Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/20/2003 HEARING1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY DF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN C P S O E T H O L D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall 53095 Mazn Road Southold, New York November 20. 2003 9:3C ~.m. Board Members Present : RUTH DLIVA, Chairwoman LYDEA TORTORA, Board Member GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member GEORGE HORNING, Beard Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary !dAR 3 2004 OOPY COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like uo open the hearing for Charles Bocklet, a 3 carryover Erom Augus~ 21st. MR. MANN: Good morning, Board, my ~ name is William Mann. I have the title information for the Beard. I don't have seven 5 copies ef it. I jusu received it as of today. I went into the 21Ey for you. It's a complete 6 title report. I'd like ~o submit it ~o the Board handing). 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. 'MANN: I'm here this morning ~ ~e simplify, answer any questions Dn the said preperny. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything that you would like t¢ sffer first? 10 MR. MANN: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 11 anything that you would like ~c offer first? MR. MANN: No. You shoult have 12 every bit ef information. I read your mlnunes from the last meaning and I Erled ~o supply 13 you with everything than was requested. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning, de 14 you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Net aE the 15 momenn. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 16 BOAR~ MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Correct me if I'm wrong, Hr. Harm, Mr. Homing and 17 myself came ne the BockleE house, they were kind enough ~o show us the existing nwc car, 18 three car garage, which is nee the nature of this application, and then we walked ever to 19 the front of the house and we looked at the existing covered over deck, it's-actually 20 ground level deck; is it not? MR. MANN: Yes. 21 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's built into the ground, which I'm looking at a 22 picture ef it right new, which has natural cedar post. 23 MR. MANN: Cedar pests. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 24 That is the nature of this application. MR. MANN: Yes. 25 CHAIRWOPLAN OLIVA: It's just this eno little piece en the corner there? November 20, 2003 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 MR. MANN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The nature of this application is not -- and I'm just doing this for the record -- is not the wood patio or the brick patio that is ground level prior to or just before the top of the bluff. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Only the part marked X, is that accurate? MR. MANN: Yes. BOARD~MEMBER TORTORA: So you don't need any ether -- MR. MANN: Yes. BOARD HBMBER TORTORA: There's a prior action on this particular piece ef property, in ether words, there's ne COs for the additions that were put en en the east side ef the property; you're net asking for authorization for these additions? HR. MANN: No. I'm asking authorization for side yard setback for a roofed porch. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is 33 feet actually from the rear yard. MR. MANN: Yes. The dimensions are 8.5, 20'8" exact, that's all I'm asking for. Mr. Strang had offered a ten feet in front ef this prior, from what I understand from what I'm reading in the minutes, he offered for an easement or a - for you te rule further from this. This is a side yard setbadk question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, it's a rear yard., NfR. MANN: Rear side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because ef the way Robinson Lane is here. The building department, they're saying this is your front yard and this is your rear yard. MR. MANN: Yes. You should have letters ef nenjurisdiction from the Trustees, from the DEC. They have had three prior permits from you. I went to the building department, all building permits have certificates of occupancies for that. BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: Could I just ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, ge ahead. November 20, 2003 C 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you say 20' 6"? MR. MANN: Twenty foot 8 inches is the exact size of the roof porch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it is te be remain unenclosed except for the reef? HR. MANN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And that would a condition that it remain remain as unopened. MR. MANN: Yes. BOARD M~MBER TORTOHA: On the assessors card there's a little note here that says no COs that is a little confusing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to reiterate that the nature ef~this application is just this appliclation. There are no other issues. MR. MANN: No other issues before the Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is subject to this particular thing. MR. MANN: Yes. And I did submit paperwork from the building department that certificate ef occupancies for each and every existing building permit were filled completely. I ought to be in compliance with the Town. The nature ef my being here this morning is that Mr. Bocklet would like Mrs. Bocklet to have the house free and clear if anything happens to him.. Se I would like to comply with Town regulations and get a building permit for this porch. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I did like the picture ef the house back in 1960. HR. MANN: It was built in 1907 by Emery Tuttle, every piece of trim has his name en it, and this is Henry Smith's father's house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Really. Thank you very much for coming. I'd like to close this hearing and reserve decision to-later. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'll make that motion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. November 20, 2003 2 BOARE NLEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. 3 [Whereupon, all Beard Members responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our nexE 5 application is for Laurence and ~ettyann Rubinew, number 5386, and I believe Mr. Hamm 6 is here with us MR. HAHH: Good morning, Steven 7 Hamm, 38 NugenE Stree£, South&mpton. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you? 8 MR. HA_MM: Finej thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We lust 9 received this new amended notice of disapproval, and we ]use goo it en the 17th, 10 and we really need all these things am least a week ahead of time before we have ~ meeting, 11 the application is completed because; we have been gemming all these little pmeces of 12 informanlon a little bit am ~ time. Mr. Hamm? HR. HAiVfH: I'm nom sure when 13 Oliver Cope, the architect is here, but he had overnlghted revised plans me beth you and the 14 building- departmenn, and I believe the building ieparmmenm had made a mistake ena 15 noElce that he first prepared, and I called him en it se that he could gee the cerrecE one 16 Ee you. But we did make every effort en our end ne ~eE paperwork Eo you. He's gene 17 through a number of amendments in the building deparEmenn en this, and the latesE one is 21 18 feet. At one po~nn he had it at 16 feet. I called him on that, sc I apologize for than 19 but on the pare ef the Rubinew's representatives, namely me and Hr. 2ope, we've ' 20 tried ce gee things ne you in an expeditious manner. 21 The plan itself, which was sene te you am least men days age, the plan itself is 22 no£ 2hanged. HR. 2OPE: Oliver Cope, 151 West 23 26th Street, New York, I'm the architect. The first see of revisions baset 24 ~ your commenns were sene to Steve and the building department I think en the 3rd or 4th 25 ef November. Then in part and response to the conversations Steve Hamm had with the building November 20, 2003 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 department we clarified a couple of dimensions, set another set of revised drawings to them on the 12th. MR. HAMM: And to the Board. MR. COPE: And to the Board MS. KOWALS~I: That's true. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning, our eyes and ears ever Fisher's Island, you have some questions? BOARD M~MBER HORNING: In a nutshell then let's ge back~ the original application had been substantially revised in terms of the location of the new propose~ addition; is that correct? MR. HA~H: In response to your comments at the September hearing we tried to eliminate a good amount ef the nonconformity that was present in the original application. BOARD MEMBER HORNtNG: And it leeks like the new plan is pretty well tailored te meet same of the comments and suggestions that our beard gave you at the last hearing. MR. HAMM: That's cobrect. We tried -- Oliver went back te the drawing beard and tried te fit as much as possible into the permitted building envelope although we still need a small variance. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Right. Because now the proposed expansion' or addition is just slightly nonconforming te the building area, correct? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thirty- five feet ef it is, yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BO~kRD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. The plan looks very aggressive. It also looks very nice, and certainlX a vast change from what exists there at this time, but I hope we have the ability if this Board grants it to ge back and leek at it next year. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortera. BOARD MEHBER TORTONA: I just want te make sure that we're all leaking at the same one. As a matter of f~ct, we have the only notes en the revisions we have revised far ZBA 11/3; are those the plans? HR. HAMM: There should be a November 20, 2003 1 2' 3 4 8 9 1£ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second see that's revised as per hhe 12th. Mrs. Kowatski asked us to clarify what some porch seeps were, the one that says covered porch. That's the one you should be leaking BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~A: Ail 1E says is September. MS. KOWALSKI: You're leaking au an old sen. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: Nc, I'm looking at what came in the mail. This says received in our office November 13th. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That should he the ccrrece Dna. I have here the added proposed perch and dimensions nones are 11/12 03. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With an amended disapproval November 17th. MS. KOWALSKI: From the master file. BOARD MENfBER TORTORA: It's essentially hhe same. The only thing I'm curious about, Mr. Hamm. it really dens look a let better I think it's much more mn keeping with what the Board had discussed. Where is the 21 feet? HR. HAHM: Mr. Cope will show you. HR. COPE: What I had nee provided on the 3rd was the dimension from that snap, which is non covered, the covered porch are those little s~uares and the columns from than snep mo the front line here, sc from - CPLAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 22-6. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 22? MR. COPE: 22-6. MR. HAMM: The building department scaled it off at 21. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They scaled it off at 217 MR. COPE: Yes. They qualified dimensions lines as opposed to the -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mine has 22-6. It is 21 you say? MR. HAMM: The building department was looking at that same plan and said it was 21. MR. COPE: Par be it for me to November 20, 2003 C 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 argue wi~h theibuilding department. BdARD MEMBER TORTORA: I had that, and I also provided one for more of the elevations. ~OAt~D ~MBER HORNING: It is a preexisting buitdinghere?thoug~ B©ARD ~ER TORTORA~: We need te make sure that the revisions are in accordance with the map ~- see the map date says Sop%ember 24th, and the revision notes on here added proposed porch 11/12. C~IRWOMAI%T OLIVA: Righ%, ~ ~0~,~E~B~RTORTORA:,Because there's se m~nykmaps. MR~. HA~M: That's the one that should be identified~ in your decision~ BOARDMEMBER TORTORA: Right. It's one hundred~perce~t improvement and you've come up with a very creative -- CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: Creative. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- but also original solution to a rather difficult property. MR. HAMH: With your help. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for coming and we'll reserve decision and give you this later. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak for er against this application? I didn't say that because I'm just used to seeing Mr. Hamm here. I apologize. May I have a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Make the motion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) MR. HAMM: tf you are inclined te grant the decision. They do want to hopefully get in the house by next summer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're looking at February 12th right now, MR. HAMM: You're just putting more pressure en me, thank you. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Aldo Blaskevic, and I would like te have a November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resolution to accept the applicant's letter dated 11/7/03 withdrawing the application without prejudice to reapply. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. favor. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to reconvene our hearing, the 10:00 hearing is for Robert and Pauline Ehrenthal, Number 5427. This is a request for a variance for approval of the as built location of the existing deck at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. We have a few problems with this, Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: How can I help? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: First of all, the building department's notice of disapproval says that it is 37 feet back from the top of the bluff; the deck is sitting right on top of the bluff? MR. BROWN: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That does not reflect in the -- MR. BROWN: There may be some confusion, if I may explain a little of the history because it is an unusual situation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail right, go ahead. MR. BROWN: We were retained by the Ehrenthals to help them plan a partial second floor addition to their house, which we did and made the building permit application. In the course of the permit approval process in the building department, they determined that the deck, which had been built prior to the Ehrenthal's owning the property, in fact did not conform and was not properly permitted. The building department allowed us to separate the deck from the house in terms of the permit, so that we could pursue the construction of the structure, and the agreement is that the building department will withhold the certificate of occupancy on the November 20, 2003 C 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 structure until [he deck issue is resolved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which structure? MR. BROWN: The house. ~0~D MEMBER TORTORA: The principal structure? MR, BROWN: Yes. CHAIRW©HAN OLIVA: The notice of disapproval says the as built deck addition, the dwelling is noted as being 36 feet from the top ef the bluff, but I don't believe -- Mk. BROWN: That's incorrect. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -2~yeur survey even reflects that. Se te me it's an incomplete application. MR. BROWN: That is obviously incorrect. We have photos te show you. We fully acknowledge the deck is to the tgp ef the bluff. I had ne idea that they were -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean the deck is just sitting at the top ef the bluff? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: But your notice of disapproval you talk about the as built deck addition, but the dwelling is noted as being 36 from the top ef the bluff. But your survey just does not reflect that. It doesn't have -- MS. KOWALSKI: I think what they're asking for is te have the building department correct the notice of disapproval. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also, I need a better survey. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hrs. Tertora. BOARD HEMBER TORTQRA: Play like I'm a dummy. The existing dwelling has a setback ef what at its closest point te the top of the bluff? HR. BROWN: Bear with me one second. The closest point of the house te the top of the bluff appears te be approximately 24 feet. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Se the existing house -- let's go through them one by eno -- the existing house at its closest point November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 ~2 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,~ 25 11 is approximately 22 feet? MR. BROWN: 24 feet. BOARD MEMBER TQRTORA: ThaE figure, however, ~s non shown on any ef the maEerials that you s~bmitted; ts that cerrece~ MR. BROWN: If I may, the issue before this Beard is nee the house. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you puEelng the second sEery addition en the house? MR. BROWN: We already have a building permit far that. That's nee the issue; the issue is the preexisting deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My preblem with that. Hr. Brown, is if you're Dnly 24 feet from the bluff do you noE need a variance juse for that? MR. BROWN: Apparently ehe building deparEmenE did nee feel so. And they issued us a building permlE, in fact, work has already started en the house itself. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know It nearly took Mr. Goehringer and I nearly half an hour going up everybody's driveway because the numbers are 311 mixed up. MR. BROWN: It's very confusing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it is. We were searching for a driveway with the garage on the left. MR. BROWN: It is very well hidden. did gee a CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it is. We lot of exercise. MR. BROWN: I'm sorry about that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The as built deck? MR. BROWN: The entire situation is, the building department gave us a permit en the house, and they told us they would withhold the certificate ef occupancy until the issue of permitting the deck has been resolved. Now, there was a prier permission on the deck, for a deck that would extend towards the~ bluff eight feet fram the house. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Much, much, smaller. MR. BROWN: Obviously it was not built te that. November 20, 2003 1 2 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There was a prior permmu for it? MR. BROWN: There was a prior permit for it prior ne the Ehrenthal's ewnln? the propermy. BOARD MENBER TORTOBA: Whet you're requesting is an as built deck with a 0 setback from the bluff? MR. BROWN: Phat's correcE. Amd the issue from our perspecmive is quite simply, if it's approved then we can proceed with the consmruction of the house and geu a CO when we're done. If it's not approved by mnms Board then we'll have to cue back the deck from the prior permiEued eight feet order ~o gee the certificate ef occupancy for the s~rucEure, for the house. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: So you have a CO au emght feet? MR. BROWN: We have a permit for e~ht feet, yes. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: There's no CO on the house. MR. BROWN: Technically there's no CO on the house because there's a buildino permim. MS. MARTIN: But somehow in uhe process of purchasing it with whoever the ~umerney was, did nee make sure there was a CO en the deck before and I de have picuures in case you were BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Brown, we have known you for a long Lime and we know that you are probably one of the premiere engineers oum here. I lush can't physically understand -- this ms nc reflection on either your firm or these applicants - how the building deparmmenu ms gozng mc g~ve you a CO on this house, she suory or uwo storzes, okay, au the end of the rainbow ~ lan't physically understand that. The law reads 100 feet, we have jurisdiction, from the mop of the bluff. This house sits 24 feet from the uop of the bluff. It ~bsolutely floors me. It has nothing ~o do with you Dr your firm or November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 13 the applicants. I jusm ion't understand mn because we have ~pplications here all the time. I den's know if they misread something. I think ~m this particular pemn£ it would behoove everybody for you Lo ~uestien that issue, because I think what's gemng te happen ms you're going to build mhis thing and they're nom gemng Ee give you hhe C of O, ~nd that's what our concern is and that's ]use in general. That's lusm our Dplnmon, my Dpmnlen, and the eplnmon ef some of the people Lhat looked am it. I'm nee speaking for the Board, and I've been told I can'm, and I'm net. BCARD HEMBER TORTORA: It makes mt difficult from where we're sitting because this Beard has made a substantial effort to nreaE applicants equally across the board and ~o, in fairness mc someone else, we look at this and we say the next guy that comes mn he's getting ~ no%mce of disapproval for the second story on the prmncipal struceure and ye~ you're hem, and that sends a very poor message as mo how we Dperame here mn Town Hall. So from PUt Board's perspecmmve we -- MR. BROWN: In principal I don't disagree with you. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What's the message, one guy you site for a non.ce Df disapproval and the nexm Dna you don't? MR. BROWN: As often as non I find myself on the other side of that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sure. MR. BROWN: And certainly I expecE the Board and the whole mDwn expects the Board 'mo mream everyone fairly. There's no question in my mind about that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It puts us in a very awkwasd position. MR. BROWN: This project actually was an unusual case for us as a firm in that the project was actually designed by a designer that the Ehrenthals know, and I was asked simply to prepare the working drawings. I can't even claim credit for the design of the second floor. We're just here representing them with what we were handed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to recess the hearing and have you go back to the November 20, 2003 14 2 ! 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 building department and ask Them to 2omo in and clarify this whole manser. It's mncongruous co me thaE you can have a deck sitting right en the bluff and have a house that's only 24 feet, and yeE our rules ere 100 feon balk from the bluff and me always being very careful about setbacks from the bluff because I know how delicate these bluffs are, they're net very stable MR. BROWN: I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I really would like Eo recess this no this afternoon ~ an hour whatever. MR. BROWN: Actually, we have another hearing before you at 10:30. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail right, hhen let's wait unEil after your t0:30. Then we should go down £o the building depar~men~ because this deesn'E make sense to us as all. Mr. Harming, would you agree? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want mo make eno thing clear, it's my understanding that some of the building ~nspecnors are in class today. I don'E know if hhey're ~oing no gee a determination or nom. I den'E know if they're all -- BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: The person whc wrese the no£1ce of disapproval zs nos available. Is the head of the building deparsmenE ~vailable? BO}~D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The head of the building depar~menE is nam there Eo my k~ewledge. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Daemon. BOARD MEMBER IOEHRINGER: He may be there. I ]usn saw Gary Fish go by nee_ I'm ]uss mennzon~ng this se the Beard. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: E agree with you one thousand percenE on this one. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ion't wans you ~o gee involved in a Catch 22 situation. MR. BROWN: I can apprecmmne that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd rather posmpone it now and gee yourself straightened one so we are all en hhe same page. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We've had November 20. 2003 15 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 situations li~e ~his, and we close our eyes to it and say, oh, well and then you go in and get your CO and, eh, my gosh, we forget this back at the ZBA, and you have to file a new application, wait another four menhhs to get on the docket, and it's not good government. MR. BROWN: I donft disagree with you at all obviously we want to de it right as well and equally obviously our concern is construction is already started. CHAIRWOHAiq OLIVA: ~ight. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHR: For a point since this situation exises why don~t we recess it unti~ the special meeting. MS. KOWALSKI: We don't have any recording device. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHR: At the special meeting? MS. KOWALSKI: Ne. Unless you want te see if he's available maybe later this afternoon, 3:30? MR. BROWN: We can try. BOARD MiEMBER TORTORA: Why don't we take a five minute recess en this, allow you to ge down there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: See if you can clarify. If they can't, see if we can postpone it. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chair, before, can I ask a couple questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We were talking about the certificates of occupancy you were talking about the original building having one? MR. BROWN: The house, yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Did that include this eight foot deck? MR. BROWN: To the best of my knowledge -- this is only secondhand information to me -- te the best ef my knowledge the hour% had been issued a certificate ef occupancy. There was a permit issued, and I'm not sure quite honestly if it was by this Beard or by the building department, te construct a deck that would extend eight feet from the house. Apparently November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 16 that permin had never been closed BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Then the deck ended up bein~ built much larcer MR. BROWN: Yes BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Tell us how that happened. MR. BROWN: We don'u knew It was done by the przor owner to the Ehrenthals CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you could, I'd like someone from the building department mc explain it ce us. HR. BROWN: Df course. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: CorrecE me if I'm wrong, there's a provision in the cede that discusses censmrucEion of landward existing, correct? MS. KOWALSKI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~%: However, that may be some of the 2enfusion because that would apply if this lock had a CO. CHAIRWDHAN OLIVA: But lu does BOARD HEHBER TORTOP<~: But it does noT. Se that provision ef the code can't kick ~n because in essence it's illegal; in ether words, if ~ had a CO if it was lawful, et ceEera, that prevision may apply, and that's what the building deparEmenu may nee have taken into consideratIon when they issued the building permit for the second suery, and I suspect that's probably what happened. MS. KOWALSKI: Is the second suory towards the water? HR. BROWN: Yes. HS. KOWALSKI: Yes? HR. BROWN: Yes. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: But it doesn't apply because there's ne CO en lu. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. 2HAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Hake a mo£ion Eo recess the hearing for five minuues ue ~llew the applicants ze ge uo the building iepartmenu for clarification sf their ~pplication. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 2HAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. Whereupon. all Beard members November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 17 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is Carl and Elena Patchke, Number 5428. This is for an as built location ~or a hO-t tub in the asea other than the rear yard, sir, what can yon tell us? MR. PATCHKE: I've submitted the documents according to your request and made the mailings to the neighbors consistent with their request. I received back some of the green cards, and I will p~esent to you if you wish. My name is Carl Patchke, the property is 5 Shore Lane in Pecenic. It's not our permanent residence. We take mail at 130 Lee Avenue in Reckville Centre. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did you discover that your hot tub was net in the rear yard? MR. PATCHKE: The house is a new house. We had a deck built te the back of the house. When the inspector came to give the final approval for the deck, they discovered that the hat tub was in the wrong location. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Hr. Homing? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you move the hat tub? MR. PATCHKE: It would not be a simple task; it sits now ena concrete slab. MR. GOEHRINGER: Let me say far the record, George, there's a substantial amount of landscaping; am I correct, in saying that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's a substantial amount of landscaping front and back all around it? MR. PATCHKE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where is the rear yard? I'm leaking at it, your problem is obviously arising because you have two front yards. Se the question is where is the rear yard? Where is the permitted location en that? MS. KoWALsKI: The rear yard would be the last point of the principal structure. I November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 corner is so diminimus. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's got the BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: To me this CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Ridiculous. BOARD MEMBER GO~HiRINGER: It's MR. PATCHKE: I appreciate the Board's comments. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: I have absolutely no problem with it at all. CHAIRWOM~2~ OLIVA: I didn't have any problem with it at all. The place is Ievely. MR. PATCHKE: Thank you. BOAR~ MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mention the issue with problems with picking up, I happen te have eno, they're extremely heavy, even without water, so I concur. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience have any comments for or against this application? If net, I'd like a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. seconded. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's right, you made the motion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is Howard and Lisa Davidoff, this is 5424. This is a request for a proposed swimming pool at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead at 1015 Kimberly Lane in Southold. Is someone here to speak to behalf of the applicant? Cardinale, applicant. receipts. MR. CARDINALE: Yes, Phil attorney and agent for the I'd like te hand up the return CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Congratulations, November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 it was squeaky~ MR. CARDINALE: Yes, it was. Mr. and Mrs. Davidoff asked me here this morning because they could not. I wanted to be avait~ie for questions. I know you've seen t~is site, and I wanted to basically just reiterate what I indicated in the application that the standards that are defined in the statute and by law i believe are met here. The setback for the.bulkhead is · 32 feet. The shoreline is interestingly, 125 feet but the bulkhead is the relevant measure and it is not inconsistent with se~back$ with neighboring homes and strnctures. The benefit compliance with the 75 foot setback from the bulkhead could be achieved by putting the proposed pool behind the house or along the side, I guess, next to the garage, far back. The variance will not have an adverse impact because the proposed pool is at least 35 feet away from the nearest neighbor and more than 100 feet from all other neighbors. It wasn't self-created it was the lot configuration, and I think the survey will give you the additional detail. I thought you might have a question or anything that concerns you I wanted to attempt to a~dress it, and if I can't, I'll get you written answers. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I address it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Geehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is truly a magnificen~ piece of property, as that whole a~ea is, Mr. Cardinale. HR. CARDINALE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: However, I do think the peel should be moved length- wise as opposed te front to back. CHAIRWOMAiq OLIVA: I would agree. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thereby increasing the distance between the pool and the bulkhead. There's really p%enty ef room to de that. As you leek at the survey, the sanitary system is on the other side of the house. I think that would be a really geed idea. November 20, 2003 1 3 4 5 8 9 l0 Z1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 2O CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any chance you could gee it closer ~o the deck or lust off the deck? MR. CARDINALE: I ien't see that than would pose a problem aE first blush. I will talk uc the Davidoffs, give you a written response Eo both ef them, that it is fine with them. I here that will be the response. Islandis Peels. John Weiss is the conEracuer. I'll speak ne beth of uhem and get you a leEEer in the next few days en changing it Eo be widthwise lengEhwise. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jus~ nurning it around. MR. CARDINALE: Getting it as close no the deck as possible. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you let us know if it's a liner pool or gunlte? gunlce, MR. CARDINALE: Liner or vinyl? BOARD MEMBER IOEHRINGER: Or which is cemenE. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Mrs. Tortora. BOAi~D MEMBER TORTORA: Et actually works out very well for the applicants if you are you going ~o move the pool around, which would increase your setba2k, As there any 2hance that you could lncorporane this into the existing deck? MR. 2ARDINALE: Okay. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: So that you would still be maintaining your przvacy, but if it's incorporated in there, there's -- MR. CARDINALE: I understand, yeah. BOARD MEMBER FORTORA: -- there's ~ far greaEer chance that you will be furthe~ protecting Ehat area from any potential the snly other thing is there going Eo be some kind of a pump house? MR. 2ARDINALE: Some kind of what? CHAIRWDMAN OLIVA: Pump house? MR. CARDINALE: I will find that ouu and if there was, Ehere was not one put on the survey. BOA!qD MEMBER TORTORA: It is a beautiful location. It certainly has a lot of potential, and other criteria of 267B, as you November 20, 2003 21 2 well know. one of mhe things we're encumbered £o look au is alEernative locations that 3 reduce or minimize the variance. MR. CARDINALE: 3reat. Z have 4 nhose five questions that you posed. I will gem the lettes mo you in tbe next few days. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~: You're gozng to submit an alternative plan 6 minimize -- MR CARDINALE: Yeah, I'm going me 7 verify, I nhink the answers will be that it's okay, and I will snbmit that all these answers 8 are as indicated. Do you wane me to gee the plan than shows exactly where the pool should 9 be? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. 10 Jerry, you know more about This than me. There is some little catch in the code, ~t's ll almost like we did iown in Mattituck, you warm Eo bring zm into the ieck 12 BOARD MEMBER 3OEHRINGER: We don't want tc bring in into the deck because it 13 needs £e be fenced singularly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: ~et them 14 know that. BOARE MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're 1~ non interested, Phil, tn bringing lE znte the lock. 16 MR. CARDINALE: Off the deck. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Obviously, 17 you don'n want nc fence the deck. Bring it close to as possible se that it can be 18 fenced. MR. 2ARDINALE: I understand. 19 MS. KOWALSKI: Is the Beard going ~o require an amended lisapproval on the 20 alternative plan? BOARD MEMBER TCRTORA: No because 21 we're requesting HS. KOWALSKI: That's a new 22 procedure. That's why I'm askinc the question. 23 BOARD MEMBER TCRTOPA: Ne. because this is a specific relief that I'm askin~ for. 24 MS. KOWALSKI: I know I'm lust double 2hecking. 25 8OARD MEMBER TORTORA: That's why you're good. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1Z 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 25 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you gomng tc recess this for the purposes sf closing the hearing en the special hearingl We're non taking any tesnlmony, but we're takinc infermaElen; do you wane to do that? BOAP~D MEMBER TORTORA: That will give you an eppcrcunlty. MR. CARDINALE: Rather than close it recess it so we can submit the plan and knew where we're going before we close it. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're not gom~g cc be able ~o give us anymore testimony but we lan still converse with you if there are additional things on the plan. MS. KOWALSKI: Or extend ~c for wrlccen not for oral? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not oral. MR. CARDINALE: I understand, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: December 8th. MS. KOWALSKI: December 4th. MR. CARDINALE: By December 4th you want the wrltcen materials ky that date? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, please MR. CARDINALE: Very good, I will do that, Thanks very mucb. CHAIRWOMAN 3LIVA: Anybody else in the audience who would like mc commenn Dn this application or mg~znst? Zf not, we will recess chis hearing only for written testimony and have this on December 8th. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fourth. CHAIRWOMAzN DLIVA: Fourth, I've goc 8th on the brain. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry, how far sff about eight feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, e~ht to can. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That much. BOARE MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It depends Dn if it's a liner peel or nee. It's ~ec, if 1c's a liner, it's gon ne be emght me can. If it's a gunite pool, they are phenomenally constructed pools. It's all ribar 1m there. 2HAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Yes, Hr. Brown. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 we will reconvene. MR. BROWN: Yes, if we may juse readdress the Ehrenthal situation, and I wane mc thank you for the opportunity ec go ~o the building department Go clarify some issues. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's helpful for you. MR. BROWN: Unfortunately, none of the buildinc- inspectors are available. FortuNately, we did gee some information that I did find helpful I apparently had been misinformed. There was a certificame of occupancy issued for the eight fooe deck. Then it was added mc withouh permit. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: There's no CO for the new deck. MR. BROWN: On the pormlon of deck that extends beyond the emght feet from the house. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have a CO for the ezoht foot deck? MR. BROWN: That's 2orrecm. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's understandable because that's very close then mo the CZM line. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEE: So l~'s understandable that they would give you a CO for that. MR. BROWN: And that's why they issued us a building permit, because they 2onsidered us landward sf the edge of the deck which was CO'd. BOARD MEMBER rORTORA: Woult the ieck I guess be pare of the principal structure? MR. BROWN: It is, m£'s attached. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: Yhat's Ehe ~nswer, and we alsc figured 1E oun before you wane chore. ~e needed them te say that. MR. BROWN: And I needed them Ea. BOARD MEMBER TORTON~A: We need ~o take a look at the survey, the amended nonlce of disapproval that said 0 lot line as far as 10£ foot seEback en the existing deck. MR. BROWN: On Eno ex~sLmng unpermitted lock. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: Excepe for November 20. 2003 24 2 the em~ht foot porElon that had a CO. I'll ask you the standard quesnzons. 3 MR. BROWN: By ~11 means. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: It is as 4 built, that's a face. MR. BROWN: Yes. We have ~hcuos 5 to show you MS. MARTIN: It is ~lse landward 6 ef many Df ins neighbor's deck non uo make that be the criterma but there ms some new 7 Co~snrucElons. 2HAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: There are some 8 decks there that are close uo the bluff. MS. MARTIN: According nc The 9 conservation advisory, they're very pleased with the condition of the bluff an that paine, 1{ and that it's been well-vegetated and taken care of. and they said they have nc problem 11 with it remainin[ and hope you take that inn¢ consideration. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as let's go ue a quick ~uesElen of mmne'which ms, 13 if the variance, if you were uo demolish this deck -- 14 ~R. BROWN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Don'm frown 15 se If you were ne demolish the deck, and have it comply with the code, which would mean 16 you would nam have a deck: is ~hat accurate? ~R. BROWN: We'd have the emght 17 foot deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You'd have the 18 eight feet ieck because yen have a 20 en it. MR. BROWN:_ It's the manner e~ 19 having ~o cue back the deck from the eich~ foot portmon ~o the house uo the bluff. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What would the cosn of that ke? 21 MR. BROWN: I would have ~o g~ve that some thought. Actually, the malor 22 porumon of that could be the dump fees, which are astronomical these days. And there's also 23 the concern of getting heavy equzpmen~ near the bluff in Drder mo remove the footings. 24 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: There are footings there? 25 HR. BROWN: Yes. Then there would be the issue of - I'm ~ssnmzng there are November 20. 2003 3 lO i2 13 ~8 ~0 ~3 25 footings there because it's a well-supported g{ructtre. Then there's the issue of the landscaping co protect the bluff that's disrupted by the demolition. But, you knew, if I had to ~uess, I'd say yOu/re talking in the range Df probably Sl0,O00. BOARD MEMBER TORIORA: And the conservamion advisory 2ounsel has found? MS. NStRTIN: ~o ~roblem with it. In fact, they have found that iT's in better shape than the surrounding prepertie~. It's in good stead. BOARD MEMBER G®EHRINGER: Soil and water conservat, isn. MS. MARTIN: We have a Trustees permit and a DEC nonlurisdictio~ also. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Homing. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that for the proposed ~relect? HS. HARTIN: For the house and BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Including the as built deck? HS. MARTIN: Yes, they have been me the site, ~nd they saw it and everything. They have no problems with the proposed. The face that we're nec changing the deck. the deck ms there and I guess everybody's vlewmng that nondisturbance of that area is bummer than -- CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA Disturbing BOARD MBMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question ~fter leerce? CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question ms: Are you going me igstrey the deck and rebuild MR. BROWN: No. MS. MARTIN: The ieck ms in good shape. HR. BROWN: If you mssue the varmance, we will leave the deck as im ms. If you de nam, we will have ao demolish ~he portion Df uno deck that is hOE permitted. BOAR~ HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Your evaluation ef the deck as an anoineer is that the deck is built nou of substandard consurucmlon bum of I guess it's CCA? MR. BROWN: Yes. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: ~uality BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of relatively quality constructisn? MR. BROWN: It's reasonably 2enstructed, in my epmnien. BOARD MEMBER 3OEHRINGER: Point ouz for George's polnE, this ieck is almost built on the ground. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It is. What is me about eight inches elf the ground? 2HAIRWOMAN OIIVA: Barely. MR. BROWN: You have hhe photos right there? 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kind ef leeks where the grass ~s growing up, lE looks almosE three, four inches elf the ground. BOARE MEMBER HORNING: I think zE could be taken up preuEy easily if need be and made into eicht feet. BOAR£ MEMBER TORTORA: I dcn't have any other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like Eo have a motion reserving iecision and ~o close the hearing and reserve iecision until later. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? Whereupon, all Beard members responded in favor. CNAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're here ~o hear the application of Charles ~nd Barbara Rodin, Application Number 5433. Th~s zs for a variance concernmng a proposed second-story addition aE less than 50 feet from the front preperny line aE 70 Strohson Read, Cutchogue. Wo~ld you like ~o commune on this, Miss Martin? MS. MAt~TIN: Yes. Amy Martin and Robert Brown Df Fairweather Brown Design, on behalf Df Charles and Barbara Rodin. This is a properly, I think, disapproved prolecn as the exzsE~ng sErucEure ms closer Eo the road than the proposed second sEory. So the second snory that is proposed is considered ~oo close no the road on see November 20. 2003 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 ]7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 little corner of the proposed second story by -- there'S ~ 2~ square foot area, triangle of the second-story proposed structure that is in nonconformance with the setback~ However it is land -- it is behind the existing eno-story structure that they're trying to add to. MR. BROWN: It's stepped back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a box here and then. It's rather confusing. MS. MARTIN: What they want to do is jus~ add a second story across from'the existing two-story part just on the box but not as far to the road as this goes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is the setback even going to connect with the garage? MS. MARTIN: No. The setback even wi~h this two-story part. A~ld on the site plan -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This does not look like -- there's something wrong. Here's the thing that threw me, the survey shews the garage even with this. On the site plan the garage is forward ef this. MS. MARTIN:, 9his is the only nonconforming part, this little thing (indicating). They're bringing the two-story out above this. The two-story structure is te come across from the two-story existing, but it is well behind the existing one-story structure, and it's actual, fha nonconformity is a small triangle that's approximately 36 square feet and that's ahead ef the 50 foot setback. BOARD MEMBER TORTONA: The problem here is on your survey. The survey shows that the garage is even with the house level the survey shows that the garage is 24.6 feet from Strohson Road, that the house is 32.6, the site plan shews that the garage is, if you look at it, what you submitted -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garage is slightly forward. MR. BROWN: Actually, what the survey is indicating that's not shown on the si~e plan is a bit ef paved walk. The line that you see is, if you look at the survey -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This shows it November 20, 2003 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 just even. HR. ~eWN: With that line, that line is just even with the patio there. The line of the structure is actually the back ef those twa lines that are close together. BOARD MtEMBER TORTORiA: Did you see what I mean? It doesn't scan. I said which one's correct? MR. BROWN: In fact, the line that is even with the front of the garage is part ef the brick walkway. And the line behind that is the line of the house, so, in fact, the garage does come forward by about I think two feet. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As indicated en the survey. MR. BROWN: As indicated en the roof. MS. NLARTIN: The reef of the garage, if you leek at this picture, the roof of the garage hangs over the apron in the front. So that's fram an overhead. When the surveyor does it, that's what they did. MS. MARTIN: We're net doing anything te the garage. MR. BROWN: This line is part ef the brick patio. This is the line of the house, that's approximately twa feet. Se the garage is about two feet forward fram the front of the house. MS. MARTIN: Also the overhang. BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: Do you have copies ef this? MS. MARTIN: You can have this. MS. KOWALSKI: I have copies in the file. pictures. George. MS. MARTIN: I did submit BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~A: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the Bilco door involved in this at all? MR. BROWN: No, it's not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have any questions on the Board? Is there anybody in the audience that has any comments to make for or against this application? If not, I will close the hearing November 20, 2003 C 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 2 9 and reserve ieszszon until later. BOARE MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All mn favor. Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The nexm hearing ms J & C Holdings, this ms for an application for a new house on North View Drive in OrienE. BOARD MEMBER G6EHRINGER: T think they're outside. They're all subside. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham, are you here no speak on J & C Holdings? B~fore you luse begin, we have sent this application ~o the Cullen wamer people foz their commen£s. They were unable to gee through that mess that's up there, and I have sznce senn them Mr. Fischetti's engineermng drawing of what's there. 1 cannon walk through that piece of properny. I would requese that the applicant make some sorn of path Lhat we 2ould revmew this properny before we make any decisions. You cannon gee through than. MS. WICKHAM: I don't think he'll have a problem with mn CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I walked all around i£. Mr. Goehrin~er walked all around · E. I know mt's a deep ravine and I'm terribly concerned ~bout it. Envmronmentally it's an extremely sensznzve piece. Tham bluff has no~ been zn good condition for many years. Part of it maybe 20 years ago fell mn the drink from a house, and I can'n gen down. I don't know if there's any stairs down. MR. FICHETTI: Joseph Pichetti, engmneer. Ruth, where would you like nhe clearing nc go? 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like ho be able no walk down into that. MR. PICHETTI: Towards Lhat ravmne ~rea? 2H_AIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. I'm concermed with that big block of dirt that's pushed mn there, and that huge hole in the ~round that is e×Ereme safety concern for me ~o any kids that might come up there, even ~hough probably they don't, if they ever fell November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 3O in that hole it would be the end of them. MS. WICKHA~: I do want to note that the actual ravine is en the neighboring property te the west, at least eH the contour maps I don't knew that we wonld have the authoritF to go into that. You want te be able to access down? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I've looked at the neighbor, I went and I walked the neighboring lot tee, which does dip dew~, but this eno, if you go te the west and I walk down there, {here is a ravine there but it continues down even into your lot and I certainly can't walk down there with that shrub and brush without tearing myself apart, and if I break a leg down there, I'll certainly net get out either. HS. WICKHAM: May I cema up? This is the map we have, and if you notice, the actual ravine is on the neighbor's property. We can clear a path right ateng here that would allow you to see down into it. If you would like us te ask the neighbor for consent. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is Hrs. Doll, and I believe she owns the lot er did own the lot. MS. WICKHAM: She ne longer does. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But this dips here and further i~to here, and this is your lot (indicating). HS. WICKHAM: See these contours indicate the dip is on this side (indicating). Ibm happy te clear it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Dips here and even further here because I walked it. MS. WICKHAM: We can certainly do that. I don't want to create a ravine where water goes down. There is a screen to the east of this property where I'm sure the water does ge down. Okay. We will do that and let you know and if you would like, maybe not me~ but my client to accompany you. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: qan I say something? Tortora. me CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mrs. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, let just try to not spill my coffee all over November 20, 2003 2 3 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your application. There are two variance Pequests here? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The first is for a deviation from the fzent yard requirement from 50 to 43? MS. WICKHAH: 43 feet. BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: The second is a deviation from the hundred foot setback requirement te -- and this is what is not quite clear -- 50 feet? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. To the northeast corner of the proposed house end that's shown en here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just Wanted to get that. I also noted that there are a number of requests for delays on this hearing. I saw your response te them this morning. We did net, obviously, we did net delay the hearing; it's being held, but it would probably be adjourned. MS. WICKHAM: I can see that already from the request. As long as we get started today, see what you need in terms ef additional information and - CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Also your house is going te be 32 feet by 65 feet, that's a two-story house? HS. WICKHAM: It's one and-a-~alf story house. What that means is a full f±rst floor and a second floor where there would be bedrooms with sloping ceilings. So it will not be a full-blown, two-story house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we get the plans for the house? MS. WICKRAH: I believe Mr. Hertado has a conceptual concept. He doesn't have specific plans but I asked him to bring a conceptual plan so that you could see it's net going to be a big, looming structure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd also like te know what material he's going to be building with, because I knew his ether buildings up at Grand View are very heavy and I would prefer seeing something a lot lighter, and I cannot see a big house on that piece of property. MS. WICKHA~: I agree with you. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~2 The siding ms gomng Eo be cedar shake, that he would be willing to specify. What in addition lo you want in Eerms of material specifications? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Wha~ the foundation and just what he's going he be using. So we can ietermine the weight. Because~ as I say, this bluff ms extremely MS. WICKHAM: We have Hr. Fichetti here, he may be ~ble mc address some ef obese issues. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRYNGER: Also, Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what Eype of heavy equzpmenn zs gomng in there. C~iAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. And I wahl Eo know how much fill ms going no be needed no comply with all the requmremen£s here. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. Can I address you on a number of other mtems? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you may. MS. WICKHAM: I wanted mo make the pomnn that the applicant is sensitive Ko house size and that ms why there's been an anEemp£ Eo scale back dramatically and reconfi~ure whac I understand was here before you previously. And the 50 foot setback from the Eop of the bluff ms, as you can see, considerably back from the older houses that are on either side, but we think it shrikes a balance between a front yard setback and a bluff setback, with a house of what ms fairly modest depth of 32 feet. The driveway was originally proposed on the wesn side of the house, and that we think did have the effect of aggravating that depression as the waner wenn down the bluff. Alsc, because of the con£our that zs descending rmght off the snreen, it was decided that mt would make much more sense no move the driveway over to the other side of the propermy, using the 2onEour gomng more along the contour is what I mean by that - ~nd puuEmng the garage on the ease side of the properny. And eo November 20, 2003 2 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ~lleviate the prcblem of runoff coming down the properEy over the bluff, which is the biggesn problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That Eeo and also going down the road because you ha%e hemes Eo the wesn Df than and I wouldn't like ~o see a whole sEream of waEer. You know. we gan these big, heavy rains, we don't gee little enos, and flooding and eroding nhat piece of properny and going down the road and harming someone else's properny. MS. WICI{HAH: ff I ceutd focus you on the proposed railroad tie retaining wall that is going no be designed £o avoid these Ewo problems, lawn the properEy and Dyer the bluff and across the proper~y ~n ~o ~he wesn side. Phey will be censErucEed zn such a way thee it would conna±n that waEez, grade ~E back into this particular preperEy and the runoff directed towards drains within the preperEy itself, ~so thaE it won't be leaving on to someone else's properEy. Slmilarly, any waEer coming down towards this house will be drained so as to accommodate a flew away from the house itself, dry wells are specified on the plan te contain roof runoff. So that has all been incorporated. If you have any questions of Mr. Fichetti, who is here~ he can answer them. The applicant has also retained an environmental consultant te talk about er to address during the construction phase runoff, hay bail placement and all these types ef things because there's nobody that's more concerned about losing what's en the property new then the applicant, because if he loses part of his bluff, then he's much further disadvantaged in terms of developing this. And I will say that this gentleman is very sensitive to that. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Before Hrs. Tortora asks a further question, has anyone done a deep analysis ef that deep hole that's there? MS. WICKHAM: That was dena because -- the reason that's there is because the health department required an actual - excavation in order te pass on their soil. That was something that was required te be November 20, 2003 l 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l& 15 16 17 18 19 20 211. 22 23 24 25 34 done mn the 2ourse of the approvals, and my understanding was that that was approved and therefore we muse have soil EesE rolls. I don't have them mn front of me. Dc you have them, Joe? MR. FICHETTI: It's }n the site plan. If they have the site plan and thee shows non more than 30 feet from -- CHAIRWDMAN OLIVA: It's non Dn the survey. MS. WICFJTAM: Can I gzve them this? This is a survey revzsed AugusE 20th them shows am the site of the Eese hole, which ze in the front yard area well, they ween down to 42 feet without finding waEer. The composition of the soil Ls mop soil, loam, sandy clay, sand, silty sand~ silty sand and gravel. So I'll submzt this to you. MR. FISCHETTI: E need this for my discussion unless they wane mo see mn. MS. WICKHAM: Let's let them look aE mn now. I did submit that ~nd if you need more copmes, I'll give them co you. MS. KOWALSKI: Do you have any exnras with you? MS. WICKHAM: I don't have Them now, but E will submit them after the hearing. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What's the square footage on this lot because it's not on the scamped sealed survey? MS. KOWALSKI: Almost 42,}00 square feet. It's on the disapproval. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anything on the recDrd that substantiates that? MS. KOWALSKI: No, I ion', see anything on the record on that. HS. WICKHAH: I'll have that noted en the survey. Then I will submit -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Six plans of a revised survey showing the square footage of the lot in question. MS. WICK~AM: Yes. I have an approximation but I'd rather have the surveyor compute it directly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So would we. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm informed November 20, 2003 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3~ that in order to be a valid survey we muse have the s~uare footage. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. we're gozng ~o ~e£ that. It should have been on there. I'm surprised it's nom. But we'll certainly have that added. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortora, do you have further questzons? MR. FICHETTI: I have an earlmer survey from John Metzger on the same parcel that shows 41,942 square feet. We'll have 1~ on the other one, but -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Nine hundred and what Joe? MR. FICHETTI: 41,942 square feet it says cc the tie line. MS. KOWALSKI: What is the date on that? MR. FICHETTI: This survey ms dated revised July 5, 2002. It will probably be the same amoun£. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I lust wanted ~o try mo go Dyer a couple Df things. The footprmnm of the house that you're proposing ms currently a 3,265. correct? MS. WICKHAM: Uh-huh. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So that would be a ground floor footprznm Df 2,080 feet? MS. WICKHAM: Yes BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: What is the square feotage of the secend smery or half snery as yeu puE it? MS. WICKHAH: Et would be approximately half ef tha~. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The reasen I'm asking that is the buildin~ ieparnmenE -- MS. WICKHAM: Excuse me. I mzght clarify that the first floor includes the garage. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The building -- I'm not sure if they're geing te view this as a half story or a full story, they have an unusual way of determining these things, that's why I'm asking specifically. MS. WICKHAM: Again, the heuse is conceptual so I can't give yeu the specific square feotage. I can ask the applicant te November 20, 2003 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 develop that foz you. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The Dther thing is obviously the setback from the bluff is very keenly tied to the length of the house, it's a 65 foot length. If that was a S5 foot house, because df the angle of the house To the bluff, than would automatically increase the setback that you're proposmng. MS. WICKHAM: That's correcE. On the other hand we have very ample side yards here, and I don't think a 2,00C square foot footprint is a monster house. It's really non BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know what the final product is. I don't know if zt's gozng no be a mwo-sEory, a and-a-half smory. I don'T know whether your clienn is wzlling mc stipulate those hypes of decisions zn Drder no obtain what amounEs mc a substantial varzance. That's all u~ in the air. You can see there's a great deal of MS. WICKHAM: The substantial by the lot itself as nhe house that's gomng on zn. Therefsre, it's really hard when you're making a decision on a setback ~o specify exactly what the layoun of the house As gomng no be because in hasn'E acnually been designed yen. But we're willing no snzpulate that within that footprznn there will be a hDuse iesigned. It 2ould be end up being smaller, but that is Ehe maxmmum we're asking you co approve because of the ~n~le Df the properny and the shore depth of the properny. BOARD MEM~ER TORTORA: Well, historically when we look an properties like this, one of the things we're going no look an ~s the lmpacm, whether ~t's one-snory, ~wo stories or nwo and-a-half stories - MS. WICKHAM: Right. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: is to the relationship of the variance. Obviously it's really Non cosn effective from your perspective no go ahead and have a sen of site plans irawn up and then continually revise them. I understand that, that's why I'm asking the quesmmon. November 20~ 2003 37 1 2 3 6 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WICKHAM: But your code goes eo footprint and'that's why we're focusing here en Eootprint. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: I'm non sure that the word "feotprant~' even appears an the codes. HS. WICKHAM: Ne. Bun it's a setback that con£emplates footprint. It's a setback rule and it doesn't relate specafically only no the number of sEsrles. We are wilinc- uo agree, though, that this is }oing to be the maxmmum setback, and the house will be a one and-a-half sEery, and I can gave you a better conceptual design on that if you like with a specific conce~£ ef how much square footage will be en either fleer. But again, the second fleer ef the half-story is no~ something that affecEs the footpranu and we're nou talkinc about side yard setbacks; we're non talkinc about looming nexm ~e a neighbor, which is sometimes why you gee lnEe thaE issue. BOARD HEHBER TORTORA: Okay, okay. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Thank you. HS. WICKHAM: And I'd also note that because the property is lower than the read, we're not talking about a concern you also have about a house looming up when you leek at it from a neighbor's property er from the, street. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house won't be lower than the read, there will be fill put in te make it higher. MS. WICYJ~AM: I didn't get the end of your question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Add a lot ef fill to make it even higher. HS. WICKHAM: You're net adding s~gnificant elevation te make the house higher; that's correct. HR. FICHETTI: I'll discuss it when I cema up. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You called on me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Geed. Is there any reason why you, Miss Wickham, November 20, 2003 38 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sought the locanzen -- I don't wane you particularly, but you as being the agone for the applicant and aE~orney for -- as 43 feet rather than greaner distance to the Eop of the bluff? MS. WICKHAM: Yeah, yeah, I can answez that and probably Mr. Fischetti can answer it better but that seemed ko be the right balance in order ~o give adequane room for the driveway, which will dip down, adequaue room in order Eo grade the fronu yard so that the water from the driveway ioesn't go right intc the garage as zt goes down, adequane room for the septic system. It jusn seemed ~o be the right balance in terms Df where the house should be setback. Also. that house on the wesn is way, way back sc we didn't wan~ Ec gee ~oo close to the road, and as you know, we E ry Eo minimize variances so I guess 43 feet was mere minimal than 40. It was more £e design iT se that the fronE yard accommodated the driveway access as much as anything zn the drainage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the reason why you gained more footage on the wesE side than you do on the ease side for the purposes Df accommodating the driveway? MS WICKHAM: Uh-huh. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: la that the case? MS. WICKHAM: Uh-huh. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want te say, you've been before us many, many years, this is a very difficult plan to understand based upon the difficulty ef this let, and I think you have to bear with me and my fellow colleagues in the construction efa house en that piece of property. It is something that I am having great difficulty with. MS. WICKHAM: Well, it is difficult te design, that's why we've tried te mitigate the concern because of the topography dawn towards the bluff, and I'm going to let Mrl Pischetti address that from an engineering point of view because he's more technical. CHAIRWOlqAN OLIVA: Mr. Homing. MR. HORNING: No questions. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 39 CNiAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fischetti, would you li~ to -- MS. WICKHAM: While he's coming up, I'd like to maybe help you with a little b~t more of the construction phase and erosion and sediment central plan that does specify drainage ealculation~, proposed line ef hay bails, fence and snow fencing durimg construction in order to not have a washout while the equipment is there, and I have one copy. I can give it te yoa now, b~t I will need to submit more c6pies go you. I guess I'm g$ing to give you a big package. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Mr. Fischetti. MR. PICHETTI: Good morning, Joseph Pischetti. We've already been introduced. Yes, this is -- maybe I can go through some of the thought processes in laying this house out and maybe go through construction with you. Gail talking about the front yard setback and go with why we really worked on thatl The one area we have certain separations between the sanitary systems and the house, the sanitary systems and each other and also the sanitary systems and the side yards. But more important, the pitch of the house, to keep it down low enough and not have water go into the garage, I've seen many houses that have the waters going in the garage and it causes a lot of problems. We have to have a reverse pitch away from the garage and also have a level that area that's level where we can catch that water. We have a dry well in that area, so we're pitching both ways now. If we shorten that up, the only way we could do that would be to have to raise the house a little higher because we wouldn't be able to get those pitches. We have elevation 91 at the garage at the dry well, the garage level is 91; the entrance of the driveway at road line is 92-8. And we need to pitch back so we've kept it down to a point where we can have pitches in either direction to get the water away from the house. So the location of the,house is kind November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of in the middle between the ~wo, and also ~o be able to gee the sanitary sysnem in there with the seEbacks that are required from the health deparEment. At one pomnt you brought uK and Gail touched upon was the sanznary system that excavation that's there. We have had problems -- builders have problems gennlng approvals Df sanitary sysEems that have this silty sand and gravel and silty slay down no 27 feet, mt's very expenszve, and not only expensive -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It erodes nicely if it's on the bluff -- gp ahead, go ahead. MR. FICHETTI: To ~pprove a sysnem like that subject to those depths you're better off -- the health deparnmenm probably requzres you mo excavate, bet a lot sf times you'll find that they'i1 cave in on you, and you'll never be able mo do that. And having the free rezgn of gomng in there actually physically digging in. getting all that clay out and knowing that you've gone through that clay. Initially the health department says greaE you've lone it and they approve mt. They prefez no do mE mnitially instead of approving me sublecn to. I've done a house where I've ~pproved the sanmmary sysmem when it was like that. I've told the pecple, this is a very expensmve sysnem that you're ioing in here, sc the health ieparnment doesn'm want mo have that problem later on when somebody buys a lot that you have mo dig down 27, 30 feet. They prefer doing zn just the way hhe applicant has done here. BOARD MEMBER IOEHRINGER: Can I smop you one point, that's a crane operatisn? MR. F~CHETTI: Yes, has mo be. BOARE MEMEER GOEHRINGER: That's ~nother concern we have. 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tormora has ~ question. MR. FICHETTI: Go ahead. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: The retaining wall~ Mr. Fischetti, the height of the retainmng wall? MR. FICHETTI: It's a twa-tier November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 retaining wali~ which is very expensive and the reason ~hiS was done was to get a reverse pitch. We haYe that depression there, as you said, there is a hole there, The retaining wall is going just to the south of that area. Part of that hole will be filled i~, but it's a two-tier retaining wall. The bottom to the top of the well, the lower wall -- let's see the bottom of the well is 79, top is 83; the second wall is -- the bottom of the wall is 83 going te 87, and the reason for that is te get the pitches aw~y and all the draining away from the slope. Everything is contained en this site. Ail the water and runoff that eriginaily, before this was built was going down that gully. Right new it's going backwards, and it's going into dry wells and actually that eno dry well in the corner I probably remember moving it further away from the edge ef the bluff because I don't want any of the water going in there te leach out the side, actually I talked te him, I said I don't like that. I want te move it further te the south se it doesn't leach out underneath the wall. BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: The areas inside the proposed where you have the retaining wal~, because I think the house right down the middle of the elevation 80 and then that area in there is kind ef crazy, it goes to 70 down te -- actually it goes down to about 76, do you plan en filling area? HR. FICHETTI: If you look at the topes there, you have a cut to the right and a fill to the left, se you're really going into that fill. I haven't done -- you asked for a calculation ef what's going te be needed en the site. I actually didn't do a calculation of what's needed en the site some of that fill will be cut en the east side and cross te the west side. Se it would be taken, I don't knew if additional fill would be put in there so it would be leveled off and bringing te the left to get that area in. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Did you go down to the base of the bluff? HR. PICHETTI: Ne, I did net. CHAIRWOHANOLIVA: There's ne November 20, 2003 42 2 3 ;t 8 2_5_ 12 24 15 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 stairs. MR. FICHETTI: No, I difln'£ go iown. We did ]usn the design from the uop. Is there a reason Eo ge down there? How's the tow; ms it stable down there? CHAIRWOHANOLIVA: For now, you are aware as I am, that you never know from the type of snorms that we have, the wave action, the wind acEion you can have a wonderful bluff Due lay, a tenuous bluff the next day. iV'fR. PICHETTI: Yep. I tell people don't think about giving these properties mo your grandchildren. That/s not the case here. rte bluff ms stable. The mow ms reasonable am this point, and when I did my analysis in the letter that I ~ave you, it was based on an angle of repose that was stable and all the consmruction that would be am nhe low ent of that extension of the anale of repose. So none of the eonstrucElon or none of the zmpact on the house or the fill that's pumting in here will destabilize that slope. The slope right now is stable. And ~s long as the vegema~zon is kept on the bluff it will -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Keep your fine-ers crossed. MR. FICHETTI: Again, even if the client here built a bulkhead here and none of the other neighbors have bulkheads it has no bearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fischetti, if you're finished, I'd like to know if anybody else in the audience has any comments about this application? Yes, ma'am. Would you give your name and address, please? MS. MORGAN: My name is Mary Morgan. I'm at 855 North View Drive, Brown's Hill. I have a letter I'll read to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MS. MORGAN: The lot in question was recently bought and the company proposes to construct a single-family dwelling to sell. The company wants two variances, one from 100 foot setback from the bluff and one from the 50 foot setback in the road. They propose a 43 foot setback. They propose a 65 by 35 foot house on a 2,080 footprint. The November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 properny has a huge gully or ravzne and the neighbors have always been told that this was an unbuildable lot and owner wants nc keep mt as a bird sancnuary. The sweet has divided another lot co achieve this bird san2~uary selling the ether portion. Hy questions and concerns are: Is the setback from the bluff an 50 feet enough ~o prevent erosion? And the one and-a-half sLory house proposed with mhe 2000 feetprznE is substantially larger that any ef the other neighboring houses, which are one-story dwellings. I'm atse thinking aboue the fill that they're going he use; is it nennatmve soils? Is it same kind of fill thaE could leach and be polluting or cause erosmon? And ultimately, there is this quesEien of sore ef the elephant in the roam kind of thing, you know, it was an unbuildable lot with these negatzve building envelope, and we bought a lot a couple Df years ago in Brown's Hills that was bio enough to build on, and I jusn wonder about the rules. I mean, if there are ldts that aren't -- don't have building envelopes how can they become buildinc envelopes? That's just my poznns. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you ~s there anybody else that wculd like ne comment? HR. MORGAN: Hy name is Tam Morgan. I ~lse live mn the same house with Mary Morgan. We ]use built the house a couple of years ago withoum applying far any variances and EOm needing anything. The house acnually is a little bit smaller in footprint than this. It doesn't have a garage, houses in Brown's Hills do non have garages. I was ak the hearing mn the spring and it had been discussed about the fact that it was a negaEzve building envelope and that application was withdrawn, ~nd mt became a moot point. Bun these reads are also przvate roads~ They're nee public roads, and if there was an ereszon that the association would have ~o rebuild the road and replace the fill a~d whaEever. It's net an immediate concern ef mine. The houses on em~her side, the mwe houses on the west are much more modest iwellings. One ms perched on the side ef the bluff like an outhouse mn the Ozarks, and it's November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 44 some d~y g6i~g To be a be~ch house am some time, but those were built an times when these rules weren't in place and there were no rules about setback and the bluffs, as far as I know you could build right en the edge. But I would like your permission to read a letter fram another one ef the residents who jusm built a he,se even more recently than we did. That's Bill Rile, I'll give you a copy ef the letter, addressed co the Southeld Zoning Beard of Appeals re thms ztem. Dear Sir, I am a resident ef Brown's Hill and am concerned ~beut Lhe envlronmenmal impact of building ena small lot on Long Island Sound. I am net mn princmpal agamnsm any house being built on this lot. E would ask that the ZBA think very carefully about the envlrcnmental issues before deciding whether this lot is buildable, and no what degree the ZBA will allow it se. Paint one: Hast importantly, the let is tiny. There is a large natural ravine running- through it and the dawn the bluff facing no the north. This is the natural drainage. A 65 feet by 32 feet house as proposed cannot be built without filling the ravine. What environmental impact will thms have on the bluff and hew will drainage occur after the ravine ms full eum of existence? I cannon answer the question that uhe ZBA must answer ~nd before giving any relief he the 100 foot bluff setback. Paint Ewe: The applicant requesns that a 100 feet environmental setback from the bluff be reduced ~c 50 feet in order that this house be built. A house could be built farther than 50 feet fram the bluff and closer ~o the road potentially reducin~ the environmental impact on the bluff and ravine. The house wouli almost have te be smaller er narrower than proposed -- incidentally, Bill Rile is an architect -- The front yard setback might be reduced by 25 feet in order ~o create a greamer setback ne the bluff. In parens a 25 foot front yard setback was granted by ZBA number 4851 en 9/11 00 at 915 South View Drive, more reasonable site planning and environmental considerations were the ~ovember 20. 