Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/10/2000 SPEC HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD May 10, 2000 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4809 & 4822- BELEVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC 9 - Appl. No. 4818 - CHRIS & JAMES MESKOURIS 33 - Appl. No. 4816 - VEDA DALEY Page 1, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS May 10, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC-(Owner- Robins Island Holdings, LLC)located at 380 First Street, New Suffolk, N.Y. Parcel 1000-117-8- 19. Zone District: Marine II. Applicant is requesting: 1 ) Appl. No. 4809- A Special Exception under Article Xll, Section 100-121B(2) to construct new building and establish uses incidental to a private ferry terminal use (existing) for transportation to and from Robins Island from this 21,407 sq. ft. parcel; and/or an' interpretation that ~ Special Exception is not necessary; and 2) Appl. No. 4822- Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 28, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, for the reason that the new building, to be used for offices incidental to a private ferry terminal, is shown at less than 15 feet from the side property line, which is not permitted under Article XXlV, Section 100-244B. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll call on Mr. Law. MR. LAW: If it pleases the Board, I'd like to submit, we made some revisions to our plans in light of the provisions we discussed the other night and I have six copies of two maps here. One is, a map showing both lot 19 and lot 20, which was something I think the Board asked us to do at the last meeting, and 1, I don't see any members of the community here who spoke and raised some concerns with our issue, with our plan last Thursday evening. But you will note in our revised drawings, that we took the concerns that some of the members of the community raised to heart and we went back to the drawing board over the weekend and today I hope to provide a letter to writing to reduce my testimony but we're literally drawing some of these sketches up until today and I'm happy to report to the Board, that we have reduced the size of the building. We have scaled it back. Although not required to under the code, we did that as a sign to be neighborly and to work with our neighbors because they've expressed concern in building those rather large and we have scaled it back 15 to 20% and again, we do that as, you know, show good faith that we're trying to work with the community. The building was originally proposed to be 30 x 60 and you Will note in the drawings, that we are now propbsing 28 x 48. The height will also be reduced. We're going to reduce the height to 18.6" and we're entitled to go up to 35 feet under the code and so we think that is another significant revision to the plan that enhances the project and benefits the community. We are also going to make the west side of the building a lot prettier. We're going to Page 2, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals make it more residential looking. Some more window plantings and so when people come out of the Post Office, it will be a much prettier building to look at then what we had originally proposed. And that was another concern that was raised that night and so we feel good about these changes and we were working it out until today and that's why we didn't submit anything in writing to you earlier and I apologize for sharing this with you at the last minute. But again, we think it's a good news. Some members of the community, again, I don't think they spoke on behalf of the entire community. I think that public residents came down and expressed some concerns they've had. Their concerns range, they talk about the size which I just shared with you how we're going to address those concerns. They also addressed the sanitary issues. We're designing a sanitary system that will comply with whatever the Suffolk County Health Department tells us we need to comply with. Under their code we are building, are proposing to build the minimum sanitary system and our estimations of the actual use will be that we'll only use one-third of the capacity generator. So, the Health Department is actually going to require us to build something two-thirds bigger than what we'll actually need. But we'll comply with whatever they tell us to comply with and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're establishing that Mr. Law, based upon the fact that you gave us testimony, that you feel that no-one will be actually living in this building. It will be very simply a transmit new building. MR. LAW: Absolutely, and we'd be prepared to tell them and restrict to that extent if the Board wants you know, to impose that restriction on us. On a daily basis, three to four workers and as I pointed out at the meeting, we'll generate less sewage than a single family home would generate in the area and that is a permitted use under the M-2 Zoning which we're not proposing. We also received word that the Suffolk County Water Authority should be extended into that area in less than a year',and we will hook up to the Suffolk County Water Authority system when they get down to that property. And again, prior to that, we'll comply with whatever the Suffolk County Health Department tells us to do. Another concern that one of our neighbors raised that night was the flooding in that area. The flooding is a pre-existing condition in the area. The day before we got there, the steerings were steep. Our project is not going to increase or exacerbate that situation. In fact, we think our project is going to actually improve the flooding situation in the area because you'll note, on the new map I gave you, on lot 20, we're actually going to build a catch basin there, and it's going to collect some of the flood that occurs in front of the Post Office. Again, that's not something we're required to do but are going to do and again, I think that's going to enhance the flooding in the area and will certainly not contribute or exacerbate the situation. Somebody raised a concern about the traffic, the parking. As I pointed out last Thursday, what we will be doing at this building, Page 3, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals what Belvedere will be doing at this building, is the same exact thing that we're doing in rented quarters across the street now. We're not going to increase activity. If anything, our activities are you know, slowing down, and so, we do not believe we will have any increase or impact on the traffic or the parking. One point, one issue I did not'raise Thursday night. Again, I think it benefits to the community. We are actually going to at Belvedere's expense, enhance the town's boat ramp that bisects our two parcels. By improving and refurbishing the bulkheading in that area, is going to allow the town residents to go up on both sides of the dock there. Right now they can only go up on one side of the dock. Ultimately they're going to have access so two people can use the ramp at the same time. And again, we think a very good benefit to the community. Something that I failed to raise Thursday night, perhaps because the midnight hour was approaching and I think we were all getting a little tired. But something, something that I think is important. The fir~al point raised at the meeting last Thursday, was some interesting comments from our landlord and which I addressed then, and what I think is very important for the Board to know, if they haven't read it already, is that he called me the very next day to apologize for some of the concerns that he raised at a public session, that he should have raised with me privately, and he submitted a letter in support of our project and that's the adjacent property owner. So, the adjacent property owner is supporting our project. The town which is also an adjacent property owner, we're going to be enhancing and improving a facility that town residents use and the only other adjacent property owner has to the best of my knowledge, has not showed up at either meeting although given notice to, and unless by mistake has not provided any written comments on our application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to Mr. Rainer? MR. LAW: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have nothing. MR. LAW: OK. In terms of our Special Exception Permit Application, we believe we meet or received all the Town Code Standards and I won't point out each item, but we believe every standard that's in the town code we meet or exceed those standards and we are eligible for the Special Exception Permit and that our plan will have no adverse impact to the community. As for the Area Variance, as I said on Thursday, we need 15 feet, our proposal is for 6-1/2 feet. We're requesting aside area variance for 8-1/2 feet and we think that's minor. It's not substantial. Even though we're scaling back the building by almost 20%, we're not eliminating the need for a variance because as I showed Ms. Tortora that night, our main reason is, we want to stay as far away from the wetland as possible, and that is, and remains our goal. And so, we are still requesting the side area variance. Again, we don't think this will have any adverse affect on Page 4, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals the environment and that the relief sought is not substantial, in weighing the benefits to the applicant, and the detriment to the community, we think the scales tip to the side of being in favor of the community and because we think that our overall project is going to enhance the area, beautify the area, and provide some benefits to the town. :~hat's pretty much it in terms of other points I wanted to raise, or, issues that were raised the other night, that I wanted to address, and I'm happy to answer any questions, that the Board may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i spent about 15 minutes on Sunday morning sitting out in the water. I'm looking at this parcel in the boat, my boat, and I'm very happy with this plan, the new plan, because I think it's certainly puts you farther away from the tidal water as you said. My only question is, what are the perforated, corrugated, polyethylene pipes for? MR. LAW: That's a good question Jerry and that's why I had the foresight to bring our engineer here tonight and perhaps Marty Reeve can answer that question, MR. REEVE: I'm Martin Reeve, Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weel. Those pipes will be buried in the parking area and they'll collect the roof run-off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, great. MR. REEVE: And just leisure out to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so therefore, they have holes in them? MR. REEVE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ,Those are the typical ones that we see that the holes are pre-drilled in. MR. REEVE: Yes. The leaders will run down into those holes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Thank you very much. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any further questions of Mr. Law? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: A question about parking. With the square footage of the building reduced, the legal requirement for parking also reduces. We were talking the other night about why there were 18 spaces. But does this plan still Page 5, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals show the 187 It shows the 12 clearly. The sixth have been somewhat infringed upon the perforated pipes. MR. LAW: It's a good question. And no, we haven't reduced the parking and two reasons. You're ~ight, although now with the scaled back building, we could probably do away with a couple of spots. It's our intention to keep the spots. Again, do not have any adverse impact on the traffic in the community because there is the Post Office there and we want to make sure there's room on the site. So if a UPS truck is coming in, or, if a mail truck, or, if anybody, you know, there may be a meeting that day, where there may be three extra cars, we have that capability, and nobody has to park in the town street. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. I wasn't really complaining about it. I really was just asking. But I have a commentto make. One of the general standacds that we're to take very seriously in granting a Special Exception, is, whether the project is compatible with the surroundings. The neighborhood, the community character particularly with regard to visibility scale and overall appearance. And I just want to tell you, that based on the original plan, I had very serious doubts about my ability to sign off on that standard, and I am very gratified that you've reduced both the square footage and the height of the building, because I think it's, I was worried about its compatibility with the neighborhood, and I think I'm probably not now. MR. LAW: Thank you. I'm glad we addressed that concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of questions. compliment the work on the island. Is that true? MR. LAW: Correct. The office building is going to MEMBER TORTORA: What is the mobile security office? Continuing on the questionnaire that you filled out. "Please list present use or operations conducted at this site basing it on the mobile security office for Robins Island." MR. LAW: I'm not sure why I put the term "mobile". But we are intending to use the structure for security personnel. It's a place for both our boat captains to go in, and boat captains on the boats who take people, and equipment to and from the island, as well as we have private security and it's a place where they can go and hang their hat as well. And so to the extent I put mobile that was an error. But it is in fact, on part of the people who will use this new structure, will be our security boats as well. Page 6, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: So with all of the construction that you can see on Robins Island, what is this building going to be used for? MR. LAW: It's not so much, it's more of a staging area and it's a point of access. People have to check in with boats. The office manager, the receptionist, in this . building, before they can make arrangements to get a boat captain to take them to the island. MEMBER TORTORA: So, as i say, when ali of the construction is through, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It really has nothing to do with construction. MR. LAW: But, there's still going to be on going activities on the island, whether there are shoots scheduled for that particular day, or, Mr. Bacon's family is spending the summer months. They're vacationing and their deliveries being made permitted. It is very unique. MEMBER TORTORA: Like an on going thing. MR. LAW: They need something everyday. There's no food store. There's no 711 over there. Anything that they need, needs to come from that mainland, it has to come from the mainland through this office, then to the boats on to the island. So that will be on going activity for the whole future of this, you know, island. Not just construction and labor. MEMBER TORTORA: Who is Belvedere Property Management? MR. LAW: Well again, because the hour was probably getting late, I did start off my presentation with who is Belvedere. If you recall, Mr. Bacon bought Robins Island, December 19, 1993. They bought Robins Island, these