of which has apparently died but it was done in such a way, that it blocked our vision. Now Page 49-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings we paid big money for our houses, they're waterfront and also water view. Our water view has been seriously curtailed. In the beginning of this process, we contacted Mr. Green by phone and as Mr. Morrissey's son said, in so many words, he said, I can do whatever I want. All we wanted to do was to have him come over and look at it from our angle where these bushes were planted. Now Mr. Liegey was very adamant in making sure that the present plantings were OK. The present plantings haven't been there for 25 years. These six bushes have been put in probably within the last six months, and they effectively obscure our vision. If I may approach the Board, I will give you some pictures which illustrates it much more than I can. (Presenting pictures and explaining to the Board Members). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. SPITZENBERG: Alright, ! have this stuff to finish the statement. Town farmers keep telling us that we have a wonderful country out here, great land, a pleasure to be a resident and that's very true. I don't know that if we end up with this kind of a situation, to allow it to persist, that we don't have a chance or maybe ending up with a devaluation of our property should we want to sell. If people are looking for water view, as well as waterfront, I know they get big money for just waterfront. That you can see it on the 23rd of December. If it's a sunny day and the trees don't have their leaves off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Spitzenberg, I'm not here to upset you tonight, OK. I am myself not feeling up to par but we cannot, we cannot create a water view for everybody. I'm telling you that right now. The code doesn't provide for it. The issue of navigability however is an issue that's real and valid. But the issue of water view is not a real and valid issue. I'm telling you as I sit before you. It never has been and I .don't think it's going to be and I'm not here to upset you I'm just making a general statement. MR. SPITZENBERG: I'm not more upset than I was when this think first started to pop and what really was annoying that the man didn't even have the courtesy to come over to our side of the canal and see what we were talking about. Now the builder, Mr. Liegey, very specific about the present plantings. What the present plantings part of them of course it is his property and it doesn't have to be that way. He can move those threes on a different line and the problem would be solved, OK? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Sir?. How do you do? State your name for the record. MR. NELSON: My name is Nelson. 95 Elizabeth Lane. There are quite a few boats in that canal. As you know that canal also leads out to the waterway and the way the shrubs and the trees are now, any boats, there are quite a few without a fly bridge, they run the possibility of having a collision because of the obstructive visibility when Page 50-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings you come to the edge of that canal. And myself and another boat, we almost had a collision there last summer. So that's something to be taken into consideration. MEMBER HORNING: Was this property there at the time? MR. NELSON: Yes, it was in the summer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Nelson. OK, anybody else? No. Could i just speak to the contractor one second? Thank you Sir. Could you just give us a distance on that opposite side of the deck to the property line on a diagonal? MR. LIEGEY: You're saying where it shows 80 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The opposite side, yes. MR. LIEGEY: The western most corner? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I guess that's west. MR. LIEGEY: The western most corner as far as I understand it from the Building Department, because it's closer on that western corner of the house, that the deck will not impede on that distance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want a distance. Just give me a distance. You've got a physical situation there. Go down and measure it and just tell me what it is. Call me, OK, that's all I want. MR. LIEGEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please explain to Mr. Green the concern of that navigability. It may be the nature of this Board to remove those two bushes that goes further out, bushes that exist now. He may have to move those into a different location as to the navigability issue. Not as to the water view issue and the issue of the hot tub still stands. We would like it away from that area for the sole purpose of not wanting. This has nothing to do with Mr. Green in general, he, or subsequent owners to this property and that's the concern that this Board, that I have. I'm speaking for the Board but I don't know what my fellow colleagues feel about it. ! am a boater. I've owned a boat for 42 years and I understand some of the problems. Thank you and just call us tomorrow with that figure, you know, you can leave it on voice mail. Just tell them, you know, and that's all I want. Any questions from Board Members? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a brief comment for the sake of the neighbors. Mr. Morrissey called attention to the fact that the drawings and the Page 51-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings file don't say anything about the distance from the deck addition to the canal on the, I guess you call it the west side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I just asked for. MEMBER COLLINS: And I wanted to tell Mr. Mord~ey that what the Chairman was just asking of Mr. Liegey is to give us that measurement but I just want you to understand the reason that the Building Department didn't cite that in their Notice of Disapproval is that the deck does not increase the encroachment towards the a, the house is already there and the house is already in fact closer to that canal from the deck and typically an existing degree of non-conformance establishes a perimeter within which you can do things. That's why it's not in the denial and that's why it's not on our Agenda. I just wanted you to know that. It's not some devious omission. MR. MORRISS.E..Y: Well, alright, if it's actually from the angle, it's moving further away. It's not moving closer but it's still would not comply, meaning it's 75 feet and you're talking there's a 40 foot, you know it's probably about 4 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: I think you didn't hear me Mr. Mordssey. I retrieve. MR. MORRISSEY: I understand exactly what you said. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. You'll give us that, We're going to close the hearing pending the receipt of that and. please mention again to your client that we may ask him to remove those two bushes so as to not to interfere with navigability and we thank you. Sir, you want to speak to? MR. SPITZENBERG, JR.; Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I apologize, go ahead. MR. SPITZENBERG, JR. My name is Robert Spitzenberg, Jr. This is my father that spoke. I do not reside at 375 Elizabeth Lane. But I am a boater. I've always had a boat there. I just wanted to reiterate Mr. Nelson's concern also and the concern of a, if there were future plantings, trees, or shrubbery, if there would be a height requirement put on thc~e for future - .. .~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So far as I'm concerned, there aren't any and that's my opinion, because what I intend to do is go down and measure where the visibility is and I intend to do that between now and April 12, and if the person wants to garner my boat, meaning the applicant, then their going to leave it unobstructive. Page 52-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Bearings MR. SPITZENBERG, JR.: OK, very good. I wasn't quite sure about that. Morrissey had just shown me a little while before the hearing, that a code in corner lot is a 2-1/2 foot height requirement for shrubbery. But Mr. town, a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right. MR. SPITZENBERG, JR.: OK, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. I make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of that distance. MEMBER HORNING: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 53- Apdl 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 4794 - MARK LAMPL This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlII, Section 100-239.4A(1), based upon the Building Department's January 25, 2000 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a Building Permit to locate a proposed swimming pool at less than the existing 66+-ft. non-conforming setback from the bluff of the Long Island Sound. (Section 100-239.4A of the Zoning code provides for a minimum setback landward of existing principal dwelling, or a minimum of 100 feet from the top of the bluff.) Location of Property: Lot 127 on the Map of Pebble Beach, a/Ida 910 The Strand Way, East Madon; 1000-30-2-81. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Mr. McLaughlin. How are you? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good, how are you? I'm here with respect to the application for a swimming pool along The Strand in Pebble Beach Farms. Obviously a lot of the issues have already been discussed because of the previous application. My clients Lampl bought this property in August of 1999, at which time the house with its deck and everything was already there. They would like to put in a swimming pool and obviously they cannot comply with the setback from the bluff requirement. As has been previously discussed by the Board, there are numerous swimming pools along the Strand in Pebble Beach Farms, many or all of which are within the 100 foot setback line of the bluff. We have supplied to the Board a letter of Non-Jurisdiction from DEC. The Board I think has solicited and received a day or two ago a letter from the Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District. To me that's a very important letter for the file, in that the letter indicates that they don't see any problems with the pool location as proposed. These are the expert. These are the people that should know whether or not the placement of a pool in this position would have any adverse affect on the bluff. Despite the dire predictions of Dr. Trowbridge, according to his own numbers, there are seven existing swimming pools- along that bluff and there has been absolutely no presentation of any proof other than his opinion that these could cause problems. Again, the experts in Soil & Water Conservation District, don't see any problems with it. Obviously we're not going to have any adverse impact on the neighborhood, because the neighborhood has swimming pools. Many, most of the properties along this street have swimming pools. I do have with me both Mr. Lampl this evening and also a representative of Islandia Pools so if you have any questions regarding our application, we would be happy to answer anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the basic question is and you've been before this Board many times Mr. McLaughlin, that is alternate relief. Can you shrink the pool? Can you move the pool closer to the deck? Can you give us more than 42 feet? And those are the immediate situations all of which having your client here maybe we can put this to bed tonight to a certain degree. Page 54- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have discussed with him the possibility of moving the pool, the size of the pool as it presently is requested, closer to the existing deck. And I think that is something that we would certainly entertain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that or what? mean can we go 18 x 38? Can we go something like MR. LAMPL: There really negotiable you know. We'd like to be able to put a board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. For the record that's Mr. Lampl. Is that correct? MR. LAMPL: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. I just have to say it for the purposes of it you're going to come up and say anything else, you're welcome to use the mike along with Mr. McLaughlin. I just have to take it down otherwise I get yelled at.. My secretary had a - MR. LAMPL: Just for the record. Everything is negotiable and we'd like to be able put a board and whatever the jurisdiction is of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll start with Mrs. Tortora. questions of the applicant or the attorney for the applicant? Any MEMBER TORTORA: I was just reading the Soil & Water and I just noticed that there is you know a ( ) area, a gully, a 26 wide gully, and they said that it doesn't appear to be any problems associated with the bluff but they're very concerned about the water being discharged over the bluff. MR. McLAUGHLIN: No problem with that. ! had that letter faxed to me this afternoon. I did discuss it with Mr. Lampl before the meeting. He read it and thought they were very accurate in their description of the bluff and perhaps a menial actions in plantings that he could take to prevent any, to minimize further erosion of the a bluff. Obviously it's in his best interest to have bluff line remain as stable as possible and he's willing to do what is ever reasonably necessary to accomplish that. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't see. Do you have a drywell indicated on this? MR. McLAUGHLIN: It's not indicated on the plans but we certainly and I do have a representative from Islandia Pools,.who certainly would be putting one in. : MEMBER TORTORA: Could you indicate where it would be? MR. WILCENSKI: John Wilcenski from Islandia Pools. We can locate the drywell any place that you'd like Ma'am. We have no problem with, you know drywell. Page 55-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals 'Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Preferably away from the septic system. MR. WILCENSKI: Right. MR. McLAUGHLIN: The septic system is in,front of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In front of the house. OK, good. MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to make sure that the run-off, any run-off from the pool off the property is concerned, (inaudible) best, if you can move the pool back to a more conforming location. MR. WILCENSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just need to ask the pool supplier here, when I say supplier, I'm talking about builder. Have you had any experience with any problems with these, this is a liner pool also? MR. WILCENSKI: No, it isn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a gunite pool? MR. WILCENSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Have you had any problems with gunite pools on the bluff? In anywhere in Suffolk County with them cracking? I realize that a gunite pool is much different than a liner pool in the respect that the gunite pool is really a bomb shelter built in reverse. I'm knocking on wood. I'm not a superstitious person but the cracking of a gunite pool, is that a possibility? MR. WlLCENSKI: Well it's all framed out with steel and it's almost impossible that it's going to crack. Anything can crack. Even a building. I don't care how strong you're going to go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To what degree would it actually have to crack for it to really start oozing water?. MR. WILCENSKI: Probably have to have an earthquake. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to knock on wood on that. Any questions of the pool supplier at this point? Anybody, the builder? Page 56-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: Well let me ask you this question. Is the amount of dirt that you take out for the pool equal to the amount of weight of water and gunite that will be put back in? I mean, how close is that? Do you have any idea? MR. WILCENSKI: Honestly I can't answer that. It is close, but you know. It's a, to give you exact figures., I can't give youthat. Also, i just want to mention we'll also be using a non-chlorine base chemical in there. It's varcosol. So it'll be non-hazardous as far as chlorine is goes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting, OK. We thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Any questions of the attorney for the applicant or the applicant? Anybody? No? OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Dr.? Doctor, i just want to mention something to you, that in the nature of applications that have come before us, unfortunately i didn't sit on this hearing but I did read the transcript only because a relative lived next door to this piece of property in Mattituck. But I really like you to come in some time and we'll have to pull this file out for you. But the question that Mr. Dinizio just asked, the pool builder, is basically that situation in Mattituck on about 167 foot bluff. I just can't remember the lady and gentleman's name. ~s Barry and Carol a - MEMBER TORTORA: Arness. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Amess. I'd like you to read that transcript in the weight, the compacted weight. Again, almost synonymous with the question Mr. Dinizio just asked. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Well I thought the questions was very well pointed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but if you read it within, this was over a series of three hearings, and they actually weighed the difference between it, and believe it or not, the compacted soil without the weight of the water and the pool, this is on a gunite pool, weighed more than the compacted soil and you'll find that very interesting. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Yes. The other thing - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The name was Arness. MR. TROWBRIDGE: OK, I'd be willing to come in and look at the file. The soil analysis in the entire Pebble Beach area was done when the development was first brought to the town for approval and it consists of clay and day (). So it very Page 57- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings impervious to water. So if you have a breakdown, or you have poor drainage on the site, it's going to follow the contour of the land. It's not going to be percolating down through and that's a concern now especially because we do have some flooding down the western end of the Strand. People were experiencing some flooding, also at the end of the cul-de-sac, in another area in the development and we're trying.to wrestle with these problems and what we don't need is the specter of someone having to build the pool on top of this. Where is it going to go? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: By the nature of what you just said to me. is exactly the reason why you have weeping on the bluff because if water comes to a specific surface, within that bluff area it will weep out instead of down. MR. TROWBRIDGE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing I ask you to~.do is whatever was synonymous with the firSt hearing we can incorporate - MR. TROWBRIDGE: This is totally different. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: TOtally different. MR. TROWBRIDGE: This is a pool application for a pool variance to the setback restrictions of 910 The Strand. It was submitted on January 11th. Reviewing the file, it appears as though the application is incomplete. The applicant did not provide the dimensions of the entire new construction. There was no depths to this pool provided. The application erroneously states the pool construction did not violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation. In fact it does. It violates the zoning regulations concerning setbacks. The application states excess fill will be removed from the premises but there's no statement as to where it's going to be removed to. Application does not indicate that the lot will be regraded as a- consequence of the pool being installed and it does not indicate :,how the grading will be done. The previous pool applications that I've had, the opportunity to review, it appears that if there's any regrading in the back yard of these lots, it's always away from the bluff line to the (coughing-inaudible) towards the (inaudible), not over the bluff down to the beach. The application states that the property is within 300 feet of the tidal wetland butno indication is provided as to whether or not a permit has been applied for from the Southold Town Trustees. I'm not sure if wetland permit is required but since it was: mentioned on the application. The Building Department on January 25th disapproved this application on the grounds that the proposed construction is within the 100 ;foot setback. Attorney J. Kevin McL.aughlin is representing the Lempls. He submitted on February 18, an appeal asking for a variance. One reason for seeking relief that he gave, is the existence of other pools in the neighborhood being located within the 100 foot setback. I think we all understand that another person's violation of the law does not give us the right to also break the law. This is especially true when no hardship is created by the Page 58- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings - : conditions the law creates. Another reason for seeking relief is insufficient room in the rear yard area of the lot to provide a 100 foot setback. Again, the current owners bought this property knowing full well that the backyard had limits to it. One of those limit is the 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff in their backyard. Now they are telling us they should be exempted from the 100 foot setback requirement because they did~not contribute to the lack of room. Can that really be considered an argument to justify the lot owners being exempted from this very important restriction? Another reason for seeking relief is that since other pools in the neighborhood are situated closer than 100 feet from the bluff's top, an additional pool so situated will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions currently existing in the neighborhood. ~f we continue this logic, why not eliminate the entire setback rule and allow home as well as pools to be built on and below the bluff's edge? Let's continue this absurdity and allow people to build cabanas on the beach below the bluff. We already have lot owners who have installed plumbing and electricity down the bluff and onto the beach. Although the applicant states that the alleged diffiCUlty was not self-created, he states that the difficulty was created by the subject premises being built by previous owners in such a way as to leave insufficient room in their rear yard to accommodate a swimming pool. I grant that the new owners are not at fault for the building being located where it is, but it is their fault that they bought the premises knowing its limitations and restrictions before they purchased it. These restrictions and limitations were presented to them in the covenants and restrictions that were give and explained to them by their attorney before they closed on the property. Now they would like us to believe that they deserve to be relieved of these restrictions and limitations because they did not have a part in creating the insufficient room. Not only is the expectation for relief unreasonable, but the lack of logic and reason in the argument being presented justify this unrealistic expectation does not deserve our attention. And if you allow this argument to be used to justify this variance, other lot owners in Pebble Beach Farms will be expecting you to grant variances for them to use the community's open spaces that were designed to allows this subdivision to- be created. The file did not contain the return receipts from the.certified return receipts requested letters mailed to the neighbors. I thought neighbors had to be informed of this construction before it came before this Board of Appeals for disCUssion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They should be returned. MR. TROWBRIDGE: The file did not contain a reply to the March 29th letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals to J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. This letter requested measurements for setbacks ~from the top of the bluff be provided by a surveyor since the applicant, Islandia Pools, representing Lempl, has indicated that the pool would be 42+ or minus feet from the bluff line, but the distance of 11 feet from the house and the 20 foot width of pool makes it appear that the pool will be only 30 feet from the bluff line. Asked that a corrected map be forwarded to the abutting landowners and to the landowner on the opposite side of the Strand by certified-return receipt, it Page 59-April 6, 2000 -. Board of Appeals Hearings is doubtful that such a corrected map could have been forwarded to the abutting landowners and to the landowner on the opposite side of the Strand in time that would be sufficient for them to have received it and to intelligently respond to it. No provisions are made for disposing of filter backwash. Are they going to merely dump the material generated by back flushing the pool's filter onto the surface of the ground? I even raised this question immediately prior to my stand, in employees. However, there are other pools in the neighborhood that when they came before this Board for a Variance, were told by the Board, they must take all rain waters dump it on ( ) raining off the roofs of the buildings on the lot and place that water in the drywells. There's no surface water to be running across that property. There are no provisions in that plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just reflect back on number 5 before you (change tape)? The applicant and/or his attorney or his agent runs the risk of having an additional hearing, if they do not submit everything that they should have submitted to date. The lady that usually sits in Mr. Dinizio's seat will be back and she is extremely - MR. TROWBRIDGE: I know, I have a compliment to you - MEMBER DINIZIO: We all have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She is extremely dedicated in her job in the relentless pursuit of getting green cards. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Where are the pool's chemicals and other materials associated with maintaining this pool going to be stored? Are the Lempls contemplating building another structure between the house and the top of the bluff to store the hazardous chemicals? We were told tonight that they would not be hazardous chemicals but they will be chemicals and they're going to be needed to- maintain the pool and most people don't want to store them in their home. Where will the pool's pumps be located? Will they be placed in such a way that the noise they generate will not be a nuisance to the neighborhood? Like the Weber's application, I believe this application to install a pool also lacks sufficient justifioation to exempt it from the 100 foot setback requirement. Also, like the Weber's application, I also believe that this application has a sufficient number of deficiencies in it to make it ineligible for approval as it currently stands. Your continuing to grant variances for building pools on the bluff will result in our having a pool on each o'f the thirty three (33) lots along the bluff in Pebble Beach Farms within the foreseeable future. It will not be long thereafter that the owners of these waterfront lots will be coming to you for variances to build decks, cabanas and sheds on top of the bluff and below the bluff's edge. Indeed, I believe the Weber's originally began modification of their property with an application to build a very grand and elaborate staircase with attached decks down the entire face of the bluff. Where will you draw the line and stop all this construction on these bluffs? I don't have to remind you that Page 60- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings these bluffs are extremely fragile land forms that are absolutely essential for maintaining our community's welfare, i think you know that you need to protect them. You are the bluffs defenders and protectors. In conclusion, I respectfully request you refuse this pool application for a variance, The construction of all these pools on the bluff is jeopardizing the character of Pebble Beach Farms. I've already told you that not one of the pools that currently exists on the bluff's edge is secured with a self-closing and locked gate. Consequently, we have to conclude that these pools represent a very real threat to the health, safety and welfare of the residents living in Pebble Beach Farms. And to conclude, I want to thank Linda for taking such great care of me while I visited your office. You are indeed very lucky to have someone that cares. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes we are and she will do the same when we ask you to review the Arness application. I just want to make one particular statement. Regarding the setback aspects, and a when these setbacks were put...in place, in the Code, they were done during a period of time that we were working on an application in a place called Eastern Shores which is in Greenport. This subdivision appears to me to be somewhat of a cluster subdivision in that the lots are a little bit narrower, the lots of course are longer. Eastern Shores is a probably a ( ) 60 subdivision which has half acre lots on it and the bluff isn't quite as high. There's more steepness, so on and so forth. And when i discussed that with the drafter of this ordinance, and I've said this numerous times, numerous meetings, and I'm not being redundant now because I'm speaking to you regarding this issue, and that doesn't mean we're taking anything away from the issue, but I do want you to be aware that my question to this drafter was, "If you hold these people to 100 feet, the house is going to be across the street on somebody else's property, or the deck is going to be even with the property line on the street and the house is going to be in the street, and so on and so forth." His statement to me was, "Jerry, we want you to look at every application. We want you to try and create a norm for substandard subdivision." That's what I want you to do. Surely if you have a 2-1/2 acre, 3 acre lot on Long Island Sound and the person has the depth, we want you to hold them to that depth. That's what the objective is in the construction of this code change. You bring up some very interesting points, but I do want to mention to you that we do the very best we can in dealing with this application. MR. TROWBRIDGE: That you did. Very good, you deserve to be congratulated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well thank you. But just as we sat here tonight with the first hearing, which was a special permit application, as in the case of these hearings too, we don't know what the future of the remaining swimming pool areas are. I mean the whole gamut of swimming pools in the area. Surely there are times that are fads, that people want to build them. In 1988 which was the last time that we had the distinct pleasure of having a gentleman who represented the Town of Southold since 1955, 1988. His name was Bob Tasker? and he was the Town Attorney. A wonderful, wonderful man and some time after that he passed away at Page 61-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings the early age of 62. We had numerous discussions with Mr. Tasker regarding these things. Accessory building in the rear yard area and swimming pools on the bluff and he said to us, "what are you people going to do*? ~ said, well, "we're going to look at each application and we're going to make sure it doesn't violate health, safety and welfare." He said, "well I really can't ask for much more than that." So I'm going to make a suggestion to you. Just as we sat in his office on Front .Street in Greenport, he said, "I'm going to ask you not to link the pool in any way or any manner or any form to the house. But just in case there is a breach situation it would not affect the house.' Sure it's going to affect the bluff. There's no doubt in my mind it's going to affect the bluff but that's the story as I know it and that's the way we have been working since 1988. That doesn't mean that we're not taking your testimony into consideration because some of the issues that you've brought up are very interesting ones and we do appreciate that. I want you to know that. MR. TROWBRIDGE: The last thing I'd like to leave you with is, that these bluffs, are.. these lots rather are in the association of the new development they're not shallow lots and they are half acre. At least one half acre lots. So if the original owner had done a little report on it, they would have built their house closer to the road and given them a deeper rear backyard so anyone who came along subsequent to them could very easily put whatever they like in the backyard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only way that would have happened, is if during the construction of the original subdivision, they leveled each one of those lots all the way out to the tip or the edge of the bluff, because the reason why people built so much closer is to garner the water view. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Of course, of course. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now in those days they could do that. MR. TROWBRIDGE: You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And today, you would not be able to do that. Many of the south front areas in Mattituck were done just that way. The trees were stripped, they dumped over the top of the bluff and an entire plateau area was created and that's where the problem exists today and that's the reason why we're dealing with these applications. MR. TROWBRIDGE: And I don't envy you your job. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to clear the air on t~at. MR. TROWBRIDGE: If I can help, I'd be more than willing to work with you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Page 62- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. McLAUGHLIN: Just on a couple of issues. Regarding the return receipts. I do have a letter here. I've only received one return receipt. I received one unclaimed letter and my letter indicates I did receive a call from Joseph Siena from the Strand Corp. who owns partial property, who questioned me about the nature of this application, I never received a return receipt from him from the mailing, but obviously he got it, that's the only way he knew about it, so I'll hand what I have up and I will provide any further return receipts as they come in. As to the issue of the letter. What basically happened when I filed the original application, a copy of a survey was provided that had been reduced in size and using that it was thought that the dimensions were wrong as far as the 11 feet to the pool, the 20 feet of the pool, and what was left at the top of bluff. VVhen I brought in the full size survey that issue was resolved and therefore there was no need to send out any additional mailings to anyone because the dimensions were correct on the map that was mailed out with a Notice to the adjoining landowner. Thank you, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Ladies and gentlemen, what discussion would you like to continue with on this application? Any? MEMBER COLLINS: Do you have anyone else that wants to appear? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anyone else want to speak either for or against the application? Is there anything you would like to answer in the way of rebuttal regarding this statement made by the good doctor? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well you see we're all concerned about the bluff. Again, I don't know if anything from any expert other than positive feedback regarding potential damage that could be done by the pool to the bluff. The expert says, the location of the pool is not a problem. Clearly discharging water in any manner over the bluff is- a problem and we are certainly do not intend to do that, will ,not do that, and will do whatever is necessary to conserve the bluff as it presently exists. We are certainly willing to accept alternate relief and have the pool moved closer to the house to give somewhat of a further setback but we are limited in how far we can move it and ~ believe we were willing to reduce somewhat the size of the pool if that will be the pleasure of the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: feet an accurate figure? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. OK, lets discuss the 42 feet for a second. Is the 42 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we don't have a problem with that. MR. McLAUGHLIN: No. I mean everywhere out there is the line of the bluff, the end Page 63- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings is somewhat, so, but the dimension that's shown on the survey is correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any other questions of Mr. McLaughlin, anybody? MEMBER TORTORA: You don't show a fence. :, MR. McLAUGHLIN: Excuse me. MEMBER TORTORA: Fencing. MR. McLAUGHLIN: There will be. They'll have to be a fence to go around the pool. It's required. