Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/08/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD June 8, 2000 Page 2ooo) 1 -Appl. No. 4820- DOLORES PRINCIPI 15 - Appl. No. 4823 - LEE & MARIE BENINATI 18 - Appl. No. 4829 - DR. ANTHONY & WILHELMINA PELUSO 29 -Appl. No. 4828 - ROBERT D'URSO & RICHARD OVERHULS (Owners) & MICHAEL DELUCA ( Contract Vendee) 30 -Appl. No. 4825 - STEPHEN TESTA 31 - Appl. No. 4827 - VINCENT MANGIAMELE 32 - Appl. No. 4831 - DOUGLAS & JANE DEY 33 - Appl. No. 4826 - WILLIAM A. PENNEY III 40 - Appl. No. 4832 - JAMES SLECKMAN 44- Appl. No. 4813-A& S SOUTHOLD OIL CORP. (With E. M. &T. INC.) 56 -Appl. No. 4821 - ELAINE ROMAGNOLI 62 -Appl. No. 4830 - BENNETT HESS 65 - Appl. No. 4818 - CHRIS MESKOURIS & ORS. (Continued hearing from May 4, Page I , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BOARD OF APPEALS June 8, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:39 P.M. -Appli. No. 4820 - DOLORES PRINClPI This is an application under Article XXIX, Section 100-239.4A and submitted pursuant to conditions set forth under Zoning Board of Appeals No. 4225. Appeal No. 4225 was denied on May 4, 1994, with an exception for temporary placement of the existing cottage Without expansion or enlargement for a?iimited period of up to five years in a location less than 100 feet from the Long Island Sound bluff. Applicant is requesting approval by the Board of Appeals for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as exists in its present location. Location of Property: Lot No. 2, Map of Blue Horizons, 4660 Blue Horizons Bluffs, Peconic. Parcel 1000-74-01-35.52. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This appeal concerns the location, possible location of a premises that we looked at approximately, four to five to six years ago. We'll 'ask if Mrs. Principi would like to discuss it, or, would you like to yield to a family member? MRS. PRINCIPI: This is my son Richard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MRS. PRINCIPI: I'll answer whatever yod want me to, or whatever =questions you have regarding this. I think it pretty much states that there hasn't been any changes since 94. I just want to state that it says, "have there been any changes", and there hasn't been any changes since 1994 with the survey and we measured it and there hasn't been any more erosion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're in a bit of a quandary on this, in that in 1994, we kind of thought that you were going to over the last, within you know, the past five years, actually it's six years, that you were kind of like going to relocate the premises in a different~location. We realized that at that hearing, the building looks somewhat different than what it looks like today, and that you know, at certain building problems, that the Building Department requested at that time, and that was that the pilings weren't in the right position, and the house wasn't actually in that position. But we had had a survey in 1994 which indicated that the building was going to be relocated on the other side of the Page 2 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals power lines and that's what we assumed that you were going to do on the next five or six years, meaning from 1994 to present. And of course it's in the original position that it was you know, you just modified the pilings and the house is there where it is. So, I don't know exactly what's going to happen based upon this hearing but a, and we haven't actually discussed it, Board Member wise but we'll see what - MRS. PRINCIPI: I have a letter from all the others, all the other cabin owners stating that we have keep it in good repair - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, it's definitely in good repair. MRS. PRINCIPI: And to bring it back it wouldn't be in you know, in alignment with the look over there and it would be a real big expense for me. I just couldn't afford it. I lost my husband two years ago, and I'm just keeping it together with my family. So I don't know how I could even think of moving it back 100 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were going to get us a calculation of what the distance is, or, a family member was going to do it. MRS. PRINCIPI: We did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You did, OK. MRS. PRINCIPI: You mean from the bluff to the house? It is the same. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. MR. PRINCIPI: It's approximately 35 feet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, I need your full name please. MR. PRINCIPI: Richard Joseph Principi, Jr. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. PRINCIPI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so lets see what develops throughout:the hearing. We'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of Mrs. Principi? MEMBER HORNING: Do you have a recent survey of the property? Page 3 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. PRINCIPI: No, I didn't survey it again since 1994. Mr. Van Tuyl did it and at that time it was close to $2,000 just to do this, and being there wasn't any changes, I just didn't do it. MEMBER HORNING: But since the bluff was deemed to be unstable at that time and now we're assuming just by word of mouth, that in fact somehow it's become stable. MRS. PRINCIPI: You can have your Members come down and measure it. There hasn't been any erosion. Any further erosion over the years. MEMBER HORNING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: This application received a lot of attention at the time that this Board reviewed it and rendered a decision in 1994 and part of the decision, and part of the reason that it was denied at that time, was that and subject to reapplication, which was suppose to occur a year ago was that to allow you addition time for the applicant to show by expert testimony, and expert documentation from a licensed engineer, proof as to the condition and the stability of the land, the rate of erosion historically currently and future soil changes and other data necessary for this project before the building is permanently in place as well a providing sufficient burden necessary in meeting the 100 ft. setback requirement. It asked you to reapply before May 1999, submit evidence of the condition and stability of the bluff, for full and oomplete reconsideration and it also as part of the decision and I don't know bow this happened, but one of the conditions was, that it was not suppose to be altered. So no alterations were suppose to occur in the house. This was deemed an unsafe building prior to the action of this Board. It is 35 feet from the top of the bluff. It was there subject to you submitting evidence but it could remain there and the stability of the bluff. We don't have an updated survey. We don't have an engineer's report. Essentially, we're back where we were in 1994, and a, this is a beautiful piece of property. A huge piece of property. A beautiful waterfront piece of property. But I know of no instance in the six years that I've been on this Board, that this Board has ever approved a building setback 35 feet from the top of the bluff. The degree of variance is too substantial. There's no evidence to warrant it. MRS. PRINCIPI: What would give you evidence to warrant it? An er~gineer's report and - MEMBER TORTORA: Just what is in the original, the perimeters of the original decision are very well thought out and I wasn't here. So I'm not (). But they Page 4 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals were well thought out in my opinion, and they were very valid, and that requires an updated survey showing the location of the house an updated - there's a driveway there. There wasn't a driveway before there when I went up to the property. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation gave you conditional approval for the location of the house in a new site. Not a 35 feet. I want to see the map. I want to see what they approved. The stamp, sealed map of what they approved. We don't have one in our file. MRS. PRINCIPI: What do you call it? MEMBER TORTORA: The New York State DEC. MRS. PRINCIPI: We never applied to the DEC. requirement, was it? .. I don't believe that was a MEMBER TORTORA: According to our file, it was. MRS. PRINCIPI: That was for the stairway. I have that. I have a permit for the stairway. I just have not put it in. MEMBER TORTORA: It says to the DEC, New York State Department of Environmental Permit No. 1473800891000010, issued, December 13, 1993, pertains to conditional approval to relocate the subject cottage to an outside area of the Coastal Erosion Hazard tine and another permi,t as amended March 29, to locate the subject cottage to an area north of the LILCO power line. We don't have any of that for the record to indicate where that would be. ! haven't got a clue where that is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other problem that we have is, that we were waiting for Soil & Water Conservation to evaluate the bluff which is basically a free service that we avail ourselves of and we of course give you the report. They have not submitted that report. So I think at the culmination of this hearing, we're just going to hold it over for another month until - MRS. PRINClPI: And then what would you like me to do? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, - MRS. PRINCIPI: Until you get the report and then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we really like you to - we have a copy - in fact I'll furnish the copy of the - the only thing is that does not have in it is, the DEC issue which we can give you a copy of. Page 5 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. PRINCIPI: See the way the survey is, there's no-way that house is going to fit back there, 100 feet. It's not going to fit. It tapers down very narrow. ~ won't meet the side lines which you wanted. That's why we very carefully placed it there to meet the side line requirements, and in the front you told us 30 feet where's your trustees, so we went back 35 feet. :~¢.We tried to conform to everything that we really could. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well what I think, correct me if I'm wrong Mrs. Tortora,. I'm looking at you Mrs. Principi and I'm referring to Mrs. Tortora. Correct me if I'm wrong but, what Mrs. Tortora has just told you is, that we need some expert testimony. And she's also told you, that we have also never granted 35 feet from the bluff. ! have to tell you rve been on this Board for 20 years and I'm not positive that we - MRS. PRINCIPI: Also, I would like to say, maybe you've never granted it before but I bet you, you also never did one building lot on 46 acres, that we gave up all our building rights so we all could have our cottage. I think it's the whole package you should look at. I'm not saying, yes, well maybe I'm the pioneer. !'~1 be the first one you'll have to grant to because I gave up a lot financially for my family. That we all could keep our cottage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That lot though is buildable, is it not? The 46 acre parcel? MRS. PRINCIPI: For one house only. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For one house only, right. MRS. PRINCIPI: And that was half acre zoning. We were suppose to get over 50 houses in there: But then we had to each give up our cottage. We are five family members. So I think, I think you should do your homework as well, and go back further on it, and see what we gave up, not just what you gave up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand but the issue of health, safety and welfare is the issue that's concerning us. What we're saying is, I have no problems giving you the appropriate time to get certain reports that we feel that you should have. And if it takes one month, two months, it doesn't make any difference. The house is there. It still has a temporary C of O, which you know, it's questionable at this point, but at the same time I don't think today, tomorrow or the next day, there's going to be any major change in the bluff. So, I mean, I think we can give you the appropriate time. So I think at the culmination of this hearing, maybe you should tell us how much time you think you need to get, you know reasonable time. You need two months, do you need, I mean - Page 6 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. PRINCIPI: Well shouldn't I wait until you get your letter from whoever you're waiting for? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, we'll submit that to you when we get it so you can make that a part of the package. But still we need engineering reports from you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are you asking for a survey also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm asking for a survey and engineering.- MEMBER TORTORA: Showing the road and the - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just by the cottage,.though, right? Jut by the cottage, OK. MRS. PRINCIPI:: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I mean I think that's - MRS. PRINCIPI: Well just tell me exactly what you want from an engineer, please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well here's the decision and this is not the entire decision but this is the decision with conditions that I copied for you. And so they will tell you. Primarily number 1 and number 2, primarily concern, those are what Mrs. Tortora was reading from. The only thing that that does not have is the DEC number of 1993 which we can submit to you. You know, that was 7 years ago. I can assume that you weren't aware of it because it was seven years ago. But wecan give you that number. MRS. PRINCIPI: The DEC was for my stairs. I have a permit for my stairs from the DEC. I have a permit for that. We just kept renewing it every two years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That doesn't say that in the decision. So maybe we're misconstrued but I don't think we are. MRS. PRINCIPI: The DEC would have this number if I go to Stony Brook? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll give you the number. MRS. PRINCIPI: I'll just call them. Page 7 , June 8, 2000 TranScripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes, call them, sure. We've got to give you the number though. It's not in that. It's on the page before that and I only copied the two last pages with the condition. MR. PRINClPI: Can I ask just one question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MR. PRINCIPI: If we were to keep in the character of all the cottages where they are. If we were, you know, protect you know with the proper furbishing as cause our neighboring property with a bulkhead and since that you know, he couldn't move his cottage back, or over, whatever. He actually imported the material to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you refer to he, who you talking about? MR. PRINCiPI: My neighbor to the west. I'm not certain of his name. But if we were to continue that bulkhead across, would that you know, not to say that we're going to do it, but you know, if it leads to that, would that help with our 35 foot? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let me just figure out here. How many houses are involved? I know this decision only reflects your mother's house. MR. PRINCIPI: One because they condemned it because of the proximity to the, and as far as altering the residence, all we did was move it back and move it over, raise it up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you own anything else there? Family wise? MR. PRINCIPI: Yes, my family owns them all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it would be my opinion, that what should be done is an entire renurturing of the bluff areas. MR. PRINCIPI: That's correct. It's very expensive. We've had estimates over $600,000 to do that and I'm in the business. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand that and that's the reason why I asked the question. I am not suggesting that itbe done overnight. MR. PRINCIPI: I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, we look at these reports from Soil & Water Conservation and those reports tell us what has to be done. They also Page 8 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals sometimes give you stages of which way to go. So, if you were to say to me, do I think you have to put in five or six hundred feet of bulkheading, at the toe of the bluff, I don't know at this particular point. I don't know what the first step should be. MR. PRINCIPI: Well I think that report is to secure it. There's no reason to you know, revegetate the bluff unless - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Unless you deal with the top. MEMBER TORTORA: The top would be a lot less costly. I mean it would be a lot less costly to move the house than to spend $600,000 to vegetate the area. MRS. PRINCIPI: Well, you kr~ow, you're accurate but if you were to keeping in with the character and also subdivision that we had approved back in the early eighties, to move this property 100 feet back, first of all, if you look at the survey, the property is very falling like. You know, very narrow, so it' not even, (a) you're not even fit with the rest of the character of the property, and (b) it's not even going to be, it's not going to be (). You're not going to meet the side yard setbacks. You're going to still be in the same process again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing that confuses me between this hearing and the last hearing is going back symmetrically to what I just said. That there was a specific spot on the opposite side of the power lines, just past where the power lines were going across that you were going to place this house. Now we had assumed in 1994, unfortunately I am the only person, oh, Jimmy was on the Board at that time, I apologize. Mr. Dinizio was on the Board. I had assumed that you were going to move it. You were temporary going to leave it where it is now, and that you were within the last five to six years, you were going to move it to that location. Change the entire driveway configuration and so on and so forth. So I have to be honest with you, of course I don't usually trespass on private property and I went down and as you know, you lock it off most of the time and it was unlocked when I went down to look at it, and, I was surprise to see it. I mean it's certainly pristine, there's no question about it. But I mean I was surprise to see it in its location now. I would of thought that you would have moved it back a little bit farther. MR. PRINClPI: To be quite honest my father did handle that. In the first phase of this one, they did condemn it. We did move it back as per, you know, the order that they wanted us to make it safe so we could continue to rent it but in order for us to move it past the property lines, you know, even an engineering point of view, I don't see it would fit. But I'll look back at our folder that we have on it and see if there's any - Page 9 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just show you this? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's the Building Department's survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. (Parties looking at survey and discussing same). You see my immediate concern is this. That if we get a really hard, hard blow and I refer to it as a nor'easter which as you know can be as devastating as a hurricane. Underneath that bluff is clay. What we are seeing there is dune and some sand that has been discolored. You're going to have total exposure there unless there's you know, a truly nurturing of this entire - not only of this piece but the remaining parcels that we're discussing here which are not part of this application. MR. PRINCtPI: I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, that's where our concern is and we know I mean it's only a hypostasis, but we know that Soil & Water is going to come through with you know, they're probably working on it right now. MR. PRINCIPE: And when do you think that will be? I mean I will, you know, work on getting an up to date survey, and I will talk to some of, you know, landscape, you know, architects that I work with and get a professional opinion of the bluff. Because we did do that when we were going to bulkhead. That was part of the whole, you know, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The point is, that I know that significantly you have businesses on the South Shore where this is done all the time on ocean bluff areas. We refer to bluffs. We're talking dunes in those areas. I'm not totally asking for total renurturing in the entire piece because it's a expensive operation. But there's got to be a start here. You know, and then we've got to have an engineering report saying, that the bluff is stable and there are people that do that. MR. PRINCIPI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which I'm sure you're aware of and it would make sense because then we could now deal with what setback we're going to be assessing. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, because this area that has been whited out where the Board thought you were going to move the house to. As the Chairman said, the Board is not that concern with side yard setback as much - MR. PRINCIPI: I just want to understand the whole picture. Page 10 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I want you to know it was a whole new awareness for us because we haven't seen it for six years. MRS. PRINCIPI: Why is your concern so much 100 feet? I mean, why can't you do it if you went to inspect it every ten years, or something like that. Why is it your concern now? It hasn't moved in six years. 35 feet is a - MR. PRINCIPI: They don't know what the facts are. I think we have to get a resurvey from this point, I understand what you mean. So if we can get you know, two months or so, that you know, everyone is backed up six weeks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we just wait until the September meeting. MR. PRINCIPI: I'm six to eight weeks behind on any of the work that I'm doing° MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Would it be proper if these people would care to submit some background information about activity prior to this decision in 1994 or whatever. You alluded to a potential subdivision and whatever. I think that it might be helpful in a way just to have some background information if he would care to tell us that so that we can see what you consider your predicament to be in those regards. MR. PRINCIPI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we're not finished with the hearing. We still have Ms. Collins and Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER COLLINS: I was not on the Board in 1994 and have read the old decision but of course not the old record and I really want to ask a question guess partly of the Chairman. If I understand the situation correctly. The cottage was considered in an unsafe location and was it moved in 94 at all? understand what you were just - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it was moved from one location to this present location. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, this was a temporary location which - Page 11 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually it was over the lip of the bluff at one point. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so it was moved, I'm sought of trying to get this into our current record for the sake of our current record. It was moved to a location. They kept it from tipping over the edge of the bluff which you be ev.e~ at the time was probably an interim location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: You thought there was a more permanent plan that would probably of been put into effect by now and now we find the more permanent plan wasn't put into effect. I think the applicants are asking us to conclude that the current location of the cottage is OK, and my concern having cleared up that littlefact point, is echoing what Mrs. Tortora said, and that is I think, that the decision the Board rendered in 1994 was extremely clear about what the applicants had to do in 1999, or as it turns out 2000 which was to bring - the words are in here, evidence, expert evidence, expert testimony, giving evidence of the condition of the bluff so that we could feel knowledgeable in making a decision about sought of blessing this house in a permanent location and I think that can't be, that was the deal and I don't think you can undo it. MR. PRINCIPI: If I can interrupt you. In all fairness, I didn't see this until now. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, OK. MR. PRINClPi: Until you really read it through. So, if I have until September, I will - MEMBER COLLINS: You'll read it of course. MR. PRINCIPI: Well know, I will- MRS. PRINCIPI: How do we get your blessings to leave it where it is, is what I'm trying to say, because - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon engineering reports, but I'm going to say one thing, that echoes what Mrs. Tortora said, and that is, that I've been doing some soil searching between her statements and I think the closest we have ever granted a deck and/or swimming pool,i is between 45 and 50 feet. And that's with a proviso for this strict covenant that it never be linked to the house. So in case of a - MEMBER TORTORA: A deck. Page 12 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A deck or a swimming pool, it never be linked to the house so in case there was a problem. Now we're talking gunite swimming pool. We're not talking a liner swimming pool, OK? We're talking gunite swimming pool and we have evidence from an engineer that the compacted soil is actually heavier than the water and the cement in that swimming pool. So again, this goes back, this precedent goes back to the Town Attorney who was the Town Attorney for the Zoning Board and for this Town between 1958 and 1988. There was a guy by the name, a gentleman by the name of Robert Tasker and it was his opinion, that if people want to grant these accessory structures in the front yard, which are swimming pools and decks, that they never be linked to the house just in case the bluff does go, it will never take the house with them, god for bid. And that's the concern that we have at this point. Just so you're aware of the situation We have no problem giving you the appropriate time for you to come up with any- MR. PRINCIPI: OK, and which we will. My last comment is, if we were, you know, if we were to honor the bluff and then import the proper amount of material and revegetate, we would gain approximate when we did about 40 feet of our property that was taken of Goldsmith Inland. You know, we had a whole report done which I can give you copies of when we did you know, when we were going to develop the site. So if we were to gain, if we were to sometime maybe not a seawall, but maybe large boulders to support that toe, you know because I really, if we move it back I mean - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's probably the first step. MR. PRINCIPI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But as soon we get the evaluation, excuse me, from 'Soil & Water we'll furnish you a copy of it. Remember we have one more person. Mr. Dinizio? I'm sorry Ms. Collins are you done? MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I just wanted to add for Mrs. Principi's benefit. I mean the reason for focusing on 100 feet is because it's the law. That's the starting point. We grant variances because properties are different. They all vary, circumstances differ of course, and we certainly have authorized people to put things less than 100 feet from the bluffs. But every case is different. The conditions in the land in every case are different and the closer we get to the bluff, the deeper our heels dig in because we're concerned about public safety and that's what Mrs. Tortora was saying. ! just want you to have that picture. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Dinizio? Page 13 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to say this. The decision that we made six years ago, I thought it was an extraordinary decision in that I didn't think that a decision like that would ever be made in this town. And it certainly was made I think in consideration of the fact, that front lot was little down from half acre lots to one huge lot with a house on it. I mean I can recall myself considering that and you know how that benefited the town. And I think that generated this decision which was to give you six years to move the house to a better location. Now I for one, if you can come here with an engineer that says, that 10 feet from the bluff is you know, fine. That it'll never fall in, that you know, that it will be perfect, then more power to you, but I can't take it your word for it, or your word. MR. PRINCIPI: I'm not expecting that. MEMBER DINIZIO: ! certainly need' some evidence that says to me, hey this is stable now. We're not going to come back five years and condemn you people again, move you out. We need, I'm just a electronic technician. I'm not an engineer, so, you tell me, you have someone tell me, hey it's safe, this is the best location, and the reasons why, and my personal opinion is, more power to you, but- MR. PRINCIPI: In closing if I could just say one last thing. We didn't just pick this home up one Saturday afternoon and move it in a position. You know, we came into the Building Department. We saw what the side setback was and my father, and myself, and my crew, we did move it in two pieces because it was hanging over and we slid it back and we did is, earlier about two years prior we did have that engineering report done for the bulkhead, and if you look where we positioned this, and if you looked at your photos, or, if you went over the bluff right in front of that, there's several large boulders that are out cropping in the beach and also out in the water, and that reflects a lot of the wave energy and that's where the vegetation is the stronger. You know, if you look right there. Where it was before is exactly what the Chairman said. It was you know, stripped clean of any you know, any vegetation. So, it was, you know there was a method for our madness for picking this up and positioning it where we checked with the Trustees and said, 30 feet, so we moved 35 feet. I didn't 9o ahead and put a deck in front. If you looked at the sliding doors, there's no deck. So, I didn't just flip my nose up at it, and say, OK, well I'm going to move this in the middle of the night. MEMBER DINIZIO: No,~'no, we were aware~of the reasons why it was 'moved back, and you know that was in a secure place and you know, I can understand your wanting it there, on that particular piece of property. But we still have to deal with - MRS. PRINCIPI: I think it's going to be a total hardship to go back 100 feet. Page 14 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we're not necessarily - MRS. PRINCIPI: We're not going to see anything. MEMBER DINIZIO: What we're saying to you is, just come back to us with something from an expert, that says, you know, it's OK. MR. PRINCIPI: We'll do that. if September's you know, hearing is fine, I'll be prepared. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll give you a date. MR. PBINCIPI: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's going to be somewhere around the 10th Mr. & Mrs. Principi. Don't leave because I haven't recessed the hearing yet. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the September meeting. MRS. PRINCIPI: I have letters from people who are in favor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome to bring them the next time or tell them to send letters. MRS. PRINCIPi: I have them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have them? MEMBER HORNING: Second. , See Minutes for Resolution. We'll take them. Page 15 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:10 P. M. - Appl. No. 4823 - LEE & MARIE BENINATI This is a request for a Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-31B(14) for renting of rooms in the owner-occupied dwelling for lodging and serving of :breakfast to casual and transient roomers. The proposed Bed & Breakfast is an accessory use incidental and subordinate to the principal use by the owner- residents of the dwelling. Location of Property: 3070 Peconic Lane, Peconic, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-74-3-15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone present? Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We ask you to come up and use the mike. What would you like to tell us? We realize that this is an application for a Bed & Breakfast. MRS. BENINATI: Yes, it is. ! don't know if You're familiar with the home but it's a beautiful old Victorian and we're delighted to own it and we hope to enhance it and maintain the beauty and the character of its nature. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you're utilizing three bedrooms? MRS. BENINATI: Yes, we will be. Right now it's two. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two, OK. You are aware of the letter.that received from your neighbor regarding the - in fact, I was over last night. You probably didn't see me but I stopped by just to take a look at that whole area on the north side of your property. You have no objection to leaving that as it exists? MRS. BENINATI: Oh, not at all. I think she perhaps misunderstood. We sent along a diagram that indicated where the parking would be. We're not making any changes. So she may, I think she may have read - MR. BENINATI: May I approach? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MRS. BENINATI: She may have read that as you know, suggesting that we were expanding, or something, we're not really doing anything. MR. BENINATI: The sketch that I mail them is this and over here it shows she is concerned about the length of the driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm, right. MR. BENINATI: See the cars will be parked back here. Page 16 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, behind that area. MRS. BENINATI; There's no change. MR. BENINATI: From the street you can't actually see the cars. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of these nice people? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes we are all quite familiar with the house having just had a case on the division of the land a few months ago. And I have only just received a copy of your neighbor's letter but I think I understand what's going on there and that's not a big issue. But in the discussion between, Mr. Chairman, you and the Beninaties, there was something about how you feel about the north side of the property or leaving something. What were you talking about? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The entire hedge row and to maintain that entire hedge row along that whole side, which is pretty much natural anyway. I mean you probably cut it every once in a while - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And the fence area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the fence area. MEMBER COLLINS.; OK;I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. I don't have any other problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm just going over the points that the hedge rows be left there and the fencing be left there and the existing fence be moved to the western next to the parking lot. But I think she means that, I'm not sure that she realizes the parking is going to be in the rear. MRS. BENINATI: Yeah, I think she really interpreted something that wasn't there. She's just asking that it be maintained the way it is and that is our intention. We have on intention of moving anything. Page 17 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: As long as you don't have any objection to a condition in the premise to that effect, everything is fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to mention to you, that this approval does survive a sale. So if you were to sell the property, God for bid, we don't want you to move but I'm just saying, if you were to sell the property and there were major changes, this Board could strip any subsequent owners of this Special Permit. So I'll just leave it at that point. MEMBER TORTORA: The only other thing is going back to the original question. You're planning on two now, but you definitely are applying for three bedrooms, correct? MRS. BENINATI: Yes we are. .: MEMBER TORTORA: OK, very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops. We thank you and we'll have a decision for you within the next couple of weeks. MRS. BENINATI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. : MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 18 , June 8, 2000 :Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:13 P. M. - Appl. No. 4829 - DR. ANTHONY & WILHELMINA PELUSO This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector' April 21, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that the propOSed garage addition will not meet the code requirement for a ten (10) ft. side yard setback. Location of Property; 185 Inlet Drive, Greenport; Parcel 1000-43-4-37. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening doctor. How are you? DR. PELUSO: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were going to give me some green cards. DR. PELUSO: Yes. I have the return receipts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I have to tell you that over the years, I think it was prior to the ownership of this house, we agonized to some great length. It is a beautiful house. You are aware unfortunately of the neighbor's letter? DR. PELUSO: I just found out about that today. It's an occupied lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what would you like to tell us about the garage? DR. PULUSO: Well we are all year round residents. For us to build a garage any other place would mean to a, there are few trees left. The former owners cut down trees just about every place except just behind the house in the area where we might have put the garage. And this way we can still keep those trees. We would have a garage that would give us secure when we come home, secure access to the house. My wife works, I work, we both drive. As I said, we're here all year round. It doesn't, we don't think it changes the environmental situation. Our neighbor next door whose house and property would be the closest to it, has no objection, Isabelle. So that I was really kind of amazed about the letter but I realize such things can happen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how close is the garage from the property line, 4.2 feet? DR. PELUSO: 4.2 feet from Ms. Biddulph. The property, the back of the garage to the individual who wrote the letter is almost 33 feet. Page 19 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any way of shorting the garage in reference to width and making it longer? DR. PELUSO: No, again, there's trees back there. We'd have to park one car behind the other. · CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there's no way of bringing the garage forward any farther forward? I mean even with the house. In making it longer. DR, PELUSO: No, it would go past the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then I have to ask the proverbial question and that is, that if this Board is not willing to grant this relief at 4 feet 2 inches, are you willing to accept alternate relief?.: ~' DR. PELUSO: I mean, in that sense, what else we could do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's basically why I asked the question. DR. PELUSO: You know, it's like to build a garage on the other side, would mean to come through the living room you know for example. This is the best in terms of living, and security and also esthetically in terms of the house itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Horning. Mr. Homing, any comments to the good doctor? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Very close to the property line Sir? DR. PELUSO: Yes, I know. MEMBER TORTORA: And you know you have 45 feet in the rear yard and you also have 41 feet on the other side. 23 feet, this is the smallest side yard that you're going to you know construct the garage in and it lands you 4-1/2 feet from a property line which is like from me to George. DR. PELUSO: I understand. The neighbor next door, as I said, she has no objection to it. We would have liked to put it in another place but realistically this is as it turns out the best place. And we do live here all year round and we do need a garage, and it is the most secured and protective way in which we can build this garage. And there are only three trees left on the immediate property Page 20 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals around the house and for us to have built a garage in the back would have meant to cut down those three trees. Unfortunately, the people who built the, and you know something of the history of this house, they cut down everything all around to build this two family house on this street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why I said, we agonized over it. DR. PELUSO: Yes, yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask a question doctor. The person that is making the, excuse me Lydia, the person that's making the complaint, is that the person that lives on the side of the garage that is going to be built? DR~;,!.PELUSO: No, it's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They live on the other side. DR. PELUSO: it's an empty lot that's behind 15 to 20 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I heard you say that but it didn't register. DR. PELUSO: Yeah, 15 to 20 feet of that lot comes on our property. The rest of it is on the adjoining property. And actually has an unobstructed view sought of speak, if he's concerned about seeing water, you know, although the property faces on Wood Lane. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the neighbor who is immediately adjacent standing in front of the house on the right side, has been notified and they have no objection? DR. PELUSO: Yes, she returned the card. She has no objection. In fact, she's the first person I asked. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well I do think, I want to second the sentiment that I think a 4-1/2 setback is a very small setback. We have setback rules for good reason and I'm not convinced and I just want to say for the record that there are no 'alternatives. I..~think that there probably are. That's it DR. PELUSO: The only other alternative is to come in the living room. MEMBER COLLINS: Or to sacrifice some trees, or to have a narrower garage. Page 21 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals DR. PELUSO: We are two working people. We live here all year round. We need to, you know, I can, you want me to build an alley way sought of speak, and even then it would run into the trees. MEMBEB COLLINS: Yes, Dr. Peluso. and mine are too. I'm glad to have your views on the record CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm going to think out loud from that, yeah. If you took this garage and moved it back 9 feet 4 inches and didn't attach it to the house, all you have to do is move it over a half of foot and you can have it. DR. PELUSO: .-Again, that means eliminating the last r. emaining trees that are on the property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well all I'm saying is, you can do that. DR. PELUSO: Actually when I first considered buying the property and talked to the Building Department, they had said, that if I built a garage starting from the back line of the house, that I wouldn't have any difficulty. But then, that meant eliminating you know as I said, those remaining trees and so on and that immediately stopped me from proceeding in ~hat direction. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well you wouldn't take any alternate relief? DR. PELUSO: It isn't so much that I wouldn't take, it' a matter of considering the total situation. You know, the house next to us, she has at least 35 feet (inaudible) end of her property line and her house. As I said, I went to her first and asked her. I realize this is an exception that I'm asking for but we do live here all year round and we're trying to make it as secure and safe as possible. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just wondering what happens if the person buys the house next door, wants to do the same thing you do, we end up with 9 feet between two buildings. DR. PELUSO: Well, there is a, the house next door already has a two car garage on the other side. She has a very large piece of property. She actually has what probably was her original garage in the back that she uses as a combination shed and storage area. So the likelihood of that is a small. MEMBER DINIZIO: Your assumption is, that they won't? DR. PELUSO: Pardon me. Page 22 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Your assumption is, that they won't? DR. PELUSO: Yeah, I, I, the likelihood is very a. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, I have no other questions. DR. PELUSO: Alright, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Doctor, I don't mean to put you on the spot but before I close this hearing, you will not accept alternate relief, or you will? DR. PELUSO: It's not so much, that I will not, it was not, it was a difficult decision to arrive to put it in this place in this position to begin with. Knowing that I would have to, you know, giving the setback rules and so on and to take this opportunity and to come here. I would rather we would not of had to go through this. But if you consider everything, all the factors, this is the place and it's almost like a (inaudible) having it there so like you can't have a garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think you have to understand that and this is not a sarcastic statement, I unfortunately use that phrase ali the time and I honestly believe that it is not a sarcastic statement. That unanimity is the issue here, and when we deliberate, unanimity prevails, and the three votes prevail, so that's why we're asking you on the issue of alternate relief. DR. PELUSO: I see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't want you to waste your money, OK, for the application fee and this hearing process. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If it's denied. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, if it's denied. You know, I mean we can hold this off 20 minutes. You can talk to your wife about iL and then we can close the hearing in 20 minutes. DR. PELUSO: Well I mean, I would appreciate for example, a, if you're thinking about alternate, what kind of alternates? Give me an opportunity to answer that, if that's something we want. ~ ~:~.; CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't know because we haven't started deliberating and that is the actual reason why we don't make decisions up here. DR. PELUSO: I'm aware of that. Page 23 , June 8, 2000 TranScripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, we make up here, but we don't make it at this time. DR. PELUSO: One of the POssibility I considered was, put the garage right behind the house. But that meant, you had to drive through the trees, you know, I mean, it's, - MEMBER TORTORA: It look like. The Board does not like to design your property for you. That' the bottom line. The second bottom line is, what the Chairman just said to you, he's trying to save you trouble because it's very apparent, that this application is not going to fly as it is. I being as candid as I can, because it's costly for you to be here, and we do want you to have some kind of a solution. So whether the?we would prefer you to come back~and propose something that's more reasonable but 4-1/2 feet is not going to fly. That's the bottom line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you do this doctor? Could you discuss this with your wife for about the next 20 minutes or so, and we, I am not going to sit on the next hearing, OK, it concerns an area that I live in and I know all these people to my right, to their left, and when that hearing has concluded, we'll reconvene and you can give us your answer, and at that particular time whatever it is. Up or down, we don't care, and again, that's not a sarcastic statement. We just want your day in court to be as valuable, and as, this is not a court, this is a tribunal but I'm just saying. So that's, you know, (change tape). DR. PELUSO: And we realize that we were ended up in this position of where, I mean this isn't a summer thing. We're not moving out. We have to live here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that. You've got to understand one thing though doctor. You've got to have the ability to put a ladder on your own property to work on the side of this garage, and that's a minimum of 5 or 6 feet right there. I mean when you look at the angle of the ladder and the ability to be able, I don't mean you in general, but I mean whoever you hire to work on the garage, to repaint it, to reroof it, you know, ail of these things are situations that are taken into consideration. DR. PELUSO: One story, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it's 12 to 14 feet. Yes, we're aware of it. DR. PELUSO: You know what I mean. I, you know, I've been up a ladder in less space than that sought of speak. I'm sure you have. Page 24 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: close the hearing at this point. your wife? Do you want us, do you want, we're just, we'll You want to recess it for a half-hour and talk to DR. PELUSO; I really- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so then we'll just close it at this point. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I'm going to note the record down, that you will except alternative relief, unless you ask otherwise. DR. PELUSO: I'm sorry I didn't hear you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You will except alternative relief then, is that correct? Just so I can note the a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You seem to be in a quandary. Let's just recess it. DR. PELUSO: No, the quandary is, is, that if alternative relief means building the garage some place else, that's an impossibility. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not asking you for that. We're just telling you footage is important to us. And exactly what was stated by my colleagues down there, and that is basically, that if, maybe not the neighbor next door but subsequent owners decide that they're going to put something, either it could be an addition. The houses themselves would then be too close and that is the purpose of side yards and not the closing of side yards. So that's where we are. So why don't we just - MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make a comment? This may help you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, we may decide that to give you 7 feet, or 8 feet, and then let you do what you need to do to fit your two car garage in that space. That's how we think on the Board. It's not necessarily that we're going to tell you to move the garage somewhere else because you can just say no - DR. PELUSO: No, I understand, except it's a pretty tight, you know we happen: to have two Hondas, and they're only a certain size. if we had two regular size cars, this garage would not operate. It would not be possible. You know, so there's some cutting down already of the size. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that's the way we're thinking. That's why - Page 25 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals DR. PELUSO: I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: You should know that. That's how we're goner - DR. PELUSO: I appreciate that. MEMBER DINIZIO: In the past that's what we've come to. Not necessarily that we say, absolutely not. DR. PELUSO: No, I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: And when we grant alternate relief we say to you, you can't have 4-1,/2 feet but you can have 7 and you take it.fromthere. MEMBER COLLINS: Take it or leave it. DR. PELUSO: I see. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, OK? And then however you want to do that, you know, for car space. DR. PELUSO: Alright. I mean if I can think about then I have to talk to the engineer and the, you know, the people .who designed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, then we'll recess it to the next regularly scheduled meeting for July. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: July 6th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: July 6th, OK? DR. PELUSO: OK, well thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes Sir. Don't leave yet doctor because there's somebody going to speak. Sir, how do you do? Please state your name for the record. MR. MALL: My name is, George Mall. I represent Mr. Burnie who lives directly across the street from Dr. Peluso and his wife and we're oppose to the construction of the garage at this location for three reasons and one is regarding the history of this house. I believe, that this house started out as originally as a illegal two family house. It has a very large front elevation. It has like two front Page 26 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals living rooms and it's a very large house, and is not in character with most of the houses on this block, and we feel that a garage to the side of this house, will only increase the, you know, the way, the massive appearance of the front elevation of the house, and we don't feel that would be in character of the rest of the neighborhood. Number 2, with regard to the swale, the owner~;has already complaint to the Highway Department about puddle in front of his house. As a matter of fact, I believe they repaved to do away with the puddle in front of his house, and you know, upon looking at the site plan provided to us, it doesn't seem really clear that the a, he'd be able to provide a swale in a way that will allow the water to stay on the property and we believe, that it would be much better if the applicant would retain water on site with a drywell, or, have the garage behind the house so that this will not be an issue and the third reason is, no hardship. We don't understand why the garage can't be constructed on the other side of the house. I think Dr. Peluso is being a little narrow minded when he wants to have the garage where he wants to have it on that side so it's more convenient for him, but I believe there's a larger side yard on the other side of the house, and I don't understand why it can't be put there and be in compliance with the code or, preferably behind the house. Now if a couple of trees are in the way, I would suggest to the doctor, that he plant a couple of more trees in the front of the house to enhance the appearance of what you know, frankly looks like a large you know, co-op or apartment building on this residential street. And for those reasons we oppose the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. BURNIE: Thank you. DR. PELUSO: Can I speak? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, quickly doctor. We want to wrap this up: DR. PELUSO: I'm prejudice. This man represents people who own that place that is rented for the summer. He leaves garbage, in front of the apartment, in front of this building for the whole winter, has the nerve and the gall to speak here about how I'm going to change the character of the neighborhood. Some of the people on the street, who live here all year round have large homes. This home as you well know, was built to have two town houses under one roof. The people were told they could not. It is now a one family house. It is a very large house. The fact, that I have a large living room, and i have a large dining area, is not to be held against me, and not to be said like it's something that I've done terribly wrong. Number 2, in terms of the water and the road, there was a lot of flooding, and I asked, and the Southold Town Department came and they were really terrific and they repaved the section and it puddles anyway like it always did. Nowhere like it did before, but that's water that accumulates including the Page 27 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals flood that forms on the driveway of this house that he represents. Now, to say that I can build a garage on the side and he doesn't understand, he doesn't have to live in the house. He's only the man who takes care of it. They rent it during the summer. I live there all year round. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Doctor, we know the history of the house because we agonized over - DR PELUSO: i'm sure you did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The two separate people that wanted their own privacy in the house, which had one kitchen, there was nothing illegal about it. This Board designed the habitable type of integral structure of that house that you presently live in which still I assume has only one kitchen. Is that correct? DR. PELUSO: It has one kitchen, it has one doorway. It has two oil burners but you know, I mean a duct system but it is a one family house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, good, that's all you have to say. That's all we're concerned about. It's a one family house. You're a one family living in it. That's all we're concerned. Thank you Sir. DR. PELUSO: Thank you. You said I have to get something from you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. BOARD SECRETARY KowALSKI: We're waiting for green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you gave us green cards. Did you give us the green cards? DR. PELUSO: Yes I gave you the green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You gave them to me dght? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There in the file? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They should be here. DR. PELUSO: May I ask? The letter from the neighbor immediately, would that be of value to the Board? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, always, always Sir. So we'll see you in July. Page 28 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals DR. PELUSO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somebody else like to speak? comment, we'll recess this ~:until July 6th.i;. ~. Hearing no MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 29 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:34 P,M. - Appli. No. 4828 -Robert D'Urso & RICHARD OVERHULS (Owners) & MICHAEL DELUCA (Contract Vendee This is a request for a Lot Waiver as provided under Article II, Section 100-26 to unmerge Lot 1000-106-6-35 from 1000-106-6-34. On May 8, 2000 a Notice of Disapproval was issued stating that Lot 34 merged with adjacent Lot 35 pursuant to Section 100-25A of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 1645 Bayview Avenue, Part of Lots H & I on the Map of Shores Acres, Mattituck N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I will now yield to the second Senior Person on the Board, who is Mr. James Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Does anybody wish to speak? MR. OLSEN: Yes, my name is Gary OIsen. I'm the attorney for the applicants. I understand that some of the neighbors have contacted Mr. Goggins today and he apparently has not had an opportunity to review the file and has spoken to me outside and has asked that we adjourn it and I have no objection to that. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, you want to next month? MR. OLSEN: If that's the next meeting, that's fine. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's July 6th would be the next meeting. MEMBER DINIZIO: We can get him on there? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. MR. OLSEN" Alright? The other thing is, he brought to my attention, that notice was not served by certified mail on the owner of tax lot 35 and I checked my file and he's accurate in that, and I think the reason for that happening was because that's part of the merger application, tax lots 34 and 35. But I would like an opportunity to a make proper service on 35 that was required. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so then that's reason enough to come back next month. · OK, I'll make a motion to recess tO July 6th. AnY: second on that? MEMBER TORTORA: I'll second it. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 30 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:40 P. M. - Appl. No. 4825 - STEPHEN TESTA This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlV, Section 100-242A based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that the proposed addition to dwelling will increase the degree of side yard non- conformance. The existing side yard is non-conforming at 13.7 feet on one side, and the code requirement is 20 ft. minimum. The existing side yards combined are non-conforming at 21.3 feet and the code requirement for both sides combined is 35 feet. Location of Property: 545 Reeve Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-114-9-9. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER introduced the application. Mr. and Mrs. Testa were present : Mr. and Mrs. Testa confirmed the addition to the house is on a slab and that they did consider whether there were alternate locations, and is not better stated than the request in the application. Member Collins confirmed she went to the property and looked at it. A letter in support of the application was submitted by the applicants. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Goehringer closed the hearing at this time. (See Resolution in Minutes). Page 31 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:45 P. M. -Appl. No. 4827 -VINCENT MANGIAMELE This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code to unmerge Lot 1000-126-7-3 from Lot 1000-126-7-31. Applicant's request to build on Lot 3 was disapproved*/On January 25, 2000 under Section 100-25A for the reason that Lots 3 and 31 have been held in common ownership. Location of Property: Bray Avenue and Sixth Street, Mattituck. GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ: I am the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Mangiamele in this application and are requesting a waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code. Mr. and Mrs. Mangiamele are interested in taking two tax lots that are merged and separating them, Parcels 126-7-3 and 31. Lot 3 consists of Lots 39 and half of shown on the Map of George i. Tuthill Map No. 861. Lots 39 and 40 are vacant on 6th St. 41, 42, 43, 44 on the Map of George I. Tuthill Map 861, facing Bray Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Magiamele acquired the property by deed dated June 1959. Lot 31 comprises the four vacant lots that were originally purchased from J. and A. Dunne. Liber 5592 page 557 as husband and wife. R. and Carmelle October 27th March 9, 1979 issued 1979 under the Last Will and Testament. C. M. deed dated April 18, 1979 with frontage of 200 ft. and 100 ft. deep. ( ). Originally I was requesting three lots, but amended by application for these two parcels, 3 from 31. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else to speak for this application? Anyone to speak against the application? (none) After receiving testimony, the Chairman declared the hearing closed. (See Minutes for Resolution.) Page 32 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:54 P.M. - Appl. No. 4831 - DOUGLAS & JANE DEY This is a request for a Variance u under Article III, Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's May 12, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that the proposed accessory in-ground pool and pool house~are located within front yard on Ship's Drive frontage instead of the required rear yard. Location of Property: 4745 North Bay"view Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-79-3-24.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER introduced the hearing. MR. AND MRS. DEY were both present and confirmed that the pool house was an open 10 x 10 structure to be located inside the gate and close to the pool. The cabana is an open structure. Member Homing asked why the applicants picked this location, and the applicants confirmed they wanted to be able to see the pool from the house. After receiving testimony, Chairman Goehringer closed the hearing at this time. (See Minutes for Resolution.) Page 33 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:56 P.M. - Appl. No: 4826 - WILLIAM A. PENNY III This is a request for a Variance under Article X, Section 100-103C based on the Building Inspector's January 6, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that the proposed new storage building in this B-General Business Zone District will have more than sixty 60 linear ft. of frontage on one street. Location of Property: 45450 C.R. 48, Southold, Parcel 1000-55-5-2.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone present who wishes to be heard regarding this application? Mr. McCarthy? THOMAS McCarthy: We certainly hope we can keep things rolling as well. Mr. Penny and Tidy Car is proposing an 80' wide building to house campers on his Route 48 property in Southoldl We have looked in several different locations on the site and really all the campers would need a building of 80 ft. wide to be large enough. Sixty feet wide would not work. They would like to bring the campers and other trailers inside. The building will be 80' x 80' and is a barn- like structure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the purpose of crowding the other building there and keeping a staging area so that there is room to move around from the other building. MEMBER HORNING: Did you consider having it longer on the other dimension, say 60' x 100'? MR. McCARTHY: The overhead door on the north and south elevations so we can drive through the building or deliver or load up these items. A 60' width would not work and out in the back is a house. On the northeast and west is storage. (Mt. McCarthY submitted one elevation plan for the record at this time.) MEMBER TORTORA: Has the Planning Board seen the plans? They are not in favor of it and we spoke about the building just briefly, and we understand that it is their purview as soon as we consider the relief necessary. There is no application before them. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, then are you suggesting they would be agreeable to a condition if the variance was granted, that in fact, there would be no things placed oUtside:then? ~ MR. McCARTHY: I would let Mr. Penny speak to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could we just ask a question, Tom? Page 34 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. McCARTHY: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. McCARTHY: The :8~rb cut is located - I assume you front of you? Number 1, where is the curb cut? have the survey in CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. McCARTHY: It's delineated with the extension of the fence line, that runs to the northwest. It goes out to Route 48. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. My question is, would it be difficult for you to make the application to the Planni,ng Board so that we could at least garner their comments and we can incorporate it? MEMBER TORTORA: See where the screening is proposed - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just tell you where the problem is. MEMBER TORTORA: Know a little more about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you, of course, you're not unfamiliar with commerCial properties in the Town, owning some yourself. It would behoove us if there has to be any movement of the building or anything of that nature, that we would know where it is. ! personally don't have any objection to the 80 feet as long as that's the way it's going to be. If there was a change in the location of what exists right before us right now, I may have a concern about it and I think that that's an issue I think we should deal with. I think you should make that application, and I think we should do it. ~ MR. McCARTHY: I appreciate that and from my meeting with Mr. Kassner and sitting in front of the Board in a work session, they suggested that we come and see you first and get the relief that's necessary for an 80 foot building and come back to them and they would deal with those issues. So we're kind of in the middle between the two of you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. You see, I haven't gotten a statement from them which says that they object to the 80 feet at this point. ~ MEMBER TORTORA; We have nOthing from them. Usually we get something. You know they'll say, we have no objection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, they don't have an application. Page 35 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: They don't have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: problem is. There's no application, so that's where the MEMBER HORNING: I think it would be handy to present the Board with an interior layout demonstrating why in fact, you need that type of dimension there, the 80 feet in regards to the types of things you want to move in and out of the building. Looking at some sought of interior layout would demonstrate to us, you know, why you need that type of a frontage. MR. McCARTHY: We'd be happy to submit the application and the floor plan. MEMBER HORNING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good and you'll make that application to the Planning Board. MR. McCARTHY: We'll make the application to the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: everything. That's all. Tell them that we just wanted them to see MR. McCARTHY: We'd be happy to do that. Just wanted to make another point following through that this application is not out of character with other buildings that are in the area looking across the street to a building owned by Hufes, where Commander Electric is, ! believe is 145 feet long. The building that I'm in at Southold Square is 225 feet long and the building of the Southold Shopping Center on the north side of Route 48, is, I believe about 150 -200 feet long.: So this is certainly not one of the largest buildings that will be up there. It's smaller than the three of them in the immediate area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER OK. Before you leave, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well I just have to respond by saying, that my understanding the reason why the 60 foot proviso is in the Zoning Code was precisely because of Southold Square and the other shopping centers and what they look like, You know, I think saying that you're not going to be as big as them is kind of not a strong argument. Two questions. I didn't bring my ruler. What's the setback of the building from the North Road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He says, he doesn't know. He thinks it's 70 feet. Page 36 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Oh. OK, excuse me. I'm sorry. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not marked out but I, 1, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can give us that, right? MR. McCARTHY: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS; It looks like about 70. I did it with this. Could you just tell us again where the vehicular access to the new building? You know where will the delivery - MR. McCARTHY: We're not planning any changes in any existence curb cuts that;~¥ou see on the property. '.;. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MR. McCARTHY: So there's an existing curb cut on Rt. 48, and there's also one on Youngs Avenue. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So those would remain. MR. McCARTHY: They would remain. There's no changes planned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So this is literally- MR. McCARTHY: Internal access off of the site itself. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, alright and I guess what is bubbling beneath some of our interest in having the Planning Board have this before them formally so that we can hear from them formal, goes along with the question, that one of my colleagues asked, which is, does building this building mean that the open land is no longer going to be used to hold inventory?. I mean, I think that's a very big important question to which I certainly would like to hear the answer. And the Planning Board I presume is going to ask that question since the site plan approval of outdoor storage is their responsibility, and well, i'11 say no more. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'll wait until we get the layouts. I have no question. Just one. Let me ask you this. This entry way', the 50 foot gravel driveway that's on Youngs Avenue, is that going to be used to enter this building? Page 37 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. McCARTHY: It may be used for circulation around the site. Yes, we do have a door on the back side on the south elevation of the new building in order to go through the building. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. OK, so let's construe this as a positive step toward the culmination of this hearing and give us an idea of what it's going take you to make your application to the Planning Board and I'm not putting you on the spot, but I am. Do you want one month, two months, what do you want? MR. McCARTHY: One month would be more than adequate. MEMBER TORTORA: July 6th? MR. McCARTHY: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we'll ask if there's anybody that has an objection tonight, that may not be here on July 6th and we'll reconvene on July 6th. We thank you, Sir. MR. McCARTHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak either in favor or against this application that may not be here on July 6th? Mr. Penny, do you want to say something regarding the a - BILL PENNY: My name is Bill Penny. Getting back to your question about the reason why we really have to have a,minimum of 80 feet is we're going to be 'using this building for storage for new inventory. Ail the new inventory that's there, you know, yes, that's all we're going to try to get that all inside. But we also have to, the tractors when they come in, were 70 feet long. I have to be able to move that around in the building, and I have to also be able to move the forklift or whatever, so we can load, and unload with inventory still in the building. That's the reason why we calculated. We unload these things as you can probably already tell on a weekly basis almost right now outside. And you know, we really have to be able to have that width so we can get them off. We have to forklift them off sideways, pick them up, back up and still not run into inventory doing it. We have a minimum amount that we have to stock. You know, being a dealer we didn't really expect this to take off as well as it did. We're very happy that it did obviously but that's why we need that 80 feet. As Tom said, 100 feet would be oh my God, that would be great but we scaled it Page 38 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals back down to 80 feet. We can live with that but that really is a bare minimum. mean loading and unloading. MEMBER TORTORA: What are you planning to do in that, because you've got quite a bit of space behind the storage building? t!.8:'a most 60 plus feet behind the storage building. MR. PENNY: Now we also still work on customers' units. We have customers whether it's a car or camper, it doesn't make any difference. We also work on units. Sometimes maybe behind the building, have a couple of units back there that we're working on. We're trying to get everything away from the front of the building and get it inside. Our plan was the inside of the building would be new units. The area that's fenced in right now would become our staging area. So, you know, it Would 'be in between the two buildings and yeu know, behind the building I've got it right now, I've got, it's got to be a 50 some odd foot long trailer that I have to store in the back yard. I mean it's even difficult to maneuver it. We deliver the camper too when we use that trailer for shows. We not only have one, now we have two and, you know, I'm not saying we're going to have 50 of them but we do need some room back there and I don't really want to you know, get back into my neighbor's yard. I'm sure he doesn't want me there either. You know I'd rather keep some distance away, you know, just, you know, so we can - MEMBER TORTORA: So, you're planning on using that for working on some of the trailers? MR. PENNY: Not really working on, more just maybe for storage, you know of our own equipment. I mean again, we're you know, we're going to be purchasing a small forklift. We might want leave that in a gated area behind the building. Again, I just said we have our shows. We have two show trailers. We want to keep them back there:~ You know, customer's units, our repair business is becoming larger, larger and larger. Repairing units, customers drop them off, you know, we work on them for a few days, and they come to pick them up or we deliver them. Again, that little area back there I might have some customer units that you know, want to store back there outside, but you know, we don't want to overstock either. We have a certain minimum amount of campers that we want to stock. You know what it costs of flooring these units we really don't want a lot more. That's why we want to get all the new units into the building. We feel that's going to be even easier for us to work because you know, leaving them outside they get dirty; 'they full of tree stuff, you I~now, as you well know. This way we can wash and put them away and that's where they stay until they're sold and then as they're sold they can be brought out into that staging area in between the buildings. The front of the building can go back to its use which has always been cleaning cars and you know doing stereos or whatever which is really what we intended it for. Page 39 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing a motion receSsing this hearing Until Jufy:6th. See Minutes for Resolution. no further comments I'll make Page 40 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:16 P. M. - Appl. No. 4832 - JAMES SLECKMAN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's May 11, 2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that the "as built" deck':~Bdition does not conform to the required front yard setback of 35 ft. minimum. Location of Property; 375 Oak Drive, Southold, Parcel 1000- 72-2-12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. McLaughlin, how are you? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good evening. My name is Kevin McLaughlin. I'm an attorney here in Southold. I'm here in favor of the application. In fact, I really represent the Contract V~dee, Susan Harley who's here thi~ievening who contracted to purchase this property in March, one of the subject to the availability of the sellers to provide us with C.Os. for all the structures on the site. The sellers are the Sleckmans. When they went to the Building Department and attempted to get a Building Permit and C.O. for the "as built' front deck or porch, they found out from the Building Department, that it had an insufficient front yard setback. In fact, the house itself which assumably, I'm quite sure was built prior to zoning doesn't meet the current front yard setback. It's about 30 feet, just over 30 feet from the road. And as you can see from the survey, that the width of the deck is 8 feet, so we're about 22.3 feet of our front yard setback. The Sleckmans purchased the property in the fall of 1991. At that time, there was a smaller deck or landing and there has to be steps down obviously to reach grade. And, in 1992, I believe they constructed the existing deck and steps, obviously without permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That' the one that's 8 x 14.37 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, the one that currently exists there. So, that deck as it currently exists, has been there for approximately 8 years. The Sleckmans have indicated to us, they've never received any complaints from any neighbors. I sent out and I believe all of the notices to the neighbors were received. I only got one comment. Someone called me and just wondered what if anything they had to do, and said they had no problem with it. I do have a sketch with me this evening. ! have several copies of it which shows the neighborhood and houses in the neighborhood. This is, obviously I know some of you at least have been there: This is an Older very established neighborhood. Many if not moa of the houses in the neighborhood would not meet the 35 foot setback. On the sketch that I've given you, there are, I think, six houses on the north side of Oak Avenue on this block between Cedar and Pine, six of those don't meet the setback requirements. Again, most of the houses in this neighborhood are approximately 25 feet give or take a few feet, from as far as their setback. So, I don't think we Page 41 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals really are going to have to be terribly concerned about making this causing any undesirable change in the neighborhood. It pretty much fits in with everything else there. It has existed for you know, a period of 8 years. No matter what was placed in front of the house, obviously it was going to cause a problem because the house itself again does not meet the.35 foot setback. So, I believe what's there really is a fairly small deck. It 8 feet wide and it's really the minimum that we require - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to be roofed, right? MR. McLAUGHLIN: No, we just want to get a C.O. for what's there as it is. It is not currently roofed. We would obviously have to come back and request a Building Permit if we were going to but we have no intention of doing that at this time. And my final point is, we are under some serious time constraints here because of problems of getting this closed in a timely fashion. So anything this Board can do to make a rapid decision on this matter, would be greatly appreciated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of Mr. McLaughlin? MEMBER HORNING: Well you're kind of suggesting that the owners were aware of zoning at the time when they built the deck, and that they built the deck without a Building Permit, knowing in fact, that they needed a variance at that time. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't, I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. I don't know that to be true. I believe that they, and again, they are not my clients, per se, but I believe that they just assumed that there was something there. That they were taking down and replacing. I don't think this was an intentional, "look, we're just going to build it". I think it was an oversight. I represent a Contract Vendee, who innocently is hoping to buy this house and become a full-time resident of the Town of Southold and I'm here on her behalf to hopefully get your approval to allow what's been there to stay. MEMBER HORNING: Are you suggesting there was something there before this deck was built? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, if you look at a- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll show it to him Kevin. MR. McLAUGHLIN: The property card does show, and it's not a terrific picture but it does show the existence of the steps out there and I believe a smaller Page 42 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals landing area that existed at whatever time that picture was taken. Unfortunately, the property cards don't generally tell you when those pictures were taken; I'm not sure if that was exactly what was replaced, or, whether there had been any interim replacements prior to that, but something did exist there in the past. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora, do you want to grill Mr. McLaughlin? MEMBER TORTORA: Actually this is part of the old Goose Bay Estates subdivision, approved subdivision. Many, many, many years ago, and if memory serves me correct, probably the subdivision of the current setback on that house, which is 30 feet, which is prior to zoning. I happened to see what happened. They had a little stoop there before and they extended it to the left. Actually I consider it a very innocent error. :1 personally don't think it was done<:...on purpose. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: If I had my rathers, I'd make a motion right now and approve it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well just let me finish the hearing and maybe you might want to do that. Which means, that I certainly wouldn't stop you Sir. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. FAVAL: My name is Mary Ann Faval, and I am the Real Estate Broker representing the Sleckmans and I can tell you honestly, that when they built the deck back in 1992, they were not aware, that they were breaking any law. As a matter of fact, they were not aware of anything until I pulled the property card. I looked at this and I went, oh, oh, and we started the permit process, and they also had a shower that was too close, to the property line, that's now gone. They've removed that, and they are second home owners. They live in Garden City, and they just cannot, I mean, I've done application after application, after application, trying to get all of this resolved and they were just dumb founded like we're sorry, we didn't know, and that is the honest truth. I just wanted the Board to be aware of that. Thank you. Page 43 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER HORNING: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 44 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:25 P. M. -(Continued Hearing) Appl. No. 4813 - A & $ SOUTHOLD OIL CORP. (WITH E.M. & T. iNC.) Property Location: 49670 Main Road, Southold. Parcel, 1000-70-7-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. STRANG: Very good, and yourself? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. We have since received a letter from New York State Department of Transportation. Can you tell us how that letter is going to fall within this site plan? MR. STRANG: In addition to the letter that you received, from the DOT, I also filed with your Board, a copy of the more developed and finalized site plan incorporating the recommendations or requirements if you will, of the DOT, and you should have that in your file before you at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. STRANG: We have no objection with any of the requirements that the DOT has presented. We did have a discussion with them, with respect to the width of the curb cut, during which they agreed to the size of the curb cut, that is not shown on the plan that you have before you. So as far, and we resubmitted this now back to the DOT and anticipate hearing from them shortly with respect to their permit requirements I.E. Bonding, and things of that nature which we've certainly provided them with. We also subsequent to the last meeting, have made application to the Planning Board for their formal application. We were before them on several occasions with the preliminary format. But we made a formal appliCation to them at this time. I'm not sure if they've communicated with your Board or not. I do have a letter which I can give to you this evening from Mr. Kassner, the Planning Office, with respect to a few of their comments and my response to that as well. I was hopeful that we'd be a little further along with the Planning Board at this point, but what transpired is, we waited for the receipt of the DOT comments, amended the plan and then filed it with those comments already in place so that we didn't have to go back and forth with that matter. And in subsequent to that, Mr. Kassner left on vacation. I believe he's going to be away for a few weeks, so I'm not sure what action, if anything, they may take on it before he comes back, I haven't been advised of what-, their status is on that but I can present this to the Board for your record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thankyou. Page 45 , June 8, 2000 TranScriPtS of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: Also with a the Board's request at the last meeting, it was asked, that we provide some sought of an indications as to what this canopy may look like, which is what we're addressing here as well as the bump off the back but obviously the more controversy issue is canopy, and I have - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certainly screening of the back addition is of importance to us too. MR. STRANG: That I think is in the purview of the Planning Board and I think we would have no objection to and I believe there's some planting along there now behind the little retaining wall, between the retaining wall and property line and we have no problem with. We can screen that as well because there are utilities in that area. For example, the oil tank, the service, the heating system, and it'll be a fenced area. There will b~no problem with screen planting in that area as well. So I don't believe that is an issue that we have with that particular circumstances. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When they make, we're going to ask them to make comments, OK, conceivably as you're aware and just as I said with Mr, Penny's application prior to this, and in all of these situations where you come in and you give us, you know, bits of the pieces of the building blocks that we're dealing with in this application, this being two-fold, I construe this to be positive, you know, and so, lets continue this situation, but go ahead. MR. STRANG: Getting back to the request that the Board had made with respect to taking a look at what this canopy, how it may look and like. My clients secured from the manufacture and installer of the canopy, a brochure which I'll present to you as well as a photograph I took of this canopy that would be similar I guess in size, on an existing station here, in Southold Town. I also want to Call to your attention, and it's flagged here on this brochure, that and I know this is a key issue that we're dealing with here both, this Board is dealing with it, the Planning Board will deal with it and my client is acutely aware of it, and wants to address it as well, is light, and the one photograph that's shown here, is in this brochure, depicts a canopy with recess down lighting, which is what we're proposing and you can see the limitation of the still of the light is severely minimized when you recess the lighting. It's unfortunate, that many canopies have a surface manage lighting fixture which dispels the light laterally as well. We're not proposing that so, I'll call your attention to that brochure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we keep this? MR. STRANG: This you can keep for your file. Yes. (Mr. Strang is discussing this with the Chairman and is not speaking into the mike) This is about the scope of the canopy that we were talking about size. This is sought of the way Page 46 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals the lighting works. Not just also the fact, that this is a backward canopy you're not going to have it. And so the canopy will be back here and this is a picture similar to the one in Cutchogue, similar to size to what we have. It may be wider because we have four islands and they only have two but the length will be the same. "'- ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK, thank you. In the past few weeks between the two hearings, I have been back to the site about four to five times. I've only been back once or twice at night. The remaining times I was back during the daylight hours and some of them during the highest traffic hours which I consider to be Saturday morning and probably at night time when most of the traffic is coming back from the west end. I still honestly believe and that this canopy could be an asset to this gas station. That's my particular opinion, based upon the lightinglaspects that you are requesting. The only thing that I have a concern with is, the size of the canopy at this time. I would appreciate your relooking at that size and seeing if there is something that can be done regarding that. I do want to as I have done before restate that this Board at all times from this particular point on, will reserve the right at anytime to review the lighting, assuming this application is approved, i'm not saying that it's going to. I have no idea how my colleagues are going to vote and I'm not polling the Board at this time. But I'm asking you to relook at the size of it. That's basically it, OK. As it conforms to the property in its present configuration. It's nothing you have to do tonight. I'm just asking you to look at it. Mr. Horning, do you have any questions of this fine gentleman here? MEMBER HORNING: I'll ask one. In the application it says here, "the applicant is seeking to construct a canopy over existing gas island pumps for fire safety requirements". Do you have some written documentation that you can present us with exactly what your alluding to in the fire safety requirements? Is there something there now, ~that seems to be not meeting fire safety requir, ements 'and this canopy will alleviate that fact? I know you mentioned at the last hearing, you required suppression system, etcetera. The more you can introduce in writing to substantiate your need to meet modern fire safety requirements will be helpful. MR. STRANG: We can certainly submit that. Once again, what is presently there, is not in violation of substandard to the requirements. Although as was previously stated, it only protects the pump itself. For as the suppression system is incorporated into the canopy, ~ot only protects the pumps but protects the vehicles there as well, if the fire were to spread which can very easily happen with flammable liquid. So, I will get some substantiation to this Board with respect to the requirements for fire suppression at a fuel station. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Page 47 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: A couple,of things. On the DOT letter, number 3, it said, "install a concrete sidewalk full frontage of property around the radius into Main Bayview Road. Sidewalk shall be 5'-0" wide with a 5'-0" utility strip between the back of the curb and the new sidewalk." I don't see that. MR. STRANG: That's because, how should I say, that's a boiler plate requirement that they have and when discussed with the DOT, that in order to facilitate that we would have to put the curbing further out into the road and they were certainly aware of it at that point, and said, no, we don't want to change the road size. We don't want to move the road or anything. That the curb line belongs where the curb line is and that there isn't enough room between there and the property. Normally, a piece of property has about 15 feet from the property line. to the traffic road. In this case, that does not exist. It's sought of a unique piece of property. MEMBER TORTORA: So in Other words, the sidewalk is going to be right up against the curb but it's going to be right on the road? MR. STRANG: That's correct and they were accepting of that condition, i don't necessarily agree with them, that the sidewalk serves any useful purpose at all in that case because it's a sidewalk to nowhere. MEMBER TORTORA: I think as far as I can see, outside of maybe a very old parts of this town, that were installed prior to zoning, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the only thing that it does do is, I don't mean to take this away from you, it delineates where the road line actually starts and that's basically it. MEMBER TORTORA: It does but it's not, you know one of the things, when you say, this is no different from any other canopy in this town, there's no other canopy of any gas station in this town that's so close to the road. None. When you show me a picture of this one down in Cutchogue, even, you know, Mr. Strang, this one has a setback much further from the road and also has at least a little strip of green here. It's a very narrow piece of property. It has a lot of constraint. I recognize that. But I'm very much concerned that you're trying to do a lot on a very small piece of property and the width of that canopy there's rio room for any landscaping. It's, going to look like wall to wall pavement. ' MR. STRANG: I agree with you. It's wall to wall pavement presently. There's no greenery there that taking it away - MEMBER TORTORA: Wall to wall pavement with canopy. Page 48 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: This is true. This is what's there. The photograph that I submitted was strictly to give the Board a sense of scale of the canopy. Not necessarily its placement in relationship to a property line. In our case, or in that case, there is the usual utility easement that exists from the edge ~f::::~_the travel road that's owned by the state and the property line. We don't have that benefit in this case. I wish we did. We'd still be before this Board, but we wouldn't be asking for as much relief as we're asking. Unfortunately, the property lines, where the property line is, and the traveled roads is where the traveled road is, and there's no latitude for anybody to change that unfortunately. MEMBER TORTORA: Well if the DOT has verbally amended this letter since, then that's what you're saying? MR. STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: So the requirement, requirement number 3, they have verbally changed that? MR. STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Will they send you a written confirmation to that? MR. STRANG: It will Probably come in the form of a permit when they're ready to issue that, hopefully shortly. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anything else in this letter that they have altered? MR. STRANG: To the best of my knowledge, the only other alteration to that requirement was the width of the curb:cuts which were increased to 28 and 32 feet along the curb. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All set? MEMBER TORTORA: H'm, h'm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: My notes from our last hearing said, that one reason why we were recessing for a month, was to get Planning Board comments. Now I just want to make sure I understand the posture we're in. A formal application has been made to the Planning Board but at this point, apart from informal discussions you had with them, what you have is (changed tape) both of which you gave us tonight so I mean I haven't seen them until I just looked over Linda Page 49 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals Kowalski's shoulder. Are we therefore, I mean from my point of view, I want to wait and hear what the Planning Board has to say, rather than, I mean in addition to Bob Kassner's initial reactions and a, so I really want to wait on their views on the whole picture. Is that consistent with the way this thing stands? MR. STRANG: Well, at this point, again I say, as I said earlier, I was hopeful we'd be further along with the Planning Board but because of Mr. Kassner's absence, we were unable to do that. So we're really at a point of awaiting further comment from the Planning Board on this. As I mentioned earlier we did have preliminary discussions with them. The concept was they were in favor of this. They said, see what the DOT has to say, which is what we had done next, and of course they said, we needed the variance so that's when we came to the Board. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I mean if in fact, the Planning Board's position is going to be that they're not going to say anything, they've got to at least say, that there not going to say anything. Otherwise we're all kind of dangling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll give them until July 6th not to say anything. MR. STRANG: I believe I had received a copy of correspondence from the Planning Office to the Zoning Board of Appeals, to your Board indicating that they were going to address lighting and things of that nature when they formally reviewed the application. But they didn't say anything beyond that which left me in as much of you know, a gray area as you, except I had the benefit of meeting with them on several occasions and know somewhat of what their thoughts were on this site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to meet with them Gary between now and the next meeting? MR. STRANG: I'll make it a point that we get on their Agenda because a you know, whether Mr. Kassner is on vacation or not, we need to keep the process rolling so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; We need to address that screening area in the back of the building if you would so that we can understand what they're going to request back there. : MR. STRANG: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Also, look at the minimum of you want a ( ) width ( )? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, well he's going to address that. Page 50 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of :Hearings Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: i also see what we can do to reduce the canopy. Our application was actually the smallest canopy that would be normally supplied for, installed l should say, of this use. There's certain perimeters that you work from certain distance from the edge of the pump island in all directions and that's what we're up to. So, I will make sure, that reducing it is not going to cause any violations or whatever to its standards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When the owner was here at the last meeting, he indicated that the canopy will basically extend to the end of the cement paths of the pump island, is that correct? MR. STRANG: That's correct. Which is I believe about 10 feet from the pump island itself- ,':~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From the pump itself? MR. STRAND: Which is an island that's given for vehicle. And then again, that's a typical standard. The concrete is pretty much dictated by the Health Department with respect to fuel dispensing and it's normally 10 feet beyond the pump island. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In looking at the site plan, are we saying, that the pump island on north Bayview, I'm sorry, the distance between the pump island and the end of the canopy on north Bayview is the same distance as it is on Main State Rt. 25? MR. STRANG: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. impression because of the diagonal? So it only gives you that MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. STRANG: But the pump island themselves are somewhat on a diagonal. That's paralleling the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK. Where are we here? Who did ! miss? MEMBER COLLINS: Jimmy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, excuse me. Page 51 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I for one you know, view this application as these people asking us for the concept of having a canopy over their, you know, over their pumps. And certainly you know, the little piece in the back. But I see no reason to hold them up for the Planning Board to tell us whether~Or not we believe that concept of this particular cover over these gas pumps is something that we would agree, or not agree to. Certainly, if there were some way to screen this with vegetation of some sought, then, you know, maybe I would rely on them and that is their purview. ! don't see that in any way. Any possible way that there could be any screening at all with the shape of this lot, which is indeed unusual to say the least. So, I feel personally, you know, we should go ahead with this. I understand, you know, that Mr. Kassner needs to take his vacation although you know, when you're a key part of the town, I think you take your vacations not during the busiest time of the year. But as I look at the site plan right now, you know, we're looking at a concept and we're looking at whether or not this is going to be safe and how it's going to fit in the neighborhood, and take into consideration the fire suppression if that's consideration, and the lighting certainly is, and you know, we should move forward with that in mind and not necessarily you know, !'II give you the month, but I think that next month we should be prepared to make a decision on this, you know, so it can move along at a process. It seems like, you know, we had two applications tonight, that were waiting on the Planning Board when, you know, we've got to take the bull by the horns and make the decision we're asked to make, and not put these people in a catch 22, where they're back and forth between two agents. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I completely concur with you Jim, except that what we have here is, a pre-existing gas station, repair shop type of facility, which is going through an evolution, alright. An evolution that is bringing it up to modern day standards. And l have to tell you, that is the only reason why I'm in favor of it. I think that the curb cuts are of a positive nature from health, safety and welfare. I think that bringing the station up to modern day standards in general is a positive step. If we see, if I see movement, and I'm not speaking for the Board, toward the area of reducing the size of the canopy, and again, making the agent for the applicant aware of the fact, that this Board will reserve the right on the lighting, which I don't mean to be redundant, you know, I would close the hearing tonight but we're not at that point, OK, and that's where we are. Again, I want you to conSider as I said to you being redundant again, that these are positive steps moving toward~you know, end results. MR. STRANG: We understand this. We understand. Page 52 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we'll stop at that nature. That point I should say because we have the public here and we'll move on after that. Anybody else want to speak in favor or against this application? Yes Sir. MR: TRUNCE: Hello again. My name is Richard Trunce and I live directly, or my family lives directly across the street from this proposed addition. I'm basically reiterating what ! said at the last meeting. I have since that meeting had this in my mind everytime ! drive by. I'm just struck by what ! feel as a resident of the town and of the neighborhood to be a tremendous impact visually because of the grades. You know, Bayview Road is lower. Bayview Road is higher as you approach it from all angles. This is going to be something that you're going to notice whether or not it's reduced by 10 feet or 15 feet. It's going to be there in the middle of this intersection on what is a very, very small piece of property:' You know, I understand that it's not-~within this Board to talk about the change of use there. You know, not only a small piece of property but it's a very heavily traffic intersection and a I don't know maybe the curb cuts could do something to help that but it's still, there's a lot going on right there, i brought up the last time, the idea of the lighting and constraint situation and all of that and it just seems to me there are other ways to deal with the lighting about this kind of, I kind of call it a hurricane magnet, you know this, because that's just what I see, like this big foil that you know is there for what, and that there may be other ways of dealing with the lighting and to go ahead and approve it based on the fact, that just to provide better lighting or more down facing lighting, I can't really understand the logic behind that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just answer your question quickly? This Board learned a lot when the gas station that exists presently and this is no reflection on that gas station as it presently exists. On County 48, just west of Peconic Lane was constructed, OK, when that was conStructed, and when that lighting was installed, that lighting lit up half the town. ~. MR. TRUNCE: Right, I remember that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We learned an awful lot in the construction of that. I can assure you, that I very rarely go out in favor of an application and understand and your comments are important to us, very important to us, honestly, truthfully feel, this is my opinion and my opinion only, as I mentioned to Mr. Strang, that this will be a positive step, not a negative step in the operation of this gas station. . .; MR. TRUNCE: The canopy? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The canopy, the down lighting, the limited lighting and I assure you, that this Board, and I have the Town Attorney's permission to Page 53 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals put that statement in, that we reserve the right to look at the entire gas station. The entire operation after the application is approved. Now remember, we're only legitimately allowed to look at what's within our purview but I'm going to suggest, that the Planning BOard do the same thing and I'm going to talk to the Chairman regarding that application, or his application, or their application, andl just think that there is a time when you can do positive things that appear to be negative on the, in concept, and I don't mean negative because you're a gentleman. You come up here and you're talking to us in a very gentlemanly manner and we appreciate that. You're not making rash statements. You're saying things that really concern you, and we understand that, and we appreciate that and I don't mean to be redundant on that aspeCt of it either but I just feel that, that is my opinion. Nothing has changed that opinion at this point. I certainly have the right to change that opinion. MR. TRUNCE: Yeah, because on that point that this is an improvement you feel in the lighting but what about, I mean how does that balance against the way this appears during the day? And,. you know, isn't that you're talking about lighting being esthetic, what about the esthetics of the situation here during the day? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean the structure itself? MR. TRUNCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER DINIZlO: I think you have to look at the whole application too. You're alluded to with the curbing and the other aspects of this in that I utilize that gas station sometimes for my business. MR. TRUNCE: I do also. MEMBER DINIZIO: And you know, I can tell you, it's a concern of mine pulling out of there because there is really no direction that you cannot love that someone might hit you and I think that just the fact, that the curbing is going to be going in and you know, perhaps some more' green at the tip of that and certainly some control over the traffic in that area is going to be a benefit certainly to the neighbors. It's got to be for people coming out of that road and the fact that there will be some control over that. With that, this gentleman feels like he needs to cover his gas for whatever reason. There must be a reason. I don't own a gas station so I really don't quite understand that but I've got to tell Page 54 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals you, there must be a reason why a person would expend this kind of money to have this canopy. MR. TRUNCE: Well, it's more that it's becoming a self-service station. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that's a possibility but you can have a self-service station without a canopy. We can all take into consideration but you've got to look at the amount of expenditure this gentleman is willing to ( ) to put this thing over. That's the way I look at it and the fact, that you can now control the lighting to almost to ( ) degree in that if you recess these lights and put them in, you're going to have a better situation. Now I understand, that there are some people that are lower than this. I believe they are upon Bayview and you know, they're going to be probably inconvenience to a point, but to a lesser point than what this gentleman woeld be allowed to do if he didn't, even if he::d:idn't come into us because he could have lights. He could put lights on this basically anyway he wanted to put them and we end up with north road and nothing as oppose to some controls over the way this lighting is going to go and believe me, what Mr. Goehringer just says, he's going to check it, believe me this gentleman is going to check it. MR. TRUNCE: Because unless you approve this canopy, there's nothing you can say about the lighting. That's what you're - MEMBER DINIZIO: Well certainly. He doesn't have to come to us necessarily for that and again, I don't own a gas station so I don't know what he benefits from that. I certainly don't look for a gas station that has a canopy when I get gas. MR. TRUNCE: No, you wait for the next day when it's not raining. MEMBER DINIZlO: Well no, if I need gas, I get gas and all times or not, these guys are pumping it. But again, I think you've got to look at the whole situation. I understand you're concern, that it's nil and what it's going to look like during the day but think of the whole thing. Think of the curb that's going to be there, you know, you gain some, you lose some. MR. TRUNK: Certain aspects of this application, I agree. You know, but there are lot of issues with the chasge and hours of operation and it's going to be another 711, ! mean but that'S, like - ., MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, that can happen with or without a canopy. But i just hope I directed you to the point. Look on the ground too. Don't just look in the air. I think you'll see a benefit to the town. Page 55 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. TRUNCE: Yeah, obviously and that there was just another thing I didn't understand why this addition had to be outside the back of the building and why this wasn't something that could be put within the existing structure that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll ask that questi~.o. Do you want to answer that right now Gary, or do you want to hold. Thank you. MR. STRANG:: As the Board's aware, that service bays that now exist and there's only two of them, are to be converted to the convenient store use and the convenient store use has a walk-in cooler and which all perishables are placed. You take out the square footage that's required for the walk-in box from the limited amount of square footage that's available for the convenient store makes it almost, can't have anything else, or very little else to be able to be sold in the convenient store:, general population is looking for so we're JOoking to bump out the 5 feet in the back which will; encompass a good portion of the walk-in box allowing the rest of the square footage to be used for circulation and some display ( ) and other things of that nature. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Operating hourS you'll supply us with? MR. STRANG: I'll ask my client to give us what his hours are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Similar to the one in Mattituck for the operating hours. MR. STRANG: The station that presently is in Mattituck. We're assuming, I believe they close at - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They close at 10:00 o'clock. MR. STRANG: 10:00 o'clock and they open an hour or so later on the week- end. I'm not sure but Ill ask him to submit hours of operation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. OK, so without hearing further comment I'll make a motion recessing until the next regular scheduled meeting and we'll wrap it up at that point. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Give a date, July 6th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: July 6th. Somebody second it. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 56 , June 8, 2000 TranScriPts of Hearings Board of Appeals 9:00 P. M. - Appli No. 4821 - ELAINE ROMAGNOLI This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A based on the Building Inspector's May 9~::;:2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that the addition to dwelling has an existing non-conformance lot coverage and an existing non-conforming lot coverage and an increase in the non-conformance or degree of non-conformance is being created. Location of Property: 1230 First Street, New Suffolk; Parcel 1000-117-7-29. MRS. MOORE: I have the green cards and I'll submit that with a letter i had here at the end of my presentation. Don't let me forget. In highlighting I'm sure you've been to the property. Your familiar with New Suffolk area - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We denied a deck on this. MRS. MOORE: Yes, you denied a deck at one point in time. Since that time, the deck was removed. It was, a patio was placed in there. Now you can see it's a beautiful concrete patio, that is permacrete. I believe it's a company that makes it look like slate or some other texture material. So it's a very lovely yard she has in the back. The proposal that they submitted is a very small popout that extends the existing popout that is 5 x 7'4". The addition is really the smallest feasible addition without extending the house in any direction beyond the existing setbacks. It's enclosing what is remaining as a bite of the house. Maintaining the existing front yard setback as well. So you can see from the drawing, it's pretty evident from the survey. With respect to the standards that we have to establish with respect to the first standard the enclosure is only 12 by 5 feet, in a building that is only 740 square feet in size. The definition of dwellings in 100-13 actually places the minimum size requirement of 850 sq. ft. and this house actually is under the required dwelling size. We are moving towards compliance with what the Town considers a minimum habitable dwelling. The property is a pre-existing. There's no question the house will continue as it is. The house has a very unusual history here. It started out as a clam diggers sales and living area I believe: Some of you may have actually more knowledge of the history here. It is unique. It is one of only two homes that are really placed right out into the water by bulkhead. The second standard that we have to establish is, is there another feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than the proposed area variance. There is no other alternative. It is. as ! pointed Out, 2% of lot coverage expansion of 60 sq. ff. Because of the unusually small size, the parcel, really anything will increase already an existing non-conforming lot coverage problem. As I mentioned, the property sits on spit of water which is surrounded by the bulkhead:; The adjacent property,, if you looked and you standing on the property and you looked to the west, the house there is a gray sided house. It's quite large. It extends quite far into the water, Page 57 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals into the property, with full decking, the whole bit. So this little popout is not going to effect that property whatsoever. There are houses across the street. Again it's going to be within the same width of the existing structure. The expansion will extend 5 feet as I said with the existing 5 foot structure already exist that is there. The:variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions to the neighborhood. We are building landward of the existing man made structure. Again, not to impact any of the environmental conditions that are there. I have a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Gonzales, a neighbor that was noticed. I put in the corner. I wrote in the tax map number so you would know which property is Gonzales, and with the property cards. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, sought of procedural. There was a Notice of Disapproval and there's an Amended Notice of Disapproval. The first one came out in late March and the amended on on May 9th, and the difference between the two is the statement of the existing lot coverage. Your first notice said it was 23-1/2% and the revised notice says 24 or 24-2/3%. The survey by Lewandowski has numbers on it, that calculate the coverage and they come to 23-1/2 and nowhere in the file did I find anything that explain where the additional whatever it would be, about 40 odd feet, sq. ft., came from, and this matters a lot because I just cringe at 26 and 2/3% lot coverage - MRS. MOORE: I can explain it. There was - the survey when it was prepared by Mr. Lewandowski, he measured the popout as 5 ft. 6 inches. MEMBER COLLINS: 5 ft. by 6 ft. Oh, it's not, it's bigger than that? MRS. MOORE: 5 ft. by 6 ft., excuse me. I have the new revised survey if you'd like. That was in error. Here is an original survey. We measured because it is such a close lot coverage issue. We confirmed the numbers that Mr. Lewandowski had because it didn't quite look right. And, when we measured we came up with that seven four and asked Mr. Lewandowski please go back and confirm the number that he had on his survey. When he went back, he revised it. He said, you know, looks, the measurement didn't work right, and so, the survey was revised. I forwarded it to the Building Department with a cover Page 58 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals letter explaining that, and the Building Inspector rather than send it to you and amend it on the record, we revised a Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted, I understand what you're saying, but t~t little popout is bigger than it is on the survey that's in my file. MRS. MOORE: Exactly. The addition has not changed at all. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, because a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what's the total lot coverage? MRS. MOORE: Total lot coverage, well the original lot coverage of the house is 740 sq. ft;i :24 and 2/3% - MEMBER COLLINS: it is 24 and 2/3rds. That's the extend? MRS. MOORE: That's the existing. And then the proposed is 60 sq. ft., 2%. MEMBER COLLINS: Which is 2%, right. MRS. MOORE: And that's how we come up with the 26 and 2/3rds. And I will provide for your records so you can where the difference came in. The original survey that was prepared by Mr. Lewandowski, is dated January 18th. This, the most current survey is dated, May 3rd. So we - MEMBER COLLINS: No, I understand your explanation. It's the little popout is indeed 5 ft. deep and it's longer than on the survey. MRS. MOORE: Yes, right. MEMBER COLLINS: I guess my feeling is, that this is a tiny little 3, 000 sq. ft. lot and it's already fully built. I'll just stop there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, it is a tiny little somewhat. But it's only 5 by 7 and just - your not, the house is not even a, the size of the dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean the minimum dwelling standards? MEMBER TORTORA: It's kind of caught in limbo between being a cottage, a non habitable cottage and dwelling and I think it's squaring off something. Yes, Page 59 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals in numbers it would go to 26%. But in reality, you still have a structure that does not meet the code definition of a dwelling. That's how Small it is. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, there's no reason why it has to. MEMBER TORTORA: You want to try to build towards conformity. MEMBER COLLINS; Well, that's a definition of what you have to do if you're going to build anew, but a, this house has been there for ever since it was a clam shack. MRS. MOORE: Not to present date. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, we shouldn't :be doing that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The easiest way to bring it to conformity, is go up. MRS. MOORE: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The easiest way to bring it to conformity, is go up. Just the way they - MRS. MOORE: That's the problem with the flood zones and then when you start expanding, or, making renovations, they exceed 50%, you get into all kinds of trouble. So that's why this is really a very minor change that will not trigger any problems with the Building Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't concur more, that's all. MRS. MOORE: I would like to point out, I did provide for your record, all of the lot coverage variances that have been granted in the New Suffolk area that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, God, that's scary. MRS. MOORE: It is. I spent a good hour and a - I think Linda, was it an hour, hour and a half, that I looked there. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI; Yes, it was quite a while. MRS. MOORE: It was just so numerous number of variances have been granted because New Suffolk is a historic eighteen hundred development and these homes, you know, modern conveniences and the rest, you want to bring them into compliance. I provided that record so that you could see that it is consistent with what you're doing. It is an unusual situation. It is less than what Page 60 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals the adjacent property owner has as far as build out of the property. And, you would actually be deviating from a norm in that area by denying a variance in this particular instance. MEMBER COLLINS: Could I ask a question then? ?Do you know what the lot coverage is of the big gray house next door? MRS. MOORE: I do not know. I don't know if there's a survey on record. It looks like a lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the right-of-way is part of the property. MEMBER COLLINS: What right-of-way? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The right-of-way that actually leads to the house that is on the edge of the inland and then incorporates the driveway as it wraps around and goes along the inlet of School House Creek. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not talking about School House Creek. I'm just curious about - from what Mrs. Moore said. i realize New Suffolk is densely built. It's like Orient. it is the same issue and I just still blanch at merely 27% lot coverage, and you made the comment, that lot coverage in the area is high and you've researched our records. I have not been into our main file to see the results of your research and you know, that will probably increase my sympathy. You made a comment going along about the big house next door and its lot coverage. MRS. MOORE: Just from my visual observations because - MEMBER COLLINS: Because"12 years, 12-1/2 years ago, David Devlin my significant very much wanted us to buy the house next door and I said, you are out of your mind. And I've always taken an interest in that house and I was just curious what its lot coverage was. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry about that. I forgot that it was gray. was a different color that's why I was reflecting the other house. MEMBER COLLINS: It floods. That I observed was. It floods. It MRS. MOORE: As a matter of fact, this house does not flood. It is one of the - when Ms. Romagnoli and myself were sitting on the property, she said, the clammer knew exactly where the tides were, and this is the one house that does Page 61 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals not flood in all of New Suffolk, and a, you know, the room that's the popout is the utility room. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Just on the terms of the past history. We have this attached at 4135 Application. That's for a deck. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, it was denied. MEMBER COLLINS: And they took it down. MEMBER HORNING: Right. Why is this in here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lot coverage. MRS. MOORE: Usually your applications ask for prior variances on the property and that was attached. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're standing there we'll see if anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 62 , June 8. 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 9:12 P. M. - Appl. No. 4830 - BENNETT HESS This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's May 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed dwelling construction will not have a front yard setback of 35 feet on North Oakwood frontage. Location of Property: Corner of Peconic Bay Boulevard and North Oakwood Road; Laurel; Parcel 1000-145-1-5. MR. DUGAN: I'm Dennis Dugan. I'm an architect representing Mr. Hess and also my sister-in-law, Alice Powers, who is in the process of purchasing the property. I think basically as you know, this is what i call a non-conforming lot. It's below the required area. Beyond that, we've have a requirement of, it's a corner lot so we have two front yards, each seems to be 35 feet in depth. With the exception of the front yard that's on North Oakwood Road, we've met all the Zoning Requirements. We're below the lot area. We've met all the other setbacks. As you can tell by the platt that I gave you as oppose to the surveyor's platt, you can see that I've tried to locate the house to be conforming as much as possible for the other houses on the street. I've always tded to preserve the light and air. At the two houses or a house and cottage are located, just to the west of our site, I've placed the main bulk of the house as you can see and they're ( ) lodged between the two structures. I've graded a yard that's much deeper than required, front yard at the time Bay Boulevard, and I've held back as far as I possibly can a detached garage, so as to reduce the appearance of the bulk on North Oakwood Road. Furthermore, the house is quite modest. It's only a stow and a half on a basement. It has a little more than 1300 sq. ft. on the first floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm glad you set the house back on that side. I have been a fireman in Mattituck for 32 years and I want to tell you when we make that turn with a 47 foot truck, usually with great haste, it's;important that you did that. Secondly, I have absolutely no objection to your application and personally I think it's probably to the benefit to have that property developed than have the leaf problem and so on and so forth that has existed there. That's just an opinion. We'll go to Mr. Horning. Any questions of this architect? MEMBER HORNING: I think the site plan looks good. I'm curious though as to the roof on the screen porch. Is that (more than one person speaking) and if so, or not, then how is it that the garage is deep now? MR. DUGAN: My understanding and I've discussed this with Mr. Forrester in great depth. My understanding that in order to have a garage attached, I needed a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of condition space and this is a roof screened porch. It will never be enclosed. Clearly if it were being enclosed, it would require permit. Page 63 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it still requires a permit. MR. DUGAN: Yes, if it w, ere to be I mean if at some point in the future, a future owner wish to enclose the porch, then it would require a Building Permit:· It would probably be denied because then we'd be creating a side yard setback as a garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the only, how big is the garage? dimension? MR. DUGAN: The garage is 20 feet, front and back and 25 feet 8 inches. If you look at my site plan i've tried to give you as many dimensions as I could. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. OK, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops hearing. We thank you. MR. DUGAN: OK, I would like to caution you~on the fire truck. going to be maintaining the trees on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine. MR. DUGAN: Some of those trees are quite large. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, they are. That's perfect. MR. DUGAN:~ Thank you. ~ , CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: what the actual width of the existing road is but I can tell you it's not 40 feet. MR. DUGAN: That's correct. What other throughout the Because we're The reason why I mentioned that is, I don't kno~, Page 64 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's the reason why I mentioned that. MR. DUGAN: It measures about 26 feet in large surface. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we need all of that to make that turn. So i'm happy that the driveway is as long as it is so that the cars can be kept on site. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 65 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 9:28 P. M. - Appl. No. 4818 - (Continued hearing from May 4, 2000) CHRIS MESKOURI$ & ORS, Property Location: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have asked the illustrious Administrator of the Building Department to come before us as he has in the past and give us some opinions in reference to how the Building Department makes their determination on certain issues. Before us is an application which concerns one particular factor and one particular factor only. And that is a setback from a right-of-way or a property line at 20 feet. I only want this, I'm opening this for discussion at this point, but I, as the person who ask the Building Inspector to come, or the Administrator of the Building Department, and the Building Inspector, I want to only to address that issue. There is a future application~hich will before us, in the next meeting schedules, which will be on July 6th and at that particular time, we will address other issues which concern this, and in lieu of that, before we speak to the Building Inspector, would you like to add some comments Mrs. Rivera? MRS. RIVERA: Good evening. No, I have no other comments other than I don't know if Ms. Collins was able to go up that steep hill that she mentioned previously. So, in case she wasn't able to, I brought additional pictures for her specifically. This is the house and the 15 foot right-of-way directly to the east. Here is another picture of it. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, no, I've seen this picture at our last hearing I believe. MRS. RIVERA: OK, and this is the right-of-way and this is the Meskouris property. This is Salaise property. So I didn't know if you were able to get up there or not but just to show you that - MEMBER COLLINS: I took another look from part way up. I didn't hike around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else? MRS. RIVERA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Forrester, we thank you. awaiting your learned pros. Anything on proposing counsel? Nothing? OK. We apologize for the time, and we are always MR. FORRESTER: Oh, Jerry, thank you. My name is Edward Forrester. I'm employed by the Town of Southold. I'm the head of the Building Department. Page 66 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals The issue, the zoning issue noted in the Notice of Disapproval, is a side, front yard setback. A front yard being determined by the presence of a right-of-way on the north eastern boundary of the property. The survey presented to me shows a distance from the property line at 20 feet. The front yard setback on this lot according to 100-244B, is required:'to be the required front yard would be 40 feet. I wrote the Notice of Disapproval, front yard setback as applied for was 20 feet, and would require a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you. You're measuring to the property line at this point? MR. FORRESTER: I'm measuring to the property line. On that property line is a 15 foot right-of-way. 7-1/2 feet on each of the neighboring properties. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I guess the question that we have. in your presence statute in the Building Department, have you seen Building Inspectors measure to anything other than the property line? MR. FORRESTER: Not to my knowledge. As you're all aware, I took over the Building Department not too many years ago, and I proceeded with what was common practice at the time from my predecessors. Over the course of my tenor there, I have changed some of the policies and procedures in the department as things come to my attention, and we all learn from your decisions also and interpretations and things have changed. This is the past practice of the Building Department has been up until this day. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Dinizio will start with you because I think you had some specific questions that you wanted to ask Mr. Forrester. Again, I just ask everyone to try and limit to the issue that's before us. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well specifically, on the appli, I think he's answered my question quite honestly, and you have never, ever, changed that particular, you know, requirement, that you're measuring it from property line? There's never been a time when you've measured it from the side of the road, or, am ~ - MR. FORRESTER: No, not in the case where, where a right--of-way straddles a property line. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, ;it's the property line and if there's a right-of-way, within that, there's a right-of-way. MR. FORRESTER: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: And you did that in this instance? Page 67 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. FORRESTER: Yes, I did. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the building status. That's all really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The setback to which Mr. Forrester just referred is the one on the, I lost my sense of direction here, east? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: North east. MEMBER COLLINS: North east, right. The long side of the property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Where this 15 foot right-of-way that shows next to the property line? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And the Amended Notice of Disapproval, which is what we've been working from, refers to that as 20 foot setback from the property line and that's the problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. The question I thought that we had raised earlier, was how come the initial Notice of Disapproval, you know, I may have'missed something along here but a - ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just said, that we are not here to discuss that initial Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, alright, because it's the same question, where you measure from? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. That will be an issue that will be before us at the next meeting. Now if you, at this point, not you in general, but if this Board would like to request Mr. Forrester to come back and deal with that aspect of it, at that time, - MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I'm not - Page 68 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to find out if he's on vacation like Mr. Kassner. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be obstructive and I heard your comment about what we're limiting to tonight, and ! perhaps didn't fully internalize what you said, and I am not going to argue but I do at some point want to discuss the measurement from the other side of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct and I think that's a form at the next hearing. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you, I stop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I guess the question is, if we:,~.canguaranty you that we can go on earlier at the next hearing, will you come back, and you're not on vacation like Mr. Kassner? MR. FORRESTER: I guaranty that I'll read your Agenda before i say go. If I know you'll have it on at 8:30, I want to have dinner first. That's the only change I'd make. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Let me ask you what would happen if you have a right-of- way that perverses a property, a piece of property? And someone wants to build a house and you have a long piece of property, the right-of-way goes right through it. If you are taking your yard setbacks from the property line and not the right-of-way, theoretically the house could be in the middle of the right-of- way. Is that pretty much true? MR. FORRESTER: Well, the right-of-way itself would be protected from developing. Because of rights there are you'd be violating someone's right-of- way. MEMBER TORTORA: But you could be, well OK, you could be 6 inches from it. MR. FORRESTER: Technically, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just make a statement to that effect? That happens all the time in Fishers Island. I mean truthfully. In FIDCO property, I don't mean, this is not a derogatory statement George, this happens all the time in FIDCO. Page 69 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Well, I'm confused Ed as you know because there's vew few things in the Code, that refers to measurements. A word take measurements from. But the Code does address right-of-ways, and it says the boundary lines of land used, or intended for use, as street as shown on deeds, platts with a master plan, and from which yard and other requirements shall be measured. I'm confused because it's the only part of definition in the Code that clearly says, where yard should to be measured from. So, it does say that, so that's why I'm confused. MR. FORRESTER: In this case I would agree with you. That section of the Code is in the definition section and as I stated earlier, our practice of doing it this way, is past practice I was following. And as things do come to my attention, I do change the way we operate over there. In this case the degree of release Sought by the applicant would be increased if I measured from the edge of the ."