two parcels, two lots, 19 and 20, New Suffolk were attached to the same deed, always envision to be a staging area for Robins Island. Mr. Bacon formed a holding company to, known as Robins Island Holdings LLC. That is the actuat owner of Robins Island now. And Belvedere Property Management is the manager of both, there's an entity use. The manager of Robins Island owns other properties that he owns in Southampton and other properties that he does own. I usually use Belvedere file on behalf of the owner, the applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Point of question and really the last remark I have. It's been brought to my attention and it's none of my business but I'm just going to mention this. The need for security is on the land on our side, OK, on this side is for the purpose of what? Let me just rephrase that question by saying, that it's been brought to my attention that there are significant people in the social limelight, that have frequented the island. I assume by guests of Mr. Page 7, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals Bacon, which again, is none of my business, but I assume the security is needed on this side for such persons when they are being escorted to the island? MR. LAW: I think that might be one of their duties. I think the menu is the security is to we can't a, let me back up a minute. What we need is there's still a lot of people who think Robins Island is open to the public and it's a private island and we need somebody on a regular basis securing and patrolling the island to ask trespasses politely, you know, to leave the property, and it's much more a function of that than the sometimes people who get invited over to participate shoots on the island. I have the property manager here, Daryl Volinski. Daryl is that correct? MR. VOLINSKI: Yes. It's actually a starting area. Daryl Volinski, Belvedere PrOperty Management a, it's actually a starting area for our security. We start our security off of New Suffolk. We do patrols around the island and then its just like a base for them, pretty much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Quick question and the last statement regarding that, OK? As you know, we had that devastating storm last year which only lasted a few minutes but did unbelievable damage in the Suffolk in itself. If we were to take that, God for bid, and capitalize that into a hurricane, and say that the hurricane would take maybe four to six hours to pass. You know, there's a period before the hurricane, there's a period after the hurricane but there was a time that you couldn't service the island. Yet, you had people waiting in the wings to come over. In other words, the boats couldn't transport. And you didn't want to take the LST, alright. These people would then be in a hold pattern in this security office until such time that they could come over? MR. VOLINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. VOLINSKI: For emergency purposes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For emergency purposes. Again, God for bid. Thank you. MR. LAW: Thank you very much for your time. 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 and reserving decision until later. This is closing both. Page 8, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. (changed tape) Page 9, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:25 P.M. -Apple. No. 4818 -CHRIS & JAMES MESKOURIS Applicants request a Variance as stated in the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval (as Amended) which states that proposed construction on non- conforming lot is not permitted under Article XXlV, Section 100-244B due to the minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of-way across property on easterly boundary, creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at 20 feet. 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; 1000-106-1-47. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera, how are you tonight? MRS. RiVERA: I'm fine, thank you Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to tell us what has developed since we had left you last Thursday. MRS. RIVERA: Well I submitted a revised plan to the Board and we eliminated the pool at this time, so we're seeking a variance only on the easterly portion of the property where the right-of-way exists now and the deck extends 20 feet from the property line, and we're asking for a variance so that it's considered front yard since the property has three front yards, that we'd be permitted to have the deck on the easterly portion so that it's 20 feet of this property tine. It's close to 40 foot required by Zoning Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So reading from the May 9th, 2000, Notice of Disapproval, it says, Article XXlV, Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback 40 feet. So what you're saying is, that you're requesting 20. MRS. RIVERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: degree. Which actually has not changed to any great MRS. RIVERA: No, it has not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. And is there anything else you want to add to that? MRS. RIVERA: No, but that we did move thehOuse back the:northern portion of the property, 2 feet in order to meet the exception requirement. So, therefore, we're only seeking a variance on the eastern portion of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. questions on this Mr. Dinizio? Alright, let's start with Mr. Dinizio. Any Page 10, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Ithink I asked this question at the hearing last week but I'm not sure. So I'm going to ask it again, if I may. The file shows on a Notice of Denia~ from the Building Department, dated Apri~ 5, tha~ was received in our office on April 5, and in that one, the setbacks were denied. It was denied on the basis of setback, both on the easterly side where you're still seeking a variance and on the northerly side because the right-of-way makes a 90 degree bend and runs across the north side of the property. Then about two weeks later, a, it wasn't marked "Amended", it was just rewritten with the same date, Notice of Disapproval was delivered to our office with a notation that it replaced the original Notice of Disapproval and the denial we're referring to the right-of- way along the northerly side of the property had just been removed from that Notice of Disapproval. Can you tell us how that came to be? I mean what's the reasoning? MRS. RIVERA: It was originally written in using the mean, 12-1/2 feet that was in 25 foot right-of-way for the setback requirement and 7-1/2 feet on the easterly portion, on April 5th. MEMBER COLLINS: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Setback from the right-of-way, on the north. I'm reading from the first one, from April 5th, and it says, setback from the right-of-way, on the north is proposed at 25 feet. And that's correct. That is what was proposed. 25 feet from the right-of-way. 50 feet from the property line and I'm not worried about that 12-1/2 in the mean. I'm not worried about the easterly one. I'm really concerned how come, I mean, how did you convince the Building Department to rewrite the denial and take out the reference to the northerly right-of-way? Something happened in those two weeks and I'd just like to know what it was. MRS. RIVERA: They advised me that they you use the property line, not the right-of-way to do their setbacks. So then they rewrote it, because then they took - see where it says on the east, 12/12 feet? MEMBER COLLINS: Are you telling us then, that after they wrote the initial Notice of Disapproval, that the Building Department upped and of their own volition said, oh, dear; we Should be meaSuring from the property line and not the right-of-way? MRS. RIVERA: I went back to them, and asked them, - MEMBER COLLINS' You asked them? Page 11, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. RIVERA: I asked them. It was my understanding that they write the disapproval according to the property line because they do not change. So I said, well in that case then, you had written the first disapproval using the right- of-way, not the property line. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. You're giving me the answer that I needed. I wanted to know what happened? MRS. RIVERA: OK, that's what happened. MEMBER COLLINS: And what happened was you went and asked them the Building Department to rethink their denial because you believed that they should be using the property line, not the right-of-way line. MRS. RIVERA; Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And they apparently agreed with you. MRS. RIVERA: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: wrong. Thanks. I Thanks. I should go on the record as saying, that they're very just wanted to understand the chain of what happened. MRS. RIVERA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think I agree with the Building Department's interpretation of the code. The code tells us under definitions, "rights-of ways, from the boundary lines of land used, or intended for use as street, as shown on deeds, plats with a master plan, and from which yard and other requirement shall be measured.~ It is the only section of the code that actually describes where yards are to be measured from. But it does say, measured from and it doesn't, that's my personal opinion and I want it on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I think based upon the discussions that we had had on Saturday, and the prior discussions that regardless of what we have in front of us?we are going to seek counsel and discuss this ~th counsel either prior to the closing of the hearing, or, recessing the hearing and closing it at a later date, thereby interjecting exactly what counsel had, or, as counsel advises based upon this, and so we'll see what develops throughout the hearing but we thank you. Page 12, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. RIVERA: OK, we are, or not in agreement, with regard to the northerly portion that it does meet the exception requirement under 100-230. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. MRS. RIVERA: OK, so our only concern now, is the easterly portion whether or not we measure that 20 feet from the property line, or from the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. MRS. RIVERA: OK. 7-1/2 which being on Mrs. Kotos property. Am I correct? That is the understanding? MEMBER TORTORA: No. ~:~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, Lydia says no. I mean, so we'll go back and inspect - MRS. MOORE: Can we have a copy of that just so we can follow along - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: A copy of what Pat? MRS. MOORE: Of her drawings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The most recent one? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: The new one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. We'll give this one Pat. MRS. MOORE: OK, thank you, only because we're in the dark over here. I don't want to be rude and quiz you later. MRS. RIVERA: My question to the Board is, if we're at 20 feet now, you tell me what you would find agreeable from that 20 foot setback. Whether you measure it at the property line, or, the right-of-way. Do you want me to cut the depth 5 feet? Do ,you want me to - I'm asking for a variance for the, what I. would consider a side yard, but it's now technically it's a front yard because of her right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Page 13, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. RIVERA: So, I grant that you want to see counsel as far as right-of-ways are concerned, and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Well, the measurements of and so on and so forth and the past practices and so on and so forth. MRS. RIVERA: OK, but is it not within your duties and responsibilities to tell me, that I'm seeking a variance on the easterly portion, which has a right-of-way. I grant you that. Can you tell me where you would be agreeable to putting the deck at a certain distance from that right-of-way? Whether it be the right-of-way, or the property line. We're talking about 7-1/2 feet now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer your question. As you know, that if we don't agree, we grant alternate relief. MRS. RIVERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, in this particular case, we first have to agree where we're measuring from. Then we'll tell you and that's where we are because we really haven't discussed this. As you know, that I was, Lydia left on Saturday, we don't normally discussed these things when we're out in the field. We're there to collect information. And fortunately, I have to report, that I did not get poison ivy from that so I'm knocking on wood. So that was a positive field inspection Mrs. Rivera and counsel on the other side. But that's where we are at this point. So I don't know if I can give you an answer to that at this particular time. Personally i don't have a problem with 20 feet whichever way it's measured on that side to be honest with you. MRS. RIVERA: That's what rm asking you. Does anyone have - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I personally don't have a problem. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'm not going to o MRS. RIVERA: Is it 20, I mean if you want to measure it from the property line, or do you want it measured from the 7-1/2 feet, I am here to tell you I'm willing to compromise if you tell me what you feel that would be agreeable to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm dot positive that we could give you that yet, because it's really part of the deliberation process. MRS. RIVERA: OK. Page 14, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I think we have to just determine where we're measuring from first and then that will be the process. MRS. RIVERA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Ms. Collins you had something else? MEMBER COLLINS: There's something I'd like to get into the record here. back fussing about the northerly side of the property. I think Mrs. Rivera has told us that by going back to the Building Department and asking them if they shouldn't be measuring from the property line rather than the right-of-way and having apparently agreed that you got a revised Notice of Disapproval that doesn't mentioned the northerly side and I would think that's what you want. As said, I don't agree, but that's not the point. But in your comments just now, you mentioned the exception in Section 230 of the code and that's the first that i've heard about anybody talking about that. I looked quickly, looked it up. The exception in Section 230 of the Code, is the one where if there are buildings on a street, and they have an established setback that's less than required and you come in and you want to build, putting it very crudely, you can take advantage of the fact, that their setbacks are too small and kind of use the average of their setbacks. That's a very, very, rough statement of the exception. And you just referred to that. Where does that fit into this picture? I'd like this on the record if you're actually claiming this has some meaning. MRS. RIVERA: Yes, I will. Well we took the pool out because on the second Notice of Disapproval, we were addressing the pool on the northerly side, which was the setback requirement of a pool and we thought we would, it's in the rear yard, etceteras. So we took the pool out since that seemed to be a problem.. Moved the house back 2 feet to be in compliance with the adjacent property and the setback requiremenf and the exception rule of any property within 300 feet on the same side. We had to set the house - MEMBER COLLINS: I had the disadvantage of not being up there on Saturday because I had another commitment. I couldn't break after the short notice that was available. So you know, i wasn't up there checking around. What's the adjacent house whose setback you're relying on here? MRS. RIVERA: It's Mrs. Koch of Summit. MEMBER COLLINS: The Kochs? MRS. RIVERA: The Koch's residence, correct. Page 15, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And you're talking about a setback from what on Koch's side? MRS. RIVERA: The property line. MEMBER COLLINS: From the property line? MRS. RIVERA: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, well that's - OK, ! mean, I think there's a, I don't know exactly how you're trying to use that exception but it seems to me we've got apples and oranges here because as I understand it, there's no right-of-way, across the northerly side of the Koch's property. It was extinguished some years ago. We heard that the other night I believe:' MRS. RIVERA: I think it was misunderstood. The right-of-way still exists. The Kotos family relinquished the use of the right-of-way which is the lot adjacent to the Kochs and they relinquished the use of the right-of-way, by murking their lots 41 and ! think 48 at the time and built a driveway up there. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, at any rate. MRS. RIVERA: It's still on the maps and it still exists on the - MEMBER COLLINS: Let, let me, let me, I don't really want to pursue this right now because I'm not sure this is really on our plate right now but I'd just like to say, that if in any part of this you want to rely on Section 230, I think we have to have a clear written statement of exactly how Section 230 applies. What measurements are involved. Why this is a front yard setback. I felt a little surprised to hear Section 230 brought up and I feel uncomfortable about it. But I'm not sure it's an essential part of your case right now, so rm not going to pursue it now but I want you to be on notice about that. MRS. RIVERA: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Rivera, we thank you and we'll see what develops. Oh, I'm sorry. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA? Did the Building Department use.that Section 230? Was that the Building Department, or was it you? MRS. RIVERA: Well they were not addressing the setback of the house on the second Notice of Disapproval. If anything, they were just doing the pool on the second disapproval. The pool was considered a front yard in the Second Page 16, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals Disapproval. So we removed the pool and we also set the house back another 2 feet. That was considered a front yard. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, like Lora, I'm confused about the, how the Section 230 applies because it talks about 'buildings, if the neighborhood is developed with buildings, plural, and it talks about that you can use the average setback of the building. Well you cannot have an average setback of one building. Because an average by definition means, the sum of a number of things. MRS. RIVERA: Well they also, it said, adjacent on the same side. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. MRS. RIVERA: And that iSthe only house and I was willing to take Mr. Salice's house also but they said, that did not apply because that wasn't adjacent and on the same side of the right-of-way or setback where the right-of-way was. So, ! - MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not disputing that. You can't have an average setback with one building, not when the code specifically says, uses the word buildings and shall be the average setback of the buildings, plural. It doesn't say building. It says buildings. MRS. RIVERA: Well, unfortunately, those are the only two pieces of property that are on the same side, that are bordered by that same setback on the same side. If you would like to go on the northerly side towards the bluff on the 25 foot right-of-way, I'm sure you will see that those setbacks are even less from the right-of-way, or their property line then railroad crossing. Mr. Talos and Mr. Liebernorses(?) are far closer than the 50 feet. And that's also from either the property line or the right-of-way, because that right-of-way, is on technically the southern portion of their property. So, you know, if you want to take the average of those buildings, you certainly can, and you'll see that it was more than the average setback. But it does clearly state on the same side, so. We shouldn't be penalize because there's only one building that we have to take an average from. MEMBER COLLINS: Oooh, that's what the code says. I think I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These are again issues that we will talk with counsel on and we'll see counsel. MEMBER COLLINS: Can I just engage in a little cross conversation with Mrs. Tortora? I think we're both concerned about this thing and as I just told Mrs. Rivera, my understanding of the posture of this case right now is that, on the north side applicant has managed to convince the Building Department to Page 17, May 10~ 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals measure from the property line, not the right-of-way, and therefore, they don't have a setback issue on the north side. And when the pool was in the denial it wasn't being denied for setback, it was being denied because it was in the front yard rather than the rear yard. MRS. RIVERA: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And the pool is gone so it's not in front of us right now. It'll be back one of these days. So I just wanted the applicant to be aware that we don't see where Section 230 does anything for them but right now they're not asking it to do anything for them. MEMBER TORTORA: read. I think the key issue, the key issue is definitions, what I MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, right. We're in agreement, OK, just a little color, we're here though to make sure we got in on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have taken substantial testimony on this particular area. At this point, it is really moot. I mean to be honest with you, what it really does is, it's going to allow opposing counsel to discuss this issue. I have to be honest with you. I was ready and willing not to discuss any of this issue tonight, because in effect, based upon this most latest Notice of Disapproval, and in reality having been here twenty years, I never discuss what front yard, rear yard, and side yard is, because the minute it goes back over there, it comes back differently, OK? So, I don't discuss it. I don't care what they say in the Notice of Disapproval in reference to what their determination is of front yard, rear yard and side yard. As long as it comes and it clearly states to us in the Notice of Disapproval exactly what it is, that's it at this point. So we are going to have to allow counsel to discuss, opposing counsel to disCuss their opinion but I have to tell you, that I do want to get on with the case. MRS. RIVERA: I'm in full agreement with you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to get on with it also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that's where we are at this time and we thank you Mrs. Rivera. MRS. MOORE: Just to make clear I did want to have an opportunity to address some of the issues because the last time it was such a late hour. I felt fuzzy and I honestly don't know if all the points that I wanted to make were raised. First and foremost, things that have been discussed tonight, in my opinion there are two variances that are required here and should be requested. One is from the northerly right-of-way and the other one is from the right-of-way that would Page 18, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals equate to a side yard. Those two right-of-ways require front yard setbacks from the right-of-way and you identify them Mrs. Tortora and Ms. Collins but that is exactly the point that the definition speaks very clearly in black and white how that measurement is to be made. And ! know I've appeared on behalf of numerous clients requesting variances because of the fact, that the setback is impossible to meet with front yard setbacks in particular situations. That is not the case here. You have a situation, we don't have any problem with the easterly right-of-way. The 20 foot requested. If anything, if that would help the applicant to consider moving the house back to the appropriate and I think it's a rear yard. The rear yard setback of 50 feet. We would support the application to grant a variance to the applicant for the 20 foot setback. That is not our concern. Our concern is as to the northerly right-of-way and the Building Department I believe is incorrect, and I would hope that the Zoning Board ~: reviews that because Ithink in a Court..of Law, the black and white, the definition is very clear. It's probably one of the clearest parts of the code that has ever been written. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask you something? MRS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know that with all the clients that you've had, that you have a dialogue with the Building Department. You certainly have dialogued with the Town Attorney in the office and so on and so forth. It goes back - It's almost a symmetrical question to where we started in the beginning, and that was, you were going to do your investigation, Christina was going to do her investigation, and the Board was going to do their investigation. Just as I sat here last Thursday night and I said to all of you, that it wasn't going to do me any good to take four hours of testimony on these particular issues without going out and reinspecting the property, which we did on Saturday, and i have to thank the Kochs for their very, very, nice tour of their house and their property and so on and so forth and I have to thank Mrs. Rivera for assisting us up there with the measuring and so on and so forth. But again, this particular issue, is an issue that is not going to be settled here based upon that new Notice of Disapproval. MRS. MOORE: No, I honestly don't know what that Notice of Disapproval was for as far as what it solved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, yeah MRS. MOORE: It seems to still have in dispute the issue of the setback from the right-of-way. So without, when I read it, it said, 2 feet different. But honestly, it didn't make any difference as far as the application is concerned. Page 19, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals Whether it's 2 feet at 52 from the property line, or 50 from the property line, I think that the measurement is incorrect. But that's just for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record, you're still saying the measurement should be done from the right-of-way. MRS. MOORE: Absolutely, from the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And of course as you know, we did not see counsel on that issue yet. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. I have to put on the record what our objections are because - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course. MRS. MOORE: You know, otherwise you don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but you are aware that on the basis of this new Notice of Disapproval, that notwithstanding that particular comment that you just made regarding and what you made last Thursday, regarding the issue of the setback from the right-of-way that we, based upon this Notice of Disapproval are out of that area at this time. MRS. MOORE: Do you need me to appeal his Notice of Disapproval to bring it to issue, or is it part of your consideration in this application? I think that I mean I would certainly have a right of appealing that Notice of Disapproval, bringing it before the Board, separately as an application. I'm somewhat, it's being dealt with as part of this application anyway because the applicant has submitted whether it's 50 or 52. it's still not addressing that right-of-way. Certainly I can submit it as an appeal. Strictly on that point. But I believe that you are going to be considering it as initially just having to consider whether or not there is an error in the interpretation because you do interpret the code and send it back to the Building Department if you feel there is an error. I've been there before, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have not at this time had the luxury to have a meeting with counsel and possibly the Code Enforcement Officer and the head of the Building Department. And until we have that, you know - MRS. MOORE: My concern is not allowing things to proceed in certain direction without an opportunity to appeal it. So, if you think you can accomplish that meeting within the next you know, pardon me? MEMBER TORTORA: I was just looking at the Statute of Limitation on this. Page 20, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Yeah, I think it's 60 days from that particular notice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I cannot give you any direction and I really, as you know, - MRS. MOORE: Right. I think Mrs. Rivera also needs some direction of whether or not the Board is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We see you in every meeting - MRS. MOORE: That's true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so therefore, the direction is based upon your own initial - :~ MEMBER COLLINS: Can I make a comment Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER COLLINS: Just a quick comment. I went back and read New York State Law this afternoon. I'm being quite concern with exactly what we can and cannot do and it once again that confirmed, that we are an appellate body. We do very, very little on our own initiative except for you know, Special Exceptions and things we're authorized and I felt very, as I've said on the record, i think the Building Department has mismeasured and !'11 also say on the record, that I think we have a very weak position in telling them that ourselves. I mean we can tell them that privately. ! mean telling them that procedurally. MEMBER TORTORA: Well there's two things. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, can I comment on that too? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I prefer to hear an appeal of the disapproval and listen and read the disapproval and make a decision on that. MRS. MOORE: We can submit an appeal then easy, very easy. MEMBER DINIZlO: I got to tell you, it would be much clearer and certainly you would be more thorough than I could possibly be in making the decision as to whether or not even though I know the answer. MRS. MOORE: I think I know. Page 21, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: But I think that in fairness to the applicant, - MRS. MOORE: Yes, giving them an opportunity to appeal. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, right, that's my opinion. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. I will, I thank you for your opinion and I concur. But let me go forward with a few more comments and then because as to this application since you do have a right to move the house around I think under this application. To begin with, I think we can distinguish this property from the Koch's property, not only because the distinguishment of the right-of-way but the fact, that the right-of-way was on paper alone. This right-of-way, certainly Mr. Goehringer, Mrs. Tortora, were there and we were observing the measure. It is a very treacherous right-of-way. I think we all agreed and we were going;to put on the record, the fact that emergency access vehicles were going to have a very difficult time, if not, an impossible time to be able to get access over this right-of-way. So, right off the bat and ! commend Ms. Rivera and her applicant that they are prepared to correct that situation as part of their construction because certainly if they're pulling back their front yard which it seems to be what they're doing, then they better be able to get access from the front yard clear around. I believe that the code speaks to the front yard being Summit Drive and that their measurement should be from Summit Drive. Nonetheless, the fact that this right-of-way is as used as it is. The typography is as treacherous as it is up in that area and particularly this group of homes that have been built. It is imperative that the house be set back at the legal setback because moving it any closer is just going to exacerbate the condition that's already there. Secondly, we pointed out, Mr. Koch actually pointed out that they can save themselves an awful lot of money on their retaining wall if they move the house back an appropriate distance because they can then regrade the property and whether it's cantilevering the retaining wall, or, in fact just a very minimal retaining wall with the grade. These are things that could be accomplished and I know Mr. Fischetti will be looking at it once Mrs. Rivera has provided the information that we need to give an opinion on that issue. The impact on the Koch's property is a significant one. The variance request really are financial impact on this property and should it be necessary the application can proceed in the way that Mrs. Rivera has applied for. We are prepared to submit additional testimony on that issue. It's impossible to get the testimony at this time but we will, we reserve our right to submit that because there is a significant impact. You can see from being up on the property. What Mrs. Rivera is trying to do is place the house with variances in a position where it looks, it is not a waterfront property, so whether or not you know, a pool in the front yard, I think the Building Department really lost it when they were looking at this because that is an applicable section for waterfront property. This is not a waterfront property. It's landmark. It's surrounded by land. I lost my trend of Page 22, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals thought there. Ill come back to it. I don't know why I lost it but anyway, it was a good point, and when I read the transcript it'll come right back to me. With respect to ultimately the pool. They have removed it from your consideration. However, since it is something that they're ultimately going to want to put in on this property, they should again, move the house back so that there is adequate room for a pool, when the time comes and they want a pool. That is a constant. I know I've been here with clients that have built houses. On existing houses, the applicant then wants to put a pool and well, you know, they didn't leave room. Now they need variances. Here at this stage of the game, you already know that at least their initial review of the project they wanted a pool. It's just a question of time before they come back and ask for it. Therefore again, push them back so that way they have the room to improve this property, Mr. & Mrs. Koch have no objection to a pool. Again, that was not affecting their property. Oh, it came back to me. They were placing the house in such a way that they were trying to look at the water. They have a beautiful view of the water. But they were trying to look at the water between some houses. In doing so, they completely disregard the impact on Mr. & Mrs. Koch. It's that impact again, that we want to be able to bring in some testimony. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But remember, based upon that most, regardless notwithstanding your objection, based upon that most recent Notice of Disapproval, that's where we're pretty much out of that setback at this time. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying that. MRS. MOORE: Then we'll include these arguments in the appeal but a, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: I was thinking the same thing as Jerry was talking that they just asked the Chairman a question, Jim and Lora, so this doesn't drag on for three years, if we make a determination on whether the setback of the right- of-way on the east side is measured adequately, or not, if we accept that measurement, or, we decide to reverse the Building Department's decision, would after that action, would that fit in the North side from the Building Department? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we would have to do an interpretation on our own. MRS. MOORE: No, I think Mrs. Tortora may be right. If the application is a measurement because again, they have a front yard setback on the east side as well. If the Board says no, you know, your measurement, first of all should be from the right-of-way and thereafter it's a variance for the setback that, a front Page 23, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals yard setback. If the requirement is 50 feet. They're asking for 20, therefore it's 60 - 70% variance. That answered the question. I think it goes back to the Building Department and it would behoove them to look the other right-of-way as well. MEMBER TORTORA: I think it would answer to me, Lora, but that doesn't necessarily mean that would answer - MEMBER COLLINS: I mean as counsel just said, it would behoove the Building Department but it wouldn't require the Building' Department to do anything about the northerly side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I say again, that it requires the Town Attomey to tell us that we must have, as you know we've had interpretations on our own motions. You know, generic interpretations. MRS. MOORE: OK, well maybe we might do though in the interim is, appeal it just to save, just to preserve - MEMBER COLLINS: Appeal it, absolutely. MRS. MOORE: OK, but in the meantime you can certainly ask the Town Attorney. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Another unbelievable kicker in this particular situation is a question that I have to ask Mrs. Rivera. Mrs. Rivera you supplied us with deeds on contiguous property owners who own, or who have rights-of- way over this right-of-way. This right-of-way, is a reverse L. It comes up like this and then goes across. MRS. RIVERA: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is my understanding that Mr. & Mrs. Meskouris, that is Chris and James Meskouds, who own this piece of property and who you are the agent for - MRS. RIVERA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do not have a right-of-way over this right-of-way. MRS. RIVERA: It is not in their deed, that is correct. MRS. MOORE: Oh, then therefore they can't call it a front yard. Page 24, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat, Pat, please. This situation over here, please. I am saying to you, there are layers, OK? - MRS. MOORE: OK, this is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are layers on top, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry, repeat all that again for us. MEMBER COLLINS: It's not, it's not, (All Board Members talking at one time). CHAIRMAN GOEFIRINGER: Let Mrs. Rivera clarify this. MRS. RIVERA: Let me clarify:a couple of things. One is, I have pr. ovided the Board with deeds of the adjacent property owners, including those to the north of the site. Ms. Moore, I'd like to correct. She did say, that this right-of-way exists on paper only. I'm assuming you're referring to that as the Koch? MRS. MOORE: Correct. MRS. RIVERA: OK. That is in their deed. That right-of-way is in their deed. And it's plat owner on paper but it is in their deed, and if you go back to the Planning Board directly, they said that cases relinquish, clearly relinquish the use by that right-of-way because it was included in the right-of-way to their two lots which they've merged. But it is in the deed on the Koch's property of a right- of-way. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You say to their two lots. Do you mean, their meaning Koch's two lots, or a - MRS. RIVERA: No, no, Kotos. Kotos relinquished the right-of-way - MEMBER TORTORA: To the property owner on the east. MRS. RIVERA: To going west. So, it doesn't exist just on paper. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's just clear the word "paper" up, OK? The word paper means, it hasn't been built. MRS. RIVERA: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: But it exists in a deed, or on a map, or on a plat Page 25, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. RIVERA: It existed and it did have black top on it going to Kotos' property at one time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MRS. RIVERA: Yes, it did. Oh, it did? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it did not? MRS. MOORE: No, it did not. You can have testimony from the Kochs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well notwithstanding that fact, I mean it's not being used now. There is grass on it. MRS. MOORE: It's not, it's a non issue. MRS. RIVERA: There is some black top there in order to get into. I know there's property. It doesn't stop short right there, the property line. There is black top going forward to get in and leave. I mean it's clear there. But - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the house directly to the west - MRS. MOORE: The brown house. MRS. RIVERA: To the north of the Kotos. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well yeah, north west. MRS. RIVERA: Correct. And the perspective buyers have agreed to fix the retaining wall but it is the responsibility of the home owners that use that right-of- way to correct the pavement problem. It is not the sole responsibility of the Meskouris family or, the perspective buyers. So, yes, he has agreed to repair, rebuild the retaining wall in its entirety. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. RIVERA: But I just want to correct some things that she said on the record that as far as the black top and winding the path, the right-of-way, it is not the responsibility of the Meskouds family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I just need to ask the Board one question. Lora, based upon that most recent change in the code that we commented on and the verbiage that was written, and definitions, that was approved, was it not? Page 26, May 10, 2000 Trans~iPt of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: It was enacted as you recall. I wrote a memo to the Town Board saying that I didn't understand the purpose of that amendment to the code and I didn't think it made sense. But that, I didn't go to the hearing and that had pulled no weight. We now have this rather strange provision in our code that says that if your property is abutted by a right-of-way, over which you have no legal right, and to pass, then that's not a front yard on your property. That's what it says in a nutshell. Now, this right-of-way, as I understand it, lies entirely within the property line. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's not abutting. MEMBER COLLINS: And I can't see even if the right to use it was granted after other people, the fact that it's what do I know about the law, rights-of-way. But the idea that a right-of-way that lies on your property over which other people have a right to pass, is something over which you have no right to pass strikes me as bizarre. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think it's abutting. I think it's within their property. That's the difference. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, well, I mean, - MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think the new provision of the code has anything to do with this. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean that's the people out there argue it out. MRS. MOORE: Argue it out, OK. reason why i really would like to hear two MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, right, right. I think we couldn't have two better people in all honestly. MRS. RIVERA: I just would like to make another comment. This right-of-way issue. The fact that we got involved with this northerly portion of the right-of- way, in the last hearing, is in my opinion erroneous because the second decision that, was written did not deal with measuring the right-of-way of the property, it dealt only with the pool in the front yard. It did not take into consid, it didn't mention anything about distance from the property line. Distance from a right-of- way. The variance was being sought after for a pool in what was considered the front yard. Irregardless of a right-of-way, irregardless of property line, so the fact that we got involved in a dialogue, regarding a right-of-way issue, wasn't Page 27, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals before this Board at that time. What was before the Board was a pool in the front yard. Not a right-of-way issue CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well remember we didn't raise that issue. That was raised by counsel. MRS. RIVERA: Correct. But I just want you to know that we're not here under false pretenses because it was the pool issue that we're seeking a variance for in the northerly portion. Not a setback for you know, for the house placement, not a setback for anything else other than a pool and a front yard because that was considered a front yard. I agree with counsel that Summit Road is really the front yard. It is a public highway, road, street, whatever you want to call it. And when you have access to the property from a public street, that is considered a front yard. So the dialogue that we got involved with wasn't really even before this Board. The pool issue was before the Board in that northerly portion of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in other words in the front yard. MRS. RIVERA: And that was in the front yard. So, you know, we've taken the pool out and we moved the house back 2 feet and so we're seeking a variance just on the easterly portion. That is what is before you. I just wanted to make it clear that that is what is before you. And if it be so, that you're not willing to grant a variance, the 20 feet from whether be the right-of-way, or the property line, we can solve the problem by cutting the deck off and cutting the house five feet and meeting the requirement of another front yard of 50 feet back from the property line and/or the right-of-way. So we can correct that problem if you do not wish to grant us a variance for the deck, which is really extending 20 feet into that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just to answer Mrs. Tortora's question again in making the statement that the portion of the rights--of-way, or the right-of-way that we drove over on Saturday, apart from Mr. & Mrs. Koch's driveway, the Meskourises, although they own title to it, they, it's my understanding and Mrs. Tortora, Mrs. Rivera just physically confirmed that they do not have a right-of- way over that right-of-way. Is that correct to your knowledge? MRS. RIVERA: That is to my knowledge and the deed does not mention anything about a right-of-way.