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and the deck will probably be ground level. MR. McLAUGHLIN: That will be ground level. They haven't determined exactly what they want to put in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, yes, question? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, No, I guess it's not a question. I just wanted to second your focus on alternative relief. I think a somewhat smaller pool, somewhat closer to the house is probably the way the compromise will come out. I would suggest that Dr. Trowbridge, that if you ever have a chance to get down to Town Hall, ask the office to show you the statutory language of New York State Law that tells Towns they have to have a Zoning Board of Appeals and what its job is because the spirit of the State Law is the Town and not Zoning. It's got to have a Zoning Board of Appeals to find compromises between ( ) and recited automatically but between basically what a property owner wishes to do with his property and what the law requires because property is so irregular. You know our job is really finding, finding- ways to try to safeguard the public and also let property owners enjoy their property. The spirit of the Zoning Code is not this is the law, you've got to follow it, period end of report, absolutely not. I just want you to know that. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I know that. Linda gave me a very good explanation of the law and she gave me a copy of the Zoning Board (inaudible). MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, OK. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Lampl has just indicated to me that, I mean ,they were going to be using a pool surface. As far as the issue of storage of chemicals or whstever on the property, they don't intend to do that. Page 64- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings (~I-iAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: everybody for their courtesy. decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. OK, we thank you Mr. McLaughlin. We thank I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Page 65- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:53 - Appl. No. 4803- CHRIS MESKOURIS & ORS. This is a request for relief from condition No. 2 of Appl. No. 3951 and Appl..No. 3957 to allow a proposed roof with canopy structure over existing deck. The prior conditions relating to the existing deck were based on Variances under Article XXlII, Section 100-239.4A(1) and Article XXlV, Section 100-244, for a-reduced setback from the top of the sound bluff and for lot coverage exceeding 20%ri' The Building Department's 1/25/00 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 8, 2000 for 1300 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck; 1000-106-1-37. Appl. No. 4807 - CHRIS MESKOURIS & ORS. This is a request for relief from condition No. of Appl. No. 3957 to allow a proposed roof with canopy structure over existing deck. The prior conditions relating to the existing deck were based on Variances under Article XXIII, Section 100-239!4A(1), and Article XXIV, Section 100-244 for a reduced setback from the top of the sound bluff and for lot coverage exceeding 20%. The Building Department's 1/25/00 Notice of Disapproval regarding property at 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.>; 1000-106-1-36. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera, how are you tonight? MRS. RIVERA: I'm fine, thank you Mr. Goehringer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MRS. RIVERA: I have provided the Board with pictures all that were taken of the various homes in the neighborhood and if you look at the one of 600 Sound Beach Drive, it's the exact same overhang on the deck that the Meskouris have to use on their deck. (inaudible) 1350 Sound Beach Drive. I had someone make a little model of it so you could see basically it's just'fa roof overhang with 4 x 4 (inaudible) on their side. We tried alternate types of awnings and overhangs but unfortunately it would be (inaudible), and the only way to accommodate a shaded area on deck is to have some sought of permanent structure. If you notice most of the homes on the Sound do have some sought of overhang on their deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They don't go past the deck area do they, - MRS. RIVERA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Except on the - MRS. RIVERA: NOo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Except on lot 83 whichever one that is? Page 66-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. RIVERA: There's approximately 5 foot at 13507 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. That's 13507 MRS. RIVERA: But it's where the decl~ comes in a little bit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. RIVERA: In order to maintain symmetry with the type of roof overhang we are going to go out to the end there of the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you're not increasing the deck size? MRS. RIVERA: No. ~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and it's - MRS. RIVERA: But (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the actual width of the deck, or the depth of the deck? MRS. RIVERA: The deck on one lot is 32 feet 3 inches by 1300 and next door is 30 feet 2 inches. MEMBER COLLINS: Those are widths. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those are widths, right? But what do you have in depth? MRS. RIVERA: And the depth would be approximately 15 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's 15 feet by on 1300, it's 15 feet by - MRS. RIVERA: 32' 3" and a 1350 is 30.2 by approximately 15. I provided the Board with a ( ) of this and it's symmetric on there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're telling me is, that on 1300 you're making the roof wider than the house. MRS. RIVERA: No, it would be exactly the 32.3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I get the width of the house at 24 more. Page 67-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. RIVERA: Oh, yeah, well. (Explaining and showing the layout) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so it's the exact width of the house? MRS. RlVERA: Well, this one extends over here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'OK, so that's the reason why that one is so much longer? Because it's 32.3? Because that house is not a front to back house? It's a side to side. MRS. RIVERA: Right, and there's a, the house extends 16 feet this way over here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but you're not going over that? MRS. RIVERA: No, just over this existing part here. pictures its like any apron. ' As you can see from the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. Questions of Mrs. Rivera, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MEMBER COLLINS: While I have the drawing in front of me, I just wanted you to repeat what you just went through because you were sought of pointing at things that I wasn't seeing. At number 1300, the house is basically a wide shallowish house and the part of it that is closest to the deck is 32.3 feet wide and it's that width that you propose to build this cover again? MRS. RIVERA: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: The house next door is a rectangular house and it's 30 feet wide, 30 feet and change at the deck,end and where would the roofing go there? It would be the 30 feet and then a little bit to the east? MRS. RIVERA: No, actually we're just going to enclose it. The hip angle exactly like this. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, OK, I've got it on here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, it' actually over some of the dirt area or some of the, that little cutout. ~ MRS. RIVERA: Yes, it's exactly like this. This being the 32' 3". Page 68- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Procedurally, i found this very confusing. be sure I know, really exactly what we're being asked for. application was for house number 1350. You know I want to The Building Permit MRS. RIVERA: They were both submitted at the same time. MEMBER COLLINS' Oh, OK. MRS. RIVERA: 1300 and 1350 both having the same home owner, Chris Meskouris and when they gave me the disapproval they only gave it to me for one and not both. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I mean have denials for both but it's only an application for one and then the cases back in 1990, they're were two Zoning Board of Appeals proceedings. One applied to 1300 and one applied to !350 and they're worded virtually identically. MRS. RIVERA: Right, and actually if you go further, there's one 1400. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so the two lots received these essentially identical variances back then and they both had this provision, OK. And the only intent here is to get shade? MRS. RIVERA: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: I was up there yesterday and i could of used a little protection against the wind. I guess that, I just found it very hard to get it squared away when I read it. Thank you. MRS. RIVERA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing, could you give us the actual dimensions of the overhang on both lots? MRS. RIVERA: Yes, actually they're two ( ) for both homes in the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This one is from Penny Lumber. MRS. RIVERA: Yes, actually there's one for each house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a, well the actual roof line including the overhang is 15 feet by the width of the house. On both of them. Page 69- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. RIVERA: Right, it ( ) approximately two feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 32'3". So on 1350 it's 15 x 32, 30'2" and on 1300 is 15' x MRS. RIVERA: 1300 is 32.3 x 15 with the new overhang, the soffit overhang and 1350 is 30'2" x approximately 15. MEMBER TORTORA: You have a big roof overhang. The only thing you have to watch is the one that's 30'2" because you're right on the corner of the erosion and hazard line, and just to make sure that overhang doesn't go any closer over - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, you might have to pull that one back just a little bit. MRS. RIVERA: Well it would be pulled back because the depth is approximately 2 feet from that erosion line so that the corner post will be back at least that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: You've got to be very careful on that. MRS. RIVERA: In fact we can set it back a little bit. It'll be no problem. The posts are actually going to sit on the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to penetrate them through the deck? MRS. RIVERA: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, that's all I was concerned about. Because that dirt- area, if you square that off, you can take a ruler and square that off you're going to be- MRS. RIVERA: I can set that back yard part off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good, we thank you. MRS. RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see What else develops, if anybody has any questions in the audience. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I11 close the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. - See Minutes for Resolution. Page 70-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:05 P.M. Appl. No. 4804 - RAY & ASTRID GADDIS Applicants request Variances under Article XXIII, Section 100~239.4B and Article XXlV, Section 100-242A, based upon the Building Inspector's February 29, 2000 Notice of Disapproval and an Application for a Building Permit to locate proposed dwelling addition. The proposed addition will be less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and will have side yards at less than the existing 14'9" non-conformity. Location of Property: 7020 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; Parcel No. 1000-126-11-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir, could you state your name for the record? MR. BUTLER: My name is Jeff Butler and I'm a professional engineer representing Mr. & Mrs. Gaddis, owners of the residence at 7020 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. With me tonight is Raymond Gaddis, the owner of the subject property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. MR. BUTLER: Mr. & Mrs. Gaddis purchased the home in February of 1999 with the intention of renovating the dwelling to suit their needs as full-time residents. Previously the residence was occupied by Susan Lowe (sp?). On November of 1999, an application was made to the Building Department to renovate and construct an addition. In the process two things came to light. First, the Zoning Code allows for a covered porch to encroach beyond a side yard setback line as long as the porch does not exceed 30 sq. ft. over the line. This design before you calls for 26 sq. ft. to be over the side yard line over to the west. However, after submittal, we found out through the Building Department that the intent of the Code was that this overage has to include the complete porch and not part of it. As you can see we're in violation of that because the area does not enclose, that's within the boundary lines of the setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the back porch or the front porch? MR. BUTLER: Front, I'm sorry. MEMBER COLLINS: Front, you mean towards the road? MR. BUTLER: Road side. Yes. My clients and I feel very strongly with this pre- existing location of the house. But it is important both esthetically and ( ) to have this front entrance visible from the natural approach to the house. So we are here tonight to respectfully ask for relief to this, from the side yard setback. Page 71- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings .~.,:¢~?.: The second thing that we're asking for, another thing we found out upon application to the Building Department is that the existing rear deck is all he has is the existing rear deck, which is on the water side, exists within the rear setback of 75 feet. My client's intent was to cut this deck back so that it only protruded 10 feet from the back of the house rather than plus the 20 feet it is now. And to cover that portion of it with a roof..,After review by the Building Department, Mr. Forrester concluded that a Certificate of Occupancy exists for the rear deck. No proof could be found that it existed prior to zoning change. Therefore, he felt that putting a roof over the existing deck was a Zoning Board of Appeals decision. As you can see the proposed porch constructed, the proposed porch construction is located within 61 feet of the bulkhead and the existing deck is within 53 feet of the bulkhead. Based on this, we respectfully request relief for the rear yard setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there was no deck on this house originally? porch, no deck, no anything? MR. BUTLER: There was no rear deck originally. No CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK_ MR. BUTLER: Somewhere along the line, the rear deck was put on when the Gaddises purchased the property, it came up that this deck was, that they couldn't find any application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was no C.O. on the deck is what you're telling me. MR. BUTLER: Well, there is a C.O. on the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. BUTLER: Yes. There is a C.O. on the deck? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, if there's a C.O. on the deck, what are you bringing it up for as an issue on the setback? I don't understand that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Because Mr. Forrester denied it. He issued a disapproval for it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, he says there's a C.O. on the deck. MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no plan. MR. BUTLER: There's a C.O. on the deck. We wish to cut it back and cover it. Page 72-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ahead. Oh, this is the covering aspect of it, I'm sorry. OK. go MR. BUTLER: I would like to point out that the Board of Trustees has reviewed and approved the reports and we have a letter of non-jurisdictional from the DEC. For Linda, I have the certified mail receipts for the four adjoining neighbors including the two across the street. I have received~'~ree return receipts back. The fourth which went to Mr. & Mrs. Kutz which is the property owners to the west- my client and I met with a few weeks ago and presented our design to them because they're the neighbors to the west, we wanted them to be comfortable with this, that it will have no impact on their adjoining to the property on the ( ) Lake, and went over and actually pointed out the extent of the rear porch and you know how it would not impact their views in the Great Peconic Bay and also pointed out where the setback would be on the front porch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. (Pausb) Is that it? MR. BUTLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, let's see your colored coded areas just so we know. MR. BUTLER: This can help explain the situation. The yellow section outlined along with that red section was the pre-existing dwelling. This yellow section is proposed to be, remove this deck and this red section is proposed to be covered, cover the existing deck, footprint. MEMBER COLLINS: Let me interrupt. MR. BUTLER: Yes. , ¢, MEMBER COLLINS: What you just said, the depth that's seaward of your red ban, that part, OK, that is on the footprint of what was already there? MR. BUTLER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what you had a C.O. for, as an open deck? MR. BUTLER: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As an open deck? MR. BUTLER: Yes, as an open deck. Page 73- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: And you plan to - MR. BUTLER: Plan to cut this deck back on the seaward side. MEMBER COLLINS: Bring it back MR. BUTLER: Bring it back. MEMBER COLLINS: There'll be less deck on the seaward side? MR. BUTLER: Yes, and cover it. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MR. BUTLER: The blUe portion represents an addition that's been permitted and is' currently under construction. The red section over here is the first part that I explained which is the front entrance to the building which as you can see by the orientation of the house, and where the driveway is going to approach, based on the existing orientation of the house, it's very difficult to see where the front door is. So we would like to cover this area right here, as a covered porch to bring that entrance in, I don't know if there's an elevation. I have an elevation if you'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're bringing that edge of the porch down to what? MR. BUTLER: 11 feet 1 inch from14.9. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry. OK, one of my intense confusions was, I had this (map) and I went to the property and I found foundations that didn't match what I was reading on here so I ended up very confused. MR. BUTLER: Does this help? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, this is obvious, yes, (amended map) this is obviously helpful. On here you seemed to be filling in a little comer in there and that was also reducing your side yard setback. MR. BUTLER: Yeah, no, that, this was a site plan that was done previous te this design. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so your side yard setback where you go closer than the house already is, is your little red triangle? MR. BUTLER: Yes, yes. Page 74- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you said that's 11 foot what? MR. BUTLER: 11 feet 1". MEMBER COLLINS: Setback? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: have that map in the file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May be we should copy it? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, this (map) makes sense. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well it's different from what we have on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's different from what we have. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's a very different map. MR. BUTLER: Well you have this original survey. Is that the one? MEMBER COLLINS: This is the one I had. MR. BUTLER: This was submitted. A bunch of copies of this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is what we have. I'll show you. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. i have elevations, but not - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is what we have. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that's the same thing I have. MR. BUTLER: I submitted full size - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well here's the whole file, let me look.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it on here? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is this it? Plus or minus 10 feet? We need that for the record because we don't MR. BUTLER: That's it. Page 75-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it. BOARD SECRETARY: MEMBER, TORTORA: It's still not the same plan. It's different. Well here, 10 foot, is this it? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 10 foot, it says, side yard. MR. BUTLER: That was, I'm sorry, that was scaled off by the Building Department. This I actually measured. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That is why I said we should have the corrected one then. MR. BUTLER: OK, OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I'll leave it there for now. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I have that, but I didn't know which was true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not exactly the same one. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, it's close. MR. BUTLER: You should be very happy with the one I measured. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm happy with it but the problem that I have with- it is, that if you put plantings on that side of the house, it's, less than 11~ 1" and where the problem comes in with that aspect of it is, fire problem, OK? You need at least a clean 10 feet. We have an unwritten precedent rule here, that you can't close both side yards on a waterfront piece of property. MR. BUTLER: H'm. h'm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that's a problem because you take a bush that grow 3 to 4 feet wide and now you've got 6 feet. MR. BUTLER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean that's an issue that had to be addressed. MR. BUTLER: Can I show you an alternate design which - Page 76-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK. MR. BUTLER: This design, what we've done is, we've brought, we've tried to minimize it and brought the front the covered aspect back a little bit. Kept the stoop out so that you would see it as you approached, but in effect pushed the covered area in so that we would instead of the 14 foot now, we'd probably~down around 13 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BUTLER: So we lend ourselves a little more breathing room now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. Now, the actual seaward portion, Member Collins mentioned, how much, did .you actually take off in depth and i~::;.square footage? MR. BUTLER: It'd be about 260 sq. ft. and we went from, we're going from a setback of 52' 6" which exists, to 61' 2". CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you. Now what are you going to give us? You're going to give us a letter? You're going to give us a copy to say, that this alternate plan which is, I guess we could mention this if you don't mind me writing on your document - MR. BUTLER: Go right ahead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As two, OK? You're going to give me something in writing to show us what this is now?. MR. BUTLER: Two? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. BUTLER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just photocopy this and show us the difference of what it looks like on the footprint. MR~ BUTLER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anything you'd like to say, Sir? MR. RAYMOND GADDIS: Thank you for asking. You notice that the property we got, it's a very narrow piece of property and unlike my neighbors either to my east or Page 77- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings to my west, the house is at an angle to that property. It's not parallel to the property line. So that in fact (inaudible, paper rattling) to the layout that was very esthetic and when (inaudible sentence). We were very concerned about the people to our west as far as their view was concerned and we did in fact as Jeff mentioned, sat down with them about two weeks ago and went over the drawings, went over where the end of the deck is now going to be and the covered porch andalso the front deck facing the road and were very satisfied and pleased to know that it wasn't going to be an eyesore to the property. One of the concerns they do have with the property with the porch that faces the road is that that would pay attention to make it sure that it in fact would please them to the neighbors again to the west, because that's almost facing their house, because of the angle of our house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you have any discussion with the neighbors to the east? MR. RAY GADDIS: No, I did not and the reason that i did not, is that the neighbors to the east, their house is in fact facing parallel to the side of their property instead of mine. And they have a whole series of 10 foot arborvitae all away along dght almost down to the water, which is just about I guess you ( ) because the original house ( ) but it so high that you could probably (inaudible-static). Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And your first name is? MR. RAY GADDIS: Oh, I'm sorry, Ray Gaddis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ray Gaddis. We're going to see what develops throughout the hearing. I think they're may be some opposition. We'd like to entertain anybody who would like to speak in favor of the application additionally? Seeing no hands we'll go on to someone who would like to speak against the application. Yes. Ms. Wickham, how are you? GAlL WlCKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham. It's a little bit late in the evening to rock the boat but I'm certainly going to try. I have a client that contacted me. Her name is Ms. Shannon. She owns the property immediately to the east of this property and she asked me to go down and take a look at the project because she received a map which apparently is considerably different than the one you have there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we do this. Why don't we take a short recess and why don't we have the. Agent or the Architect show you this entire .... process so you know exactly because we had a little confusion in the beginning° Would you mind doing that Mr. Butler? We're going to take a two minute recess here. We're sorry about this but this is the best way to do it. (Took a two minute recess). Is there any way to resolve this in a pragmatic, I know there's always a way Page 78- April 6, 2000 Board of ApPealS Hearings ,~;~ to resolve it but I don't mean this in any way in a sarcastic manner but is there any way to rectify what the concerns are? GAlL WICKHAM: Not the way it was drawn on the plan and not the way I understand it the way they intend to draw on the plan. Would you like me to describe my concerns? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely. GAlL WICKHAM: There a little bit out of the ordinary from what you're talking at the hearing I think based on (inaudible-mike had to be adjusted). When I went out to look at the property I was really, I found it actually kind of outrageous. The size of the building that they were planning on building on this because it is literally a ve~ small lot and I was more concerned when I came down this morning and I looked at the Notice of Disapproval and we are facing on, my client's side of the property a 4 foot setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. GAlL WICKHAM: That was occasioned by the fact that one corner of this pre- existing dwelling was 4 feet from the side yard, and now a good portion of the building and three other points are coming out to that 4 foot point of the side yard, and the Building Inspector did not include that encroachment into what should be a ten foot side yard in his Notice of Disapproval. He indicated that, that 4 foot side yard because there is that point at one point in the building on the corner did not create any new non-conformance or increase the degree of non-conformance as the code would require in order for him to disapprove it, and I'd like to submit that he's wrong about that because the only con-conformance that the pre-existing building- was that~one corner that encroached to one point to the extent 4 feet from the sides,.: yard. In addition the encroachment included the rest of that comer of the house back to the 10 foot line. So basically you have a triangle of the existing house that was in a non-conforming position. From the Assessor's card it indicates that that was a one stow building and not a two stow building. So at some point that non- conformance was double by creating a second stow. I'm not clear whether that happened before this building was torn down or not, but that's something that could be clarified. But in addition to that the applicant is now proposing an extension which creates two more significant areas that encroach into that side yard. So you are crippling the extent.~of the non-conformity by allowing, those areas of the building. within that side yard otherwise it's side yard. I realize that's not the way the town has always construed the code. They do consider once there is a setback because that's the setback throughout. But I would have to submit that if you read Section 100-242A, that that plan that we have before us does create a new non-conformance in that the building addition encroaches into the side yard 10 feet and it further Page 79-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings increases the degree of non-conformance because you're tripling the amount of non- conformance in the property and I'd like you to consider that argument (changed to new tape). And to get the Building Inspector to amend the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I realize you object to the two additional areas, one is shown on our map as 4' 7" and theother one, is shown as 5.2" from the property ~ GAlL WICKHAM: Yes, and then there's a very small one in addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yeah, I see it. 4.5, yes, OK. So all three of those is what you're - GAlL WlCKHAM: Yes, primarily, the first two. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have no contest with the 4 feet as it existed? There's no dispute over that? GAlL WICKHAM: I don't think there's a dispute that that corner was at 4 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. GAlL WICKHAM: However, there's no building there now. The applicant admitted he bought the property with the intention of taking down that building. So why now does he have to put it back in a place that is so detrimental to the setback requirements of the code? Certainly because it is a small lot he may need some various but 4 feet all the way along, I think is out of line, and I don't accept something that should be condone. What happens is, our property now has this huge structure that is within 4 feet of the line. As you go out there on the property, it doesn't even look like 4 feet. I don't know. That's what the map says. But if you look at where those arborvitae come up against where the foundation is still now, it is very narrow. And once that building is erected those trees will be in complete shadow all day long. They're not going to be able to survive. The whole area on our side is going to be a complete shadow, and there's going to be this huge imposing structure rising 4 feet from the line all the way back. You've got a very deep lot. He could have build the house back behind within, more within the setback than he did and I just think that if he was going to take the house down, then why not reorient it and do it the right way instead of trying to glom on to one point of a 4 foot encroachment and to continue it all the way back. The other thing that I'm concerned about is, in light of what you raised on the west side of the property. There's no way given that narrow area that you could ever get any fire equipment in if there were a fire in that dwelling. And I think even put firemen in there with hoses would be extremely dangerous because there's really only about that, for the record, a couple of feet. Page 80-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's given us 13 feet now. GAlL WICKHAM: No, I'm talking about the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the east side. GAlL WICKHAM: On the east side there's no room to get any equipment in and to put firemen in and hoses in there. I don't see how you can do it. The prevailing winds, the three seasons of the year are from the southwest and it's a bay front. So if that building caught on fire, it's right next to those trees and would blow right on to our house and I think that that's a real concern because you're expanding to such a great extent the amount of building that is within that 4 foot range. And I don,t think there is a practical difficulty that justifies the variance because you could reorient the house. He could put the addition in such a way that it's not so close to the line. There's plenty~of room in that front yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware however though, that we have active building, there are, we don't have but the town has active building permits that they have submitted on these two areas that you just mentioned. GAlL WICKHAM: I submit they're incorrect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I understand that- GAlL WICKHAM: And, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, but I understand that. But I mean i don't know if that's, this is the remedy to take care of that situation. We certainly will look at it but I don't know if that's the remedy. GAlL WICKHAM: Well, what's there in the ground npw, there's so, me cement block or maybe some poured foundation. I don't know there are merely foundation walls. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a poured foundation. GAlL WICKHAM: So, there's not a whole lot there that couldn't be corrected. The foundation wall, the back filled, there's no floor in the basement. There's not that much there that it couldn't be corrected at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am perSonally going to .,meet with the Building Inspector tomorrow and discuss this issue with him if he'll talk to me aboUt it. We've seen it once before Ms. Wickham on Deephole Drive. MEMBER TORTORA: This is on the 4 foot a - Page 81- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeal~s Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, on the 4 foot thing. people? What was the name of the MEMBER COLLINS: The little shack that was going to turn into Taj Mahal? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Friedberg, Friedman, Friedman. MEMBER TORTORA: I think he's different from this one, that they're using a comer, the outermost corner of a building as the established non-conforming setback, as opposed to a wall. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's always been that way. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so,- GAlL WlCKHAM: I'm asking that you re-look at that policy - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we will. GAlL WICKHAM: In light of the language of 242A, which talked about increasing a degree of non-conformance. I don't think that just means moving the whole line closer. I think it also could be construed as coming within what should be the proper setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, if Mr. Forrester is in tomorrow we'll discuss that with him and get back to the Board. GAlL WICKHAM: Thank you. : ~ ~i :. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Butler? other person that wants to speak but go ahead. I realize we have one MR. BUTLER: With regard to the house being down. It wasn't the original intent to take that house down to the foundation. Upon demolition there was some problems noted and between Mr. Gaddis and the Contractor and myself, for professional views being that most of it should in fact come down because there were some footings to the seaward side which didn't have ( ) walls, they weren't properly bearing on the foundation that he's now going to build this c(~nstructural. In terms of that corner, 4 foot corner, that foundation, all that foundation was maintained, it was surveyed, it's been, actually it was just resurveyed for "as built" survey last week. It is where it is. It hasn't been moved or relocated. In terms of the square footage of the house, it's not, the square footage is in keeping with the neighborhood. I'm sure it's smaller than these houses that abut to it, and in terms of the 4 foot setback, the Page 82-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings :.,~.:.::~:, , . house to the west is approximately the same, the setback to the same property line. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, how do you do, or, how are you tonight? MRS. MOORE: Fine, thank you. I don't know what my clients feel on this are because I was contacted when the Trustees' Application was submitted and unfortunately when that notice went out, a certified letter went out and the Trustees' Notice did not have a date of the hearing so they were quite upset that the card went out and hadn't gotten to them in time, they found out about the hearing after the date of the actual hearing and while the notice may have been or was inadequate, when I approached the Trustees because of the nature of their review, they felt that my objections would be somewhat moot because they'd be getting the same thing. So given that, I put in a letter and filed with the Zoning Board and~l have a letter of authorization which I have obtained back in November when iflrst was asked to oversee this. My biggest concern obviously was to have an application go in and no-one notified me as the attorney. As it turned out, Gall Wickham noted the letter in the Zoning Board file and gave me a call, otherwise I would of not known about the hearing. So I'd like to be able to confirm with the clients, ! have a call into them that the reason they asked me to watch over it is because they were going to be away most of the winter. MEMBER COLLINS: Your clients are the westerly of abutters? MRS. MOORE: Pardon? MEMBER COLLINS: Your clients are the abutting property on the west? MRS. MOORE: Yes, they are. To the west. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. MRS. MOORE: So I have here a letter, an authorization letter which I feel responsible for and until such time as I'm told i'm not needed I'll take responsibility. That the proposal that they had from the only proposal that I'm aware of that they knew of was the one to the Trustees and that has changed as the Agent has explained. So I would like an opportunity to speak to the clients and present their position. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Butler what d© you have on this property? You have an active Building Permit for the rear portion of this building, is that correct? Thank you Ms. Moore. Page 83- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. BUTLER: There is an active permit for the blue portion which also includes a renovation to this existing structure, which was a two stow structure. If you look in the appraisal, the tax appraisai's card, the second stow was done in some point without benefit of permit and was sealed two years ago I believe as an "as built" foundation. So this area right here is a currently permanent and the second stow, they're two stow renovations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, ! very rarely direct anybody to do anything. I shouldn't say that. We do it by decision, OK. But I'm suggesting that we hold this over until May 4th. We have a request from counsel and we have an alternate request from we'll refer to them as west counsel and east counsel, OK? And although east counsel hasn't asked us to hold it in abeyance, west counsel has, airight, at least allowing her to confer with her clients. So in the interim I'm going to discuss this with the Building Inspector and that's where we are at this point. I'm suggesting that you don't do anything until we do it but you can do what you want. MR. BUTLER: I'd just like to point out that this design was based on several meetings with the Building Department under their direction on how to conform to the existing Zoning Laws and where we couldn't conform they said, well we'll just close out off the application if you wish to pursue them go through the avenue of denial and get a variance. But in the meantime permit the stuff you'd like to do because time is of the essence for the client who has relocated to the area and proceed with the construction as outlined by the permit that's in place. So, it wasn't, I mean this - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not telling you emphatically not to do it. MR. BUTLER: No, this wasn't, this wasn't, we weren't trying to be cute about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, and I'm not suggesting that you were. MR. BUTLER: Ok. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In any way, manner or form, honestly. I just - MR. BUTLER: It would cost a lot of money today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I just, this applicant paid a lot of money for the property. So I mean I understand the situation and I understand the situation from both counsels. This is not new to us on Peconic Bay Boulevard because the prope~ies run on diagonals and in this particular case, the house runs on somewhat of a diagonal. So that's where we are. I'll go with May 4th if the Board is so inclined and I'll make that motion recessing until the next meeting See Minutes for Resolution Page 84- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4796 - RONALD & SUSAN MELAMUD This is a request for a Variance under Article Iil, Section 100-33, based upon the Building Department's February 11, 2000, Notice of Disapproval and an application for a Building Permit to locate an accessory in-ground swimming pool and deck in an area other than the required r:6ar yard. Location of Property: 18630 Main Road (S.R. 25) East Marion, Parcel 1000-17-5-3.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in behalf of the applicants. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: (appearing as attorney for the applicants) - I am going to defer to having Mrs. Melamud present most of this and with my supervision and input issues we may come up with along the way. CHAIRMAN: I'll be right with you. I just want to open this (map) up. MRS. MOORE: Mr. Melamud is here too. He is actually an Architect and has designed the pool. MRS. MELAMUD: I'd like to make a short presentation. As I was introduced, Fm a professional engineer, licensed in the State of New York. I'm a Board Certified Government Environmental Engineer. That's my specialty. I work with an environmental consulting firm and I'm usually on the other side of the fence where I'm representing municipalities with Planning Board hearings and developers in Zoning Board hearings. So ! have interesting experience before me. In addition, my husband is the architectural designer and project so we should be able to cover all the angles. The home owner angle, meaning the esthetics of the project and the environmental angle and engineering angle where there's a lot of major concerns ~.'?our part with the steps to the environment. What I'd like to do is to speak moStly from this presentation package that I presented. It has given you a lot of information that I don't want to overwhelm or repeat it but like to work from this presentation. Does everyone have a copy because I dropped some off? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you should drop some off because we only have this and the other ones we took home. MRS. MELAMUD: That's not a problem. I have a few typos and I'm submitting an ".'.,.amended presentation. This is the amended presentation, there are a few typos in:,it so I've marked it up and this I'd like to make the official amended presentation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Page 85- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings ~: .... ,,.: . MRS. MELAMUD: We'd like to put a pool on our property. One of the primary reasons is we use the property to assemble our family in the summer time and during the months of July and sometimes into August, we noted that there's a lot of jellyfish and we'd like to have a pool to be able to enjoy swimming during those particular periods of time. Placement of the pool in the rear yard is a major problem from our point of view with respect to both flood considerations and the environment. There's also some engineering difficulties that we'd like to point out. And some major esthetic problems. Let me just talk about the property first. This first page really presents the case in a nutshell. What we're hoping is that the placement of the pool in the location we've selected; we've worked on it very carefully to make sure it will not affect the any of the neighbors' views and would not have any impact on the environment. And most of this is because the property is very unique in its remoteness, in its location, in its size, and in its placement with the step to the neighbors being at a major distance. There will be no environmental impacts from the project as we'll talk about in more detail. And you can see from this board, try to present pictures from every angle. And the property sits between two wetland areas. One of course is the Long Island Sound and the other is this marsh. This is the picture seen from Main Road, Rt. 25. It runs right in front. Our road comes opposite Rt. 25, it comes around in a horseshoe and we actually park our car front in what use to be called "Old Main Road" which is now abandoned as Old Main Road. So you can see that we have very little use of the property from the road. This was taken at one of the closest distance, the pictures. The side yard setbacks from the property are extremely large as you can see from the site plan. We have 617 foot of frontage. That was one of the reasons that we purchased the property. It's absolutely magnificent from its great views of the sound, and the last thing we wan.t to do is block those magnificent views. It bas extremely large side yards and it has some limitations with respect to where you can place a pool because of DEC consideration. You have a wetland here and you have a (). There's also a seawall in the front of the property like this. You're not allowed to do any construction within 75 feet of the wetland, and when you're looking at both wetlands, this is a tidal marsh and this is a tidal wetland and this the more important of the two wetlands in the ranking of wetlands according to the DEC. There's also flood plains on the property. There's an 11 foot flood plane, a 13 foot flood plain, and a 15foot flood plain. And what we want to try to do is to keep the pool as Iow in the highest possible flood plain, which seems to be the 11 foot flood plain, to minimize any kind of flood impact, and that's what we tried to do with placement of the property. Page 86-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings The unique location of the property presents challenges as well as the beautiful advantages, it's got unique vistas, it's got an unobstructed view of the sound, the land is relatively flat between the sound and residence. So anything that you would put at eye level would be blocking the view of the sound. It's very isolated. You have wonderful privacy. You have a 600 foot meadow on one side, you have the East Marion Park District, park land directly to the west; and the ~and ..... betWeen the park and our property is vacant. There's only one abutting th~ .... residential neighbor of property which has a house that's about 1,000 feet away. You can go back to the picture I tried to show that from a couple of angles. This is the house. You can see it over here. This is the road leading to it from our horseshoe shaped driveway. It's actually a right-of-way. It's not really a drivable road. And if you walk up this road, you take a picture looking down at our house, you can see that it's hardly visible and it's very screened. It's also difficult to see the residents from the Main Road. HoWever, there is some major siting constraints, some of which we talked about. It's a very high water table. I know you received a Soil Conservation District report. We concur. And we had some soil samples taken and shown on the survey that we submitted, and you have a depth of water table that varies on the property, about we would expect to see it about 2 to 3 feet below grade. So, therefore, we cannot put in an in-ground pool. It will present very bad difficulties with respect to de-watering. I don't believe the DEC would have allowed us to build something along those lines. So if we want to have a 5 ft, to 6 foot deep pool, it must be at least 3 to 4 feet above ground. The top fencing of the surrounding pool will be at about elevation 14, which would be approximately eye level with a person sitting on the deck. We have a picture showing the elevation view of the pool. The plaCement to the side you can see that the pool will be at least at the same level as the deck on the house, and if it is found that ground water is higher than 2 feet below grade, then the pool might even be another foot higher into the air. Another~ constraint I haven't even talked about,- minimizing the proximity to both wetlands. When you place a pool or any equipment in the flood zone, you must bring the electrical equipment to at least one foot above the flood elevation. So you want to try to put the pool as Iow an elevation as possible but as far back in the flood zone as possible. This is a zero discharge area, and we fully intend to comply with it. We have a DEC Permit for the project that I sent copies of to the Board and it states that it's zero discharge. We are complying with it because we are tying in full backwash directly to the drywell. And we need .to put the pool on this side of the p.r~operty because we have our septic system on the other side of the property; and we have our drywells over here. It makes a very easy tie-in to the drywells and this area of the property is slightly depressed so you have a little bit Iow profile. We want to prevent any kind of interference with existing infrastructures do we don't want to put it any where near the septic system. Page 87- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings So just to summarize the advantages of the location that we've been talking about. It doesn't, I have - it avoids 13 foot flood zone. It doesn't totally avoid it but it minimizes the encroachment into it. It stays mostly within the 11 foot. It's further away from the sound wetland border than if it were placed in the rear yard. And as you can see, the house is very small compared to the entire property. So really this is the rear yard that in which you would comply and if you placed the pool it would be approximately like so. This would be the placement - directly in your line of site and much closer. Significantly closer to the Long Island Sound and even possibly going toward from the 13 into the 15 foot flood zone. By putting it where we want to put it, it has a slightly lower topography. It minimizes the profile of the pool. It will not block our view. It will be screened from the Main Road by existing plantings and there'il be a large buffer area between the pool and the neighboring property. Now I know that there are a couple of submittals that you may have received. One is from the Soil Conservation District ,and I have a copy of that and I'd like to go over the items in that because we happen to agree with what the Soil Conservation District has said. First they say that the dominant soil in this area Tidal Marsh, there is not Fill Land Dredge Material. We checked it. We called up the New York District Corps of Engineers, they have no jurisdiction. They said they do not wish to see the application and there's no dredging in the area, and the types of soils are: sandy loam, and loam and sand, and both soils will support a pool that above the ground water level. And the structure that we're putting in has been designed by a professional engineer. I have a copy of it. I believe I submitted it to the Board. The next point they made is about the groundwater elevation and we agree. We are not putting in any subgrade structures and piping. There will be none. Everything will be- underneath the pool in the above,ground section. ~ As far as the plantings are concerned, we did an extensive view of the plantings. I did contact Paul Stoutenburgh for his expertise on what the plantings were, and although there are some cacti on the property, none of them will be disturbed by this project. And as a mitigation for the minor environmental impact one that I did identify for the DEC in the volunteer to replant all disturbed vegetation. So there will be no net impact on vegetation on the property. So I think that covers all the items in the Soil Conservation report. I know there was another letter. It was sent by Grace Lomas, and we concur with Lomas's concern where she expresses the concern that a well that is on an easement on her property should not be used to fill the pool. We totally agree. I am an expert in water hydrology, and I know that that would tax the well and could possibly draw down wells in the area. That is why I brought a signed contract from Page 88- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings our pool company that says that they intend to fill the pool with water from the outside by truck. So, no pool-filling will be done by our house well. I hope that addresses all your concerns. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had a discussion with SOil & Water Conservation, Mrs. Melamud, and they of course also say in the letter that we should go to the Forestry Department of Environmental Conservation. MRS. MELAMUD: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I called the - on the lunch hour, the Forestry Department. They said, this area really concerns the Marine Habitat area of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Well, I wasn't successful in getting them. I don't know to what degree both the Conservation AdviSory Counsel of the Town of Southold and the Marine Habitat Division of the Department of Environmental Preservation would do or say in a assisting you in the possible construction, or the movement or the change or whatever situations exist. I will tell you that we are not as well versed, and I am not as well versed as in the construction of pools on a beach area. You may have seen some applications for roofed areas tonight that are on a beach in Mattituck, and very similar to your location. Fortunately, none of those have pools at this time and some of the properties are small enough that they would really not lend themselves to have a pool. They probably put a hot tub in a deck, or something of that nature. It concerns me when I see letters from Soil & Water that state that we should go to other agencies. MRS. MELAMUD: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. MELAMUD: I have a response for you. That agency was contacted. When ~ submitted my application to the DEC, I asked them how long it would take, and they said, oh, it's probably going to take four to five months. I said, wow, why is that when it should take sixty to ninety days according to the New York State Code Regulations and they said, oh, because we have to get our experts involved from the Forestry and Wildlife Division, and have them take a look and go out there and do a site review. And in fact, I did get my permit in less time than they had said, and when I called them up to discuss it, they did say, that that was being done and I hope that answers your concern. I'm concerned about it. too. We plan on not disturbing any vegetation at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: penetrate the ground? How far will the actual lowest area of the pool Page 89-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MELAMUD: One to two feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the actual elevation factor is in line with the deck and the deck is above grade by how much in your estimate? MRS. MELAMUD: Five feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: About five (5) feet? MRS. MELAMUD: I think we have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't measure when I went out there. MRS, MELAMUD: Yes, it's - oh, we have it on here. The top of the deck is 7 ft. 6, the bottom of the deck is 4 feet. ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What kind of plantings are you anticipating on the, we'll refer to it as the road side of the house? MRS. MELAMUD: Well, we have existing plantings now and mostly bushes. Tl~ere prickly types of bushes that line the entire seawall area. If you look over here and I have some pictures of it too, so all along here are prickly bushes. They're not particularly blooming right now but when they do they're very full and I did take some pictures that show sort of what they look like, they're in here, they're kind of squashed right at the moment and you can see in here from the property they're bushes in here and you can see over here it's got some bushes that surround - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. MELAMUD: We were not planning on making any new plantings but if you felt that was appropriate that would be something we would be happy to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you. I didn't mean to cut you off, I apologize. The hour is getting late, and I'm still not feeling well - that's here nor there. We have an older very traditional area on that helm and one person of course will always come to mind, and that's Mrs. Stern and I don't even know if she's there anymore. But they have lived, many people have lived there for many years, and they were used to seeing what they say, and so this is of great concern. Some of them have voiced that opinion by telephone call to me, and some of them have. I just get that feeling when you hear that there's chatter in. the hills, trust me there's chatter in the hills regarding the swimming pool, and that's a concern. I don't know what to tell you at this particular point because I am not significantly satisfied not because you haven't presented with your credentials the things that you're presenting, and I honestly believe that what you're telling me is the absolute truth. Page 90-April 6, 2000 :~.Board of Appeals Hearings ~:~ But I don't know to what degree this is going to upset these people and they are contiguous neighbors. MRS. MELAMUD: We did send letters. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, I am aware of that and that generated telephone calls. Let's see what develops throughout the hearing. MRS. MELAMUD: OK, I would like to make one comment along those lines. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MELAMUD: I'm very concerned about the esthetics of the project as well and there is a deed convenant that requires us to follow certain architectural standards. All such standards will be followed and the pool is going to, as you can see from the rendering that we're going to match the decor of the house, the wood of the house and the decking of the house as much of possible. It's not going to impact the view in any way of the neighbors. Whatever they would see if it's built to conforming or non-conforming they would have exactly the same view. So there will be no impact on the point of view and since we would be allowed to put it in here, this doesn't create any difference in view for those neighbors though. I share their concern and we plan on making it as esthetic as possible. We've spent a lot of money on the house. We've cherish the house. We love the way that it looks. We wouldn't want to do anything that disturbed the neighbors on the view. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's certainly a unique location. MRS. MELAMUD: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There may come a time where we may ask you, or, I- may ask you for planting plan.or some sort of plan environmental planting plan on the seawall wall side of- MRS. MELAMUD: OK, we would be very amenable to that. I think Pat (Moore) also wanted to make one point about our application that I didn't think of that i think is a valid point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure and then we'll go to the rebuttal. Yes, go ahead. PAT MOORE: I for your file, and obviously I didn't submit the application. What I did, I took all of the information that was submitted to the Board, and I tried to put it in a context of the standards that have to be met. So try to focus everything into those standards. One issue that I, one point that i'd like to raise which i think is an issue whether or not a variance is even necessary. The reason that this application was presented to this Board as a variance is that the Building Department Page 91-April 6, 2000 Boa;rd:of Appeals Hearings considered the detachment of the pool and decking as an accessory structure from the principal structure. However, if you look at the definition of and the facts as far as the supplemental regulations with regard to decks and patios, if because the structure is connected to the principal structure, the deck that has the pool as an above ground pool, shouldn't have been be considered as a principal structure because it is all integrated~,.~. It is all been connected to the main house. The language, again I cited it in the Memorandum with respect to the specific language, but if this deck did not have a pool included in it, the Building Department would have no qualms about calling it a principal structure. An addition to the main building, as an addition to the decking. The fact that it is connected by that 4 foot bridge is a practical consideration for the construction of the pool in that in your papers as well as in the Memorandum, I point out that engineering and drainage consideration are at best separate above ground pool from the foundation from the piers of the house. So there is a necessity to separate the two are connected as I said by the decking. So it is all an..,..integrated, connected system and the Building Department when I presented it to them this afternoon as far as why is it that this is not all considered a principal structure? He said, well you know, it could have been and he says ask the Board to take a look at it and if you feel that this connection is not an accessory structure as would be a pool separately as most of the application that you receive are pools that are with a separate decking all separated from the house. This is an integrated system and the Building Department would welcome interpretation that says that there is no variance necessary. So I would like you to look at that. Look at the language 100-230F which states that deck and patio addition which do not connect two structures or building are permitted if they meet principal building setbacks. So we clearly meet principal building setbacks. We've got 200 feet from the side yard. The problem, the reason that they're here is for the pool as an accessory structure in the side yard and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason being and i'm not speaking for the Board, i'm speaking for myself is because there's no roof over it. If it was a breezeway PAT MOORE: No, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but if it was a breezeway - open enclosed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Closed. Total enclosure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, totally enclosed. PAT MOORE: But the code doesn't. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: connected. OK, what? It has to be totally enclosed to be physically Page 92-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings, PAT MOORE: Yeah, well that's actually, that language is specific to a garage. looked at that and I said, well my memory was or I guess as i always remembered it to be is, the connection doesn't have to be an enclosure. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There is an an exception for an 8 x 10 breezeway for a garage? PAT MOORE: rm sorry, I read it to be that, let's see, here's the language. "In the event of a change from an accessory storage or garage use to living floor are the breezeway and garage storage area may only be converted by direct access between the rooms and made an integral part of the existing living floor area of the principal building for personal family use." So that breezeway, that language is specific as to a conversion of a garage and a storage building. So when you look at the paragraph 4, it says, "deck and/or patio addition to principal building which do not connect to structure." So presuming you're expanding thedecking are permitted if they need principal building setbacks. Again, my memory of your language I said, well I thought it had to be more substantial because we just said, the possibility to expand the 4 ft. deck connection to make it a little more, as you say, substantial. But I don't see that language in the Code and certainly, changing this plan, this p~an has been approved by the DEC and while changing that connection, ~ don't believe it would be significant to the DEC. ! think it's for all proper legal procedure, it should be referred to them and given to them as a modification to be written into a new permit given the nature of this whole project. So, you know take a loOk at that language. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so we'll move on to anyone that wants to speak and we'll see what develops. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Any questions from any Board Members? MEMBER DINIZIO; I'd like to make a comment if I may. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER DINIZIO: I certainly agree with you again, Pat, like every month i do. ! can think of probably five houses right offhand that have almost exactly the same thing and I was wondering as you were speaking, why you were even here because of just that. I think 200 feet away from every conceivable setback is the problem we have. They have already been given the opportunity to build a house there. You know, you're talking abeut ground water, you're talking about, this is no more than that and a pool is a structure just like everything else because a structure is not a principal building. It's a structure, it's principal and I just, the comment is basically I don't know why these people are here. I think we ought to discuss that before we discuss really anything else beyond that so we're not wasting people's time any further. Page 93- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll discuss it on the 12th. PAT MOORE: I also, I'm sorry, I meant to mention I attached the covenant. There was a I think there was that wonderful letter that refers to covenant that was submitted. There is no such covenant. The only covenant that exists is the one that we've attached, and it was actually the Stephenson Beach Association. Apparently when Robert Pelantono (spelling?) was building the house, they wanted to have certain architectural control of it, the look at the house and that the covenant that's on record is one of architectural control. It's arguable that it does not even apply to a pool because it deals with roofing and materials and things like that. However, the language is a little bit on the broad side, and ! guess, you know, it could not cause anguish to the neighbors. We will be submitting it for their review but certainly it could not be arbitrarily withheld considering the fact that it's questionable whether it's even necessary. But that is, again, a covenant is certainly as the Board knows not something that the Town enforces. However, I'm sure that if you had the, heard the rumblings on the hill, that may be an issue that was sometimes hearsay. It was passed on as a condition that existed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two quick things. We're missing two pages of the DEC permit. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The stamped map is not attached. MRS. MELAMUD: Oh, I have it with me right now. PAT MOORE: If you don't mind us using the copy machine, we can give you an original. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's a stamp map that the DEC gives with- their approval. That's missing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question, Pat. Is there a problem with your applicants going to the CAC and letting them look at this application to see if there's any specific concerns that they have in reference to screening or the type of screening? PAT MOORE: Well, I can guess because the reason is that the Town Trustees, the CAC does work with the Town Trustees. They submitted an application to the Trustees and the Trustees determined non,jurisdiction. That's, typically how it's done. Any time someone asks me as a lawyer, oh would you mind giving it to the ( ) for their review, all I see someone causing trouble rather than ] thir~k that this application has been fairly reviewed. Page 94- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings (Mrs. Melamud gave the Board Secretary the DEC permit, and in reviewing it, it was noted that the map with the "DEC stamp" of approval was missing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, the map is missing. It's still not all here. The DEC stamps the map with the permit. MRS. MELAMUD: What map? That's what the DEC set me back. PAT MOORE: The date of the plans are in the language of the DEC. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, but they always stamp a map. We see them all the time and that's why - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have to have it now Mrs. Moore. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:' That's alright, later. We don't need it now. Please send it to us. MRS. MELAMUD: Will this do? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: That's the one (stamped map) that we're looking for. Thank you. PAT MOORE: That's it, good. Could we just get back the original after the Board looks at it because they'll need it for the Building Department. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Sure, yes, I just want to make a copy of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're holding that in abeyance. Mrs. Tortora has a couple of questions. MEMBER TORTORA: You had said that you had talked to (), this letter from Soil & Conservation on the 29th - it did suggest because of the endangered species that your office may want to contact the DEC's Divisi°n of Land Enforcement and Forestry. That's why the Chairman did that. If you have talked to them, that's nice, but we don't have any correspondence- MRS. MELAMUD: I understand that. MEMBER TORTORA: - from you indicating that you have and this actually isyou know, only a week old. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You may want to give us an affidavit to that effect. Page 95-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MELAMUD: I would be happy to do that, and there are stakes on the property and you could see that clearly there's not a single path site even in those stakes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm going to go out this weekend and look at it. MRS. MELAMUD:.Oh, please do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not that I don't believe you, but you understand that we have concerns of people that call us and - MRS. MELAMUD: No, I'm very understanding of it. That's why we're trying to really do everything right for the neighbors. MEMBER TORTORA: The other line in here is that it talks about the dominant soil being "Tidal Marsh and Fill Land, Dredge Material and not suitable for building sites." MRS. MELAMUD: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: And says that the soil are not suited for building sites. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Melamud said, that that's not the case. MRS. MELAMUD: It's not relevant. I have - in the survey it represents two soil borings and you'll see that there (Changing tape). There are a couple of posts, everything is above grade, so that's not irrelevant. MEMBER TORTORA: Well those were the two main things as you know. MRS. MELAMUD: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How old is the survey, did you say? MRS. MELAMUD: It was done when the property, when the house was first built. ! believe which was 94-95. Obviously, I could not get an update. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 1990 is probably, right? MEMBER COLLINS: Celentano bought it in 89. MRS. MELAMUD: Yeah, so it could have been. I couldn't get an update because of Mr. VanTuyl. I contacted his office and I got the most updated materials I could. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You don't have a new survey? Page 96-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MELAMUD: No, I don't have any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins, anything from you? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I'm afraid I won't be here at our decision-making meeting ?,so just sort of putting it on the record, I'd like to say what I think. I lived in E:ast Marion when the house went up and like everyone else, ~ was absolutely astounded that it was possible to achieve this. But it looks quite nice, and it fits in. At any rate, I think that we are frequently asked for permission to put structures, garages, pools, what not, other than in the end rear yard because the lot has a funny shape or funny problems and usually these are very straight-forward cases and generally they have a good case, and they usually with certain amount of squiggling to put it where it logically belongs. Abstracting from the fact that this is a beach, surrounded by tidal wetlands, is the same kind of case and at that level I have absolutely no problem with it, and I think from what we have heard that the applicants intend to make it as physically;, as unobtrusive as they can because that makes sense, and I think what it comes down to is that one of the criteria that we're suppose to consider as a Board is, impact on the environment and heaven knows, I'm no expert, and you know, we pay attention to what the Soil & Water people tell us, and I think this is why the Chairman was raising the question of the Conservation Advisory Council. He was looking for a little perhaps more, I won't say professional but, you know, people who specialize, Members of this Town Committee in these kind of issues and we were sort of looking to get a little input, you know, how do we really cross all the T's, and dotted all the I's. I'm neutral on that but not strongly in favor of it. I don't really thing it's necessary, and I just want to get this out and get it on the record that I don't think it's necessary. One other thing I want to say Mr. Chairman. I understand that your phone rings all the time, that's why you don't have an answering machine. But if folks call you up and tell you their concerns, that's important and interesting but if there not in the record, I'm not terribly inclined, I mean I'lt pay a ~ittle attention to what you're telling me people are saying to you at the post office, but if they really care I'd like to see it in the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I agree with you, Ms. Collins, and of course I urged them to either reduce it to writing or come to the hearing. But people sometimes are very strange that way. My only concern with this project is that of the environment, all right. And most of that, 90% of that is taken care of but I do honestly believe, and I will tell you that I honestly believe that this particular project will not be as shielded from the road as you think it will be. And for that particular reason, I'm talking about visually when you're riding past, the house looks very pleasing, it is covered, but I believe honestly that this pool will be quite visibleT, from the road because of its elevation factor and that's a concern to me, and that is the reason why i was discussing the issue of planting on that side. MRS. MELAMUD: We would be very amenable to plantings, and also if you wanted to see the property, if you stand by the road, you'll see how faint, you won't even be Page 97- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings able to see the stakes. That's why we have the stakes up there, bags over them so that they're visible. You really can't see the stakes and any angle that you drive past, doesn't see that side of the house because the road is slanting in one direction and the property is slanting in the other. So it's very hard to see behind to look at where the house, where the pool, would be placed. We'd be amenable to put any additional plantings in. I think if you visit, you'll see that there's,some substantial plantings there now. PAT MOORE: And I would also point out that the design of the pool has been done in such a way that it's not a free-standing pool with a bridge in the center. There is the decking and it's going to be integrated into the design of the house. So really it's going to be very esthetically pleasing and not what I think I would visualize as a free- standing pool that my neighbor would put in his backyard. It is an integrated system. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you see it's elevated already, Pat, and then you elevate it that much more. We're use to seeing the houses but I,m just saying that from an esthetic point of view. MRS. MELAMUD: One point I would like to go back to the environmental issues and while we're doing absolutely everything we can on the environment issues, if you place the pool in the back yard, the environmental issues would be worse. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh yeah, oh yeah. MRS. MELAMUD: And you would be moving more vegetation and it's like ( ) that road. Oh, there is one thing, yeah, one other point that I really would like to bring out. ~f it were placed in the back yard, in the event of a hurricane, high tides, flooding conditions, the pool is very - will be very well constructed. However, if there was a catastrophic failure of the pool, it is directly behind the house, it could take the house out. But at directly to the side connected only with a bridge, damage would be to the house would be minimal, damage to the environment would be minimal because the water would just fl0w over sandy area and it's blocked from going any further ( ) wall. PAT MOORE: As you said, if you wanted to meet there - MRS. MELAMUD: We're here for the weekend. PAT MOORE: If you want to take a look and see the vegetation would be - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'll 0o back on my own, MEMBER COLLINS: Haven't we all been out there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we've been out there. Page 98- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals HearingS-.-:.': PAT MOORE: Oh yeah. I mean bring a Christmas tree with you or something, and see what would work - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was hoping and I'm still on hopes but since we don't have a decision on this time and we won't have fo~,a week or so, that maybe you could give me some idea of some environmental piahts that would be, you know, of indigenous in that area that would grow other Black Pine which, you know, have these tremendous disease problems and maybe you could submit that to us. MRS. MELAMUD: Right, OK. i'd be happy to. I'll send you a letter about the forestry and the suggestions about plantings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. PAT MOORE: Would a letter do, or do you want an affidavit? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A letter is alright. MRS. MELAMUD: AIright, I'd be happy to. PAT MOORE: I mean if you'd like to swear her in, after speaking to them - I could do that as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, a letter is fine. MRS. MELAMUD: OK, I'll send it right out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you very much. Headng no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of those two- letters. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution Page 99- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 10:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4799 - RUTHANN BRAMSON This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlII, Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's Februaw 29, 2000 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a Building Permit to locate a proposed addition to existing dwelling. The proposed addition will be less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 12402 Main Road, East Marion, Parcel 1000-31-14-4.5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will tell you counsel that you had me going there with that chain of the driveway since I was not driving a four wheel drive vehicle that day. However, the second time I went out, I was driving a four wheel drive vehicle, and the chain was down and I said, hark, Tony is trying to play with my mind. MR. TOHILL: No, Linda called, and she said take that blankety, blank, thing down and I said, well I drive around, I would have like to (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is four wheel drive. MR. TOHILL: No, it isn't, but it's a late pick-up truck. But I was scared stiff that I was going to get stuck in the mud so I drove down on their lawn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you see, I was with Mr. Forrester's town car, just making this very quickly and I had bury then in the sand last year about five miles on it. So I had no intentions with the rain coming down of burying it this time. MR. TOHILL: I remember when I, when Linda called there had been a wet period, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was when I was there. MR. TOHILL: It had been 4 inches above. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I figured you had 32 inch tires, or 33 inch tires on this monstrous four wheel drive vehicle which literally could do anything. Excuse me, go ahead. MR. TOHILL: I have handed up the Affidavit of Posting. I have handed up the green cards that have been returned and we did hand up the mailing receipts last week. This is an application under 239.4 which, is a 75 feet setback from a bulkhead pool., It's an application to build a (coughing-inaudible) of 42 type cottage, 900 sq. ft. cottage on the bay. The cottage itself is now 63 feet from the bulkhead. If the porch for which relief is granted to the proposed relief is requested were built 63 feet would become 56 feet so that in effect the 7 foot variance although that the (inaudible) just that the angle ( ) to happen. Page 100-April 6, 2000 .Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No swimming pool? MR. TOHILL: No swimming pool. This is the Bramson, Dr. & Mrs. Bramson have owned this property for many years. Mrs. Bramson owns this. Actually when you came.in and before;.you got to (inaudible) on your left is their house, their present house and then all the way down that road is the home of either Mosback or Bramson which is either maternal or paternal side of the family, it's a, as I said, since 1974 Planning Board Subdivision and it's been held in that family for many, many years. They're from Boston, on the maternal side. Dr. Bramson is the Pediatric, Radiologist and Harvard Medical School ( ) and the Mosback side is from South Carolina. The eldest child in the Bramson family was married there on that property on the field where you would have been stuck, this past summer. Also married to a young woman, both physicians of Harvard Medical School, graduated last June, both of them in some foreign country, providing service to the poor. The children have now moved into the front house. The parents wish to occupy the house with a porch (), in their new home as their retirement. Part of your file is a February 22, 2000 DEC no jurisdiction letter. Part of that no jurisdiction letter is not a condition but a recommendation a suggestion, that there be some kind of hay bale, or silk lining, or project limiting fence between the porch, and the bulkhead, we would agree to that. We think that's a good idea. When you went out there, Fm sure you saw that Mr. Bramson had staked it out and you could see exactly what it's all about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We really appreciate that. MR. TOHILL: Well, for the record, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Particularly after the chain. MR. TOHILL: Here are two photographs that you can pass about..On one of them, in my silent life style of using a red pen I inscribed the porch, and my hand was moving rather shakily so you'll notice that that is a shaky hand in this new rise and late hour. In any event, that does show what's there. Turning to the five statutory standards, the undesirable change in the neighborhood standard, this is a small addition to the house. It's a roof port, it's hardly anything that would more unlikely would be feasible amenity for a house on the water for as long as the house has been there. But just nail the issues down, here is a letter in the, there's an original and a number of copies. That's a letter from a doctor Ryzoff and Barbara Marcus who are the next,, door. neighbors to ~the immediate east. So if you look at the photographs they would be the people past the hedge row or the vegetation line. They're the closest neighbors. They're really the only neighbors to that area down there. There's a boathouse to the west and there's another very, very large house to the north west. The only real neighbors, the one that you can see during the winter when the leaves are off the trees to the east, and that letter from that neighbor says, Page 101-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings that they endorse it, that they like the idea. The next issue would be the feasible alternative. One of the reasons that I handed up the photographs is that you can see one would not build a porch on what I'll call the east side of that property. One clearly would not build a porch, cannot build a porch actually on the west side. If you look at the survey that's part of the file is actually a 30 foot right-of-way from the main road down to the bulkhead. Tha/..'spart of the Buzz Edson 1974 Town approved subdivision. And so there really is noroom at all and so one could suggest the pre 1992 change of the State Law. Thank you (inaudible-coughing) some other place on the property but not on the water side. Here is the, I'll hand up and make it part of the record, the text in a case called BAKER-v-BROWNLIE. It's recorded at 670 NYS 2nd, 216. It's a 1998 Second Dept. ( ) case and it's specifically on point. It happened over in Dehring Harbor, I've used it here before. In the text that the court says, "since the petitioner's desired benefit is to have a patio facing the water, the Board's finding that it could be located elsewhere on the petitioneCs property, is clearly erroneous." That's not the way that al.l. of us thought prior to the change of... the code in, of the State Law rather in 1992. Prior to 1992, of the old ( ) standard, one could challenging my application tonight have said, you actually can put the pool some place on the property. You can even move your house back if you wanted to. But the post 1992 standard says, the mini community planning idea and the Appellate Division clearly is saying, if that's where you want it, then there is no feasible alternative. On this property, and the photographs really do show it, it's, but actually it's the kind of right thing to do. I'm going to hand up with reference the environmental impact, the Board Standards an affidavit from Richard Warren from Inter-Science, Southampton. I'll hand up five copies. In that affidavit with the court standard and the point that he makes is that the introduction of the court actually limits pedestrian foot traffic in that area of those four lots, the main road now because the family then, when it gathers, gathers on the porch instead of all over the place and as a result it has a superior environmental protection result. And at the same time, it reduces the limit, the level of thinking of feasible alternatives. I should mention in Richard Warren's affidavit he recommends that the property- house be guttered with down spouts leadingto a drywell to the north west. So that's ~ where you would come in on the driveway and we clearly would support that kind of' recommendation. He also interestingly recommends that the locust trees that are growing along the shore line be removed as part of this process and it's an interesting suggestion because in one paragraph he cites, in a previous application when you hear them, if ever I heard that before, he said to me, a locust tree by definition, does not belong on a bluff place, and the reason is, the locust tree will never live well there, and as a result all it does is shake around in the wind. It's roots ultimately disturb the sand and ultimately it falls down, and because it's the erosion that everybody is so concerned about. So he said go along with pruners, cut them off, put in rosa rugosa, bayberry and that type of planting and so I'm pointing out that he did make those recommendations and if you choose to adopt to this condition to the property we obviously would go along with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an open deck, is it not? Page 102- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. TOHILL: It is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: An open roof deck? MR. TOHILL: Yes, it is. So that if you saw it from the side, you would see,the porch roof coming down, and that would be it. It's not closed, i should with respect to the third standard, the substantial standard. 19 feet off the 75 foot standard. So that would be 75 feet down to 56 feet, that would be a 25% variance. If you do it from the present degree of non-conformity, 63 feet down to 56 feet, that would be 7 feet as to the 63 feet that would be 11% variance. So it's somewhere between 11% and 25%, but neither case, i don't think that under the exact circumstances that you have here, it would be substantial. The last standard is the self-created, difficulty self-created hardship. ! don't think we have that here. What I would like to hand up now is a ,~..¢opy of the deed to the property which is dated September 11, 1974, showing that "the applicant Ruth Ann Bramson owned the property as of that date, and the second thing that [ wanted to hand up is the Town's property card, which is the front and back sheet that shows a, it mentions the 1974 Subdivision. It shows the dimensions of the building at 900 sq. ft. It shows on the back side the sum of 42 photograph which is exactly as the first exhibit that I handed up. Fortunately, nothing has ever happened on that property ever. So if they would make after all these years this single change, I think it's marvelous and it's reasonable. So in summaw, Ithink it's a marvelous proposal, it's within the tolerances of the Five Statutory Standards, it's acceptable to the closest neighbor, Ryzoff and Marcus, and it would appear to have no adversary impact effect on the neighbors. So for all those reasons, I request that the Board grant the application whenever it has a chance to discuss this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else 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. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 103-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings 10:48 P.M. - Appl. No. - 4808 - PETER & MAUREEN MOORE Applicants are requesting Variances under Article Ill-A, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of the front and side yard setbacks, "as built", for a new foundation (B.P. #26382 issued 3/9~00). Location of Property: 2155 Anchor,L'..ane at Harbor Lights Estates, Southold; County Parcel 1000-79-4-37. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to tell us what happen? MR. PISACANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This must be the builder, right? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: This is Mr. Pisacano. Michael Pisacano. MR. PISACANO: What happened is basically the lot is 0.48 which I guess basically we all thought and I was finally getting a survey in there because as busy as they are, but we were just assuming on the assumption and I guess we made a mistake obviously. That under a half acre your setbacks were 35 feet instead of 15. So it's actually in an R-40, which is 40 feet, 15 and 25 I believe. The foundation is in. Obviously the cost would be extremely subject to changes in any way. I don't think we'll have any impact effecting anything around it in any way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would be the cost of moving the garage foundation back? MR. PISACANO: The garage back? Probably I imagine a few thousand dollars. I'm not positive on the numbers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; That would have to be moved back 6 feet, right? MR. PlSACANO: Right. Also, the road, I know it's a 50 foot road, Harbor Light but basically from the road, the pavement itself, is probably about 60 feet that favors that side more. So from the appearance of it, doesn't really appear to be you know closer to the road than any of the other homes. My other problem is, being out of work, owing the foundation, I owe the foundation excavation which is probably $15- $20,000, which would be nice to give them some money if I can continue working on this immediately. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGERi Have you spoken to any of the neighbors? MR. PISACANO: I see there's one here this evening. All of the letters were sent out certified. Everything was sent back. I don't believe there's going to be any Page 104-April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Head.ngs opposition against it. I just want if possible, I know you haven't made any decisions this evening, but if there was one, I'd would like to get to work tomorrow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i don't know if that's going to happen, but it kind of ranks with one that we had down there where the mitering was removed when the bulldozer showed up and - MR. PISACANO: I did put a lumber of truck, like load on stand-by. ~ have guys waiting for a phone call and I have actually the owners live in England and ~ have to give them a call probably 3:00 o'clock this morning, 5:00, 8:00, their time. There's a five hour difference and l just think it might upset them, and ! would just like to get working. I think this house has been in the works probably over a year between Health approvals and they've been very anxious to get in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there was an actual change from the original plans where the garage was next to the house and then you"Moved it to the front. MR. PISACANO: Yes, when get a health approval. I don't CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you submit a footprint basically you're submitting it to think the actual plan was even picked out at that point. So the mistake was primary your fault? MR. PISACANO: I guess I was, but like I said, if it's under a half an acre, I'm basically, I was assuming under the assumption that a half acre was a, the setbacks were different. Also, it's the garage door, I know it happened to work out but where the garage is, because the doors are on the side. They swing on the property on the west side of it. Actually it happens to work out where they're working out better. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a two stow house? MR. PISACANO: No, oBe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One story. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio any questions. You're Mr. Pisacano? MR. PISACANO: Pisacano, right. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GQEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, i'd like to revisit, i'm sorry, you were speaking quickly at the beginning on the what happened. Now, the code is pretty clear about what is required of setbacks on a lot between 20-40,000 sq. ft. that's non-conform, you know too small for the zone which is what we've got here. And do i have this right? I Page 105-April 6, 2000 Board of;Appeals Hearings mean the survey that has the health approvals on it, is that what was used to ge'[ the Building Permit? MR. PISACANO: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, OK, and it shows a 40 foot front setback which is what's required and it shows two 20 foot side yard which add up to 40 and meet the requirement and everything is fine, and you got a Building Permit and then you built really a very different house. MR. PISACANO: Well the submitted plan changed. I mean the footprint changed. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MR. PISACANO: And it shown the 40 fo~ot setback which doesn't always mean that that is beyond what the required setback is. I mean if you have the house could be set back 60 feet - MEMBER COLLINS: Right, right. My concern is very simple. It really troubles me and these cases do trouble me. I realize the foundations are in the ground and the clients are in England, fine. But Building Department issued a Building Permit on the drawing that met the requirements of the law. And then what got built is a building that doesn't meet the requirements of the law, and you what us after the fact to say, oh, that's OK. And I'm not all that keen. End of lecture I guess. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: ! guess I feel the same way as Ms. Collins on this one because the Health Department did make at least the plan submitted to them like the cesspools, you went through, you got the February 24, 2000. It's stamped- "approval' by the Health Department with the seal. That's on the 24th of last mo~th. MEMBER COLLINS: What does that mean? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The Building Department submitted the file. MEMBER TORTORA: And then you got a Building Permit and the Building Permit review said, "everything is fine because you meet all the setbacks. Literally the next day after you got the Health Department's approval based on those plans you took the plans to the Health Department, I mean the Building Department, got approval, and right on it says, "with the setback 40 feet, required side yard, 15-20 rear yard and everything was fine and I mean the next day, based on this plan and then the whole plan completely changed and you went and bui,t something completely different. Page 106- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. PISACANO: Well that was a Health Department footprint and that was just a footprint because the house (more than one person speaking). MEMBER TORTORA: But what you submitted to the Building Department. MR. PISACANQ:, Was a different plan. MEMBER TORTORA: Was, was a - MR. PISACANO: And a new survey ( ) along with the second survey for the existing foundation which did meet the standards. But the cost and the time and I don't even know how it's possible with the yards and the foundation. I mean we're better off gating the whole thing and redoing it at that point which could be another very costly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you think the foundation cost? MR. PISACANO: $14,000. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, Mr. Pisacano, Mrs. Tortora and I are really harping on the same line and you just said, OK, the footprint is drawn, i understand that to get the Health Department to sign off on where people's wells are and where you're going to put the cesspool. But wasn't the drawing that went to the Health Department also used to get the Building Permit? MR. PISACANO: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: that's the heart of the problem. Department looked at. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They don't fit that footprint. Yes, it was, OK. I just wanted to get that straight because What was built was not what the Building Well, they approved different house plans. MR. PISACANO: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: They don't fit that footprint, wonderful. MR. PISACANO: And there clearly was a mistake made. MEMBER COLLINS: I have a related question. Something that just arrived from the Building Department into our office which was I guess a copy of the Notice of Disapproval which we hadn't gotten a copy of, and attached to it, is a very cryptic Building Department. However, it says, Note, house to be built according to plan survey will be reversed. Page 107- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: It will be revised. MEMBER COLLINS: You think that's revised? It looks like reversed to me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Reversed. It's reversed. MEMBER COLLINS: So any rate I was trying to get at what that means? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're putting the garage on the other side of the house? MR. PISACANO: Originally when I met with the Moores, this is what we submitted to, well actually they, Gary OIsen submitted to the Health Department. I had nothing to do with it at, that point. When I got the plan of exchange so now you get your second surveY done they're going to draw it according to what is obviously there. There was a mistake made. I'm just, my point being is the cost, and the time, and the fact involved that I have a deadline to when the house has got to be completed. Line the people up to do the work, and as you know it's very busy for everybody, you know people building out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let's see what happens and we'll discuss it. Just don't leave yet because we didn't finish the hearing. Who else would like to speak in favor? MR. WOLF: I would. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In favor or against Sir? MR. WOLF: Frankly, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Would you just state your name for the record. MR. WOLF: I'm somewhat confused. My name is Jesse Wolf. I'm immediately west of the subject property. I share my concern, or, about the confusion because when I started digging I went to the Building Department, I got a copy of the site plan and took a quick look at the building plans, and they looked perfectly OK, with a you know (). Now of course we have a somewhat different thing, and i have two concerns. Number 1, I'm delighted that something is being built on the lot because it was a jungle and it was an eyesore and it was an attraction for all soughts of rodents, and cats wanted to play in it. rm concerned about what's going to happen to the back end of the property because it's still a jungle. I have to assume that it's going to be cleared and left wooded but it still has to be cleaned out. But at least it will be cleaned out. The other concern I have now that I've met with Mr. Pisacano and have gotten more of a description of what's happening is my concern over the Page 108- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings '~:~:~,~,::~?.: door on the garage being on the side and a driveway going down I assume within 15 feet of the high property line. I'm not sure how that's going to look. I don't know how it's going to work out. I could visual a line of cars on that driveway which isn't going to be the most pleasant thing for me. I just wonder, I have no problem with the way the building is set on the property. I do have a concern over a garage and I wondered if it would be possible to consider having the entrance to the"garage on the street side rather than on the side. ~:'~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not in its present situation. MR. WOLF: Not in its present situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: application here before us. ¢:''r :,side' No, this is the way it's presented to us. This is the What could be done is screening could be put on that MR. WOLF: H'm, h'm. Say a screen between - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, your property line and the edge of the property. MR. WOLF: My part of it is, it's wooded. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. Wolf: I don't know what plan on their part is. As I said, I have no strenuous objection to the ( ) as it actually is and the location the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Could we just have your first name. MRS. WOLF: Dorothy. My concern is the driveway. With the driveway so close to us, there are young children, there will be bicycles, cars, it'll be supper time, 15 feet from us. That's all my concerns about that. I'm a designer myself and i know you can put up siding and you can put up trees and you can create the illusion that's more privacy and I'd like to see that, and I have no objection to children, to noise, that's life. Just looking it is going to be stunning to the eye. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll get back to you on that aspect of it. MR. WOLF: I was thinking of having a hole in the ground for a period of time is almost as much an unpleasant problem as:the problem itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Is there anybody else would like to speak against the application? Sir?. Would you state your name for the record. Page 109- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. SPIESE: My name is James Spiese, resident of Harbor Lights, a neighbor of Nassau Lane, Officer and Director of the Harbor Association of the community. I would say that there is some opposition on the ( ) to the project. Neighbors have noticed that I don't know if they ( ) themselves but, the foundation clearly seems to be encroaching more on the southern side. They should face the foundation on the right side of the property. The foundation seems to be very close to the property line and to that neighbor. I haven't spoken to that neighbor Particularly, we think he's out-of-state, I know that other neighbors in the area have mentioned to me, as a representative of the Homeowner's Association, that there are concerns here. The house if built on that foundation as put in, would clearly be unlike the other houses in the area if you've seen the area, I'm sure you have. But the houses are spaced apart, nice and quiet. This house if positioned on that lot on this foundation wouldn't be the usual (). I can appreciate the builder's predicament and the cost to the state bUt I don't really consider that to be a valid criteda to this Board. Like the bank robber that says., "yes, I robbed the bank but I don't particularly care to go to prison." It's a situation that clearly that the man made a mistake but is asking everybody else to pay the price for his miStake. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did have a time that I spent there last Saturday. Looking at the setback, that Colonial that you're referring to, - MR. SPIESE: That, that's clearly the concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think that that Colonial is setback that much farther than this foundation but maybe I was incorrect in citing. MR. SPIESE: From the mutual boundary you mean? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, from the setback from the road. MR. SPIESE: Oh, from the :road. I'm talking about the side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you're talking about the side yard. MR. SPIESE: That's what got everybody's attention. If you look at it and I reviewed the file myself but you know, the discrepancy, between the plans and the Building Department and the plan that the house is going to be built on, is little similar but what has the community concerned is the proximity of the two, more or less that side yard as opposed to Mr. & Mrs. Moore. MR. WOLF: May I add something to this because I have talked. Not directly but through neighbors and what this gentleman is raising is new to me. I'm a Member of the Harbor Lights Property Association and I've' heard no complaints from the two other people that I've talked to. But one of them at my urging did speak to Mr. Dellamano who owns the house immediately on the east side. He is apparently and Page 110- April 6, 2000 Board of Appeals Heari:h~::S::~::. ( ) living situation up in Rhode Island. Mr. Cocron had spoken to him on Monday, said he made no objections to the proximity of the new house, the proposed new house to his property line. I think you also have to bear in mind that to the west on Mr. Dellamano's property there is a garage immediately off the house. It was that garage that is closest to the property line of the new house. So from a visual point of view the Dellamano wouldn't' even have to (But in any rate, the important consideration is, according to Mr. Cocron there i~'-no problem. He is not willing to raise any objections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Wolf, when you're standing in front of the property you're referring to the house on the right hand side. Is that correct? MR. WOLF: Cocron is way behind - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I noticed that when I was there. MR. WOLF: Yes. At any rate I'm unaware of any complaints from other property owners of the Association. MRS. WOLF: We are actually in good shape when we look out to the back of our house. The woods have cleared up fairly well. We're in great shape. I'm just concerned about that driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the reason why I asked you to hold that is because I think. I'm always accused of being a person that tries to bring things in to some sought of assembles or remedy and I do it for a living apart from this job so I, it kind of comes into this job also. We certainly can ask the builder to come up with some sought of screening proposal on your side, OK. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote in favor of this. All I'm saying is that we're trying to bring these things into some sought of an agreement. When the Board votes, it's just like playing roulette. If you. get.,..three votes in favor, the applicationJs approved and just as that little marble as it goes down. So very simply, that's where we are and we certainly can ask him that tonight and to submit that to us before next Wednesday and we will deal with the application next Wednesday. We'll see if anybody else does anybody else what to speak? No, OK. We thank you for your courtesy. We thank you for everything and have a lovely evening and a safe home. (End of hearings). See Minutes for , ' . APR6 PHAPR.