~ boundary of the right-of-way, rather than the property line. Relief would still be required. There's one flaw in that section of the code that when I start using it, it doesn't direct me to use which boundary of the right-of-way it's measured from. It could be the far side. But I think we know what their intent was when we go - MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At this particular point, we appreciate your coming in and you know, there was some great levity in my mentioning that, and at least on my part, but it probably would behoove us to ask you to come again in July and we promise we'll schedule it earlier, but allow you enough time to have dinner in between. MR. FORRESTER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. FORRESTER: I'm at you disposal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MRS. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, am I to assume now that this is going to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals as a vote now, on this particular application? Page 70 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: where we are at this point. question about it. OK. We're certainly going to close the hearing. That's Yes, we're going to clOse the hearing. There's no MRS. RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's my opinion. Now we'll hear opposing counsel. You've been so quiet all night and you know. You are going to be brief, dght? MRS. MOORE: Well as brief as I can be. I do want to emphasize that if Mr. Forrester is going to be back next time, that I do want to reserve the right to ask him questions. In particular, I belief that this application should remain open with respect to issues that are goi~r~g to come up in the second application. 'Fbe appeal the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a question regarding that. MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding, that you had and correct me if rm wrong, that you had no objection to this setback along this right-of- way? MRS. MOORE: Well we have no objection with respect to how the rest of the property is treated. It really depends on that and however, I think that the measurement of this right-of-way, is crucial as far as whether or not I don't want this Board to make a decision in this case, that the right-of-way, is measured from where it's been suggested. I think that will have impact on the second case. I would have to bring an,.~Article 78 immediately in the event that:you make a decision on this application because I have to leave that issue open. i think that, that's crucial issue. That it applies, the fact that she withdrew the pool request, our objection is not to the development of this property with respect to this side, but our objection continues with the way that the measurement is taken, because even this measurement takes almost more than 50% variance and it has direct impact on the other right-of-way. So, I don't think you can separate the two. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think you:,-can but that's~just an opinion. What I need you to do, and this both ( ) agents, I need you to very simply, speak to the Town Attorney, because I don't think, and I'm not suggesting, that we're making a decision on this tonight but I think we have the perfect right to close this hearing. Page 71 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals ..~ MRS. MOORE: Certainly You have that right but i also have the right to challenge. If you close the hearing and you then find out that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can reopen it. MRS. MOORE: Yes, you can reopen it but it's all new notices. It's fine with me. I mean it doesn't effect me. I think it would affect them. If I was the applicant I would certainly want to keep it open but that's her choice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I think there comes a time when you have to create a norm, OK, and we have a norm here. We have an agreement that this particular setback is OK. I'm not talking about the placement of the house. I 'm talking about this setback as it exists here at 20 feet. ,' MRS. MOORE: But we don't know how, whether the measurement is accurate. I would respectfully state that I have off the top of my head, at least two examples where the measurement was taken differently. And I think that the variance that is being requested, if you grant it will be an error based on the way the measurement has been taken in the past and perhaps practice whatever. Not in my time I've been practicing - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But this applicant, this owner of this property right now, and subsequent owners, does not even have a right-of-way over this right- of-way. MRS. MOORE: I don't know that that's true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You think that's not true? MRS. MOORE: I think it goes over their property. I think they~have, a right,to use it, you know. I don't think, I think that they would be hard pressed to say, that they can't use their own property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm talking about this, I'm talking about the road, that runs the right-of-way. MRS. MOORE: I know, the one, the 20 foot setback, the 7-1/2. I think, I don't want to give a legal opinion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think that anybody is going to stop them from riding over it or walking over it. But I don't think they actually have, and I think there's, that clearly is stated in the code based upon the situation of roadways in general. But that's just an opinion on my part, and that was a discussion that I've had with counsel up until this particular point. So what Page 72 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals you're recommending at this time, and had I known that you were recommending this, I would have discussed it with counsel prior to this, OK, that we do not close this hearing, that you leave this hearing open, and that this hearing shall be made a part of the permanent record of your appeal. MRS. MOORE: I think that the two should go together but that's my opinion. You have the right to close the hearing. In fact, the statements that I'm going to follow-up with are with respect to the standards that are required of the applicant and the fact that the standards have not been met. That there has been no showing, that the change is whether there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. There is great detriment to the nearby property to my clients. OHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand that but - MRS. MOORE: Well if you close the hearing that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I, you know, i don't mean to be cocky about this but it was my understanding that you had no objection to this 20 foot. MRS. MOORE: No, when it was presented. The way we present it at the last hearing, we said, put the house back at 50 feet, measured from the end of the right-of-way. And we have no problem with the measurement whatever measurement they need from this right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's exactly what you said. So, that's why I assumed. Now, when I spoke - MRS. MOORE: OK, yeah, however, if their proposal is going to be call it segmented, OK,~ they want a varian~ here; and they don't think they need variance somewhere else, well then we have a strong objection of where the house is being placed. And I don't believe you can separate the two. One goes with the other. If we have to, we will object to the variance that's been requested, because we believe that the measurement is incorrect and we would have to, in order to preserve our rights if you came to a decision, without the benefit of the next hearing we would have to proceed to an Article 78, you know, preserve our challenge and go from there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, let me just,?say this. I had a discussion with one person regarding the situation and I have to tell you, it makes life so much easier because I work with 57 attorneys on a daily basis, OK. So, I only work with two attorneys here so it makes it very nice. So in dealing with this application, I meet with the fiduciary yesterday, and I say to this gentleman, I want to deal with this application tonight as it exists. As you have seen there. I Page 73 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals don't propose anything different here than I propose when I talk to people, either my fellow colleagues or counsel and I'm putting it on the record. This is flat out. He has informed me, and I could be wrong, that I have the right to deal with this application as it exists tonight. MRS. MOORE: I'm not challenging your right to close the hearing. That is your prerogative. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not under appeal. What is under appeal is the - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Pat wants to basically all it is right now. MRS. MOORE: That's right. give testimony. That's BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You want to give testimony against it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I am saying to you, I understand your opinion regarding measurement - MRS. MOORE: H'm, h'm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you are entitled to your opinion. There's no question about it. But I don't personally think it affects this portion of this application which is the only application before us right now. Notwithstanding that fact, we're giving you Carl Blanche to present whatever you want to present in July and Mr. Forrester is going to come back and discuss the situation with us hopefully. He. gave me a nod which I assume that means it's correct. So what I'm telling the both of you is, that I totally intend to close this hearing if I get three votes tonight. That doesn't mean that I am immediately deliberating upon this or suggesting this Board to do so. But you guys better talk to counsel if you don't want a decision. In other words if you're going to boothstrap us from not making a decision on this because as you know we usually make a decision at a Special Meeting and that's the situation. That's just what I'm saying. So I would suggest that you both speak to counsel independently on that basis and I will tell counsel that you know, that you will be speaking to him, So I'm just saying that in general because I - MRS. MOORE: I'm not sure exactly what I'm suppose to be asking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From prohibiting us from making a decision on this application. Page 74 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question, Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, MEMBER DINIZIO: I can? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to be clear. I'm assuming or I guess what I'm hearing is, if we close the' hearing and make a decision and Jerry feels that we can and ~ probably feel that we can too, we're going to have some litigation because you want to preserve your rights and that's not a problem. MRS. MOORE: I think we'd be forced to if we hadn't gone to the rest of it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, and - MRS. MOORE: Our time may start to run, put it that way. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. If we leave it open, what does that do to ( )? MRS. RIVERA: Well we've been before you three times now, and a we keep on postponing making a decision, and what is before this Board is given the easterly portion. That is the only application before this Board and so why with deliberating or opening up anything else, I really don't know, because there's only one application before this Board. Why we should go and vote or investigate an application that doesn't exist, is beyond my comprehension. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, but even if we reasonably believe that there's a, at some point, in time, there's going to be another apPlication. I mean ! think it's incumbent upon us to address that as a whole. MRS. RIVERA: The only application that's going to come from here on once this Zoning Board votes on this variance application, my next step would be to apply for a Building Permit and then I'm not quite sure of what application we are appealing here because the only application I have before you is, the one that is before you on the easterly portion of this property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We understand that. MEMBER DINIZIO; OK, that's all I need. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Let me ask her a question. It is my understanding that there is an appeal that has been filed to our Board on the Building Department's Page 75 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals determination of the measurement of the right-of-way verses the property line. It is my opinion, that this Board cannot make a decision on the application as it is before us, until we have heard that appeal because we wouldn't know whether we are making a decision on the measurement from the driveway or the property line because we have not heard the appeal and we've not rendered the decision and I will not vote to close this hearing based on that because I don't think it's right. I don't think you can do it. There are two applications before this Board right now that has been property filed. Your application, and yours, and this applicant has already appealed the Building Department's decision. MEMBER COLLINS: I wanted to ask. I'm feeling dreadfully out of the loop. I don't like to admit that but it's true. I understand but only by word of mouth that Ms. Moore representing the Kochs has or intends to appeal the Building Inspector's - :.:' :-: MEMBER TORTORA: Is that true, Linda? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, that true. MEMBER COLLINS: Action in this matter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She has., MRS. MOORE: I have. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not going to try and spell out the details because - MEMBER TORTORA: It's been filed. MEMBER COLLINS:: It's been filed, OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But for different reasons that are discussed than what's being discussed here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why I spoke to the Town Attorney who has informed me that I can continue with this application. MEMBER COLLINS: Of course we can continue with this application. But for me "to have an intelligent view about whether to vote to close the hearing or not close the hearing, I need to be a little less in the dark than I am in about what is going on. I needless to say have been troubled all along by the measurement from the property line, and if that's going to be the issue that is going to be raised in this other proceeding, I certainly agree with Mrs. Tortora and with Page 76 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals counsel, that we shouldn't close the door on this one until we enlighten ourselves as to the rule that we want to follow. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you like me to get the other application? MEMBER COLLINS: Not now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins we heard testimony from the Building Inspector, the Executive Administrator from the Building Department, that he has measured it from the property line. We have heard from counsel of opposition, who has told us in the past that she had no objection to this particular application. ! don't care if it's front yard, side yard, back yard, side yard, up yard or down yard, I don't care, and I'm being honest. MRS. MOORE: No, no, I'm going to withdraw my position that we had no objection to this application. We actually, we appealed the Notice of Disapproval. 1. That the survey submitted by ( ) incorrectly identified setbacks and applicable variances. 2. The variances required from the northerly right-of- way and easterly right-of-way, rear yard setbacks of 50 feet of applicable to northerly right- of-way and front yard. So, I mean we've addressed the side yard. Now the impact on the property owner is different depending on where the placement of the house is. They have submitted a pl~q, a diagram of the footprint of the house. The proposed footprint of the house. That is objectionable. It has always been objectionable and the setback of this easterly right-of-way, will have impact on where that footprint is. Whether or not it's even necessary because if they move the house back where we believe it should be without the need of variances, and they find out now the dimensions of the house have changed, the design is going to change, they may not need the 20 feet they're proposing. In fact, if the measurement is incorrect, then you'd be granting a variance for 20 feet when in fact, they need one for 27-1/2 feet. So~ you'd be granting them 20 foot variance that would not be applicable when all is said and done when we complete the process. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I am saying to you is, there has got to be a time when you can't have it all inclusive and I am telling you that no-one has ever bootstrapped this Board. No-one will as long as i'm here. Maybe it's about time I get off, OK, truthfully and this is the first time you've heard this in 20 years. No-one will ever stop me from making a decision on an application that's straight forward. This is a straight forward application, if I wanted to vote on thistonight regardless if it goes up or down, I can vote on this application tonight, and regardless of your appeal I can vote on this application tonight, and that is what I feel very strongly regarding this and as you know we have tried at all times to take everybody's consideration into effect, into an agreement sought of speak, Page 77 , June 8, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals and that's just my opinion and this is what I discussed with counsel yesterday and that's all I can tell you. MRS. MOORE: We apologize to any extent that you feel that we're trying to boothstrap or handstrain you from making .decisions, or boxing you into any kind of comers on this. But what I'm trying to do, is actually make the process simpler. If you grant a 20-foot variance and the variance measurement is incorrect because it should of been from the right-of-way, which is 7-1/2 feet difference, then that 20 foot variance they have to measure it from the 7-1/2 point. $o now they've made a narrower house wherever it's placed lengthwise on the property. That may not be what they want. So you're giving them relief there which, may not, one, be adequate, or be necessary, depending on wllat answers they get to the appeal that I file. So that's the only reason it seems to me that? you bold off, we can::know what the finaJ¢¢ls~, is. Keep in mind fdhat we've been here since the beginning asking for inf0~ation that they have refused to provide. Joe Fischetti, we paid him to go look at the property to give us information to make a, to help us make a decision of whether or not the standards have been met but having addressed the issues that they need to address. We don't believe they've ever addressed the issues. They have not met the burden that is incumbent upon them. So we're really trying to be cooperative here. We're not trying to be difficult. But we need to have an answer clarified. Is the right-of-way properly measured? You know my response to that is no. i now hearing what the Building Inspector has now said, certainly ! respect Mr. Forreter but I strenuously disagree with him. But it's your decision. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, has this attorney have more ( ) than calendar. CHAIRMAN ~. GOEHRINGER: Yes.~-July 6th. · Is there anything else fi'om anybody?. Oh, you have something else you want to talk about. MRS. MOORE: I really think it depends on if you're going to close the headng or not. If you're going to close the hearing, I have to make all my statements now and put them on the record. If you're going to keep the hearing open, then we can kind of leave it open, and put it all together at once. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're very rarely going to see this, but I'll do it anyway., I would.like to poll the-Board 0nthe closing of this .he~. dry. i will make the motion to poll the Board. This is not an ac~OK? And i'm asking you if you so desire to vote on it and I'll mak MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second See M±nutes ~o~ ResoIut~on. End oE Hea~±ngs. PHJUNE8 FILED BY