Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/25/2001 SPEC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD OCTOBER 25, 2001 (Prepared by Paula Quintieri) Present were: Chairman Goehringer Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Collins Board Secretary Kowalski Absent were: Member Homing PUBLIC HEARING: Motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio, to close all ofthe following hearings (accepting all testimony submitted as ofthis time): Appl. No. 5010 - Robert DîBlasi Appl. No. 5006 - Antone Volinski Appl. No. 5000 - Gerald and Dorothy Wansor Appl. No. 5013 - Arline Youngman Appl. No. 5009- Louise Pecoraro Appl. No. 5008 - Manzi Homes Appl. No. 5011 - Paula Daniel and Timothy Trujillo Appl. No. 5012 - Shawn and Jolyne Fitzgerald Appl. No. 5001 - James R. Giambalvo Appl. No. 5014 - Alvin Bennan and Ellen Buchbinder-Berman Appl. No. 5015 - Shirley G. Darling 7:07 p.m. Appl. No. 4997 - MICHAEL CARBONE. Request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Inspector's June 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed new dwelling, after removal of the existing house. The new dwelling will be at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 1580 North Bayview Road, Southold; 70-12-34. Proper-T Services MEMBER COLLINS: We know it's impossible to build on this lot without a setback from the bulkhead. The existing setback is 40 feet. PAGE 2-0CTOBER25, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRlPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER TORTORA: The map says 38 feet. JAMES FITZGERALD: Originally the written application said 40 feet, which was the result of my scaling it from the map. CHAIRMAN: What happened was, Mr. Fitzgerald certainly is going to answer for himself, but Mr. Issacson did not give us a figure at that point. We then went back to Mr. Fitzgerald and asked him for a figure. That's when it went from 40 to 38. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm reading the notes that I wrote when I read the file. My question was why does it have to be two feet less. But I gather from what Mr. Fitzgerald has now given us that the proposed setback is the existing setback. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: No, but what you said is it was 40 and then you went to 38. CHAIRMAN: It never was 40. MEMBER COLLINS: I guess my problem is the same problem I stated at the hearing. N one of the neighbors have raised the issue. I think it's an incredibly big house in the lot, I think it's going to change the character of the neighborhood, which is already changing. I do not think that the houses between here and the Goose Creek bridge, although two of them are two stories and it just bothers me to take an existing setback that's for a little house with a little deck and use it to justify to make a house. But, that's just an esthetic JAMES FITZGERALD: If it's, with regard to Miss Collins comments, it seems to me that the setback requirements from the bulkhead has nothing to do with the size of the house, I mean the intent of it not to keep big houses from being on the bulkhead but to keep any house from being less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. So this existing house being less than 75 feet they want to put a new house. Nobody builds houses like the existing house anymore. He wants to build a new house. Any house you see going up is a MEMBER COLLINS: Is a bigger house? JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes, well it's because people have found that if you're going to invest money in a house you might as well get the number of square feet out of it that give you the best size for your money. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to say that if there was ever a decision that needed a restriction on it that there be no further reduction, this would be the one. MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things, I notice from North Bay Road we've got 58 feet the way the house is set up and the other comer we've got almost 97 feet. So you have more than ample room to move it away from the bulkhead. PAGE 3-0CTOBER25,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Sure. JAMES FITZGERALD: The problem there is we're 80 feet from the wetlands, measured by the D.E.C. it restricts how far up you can move the house and stm maintain the existing setback of the bulkhead side, and the 15 foot setback on the side property line. MEMBER COLLINS: I would also say from the point of view of the neighbor, Mr. Fitzgerald of course, is right in response to my comment that the setback is not intended to effect the size of the house and I would say from a point of view the appearance of the neighborhood, the effect of people driving down North Bay View, in keeping the house back from the road is better than having the house closer to the road. CHAIRMAN: The 80 feet is from the wetlands. MEMBER DINIZIO: The 94 is the old house. CHAIRMAN: All they did was take the old house and super-implant it over the new house. The new house is there, what you're looking at is the new house is less than diagonal line. MEMBER DINIZIO: But there's a measurement out here of94.7. CHAIRMAN: I don't have that on mine. MEMBER TORTORA: On this map. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh it is 94.7. That's to the old house. MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the 66 looks like the porch. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's probably 66 or 70 odd. CHAIRMAN: What's interesting is if you took a measurement from the back part of the house where that 66 lies and just go right through the house with it, it's probably 66 feet from the bulkhead at that point. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you look in my packet I wrote this up to deny it. But it was based on 40 wanting two more feet. CHAIRMAN: You feel more affinnative that they're going for. MEMBER DINZIO: I feel better than they're asking for two more feet. MEMBER TORTORA: I think: that if you say to yourself this is the minimum that you can't come up with the answer, you've got to come up with the. PAGE 4-0CTOBER25, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER COLLINS: Well it's the minimum necessary; we've been through this before for him to build the house he wants to build which is four bedrooms and two chimneys. MEMBER TORTORA: Not in this location. MEMBER TORTORA: Well that's my feeling too; I think that's a mistake. Unless the neighbors tell us that it really affects the neighborhood. