Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/19/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD October 19, 2000 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4863- THOMAS J. & PATRICIA MONAHAN 6 - Appl. No. 4867 - STANLEY DROSKOSKI 10 -Appl. No. 4873 - PETER RUGG & MEDEDITH P. RUGG 22 - Appl. No. 4872- LISTA CANNON 26 - Appl. No. 4865-.TANAS TSATSOS 30 -Appl. No.4871- JOHN ZOUMAS (Owner: Vera Doroski) 44 -Appl. No. 4868- B. SHINN/SHINN VINEYARD, LLC 46 -Appl. No. 4875- LESLIE GAZZOLA 50 -Appl. No.4878- WILLIAM S. KELLY 58 -Appl. No. 4826- WILLIAM PENNY/TIDY CAR 65 -Appl. No. 4837-H. CASHY/M. MISTHOS 88 - Appl. No. 4880 - L.I. HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Page 1 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold PUBLIC HEARINGs October 19, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:37 P.M.- Appl. No. 4863 - THOMAS J. & PATRICIA MONAHAN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, and Article XXIV, Section 100-242A based on the Building Department's July 26, 2000 Notice of Disapproval regarding a Building Permit Application for the reason that the project will increase the degree of non-conformance. Applicants are proposing a dwelling addition with a combined side yard of less than 25 feet and lot coverage exceeding the 20% code limitation. Location of Property: 26350 Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel No. 1000- 109-4-5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Monahan or Mrs. Monahan whoever would like to speak. We haven't seen you since I think the Bed & Breakfast situation that we granted sometime ago. MR. MONAHAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. MONAHAN: Well anything that you would like to know other than the infOrmation I've already supplied you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. It's my understanding that I was actually reviewing the Notice of Disapproval, which says, "minimum combined side yard of 25 feet proposed addition would create combined side yards of 21.2 feet and number 2 maximum lot coverage over 20% would increase the coverage to approximately 25%." Then I see that we have a handwritten note in there as a 25 or 26. No, it's 25, OK. Why don't you tell us why you need the side yard reduced? MR. MONAHAN: Well the addition that we proposed to where the house is so that we may have a little private quarters for ourselves and the other part of the house would be for the use of clients that we have. The reason for the request of the variance is due to the fact that the house is conditioned in such a way in contrast to the boundary lines, that at one particular part it would be like less than required setback~ It's only a few square feet but to us it isn't back over the boundary in compliance with the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Do you have a better survey than I have? MR. MONAHAN: I think you have the same copy as I have. Page 2 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: It doesn't show. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it doesn't show. The one I saw was a cut down where you actually showed the increase on the one side. MEMBER COLLINS: I used the architect's drawings to figure out the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're talking 13 feet on the east side and 8.2, which is, existing on the west side? Is that correct? Approximately? MR. MONAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of these nice people? MEMBR DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I wasn't on the Board when you got the Special Exception for the B & B but I read it and I see it refers to two parking places for the B & B. Does that mean that at the current time you have two B & B rooms? MRS. MONAHAN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Two guest rooms? MRS. MONAHAN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Is this plan than going to expand it to three? MR. MONAHAN: I can hope so, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: By allowing you to have a separate - MR. MONAHAN: Well I thought it since it increased a number of rooms that you're allowed to have. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I know that and you would have been able to have - MR, MONAHAN: I know that but that would be my thing. MEMBER COLLINS: You would have been able to have three all along but I'm getting at really the purpose of this is to have a three bedroom B & B rather than a two? Page 3 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. MONAHAN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Now where is the parking now? I mean, I'm familiar, I know what your property looks like but I didn't come walking into the back yard. MR. MONAHAN: Well I have spaces in the back. You know my driveway in the back and I also have spaces I put a driveway in across the front porch. You can turn around and you can also park here. MEMBER COLLINS: Because I notice when the special exception was granted back in 96 it said, that there would be two B & B parking places by the garage. MR.M ONAHAN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Now this expansion is going to - what you're proposing will go right out to the driveway but not across it. Is that correct? MR. MONAHAN: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I think then I understand. MRS. MONAHAN: It much wider in the back. MR. MONAHAN: And I will not go out to the driveway in the rear portion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it steps back. MEMBER COLLINS: No because you staggered. I had to read it off your architect's floor plans but I then drew it on to the survey and you're staggering it. Your front most part of the addition is the widest and it narrows as it goes back. MR. MONAHAN: Right. For me to do this addition if I had to have a smaller parlor, living room it couldn't be feasible for me to do it. You know to accommodate the a, like we have a player piano, which a lot of people enjoy and we have an antique victrola. So in other words to make it a comfortable living room. That's the reason. Otherwise we could just make it a smaller room but it'd be comfortable living really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MRS. MONAHAN: It give you sought of a chance you know, if you walk into our living room, you walk right into our living room and he can't lay there with his shoes off falling asleep. The guest come in, oh, I tell them (). This way he has a little place he can take his shoes off and watch his TV and not be on display all the time. It's a very ( ) really. Page 4 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold We love it. We like the people but sometimes you really need to get away and having a third bedroom would be so financially helpful once in a while. MEMBER TORTORA: Helpful. MRS.MONAHAN: It would, you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you estimate the cost of the addition to be? Any estimate? MR. MONAHAN: Well I hope I can bring it in for $20,000. I do most of the work myselfi CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORN1NG: I'm curious Sir. Did you look into the idea of just building up, upwards more on the existing plan? Building more to the second story or a - MR. MONAHAN: It would be good practical. There's a large attic up there. We could raise the roof. I don't know. MEMBER HORNING: So the intent is just to make the first floor living room area? MR. MONAHAN: Yes. It's not going to go a second story here, if that's what you're asking. You mean the roof, on this addition? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, he was talking about utilizing the existing. MEMBER HORNING: The space, tight. MRS. MONAHAN: We received a copy of a letter that Richard Hand had sent, which was very nice. I don't know if you received it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes we did. MRS. MONAHAN: Yeah, you know we thought it was very nice. We didn't ask him to do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's nice to have nice neighbors like that. MRS. MONAHAN: Yes. Page 5 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll see what else develops throughout the hearing. We will not have a decision for you tonight. We will have a special meeting within the next week or so, OK. We thank you. MRS. MONAHAN: OK, we appreciate it. MR. MONAHAN: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just don't leave until I close the hearing. 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 COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 6- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 6:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4867 - STANLEY DRosKosKI This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Departmem's March 28, 2000, Notice of Disapproval regarding applicant's request for a Building Permit. The reason for disapproval is that the proposed addition represents an increase of approximately 2% over the existing lot coverage, for a proposed deck-entry at the rear of the dwelling. 531 Sterling Place, Greenport; 1000-34-3-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on for Stanley Droskoski. A familiar face. Chief how are you? MR. DROSKOSKI: Very good Sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How's retirement? MR. DROSKOSKI: Wonderful. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. MR. DROSKOSKI: First, I have a return. This is the last one. This was the one that was outstanding, so. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We cleared up some lot coverage situation with you and a MR. DROSKOSKI: Yes Sir. I received the letter today. I don't fully understand what it says. Do you have a copy of the letter also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. DROSKOSKI: Very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was a question by us when it said 42% lot coverage. We knew that you were not at 42%. So, therefore it was recalculated, and it was determined that you are 26% or 6% over. MEMBER COLL1NS: That's with the addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With the addition. MR. DROSKOSKI: Yes Sir. So I'm still, I still need to appeal the original denial. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Page 7- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR, DROSKOSKI: OK Sir. Well speaking on behalf I made application to put on an addition. I call it a landing. Of course everyone calls it a deck. A deck I feel is recreational. This is a necessary landing. It's no more than, 8 x 12, which is no more than two pieces of plywood I guess in size. But we have a dangerous condition of the steps. First of all the decaying in back of the house and it was a two-step and the third step was inside the door, which is dangerous when you have children, groceries or what have you. So what the intention was is to put a landing up there to take the two steps up be on the landing with little Children. My daughter-in-law has a little child, a month and a half old, and it's a dangerous condition and with this landing we felt that it would be much safer and more appropriate for their use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's fine with me. We'll start with Mr~ Homing. Any questions of Mr. Droskoski? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The one thing I'm confused at, it's 26, it's, actually 26-25.9 COllect? MEMBER COLLINS: That's what Mr. Forrester says. MEMBER TORTORA: That the lot coverage and that's the issue, the only issue? MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's 20 to 26, OK. No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm the one who actually raised the fuss about the number and asked the Board to get in touch with the Building Department and I'm glad we did because these numbers make sense. As I read this Lydia, the addition that they want adds fractionally less than 1% to the lot coverage. They're already up. MEMBER TORTORA: They're already over and that's why he calls it - MEMBER COLL1NS: Right, which is typical of the neighborhood. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. Page 8 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: But one other question. There exists right now a little landing, not as big as 8 x 12 but something when you come out that door. I mean I only looked at it from the sidewalk. I didn't go in. Am I right that there's a - MR. DROSKOSKI: That is the landing. That is what - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the landing. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, this is already built? MR. DROSKOSKI: Well, it's a long story. MEMBER COLLINS: No, oh, I'm not complaining. I just want to get the facts straight. MR. DROSKOSKI: I asked about what was necessary for me to make this little landing because it was a dangerous situation. We already had removed the stairs because they were decayed. And like I say, we have two little children and - MEMBER COLLINS: OK. No, no, I understand the reasoning. So what I was seeing is what we're talking about? MR. DROSKOSKI: That's it. Yes Ma'am. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You had me going there too because I walked over to it and I guess your grandson waived to me throughout from the window there. MR. DROSKOSKI: Yes, he does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, and at that point I realized that it was on. MR. DROSKOSKI: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Then what we're actually have to establish I think, is what the increase was, what it actually was. We know what it is or is proposed to be as built. What was it before? MEMBER COLLINS: Well we can subtract the 96 sq. f~. from and that's why I said that's slightly less than 1%, just about 1%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 2202 with the existing building and with a 96 sq. fi. will put it between 2298. MEMBER COLLINS: It's a 1.% increment on an all ready crowded lot. Page 9 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGE: Mr. Dinizio, I'm sorry for cutting you off. MEMBER DINIZIO:: No, it's nice to see something before you make a decision on it. I think that all of these lots are very small, you know, I don't even think the town intended to let ( ) people from building a porch on it. They had a small deck. I have no objection to it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing Chief. It's a pleasure seeing you again. MR. DROSKOSKI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Mr. Dinizio, do you want to make a motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'll make a motion to approve it as applied. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and it remain open. MEMBER DINIZO: Yeah, well you want to, I suppose? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's only lot coverage. It doesn't make any difference. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't make any difference, yeah. All right I'll second, all in favor? Only at rear times we do it from the dais but we'll have a decision written for you in about 4 to 5 days. MR. DROSKOSKI: Thank you very much. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 6:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4873 - PETER RUGG & MEDEDITH P. RUGG This is a request for Variances under Article III, Sections 100-32 and 100-33, based on the Building Department's September 13, 2000, Notice of Disapproval to locate: (a) an accessory building in a front yard; and (b) a proposed garage addition with a front yard setback at less than 60 feet from the edge of right-of-way. Location of Property: Munnatawket Avenue, Fishers Island; 1000-006-03-8.2; also referred to as Lot 2 on the Edith Dillon Edson Map; filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as File No. 9741. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Good evening Mrs. Moore how are you? MRS. MOORE: Fine, thank you. I have the pleasure of helping Steve Ham on this application, which he started and coUldn't be here this evening so he asked 'me to step in. Mr. Rugg is here this evening and if you have any questions hopefully between the two of us we can answer all of the questions. Shall I begin? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: What we have before you are two applications. Two access with an application. One is a setback variance for the garage and the other is an accessory structure in a front yard. As to the garage, it is proposed the lot is vacant right now. It is proposed to be setback 44 feet from the right-of-way rather as required 60 feet. The property to describe it for you if you're not completely familiar with it, this was a three lot subdivision. Mrs. Edson on Fishers Island developed this property. Her house remains there, as the primary residence on lot 1 at the Old Homestead, then Mr. Rugg and his wife own lot 2 and a third party owns lot 3. The right-of-way gives access to both, Mrs. Edson, Mr. Rugg and an adjacent property owner Mrs. Oaks that was granted by Mrs. Edson at some time along the way. So the road on Fishers Island is Munnatawket. Am I pronouncing it right Mr. Horning? It's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George, she needs to know if she's pronouncing the name of the road fight. MRS. MOORE: Munna. Munnatawa? MEMBER HORN1NG: Munnatawket. MRS. MOORE: Munnatawket, OK. Munnatawket Avenue is the road and this is a right- of-way that comes off of that main road. The proposed house where it is setback is actually situated in 'such a way where there is a clearing area. There is a survey in your file that shows how the property has been cleared to certain extent. The property is incumbent by several slopes. It's a very sloping piece of property. It slopes very steeply towards the back and then ends up in the subdivision it shows on the adjacent piece that was actually split off in the subdivision the wetland area. So the lot is restricted to a certain extent keeping the setback from the wetlands the slopes in the back. So the Page 11 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold property is actually being developed at the high point and where it is leveled with the right-of-way. The garage that is proposed has been a - the architectural style there is intended to make use of the flat area and also to accommodate the Rugg, Mr. & Mrs. Ruggs' vehicle collection and private cars and they've got several of them. So what they've done is the garage that faces the right-of-way will have three bays and then they also have a garage that goes under the house and that is not an issue here this evening. It is not visible at all. With respect to the boathouse, that accessory, well we call it accessory building but the purpose of that building is to store the boats during the winter months. And what I did is I looked in the code and it's interesting. The code provides that to store when you store boats on a trailer, they have to be either in the rear yard or, 15 feet from street or property line. So the area that is proposed for storage of the boats, if it is not house being in this boat house, which by the way from the design you can see in the file it is tucked into the hill. The hill there, there is a slope and it's architecturally designed so that really all you see is a little bit of rear and a door. In a sense it's almost like the old potato barns that are bulk into the hill. So the boats being stored inside the building it's the only practical way to store the boat, otherwise I'm not sure that anybody really has ever gone around and cited people but under the code you're suppose to store the boats in the rear yard. That's a practical problem with this piece of property because as I said, their access is off the right-of-way. The property is sloped and heavily split in the back so there is no rear yard to speak of. The only, you have two, you have a corner lot essentially, Munnatawket Avenue and the right-of-way and so you have the two front yards. The only alternative site would be Munnatawket Avenue and that's for obvious reason is not a very desirable site because for 1, it is on the main thoroughfare and subject to the traffic interference with traffic. So putting both in trailer and then putting them into the boat building would interfere with traffic flow. It is also visible. If you want to see the Section it is 100-31-7(b) and (c). That's in an R-80 Zone District. I'm sorry I have it right here and its part of my application process. Since I didn't prepare the application I have an amendment to the application that goes through my presentation and submits it as part of the record so that it can add to what Steve Ham did, which he did a fine job. In any case, using Munnatawket Avenue is just not an appropriate place to have a boathouse when again it's visible to the community and interference with the traffic and I'm not sure, I think that we would still need a variance because it would still be considered front yard. So that's not a good alternative. Placing it further to the northeast towards Mrs. Edson's property would certainly not be desirable to Mrs. Edson so this is the real logical place to put it. There are some photographs in your file which are very good photographs and I'd like to just point out a few of them. There is one that shows the intersection of the right-of-way and Munnatawket Avenue looking to the location of the existing of where the boathouse is going to be and Fishers Island has a very unique thing and the photograph that we have in your file shows a little building. It's a brick building and it actually was used for storage of dynamite. So the location of where this is proposed, dynamite is no longer there obviously, but the building will be placed in the location where there was an existing building at one time. You can see in that same photograph where the - it looks like a little sailboat may have been stored, covered and stored. The back has a description on it and for the benefit of those that are familiar with Fishers Island too we have the photographs to give you an idea of what the Page 12 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold place looks like. You can see the right-of-way. Also the right-of-way itself is a 25 foot right-of-way. However, the improvements on this right-of-way are actually the blacktop is a small, obviously a narrower or improved area and when Mr. Rugg 'did the measurement of the particular setbacks, the setbacks of the garage on paper is 44 feet from the edge of the 25 foot right-of-way but the actual access is 12 feet more. It gives an extra 12 feet so that the practical measurement from the improved blacktop to the structure will have 56 foot setback so visually there won't be any change to the character of the area. It will look 56 to 60 feet very close than what the code will require. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to stop you at that point. MRS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: We have made a determination unilaterally that we're not asking people anymore if we are going to deal with alternate relief. In other words we're not volunteering that issue anymore. We're just going to do it if it comes out it comes out. If the people are unhappy with it, you know then they certainly have the right to ask for a rehearing. So unilaterally if the Board doesn't come to an agreement at 15 feet and maybe more, we're just mentioning that to you. MRS. MOORE: OK, well obviously I have discussed it with the Board on other occasions I think it's helpful to have an exchange of what the Board's position is on a setback if you prefer a greater setback or not. I just think that it helps because then you don't have a repeat you know reapplication or even you get unhappy customers because they might have a reason not - I as the attorney may not know and it's real important. CHAIR GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to say that we're still probably going to mention it but if for some reason we forget it, I just wanted to stop you at that point. MRS. MOORE: That's fine, that's fine. Well if you deliberate informally at this point, and you want to discuss it with Mr. Rugg I would hope you do that. Continuing on, Mr. Rugg did contact all of his neighbors. He sent out certified letters but he also did send out his own personal letters and we have letters in support from Mrs. Edson who is the original property owner in that area and the adjacent property owner. We also have a letter of support from Mrs. Bowman Gray and from Patricia Pierce and Mark Rubinstein, that's one family. Mr. Rugg has those letters. I have Mrs. Edson's letter came in today and we don't have multiply copies of it but you have the one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: In considering the standards which you have to consider in an area variance, keeping in mind the topography of the property. Again that's a very crucial point because the proposed areas of construction are keeping in mind trying to keep the area natural it's a very lovely wooded lot, vegetated lot and we want to minimize the area of clearing so as we said, the house has been designed inside tucked into the area that has Page 13 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold been cleared and the area that is level. If you have any additional questions we'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I don't have any problem at all with the placement of the house which we referred to as the garage but it is connected to the house so it really is the house. Now I assume that the reason for the 44 feet by the way if we ever received a photo that was appropriate it was that photo, OK, or, this photo, that shows the stake and its openness to the right-of-way so it gives us some perception of what we are looking at, OK in reference to that 44 feet. But we assume and correct me if I'm wrong that the position of the garage in that location or the house in general, is because of this topographical problem on the opposite side of the property? MRS. MOORE: Yes, you can see in the photographs that the area is quite'steep and you look atthe survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. MRS. MOORE: You can look at that anytime you want. I'm relying as you are having seen the property. I'm basing on photographs and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: I went by it on my way to the clubhouse and - MRS. MOORE: Oh, you did pass by. MR. RUGG: Here's the 44 feet from the right-of-way - MRS. MOORE: Right and the topography, is here. MR. RUGG: And over here going down towards the wetlands this is where it gets very steeply sloped. You can see it on the map the contour lines are very close together here so we pushed the house as far to the south as we can without getting into significant slope problems and what we were left with was this available 44 foot setback. MRS. MOORE: There is a great change in about 35 feet between the highest and lowest point on this property. MR. RUGG: This corner up to this corner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rugg Mrs. Tortora would like to ask you a question.. MEMBER TORTORA: The deed on the right-of-way the deed gives you access and how many other houses? MRS. MOORE: Well Mrs. Edson, Mrs. Oaks. Page 14- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. RUGG: Well it's actually the right-of-way is on our property and gives access to two other families. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it a private right-of-way? In other words, it's a deeded right- of-way through your property to your property and permission for the other two neighbors that you mentioned. Is that correct? MR. RUGG: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Koch, I don't believe and I'll say this right out - MRS~ MOORE: I honestly don't know what that actually means so I leave it up to you to if you don't think a - MEMBER COLLINS: Let Lydia go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: If it is not a street you don't have a front yard and if you don't have a front yard you don't have to meet a front yard setback. We've ruled on this decision before. We've made this interpretation before. The Code is very clear on this issue. It defines a front yard as intervention as a street. Definition of street is very clear in the Code. This is not recognized on our official maps. It is a private right-of-way. It is not a street in my opinion. I'd like to see the deed, have a copy of the deed entered into the file before we render a decision because I would like to see the deed but for all practical purposes - MRS. MOORE: We wouldn't need a front yard variance otherwise. MEMBER TORTORA: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Well they need one for the boathouse. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the location of the boathouse - MRS. MOORE: You still need a variance for the boathouse. MEMBER TORTOKA: Which is another issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But regardless of how we rule we still have a NOtice of Disapproval in front of us and we will continue to challenge that Notice of Disapproval but as you know it's still there. MRS. MOORE: Right. Page 15 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that will be - MRS. MOORE: You would have to address it on by way of just saying that your interpretation of that section of the code is that this is not a front yard and that's simple. You override the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Question, comment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you done? MEMBER TORTORA: No. MEMBER HORNING: No, the front yard is on Munnatawet Avenue, that's the front yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not going to, I'm not going to deal, I understand what you're saying George but today it could be the front yard and tomorrow it could be the rear yard. So, I mean that's - MRS. MOORE: I'd like to make a decision too. (joking amongst themselves) That was the percent if I recall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're absolutely correct. MRS. MOORE: Now with respect to the boathouse though an accessory structure in the front yard if that's in fact not a front yard, then - MEMBER COLLINS: But it is on Munnatawet Avenue. MEMBER TORTORA.: It still would be remaining a front yard location as far - MRS. MOORE: Well that's why I'm asking because it's not on Munnatawet Avenue. It's on the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's 25 feet from - MRS. MOORE: Oh, it's 25 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Even if you wipe out the - even if we reverse the Building Department's decision that was in fact, the fight-of-way in fact was a street, which it isn't, Page 16 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold you still end up with the boathouse in the front yard virtually 25 feet from the from property line and quite frankly I've got a problem with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so lets talk to Mr. Rugg about that while we have - MRS. MOORE: OK, sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rugg, we heard from counsel that we, that there was either an elevation problem in the back of this little bunker that held the dynamite or whatever you want to refer to it as is there a particular reason why we can't set this building back a little farther? MRS. MOORE: Back in which direction, towards up from of the right-of-way? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well lets go the right-of-way first. The 15 feet to 25. MRS.MOORE: You mean shifting in any -Are you looking to shift it up or back? CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: Back, back first we're talking off the right-of-way. MRS. MOORE: OK, so rather than 15 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Just make it conforming, that's my opinion. MRS. MOORE: Well conforming it would have to be 60 feet and it's tucked - CHAIRMAN GOEH1RNGER: I don't mean conforming in reference to conforming to the code. I'm just saying in conformance to a figure that would be 25 and 25. Now lets talk about the distance from Munnatawket Avenue. MRS. MOORE: There is a hill right there. It's been built into the hill. To what extent can we move it up this way or not ( ) MR. RUGG: It can move farther off Munnatawket Avenue without - the hill comes up from Munnatawket Avenue and then it actually drops off a little bit and then goes up again and the reason is put it where it was is that part of the hill setback as it was off the fight-of-way was sufficient to essentially hide the fact the building and most of the sides. So that was the objective tucking it in. If it moves further up the right-of-way, away from Munnatawket Avenue a little bit more of the left side as one looks from the right-of-way is like it would be exposed. The right side would probably affect would be about the amount of tucked in like ( ) houses. MEMBER TORTORA: Munnatawket? How far could you get it back from the Main Road, Page 17 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MRS. MOORE: How far would be practical? MEMBER TORTORA: 50 feet? lVlR. RUGG: The fight-of-way is relatively leveled near the boathouse and as it moves up the fight-of-way, away from Munnatawket Avenue, the right-of-way starts to slope and it's difficult for me estimate it but 50 feet I think would begin to get to the more steeply sloping part of the fight-of-way. It might be a little more difficult to back close up trailers. It's a good shot but it's tough to tell exactly how much slope there is. MRS. MOORE: Yeah you can tell to a certain extent. It's not very helpful but you can see that it seems to be going down - MEMBER TORTORA: I can't see anything from there, that distance. I can't see anything from here. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. (looking at document and discussing amongst themselves). _ MEMBER TORTORA: I see OK, so we're coming up, I see. MRS. MOORE: Right. Where the boat is presently is about right about where the boat - oh, you have a boat? MR. RUGG: H'm, h'm. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK, so then - you could move, yeah - MR. RUGG: Yeah move up, move up - MRS. MOORE: Another 25? MR. RUGG: I'm a poor judge of distance, so - MRS. MOORE: We're just basing it on the boats that are presently there and it looks like it looks like it could easily move maybe another (what's a boat length 10 foot, that's about ~o feet?) MR. RUGG: It's about 20 feet. MRS. MOORE: Oh, that's 20 feet? MR. RUGG: That's 40 feet. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK. Page 18- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. RUGG: So we can move it 20 -40 feet. MRS. MOORE: There's some room 20. MEMBER COLLINS: I want to pin this down because I think I have to write this decision. We're talking, the Chairman asked you to address both the distance in from the right-of-way and the distance in from Munnatawket Avenue. I think although there's a certain symmetry as he said in considering bOth setbacks, the one that matters legally is the one from Munnatawket Avenue and also the reason you have front yard setbacks is to avoid visual pollution obviously. I just wanted to ask you sort of two things here. One is, you were discussing how much further in from Munnatawket Avenue the boathouse could in fact go and the other is not being at all familiar with the piece of property. You know I look at the pictures it's not 3D. Just to give us a sense of whether there is a trade- oft' here if by moving the boathouse further in from Munnatawket Avenue you make it more visible. If that's the trade-off I think we need to know that because that's not necessarily desirable. That's the letter of the law, not the spirit. MEMBER HORNING: There would be a bit of a trade-off, but it is, it's a fairly wooded lot there. And I think the goal is to have it oft' of Munnatawket Avenue as much as possible. That's how I receive - MEMBER COLLINS: And what you were saying is that it does appear possible feasible, to move it further away from Munnatawket Avenue, which is certainly what I think the Board would be interested in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So Mr. Rugg, you're talking roughly 20 feet? MRS. MOORE: 20 feet was very, very safe, the fact is the roof is 24 the roof of this building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now let me ask you a question. Are you going back to the island this weekend? MR. RUGG: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, OK. MR. RUGG: Next weekend. MEMBER TORTORA: Is the total distance you're talking about? MRS. MOORE: 40 plus 5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 45. Page 19 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: 45 rather than 25. MEMBER TORTORA: Is that George? MEMBER HORNING: I don't know. Why not 50? MEMBER TORTORA: yeah, George is the only one that has actually seen that site so I'm going to refer to him - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I saw it at 40 miles an hour. MEMBER TORTORA: And he does not feel that this incline is that great. MEMBER HORNING: No, actually I have no problem with the house application. We've already clarified that maybe they don't even need a front yard setback because there's no front yard there perhaps, or the garage attached to the house but there is going to be a concern with the boathouse and the further back it is from Munnatawket Avenue the better off the (paper rattling-inaudible) in terms of development and being away from the neighbors and it is a variance to have it in the from yard to begin with. MR. RUGG: I understand that. MEMBER HORNING: So that is the problem I have with it. It's 25 feet from Munnatawket. It's way insufficient and there's plenty of room and it isn't relatively uniformed sloping right-of-way from the beginning to the end although it is a little flatter right down at that little intersection of Munnatawket Avenue but I would vote against having a boathouse located on this position they way it is. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I think we're all - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rugg? MEMBER COLLINS: From moving it. MR. RUGG: Mr. Chairman, I believe you asked and we didn't get to discuss and do the distance off the right-of-way and should we turn to that issue if we're done with the questions of about how far off Munnatawket Avenue? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINER: It appears that the Board is not as concerned about that issue because of it is a private road, driveway. MEMBER TORTORA: We would like to confirm that through looking at the deed. MR. RUGG: Yes. Page 20 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: Right. Mr. Ruggjust because you weren't in on the prior chapters of this. We had a case where we were asked to interpret what the code means several months ago. Ms. Moore was in fact involved in the case and what we did was we closely read the Town Code and we said, that although the Building Department's standard procedure has been, if there's a fight-of-way no matter how unused, they said it created a front yard. We concluded that it did not create a front yard unless the fight-of-way met the definition of street in our code and a street is a defined term and that's why we're clearing if your fight-of-way exists only by virtue of having been a deeded fight given to people. That typically does not rise to the level of street, it's not on an official plot but that just a, it's a fact question and if that's not a street this Board has said, that's not a front yard and the setbacks from it become essentially side yard setbacks and the issues largely go away. But the location of the boathouse close to Munnatawket Avenue remains an issue because that really is a front yard because that really is a street. MR. RUGG: I understand that issue. The only point I just wanted to add about setback of the boathouse off the right-of-way, which doesn't seem to be a large issue, is that the setback is 15 feet from as drawn from the edge of the fight-of-way but in this position also the asphalt of the improved fight-of-way is on the left hand side from the northerly side of the right-of-way. So my construction cost to get asphalt into the boathouse is probably going to be 20 - 25 feet of work even though it just says ! 5 feet here. If we pushed it back further to the south it would increase those costs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It would increase - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those costs. (changed tape). MRS. MOORE: If I could recap. Mr. Homing I think would prefer to see this boathouse at 50 feet from Munnatawket Avenue? MEMBER HORNING: Minimal and I would concur with the rest of the Board that the right-of-way setback is not really the issue here. MRS. MOORE: OK. It seems that from his recollection and the photographs that 50 feet is certainly something that topography wise could be accomplished as you go further up and the topography (), 50 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Any other questions of counsel or the applicant? Seeing no other, we'll see whoever else wants to speak, if anyone, if not we'll have a decision for you. You're going to get us that deed and then we'll a - MRS. MOORE: Yeah, we'll get a copy of it. Page 21 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there anyone else would like to speak in favor? Anyone like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision or later pending the receipt of the deed. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, could I just be make a while counsel is still here? CHAI_KMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Just to avoid creating trouble. We were saying we'd like to see the deed and of course counsel I think takes that to mean we want to see the deed to Mr. Rugg's property. But it's going to recite the existence of a right-of-way and not, it's not going to tell us definitively that it's not a street and I think what we need is either an abutting property owners, or the relative language from it, obviously not the entire deed, or, perhaps and rm thinking out loud Mr. Chairman, I just want to streamline this. We may need a statement from counsel who after all is learned in the law that based on the definition of street in our code and what has been - MEMBER TORTORA: We've already made a decision on the street. MEMBER COLLINS: No, but this is the street because we don't know whether it was ever platted. MEMBER TORTORA: It will show up in the adjoining property owner's deeds in order if,- MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MR. MOORE: rll get them both because we have to look at it anyway. MEMBER TORTORA: It's going to show up in there Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: Well OK, I just wanted to make sure we got what we needed rather than what we don't need. MEMBER TORTORA: Yah, as soon as possible. Either one of your neighbors will have that right to use the property in the deed description. You'll have it in your deed. That's what we need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, pending the receipt of that. MRS. MOORE: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need a second. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Page 22- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MRS. MOORE: This is for you in case it is not deeded the way it should be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. (Board Members discussing amongst themselves). Well then lets reopen the hearing at this point and ask for it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just do a resolution. We can send her a letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, we need a resolution determining from counsel that a, asking for a determination that after research she has determined this that it's not a street within the definition in our Code. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That it's not on a file plat somewhere because that really hasn't been researched yet either. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Well when you deal with the open development aspect of Fishers Island it does take some research, so I offer that as a resolution. All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: There's another house in site adjacent to that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Did Lydia second that? I didn't hear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, George second it. MEMBER HORN1NG: Yes, I second it. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 23 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 7:23 P.M. - Appl. No. 4872 - LISTA CANNON This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's September 11, 2000 Notice of Disapproval to locate a proposed addition to the existing dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 35 feet. Location of Property: 1050 Arshmomaque Avenue at intersection with Orchard Street, Beixedon Estates, Southold; County Parcel No. 1000-66-2-27. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. How are you? MR. CUDDY: Good evening Mr. Chairman. I'm Charles Cuddy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were down to the site? What would you like to tell us? MR. CUDDY: This is a house that's located on the south west comer of Arhmomaque and Orchard Roads, in the Hamlet of Southold. It's in an R-40 District. It has and has ( ) 52 sq. tr. and I think you have a survey I believe that was just recently done by John Ehlers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're looking at it right now. MR. CUDDY: This application involves an addition to an existing house. The addition to the house is significant and I think what we do and the architect is here tonight to discuss it with you. It's probably upgrade the entire area because this is an older house. There are very many decent quality homes here. This is one of the smaller older homes. But when they went to do this, the problem came up because there are two front yards, which happens not too infrequently but in this case, the front yards each of which must be 35 feet don't meet it on Orchard Street side but it's just by a very small amount. In fact, the variance here will be less than 5%. The distance is in as you can see by that map, are 33.7 or 33.8. We need 35. The reason that the house wasn't ( ) I think would be better explained by the architect but basically it's because of the design of the house and the integrity of that design brought it to that point. They tried several ways to put the house on the survey or map sort of speak but this construction and this design is what the owner is trying to do, what the architect is trying to do. To do it, we're simply asking the Board for a variance, which is essentially less than a foot and a half. I would like the architect before I finish, we would like the architect to speak Meryl Kramer and explain the design of the house. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Good evening. MS. KRAMER: Hi, I'm Meryl Kramer. As Mr. Cuddy says, the main reason why we are looking to add on is because we're looking for an external dimension for the screened porch of 12 feet, which brings us to 11 foot 6 inches for internal dimension. This space is what the owner sees as being the main living space during the season where he occupies Page 24- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold the house, which is generally from April thru November and the dimension of 11' 6" is really what we saw as an optimum dimension for furnishing and for living. Once we get in much smaller than that it's really not going to be a comfortable room and because of the configuration of this addition it would be more of a bowling alley if we went in those extra feet so were really looking - this is the whole purpose is to make this, this space we didn't want to be sub-optimal for that. We didn't want to feel too confined. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Before you leave, any questions of the architect, ladies and gentlemen? No, thank you. MS. KRAMER: You're welcome. MEMBER COLL1NS: Oh, I guess I did have one, although Mr. Cuddy can answer, it's very simple. There's the existing one-story addition on the west side of the house and I gather from the drawings that I saw that this addition will go around the corner and will align with the existing one-story segment I guess you call it of the house and the proposed addition is all one-story is that right? MR. CUDDY: The proposed addition Ms. Kramer can explain it better than I can. Have you seen the plans? MEMBER COLL1NS: Well yeah but I got confused. MS. KRAMER: The proposed addition is one-story but we are going two-story and a half if you will above the existing one-story. We're rebuilding the one-story addition because the foundation under there is negligible. So as we were going to rebuild she decided to do an attic space to make a study of the ( ) after. MEMBER COLLINS: But that's around the west side of the house not on the Orchard Road side that you're speaking ot'?. MS. KRAMER: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. MR. CUDDY: It looks more than it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions of the attorney before he leaves ladies and gentlemen? Yes George? MEMBER HORNING: The existing house has a full basement does it or not? MS. KRAMER: Yes. MR. CUDDY: Yes. Page 25 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER HORNING: And so the proposed structure or the new structure will have a full basement also? Is that correct? MR. CUDDY: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: So, the proposed basement will encompass the existing one- story that would be rebuild plus the additional, the proposed addition, all of that would have a full basement underneath it? Is that correct? MR. CUDDY: I just would say simply to the Board that the relief requested I think is not substantial and certainly is not going to adverse effect in the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to move this, get it going. Anyone have any objection to just moving this right now? MEMBER HORNING: I do not. MEMBER COLLINS: No. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll make a motion to approve it as applied for. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 26 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 7:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4865 - TANAS TSATSOS This is a request for a Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section 100-26 concerning lots shown on the Map of Eastern Shores, Section V, filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on December 31, 1968 as File No. 5234. This Waiver of Merger is based on the July 26, 2000 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval determining that under Article II, Section 100-25, Eastern Shores Subdivision Lot No. 133, shown as the westerly portion of County Tax Lot 1000-33-2-24, and Eastern Shores Subdivision Lot No.134, as the easterly portion of 1000-33-2-24, are merged as one lot. "A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot held in common ownership wit the first tot at any time after July 1, 1983...until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements." Location of Property: 1565 Green Hill Lane and South Side of Sound Drive, Greenport. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald, how are you? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm fine thank you. How are you? First let me say that there is no reason as far as the applicant is concerned why last month's application were essentially the same, sought of relief was separated from this one. The applications to the Building Inspector were made at the same time. He apparently needed more time to research the history of these two lots so there is nothing, fishy going on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's all right we like it this way anyway because we're able to concentrate better on it. MR. FITZGERALD: OK. Again as with the previous application both of these properties were purchased in 1969, at a time apparently when people did not pay enough attention to holding properties in two names and as with the others they ended up being merged because they were purchased in the same way at the same time. They were two lots in the Eastern Shores Subdivision and we're asking that they be restored to their original configurations, two separate lots. I think an important factor is that excluding the sound front properties that are across the street from the properties under consideration there are, if this waiver is granted, there will be 22 lots in the immediate area and of those 22, 11 hopefully including the two that we're talking about are the same size or smaller than these two lots and 11, the other half are larger than these two lots. On the other hand if the waiver were to be denied the resulting and existing single lot would be by about 50% larger than any of the other lots in the area including the waterfront properties. The waiver of the merger will in and of itself have no effect on the neighborhood. The end result of the waiver could be that two dwellings would be built on the properties under consideration instead of one. The waiver will have no effect on the natural state of the land and it will not increase the population density in the neighborhood beyond that which was approved in the original subdivision and all of the requirements of Section 100-26 of the Code were a Waiver of Merger on that by these properties and I would be happy to answer your questions if there are any. Page 27 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are always questions Mr. Fitzgerald. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have none. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: Well it's not a question but I just want to say for the record Mr. Fitzgerald will recall that last month I raised the question whether the two lots in East Marion had in fact merged - MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Within the meaning of our law whether they've been one lot all along. As you know the waiver was granted as you probably know I voted against it because I felt that perhaps I was being picky but that was the situation. In my view this one is much more clearly a case of it having been one lot from the beginning reading the deed by which Mr. & Mrs. Tsatsos acquired the land in 1969, it says, it states, that it's the two lots in the subdivision and then says, and combined tailored, taken together I think is the word on the deed and then it's described with meets and bounds as a single property. So I just want to go on the record as saying that I'm afraid I think that this was one lot all along. It did not merge two lots. It was one lot to begin with and to get them separated I think is a matter that requires a subdivision and that's how I will look on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Mrs. Tortora? MR. FITZGERALD: May I respond to that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. FITZGERALD: We can't adhere really know what was in their mind when they bought these properties. However, as I indicated the last time the fact that they purchased what hopefully the're going to turn out to be four lots, would seem to indicate that they that they were in fact doing what they alleged they're doing and that was to buy them in effect as their retirement income to be able to sell them individually. There wouldn't be any reason for buying the two lots as a single lot under those circumstances. So if you can accept that premise I think it goes toward explaining the situation but I understand of course what you're saying. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, just my footnote is that I think on the paper there was a better support for the Tsatsos's position in last month's case because the lot the deed described them as lot x and lot y in the old subdivision and this one describes it as a single parcel of land by the meets and bounds and I guess I'm just being loyally. I'm sorry. Page 28- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I guess on this - I've looked at this pretty carefully. I think it has been one lot for many, many years. It's been one lot for over 31 years. It's been one lot on the County Tax Map. My tax map is I think our Tax Map, County Tax Map, about 15 years has been one lot. One lot in 1980, it was one lot in 1990 and here we are in the year 2000 and it's one lot. It has never been 2 lots as long as my records go back and in fact as long as the record you submitted here go back. In fact one of the original covenants in the restrictions on the lot, which I thought was interesting attached here says that only one house could be built and that's a part of the original deed of( ) this property. In my wildest imagination it's number 1 in the covenants and restrictions that only single family dwelling house for residential purpose shall be built on these premises and that's attached to the deed of sale. So it's one lot and we very rarely and it is by no means evidence that even on the town property card says that the lots been merged and there is, I do not think that the tax bills are in any kind of evidence and wouldn't purport to think that this is only been one tax bill. There's nothing that points to this that it's been two lots. MR. FITZGERALD: OK, I think that was 74~ I think the only thing that I can set forth that indicates it as two lots is that there would have been no reason to buy it as one lot and we can't know that. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any green cards for us Sir? MR. FITZGERALD: It's funny you should ask. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: I only have four of the seven and the posting affidavit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Are you suggesting Sir that by the deed here we're not able to tell whether these people are buying tots 133 and 134 being taken together, or that they're buying two separate lots? MR. FITZGERALD: No, I'm suggesting that we don't know what their intent should be. MEMBER HORNING: We don't know whether they were buying one lot or two lots? MR. FITZGERALD: I think we don't agree as to what their intention was. I think and they think they were buying two lots. Two separate lots to be able at some time in the future like now, to sell as two separate lots. Page 29 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER HORNING: Why wouldn't they get two separate deeds right from the beginning? MR. FITZGERALD: I would really have to know the attorney better to understand that. MEMBER HORNING: OK, I have no more questions. CHAIKMAN GOEHRINGER: All right we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Mr. Fitzgerald we appreciate your coming in. MR. FRITZGERALD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor Of this application? Anybody would like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'11_ make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 30 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 7:41 P.M. - Appl. No. 4871 - JOHN ZOUMAS (Owner Vera Doroski) This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244 based on the September 11, 2000 Notice of Disapproval to locate a new dwelling with a front yard setback at less than the 40 feet minimum code requirement, and rear yard setback at less than the 50 ft. minimum requirement for a parcel of 21,580 sq. ft. in size. 455 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue; 1000-97-7-14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Zoumas how are you tonight? MR. ZOUOMAS: Good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Didn't we see you last month also? MR. ZOUMAS: Yes you did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you want to tell us about the 31 foot 3 inches that you have over there on the closest amount? MR. ZOUMAS: Well as you can see you know the lot is a little weird the way it's situated. That's the best way you know to set the house because you have two front yards on that road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ZOUMAS: So we tried to work up a couple of ways but that looks like that's the best way we can do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Zoumas? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The house is going to be built with its actual front facing on Beebe - MR. ZOUMAS: Beebe Drive. Member Collins: Not on Deer Foot? OK. MR. ZOUMAS: Right, Beebe Drive. Page 31 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: I could see you arguing. I mean I could see reasons for going either way looking at the lot but I just wanted to get that clear. And the dimensions of the house are about - MR. ZOUMAS: 45 - MEMBER COLLINS: 45 wide by MR. ZOUMAS: 33 deep. MEMBER COLLINS: So it's not an exceptionally large house? MR. ZOUMAS: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. The lot obviously creates the problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The only question I had on this was that there were two plans originally. Originally you had proposed the - MR. ZOUMAS: The house on Deer Foot right? Yeah. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, so that's - MR. ZOUMAS: There were. This is like the best you know less yard variance. MEMBER TORTORA: Which one got approval? Do they both have approvals from the a- MR. ZOUMAS: The one facing on Beebe Drive, that's the one that was submitted to the town. MEMBER TORTORA: The one facing? MR. ZOUMAS: Right, Beebe Drive. MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, OK. And the other one as far as you're not going to have to go back to the Health Department with the change? MR. ZOUMAS: No. MEMBER TORTORA: You know the difficulty seems to be that you've got a triangular lot. Page 32- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. ZOUMAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? Speak against the application? State your name for the record Sir. MR. MILNER: My name is Bill Milner. I live at 500 Beebe Drive, across the street from the lot. That lot is about 3 feet higher in elevation than Beebe Drive.' All the water that runs down Beebe Drive runs right across my property right at the creek. I put in 40 yards of fill, tried to stop it, but it still runs down the driveway. If a house goes there with a driveway the yard will be flooded. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not with this Board Sir. MR. MILNER: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not with this Board. We just dealt with the same application of a similar nature with Mr. Zoumas and in fact, the last two applications that, Mr. Zoumas came in with and we will make sure that there is a certain amount of retainance on the property, either through the nature of drywells or whatever the situation is. MEMBER TORTORA: In your opinion what would help? MR. MILNER: I don't know what would work because I'm just barely able to control water that's in the road now because anything came from that property. MEMBER HORNING: Have you complained to the Town Highway Department? MR. MILNER: No, there's been a problem on Beebe Drive for years. It floods at the end. They've got drywells and nothing helps. It floods Amber Lane. MEMBER TORTORA: So you're afraid of that elevation coming more right down - MR. MILNER: It's going into the creek. It's washed my dock out. MEMBER TORTORA: All I can tell you is that if we approved this application, part of the application and that's one of the reasons I will say right in front of you is that we would put a condition in there that no Mn-off, no Mn-Off from the construction of this house go off site and that would be a matter of public record and enforceable. Page 33 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. MILNER: Also, if the house is put parallel to the west property line, somehow it would have almost a zero variance to the building. Instead of being parallel with either Beebe or Antler or Beebe or Deer Foot, - MEMBER TORTORA: You know you lost me. Would you come show us? MR. MILNER: Sure. (discussing amongst themselves) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually quite honestly that's the way I would have built it because then I'd have a circular driveway going to both roads. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean you know, I drew my little house and I moved it all over this and I didn't come up to that conclusion. May I see that? MR. MILNER: Well I was interested in the lot at one time. MEMBER COLLINS: This is proposing to put it way back at the you sort of might call it the dead end of the lot. MR. MILNER: Well what's the side yard clearance then 25 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER TORTORA: Depends on the size of the lot. MEMBER COLLINS: But that would be a rear yard it seems to me because the town insists that you have a rear yard and they've got two front yards so that's the rear yard and you'd need 50 feet I think for a rear yard there. I mean I don't think he has an alternative. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would just twist the house Sir right in its original position, right there. MR. MILNER: Yeah it would change the clearances. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well not necessarily, it would put the corners out. It would put the corners out. The corners would be out farther, closest to the property line. If you'd twisted this house right, in this position that's where it would have to be twisted. MR. MILNER: I would twist the other way so that the long side was - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean twist it like this. MR. MILNER: Yeah, yeah. Just a consideration, that's all. Page 34- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but we will put the restriction in on the basis of that water. MEMBER COLLINS: Well we can revisit it. I just wonder. I want to talk in the Board. We don't have to talk here about the realism of - it seems to me that what Mr. Milner is saying is the flooding is chronic on Beebe Drive. His land lies downhill from this property and in his view if this property is developed and at least partially deforested which you have to do to develop it, that he is going to suffer badly. I think that's Mr. Milner's position and the angling of the house on the property is about 1/3 order consideration in that and given his concern I think we have to be very careful in saying, well we can put conditions on the forbid flooding. We can put conditions on about what they have to do during construction no question about that CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I disagree with you. If we put - MEMBER COLLINS: But, but, no, no, I think if we're going todo it we have to have a lot of input as to what we're putting in as for instance we did with Mr. Zoumas up on Kenny Road - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cedar Drive, Oak Drive. MEMBER COLLINS: You know where we asked for some real input about what the issues were rather than our behaving like engineers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You certainly, well we're not engineers. MEMBER COLLINS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we can certainly refer this to the Town Engineer at this time based upon Mr. Milner's concern because I'm sure that he's made complaints, not he but maybe his neighbors have made complaints. So maybe we should just take this period of time to refer it to the Town Engineer and see what his opinion is regarding MR. MILNER: I think that's a good idea. MEMBER TORTORA: What are we specifically in the outcome looking for? We've suggested methods of preventing road run-off from any construction on this project from going off site. What, what's the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, we're asking for recommendations so that not only during construction but after construction that the run-off will be maintained on the property. Page 35 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you Mr. Chairman that's really why I brought it up. I think you know we are not engineers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Zoumas as you know with the one before this one that we had maybe we could have your engineer go look at this? MR. ZOUMAS: Do I have a choice, you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the choice you have is that we may not get anything from the Town Engineer and then you're not going to get the variance. MR. ZOUMAS: H'm, h'm. If he's already having water problems then why is building a house going to make it any different? You know what I'm saying? I don't think - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you're going to buy this lot, right? MR. ZOUMAS: Well ! already own it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You already own it and you're building a spec house there? MR. ZOLrMAS: No, it's already sold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a contract? MR. ZOUMAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. The question I guess is, how much of the land is going to be defoliated? How many trees are you taking down? MR. ZOUMAS: Well we always take 20 feet around the whole house, 20-22 feet that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So give us the plan on what you're going to do with the driveway and how you're going to - MR. ZOUMAS: Well the driveway plan the survey shows where it's going to come into. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINER: Yeah, but we don't want water running out of the driveway down across the street on to this man's property. That's the issue. MR. ZOUMAS: Well what happens if the property is elevated like a couple of feet that he says that I have no choice the water moves on most of the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not without a drain on it. You can put a drain in. Page 36 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold MR. ZOUMAS: It's still going to mn and if you put it against the house you can stop it from going out you can't. You're going to have some kind of a wall to stop the water from going into the drain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All tight. I guess you leave me no other choice but to go to the Town Engineer so we'll ask him for his recommendations. MR. ZOUMAS: Well I can get my own engineer to look at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: We'll take both. We'll take yours and we'll take the towns. MEMBER TORTORA: I think we should take both Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All fight we'll get both. So whatever you can give us we'll take. Maybe you can convince these nice people not to put a blocked up driveway in and that would help the situation a lot too. But you know, stone is the greatest thing in the word because you get percolation down instead of out to both directions, all four directions. But I don't have an asphalt driveway. I have a stone driveway. If I had an asphalt driveway it would be the neighbor's yard every time it rained. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, so the letter that we're going to write to the Town Engineer is just for a - recommend what's to prevent mn-off before during construction and after right? CHAIRMAN CJOEHRINGER: All right so we'll recess this to the next regular scheduled meeting. MEMBER COLLINS: Someone else wanted to speak Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not finished yet. I'll be tight with you Ma'am. Yes, Ma'am, I'm sorry. I need you to use the mike and to state your name also. MS. WHITEHEAD: I~m Eileen Whitehead, 45 Deer Foot Path. I have concerns about it. My first concern is that I was not notified about this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How far are you from the property? MS. WHITEHEAD: I'm across the street cater cornered. ! have no - he enters my property (inaudible-coughing) across the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, would you just show us on here what property. (showing where her property is on the map) Page 37 - October 19, ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 2OOO MEMBER HORNING: What road is your driveway on? MS. WHITEHAD: On Deer Foot. Should I have been notified? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Only those immediately across the street on all sides and that's why it's advertised. MS. WHITEHEAD: Because the advertisement was not readily visible. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALKI: Well actually there's a sign. You get notice, people who live directly across the street get notice, and it's also advertised in the newspaper and that's probably how you heard about it, right? MS. WHITEHEAD: One of my neighbors told me. BOARD SECRETARY KowALsKI: So you have the notice across the street - MS. WHITEHEAD: Am ! permitted to speak to the issues? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, sure, definitely. MS. WHITEHEAD: So do I need to wait then, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, not at all: No no-one is ever stopped from speaking. MS. WHITEHEAD: My concern is that primarily this is a rather large high house, a Victorian type and that would be what is it 10 feet offthe road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, 31' 3" MS. WHITEHEAD: It's 31 feet but that first 10, belongs to the town? CHAIRMAN GOERHIGNER: 7. MS. WHITEHEAD: Seven feet. The rest probably would be backyard with a virtual wall towering into the sky, someone else's backyard facing my front yard, and front yards, generally are landscaped to look nice. This doesn't keep with the look of the neighborhood and I understand that it's an awkward situation because the property is not sized but to put a Victorian house and then there would be porches that usually surround it, it's a very small back yard and all we need to see from Deer Foot is someone else's back yard and I don't think it lends itself to the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's the reason why I asked how many trees, was he was going to take down? Page 38 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MRS. WHITEHEAD: Even if he has any back yard already that 7 feet has been cleared so there's of that 31 it's been cleared, it's kept cleared, there's only that small amount if he's going to have any back yard at all. It's going to be an open back yard unless he puts fences~ MEMBER TORTORA: On the in that he needs a variance on which is the Deer Foot Path which is - MS. WHITEHEAD: I'm Deer Foot. MEMBER TORTORA: You're Deer Foot and he's asking for roughly a 9 foot variance on that side. I think we could definitely look at some buffering - MS. WHITEHEAD: Well a 9 foot variance is the size of the wall of the back of his house is towering up and there are so many houses are in there and the one next door to it is a cape and the other houses surrounding with exception of one (inaudible-moving of papers) with the houses across the street on Beebe appear to be one-story because it slopes down to the water so that it sticks out like a sore thumb. MEMBER TORTORA: I've seen the houses and I hear you but on the other hand that's a style of house and really people are free to do that. MS. WHITEHEAD: I realize that but given the size of the property and how that's going to abut on to you're asking for a variance ( ) he created equal from this and I would ask you please to be sensible because I still have to look at this back of the house wall that's just going to tower (). MEMBER TORTORA: It wouldn't matter from where if I understand where you live, it's not going to matter how he positioned the house on the lot. MS. WHITEHEAD: You mean the house that's being built there? MEMBER TORTORA: Pardon me. MS. WHITEHEAD: More sensitive a smaller house. MEMBER TORTORA: We don't have the right really to say that. MS. WHITEHEAD: No, but you do have the right to protect me from - you know they don't have enough property. The size of the back yard does not lend itself to the size of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: We can protect you through screening. We cannot really protect you by saying we can't build a bigger house, or, that style of house - Page 39 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MS. WHITEHEAD: Then what is the purpose of land sizes? MEMBER COLLINS: No Lydia they're asking for setback variances at'cer all. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. How's that going to - MEMBER COLLINS: If we don't give them the setback variance they've got to build a house that will fit. It may still be a big shoulder Victorian. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I mean. That's what I'm trying to tell the lady. MEMBER COLLINS : Right. OK. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words - MEMBER COLLINS: · I don't want you to mislead her. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I was trying not to do. In other words even if we didn't give them a variance they could still build a two-story huge Victorian house and it would meet, it could meet all of the setbacks but you wouldn't have the benefit of we could put a restriction on perhaps some screening if we give a variance. If we don't give a variance, he can still build - MS. WHITEHEAD: Screening (changed tape). CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: We're not big in the fences. We're more with the natural screening. MEMBER DINIZIO: He's entitled to this. MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes I realize that but I think it's essential that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's his front yard. MEMBER DINIZIO: She's talking about looking into the rear yard. MEMBER COLLINS: No, she's across Deer Foot. MEMBER DINIZIO: The lady's concern is looking at someone's rear yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes. Page 40 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold MEMBER DINIZIO: A 6 foot fence can go in a rear yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a front yard though. MEMBER COLLINS: She means this. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim he's got two front yards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's got three front yards. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that 4 foot then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, correct. MS. WHITEHEAD: I think as you stated, that there are two front yards. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: There are actually 3 from yards. We will definitely look at this. I have to be honest with you. I want to see more cleaning on the lot because I can't understand exactly where the house is going anyway. I think you really should run a machine in there, Mr. Zoumas and clean it up a little bit and stake it out so that we can understand exactly- MR. ZOUMAS: It's already staked out. We did that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the first time I went down there I didn't see any stake. MR. ZOUMAS: It was done. MS. WHITEHEAD: Well I tried to walk in and tried to look down and I couldn't see it. MR. ZOUMAS: It was done on the 10th. October 10th it was staked out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was there before that. I was on - MR. ZOUMAS: The property was staked out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was there on the 29th of September. MR. ZOUMAS: This was done on the l0th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: rll go back and look at it. If I need more cleaning I'll tell you. MR. ZOUMAS: Can I just say something to the lady? Page 41 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you can say it to us. You can use the mike or whatever. MR. ZOUMAS: If you go with a smaller house, one-story then I'm going to need more of a variance. That's why we went with a two-story. So you won't spoil you know the front yard and the rear yard. You know what I'm saying? If I do a smaller house one- story you can't do a ranch like 40 feet (). You know the ranch has to go at least 58 feet - 60 feet and then I'm going to need more of a side yard variance and rear yard. That's why we decided to do a two-story, so it would be less of a variance. MS. WHITEHEAD: I think the lot was created so that when you go into a neighborhood you'd have a good idea what to expect and I think sensitivity has to be given to the people that bought there originally assuming that other people would build within certain confines and I understand that when you own property you have a right to build on it but I still think sensitivity should be given and brought the property knowing that it was not the right size and that I just ask for sensitivity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a minute. Wait one second. You raise a very interesting question I have to tell you and I do appreciate your raising it not only for your own significance but just in general and it's an issue that I want to discuss with the Town Attorney anyway just to see how far we can deal with that issue because we can require screening, there's no question about it and our screening is usually an issue of maintained green bushes of a certain height of a certain width of a certain distance planted you know and continuously maintained. That's the major one that we deal with. In the prior application with this builder we asked him not to defoliate the entire rear yard of the premises. In this case we're referring to the rear yard even though it is a front yard the area that you have most visibility. So when we come back I'm going to go back and look at the property when it's staked which I hadn't done because as I said I was there on the 29th of September or thereabout and we may ask him to flag some trees that he intends to keep, we may ask him to come up with a landscaping plan. We're not sure. There are many, many things that we have within the power of the Zoning Board to deal with but I have to tell you that you really raise a very interesting issue. An issue that concerns me and I appreciate your raising it. So we'll see you back next month. MS. WHITEHEAD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir, Ma'am, whomever would like to speak, or both of you. Could you state your name for the record? MS. BROOKS: Nancy and Brian Brooks. We're the people who want to build the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you spell your last name. MRS. BROOKS: BROOKS. We just want to ease the neighbors' concern. Page 42 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold MR. BROOKS: We have three children. We can't build a smaller house and it's our intention to leave as much room as possible. MRS. BROOKS: Yeah, we want the buffer area on the side. We want the buffer in the back in both sides. MR. BROOKS: The back, the woods. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're telling us is that your going to work with us and you're going to work with these people and you're going to work with the builder. OK, that's great. MR. BROOKS: The trees in the back are very tall. MRS. BROOKS: Yeah. We moved here because we liked the area so much and we don't want to do anything to destroy the look of the area but as far as like the house goes, it is a half-acre lot. I realize that the variance that we're getting is only because the house that you could build on would be so small that I realize what you were saying about the house would be as high, like you can make it in width but it would be as high as it is now. So the height of the house wouldn't change even if the width would meet the, you know without a variance. So you know we want to keep the property as full of trees as possible and we don't want to wreck the area at all. MR. BROOKS: The trees are so tall and the back yard no matter how high the house is it'll cover substantially- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want you to think of one thing. I've been on this Board for 20-1/2 years and it's not only what you want, we sincerely hope that you live in peaceful coexistence in this house for as long as you want to live in this town but remember that there are times when you may intend to sell the house also. The restrictions that we put on this property are going to be restrictions that will be placed on the property forever and ever and that is the reason why we're here and that's the reason why this nice lady spoke and this gentleman spoke about his drainage problem. So it's important that we take everything into consideration. MR. BROOKS: We are sensitive to the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MR. BROOKS: .I mean we want to fit in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. Page 43 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. BROOKS: Regarding his concerns about the mn-off; you know like you said, a stone driveway isn't out of the question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you know, everything I've seen that's constructed in- MR. BROOKS: ( ) he's going to build there by himself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everything that I see, today is easy with macadam because it's down it's how it's done but it really doesn't serve itself to be the greatest material in the world because it does create problems and it looks elean and so on and so forth but there are other surfaces which are better. MR. BROOKS: I'm just wondering if he's concerned about a house there. He told us he was going to build a house there to rent. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:OK, all right so that's where we are. We're going to carry this on to the next meeting and we would appreciate anything you can do. I need the Affidavit of Posting and the green cards you have. MR. ZOUMAS: I already brought them in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right so that's where we are at this point. Everybody's in line of what we're going to do and what's going to happen here and we're going to wrap it up on the 16th. We're going to close the hearing at that point. We're going to make a decision. November 16~, OK, and then you'll be able to get your foundation in for the winter and work on the house during the winter and so on and so forth. I would appreciate it for the people involved that you know who your neighbors are now, that you approach them, talk to them about potential landscaping plan, whatever we can do so that we have some really positive situations. OK, so we're going to recess this to November 16th. Thank you very much. I offer that as a resolution. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 44 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 8:09 P.M. - Appl. No. 4868 - B. SHINN/SltINN VINEYARD~ LLC Variance under Article III, Section 100-3IA. 1 based on the July 21, 2000 Notice of Disapproval of an application to alter an agricultural building by adding a shower facility. The reason for disapproval is that "the design and presence of a full bath within the structure constitutes a second dwelling unit on the parcel, at 2000 Oregon Road, Mattituck; 1000-100-4-3. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Good evening nice people. We sincerely enjoyed the tour of your historical barn. It was magnificent. Truly, truly magnificent and I have absolutely no problem with your request and I'll ask anybody else but I want to ask you if you have anything you'd like to address. MRS. SHINN: No, I mean you were over and I appreciate your sensitivity towards what we're trying to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHIRNGER: questions of these people? Yeah, truly beautiful job, sure. Mr. Dinizio, any MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a procedural question of you Mr. Chairman. The three of us were over and we certainly heard from the owners what their plans are. What the considerations are but none of that is in the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And I'd like to have some of it in the record and I'm just asking for a suggestion of how to do it. You know, that this is, that they planted vines that they're expecting to develop a winery, you know, etcetera. MEMBER TORTORA: Actually I asked this question years ago and got an opinion. When we do inspections like this and we have discussions all we're going to do as the - is just repeat what we saw on inspection and what we discussed so that there's a record. We found a labor camp. (jokingly) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Lydia that is on the record. MEMBER TORTORA: That was said in jest. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Why don't you let me say it extemporary and you ladies can add to it. Page 45 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: All right. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not going to say a word. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We had two buildings on a survey, which you have now merged together. The larger of the two buildings is a multi story barn with a bolted ceiling, which is completely renovated, completely heated and contiguous to that is a small building, which we uniquely saw a total renovation of in its original setting. It's really a magnificent little building and or part of that building is a bathroom area, which you're requesting, the applicants are requesting for the purposes of applying certain insecticides when we use for fungicides whatever other things you apply to grapes to make them grow and flourish. It is of your necessity since you do not live at this premises to take your clothes off in this building, shower and put clean clothes on before you get in your vehicle and go back to your house and I assume take those clothes either with you or wash them at that location. The evidence of what we had seen in this building was basically .a heating system that services both buildings to our knowledge and you had informed us that the barn that we had seen the tractor in will eventually be the area, which will contain the tanks for your vineyard, OK, at which time you will move over to the large building to the west and use that not you particularly but your equipment will move over to the large building to the west and you have informed us that the house is rented and that you intend to keep that situation as long as you know even if it will be a farmhand or a wine maker in the future and that you have a house in Southold and you enjoy that house in Southold and you invited us to come down at anytime to appreciate your property, which we really did enjoy knowing because there are times when we might stop by and say "hello". Is there anything you would like to add to that? MRS. SHINN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we sincerely at this point I will ask if anybody else has any questions in the audience regarding this application? Is there anybody would like to speak for or against it? Hearing no questions I'll make a motion granting it as applied for. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 46- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 8:25 P.M. - Appl. No. 4875 - LESLIE GAZZOLA Variance under Article III, Section 100-33A, based on the August 21, 2000 Notice of Disapproval of an application to locate an accessory building partly in a side yard. Location of Property: 495 Elizabeth Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-78-5-2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir how are you? MR. GAZZOLA: Good evening, fine and yourself?. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: I trust your deck is built or a? MR. GAZZOLA: No, I thought I was going to move out of this project and a thank you for the' variance and the deck. I'm still waRRing for the permit but what happened in the meantime I went to a - right along my neighbor has been asking me for some relief on the garage and I thought it would be the appropriate place. After the last meeting when I had the garage where it was due to be staked, I do agree with my neighbor that it should be forward somewhat. Unfortunately, due to the angle of my house, had the house been square and parallel I wouldn't have this issue in the rear yard, side yard. CHAIRMAxN GOEHRINGER: OK, all right so we're talking 10 feet from the property line, 21 feet from the other property line. MR. GAZZOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And some 19 by 20 foot, 23 foot garage? MR. GAZZOLA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it is one-story? MR. GAZZOLA: One-story. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: You say about 12 feet or so? MR. GAZZOLA: About t0. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right we'll start with Mrs. Tortora, any questions of Mr. Gazzola? MEMBER TORTORA: No, just - MR, GAZZOLA: I think my neighbor had written a letter to the Board. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes She has. Page 47- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of $outhold MEMBER TORTORA: The letter that a- it's a Cheryl Hansen? MR. GAZZOLA: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And she's the adjoining neighbor? MR. GAZZOLA: Yes, she closed on that property April or May. MEMBER TORTORA: And I think she said she's very concerned that it's only going to be 10 foot from the property line. MEMBER COLL1NS: No she said, she's in favor of it. MEMBER TORTORA: Have I got the fight letter? CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: It says, "I know it is the Board's desire to maintain the appearance of the neighborhood and also proper distance from each home. For these reasons we are asking for relief of 11 feet." MEMBER TORTORA: 11 feet not 10. MR. GAZZOLA: Well she's asking for an increase from 11 because 10 foot is a little too close. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She wants another foot? MR. GAZZOLA: She wants a total of 11 foot. MEMBER TORTORA: Another 11 feet. MR. GAZZOLA: She wants to be 11 feet away. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, yes, Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: From where? I mean I was very confused by Ms. Hansen's letter so lets try and pin it down. Where the garage is proposed is 10 foot from that driveway. MR. GAZZOLA: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: From the property line on the driveway and 21 foot from the land that's to what I would call I think the east, OK, and that's Hansen right, to the east? MR. GAZZOLA: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And that's 21 foot from that property line? Page 48 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. GAZZOLA: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: H'm, h'm. MEMBER COLLINS: And the way I read her letter she said, she says, "we agree with the variance being requested" and then she says, when it was "first staked we were concerned," and when you first staked it you had it closer to her property line. MR. GAZZOLA: To the east. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes and you've since moved it. MR. GAZZOLA: I moved it 11 foot forward or - MEMBER COLLINS: And the opening paragraph seemed to say, this is good and then she said, "the proposed variance would provide the additional spacing between the two buildings", and then it became a concern to us, I took this to mean the original location was too close to her lot line and then you're asking relief of 11 feet, I honestly don't know what that means, do you? MR. GAZZOLA: Yeah, it's 11 feet in addition to the 10 foot to be a total of 21 feet - MEMBER COLLINS: To the driveway? MR. GAZZOLA: No, from the Hansen's property line. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Her line. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, but she's got it. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: That's right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, but it was before, it was 10 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, but she just wrote the letter, OK. The 11 foot that she's referring to is the 11 foot that has been added since his original plan. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: T-hat's right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so she's happy. BOARAD SECRTARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Page 49- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. GAZZOLA: That's why I'm here. I want happy neighbors. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, I was just confused. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 21 feet here, 10 and 11 is 21 together. MEMBER COLLINS: It was originally 10 and now it's 21. CHAIRMAN GOERH1NGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and by being 21 it technically puts it out of the back yard and into - MR. GAZZOLA: The side yard. MEMBER COLLINS: ,The side yard. MR. GAZZOLA: Because of the angle of the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to put any screening around this at all? MR. GAZZOLA: They're already on - evergreens along the driveway. So we'll probably put some Cedar trees behind the screening. I'll landscape it up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Dinizio, any questions of this man? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: While you're standing there, anybody else 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 COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 50 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 8:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4878 - WILLIAM S. KELLY Variance under Article III, Section 100-33A, based on the Building Department's . September 22, 2000 Notice of Disapproval of an application for a one-family dwelling proposed at less 50 feet from street front property lines. 1840 Brigantine Drive and Squarerigger Lane, Southold; CTM No. 1000-79-4-24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Look at that a man with green cards, what a guy. (jokingly). MR. KELLY: I'm legal. (jokingly) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And who are you? MR. KELLY: t!m William Kelly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Aha, the applicant. MR. KELLY: Yeah, imagine that and I'm also a resident of the Harbor Lights Association and my property is the a - the house I live in is actually to the south. I don't know if anybody went out there.'? CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: Yes. MR. KELLY: We're on what would be the a - my own personal property is on the south of that property on the east side of Brigantine Drive. It would be the first house south. But anyhow, I've gone through the process of getting DEC approval and Town Trustee approval and as a result their approvals a good portion of the property has been buffered in order to protect the wetland? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. MR. KELLY: So that's forced my hardship as far as basically it's considered the comer lot even though Squarerigger Road is at this point in time a paper road and then Brigantine Drive I'm requesting a 35 foot setback there and one of the things in requesting that setback in the area itself of Harbor Lights Brigantine Drive, it's not uncommon that there be a 35 foot setback on those distance residences. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Yeah, I know, we just did it around the corner. MR. KELLY: OK, the other thing is probably the most important thing is, in 1968 when the subdivision was done, at that point in time, the 35 foot setback was in effect for that zone and then a - Page 51 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We had some great disagreement in that 35 foot aspect down on Anchor Lane. You will admit however, that there are many houses in the area that are farther away than 35 feet? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Particularly the houses across the street. MR. KELLY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Substantially. MR. KELLY: Most of them are at50 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean you really can't tell because there's woods in front of them but. MR. KELLY: Yeah, the one across the street and the one down the street, who we're friendly with, both of them are 50 feet and that's what was required by code as a pre- existing non-conforming ( ) zoning and I understand that but you know my problem is the wetland in the back and I've given up over probably close to half of my property to the State of New York and the Town of Southold as open space and I'm still paying taxes on it. So that's my hardship and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certainly you have some IRS benefits out of that, I'm sure. But this is a one-story house? MR. KELLY: It's actually a two-story. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it's 1200 sq. fi. on the footprint area? MR. KELLY: 1250 sq. ft. was allowed by the DEC, and I think the DEC more or less said that stands for everybody else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the depth of the house at its greatest depth? MR. KELLY: It's about 30 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 30 feet wide? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sounds like Meadow Lane in Mattituck to me. That's what we did in Meadow Lane. All right, lets see any questions of this applicant, ladies and gentlemen? Page 52- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MEMBER COLLINS: I just had a question about Squarerigger Lane. I realize of course it's just a little path right now but where it ends which is basically where your property line ends that land back there is a - I mean on the tax map it just shows as a single big parcel. That's the land that's left. I mean that's never going to be subdivided That's marshland, right? MR. KELLY: No, it's not and actually my lot, the lot that I requesting the variance for the lot to the north of it and then the lot to the north of that lot, so those three lots fight there are backed up by the wetland that affects my property. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. MR. KELLY: And then it goes back to the a - there's actually a catch basin or a recharge basin. So, that area. immediately behind those properties would probably be non- developable because of the wetland and because of the recharge basin. But as far as that total acreage parcel, I think someone is in the process of actually trying to get a subdivision on that. MEMBER COLLINS: Really, OK MR. KELLY: And as far as Squarerigger goes, Jack Able who is the President of the Association of Harbor Lights is actually here. ! don't know if he's for me or against me but as far as Squarerigger goes, the Association is in dual ownership I believe at this point in time on Squarerigger and a they're trying to control that so that no development would take place - MEMBER COLLINS: OK. The reason I asked about Squarerigger simply was you do have because you face on two roads, two front yards - MR. KELLY: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And both of them require variances and I was just trying to get kind of a feeling for what Squarerigger might ever turn into and I don't want to push that a lot further. MR. KELLY: I would say that's an unknbwn but. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, yeah, that's why I don't want to push it a lot further. On the survey the Ingegno survey that you submitted to us, it shows the proposed house and the topography you have shaded a significant area and its marked "limit of land clearing and ground disturbance - Page 53 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. KELLY: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: "Close to the house." That, is it correct, that that is really the bottom line from the environmental authorities? That what they have told you? MR. KELLY: That is correct, yeah. I actually tried to get them to make that a 30 foot buffer. Their comment to me was we always give what the town gives. MEMBER COLLINS: So what you're telling us is, a - MR. KELLY: They gave me a 35 foot buffer. That's a 35 foot buffer. That's 35 feet and if you went off the property you saw that 35 foot buffer was actually staked so you can see limited plan. That means at that line and anywhere away from the house from that line, I cannot, I can do absolutely no planning. I'm not even allowed according to their permit issued to me I can't even put dead wood out there. MEMBER COLLINS: .No, I'm not raising this to argue, I just wanted - MR. KELLY: OK, I just want you to understand what the buffer - MEMBER COLLINS: I want our record to show what your situation is and as I understand your situation given the constraints put on you by the environmental - MR. KELLY: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Considerations and their rulings you've got to build the house where you want to build the house because that's the only place you can build the house. IvIR. KELLY: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean you can't, unless you build a very small house. MR. KELLY: I'm trying to allow enough - right- and I'm trying to allow enough space even though I'm allowed to clear to that line and construction of a house you have to dig a hole in order to dig the hole you know you're going to have a spillover. So I'm also trying to protect the line itself so I have to allow myself some distance off of that line with the house and so with all those in effect and the shape of the house to a certain degree was dictated by if you follow the line you can see there's a jog in the house and the reason there's a jog in the house is so that we can get that back from that line as well and why those sizes were picked was because those sizes made sense in the actual design of the house and the only reason I brought up where I actually live is because the house we propose to build there in design, in architectural design is the same style as the house we live in now, which is an old farmhouse style. So that's what we're kind of trying to do. Page 54 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to live in this house? MR. KELLY: I'm uncertain about it at this point. I have the option here to build this house. I have two properties. I can't afford two houses so I would sell one or the other and in building this house I would build a house in the intent that I would want to live there because if it came down to a point where if the property wasn't sold prior to the completion of the construction I would put both properties up for sale, whichever one I sold I would keep the other. MEMBER COLLINS: So you want to build a house you want to live in? MR. KELLY: Actually tax wise - MEMBER COLLINS: No I wanted the record to show that you basically are backed into a corner. MR. KELLY: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: That's quite a phrase. Well my mother built a house on Anchor Lane 30 years ago so I've taken an interest in the neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: All right we're going to take some testimony from the President of Harbor Lights and whomever else wants to speak. MR. KELLY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir, I need you to state your name for the record so we can grill you. MR. ABLE: My name is John Able. I'm a the President of Windjammer Drive in Southold in the Harbor Lights area. I'm also the President of The Harbor Lights Association. The Association does own a small strip of land adjacent to this property. It's like a 50 x 100 which we just acquired over the past year ( ) and a as I said we own this small strip and is adjacent to the property in question. We're not opposed. As far as I know there was no other opposition to it and I'm not ( ) by members but lack of opposition I have not heard any opposition to the variance so I have no problem on that. I do have two questions. One is whether this property could be used for any other use besides a resident? As Kelly said before, there is this large undeveloped area behind us in Harbor Lights and we're very concerned about that because a developer has filed plans for a development in that area. He has proposed access through the roads of Harbor Lights, which Harbor Lights Association now owns. We just don't want a - we're concerned our question is whether a road could be built through this property to this undeveloped area? Page 55 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: I say yes and that's a question the Planning Board would have to answer and in reference to your first question. I think the property could be sold to the town for open space if they had an interest in it and I don't know if they have an interest in it or not. MR. ABLE: But my question is could they build a road to this property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I say yes. You mean Mr. Kelly's property or a - MR. ABLE: No, Mr. Kelly's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no-way, no. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Only if Mr. Kelly agreed. MR. ABLE: We acquired our property for the sake of stopping people from going into the back. MEMBER TORTORA: Where is your property? MR. ABLE: It's on Squarerigger Lane. MEMBER TORTORA: It's adjacent to it? MR. ABLE: It's 50 x 100. That's between the two lots. MEMBER TORTORA: It's this piece here Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Yeah, that whole piece. That whole road, the whole road. MEMBER TORTORA: Squarerigger Lane or this piece next to it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe it's Squarerigger Lane. Did you acquire that from the county? MR. ABLE: No, the developers of the Harbor Lights - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Reese? MR. ABLE: Reeses donated it to the Association. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. MEMBER TORTORA: So you own Squarerigger Lane now? Page 56- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Association does. MR. ABLE: We own 50 x 100 strip dirt right offBrigantine Drive. MEMBER DINIZIO: Not the whole thing? Just the frontage footage - MR. ABLE: Squarefigger has never been developed as a road. MEMBER TORTORA: And your question is, could they go through your - MR. ABLE: Could they build a road through Mr. Kelly's property in the event Mr. Kelly decides to sell it to somebody else? CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Not unless they want to build a bridge, which would probably cost them a million dollars. MR. ABLE: Because they do have the restrictions on the wetlands and so forth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MR. ABLE: I would think that would kill it right there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ABLE: We like to make sure of these things. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right anything else you'd like to ask us? MR. ABLE: The second question is Mr. Kelly does have a "for sale" sign on the property and we wanted to know about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why we ask the question. MR. ABLE: Is this variance reconditioned to that? As I said, we're not opposed to the variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it goes with the property, that's why we ask the question. MR. ABLE: OK, that's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for coming in. Is there anybody else would like to ask any other questions of anyone in particular, the applicant? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion see if anybody else in the audience would like to speak regarding this Page 57- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold application pro or con? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the heating reserving decision until later. Hope to have a decision for you in about a week Sir. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution Page 58 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 8:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4826 - WILLIAM PENNY/TIDY CAR (Continued hearing - postponement requested by Agent 8/18/0. Comer of CR 48 and Youngs Avenue, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-55-5-2.2. Zoned: General Business. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Penny this is what occurred so far in your application. As you know Mr. McCarthy came before us. We raised a couple of issues. The main issue was 100 foot setback which the Planning Board had raised regarding property on CR 48. Then there was an issue raised in reference to this property is merged to your present piece of property or is it in a separate corporation? MR. PENNY: No, it's all one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's all one, OK. 'Then the issue came in about the width of the building because the Planning Board is concerned about the width of the building and we really didn't take a great deal of testimony regarding that issue. However, it is our understanding that the width that you are applying for is what you construe to be the minimum width. Is that tree or not tree? MR. PENNY: Yeah, I asked for 8 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. PENNY: We've sat down and tried to work it out you know, with the size of the units and using a forklift and taking a more (). It really came out more like 100 but you know we can handle 80, 60 would be ridiculous because there's no way we could. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know where you are with the Planning Board at this time? MR. PENNY: Not really. I mean I had sat down with them maybe a year or two ago talked to them about it and they were very enthusiastic about us putting the building up. They even were more then we were. But we you know, the more we sat down and thought about it with the expanse that we've had with the you know with the business that it would work very well for us to be able to put them inside, keep the staging area for you know, like working on them behind a fenced in area and have a small storage area behind the building and then literally leave the whole front open for parking, the way it should be obviously we're kind of running out of room literally. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. It sounds like you've been talking a little while on this whole project. I mean I know that it's been for us a long period of time. MR. PENNY: Oh, yeah, this has been a, we've been, this has been ongoing for quite a long time but again we never realized that we really were very pleased but we never realized that this would turn into what it did. We've been doing very well and we're very Page 59- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold happy and we love what we're doing, but again, I want to organize it a little bit better. That's why we want to the building on it. You know I take these off' all the time and move them around. I put them in shows, 60 feet up I mean it's not even three years, you know what I mean. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just do for us within the next month a little - MR. PENNY: Sketch? CHAIRMAN GOERH1NGER: Meeting with the Planning Board and I should not say new, I should say have and tell us where you are with them, come back and tell us where we're going and then we will illustriously close the hearing and - MR. PENNY: The last time I did talk to them they said, you know, they said, that they were like absolutely just go for a variance, we want it very badly and that's kind of how we left it. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Because that's not the way we understood it. They're still quite adamant about the accession of anymore than 60 feet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's also landscaping and the setback of the building. MR. PENNY: The setback we want. Obviously the building we already have because I don't have enough back yard to go any further than that. So I know we're the same situation we face two roads but the setback you know we wanted right in front of our building and then again - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just so you understand again the issue of 100 feet came up and that's you know, I want to know if that's viable or not viable. !know it's not what you applied for. MR. PENNY: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So I need you to discuss that with them and then get back to us. I think what we'll do is we'll recess this until December meeting if it's all right with you and give you some chance to find out exactly where your consultants are with this and then we can go from there. MR. PENNY: OK. When is the next Planning Board meeting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't know. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's usually every two weeks. Page 60- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR PENNY: Every two weeks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, just call them tomorrow, 1938. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:~J~n MOnday nigm. MR. PENNY: Yeah, I'll sit down and talk to them again and then we can just figure out what you know, like I said, 60 feet we calculated that and tried to work with it, it just doesn't work. There's just no way. We'll be banging things up and you know, it's just not going to happen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. pENNY: All right, I'll talk to them, thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wait, wait a minute. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Perry, I would like to get this thing moving. MR. PENNY: Oh, I want to too. Unfortunately - MEMBER TORTORA: We're on the same ( ) because its, the application date was January of last year and we recessed this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times, so we're not holding this thing back. MR. PENNY: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: At this point if we don't get the information we're ( ) your cause MR. PENNY: Right, no, no, I'm taking charge, that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's good. MEMBER TORTORA: Very good. MR. PENNY: I contest. I mean, I didn't get a phone call today, nothing. So I'm just going to take charge. I go over to the Planning Board and I promise you I'll call this week and we'll set down a time and we'll sit down and talk and we'll get on the Agenda for the next hearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And call us and let us know how you made out. MR. PENNY: Yeah, yeah. Do you want me to call you before the meeting? Page 61 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: After, after their meeting. MEMBER TORTORA: Just make sure you show up. MR. PENNY: Oh before the next - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Before our meeting, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tell us how you're doing. Send us a letter whatever you want to do. MR. PENNY: Absolutely. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question about this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a little confused here and perhaps it's the time you know that this has taken but are we in a quandary here because the Planning Board is asking us to just look at the code and not grant variances? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we are in a quandary because we don't know where we're going with the application. MEMBER TORTORA: We don't know what's before us at this point Jim. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well the last plan I saw it was fairly dear that what the gentleman wanted was an 80 x 80 foot building and I forget what the setback was but it wasn't 100 feet? Now, why are we even considering asking this gentleman to go back to the Planning Board when we already know what that is? That's written in the code. The Planning' Board stated what's written in the code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because he may need another variance for a setback. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well then that's the Building Inspector to inspect, not the Planning Board. I don't see where they issue a disapproval. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well he can amend his application now and the Board can address it all at one time, that's why. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's certainly up to Mr. Penny but you know and I've got to ask Mr. Penny one other question. Have you ever considered just joining that building to the existing building? Page 62 - October 19, ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 2000 MR. PERKY: I can do that. I know I can do that. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know and you can go 100 feet. MR. PERI,Y: Right. I understand that. We were trying to keep it so it was a little bit separate so you know - MEMBER DINIZIO: It might look a little nicer? MR. PERKY: Yeah as I explained a long time ago like even when John (?) did that building down there for me when we added the addition on (). I didn't go with flat roofs. I didn't go with you know metal doors in the front. We kept everything, we tried to keep everything as colonial as possible which cost us a lot more money but, yeah, I want to get, actually the building as far as I'm concerned it just blended in. It was almost lost and () I couldn't care less. My only concern is you know, I like my neighbors a lot. I don't want to really start to have stuff on top of them, you know, so I want some sort of a nice backyard there and then you know, you look at the property you go 80 x 80 and you know it has to be where it has to be. There's not really much of a choice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to send a letter Mr. Penny to the Building Inspector, ask him to address all setbacks as the building pertains on our site plan and this way if there are any future variances we will know it. MR. P~Y: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now in reference to Mr. Dinizio's question. I hate to say this Jimmy but you boxed me in a corner but I'm going to say it on the record and rm going to say it for the last time. I have heard the agonization of the 60 foot issue to the point where I am ready to jump oft' the dais, scream, yell and holler and that is that you know that the Planning Board does not want us to exceed 60 feet and you know it very well, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry I'm not stating that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm stating that. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the obvious. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm stating that, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: But don't state the obvious. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm stating the obvious. Page 63 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER DINIZIO: Don't waste a month on the obvious. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm stating the obvious because this is the issue. The issue is he tells the consultant, they tell the consultant it's OK, then they tell him it's not OK, then they tell the consultant it's no good and then they tell him it's Ok, and then it's reversed of that. I want to hear it from the applicant if they are upset with the 80 foot width - MR. ~" 60 foot width. MEMBER DINIZIO: 80 foot width. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The accession of the 60 foot width. 80 foot width, OK, I want to hear it from you Mr. Penny. I want to know what their opinion is regarding this building apart from what I get from drips and drapes and letters, OK, this way we'll know exactly what we're doing and if they uniquely tell you that all they have to do is apply for a variance then that means that we are not going to be in a pickle position then that's all I want to hear. MR. PERRY: I know it was probably a year or two ago when I once sat down with them and talked to them and you know, not being a person of massive table work they told me to just come and talk to you not that I had to go you know reapply over there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now lets talk about the second issue and that is this 100 foot issue that they're talking about. On the 100 foot issue, this has been an issue that something that has been battered back and forth. It's the juggling of the balls. MR. PEltRY: Personally I don't even understand that 100% because again I face two roads so where is my setback? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well in this particular case it is a new: building so it's not off' of two roads it's off of CR 48 in my opinion. But that is the reason why we're going back to the Building Inspector with the letter because if he construes this to be not an issue based upon your application before us now, then it's not an issue and that's it. MR. PE~Y: I'll go that way and I'll come back next meeting and let you know what happened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No December, skip one, December 14th. MR. PEttY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion recessing the hearing to December 14th. Page 64 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution Page 65 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 8:57 P.M. - Appl. No. 4837 - H. CASlTY/M. MISTHOS (Continued heating from 9/14/00 and 8/10/00). Proposed swimming pool and hot tub at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound, at 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-50-1-3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is counsel present? Counsel who made the application? Is there anything you'd like to start out with Charles? CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ: Yes. As the Board may recall this application was made in July- it was heard in July. It was then adjourned at the request of various people until August and then September and now we're here again. So this is our second hearing. My clients are Mr. and Mrs. Cashy, just to give the Board some idea of what they're doing. They want a pool that's in the 100-foot bluff' area. We're 74 feet back from the top of the bluff The Cashys have three children. Mrs. Cashy is (inaudible-papers rattling at dais). Mr. Cashy owns his own company. They come here frequently. They come on weekends during the summer. They come during the fall, winter and the spring. So they use this house on Hyatt Road essentially on a yearround basis. They would like to have, virtually everybody else has with this type of house, and that's a pool. The pool is in as I said, in the bluff area but we've said to the Board and I think you have before you evidence that there's no destabilization of the bluff and that we were concerned with drainage because drainage had been an issue of that site. We've had engineers work on the drainage; we've delivered to you special plans, and I have both Mark Schwartz who's an architect and John Condon who is an engineer here to explain their plan to you to show that there will be absolutely no water that will go from this site on to the site to the west of this concern. So I first like them to discuss that with you. MR. MARK SCHWARTZ: My name is Mark Schwartz. I'm an architect with Cronin & Condon Consulting Engineers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the information that you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. SCHWARTZ: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Thank you Sir. Could you just adjust that mike a little better so we can - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just pull it closer. That's good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Page 66- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe you have in front of you a site plan indicating site drainage and site drainage calculations. We divided the site plan into nine different areas. We've used the coefficient runoffs based on Southold Town Code and based on overall calculations, we believe there will be additional drainage pools required. We've shown one set of pools in the driveway area, and a second set of pools beside the existing house which will accommodate the volume required based on a two inch soil & water calculation, and that is it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just recently, it's not that we don't believe you, I just took it upon myself to send this over to the Town Engineer to review, and I just, I have had and seemingly do not understand why the builder of this house - this has nothing to do with the owners of this piece of property, built the existing drywell, storm drain, whatever you want to call it, in its present location which you're referring 'to on this site plan as existing pool. I just think it's in a poor location. I think it does, it could infringe upon the cliff itself. I'm not an engineer. But I very rarely ever see something like this to be done. Do you have any particular problems with this existing pool as it exists? I'm referring to the one as shown. MEMBER COLLINS: You mean in Area 3 ? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In area 3. Yes, I guess you'd say area 3. MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I don't but I do believe that is somewhat the natural lowest point of the property and had been excavated to some degree to accommodate that but I believe that's a natural low point of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyway of moving that, or piping that to an alternate location? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, actually part of our proposal is to pipe that to the new pool that we're proposing right next to it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, which is in area four. MR. SCHWARTZ: So it's a combined chain reaction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, any questions of this gentleman? Ladies, and gentlemen? No? I guess not. Thank you... Mr. Condon. MR. CUDDY: I would ask and I assume that it has been that that plan has been made part of the record, and I also ask the Board to accept two copies of decisions that the Board has made within the past sixteen months which affect properties on Hyatt Road in the bluff`area. One of them is from August of 1999 Carnavale. They ended up 25 feet from the bluff. They started closer. They started 31 feet but they are now at a point with a deck that has essentially 25 feet from the top of the bluff area. The other was one that Page 67 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold was done recently, Leudesdorf. They are 70 feet back to the top of the bluff and both of these people are at the same street, Hyatt Road. They're both to the east of this property. So I would just like to make those part of the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. What else would you like to tell us, Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: At this point I understand that there are people here who are opposing the application. I don't know the basis actually of their opposition. I'd like to reserve the right to respond to that opposition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, at any time. We are ready, Mr. Tohill. ANTHONY TOHILL, ESQ: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board my name is Anthony Tohill. I'm an attorney. My office is at 12 First Street, Riverhead. I'm here this evening with Mary Butz, who is one of the residents in the house to the immediate west and seaward of the Cashy's residence. I am also accompanied by Steve Maresca, Consulting Engineer, a familiar face to this Board. He's going to talk about the exact details of this proposed pool, hot tub, and patio arrangement. He's also going to talk about water runoff on the property. I'm here accompanied by John Tooley from North Atlantic Laboratories, who is an expert in environmental matters including geology and noise transmission, including transmission of noise from hot tubs and pools. I'm also accompanied by Patrick Given, another familiar face to the Members of this Board, a certified appraiser who is going to discuss the impact of a grant of the variance relief on the property value of my client, which is a fact that the Board knows, which is very important. Behind me and in front of you this evening, and counting me as well, there are eight professionals. Eight professionals plus or minus how many years of college or post-graduate education, and we're all here this evening to debate whether or not Lydia Tortora would be comfortable as a Member of the Board, if I were to present this application right now standing up here (on the Board dais). Does it have any affect on you if I stand here and present the application? And I'm watching the body language of Lydia Tortora right now, and she does not need to answer that question. The point has been made and if I don't kill myself, I'm going to get down from here right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I shOuld have had you sign a waiver before you got up there (jokingly). Mr. TOHILL: Yakaboski is still drafting it Gokingly). MR. TOHILL: Here's the problem in a nutshell. The words that come to mind are awkwardness, incompatibility and please God, sensitivity. The four of you here this evening are our way to redemption on this application. This has become a test of wills. The Cashy side wants a swimming pool, a patio and a hot tub, and they want it in a style where I would be addressing you atop Lydia Tortora's left shoulder. As Mr. Cuddy indicated, the Cashy family has three children. We do not have three children on our site. Page 68- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold We're equal under the Zoning Ordinance, and the flag was still over the White House when I left Riverhead tonight. So we're OK here with you if we can make our case under the law that we please want to be left in peace on our property. What we do on our property is not maintain a swimming pool. We do not have a 2100 sq. fi. patio together with the deck twice the size of the existing house-more than twice the size of the existing house. The largest single structure for indoor and outdoor living on that whole stretch of the bluff. On our side of the boundary line this is what we do. I'm holding up in my hand and I'm going to hand up and make part of the record, the August 27, 2000, New York Times Book Review and you'll notice that the cover is about a new book and the author is Diane Ravitch. Diane Ravitch lives in that house that I'm trying here tonight to protect, and that book was written and I'm handing up a photograph; it's already marked Exhibit A. It was written in the top study or what was once a bedroom, which will look fight out at the hot tub and the patio and the pool. There is no massive separation between these properties. As Exhibit B, I'm handing up a photograph, which is a shot from the south or landward side of the Ravitch and Butz house looking north to the sound so that from the bedroom that that shot is taken next to, to the boundary line, the common boundary line is a distance of only 10 feet. Now here is a shot marked Exhibit B, from the backyard from the Ravitch and Butz' residence which shows the scale, the awkwardness as I mentioned before of the Cashy house as it now stands vinyl sided towering over the residence of Ravitch and Butz Now that's allowed under the code. The house does not exceed the height requirement. It actually complies dimensionally with the requirements of the code and so one can't easily or fairly complain, and these neighbors have gotten along well until now. We hope we get along after this. However, we just want to be treated equally as they under the Code and under the Zoning Law and I'm going to have something to say about the Zoning Law before the evening is finished. Zoning Laws is understood by, the Appellate Division of the Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York where cases exactly on point have been treated. Multiple times, three times in the last eight years in Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in Brooklyn. Swimming pools and the question of whether or not a Board has a special standard to deal with in considering an exact application of this kind. I'm going to hand up the text of each of those. I'll hand up Mr. Cuddy a copy of them as well. Here is the problem, or, the beginning of the problem. Here is Exhibit D. This is a view from the Ravitch/Butz's property line with Cashy looking due east across the back of the Cashy property and you can see that there is a change of grade that is very impressive from one side of the property to the other. Here is the opposite view. This photograph is marked as Exhibit E. So this is from the property to the east of Cashy looking back toward Ravitch and Butz where you can see the tremendous change in grade, which is a major complicating factor because it means that when things change on the Cashy property there are engineering, there are structural, there are water runoff considerations th~it were raised by the way on July 6th. Member Dinizio, started it at the beginning of the meeting. It didn't go anywhere. At the end.of the meeting, Member Tortora started into the same thing. It didn't go anywhere. It was all left unresolved as a result of which nobody ever really got their arms around the problems. Tonight we hope that we're going to get our arms around the problems. Here is a photograph marked as Exhibit F and another one marked as Exhibit G, both dated July 31~t of this year. I don't think anybody on the Board can claim to remember July Page 69 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold 31~t. It was simply anOther rainfall. Not a two-inch rainfall but what the Chairman is holding in his hand, and I hope he'll pass it around is two photographs on July 31st showing the water reception ring that you said was in a bad place. That the architect said was in the right place where we have ponding with that overflowing within 20 feet of the Ravitch/Butz house as a result of which they're taking water in the basement of that house. The reason is, the Cashy residence was built so that there is a slope, a tremendous slope from side to side where the water has to go some place and that ring is not taking it and I haven't read, we haven't seen the coefficience or the other numbers but Mr. Maresca is going to talk to you tonight about what it takes to catch the water on that property and there's nothing there to catch the water right now. What I just handed you is a Joe Ingegno drawing that shows part of the problem here. You know from the drawing that you saw on July 6th, the one that Member Dinizio picked up on, right at the very beginning of the meeting, that if you stood on the east side of Cashy, right where that patio is going to begin, on the east side of Cashy, you would be at an elevation 52. If you're standing and you can orient that drawing so you're at the southeast comer Of the Ravith~utz residence you'll that the elevation is 34. That's an enormous change in a distance of about - it's less than 100 feet. In fact, if you look also at the drawings you saw on July 6th, you will see that Member Dinizio pointed out that it dropped from 52 feet on the east side of that 2100 sq. fi. patio to 40 feet on the west side of the same patio. 40 to 41, 42, is right in that range. That means that one of them dropped from 42 feet to 34 feet in only the last 30 feet running from side to side. So that from the bulkhead for the new hot tub, from the west edge of the proposed .patio, you would drop 8 feet from 42 feet to 34 feet in a run of less 30 feet. That is an extraordinary change of grade. There has been no effort to address any of that in any of the material that has been presented to you so far. So here's the problem. We have a house that's on top of us. That the reach of the house toward the Ravitch and Butz house will double, literally double and then some, as a result of the introduction of this change in that neighborhood. So the proximity on a linear basis; we have this different kind of proximity where they're on top of us. The result is that the construction is going to be dramatic. Mr. Maresca is going to try and describe that to you. The result is that there's going to be water runoff that hasn't been addressed. It's been alluded to here but it has not been addressed. It sure hasn't been resolved. You have a vinyl sided house, the Cashy house. It's hostile to the absorption of sound. That's why you don't have vinyl in rooms like this. It would be bouncing off of everything and so what will happen is that the children play in the pool, or as the adults drink their cocktails on that 2100 sq. fl. patio with the deck above it, in the hot tub, not even 30 feet from the revenging Butz bedroom and right there at the study where minding their own business, it's not against the law, somebody is writing a book, or, writing an essay, or, getting ready to teach at NYU or some school in New York City. It's not against the law to do that. It's also not against the law to have three children that want to have a pool but it is against the law to be indifferent to each other, because under zoning you try to institute stability and try to say, it's OK to be distant a little bit from each other. It's OK to keep your noise on your side of the fence. It's OK to keep your surface water Page 70 - October 19, ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 2000 runoff on your property. It's OK to be sensitive to each other. That's what we're trying to get to tonight where we can raise the level of the inquiry so that everybody understands it's not fair just to dump this thing fight 0n top of my clients who will be blown out of their house, which would become a receptacle, not for a pleasant retreat from New York City - into a receptacle for noise and a receptacle for insults. Not that the Cashys are dearly insuring my clients but simply it's insulting to be insensitive and indifferent and they want some respect, and they're here asking you to provide that respect and they're confident, comfortable by the way that you will provide that respect based upon the law. Now I mentioned before that there's actual law directly on point. If I hand this up I know there's a number of teachers and former teachers in the room, that I'll lose everybody's attention. So, therefore, I'm going to hold this for the moment and please don't even try to read it tonight. I'm going to defer it this moment first to Steve Maresca and then to John Tooley and finally to Pat Given, and I hope to get up as briefly as I can on a sum of the law and how it applies with the facts presented to you. Thank you everybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? STEVE MARESCA: (Raising his right hand) I do, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: State your name. MR. MARESCA: My name is Steve Maresca. I'm a professional engineer. I have an office at 188 Montauk Highway, Hampton Bays. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You came before this Board once with an issue on Long Island Sound in Cutchogue, I believe. MR. MARESCA: Yes, I think so. I've taken a look at this property and I guess my review has been two-fold first, the positioning of the spa, pool, deck, and also with respect to the drainage. I've worked up a little handout if I may give the Board Members a copy of it. (Handed out copies to the Board.) MR. MARESCA: What we've done here to the best of our ability with the information that we had is try to do a little bit of a sketch showing the relationship of the two buildings to each other. The property on the left is the Cashy showing the original house, the existing deck and the proposed patio. On the right you'll see the Ravitch house. What we've done here is to take a cross section through the new pool, patio and also the single-story portion of the Ravitz/Butz house and that's on the second sheet. You know this is a drawing to a scale, but it gives you an idea of just how imposing this particular spa is. The edge of this deck is approximately 22 foot off the property line. That is on the Cashy property. The existing Ravitch house is approximately 10 foot off the deck, a total of 32 foot separation. That's probably less than the width of this room. The floor of Page 71 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold the Ravitch house is probably somewhere around where this floor is. The deck itself is somewhere around and you put it so below the ceiling so. We just want to try and point out just basically how imposing it is when put into scale with respective of what we have right here. One thing we're asking for is that it would be released somehow in pending a release as far as the size of the deck, location of the pool, location of the spa and the elevation of the deck. Now at the time I originally did this, I didn't realize that there were a number of proposed of drainage on the property and I've worked up some basic numbers as far as regards to that and well it certainly is needed. On the cross section you can see how the flow of water goes down towards the Ravitch house. The first photo I have on the next sheet is facing the Ravitch property, and you basically see the second level deck and where the first level is at the top of those trees. The patio itself will be level with the arborvitaes that we see along the property line. People are not looking over. The actual vegetation provides you know some privacy at this point. The picture on the next sheet is on the Cashy property looking back at the single level portion of the Ravitch house. The third photo shows us the location of the drainage structure. This is located very close to the Ravitch house. It appears to us that most all the drainage fight now is directed towards that and certainly something you need to have done, which they seem to intend on doing. We just like to have the opportunity to take a look at this and see if you can make any suggestions to try and cut down on the amount of water going to this corner of the property. The next photo is on to the front deck of the house. There's a ravine cut open by the flow of water. This water is going towards the west side towards the Ravitch property and naturally down towards where the bluff is right now. I've worked out some basic calculations but I think that's a moot point right now. I think you've got to do is take a look at the proposed drainage we have. I'd like to go back again to the cross section that would show the general location of that existing drain. That drain is almost level with the basement that we have on the Ravitch property. As a drain accepts water naturally it tries to direct water, the water is absorbed by the soil. The soil becomes saturated. At this time we are getting water in the basement of the Ravitch property, and I feel this is partially because of the amount of water that is being put on in this corner. But like I said, I'd just like you go take a look at the drainage they have there now. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually this is a very valuable tool for us, this one right here that you put together. MR. MARESCA: Yeah, it really illustrates it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It really illustrates what we need and Mr. Tohill jumped into this, his side of the application without my stating that I spent the better part of three hours at the Ravith/Butz house one Saturday morning and not only did we look at Ms. Ravitch and Ms. Butz's property but we looked at Cashy's and then we walked all the way Page 72- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold down we must of walked at least four to six properties down just to look at the contour of the bluffs and any changes that were done and there was a blowout on the top with one of the bluffs, which was changed and Ms. Ravitch did point that out to me. But what I began to realize was basically two issues and that is the wall between both of these properties which is a recently a timber wall, I had sincere concern about because of the nature of this drain and it was sometime subsequent to that that the water appeared in the basement and so then it became a concern to us in looking at the application. I was looking at it at that time purely as a water drainage problem, and I was not addressing all the other issues that will be addressed tonight, OK, in reference to the noise situation. At that of course was the reason why I asked counsel's architect regarding that particular storm drain as it exists now because it appeared to be a great problem to me. I mean I can see it taking a wall out in this situation and that was a concern to me. The other concern I had was basically that of the closeness of the properties and the nature of that closeness, as it existed. Not only was I given a tour of the entire house I was given a tour of the entire property and it became a difficult issue for me because the nature of this drain was draining into the top of a bluff, which although it's completely foliated it appeared to be relatively stable you really never know. I have relatives that live in Mattituck that have moved their house back 130 feet because of situations like this. If you look at the front yard of this house now it's dropped almost 60 feet and so I have sincere problems with these types or applications of getting, you know, water to very simply dissipate on whichever way you use as a process. So I think it's an effective tool. I think we may have questions in the future of you. We'll of course spoke through your counsel and we will go from there. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman, ladies and gentlemen? No, we thank you. MR. TOHILL: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that Mr. Maresca not sit down until he addbesses the following things. The July 6a~ meeting, it was mentioned and agreed without opposition that brick on sand patio was pervious, not impervious, and that there would be no water runoff. After July 6th meeting, it was mentioned that there be no disturbance of the existing vegetation. The July 6th meeting it was mentioned in the architect's letter that the drainage ring will be built self landward of the existing drainage ring that there has been so much discussion on tonight. I want Mr. Maresca to address with you: a) does he agree as a professional engineer with some expertise on that subject that that brick and sand is pervious? b) If he does not agree, is there water runoff to be expected to the northwest towards the Ravitch/Butz kitchen door? c) Will that water somehow make a left hand turn and head toward Mattituck as if it were Mattituck water, when it's heading northwest behind the hot tub, north west of the hot tub? Don't forget if I'm standing where the hot tub is, where the northwest corner of the proposed patio, Mary Butz is standing where that ring is. Will the water know to come around, hang a left and go back that way and next question; d) Would the introduction of new drainage up here where I think it's going to be necessary have anything to do with the removal of the oak tree and the other vegetation that you were told wasn't going to be removed and finally back to point that you just made, Mr. Chairman, will the removal of the oak tree and the introduction of that drainage ring have anything to do with the stability of the bluff?. Page 73 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold There's about five or six questions but I think they bare right on what that conversation was. I'd like to hear Mr. Maresca opinion. MR. MARESCA: With the construction of the patio where it is will affect the brick block off water going toward that existing drain. As a matter of fact, that existing drain is very close as opposed to the retaining wall. The retaining wall is rather large. They probably have to remove that to begin with just to build a wall. Naturally water from the property to the east is coming on to the Cashy property as well as the water on the Cashy property, that is going to be contained somehow and it's going to be rather large structures built to the north of this proposed patio. That's going to put it very close. I don't know if it actually hits that vegetated area or not. This is something that we want to try to review. It's going to be putting up water into that soil. It's going to saturate that soil and it's going to be going towards the brick. That something we may Want to try and reduce. One method of trying to reduce that is, increase the amount of drainage in the front yard, not allowing it to come back towards the backyard. That's going to be both in the front east and west side of the Ravitch house. MR. TOHII,L: Would the introduction of a ring there cause the removal of trees and if .that were to happen would that have any intentional impact on the stability of that bluff?. MR: MARESCA: Well certainly we're having water being placed in the soil saturating the soil that closer to the bluff. Right now that bluff is stable. But we're certainly not helping it. I can't say that it's going over the bluff now but it's certainly a step towards that direction. We certainly want to make sure we contain any surface water as I'm not allowed to run over the size of the bluff or go on the Ravitch property where it will go towards their bluff as well. So the drainage is rather complicated in this. There will be rather large structures to the north of this ( ) patio and so they will be imposing even more than is said really on this clearance on the top of the bluff. MR. TOHILL: And will the coefficient drainage cause water to run to the north of the brick and sand patio? MR. MARESCA: Well, with a brick and sand patio I mean if water lays there long enough it will eventually seep in but during our normal 10 year storm what it was designed for a very large portion of water will runoff. On my last sheet that I have here, they give different coefficience for runoff, and they have gravel that's coefficient to run. I would have to think that solid brick is going to low water than ground water. I assume somehow, somewhere around 60-70% will be more appropriate to use it, not 90%, the same as asphalt will runoff on a patio like this. So they are increasing the runoff somewhat from what you have right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. TOHILL: Mr. Chairman, also the Board, at this time I would like to call John Paciulli. I'm going to hand up right now so that the Board has that in its random. Page 74 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: Thank you. It's just a normal process of swearing the person in since we are not familiar with them. Raise your right hand Sir. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? JOHN PACIULLI: (Raising his right hand) I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: State your name please. MR. PACIULLI: John Paciulli. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. PACILrLLI: I was also consulted in consideration to this case particularly for not only geographic and geologic indications of the drainage issue, which again I will go amd belabor again unfortunately and also with respect to other potential deference that might be caused to the use of the Ravitch/Butz property. As you know both of these properties are existing abutting to each other and there is a substantial as previously mentioned a change in grade as you know where your current positioned on the Roanoke bluff as you may be aware, which is a homogee recessional terrain and due to the topography given the topography here and the geologic units which are considered, you have key pieces of vegetation which are added to the stabilization of the bluff. And that is the mature oak which exists southward land side of the present bluff. I would also definitely like to address this drainage issue. I would say that I concur with, it's my understanding that additional wrong calculations have been made. However, the wrong calculations that have been presented thus far have failed to take into consideration additional drainage requirements as well for the operation of the pool, by this I mean backwash cycles for the cleansing of the filtration devices, et cetera. It is very apparent to myself and I'm certain to the engineer here as well that these drainage pools would not be a viable installation in the backside of the bluff and they would have to go along the one side of the westerly side of the Cashy property in a combination or a staggered type combination to be able to affectively handle the additional bluff In addition to the surface runoff issue, which I think has been fairly well covered at this point, there are some other issues that have to be addressed as well. Due to the sharp change in grade and by my estimation and in review of the plan which has been provided to you as well, from the indication of the topography at 52 feet along the east side of the Cashy residence to the 34 foot Butz residence at least along their easterly side, there is a considerable change of grade over 90 feet by my estimation of that. Again, with the one location where it is you end up with some type of perch. It was also my observation that for the installation of this proposed brick and sand patio that the normal procedure for such a thing is to develop a mean level across that change of grade. The mean level across the change of grade by my estimation would be no less than 6 feet above it prevailing grade at the east side of the Butz property. This is to say that when you're standing at that property and you see the small 3 foot timber retaining wall, and you have the arborvitaes planted there you would anticipate no less Page 75 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold than a 6 foot increase in grade from that point, OK, to be at the mean level of what would be expected in a changing grade. Normally you're using that medium grade from the hill. You're taking this going this way back throwing everything at the lower end of the property again which changes the whole drainage component. But nevertheless, not only do we have this, you have some other environmental qualities used with the particular concerns to sound pressure levels that are going to be increased as a in anticipation of this and these would be in two different forms. There are many different types of sound as you may be aware. Some is impulse noise, intermittent noise. This would be noise of people congregating out in these areas at the hot tub which is the spa, whatever it is, is very, very close in proximity to these other areas. That is one and the other issue is wherever this pool is going to be installed you're going to have ancillary equipment to power the pool itself. More than likely I doubt that these people are going to be interested in vacuuming their own pool, so they'll require two pumps for the pool itself and one for the spa minimally. All of these are introduced as of what's called narrow band sound. It's a constant droning hum and again, it is standard procedure to install these things at the periphery of the existing or the proposed I should say for the same patio. If this were the. case, where might they exist? This is my question. There have been no provisions made in the previous petition for variance at all for these items. Where are they going to be placed? And if so are there any sanutenuating considerations that have been made to be sure that this is not exceeding EBA, DOT or other sound ordinances for residential environments. It is understood that the Town of Southold does not have a residential sound ordinance. I could quote you chapter in verse for almost any other township and village for example and you know around here, around these parts is usually around 60, 60 decibels which could very easily, very easily be exceeded by just a narrow band not even including the impulse sound that would anticipated as a result of this installation. Further aggravating that is you have a sound pressure level has a specific pattern of propagation - by propagation I mean by the way it spreads. It spreads in a spherical way from the point of source. Now by the proposed installation of the pool what you're then developing if you can imagine this analogy is a coffee saucer where you've broken off one piece where the handle is down to the base. If you can understand that all sides of this property are now enclosed, two by semi, semi absorbive sides- it's the natural bluffs to the northward and to the east of the property. However, you're going to be installing one that is not going to be of use to sound absorption at all which will be the water, OK, sound moves across water extraordinary quickly. It actually tends to accelerate sound pressure due to the nature of you know the phenomenum of the water itself. This would also be contaminated by the presence of the two-story towering vinyl siding, which is also not conditioned to sound absorption rather sound reflection. In essence you can face almost 270 degrees and still expect a reasonable attenuation of that noise naturally to the north and west which is exactly where the Ravitch/Butz residence is and the study which is you know perched nearly 30 feet. And I don't dare say that it is 30 feet. I think it might be less than that by my estimation - but extraordinary close and at a perched elevation again if you're considering a spherical away from it's spherical in all directions at one time, thus saying that anything that's going south is reverberating off and coming back down. Anyone who is congregating by the spa all that noise if it's coming anywhere it's coming more this way than anywhere else. So you're creating a Page 76 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold bowl more or less of collection, of sound collection and the only place it really has to go is the place of least resistance which is the lowest elevation and there's actually there's another compounding effect further compounding effect which in this initial analysis I had mentioned and that's a fact that their property is so close that they'll actually end up with an echo as a result of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So how do we change this? MR. PAC1ULLI: Well there are a lot of different things that you can do. First I'll go through my list of recommendations that would make this a much more palatable and geologically friendly application and I think that one either reconfiguration of the installed components on the patio and the removal of the reduction of the size of the preexisting deck. The issue here is proximity. And the way that sound works the more distance we have between two things because of lot of rhythmic devaluation of sound pressure and velocity the greater distance we have, the more the sound will go down naturally, OK, that's one thing that you can do. It seems a very easy thing to do without too much of an infringement upon your neighbors. You know if you have some consideration. That's one thing that you can do. Another thing to do would be to install some type of a sound attenuating barrier. There are different types. There are vegetative types that usually attend to be much less effective. Arborvitaes are not a bad source but however the arborvitaes that are existing currently would not be sufficient as a result of the height of the arborvitaes. (Interruption for change of tape). You have a sound attenuation issue that you know that could be formidable. The other thing is, secondary sound absorption and retention shields for pool equipment or for housings for these units perhaps a provision can be made that in the construction of the retaining wall fortification for the grade stabilization that a portion of it could be structurally fortified to house the interior of that grade elevation in the shallow under the pool. Another thing you can do is you can change the orientation of the pool. You could relocate the spa. That's a really good idea. Relocate the spa. Move it closer to the house. Move it to the comer where you have the two natural land masses abutting up against each other. They're many different things that you can do that will make it a much more environmental friendly proposal all together. The last thing I had said was the installation of additional leaching pools is definitely required based upon the calculations that I reviewed and I'm familiar with Mark Schwartz' work as well and also Mr. Maresca's, and I concur with their findings that absolutely they're will definitely need to be additional drainage accommodations made. And I might even suggest that it might not be a bad idea that that first pool be rendered impermeable piped by a two inch pipe down alongside of the property and then into a staggered chamber configuration of leaching pool so that it might percolate further landward as opposed to be fight in that spot, and it may also help to alleviate the issue of periodic drainage, or to correct flooding in the basement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you in a position to furnish this Board with some type of environmental plan for creating an environmental barrier between these two pieces of property? Page 77 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. PAC1ULLI: Yes, Sir. Do you have any .other questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of this gentleman, ladies and gentlemen? No, thank you. MR. TOHILL: Mr. Chairman, at this time we would like to call Pat Given, an appraiser to testify the impact of value. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Given, I know your business but I still have to swear you in. Would you please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? PATRICK GIVEN: (Raising right hand) Yes, Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And state your name. MR. GIVEN: My name is Patrick A. Given. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. :MR. GIVEN: I have a qualifications to hand in. As mentioned, I'm a Real Estate Appraiser and I have been asked to look over this application and to kind of judge what impact if any, this calculation if the project is constructed would have on the Ravitch/Butz property. And based upon my analysis of this project plus, you know, coupled with the drainage problems and the sound problems. I would say that there's no question in my mind that there would be a negative impact on value. I think that one of the most dramatic things, I mean we all, I think, there's no argument that there's going to be an increased level of sound. I think that Mr. Tohill's rather dramatic demonstration there of height, that's one of the most troublesome things I think from the value standpoint in that if you conclude, I think they said- the applicant indicated it's was going to be 4 to 5 foot high retaining wall at their westerly most part of the patio, and if you add to that the height of an average human being let's say somewhere in the 5-1/2 to 6-1/2 feet height you're going to have a 10 to 12 foot height of people looking into the property and, you know, their property continues to slope down they're going to be talking at normal voice, right int° the house. It's going to be a loss of privacy. The house does not have air conditioning. During the summer months you're going to have the windows open on the first floor there, so that they can get the breezes in and what's going to come of that is there's going to be the noise from this large patio and the pool and the hot tub. I feel that these factors will certainly have a negative impact on value. Probably the most important, an appraiser tries to measure market reaction to a property, and we do that by looking at historical evidence. What has something sold for that is similar et cetera? When we don't have something that we can point to we try to make a judgment as to what we think would be market reaction. Now the Ravitch/Butz house has been in this location for more than 75 years or a substantial period of time, and over that time there has been erosion and as you know this house is very close to the current bluff line; and Page 78 - October 19, ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 2000 anything that would be projected to be built in proximity to their house that could possibly interfere with that bluff, would have a dramatic impact in my opinion on market reaction to the Ravitc/Butz property. Because if you start to deteriorate the bluff certainly to the east of their property, I think there's .only going to be one result, and that's going to be the loss of their house. So if there's any chance that that could happen, that could have a significant market reaction. And the other factor that I was trying to think of in my own mind, is I try to take a house exactly as we see it today, and then I try to imagine what it would be like with this project completed, and I try to decide in my own mind if there would be a difference in reaction of the market. And when I say the market, I'm not talking about one potential buyer. I!m talking about the average market that would be out there to buy this house, and I think there's no question if you're going to have this elevated, large elevated patio that is now abreast of the Ravitch/Butz house and the elevation of it, I think there would definitely be a negative reaction to' this. Couple this with the potential drainage problems, the potential damage .to the bluff, I conclude that there could be a negative influence on value that could be in excess of 10%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. GIVEN: I forwarded this.letter to Mr. Tohill. I'll give you a copy of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Were you asked to appraise this house Mr. Given? MR. GIVEN" No Sir, I wasn't asked to appraise the house just to analyze the value impacts of proposed construction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: Thank you. Mr. Tohill, you're going to wrap this up right? MR. TOHILL: Yes, one of the joys being a lawyer, I mean it sincerely and you know me for many years and as you know I can be plain spoken and sometimes stupid and sincere. One of the true thoughts and one of the things from the first day I attended law school 33 years ago until now is that we sat there for those three years and we learned what most other people didn't know but would enjoy learning every bit as much as we did. If I were a layperson sitting on the Zoning Board of Appeals, I would want at my best dream to be allowed to go to a law school and to be allowed, free, Town of Southold pay the tuition plus room and board and the whole thing to learn what there is about the law because you're presented every couple of weeks with conflict, after conflict, after conflict, and you're required to sort them out in solemn like fashion, all getting along with each other up there, deal with people like me and Charles Cuddy and all the professionals here, guys jumping on top of the dais, and in the end we hand you up one of these things and say, go get it, and come back with the right result. So here, what gives me joy, what I'm trying to say to you right now is that this is not the first time that a swimming pool application has been made to the Zoning Board seeking an area variance. It happens all the time, and three times in the last eight years the Appellate Division, 2nd Dept. has dealt squarely with the issue and said, how after the change in the law, July 1, 1992, when they Page 79- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold codified the standards, I gave you the five standards, how you're suppose to address it and the way is this. When you did that application a few weeks ago, right next to this property, where you granted dimensional relief to difference, the Appellate Division says, the difference and some don't. The difference is that was a house. vacant lot, and a person was trying to in a single residence, and he therefore required variance relief allow a house on the bluff, the that makes the difference, some do That was a residence. That was a family residential district build his So you therefore handled that in a certain way and you granted the relief. This is not a residence. This is a swimming pool and so a swimming pool cases and by the way tennis court cases can be handled exact same way, because by the way they produce noise and that's the case (). Swimming pools are considered a luxury. Swimming pools are not considered a necessity, and so the burden of proof on the applicant is bumped up, and under the balancing test you have an obligation to balance recognizing whether or not there are factors now where the non- necessary swimming pool is more important than the ability of people to live in there underline the word residence next door so here come the factors. Noise that clearly is unmanageable, some of it totally unaddressed. John Paciulli talked about the pumps and the motors and in the_ view I was watching eyes of recognition, ears of recognition because you heard those pumps, you'll be standing in somebody yard and all of a sudden the thing will start roaring on a Sunday afternoon as your nerve endings are trying not to work but to receive and the thing goes on and it goes on its own style and it goes and it goes on in this uneven droning hum and that's what we have to listen to. Where it's never been mentioned until John Paciulli mentioned it tonight but it's coming and there could be the hot tub and the pool and as many as two or three of those things on this property. Where are they going? How are they going to be baffled? What's going to happen? When the people are there having their cocktails on a Saturday evening or a Sunday afternoon and people are trying to live next door in the Ravitch/Butz house. The people at the Cashy residence are going to be standing up where I was standing when I was making Lydia Tortora nervous before. It's awkward. It's unpleasant. Lydia Tortora's body shifted the minute I got up there. I meant to do it and she was perfect poblobium (sp) in her result. She was uncomfortable. She did not like me addressing the Board. She has a general distaste for my way of addressing the Board, but I'm not going to let it come between us. She didn't like me being up there. She didn't mind when I got back here. This is makes much more sense. This is the Cashy patio, hot tub and pool and the shallow end of the pool back where it ought to be. Not in somebody's "in your face" style of construction. There's water runoff. It hasn't been properly addressed. You know it. Everybody in here knows it. Everybody knows that that water is going to head toward the northwest, toward the woods and everybody knows that the drainage design particularly on July 6th and again tonight by new pool south - landward? You don't need to be an engineer or an architect to understand that's not going to work. The water doesn't know where Mattituck is. It's going towards slope, and the slope point is the 34 foot elevation and that's my clients' basement and their kitchen facility. The loss of privacy and a balancing test that means something since July 1, 1992 can't attenuate the Cypress bushes that are along there now, the people will be looking down over those and they won't get that much higher if it's up on the bluff Everyone knows what happens up there and you can't build the fortification because you've got a hot tub in the way, or you have a Page 80 - October 19, ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 2000 drainage ring in the way and so we've created a monster in the way in which this has been created because fortification is necessary, appropo with the Chairman's question, what do one do? The patio is enormous. Between the deck and the patio it's more than 100% of the size of the existing house and the house is already a big house. It's not fair to push that in the neighbor's space and that's not allowed, I think, under zoning not before 1992 and certainly not since 1992. There's a loss of value. It's clearly a loss of value. I don't think we need to have a licensed certified appraiser to tell us that there's a loss of value. None of you is going to step up and pay $650,000, which is what my clients did on September 17th last year. A mere few adults, nobody in his right mind would pay that kind of money for that house again now that this has come along, and so going to the standards introduction of an undesirable change in the neighborhood. That's an undesirable change. It's not necessary. It could be done differently. It could have some sensitivity. It could recognize that the people would want to live in peace next door. We don't need this shoved down our throats. It could be done differently. The variance has a feasible alternative. You asked the question Mr. Chairman. The expert witness said, yes he could design it differently. And so there is feasible alternative. There is a substantial 26% of 100% is substantial The variance has unknown but like the adverse environmental results. They haven't been addressed here at all, not at all and the variance is 110% entirely self-created. The house is bulk to the seaward most point it could be built under the then code and the present code. If one balances - the Board is required to balance. This isn't a hard job. One cannot balance in favor of the applicant. One must balance in favor of either a no - denial, or a redrawing of the application that does what we ask from the beginning recognizes in common sense terms, you don't need eight professionals and you don't need one of them 6 feet high, 200 pounds standing on top of Lydia Tortora to say, "it's too much in that particular location, please don't proceed with that." So I'm going to hand up this Memorandum I thank you all for being this patient as you always are this evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you're leaving a cliff hanger here Mr. Tohill and that is- MR. TOHILL: We like excitement in our lives at Southold. We're approaching winter and we need a little excitement here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, Mr. Tohill. I need this vegetation plan. MR. TOHILL: We would be happy to come back too but I don't want to get out of my proper roll with Charles Cuddy. It shouldn't be a mystery that he and I have attempted to have discussions, and we're here doing what we're doing in the best way that we each can with respect to our clients. I would candidly do whatever you told me to do, but I would much prefer: that you said to the applicants representative you work with Tohill and his experts. You get all those people together in a room and you come back here with a much better plan than you presented on July 6th and tonight, and we'll take another look at what you've done. That's what, but I didn't want to do it alone because I have a client, you know, we never said to the Cashys "we don't want your swimming pool." We just Page 81 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold said, "please'don't put it in our face.. Please don't destroy our home." And we got nowhere. Now I'm not complaining about the Cashys because God knows when the flag flies over the White House I believe it's flying for them as well as everybody else in this Town. But I am reporting to you, we got nowhere. I don't want to waste your time, or my clients' money on having professionals do drawings where there's total disaster. We need cooperation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just don't know if it's positive at all in every juncture that you negotiate with the applicant at this time. MR~ TOHIlL: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe it should be left up to the discretion of the Board, and that is the reason why I want the plan. MR. TOHILL: So you want us to deliver a plan to you. CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: You see it's much easier when they're not here. MEMBER TORTORA: Just some thoughts on that. There's.advantages both ways. In ,some ways I think we really ought to should shift them out of the room, get them out of here, tell them go off some place, come up with a plan and come back to us. MR. TOHILL: Not tonight, everybody's tired. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, it was brought to our attention - MEMBER TORTORA: No, you can go over on top of the tower in Southampton. Tower over there with Mr. Cuddy, whatever. MR. TOHILL: I'm normally in my pajamas, you know, two hours ago. MEMBER TORTORA: As opposed to just asking one of them to develop something individually. It's my own, I just. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're missing the point. MR. TOHILL: Go ahead let's argue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The point that you're missing is that we have a person with specific expertise that can create something for us. We're certainly going to ask Mr. Cuddy. He hasn't gotten his two cents in sort of speak at this time, four cents. Of course. I haven't told him that we're going to limit him time because you know, he's never hit me and I assume he never will, or, trip me when I go to the Post Office on a Saturday, or whatever. He's a true gentleman as you are Mr. Tohill, but we have something to work Page 82 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold with if we have a plan from opposition. At the same time we can discuss with Mr. Cuddy what he intends to do with his applicant's plan, and we've heard from their engineer. MR. TOHII,L: In narrative of what we want. 1. Reduce the size of the northwest protrusion; 2. Move the shower end, which is the noisy end to the other side; 3. Move the hot tub, which just doesn't have to be next to our bedroom, away opposite, exact opposite side so that it's not, it won't go up the hill as John Paciulli mentioned. It's going to go this way, which is north, northwest, that's where the noise is going to lead head off. So, move it where it will head north but it'll have 75 feet long run before it reaches the side of our bedroom. Find out where the pumps are going. Find out how you're going to battle the noise. Insist upon the noise attenuating cabana structure somewhere probably in the northwest area. All of us drive the LIE that's noise attenuation in the 90s. Those are substantial structures, and the noise engineers that I consulted with respect to this case have told me the same thing. A canvas, cedar wall, a row of plantings isn't going to do it. Not with this structure. Not with this kind of noise and not with the elevation. Those would be some of the ideas. CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: I have absolutely no problem with what you just said. I just don't want to totally saturate this entire procedure because this is going to take a little while to get this thing all down, all right, assuming this Board is interested in doing that. I'm certainly interested in doing it. But if we start with a norm and.the norm is, these gentlemen's drainage, actually it's a drainage plan that they've come up with and we work from that plan, we get the environmental barrier aspect from your client. We go back to Mr. Cuddy and ask him for the changes in the swimming pool, then we work from that particular point on to the pumps and so on and so forth and then the last thing is the canvas aspect, if his applicant is so inclined to do so and that's basically it. That's the procedure, and that's my opinion. I'm not positive and this is not taking anything away from counsel or the applicant that they are in the position to create this plan that you supposedly had this gentleman, you have this gentleman, that could create it I asked him the question and I'm sure that you could do it, and I'm dying to see it. I'm selfish because I am dying to see the plan. MR. TOHILL: If you tell us to do it, we're going to do it. If we fail, we fail but we're not resist anything that you tell us do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to see it below we'll reserve that for 10 minutes and we'll hear from Mr. Cuddy. MR. TOHILL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CJOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, you've been very patient. MR. CUDDY: Since everybody is of a conciliatory mood I don't want to throw water on it not the pool water any way. I listened for a long time and what I hear for the most part was that this could be done but maybe it should be done in another fashion. In all Page 83 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings . ' Town of Southold fairness to my client, I think it should be on the record and I think it should be part of.the record right now, that the sensitMty problem and I think we've heard two levels of testimony this evening. We heard some factual but not a lot of factual, and a great deal of distraught. The people who are complaining came'to a site and now we all have been treated two levels, but the levels of this site are not just between the Cashy property and their adjoining neighbor on the west. The levels of this site, as the Board knows goes above even my clients. And so the house to the east of my client is much above him and also much in the bluff Their house, our opposition, is much in the bluff Our house is not in the bluff They bought this house, this house that they need to solitude in, they bought it in 1999 after our house was there, and so I'm going to hand the deed of September 17, 1999 and I think that when we hear all of this emotion and we stand on a desk, when we hear all of the upset, that that has to be a great part of what goes on. We ~lon't have a problem in dealing with them, in talking with them. We do have a problem I'm sure on some of the structures that they would like us to interpose between our house and theirs. But we're using our house not in an untoward way. People do this all the time. I believe that when you buy a house in the local that they did to expect this incredible solitude. It was just beyond the tail end of anybody's rational thought. This house is right next to the line, and there's going to be some noise. There's going to be some neighbors there. I stood there I haven't seen what Mr. Tohill has seen so maybe we both looked at different lines, but I do want to try and to keep these neighbors as neighbors. It has become a difficult thing. ! don't want to make it worse but I just do want you to have the facts, and I think the fact is that this house was purchased after the Cashy house was built. So all of this was very obvious to them. Not the pool, I can see that, but all of the rest, the noise problem was a noise problem just isn't eminating from the. pool. We would like to work with them I have a lot of things to go through. I'm not going to take your time. Certainly I would assume that this would go over. There are reams of paper that we put in. I certainly want the opportunity to review that, want to have our experts look at it. I have a lot of questions about what was said but again I'm not going to go through that because there may be some possibility to bring this together. I'm not going to try and push us apart even further. I would just ask that this be put into the record. I would be pleased to consult with Mr. Tohill. My client would be. There are certain areas that we may have a very difficult time in. There are areas that we may be able to work with, and we certainly would like to keep some neighborly mist inside this circle of people that are at Hyatt. I'll just hand this up. MR. TOHILL: And we join in the submission of that deed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're saying in effect is that you are willing to discuss certain issues with - MR. CUDDY: Oh, absolutely. We always have been. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINER: OK. So in lieu of that fact I guess I'I1 hold off in reference to my request. I still would like to state that I'm dying to see it. I'm just sitting here salivating. I mean that's, I mean that's, you know, because of not necessarily in a sense Page 84 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold cause your client any expense, Mr. Cuddy, but there is a great deal and I understand exactly what you're saying but there is a great deal of closeness to these properties. There's no question about it and I have sincere concern about that ' drainage. This is a genetic concern. This is'not a concern necessarily because these two nice ladies as well as your nice client you know live next door, just in general. It's just a statement. So we'll go from there. Now let me just - MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, can I just finish a statement one second and I'll be right with you? Can we reschedule this in December and make this a Christmas end of the year, of the year 2000? MR. CUDDY: As long as Mr. Tohill does not come as Santa Claus, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask Mr. Tohill something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I think Mr. Dinizio was before you. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just - Jerry, I was almost going to agree with you as far as not requiting them to meet but rather to talk but I've got to say that if any talks are going to be, if there's any pressure by this Board or at least by me, it's going to be in the area of drainage and not necessarily noise because all of the things that were described to us tonight are things that could happen on a badminton court. They could happen on a - if they had a family reunion without a pool. Certainly I can't imagine a pool pump reading 60 be a noise but and I do know that probably it could be a little annoying if someone just doesn't want to have a pool next door. I have a pool and I have a pool pump, and it doesn't bother me at all and I have kids, and you know all of those things happen when you're in a neighborhood, and you have to live along with it. But if you're going to discuss anything I think you're going to discuss how you're going to stop drainage, and how you're going to stop the water from going over there, and that's really the main concern I see as this whole application. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I am concerned about the magnitude Mr. Cuddy. A big house, a little house, syndrome in it and I recognize that the opposing neighbor's house was built very close to the bluff many, many years ago. It was interesting while he was talking, I put the surveys next to each other and saw really how close that house is to the property line. We've had a couple of cases where it's the big house little house syndrome and it can be extremely over powering. The house was built many, many years ago. So from where I'm coming from I would look, you know, for a scaling down, look for smaller. That's basically is there anyway you can accomplish this into it, it's really up to you. As far as the, I always like to get the legal documents that the people hand up on the dais, attorneys hand up. on the dais during the discussion because very often later on I forget Page 85 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town. of Southold but I would like to point out for the record, that three of these cases deal with practical difficulties and attest to practical difficulty, Which is not the case that we're dealing with now, and another one is dated in the eighties which was prior to the change of the balancing bluff MR. TOHILL: No, two of them are 1995 and the other one is after July 1 of 1992. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Tohill, the court case fight in here refers to the showing of practical difficulties. MR. TOHILL: I understand. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I wanted to say. MR. TOHII.L: But the other one is only there because in reading text it's about the concept of noise. That the '88 case from Judge Luciano is noise, it's not meant to deal with that. But they're 1995 two of them and all there of them are after the adoption. MEMBER TORTORA: I know they just, the discussion is dealing with practical difficulty. MR. TOHII.L: Well that because that's the way we said it then. That we still call it the practical difficulty test after Julyl, 1992. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to say that I want to recess the hearing to December 14th, but I want to, you're not available (to Mr. Tohill). MR. TOHILL: My clients cannot be present they have an engagement December 14th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you want to make it, January? MR. TOHII.L: January is fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: is if we're going nowhere, OK, January meeting, OK. The thing I want to know though, I want to know if we're going nowhere from either one of you, or, both of you actually, all fight and if we're going nowhere, then there's no reason to wait that long. We'll reconvene, and we'll make a decision after that hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now what are we going to do? We're going to wait another- an additional month beyond what we could, and that's agreeable? MR. CUDDY: We would certainly prefer not. to wait that long because if we agree, it's fine.' If we disagree can we then proceed from that and a - Page 86- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Heatings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN, GOEHRINGER: Well that's why I want to know because then we'll reconvene it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well lets do it in December and then if we find they disagree we can then put it over. If not, then we make a decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we'll do it in early December during our, or at the end of November, or at a special meeting, OK, so as not to crowd the calendar with the you know the completion of this hearing. MR. TOHILL: The 14th of December is a bad month. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand that but I'm saying to you if we're not getting anywhere. If we're getting somewhere and everything, is moving in a forward direction then tell us when you're done, and we'll you know, at this time we'll calendar it for the first meeting in January unless we hear from you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So when is it on for again? CH~ GOEHRINGER: The first hearing in January', the first meeting in January. MS. COLLINS: That's regular meeting? MR. CUDDY: Unless we get back to you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Unless you get back to us. We have no problems you know reconvening this at a special meeting when we're making decisions. It's very simply we meet at 6:30 and at 7:45, we reconvene. MEMBER TORTORA: A1%r the December meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well the problem is you have to give notice of the earlier date, otherwise re-notices have to be done. MEMBER DINIZIO: Why can't we do it before the earlier meeting and if, we find that they're cooperating or not cooperating, we can either make a decision or extend it. BOARD SECRETRY KOWALSKI: Why don't you make it December 7th? That's the date of our Special Meeting in December? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine with me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's a Thursday night. Page 87- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRIG~R: December 7th. We'll say 7:30 now but it'll probably be 7:45. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well no, it's better to have it earlier. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well we'll make it 7:15 OK? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 7:157 OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank everybody for their courtesy, thank you for your-presemations and we wish you a safe home. I offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Prepared by Lucia Farrell Page 88 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold 10:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 4880 - LI. HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT. SERVICES~ INC. (formerly Church of the Open Door). This is a request for a Special Exception for Nursery School Activities. A nursery school is listed as an authorized use in the Zoning Code under Article III, Section 100-31B(4). The property is Zoned R-80 Residential and is known as 1850 Main Bayview Road, Southold; Parcel No. 1000-75-4-28. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anytime your ready. State your name for the record please. MR. LARDOUX: My name is Jean-Pierre Lardoux, A.I.A. and we're representing Long Island Head Start and with me tonight is Linda Gates - CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: How do you do? MR. LARDOUX: Program Manager for L.I. Head Start and she presumably will be the Program Manager for the facility over in Main Bayview, which is the subject parcel, and simply stated we!re seeking a Special Exception for educational use. We don't think it's detrimental. It's similar use as to what it was before. It was a church to have classrooms at the lower level. We're not going to do any interior alterations except minor ones and we're going to be keeping that with that use a child care facility and essentially it is as you know permitted within this kind of zoning and we don't think it's detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, we have some supporters here today who welcomed to stay this long to support it, and essentially that would be it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When this church was originally brought before us, I got in big time trouble by asking them if they were going to have a drum and bugle call. MEMBER TORTORA: Because they had one. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Because they had one, OK.. Could you briefly tell me and I don't mean to be redundant because you quickly you know, stated what the situation was. Will this essentially change the building in any way? We know they had a landscape nursery school there. We know they had grades 1, 2, 3, 4, whatever it was, OK. And so therefore, the building was used on a daily basis not necessarily for religious activity - MR. LARDOUX: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Although there may have been some religious activity. We don't, we're not interested in that aspect of it. The school buses are going to come and bring students, people to the, young children to the school - Page 89 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. LARDOUX: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And then to what effect is it going to change in your mind, from What you thought it was, at that time, in reference to playground areas and so on and so forth outside? MR. LARDOUX: Are you asking how many types of buses and how many deliver it and sort of how - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How many children do you think will be there? MR. LARDOUX: Well I believe that Social Services approved it for 72 children and that's one particular session. So that will be the maximum that they're permitted. CHAIRMAN CJOEHRINGER: Now these are all ages of what? MR. LARDOUX: These are basically children - MS. GATES: Ages 3 to 5. MR. LARDOUX: 3 to 5 and the types of buses they will be entering at the site of the Minnie buses from what I understand and so we're not dealing with a large influx by - we're not creating a bunch of increased traffic. I mean again, the size of the buses, three buses a day coming in, going and I believe there's an exchange of (inaudible) as far as the 18 children that actually leave. MS. GATES: We're going to have - it will be four classrooms with 18 children in this classroom. One set of children will be leaving at 11:30 during the day because it's a split- session class. We can make it still one more set of children on the premises that it is the process of two double runs, one bus will be coming in (), two buses will be coming into the (), they're set to go out and get another load and that will be it for that morning session. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: She's going to have to come up to the mike. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We kind of need you up here, we're sorry. MS. GATES: My name is Linda Gates. i am the Program Manager there at North Fork. We use the Sunrise Bus service and we contracted them for three Minnie buses that hold 20 children and if the 3 year olds have car seats which are limited to no more than 15 on the bus. Some parents bring their children in. The buses come in to the driveway turn, meet the toddlers, the teachers are out there and they don't have to be there but once when they come in, and we don't cause any noise for you know, the children are very quiet. Page 90 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On a nice beautiful' day like today Linda would all 72 children be out on the playground? MS. GATES: No. May I suggest the Day Care Licensee our regulations. There is not suppose to be more than two class rooms out at one time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the rest of the building going to be used for? MS. GATES: We have office spaces. It's just a nursery school. It's not going to be rented out either. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIBGER: What would the actual church area be used for? MS. GATES: Auditorium. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: Auditorium. MS. GATES: We haVe auditorium there will be like the children have plays maybe. They put on a Christmas Pageants, old fashion shows. Fund raising activities but nothing elaborate. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the, there's about four, five different names that has been going around here. Is it going to be a nursery school solely a nursery school, or, is it going to be a day care center, or MS. GATES: The name of our organization is, Long Island Head Start. I am North Fork Head Start, a branch of our agency. We have Day Care Licensing. We provide Head Start as well as Day Care. MEMBER TORTORA: And Head Start would be the nursery school end of it? MS. GATES: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, so - MEMBER DINIZIO: But the people that are going to be going there, the children, are ages from 3 to 5. MS. GATES: Yes, that's the Head Start ages, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's it though. There's no first grade, second grade, third grade? MS. GATES: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's just this? Page 91 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MS. GATES: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Nothing younger? MS~ GATES: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: They're not younger, obviously. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, on the site plans, there were three classrooms in the lower level. Two of the classrooms were for 18 students. Another one was for a total of 9 maximum submitted that's 45 students, 45 children rather. How did we get to 72? MR. LARDOUX: As you might see on the application what we did was we developed a lower level for the number that you just stated. MEMBER TORTORA: Right, h'm, h'm. MR. LARDOUX: But what they wanted to do, or what they intend to do once they get a C.O. for the lower level states, that we have to file for plans for the upper level. MEMBER TORTORA: So right now - MR. LARDOUX: I understand there will be one classroom there as well. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's what I'm concerned about because this Special Exception that you're asking for, on your plan it says that you're going to file at a later date - MR. LARDOUX: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: For aPproval for the first floor, MR. LARDOUX: Yes because essentially and the way this was approached was a bit rushed I have to say. If we had any time and there was a lot of pushing just to try and get out of what we have done so far on the development of the ten plants on the light of it. I would have liked to submit it a one-fold comprehensive set of plans for you to look at but it is the intention that they will be as soon as this goes through that they will develop that and in essence we will be showing the development of the office spaces (inaudible) at that point we will be showing how that upper level (changed tape). As I mentioned it's just that we will - it's our intention I believe Head Start's intention to submit plans to show what the intention of that upper level is and I believe that it's in the work and what we've shown is definitely one classroom (inaudible-noisy). Page 92- October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: The maximum capacity though of what is before us right now would only be 45 children. Is that correct? That's for the loWer level? MR. LARDOUX: Right and that's what we went into as 45 children (inaudible) and then they'll be I presume 18 on theupper level classroom. MEMBER COLLINS: That gets you to 63 and there was a mention of 72. MR. LARDOUX: Right. MS. GATES: We wanted 72 but we haven't - MEMBER COLLINS: OK, 72 is what you were sort of authorized for by the - MS. GATES: We were authorized yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so that's really your legal outside? MS. GATES: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Your immediate needs are 45? MEMBER TORTORA: No, that's what, Jim the bottom plan, look at it. MR. LARDOUX: The bottom plan is 45. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, so your immediate needs are for 45 students even though you have the opportunity to go to 72? MS. GATES: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Your immediate need would be tomorrow we granted this you could go up to 45 with the building the way it is right now? Is that correct? MS. GATES: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And that's what you're asking us for at this particular time? MS. GATES: Right, it's the lower level. MR. LARDOUX: Which is the lower level and again it will be our intention that as soon as this is resolved that we will be submitting plans for the development of the upper space. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right and beyond that you'll come back to us? Page 93 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MR. LARDOUX: Presumably yes. MEMBER TORTORA: For the upper level. OK, so the two aspects of this will be for the nursery school and for the day care for the Special Exception. Is that correct? I want to get that real clear what we're approving. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, let me break in. I think we do want to be clear on that. Head Start, I mean I think most of us know what Head Start is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a great program. MEMBER COLLINS: And it's little children before they're old enough to be in school. In that sense it's the approval I mean in certain sense it's equivalent to day care. It's day care with a program and I think Lydia's drawing of distinction here because Ms. Gates said that you're licensed as a day care provider by certain authorities. I think Lydia is picturing that there's two program elements here. One is pure head start and the other is some kind of day care. Is that what you're suggesting or do you want to get that clear? MEMBER TORTORA: I think they are, aren't they? MS. GATES: Head Start functions as a what day care as (). We blended them in together, all right. We don't separate the children. They are all in one aspect. ME~ER TORTORA: Oh, OK. MEMBER COLLINS: That's what I call day care with a program in a sense. MEMBER TORTORA: Well nursery school - the reason I separated it is because like day care can mean just care of children without any education. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, right. MEMBER TORTORA: And that's why I was trying to figure out, are there two separate things that you're going to be doing? MS. GATES: It's all into one. We have a plan for a dorm, high school curriculum that our teachers are certified at. We have certified teachers. They go through a routine. They have a daily routine of learning. MEMBER COLLINS: Could I ask one other question about the number of children? The facility has been used in the last year or two or three as an overflow in effect for Southold Elementary School before they built their new facilities. I've got that right? MS. GATES: Yes. Page 94 - October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold MEMBER COLLINS: Do you know how many children were there? It was in the very lower grades, I know? MS. GATES: I wasn't involved. MEMBER COLLINS: I realize that. I just wanted a sense of- because I think there were a couple of classes there and I would think we were talking at least 75 kids. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what we're going to grant you is a Special Permit to use the lower level and what you're going to hopefully, and what you will do then is come back and we will discuss the upper level with you when you're ready. Is that OK? MR. LARDoux: That's fine. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it correct to say just for categories is it correct then to say for nursery school? MEMBER COLLINS: Nursery School I think is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, Head Start/Nursery School Program. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what it is. MEMBER COLLINS: It is a Nursery School. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but a lot of people don't know what Head Start means. Anybody that has older children doesn't know what Head Start unless their kids went to Head Start. MEMBER TORTORA: And the other thing, a lot of people think of day care as non, just babysitting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. MEMBER TORTORA: So that's why I was trying to make sure it's nursery school. MS., GATES: At one time we changed it many years ago. That's what people thought Head Start was babysitting. The children do learn. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, OK, now we know what we're doing. Page -95 -October 19, 2000 ZBA Public Hearings Town of Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you.- OK, we hope to have a decision for you very shortly. I need a motion closing the heating reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearings. 1019- Prepared by Lucy Farrell