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Although they have title to it, they don't have a right-of-way. MRS. RIVERA" Correct. Page 28, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which would give them the right to ride on it, but there would be no way to get to it, because they would be barred from that. So that's where we are. Alright, so as you can see we have a substantial amount of homework to do. The purpose of this hearing and I have to tell you for everybody present, we don't normally have public hearings when we're deliberating. It was very simply to take us from step one to step two and to know where we're going from this particular time. I'm not positive. ! know where we're going at this point, under than the fact that we're going to consult counsei and that's where we are at this particular time and if you stay long enough we will continue once we finish the last hearing, public hearing, we will go back to decisions if time permits. I'll just ask you if you will be a little brief so that we could move on. MRS. MOORE: I'm really, just one clarification because what Christina put on the record now, is that I think contrary to what was talked about at the Saturday meeting. At the Saturday meeting there was a discussion about clearing the vegetation and pushing the right-of-way, making it accessible around both sides where the vegetation was. And also, the fact that they were considering the reconstruction of the retaining wall. Now what appears to be on the record is that well, they'll do what they have to do with a retaining wall, but that they are not necessarily promising to clear the vegetation. Maybe that just needs to be clarified whether or not in fact, they are going to do it or not. It seemed to be a request or a promise. Seemed to be a meeting of the minds on Saturday that that was what was going to be done. It doesn't seem to be the case at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I think the vegetation basically is going, there's going to be some destruction of the vegetation anyway with the reconstruction of the wall. The question is, are all the people that have the use of that right-of-way, going to replant the vegetation. I would say, that it would be against our:individual, when~1 say our, I'm talking about this Board's individual requirements under 280A of the New York Town Law and we would then have to put every property owner on notice at that point that they are basically in violation of New York Town Law and we would do that very simply by telling the Building Department and the Building Department would not grant any other Building Permits on any of those properties until such time that the access was brought up. And that is clear. As you know, we have specific requirements based upon the amount of houses and so on and so forth. MRS. MOORE: I do want to have Mr. Fischetti put on ~i.naudible) the request made in writing, and a whether or not you feel it's appropriate (change tape) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For everybody in the audience, Mr. Fischetti has come before us as a professional before, there's no need to swear this man in. Page 29, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals We are aware of your credentials and very well aware in fact at one hearing, remember when somebody questioned him? MR. FlSCHETTI: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: sense. I don't mean to bring that up as a derogatory MR. FISCHE'FI-I: No problem. In listening to it, the questions I have here and I understand that the front yard setback is not in front of this Board and I had written a letter assuming that, and that the request for that variance seemed to be not enough information to grant that variance on the setback, and I had been asking for a little more information as a builder and an engineer when we go ahead and analysis a property such as this to find a more suitable location we really do an analysis of elevations and requirements ( ) builds. So my request in the letter that I sent to Pat Moore was for first floor elevation and basement elevations, locations of garages and driveways so that we can analysis that. Locations of any retaining walls and this slope is more than an 18% slope. Vew, very, steep slope here. So analysis has to be made and due diligence has to be made in this. Proposed sanitary locations, all of these are very important so that we could analysis whether this property really needs to be pushed up, or whether it could be constructed anywhere along that property. So I'd like to clarify that if and when we get to that point. I understand that is not being looked at right now but really not enough information is in here by just placing that property, that house on the property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you. Mrs. Rivera let's say at the end, anything else? MRS. RIVERA: No, I just want to assure the Board that regardless of the location, the cesspool system will be placed where the Suffolk County Department of Health deems it appropriate and in this case, it would have to be off of Summit Drive for obvious reasons because we certainly can't put the cesspool system on the northerly side of the property to run down into the foundation, etcetera. The height restrictions that are applicable to an R-40 will be applicable to this person who is going to be building. If it's 35 feet, then it will be 35 feet. We're not asking, we're not before you asking for any variances, or, the height elevations. We will abide by the Building Department's regulations on building a single family dwelling on a piece'of land with the 24,800 square footage and so to say you know, to give this Board or anyone a design at this point is so ridiculous in my opinion to go through a 15 - $20,000 architectural fees to design a house when we don't even know where we're going to put it, and the height elevation will be 35 feet as required by the Town Code and you know, if you're only allowed 2-1/2 stories, then if we decide to build a ranch, it'l~ Page 30, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals be a ranch. If we build 2-1/2 stories, it'll be 2-1/2, within the 35 foot limit. So, to determine this point, you know, how high it's going to be, how many garages, etcetera, is really a futile attempt, you know, and just to spend money on architectural fees to decide where the house will look like when you don't even have the property and the ownership yet; is a little bit pre-mature I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're going to discuss that with counsel also, so just so you're aware of that. Mr. Fischetti? MR. FISCHETTI: When ! meant elevations, I didn't mean elevations on it. meant the height of the house and I understand it could be one stow, two story. Elevations I meant, where the floors are which is very important as to how this house situates on a sloped property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lowest floor area. MR. FlSCHETTI: Very important. I mean this is'stuff that you do, you have to do for placement. When you're placing the house on the property, you have to do your diligence to find out where the grades are, and how you're going to cut into this, into this property - I'm talking about heights - So that, when we get to the point of requesting a front yard variance from the proper setback from the right- of-way, they have to show that what they're needed to be up that far and to show that we have to do that because of constrictions on the property. I see no constrictions on this property that forces this house to be up front except for the view. Now it could just as easily be set anywhere along that property. So by request for those elevations and maps, an analysis of architectural design is just doing diligence on locations of basements, where they're cutting in, where they're going to put retaining walls. These are all very important analysis that you can't just say, well I'll put this property over here. You're not coming down on US. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fischetti, when you're talking lowest floor area, are you talking top of foundation or, when the box or the plate is actually - MR. FISCHETTI: I usually say, finish floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Finish floor, first floor? MR. FISCHETTI: And then on this particular place, the basement is important because now you have excavations. If basement is important as to how you're going to get in there and cut that area out because it's not a level site, it's here. So are you going to step this? Where are you going to put all this fill? Are you going to put retaining walls in here? A very important analysis. And this should be done before just willy-nilly putting this house on the property. If I was coming Page 31, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals in here and requesting a variance, I would say, this is the reason I'm doing this. It's because I can't put it over here, there's too much grade or whatever reason, and we'd like to help in the location of the property. I'm being paid by neighbors and she doesn't need that so you'd have some additional assistance in really placing this house on the property:with reason. So that's the request, was for first floor elevations, basement elevations. I don't need a design of the house. I just want to know how to place it. MRS. MOORE: You also mentioned the cesspool - the Health Department. doesn't tell you where it's going to go. You have to submit an application of where you're proposing it to go. So that's the reason at this point in time. We're not asking -- Joe Ingegno, when I ask him to place houses - a footprint of a house. If I tell him I'm going to the Health Department next, I ask him for test hole locations sanitary, all as part of my initial application because you're going to need it eventually. MRS. RIVERA: I do realize that and I just think it's premature to go and ask for cesspool locations, elevations at this point when the perspective buyer doesn't own the property. He just wants to be sure that he can build a house within the confines of this property lines and that's what we're before you about. We're not before you for elevations or anything else. When you build a house and you have to excavate, the Building Department is very clear of whether or not you can back fill retaining walls, bring additional fill in, etcetera. So until we get a placement, I can't give you elevations and as I said before, if need be, we will be happy to cut the deck off, on the easterly side, cut the house by 5 feet and then we don't need any variance at all because when we reach the setback requirements required. So again, to go and get elevations, cesspool locations, etcetera, yes we will have test holes done before you put a cesspool in and it's done for every single home that is connected and so we're prepared to do all that once the gentleman has possession of the property and has the setbacks required. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AIright, so that's where we are at this point. We will be consulting the Town Attorney and the a, I always forget Mr. Forrester's title and I apologize. MRS. RIVERA: I think it's Chief Building Inspector. MEMBER COLLINS:~ Director of Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Director of Code Enforcement. MRS. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman you mentioned something about waiting for deliberations. I mean, do you want us to wait or, I mean - Page 32, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings :. Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: we concluded. That has nothing to do with this application. MRS. RIVERA: OK, fine, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we're going to recess this regularly scheduled hearing. No, no, no, I was talking about other hearings that until the next BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can we use a date with that please? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, June 8th and we hope to have all our homework done by that time. MRS. RIVERA: And a decision will be made at that time, do you think? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we'll close the hearing. MRS. RIVERA: Close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. RIVERA: And then it'll be open - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And then we'll a, depending upon how late that meeting goes, we'll see what we can do. MRS. RIVERA: OK, I just- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Remember this is only the second step. We haven't gotten to the third step at this:point. MRS. RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's where we are at this point. second that? MEMBER DINIZlO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Will somebody Page 33, May 10, 2000 TranscriPt of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4816 - VEDA DALEY This is a request for a Special Exception to establish Accessory Bed & Breakfast use in conjunction with owner's residence, as provided under Article III, Section 100-30B(14) of the Zoning Code. Location: 8900 Main Road, East Marion; 1000-31-8-1.1 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening. It's a pleasure to meet you Mrs. Daley. Ms. Daley. Actually, it's Mrs. Joseph actually, right? We have received your letter that we requested from your husband and I guess the only question to ask you regarding that letter is, that you do live in this house? MRS. DALEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because that is a requirement of the Special Exception. We just want you to be aware of that. Is there anything that you or your husband would like to tell us? We did see the new plan. MR. JOSEPH: Just a technical correction. We don't actually live in the house at the moment because it's being renovated, so no-one lives there. But it will be our residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. But you wife is in title to the house and meaning, "in title", "ownership in title" and you will reside there? MRS. DALEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, which are the requirements of the Special Exception for the B & B. MR. JOSEPH: When we presented the revised plan indicating in one instance in the drawing what I attempted to do, was to show the lay of the land because the survey did not have any of the details. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. JOSEPH: You know, relocations and you know, also our proposed use of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Joseph, when you have the word "firs" drawn in and the arrow so indicated, at the rear, on or about the rear property line, those are to be added? MR. JOSEPH: No, those exist. Page 34, May 10, 2000 Transcript of ;Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those exist, OK, alright. And they will be continuously maintained? So, if one dies, you'll put another one in or whatever the case may be? MR. JOSEPH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is that between as you proceed toward the job in the property? Are those hedges in between the last firs? MR. JOSEPH: Yes, that's a privet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A privet? MR: JOSEPH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high is that Sir? You know, just an estimate. MR. JOSEPH: It's about 8 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. JOSEPH: Yesterday I spoke to a landscaper about what would go grow in the areas. We now have hostas in that area, and it's an area of Iow light. We could put some rhododendron or yewronomos as we suggested and those are pretty bushy and remain green or yellow all year. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. MR. JOSEPH: I have a question about that area. We had mentioned the fence which we were thinking of putting in that comer of the property and we haven't really decided and I'd like to hear my neighbor's view about that because I know that his a - the view from his property from his building would be obscured if he wanted to see the main road if we were to put a fence up there because right now it's Iow phosphorous and I hadn't notice until a couple of days ago when ~ really looked at that area, that there was a tree in front of their building and the line of sight to the street that had been cut down. So, I figured that that might be because they wanted to have that view and it might also reduce the light to their property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: property line? Are you talking about a fence on or about the MR. JOSEPH: Yes. Page 35, May 10, 2000 Transcript of, Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that going to disrupt any of the living evergreens or the privet there in the construction there? MR. JOSEPH: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would not. MR. JOSEPH: No, it would not or defers. It would not be where the firs are, or, where the privet is, it would be just in that corner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh in the corner itself. MR. JOSEPH: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Where the greatest amount of view would be from cars coming in and out? MR. JOSEPH: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. JOSEPH: It was something that we thought about originally for two reasons. One when we were going to put the parking there. And also, we thought it would give some privacy to the - Mr. & Mrs. Cotrone and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're talking like a 6 foot stockade fence? MR. JOSEPH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Right. MR.. JOSEPH: Something simple. fence with lattice work on the top. about 5 feet and then put lattice work. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cotrones at all, right? MR. JOSEPH: No, I haven't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually I thought maybe a 6 foot stockade So, it would cut the tops of the stockade at OK. You haven't communicated this to the Alright. Well we'll see what develops throughout the hearing and see if there is anything else. I would say that that would have great success in reference to causing a more of a privacy factor but you are absolutely correct that it does cut down on a person's ability to see the road if t Page 36, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals they want to see it. So it's an approach to approach conflict. We really don't know at this point but we'll see what develops. We thank you for that concession. Is there anything else you'd like to say? MRS. DALEY: Well I'm a little shy here but I wanted to say, that I'm happy to: have the opportunity of being here, and I hope all of this can be resolved and be happy neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're happy to meet you and we thank you for coming out for the hearing. You're welcome to stand there. We'll ask this gentleman and the lady in the back there if they'd like to speak? MR. COTRONE: Happy neighbors, ha-ha. neighbors - We would have been happy CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, whoa, whoa, whoa, to the Board, to the Board. MR. COTRONE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: State your name for the record again please. MR. COTRONE: Michael Cotrone and my wife Katherine Cotrone and good evening. MRS. COTRONE: Can we see the plan? We haven't even see it. MR. COTRONE: Yeah, we didn't get any plans on this also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Well that's why we're here. You're certainly welcome to review it. It's right there. That's the only one I have. We can make a copy for you. MR. COTRONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While they're looking at that Mrs. Joseph, what we are putting in are decisions at this point are, we reserve the right to go back and look at the screening access in many of the decisions that we're dealing with because it's important to create privacy for people. It's also very important in this day and age to preserve person's privacy. So, that's what we're doing. So, in this particular case, we may request a fence, we may not request a fence. It depends upon how Mr. & Mrs. Cotrone feel about it. How any other contiguous property owners who may or may not be at this hearing, feel about it. We would ideally like to do, is close this hearing tonight, and start deliberation on this Page 37, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings : Board of Appeals application. I don't know if we're going to be able to do that but we'll see what happens. MRS. COTRONE: There's 1, 2, and 4 and 5. Where's 3 and 4? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Inside the barn. They're going to park their cars inside the barn. MRS. COTRONE: And outside the barn as well? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, the outside cars are to my knowledge, Mr. Joseph or Mrs. Joseph, those were for the people that would be frequenting the B&B, MR. COTRONE: Well you're talking here Sir, about 4 parking areas and over here you have 4, you have 6 parking areas. MRS. COTRONE: There's two missing. MR. COTRONE: So, we ought to know what - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to ask that question. MR. COTRONE: Now also, are we still talking about parking cars over here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MR. COTRONE: Oh, so what you're doing here is, you're putting two cars over here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He is putting two cars. I'm not. They are. MR. COTRONE: Well, totally unexceptable. MR. JOSEPH: Mr. Cotrone, which plan are you looking at, there's the top of the page - MR. COTRONE: So I would have suggested and I tried - MEMBER COLLINS: This is getting very messy, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know it is. Page 38, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. COTRONE: To at the last time was that the gentleman who owned the place before us, he parked his cars over here and there was no objection - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're talking about in front of the barn? MR. COTRONE: No, on the side of the barn. MRS. COTRONE: Away from the cottage. MR. COTRONE: There's plenty of room there. There still is. MRS. COTRONE: There's room up here. There's nothing here. There's nothing back here. Our cottage is right there, if they park there we'lt hear the doors opening and closing. MR. COTRONE: Doors slamming. I've got a lot of kids that will be going out there, and you're missing a couple of parking spots. MEMBER TORTORA: He's only required to have a total of 5. Two for the main house and one for each bedroom. So he's only required to have a total of 5. MRS. COTRONE: OK, but- MR. COTRONE: Over there he got six. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well you can have more. You just can't have less. MEMBER TORTORA: He can have more but he doesn't have anymore than 5. MR. COTRONE: That's all in proximity to my property. MRS. COTRONE: Within about 25 feet. MR. COTRONE: Maybe less. And i heard setbacks being mentioned tonight. Is there such thing as a setback here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to my knowledge. MEMBER DINIZlO: Yours, your setback, but he meets all the requirements. MR. COTRONE: Good. I'm saying I could be in violation, i would also advise him to subdivide the property. Page 39, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: No, because you're not asking for anything, that's why. But if anybody is violating, you're talking about setbacks, it's your house that has that problem. MR. COTRONE: You're right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a question? MR, COTRONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this the back of the barn facing your cottage? MR, COTRONE: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I write that on there? MR. COTRONE: Sure you can. MEMBER TORTORA: Where was this picture taken from? MR. COTRONE: I took that picture today. From the corner of my property. actually ran out of film. But there was a few more pictures I wanted to take. MEMBER TORTORA: Your property line. So it's right on from your property line? MRS. COTRONE: Right, right there. That's how close it is. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wait, wait, pardon me, Ms. Collins, what's the matter. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, this is turning into a chat and the record is going to be a hideous mess and I wish that we would ask people to speak one at a time, not interrupt each other and stick to the point. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could you use the microphone because we are recording it please. MR. COTRONE: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Ms. Collins. OK, go ahead. You have the floor Mrs. Tortora, thank you. Page 40, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Headngs Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The reason I think that you discuss on putting it on the east side of the property was that there is a big tree there. Is that one of the reasons? You want to try and maintain that tree in the garden there? MR. JOSEPH: Yes, we have a, we have as you can see from the original survey, there's a barbecue pit. This is an area that we plan to use lights for the family. I have grandchildren also. We've a, in the area there, if you look at the map, Plan B, is written in but it wasn't written on Plan E. There's a vegetable garden near the house. A little further down there's a barbecue pit and a herb garden. There are some trees that are not shown there. They're three very tall trees, smaller than the Linden right in the front of the garden, the barbecue pit to the - so if you're facing the barbecue pit, well I said to the west of the barbecue pit and then the Linden, the previous owner drove his car all the way up almost to t. he house. We are in the process of reseeding that area and having it as a lawn for our use and we plan to have not only an herb garden but a flower garden in that fence and area that already exists. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're it says vegetable garden? Is that correct? MR. JOSEPH: No, Plan B- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, Plan B, OK. MR. JOSEPH: Plan B shows vegetable garden. It doesn't show it on Plan A, but it's the same, I just didn't write it in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Let's just hold up one second. Let me copy this for the Cotrones so they could follow the whole thing. What I would like to do is come to some happy medium here. MR. COTRONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And in whatever way we can do that, I would like to do it at this point. MRS. COTRONE: Can I say something? Just one thing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. For the record, let me just say this is Mrs. Cotrone. MRS. COTRONE: If he were my neighbor, I would never even think of parking by his bedroom window with lights. I would never do that to a neighbor and I just don't understand why it's being done to us. We're so close. To put cars there Page 41, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals and hear doors slamming and lights coming into our bedroom window, it's only 20 feet away. MR. COTRONE: It's not neighborly. MEMBER TORTORA: Well Plan B, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They don't have the plan so hold on one second. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, cause that's the proposed parking is more than 20 feet away on Plan B. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask Mr. & Mrs. Joseph, is there anyway of put, ting any type of circular driveway around that barn so that there is a way of turning around the barn toward the east side? In other words, coming in the west side and going around the rear of the barn but then returning around the front of the bam as it faces the road? MRS. DALEY: Well there are Pine trees CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right I see those there. So there's no way of doing - MR. JOSEPH: No, we don't have all of the trees on the property in this drawing. We have trees along the path and in any case regarding the lights in their bedroom window. Anybody driving on that driveway will be shining their lights directly ahead and the way to prevent that would be to put a fence up or to plant something there. MRS. COTRONE: Well that's fine, but we'll Still hear the doors opening and closing. MR. COTRONE: What about fire truck entrance? What about ambulance entrance and so forth and so on? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about to the Joseph's property? MR. COTRONE: Coming in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the Joseph's property? MR. COTRONE: Lets say there's an emergency on our property. How will somebody come in with a fence in the way and they're going to use that. You can't come in through my - Page 42, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why not? MR. COTRONE: Because there's trees in the way. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's your responsibility Sir. MR. COTRONE: What? MEMBER DINIZIO: That's your responsibility. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you Mr. Cotrone. Mr. COTRONE let me just say this. New York Town Law is very, very, specific about this. What the law reads is to the tangy of your property. If a person in general. This isa generic statement that I'm making.. Very simply prevents emergency vehicles from coming into their property, that's their responsibility. I have to tell you also, if your insurance company knew that, they would immediately cut your insurance right off. It is really incumbent upon every property owner to gain access to their property. I'll give you an example. We have 800 foot driveways in Mattituck leading to sound front parcels. You sat through a couple of hearings where people were putting swimming pools on their property. Those properties only had 400 foot driveways. In the middle of the night at 3:00 A.M. in the morning, I happen to be an Officer in a Rescue Squad, we had to roll a gurney 320 feet down a bluestone driveway in a diagonal way with ice on the driveway because the person prevented us from going up there with a brand new $120,000 ambulance because they refused to widen their driveway for that particular point. Personally if I was the Chief of our Fire Department, I would tell these people immediately that they are preventing fire and emergency access to that site and that's exactly the situation here. That's not an issue to this particular piece of property. That may be an issue of yours but I'm just saying not to this piece of property. :' MR. COTRONE: I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're trying to remediate the situation for the best of everybody's ability: MR. COTRONE: I just wanted to make a point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins is going to take us through the parking plans with you so that we understand exactly what the situation is. MEMBER COLLINS: I want to do this partly to get on the record what these things say rather than you know, people saying here, there and we don't know. Page 43, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cotrone? MR. COTRONE: Yes. So, you're going to follow us now right, Mr. & Mrs. MEMBER COLLINS: Then Plan B, - MR. JOSEPH: Before we go to Plan B, I just want to state for the record because this map is to scale and if you look at the, since we don't have an exact CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you see that Mr. & Mrs. Cotrone? MR. COTRONE: Yes. MS. COLLINS: So lets first look at Plan A, as we just noted for the record, the code requires one parking place for each B & B room, so that's three and your domestic parking is presumably two so we're talking five. You've got this barn on the property. I know what it looks like from the road. I gather from this drawing that on the back of the barn there's like a concrete apron? MR. JOSEPH: Yes. Well, it's a barn with an accessory garage. MEMBER COLLINS: OK..¢,So there is a garage in the barn? -, MR. JOSEPH: There's a two car garage. MEMBER COLLINS: So Plan A, as I read it, shows two cars presumably your own cars - MR. JOSEPH: Yes.. MEMBER COLLINS: Parked in the barn and they go in by coming up the driveway and going across the concrete apron and into the barn, garage. MR. JOSEPH: Garage. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and that leaves the guest cars at the westerly end of the barn, just off of the driveway. Is that right? The three of them? MR. JOSEPH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's where it says, three, four and five. MEMBER COLLINS: Three, four and five, OK, that's Plan A. Page 44, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals scale, if we look at the length of the house on the eastern side, it shows 4 to 7.6 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. MR. JOSEPH: If you took that distance and you would see that from parking spot number 5, to the property line, is more than 50 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On Plan B? MR. JOSEPH: On Plan A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, Plan A, pardon me. MR. JOSEPH: We're still on Plan A. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand what you're saying. MR. JOSEPH: From this spot, it we were to use that and measure it into inches and use that as a guide, it is more 'than 50 feet to the property line. MEMBER TORTORA: About 75. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I understand.. MR. JOSEPH: To the property line. MEMBER COLLINS: I think, the point is taken and it's in the record. MEMBER TORTORA: About 75. Your property is almost 200 feet depth. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK, so, then can we go on to Plan B, just to get that on the record? MR. JOSEPH: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, Plan B, seems not to park any cars in the garage. Is that right? It shows spots, 1,2, and 3 are all outside? MR. JOSEPH: Yes, because the problem we had with that is if we park cars in the garage, and then we tried to park outside, then they would block each other. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, of course. Page 45, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of APpeals MR. JOSEPH: So what we figured was to use the concrete apron and the end of the driveway to make, its larger than the requirements for the parking spaces and use those three spaces and use the two spaces 5 and 6 to the side of the barn for the other two spaces. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, 4 and 5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You could in effect integrate both plans though by putting 3, 4, and 5 where they existed before, and just putting 1 and 2, which would be your cars up on the concrete slab. Is that correct? MR. JOSEPH: Yes, right. But personally the preferred plan would be Plan A would be the two cars in the garage and the three cars on the outside to the east ,~:,~,of the barn. ~. ,, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: West. MR. JOSEPH: I'm sorry, to the west of the barn, thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Alright, thank you. I mean, I think now we've got it in the record something that recites what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, now we know where we're at. Now, the question I just want to ask the Cotrones while you're here is, do you have an objection to a fence being erected in the area that they are talking, and that is, in the corner? MR. COTRONE: We don't know yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't know yet. MRS. COTRONE: As far as sound goes, it's not going to do anything because our cottage is very much closer than what's on here. Our cottage is almost on the line and this would be like sitting right in the parking lot. MR. COTRONE: Absolutely, we don't know. · CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MR. COTRONE: And I'd just like to make another point about - Page 46, May 10, 2000 TCanscript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. COTRONE: And all these bushes are not here, they've got a lot landscaping - MR. COTRONE: I'd like to make another point. You see this tree on the eastern side of the barn? This:big tree here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. COTRONE: You can park two cars on the west side of the tree and he can park two cars on the east side of that tree. There is enough room there, plenty of room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's where he's indicating the garden that he intends to construct. The both of them I should say, both Mr. & Mrs. Joseph. We're forgetting that you weren't here the last time, and I'm referring to your husband only. I apologize. MRS. DALEY: That's all right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but that's where they want to build a garden. MR. COTRONE: No, no, no, no. He has a garden here actually. I think what he's saying, can I approach? MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. MR. COTRONE: What he's saying, well let him show us where he wants to put this garden. I'd like to see where he's putting the garden actually. The vegetable garden is up against here. ,: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but he wants to put an herb garden, i think you have to look at the other plan. It's indicated on Plan A. It's on both plans. MR. JOSEPH: On Plan B, there's the herb garden exists. We plan to plant new herbs. I mean there are - MR. COTRONE: Well you can do that with no problems as far as I can see. I'm trying to show you the Linden tree here. He can park two cars on this side, he can park two cars on that side MEMBER TORTORA: OK, we'll take that into consideration. MR. COTRONE: And he can also park 1 and 2 cars over here. Page 47, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. COTRONE: Excuse me. I just heard somebody say, why Why should we have to move? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, please. I have to again restate, - MR. COTRONE: He's very belligerent and not so nice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, can I just say something - MR. COTRONE: I'll make that for the record. MRS. COTRONE: I think we'll have to get a lawyer. MR: COTRONE:. ~.We'll have to get a lawyer. Can we get a lawyer in this case? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course you can get a lawyer. MR. COTRONE: Well then I think we'd way. We'll get a lawyer. MEMBER TORTORA: Wait, wait, wait. don't we move? I'm not about to grant a postponement or to vote for one, without good reason and I mean that very sincerely. MRS. COTRONE: You know what we've just seen - we traveled three hours from northern New Jersey. Do you know what we've seen going in our cottage tonight, looking out the back window? A "For Sale" sign stuck facing our cottage. That's what we've seen. We called up Century 21, to see if they were selling their property. They said, no, they're not selling it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please, please, - ,~ MEMBER COLLINS: Bring this meeting to order Mr. Chairman, or, or, throw these people out. MR. COTRONE: We'll be in touch with the court I guess. MRS. COTRONE: You want to throw us out, is that what you said? MEMBER COLLINS: I was;asking our Chairman to exercise a: hand. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. & Mrs. Cotrone, - MRS. COTRONE: Yes. like to postpone it and lets do it the right Page 48, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to ask you, if you want counsel? If you want to seek counsel? I am asking everybody in the audience to be as courteous to each other as possible - MR. COTRONE: That was not courteous. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. I did not hear the statement just as i did not hear the statement the last time, OK? And I really do not want to hear a statement, OK? i want to tell you that counter productivity is not a benefit in these hearings. That's number 1. Number 2, taking or extricating people who are contiguous and adjacent owners is not a fair way of dealing with the hearing. I've made the statement before, I'll make it again. Everybody has the right to be heard. We are just as concerned about your concerns as we are in reference to the applicants' concerns, and we are trying to create what, in my particular opinion is, a situation that is workable. It can be workable. MR. COTRONE: I'm sure it can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If it requires counsel on your part, I don't have a problem with it. I'll take a vote in reference to that if you feel that's the case. I don't know if you want to think about it for five minutes and then come back to us in reference to that statement and we'll take a vote. It's up to the Board to grant a postponement at this particular point. Please remember, that the purpose of this hearing, was to try and resolve these particular issues. I have told you and I will tell you again, that we will reserve the right to additional screening, at this particular time. These properties, I realize that you have a hardship in reference to the cottage. That your house is relatively close to the property line. I understand that. The properties themselves are relatively large and I understand your particular problem, and I also address your particular problems in reference to the way you want to return this house to its original condition and to really the absolute lavishness of the property, which is absolutely beautiful I mean the whole place is gorgeous, there's no question about it, and I respect your right in doing so. But we cannot have statements from the audience, we cannot have conjecture and we cannot have other things that just muddy up the waters. So, I'm going to ask everybody to sit back and lets get this done one way or another. MRS. COTRONE: Excuse me, is this on tape? This whole procedure? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is on tape. MRS. COTRONE: Well, I think if it's on tape, we might be able to hear it. It was said to me twice. Page 49, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry that that happened to you and I'm going to ask everybody in the audience to please refrain from speaking unless you raise your hand and then you are acknowledged and you come up and speak in the mike. MRS. COTRONE: We've been there for 20 years. We've been good neighbors. We've never bothered anyone. We've been respectable. He came back with a plan and it's the same thing as last week. He just moved the cars over a couple of feet. He wasn't Considerate of us in any way. MR. COTRONE: I'd like to add to that also. You had mentioned, that he'd like to, he'd like neighbors to get together and iron out these problems amongst themselves instead of and then certainly approach the bench and have this thing settled very quickly, but When somebody sent us this thing the first time we were notified of this thing and we saw four cars right in back of our house, - MRS. COTRONE: That's not neighborly, MR. COTRONE: He came to my place six months ago and came in ~ we were fishing there on election day, me and a friend of mine, he came over and we introduced ourselves to each other, and we chattered for a while and I indicated to him, I have somebody cutting my grass and he indicated to me so much, I'll get somebody for you. Well that kind of fell by the waist side when they contacted me, my gardener, I said, hey, the guy in the front of me, go see him, he needs somebody to cut his grass. That's neighborly. When you turn around and try to do what he's doing, that's not neighborly. You come to see me first. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, can I just say this. We use to do that about seven years ago and then we ended up having a fist fight out in the hall, which very simply meant, that in some cases we can't remediate these things without third parties and a third party in this case may be an attorney. So, it may be to everybody's best interest that you be represented by counsel. MR. COTRONE: Let them hash it out. Let them measure land. Let them come up- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the interim I would like to go back and view your property again, if you don't mind, and I'll do so if it's alright with you both. Yes ma'am. You were first. Since both mikes are being used, I need you to come up forward and speak. MS. CANDRONE: I wasn't here last weekend. My name is Maurice Candrone and I own property right next door. Page 50, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings. Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that to the west, or to the east? MS. CANDRONE: To the east and I've been there for two years now and when the previous owner had the property, he was parking several cars around on his property and that was never a problem, other than sometimes the headlights at night. I introduced myself to the Cotrones tonight because i've never met them before. I've seen an occasional car there but I've never met them before them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say that these are some of the experiences that we deal with. Under the Special Exception Umbrella, we dealt with them last week on a Special Exception for a accessory apartment in a house and a completely residential district of half acre lots or less in Southold, and some of the concerns that we had heard were of similar consequence, in that particular situation, the property owner agreed to put in a circular driveway so that the additional car, or cars, going into and out of the house would not be backing out on the road because the neighbor across the street had three small children, that range from 9 down, and she was very concerned about that. MS. CANDRONE: Oh, I'm definitely concerned about traffic in that neighborhood because I got the Post Office right across the street from me, and people are constantly pulling into the front of my yard and digging out the lawn. I've got an actual semi-circle in the ground and you know, I wish there were more signs saying, "populated area, please obey the speed limit" and stuff like that but people don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we're going to continue this hearing and we'll see how we deal with it. MEMBER TORTORA: So, we're not going to close it tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it depends upon, we're going to ask the Cotrones and that's the situation. They're thinking about it right now. Please this is still America ladies and gentlemen. You still have the right to be represented by counsel. We thought we were going to be able to wrap this up tonight. That's my opinion. The vote is very simply. We're missing one member and it's whatever the vote comes out to be, and you'll see the vote in action and that's the way it goes. So that's where we are. Anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am. MS. SMITH: I would like to speak just so I could clear up something from last week. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely ma'am. ,Just state your name for the record. Page 51, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. SMITH: Barber Marie Smith. My back property abuts on Mr. Joseph or Daley? MR. JOSEPH: It's Mr. Joseph and Ms. Daley. She's Mrs. Joseph. MS. SMITH: Oh, in the paper it got me mixed up. I object. I heard about this last June. I looked out my back window and there were a group of men tearing my back line apart. It turned out to be two surveyors, Mr. Fiorvantes who own the property, Mr. Baxter who is not here tonight and someone else and they told me that the property was being sold and they were looking for something to mark the property. I knew that Ms. Daley who owns the quintessentials was going to be the new owner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING:ER: That's Ms. Daley across the street. MS. SMITH: Across the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is Ms. Daley's sister. So there's two Ms. Daleys. MS. SMITH: I wasn't exactly thrilled, i think East Marion is over situated with boarding houses but I think it's inevitable. That's a big old house on a very noisy road. It's for sale for a long time. Who else is going to buy it? But I had one objection, noise. (change tape) I learned that noise is not the issue here now. That it's straight permit to make a Bed & Breakfast out of it. I accepted it. I mean you can't fight the inevitable but I don't think we should have been slandered by being called racists. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ma'am, I told you that this is - MS. SMITH: I know, you said that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Counter productive to this hearing. I did not hear it. I don't want to hear it. It is not an issue. I am sorry that it happened. There are situations at this hearing that I have the power to deal with and there are situations at this hearing that I don't have the power to deal with. If I heard it, I would have very simply dial 911 and that person would have been removed from this hearing. And that is the truth. I have done it before. I will do it again. It is not a populaFissue. That is an unfair statement if it occurred. .. MS. SMITH: May I speak to Mr. Joseph? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You may speak to Mr. Joseph out in the hall after the hearing is over. Page 52, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. SMITH: Alright, then I'm finished. But as far as permitting a Bed & Breakfast, I don't think there's anything I can do about it. So, it's a Bed & Breakfast, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ Right, so we'll see what the Cotrones want to do and we'll attempt to carry this over until June 8th if the Board so votes to allow them to have counsel represent them. Is there anything you would like to say in closing argument Sir, Ma'am? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm just, you know. MR. JOSEPH: I'd like to say something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, Sir. This is Mr. Joseph. MR. JOSEPH: Last week and this week, there have been many statements made which I chose not to respond to. That part absolutely untrue, if a "For Sale" sign is left there by the previous owner and it sits there, it's been there and if you come on to my property you'll see where it's been for a very long time. Regarding the changing. You know, this is a large piece of property. We could park the car on the center lot. We are trying to have this fit in with the property as it exists and also something that woLC~d be attractive, not only from the street and also conducive to our guests. We have gardens. All of them are not shown. We have an arbor, has the name Arborview. We have trees in the front. This is a very - Mr. Fiorvantest whose ar~ ardent gardener and this property has been in the hands of people who have garden for years because some of the trees and the vines that are there are sixty to seventy years old. I am not about to change that to accommodate parking. There's amble parking in the area. It is adequate. We will light it. We will be willing to put up any kind of screening. Two cars will be in the garage that we have, you know, C of Os for. And I think that this is a workable plan and the idea of having a driveway circle around the building, destroying the lawn, the gardens, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was only a suggestion on my part. MS. DALEY: There are lots of trees that we would have to cut down just to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, that i never really thought that seeing the size of the property, I didn't t~ink parking was going to be an issue. I mean I walked in the driveway, I didnCt actually go back to the back of the property. We did have an application prior as you are aware some years ago, and I just didn't recollect it from that point. So it's important for me to go back and look at it again. Particularly the rear yard and so that's why ! asked your permission to go back and take a look. Page 53, May 10, 2000 TranScript of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH: Will we be informed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'd be very your available. MR. JOSEPH: I'll make myself available. happy to come on Saturday, if CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so, 9:30 or so, something like that? MR. JOSEPH: Certainly CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just have a good telephone number before your leave in case some reason there is a problem that I can't make it. I would hate to have you come out here from ~th'e city, or whatever. ~? MS. DALEY: No, we're there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're here all the time, OK. MR. JOSEPH: I'm here. My wife is not always. But my phone number is, 477- 8696 or 477-9471. I would try the second number first. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I'll be right with you Mr. Cotrone. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to close the hearing tonight. i've heard enough evidence. If someone wants to get an attorney they can get do it on appeal. This, there's been more than amble evidence taken in this. We have listen to many applications similar where a neighbor has objections. The applicant has submitted two alternative plans as well as a landscaping plan and 'in my view the plan is adequate to make a decision, and I will move to make One tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that's fine. Mr. Cotrone would you come up and use the mike Sir. MR. COTRONE: If you can change the date on yourself of making yourself available, on this gentleman's property, can you change the date to say another Wednesday. I'd be willing to come out here and I'll meet also with you and 'maybe we can iron out something right on the existing property and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wednesday is a good day for you? MR. COTRONE: Wednesday is a good day and I, I, you know, I don't want to bring no lawyers out here and go through all this sought of nonsense. ! would Page 54, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals like if the three of us or whoever wants to meet and come up with a viable plan. think that would be good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, next Wednesday, I have a Fire Department meeting in Mattituck. It's incumbent upon me being at the Fire Department at 6:30. I'll be available about 7:15. So I will leave Mattituck at 7:15 and I will be at your place prior to dark which is going to be, it'll take me 20 minutes to get there. So, I will meet you at your, I just don't know how to get into your house, so I may drive into Joseph and walk. MR. COTRONE: That would be the best way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you don't mind? I'm going to come Saturday still to see your property. This has nothing to do with the closing of the hearing.~ whatever the issue is. I still want to see the property again because we're not going to deliberate tonight on this even if we do close the hearing, just so you're aware of that. So that's where we are. I would just ask you to take my telephone number down just in case you can't come out that night because then 1 wouldn't proceed out to East Marion. I'll give you my home number. It's a 298-9176. There is no answering machine Mr. Cotrone, so you kind of have to wait until like 5:15 or so until we get home. My wife is usually home before me. MR. COTRONE: Is there an area code out here in Mattituck? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's 631. MR. COTRONE: So we're talking Wednesday CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Wednesday. I should be there about 7:35 or ' MR. COTRONE: Is that an appointment with Mr. Joseph also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I will have looked at their property already at that point and then I'm going over to see you at that point, and if you in the interim want to create a dialogue that's fine. rm not asking anybody to create one if they don't want to. MR. COTRONE: You mean between now and then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Yes. So that's where we are at that - MR. COTRONE: Well I'd rather you'd be out there. Page 55, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so I'll come, alright. I've done this before. I'll tell you that what's the name of the gentleman that we just had? The brick, the wall in a, it was in Greenport? We had a similar situation where this gentleman wanted to create a berm in his front yard just down the road. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, Merrill Wiggin? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Merrill Wiggin. Just down the road. Just on the other side of the white church, on the highway. MEMBER DINIZIO: Trumans Path. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Trumans Path and Mr. Dinizio and myself were both out there and what we very simply did, was~,.¢ome to an agreement. We had all the property owners there. We drove the car up and down. In fact, I even drove the property owners' cars up and down to see that we made sure we had a view. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Remember that? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it worked out wonderfully. So I'm going to meet with the Josephs on Saturday. I'm going to meet with you next Wednesday and we'll see if we can work out something. I'm going to report back to the Board even if we close the hearing tonight because we won't deliberate tonight on this hearing. MEMBER TORTORA Just one more thing I want to get into the record. Mr. Daley, your house is listed on Spleer's Historic House Register. MR. JOSEPH: It is? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes it is. It's one of the historic houses. It's something to be proud of but a - MR. JOSEPH: Can you say that again? What register? MEMBER TORTORA: Your house - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's called Spleer. Page 56, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. MEMBER TORTORA: It's the number of your house and you can check this right here with the Town Historian is number EN-28 and that's the property. The whole property is. So I can appreciate your concern for wanting to keep some of the older landscaping features and trees. MR. COTRONE: Excuse me. I'd like to add to that. We also have a historical piece of property. So I understand what you're saying to him and we also try to maintain that piece. It's not in this area but it is in New York State. So I know if that's what he's trying to do, that's great. We have the same situation and ~'ll see you on Wednesday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good Sir. MR. COTRONE: Thank you and good evening to all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Good evening. If there's nothing more, we would like to make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision until June 8th, pending any discussion that I have with the Board. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What's pending on June 8th? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The decision. We may make a decision on June 8th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Oh, after it's closed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: After it's closed, yes, or, I can leave it open if i have any and just close it as per verbatim and then actually close it on June 8th in case I have any other further questions that I would like to add to the record. So you tell me what you want to do. MR. JOSEPH: One thing Mr. Chairman I'd like to mention. We hadn't mentioned this before because we didn't think it was going to be an issue. We would like to have this Bed & Breakfast running this season. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, it will be. If it's approved. No, it will. MEMBER TORTORA: We're not going to make a decision until June 8th? MEMBER COLLINS: We're not going to make it tonight Lydia. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't make it tonight. I don't have a - Page 57, May 10, 2000 Transcript of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I told you I'm fully prepared to vote on this. I'm not prepared to stall this at anybody, I don't see the point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the decision is not written. I mean we don't normally vote on decisions unless they're written. ,¢~. MEMBER DINIZIO: I wrote it. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it yours Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: I have it. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to say to the Board, that I think it's a mistake in not allowing me to go out and revisit the property. That's my opinion. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, lets vote on it tonight. MEMBER COLLINS: First we'll vote on dosing the hearing. Have we got a motion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I made the motion. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearings. PHMAY 10 RECEiVeD AND FILED BY SOuTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE Y£OUR