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at the 38 as an established setback. That's what I'm looking at. Before I was looking at 40 and saying why did they want to move it two feet closer, and I was basically offended by the fact that. CHAIRMAN: Let's close the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to grant, or make a motion granting it as applied. Any conditions you want of course, anything you want to do. CHAIRMAN: Well the only condition I would suggest is that at no time should there be any further reduction of the house, the deck, anything else, accessory buildings any closer than 38 feet. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * Appl. No. 5007 - MARK LEVINE. Request for Variance under Code Section 100- 239.4 and Section 100-32, based pm the Building Inspector's August 10,2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant was disapproved for new construction within 100 feet of the top of the bluff, and for a set of stairs and observation deck above the 2-'i'2-story height limitation of the Code. 2510 Grandview Drive, Orient, 14-2-3.7. Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, Esq. and Fairweather-Brown Design Architects. MEMBER TORTORA: It is my understanding from the new map that the setback will be 70 feet is that, are we all on the same wavelength here? CHAIRMAN: That's minimum. Probably averages more than that because the center of the house is 75 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: It says 75 feet to the p1antings. MEMBER COLLINS: And that's not the issue. CHAIRMAN: On their side, however, it says 70 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: So we'll say a minimal of70. Is that correct? PAGE 5-0CTOBER 25,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, and we are looking at. MEMBER COLLINS: You want to make clear it's to these plantings, and you want to write it so MEMBER TORTORA: So that we identifY them at the planters, and the house, the proposed two-story residence is 91 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: I think Lydia, that you want to avoid another problem, that you write it so that it says you're authorizing what is shown on this drawing, the date, and time and place. And that we are not authorizing any structure of any sort any closer to the bulkhead than this. MEMBER TORTORA: The only issue that I want to make sure of there's nothing in here that is going to deal with the side"yard variance is that correct? GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: There is not a side yard variance required the way that was drawn. CHAIRMAN: There is not a side yard issue involved. There is no issue. MEMBER COLLINS: There's been no denial. MEMBER TORTORA: Then it's sufficient to say that the indecision ? GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: If I could just clarifY just one point that Lora mentioned about the way the buildings are shown on the current map. I believe your previous appeal did grant an eighty-foot variance which line is shown on the map. So if there were to be any change to the building landward of the eight-foot building I would not want to supercede that variance and have to come back again. I would like the Board to maintain the eight- foot setback line for the building itself as shown on the map, for the house, roofing anything of that nature. CHAIRMAN: Well I think the main reason for that, and correct me if I'm wrong is that you have rather large pillars, holding this house, the exterior soffet overhang. So what you want us to say is that that prior variance and those pillars fall within an eight-foot area. MEMBER TORTORA: Maintain the eighty-foot setback granted for the house. GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I think what I'm suggesting is that if you refer specifically to the way the house is shown on this map. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I see what you're saying. In other words if you scale it to this map. PAGE 6-0CTOBER25,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: SO I think what you spec to the eight feet that is your ruling with respect to the house. MEMBER COLLINS: The seventy we're giving them now, relates to this drawing. But the eighty that we gave them to build for the house is CHAIRMAN: I need you to fill in there that the Board reserves the right to look at this also during construction because this is the first one we've ever granted with these planters out in front. It would be interesting to see them, and in fact, take some pictures at the end to see how the whole thing wraps up for any future reference to any people who may want to build similar. We had an application across the road; it was a Greek name, where we absolutely fought with this gentleman over a swimming pool. I mean we were fighting as a matter of two feet and there was major pillar where second story of this, actually the second story of the house. We said put the pillar in the middle of the swimming pool, because he wanted to move the pool out toward the water. And that what he ended up having to do. It really didn't make any difference, because the pillar wasn't going to move anyway and the amount of the size of the pool, the pillar was either going to be in the middle of the pool or it was going to be on the edge of the pool, or it was going to be on the edge of the pool or into the pool no matter how you figured it anyway. It's just interesting to see this one when it's done. MEMBER TORTORA: One thing that's going to be confusing, we're going to reference this map and we're going to say that we are approving the seventy feet for the retaining wall and patio as indicated on X, Y, Z map. And the prior variance granted X, Y, Z appeal is still valid. The next technical question I do not particularly want to address word third floor. CHAIRMAN: That's why they're calling it a tower. It's only a narrow; it's only a portion, a very small portion of the entire wing. MEMBER COLLINS: So write it as, site what the denial is. The denial says it's a third floor and we say we're granting a variance authorizing a viewing room, observation tower, accessed by a stairway from a bedroom. You just say we're authorizing what they had you don't have to call it a third floor. You said you didn't want to bring up the word. CHAIRMAN: It's really not a deck because it's a tower. It's a room. MEMBER TORTORA: We have to call it an observation tower because it's enclosed. So it has to be an observation area. CHAIRMAN: Subject to the installation of a sprinkler system. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay the sprinkler system is where? PAGE 7-0CTOBER25, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: It's almost, it's on the third floor, and it's installed. It just has to be activated. MEMBER COLLINS: So it would be a required sprinkler system? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Activating yes. CHAIRMAN: An activated sprinkler system, for that room. I make a motion closing the hearing. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * THIS HEARING IS CLOSED. THERE IS NO MORE TESTIMONY.