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1£ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~etivati~ ~e~h~ for the variance. Number three: This lot is the remainder of a larger lot which had been subdivided and partially sold off by the current owner. The owner has told alt adjoining neighbors over the years that this remaining lot would also be nature preserve or bird sanctn~ry. The owner has correctly said that this lot is unbuildable following the current environmental and zoning setbacks. Current neighbors have net only purchased and built their houses with this knowledge but the existing laws but they have also attempted to discuss with the owner the possibility of purchasing the lot in order to leave it undeveloped, and letters to this effect have been ignored. Point four: And current application is a test by speculative builders/developers to find out how much ZBA will bend the rules to allow a house to be built with environmental setbacks. Today's market, the larger the house the larger the profit. I would ask again that the ZBA. take a closer look at the environmental issues raised by the construction of this lot. Sincerely, William Rile. CHAIRWOMAN OLtVA: One question, Mr. Morgan, are there stairs going down to the bluffs someplace in Brown's Hills? MR. MORGAN: Not on that property. There is a Brown's Hills right of way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where is that? MR. MORGAN: Between that next house to the west and the next house beyond that to the west is a 25 foot right of way that goes down to a -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Stairs? MR. MORGAN: -- 108 steps, 109 steps. find it. site which on? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was trying to It used to be further to the east. MR. MORGAN: There was a former CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Has been built MR. MORGAN: No. November 20, 2003 8 10 12 13 14 17 19 2{ 21 22 23 24 25 C~kWOMAN 0LIVA: There are stairs. Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: ~iss Wickham, who is the owner of this property? MS. WICKNILM: The owner of the property is Edna Doll. She was unable to be here today. Her nephew is here. I jest want to note that there is no credible evidence in the record she may have made as to buildablity, and can supply an attorney, Mr. Came~etti, who advises that she would refute having made any representations te the neighbors as to that effect. I'd also, while I'm up here, like to point out that the survey I did just give you showing the test hole information revised August 20th does shew the square footage ef the lot. I just didn't see it earlier, 41,907 square feet. It's noted up at the bottom of the slope, which is net where we're used to seeing it, so we didn't see it. It is on the survey. I'll get you additional prints. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak? MR. ASTLE: Hy name is Chris A-S-T-L-E, my wife and I own the property immediately te the east. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was Helen -- HR. ASTLE: It was, we bought it Hoss, who I think bought it from from Murray Helen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, got it. MR. ASTLE: ~lyway, we were told at the time that it was an unbuildable let. Te the side ef us, which we wouldn't have bought the place if we knew that a house could be built there, and if a house can be built there especially one this big, I don't know that we'll still stay there, I'm pretty sure we won't. We're very worried about the fact -- I mean, I just saw this plan and it's like these retaining walls going through this natural area right on the bluff. It's like a beautiful natural area and if you re up there, the whole community is like that. This is just going te be like these retaining walls that are unnaturally keeping, yen know, the bluff in a way that it's kind ef net meant to November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2S be, a~d who k~Ow~ how well they'i1 work. We know that it stayed that way ~or a long mime, the way that it is right new. Anyways, I'm no£ an experm en iE, but it looks highly unannractive ~o me in the plans. Net that - it's non my properly, but we bought it knowing that the laws said that it cemldn't be built there, and henesnly I wonder why the laws are mn place if they're lust going te be changed. CHAIRWON~kN OLIVA: I don't think there's anything in the law that says it couldn't be built on. HR. ASTLE: rhat it couldn'u be built eh? Well, the laws pun cereain -- CHAIRWOHAN 0LIRA: Conditions on things. But it doesn'~ mean that somehow, somewhere £hat something can'£ be built eh. MR. ASTLE: As an adjoining neighbor, I snane my objections mc bendin~ thcse conditions. BOARD HEMBER TORTCRA: Without variances. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: It does need variances. I'm hoe sayzng you jusu come in and plop ~ house there, but. MR. ASTLE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Unless you and your neighbors wanned to gee mogether and buy than piece of properny, the owner has properny rm~hts. MR. ASTLE: I understand that. We've talked about doing that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like no commenE Dn this application? Yes, sir. HR. DALE: Yes, my name's Carl Dale, I'm the nephew of Edna Doll. I just wane no say that my aunu Eo my knowledge has never made any reference no a bird sancnuary. She's had land there for 50 years and she loves the area very much. She's currently handicapped. She had a snroke four years ~gu. So I'm handling the business as much as I can for her. I lush wanu no say a couple of things. She really doesn't wann uo sell ~he land, but she is what you mmcht 2all a hardship case. She needs 24 hour care and November 20, 2003 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this is one of the reasons we want to put it up for sale. SO she's endeavoring as much as she can through me and the parties that want te buy to minimize any impact upon that property, and as Miss,Wickhem had indicated,' te put as small a house that is possible there. That's all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No one else has any comments? MR. ASTLE: Can I just say eno more thing. I could provide the letter to this B6ard, where Edn~ talks about the fact that She said that was a bird sanctuary and a fox sanctuary. She wrote a letter within the last year stating that. CHAIRWOMAn{ OLIVA: So then do it and give it to us. If there are no further questions, we will recess this hearing until December 18th. MS. KOWALSKI: At 2:30 in the afternoon. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'll make such a motion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is Richard and Nancy Cincotta. They are applying for a special exception for a bed and breakfast of having not more than four casual and transient roomers at 26815 Main Road in Cutchogue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is your application four or two? MS, HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Excuse me? MS. KOWALSKIi Two guest rooms? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Two. MS. KOWALSKI: Would you please state your full name for the record? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Nancey Hawthorn-Cincotta, at 26815 Main Road in Cutchogue. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: I have two alterations, amendments, one on the request of Jessica, I had neglected to draw in the November 20, 2003 2 3 6 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 49 dfiveway on a copy of the survey, so I have that for you. And I also, unfortunately I copied the first floor of your plans on mhe library's photocopy machine ~nd they're non very good. So I've since made photocopies for you. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are they copies for all the Board members here? MS. HAWTHORII-CINCOTTA: Yes. CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: You have a second floor, correct? MS. P~tWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLtVA: Then we have a noEe. BOARD HHMBER TORTORA: I jusE have the second floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's 2opmes of the second floor mn the packem. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We got it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three bedrooms, two baths, zs it? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. MS. KOWALSKI: Two guesE rooms on the second floor, rmght? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Two guesE roDms on the second floor, the other room is for us, my husband and me. 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the survey it says a third suory. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: There is an unfinished third story. It's non finished rzcht now, it's jusn framing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does 1L have flDorzng mn it? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: It has wood boards CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That you can walk on zm, rzght? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. It's a full-sized third snory. It's just non finished space. MS. KOWALSKI: It's not a liveable area for future bedrooms or anything? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How old is the house, Ms. Hawthorn? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: 90 years old. November 2{ , 2603 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 O~hiRwoMAN OLIVA: That's why. Mr. Horning do you have ~ny questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'll ~sk about the parking. You're only ~omng co have ~wo rooms aE any time for your B and Bi MS. HAWTHORN~CINCD~TA: Yes. It's a small one and you'll see on nhat amended copy of the survey, I drew in where nhe driveway lurrenuly exisus. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And there will be adequaue parking for your vehicles and your guests? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Rmght. We expecn two vehicles if the inn is full and we have uwo vehicles. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Will they be able co nurn around and no~ back ouE? MS. HAWTHORN-OINCOTTA: Yes, they will. It's kind ufa three~pomnE mum smtuatisn. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sc looking am the plan Mrs. Cincotta, you have encroachment sn your nemghbor's propermy; ms that correcu based upon what I see Dr gather ou~ of this; this driveway extends into the nemghbor's propermy? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yeah. suppose that when they subdivided the propermy they ]usu kind sf split the driveway in half, which is why we dug into ~ur front yard, ~o make suitable parking. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you'll nou be usmng the driveway on your neighbor's proper~y? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: No. EHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ju~E on your properEy? MS. HAWTHOPN~SINCOTTA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So jusE ~o again reenforce, there will be no backing Duu on the Main Road am any time? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: No. We male it, and you'll be able me see, there is a space in the southern mosm secElon ef the propermy where the guesms will be able ~o park, and then there's another space kind of ~round the garden where we'll be able me put November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our cars. Currently there's a big dumpsuer right now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've done a substantial amounm Df work on this house. MS~ HAWTHCRN-CINCOTTA: Yes, we have, and we're embarking -- we're sleeping in the living rzght now because constructzon's startin~ mo renovate the second floor. It was a house that unfortunately suffered decades and decades of neg-lecm. I had plant growth from the first ~loQr outside growinG- inside my second smory. BOARD MEMBER ~OEHRINGER: You've done a wonderful job so far. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the second floor then will have two bathrooms where Am shows on your ~lans, ]use one ~throom? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was }oing no ask, you show three bedrooms but you're only showing one bathroom. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: What we're toing is cutting into - currently, rzght now ~here are four bedrooms and one very small bath. So what we're going to do ms there's one very small bedroom that's not really able to fit much more than a crib; so we're gomng mo mum that into a bath, plus encroach on that space mc widen the exmsmmng bath, which is right adlacenm £o that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Sc where she bedroom number one ms -- MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~: -- you're gozng ~c creame a bathroom area? MS. EAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: There is an exzsnmng bath. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You're gozng £o blow oum that wall mo make the other one? ~S. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right. It will be almost 18 inches wider than it is right now. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So where i~ ms now, the existing bathroom, would be -- it's very tough ho see by these lines, but that would be for the master bath. for your prmvacy I assume? November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 ¥ 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAWTHORN-CINCO~TA: No, that's going to be one of the guest rooms with an attached bath. We have a separate bath downstairs, a full bath, on the first floor for us. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So two bathrooms upstairs and -- MS. HAWTHORN-C~NCOTTA: And two guest rooms and our bedroom. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Se your bath is going to be downstairs? MS. H~THORN-C!NCOTTA: Yes. MS. KOWALSKI: Plus one bedroom for family on the second floor? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Two bedrooms on the second floor, each with thei~ own baths, and she will use bedroom Number 3 and the bathroom downstairs, r~ght? MS. H~WTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right. MS. KOWALSKI: There's still three bedrooms downstairs. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tertora, de you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER ~ORTOP~I: Ne, I was curious because it didn't look terribly convenient. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Our first apartment was like that, so I guess I'm used to sleep walking. BOARD MEMBER TORTO~: We have no problems~with a traditional bed and bath, no use for habitation that guest bedroom or anything else? MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You will have the proper exit signs? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The building department will take care of that. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. And fire alarm system. CHAIRWOHAiq OLIVA: And also from the second floor those rope ladders or chain ladders for the bedroom windows will be of a proper size te get out. MS. HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: You'll check November 20, 2003 C 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 25 53 with the building deparnmenE -- MS. RAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes. And I'll have me check with them about the specifications of the fire sysEem. Z've heard some conflicting opinions in the industry over what eurrens inn owners have had Eo cie, whether it needs Eo be a connected system er whether it's individual fire alarms. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer, anything else? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to be connected but that'S all I need to say. MS HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: They need me be connected? Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 8ut don'E hear that from me. CHAIRWOMAi~ DLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like mo cemmenE on this application? HR. HENDERSON: Hi, Marlon Henderson. I live across the snreeE ~ 26760 Main Road. Hy wife and I have lived there for 13 years, and we're very happy with what Rich and Nancey have done with the property, and our only concern was, and I mentioned this ~e Nancey before, was the height ef hhe signage that might appear there en hhe preper~y, and she's related me me that hhere ms a cede hhere that ms only £wo by Ewe I think; ms that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two by three. MR. PETERSON: Okay. That was my only concern we're very happy te see the property being brought back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Any other comments? If neT, I will zlese en the hearin~ ~nd reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor Whereupsn, all Beard members responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWONLAiq OLIVA: Next application is Walter Teresko, Number 5429. This is a requesm for a variance for a new mobile home that does no£ have access, is nom located on a public serenE. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 54 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ~head, Gall? MS. WICKHAM: We are here szmply for 280A access. Mr. Teresko has found that he is finding the greenhouse eperammon, which he's run for years and years there to be a bit efa strain there, and while he's still contlnuinc mt he's crying to plan ~ little for his reEiremenm. And he did acqumre a number of years ago the lot mn question. The ZBA did approve it. For some re,sen there was no discussion of access, and we feel thee that needs te be addressed at this time with the specification from your Beard as me the mype of roadway for emergency vehicle access. The areas en New Suffolk Road is actually 37 feet. but the proposed riaht of way would be 30 facE. The reason for the width is that the driveway will be whatever you requmre mn terms ef width, 15, 16 feet, and then he has a number of plantings and personal z~ems along the perimeter that he would like mo mamnnazn and control as perm of the right of way. We've narrowed it down to iX feet a~ the Dther end where it enmers the lot, but try Eo accommodame the curve with a gradual reductzon in width, so that the curve can be made by emergency vehicles. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I speak? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm a little concerned. I was down there and I'm nom sure, are we talking new or ~roposed new mobile home? Is that what we're talking mbout? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We had this applic~mzon last spring. MS. WICKH~kM: No, you had a differen£ ~pplication, BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But I'm looking ~t almcsE the identical survey that we had before. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But where are we going ms the ~uestion? MS. WICKHAM: It's confusing because the max maps were changed. You're gomng mo this lot here indicating). It may have been closed for reference, proposed November 20. 2003 1 2 3 ¥ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 55 diviszon of these Ewo properties, but that is non what's before you today. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What happened with that though? Give us the background from the time that you left us the last nzme. MS. WICKHAM: Okay, we had requested a change Lo move this lot line back no here indicating~. You rejected that and so this contznues £o be one entire single and separane piece Df properny with nothing no do with this applicanzon. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. MS. WICKEAM: Mr. Teresko had asked you me go back te the historical usage of this let, which included this piece, and you said no, it makes this piece nee small Se we ke~E z~ the way it is. That has nothing no de with what we're doing today. Als0 no give you some background, we're applying ne the Planning Board ~nd we mae with them ne discuss the division of this preperEy into cwo large lots. We're jusE havin~ trouble with the existing barn and where that line would be. Sc ultimately the right of way we're asking you to approve today fez this let would be accommodating those Ewe properties as well. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the right of way -- this is where I'm little concer~ed because the 3{ foot r~ght of way that would be giving access ~o 1~7 5.2 that, ~e my understanding, zs a future subdivision? MS. WICKHAM: Ne 5.2 is a single ~nd separaEe lot. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That's slated for $ subdivision? MS. WICKHAM: No. That's nee a big lot, 1.~ acres. That you ceuldn'E divide that. What he wanes nc divide is this 3.7 acre parcel into Ewe lots but that's a separate application. I'm hoe even sure that comes Eo you. 80ARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don'E think LE probably would. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I see that map for one second? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The reason ask that I remember the time, and it may be November 20, 2003 56 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 2i 25 misinformation, that someone had suggested to us that this parcel over here was eventually slated as part efa larger parcel for part of a subdivision? MS. WICKHAM: Not anything Mr. Teresko's planning. I don't know what that is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a question? I've got to write this decision, okay, that's what concerns me. We're coming in here and going over to here. MS. WICk: 30 foot right of way narrowing to 15 feet to access 6his property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to that tangent right here? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. And this right of way will also serve this parcel. CHAIRWOI~AN OLIVA: You're going to subdivide it? MS. WICKHAM: But that would anyway. It's not part of this application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I'm going there? MS. WICKHAM: You're going there. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm,not as concerned about the 30 foot, that's sufficient, but at the event at some point ten years from now down the road or some point, the status of the use of that access would change or become more intense. MS. WICKHAM: I don't think you can get more than one house off a 50 foot roadway; am I right? I don't think the planning board allows that. MS. KOWALSKI: I think you're right. I don't think so either. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They're 22 now. MS. WlCKHAM: Unless he granted additional right of way later on and then try to come back here for your approval. BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~A: That's the only thing. MS. WICKHAM: That's not a problem. We have no plans to subdivide. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, 14 years down the road, ten years down road that these circumstances change and that November 20, 2003 57 1 2 15 foot portion would have to come back for further review. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At that point we can enhance or deenhance based upon 4 the whole situation. MS. KOWALSKI: Also and tNe 5 planning board can take over and decide. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. 6 MS. KOWALSKI: So instead ef coming back here, you can take it through 7 planning. MS. WICKHAM: I'm just confused 8 and I don't know where that information came from but it is Cutchegue, you hear all kinds 9 of things. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se if 10 you were to see me down there doing a test hole, that's what I'm doing. 11 MS. WICKHAM: A test hole? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. I 12 might just do a little test soil. I don't usually de that. 13 MS. WICKHAM: You have te be careful driving in here, don't hit the 14 animals. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Be careful of 15 the chickens. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 16 taught by two people. I was taught by Bob Douglas, which was a very, very interesting 17 education, and I was taught by a prier engineer, an eld time engineer that we had and 18 they said you really can't make a determination on a preexisting driveway -- 19 when I say preexisting in use - without doing a test hole. 2£ MS. WICKHAM: You're going to do a test hole on the driveway? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. WICKHAM: You have talk to 22 Walter before you start digging on that driveway. 23 BOAi%D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not going to dig I may bounce off the Town 24 engineer. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm warning 25 those chickens are protective before you very you started digging. November 20, 2003 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 MS. WICKHAM: That's a good pcint though. That preliminary pare of the driveway within the 30 foot area has been a driveway for alonc time; whether much needs ~o be scooped out there I uhink is a question, certainly as you go out around th~ corner ~o the back you'd need your normal six inches. BOARD ~EMtBER GOEHRINGER: Base. MS. WICKHAM: Te remove and suabilize the base. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, sc I'll be down there Saturday. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Mr. Hern±ng. BOARD YfEMBER HORNING: I have no quesnions. BOARD MEMBER IOEHRINGEH: I'm probably non going no do ~ Eesu hole. Just going To look. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If nom, we will 21ose the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor, Whereupon, all Beard members responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Mot±eh to recess for lunch. second. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'll 2HAIRWONSkN OLIVA: All in favor? Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor, and a lunch recess was taken from 11:55 a.m. ~e 1:00 ~.m. 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like uo motion to reconvene~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se moved. responded Brown, this addition to 10 feet on a CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMikN OLIVA: Ail in favor? Whereupon. ~11 Board members in favor. CPL~IRWOHAN OLIVA: So moved. Our 1:00 p.m. hearing is Karen is a requesm for a variance for an the exms~l~g dwellinc am less than single side yard, au 1300 November 20, 2003 59 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Founders Path, S6~theld. Hr. Strang. PER. STRANG: Geed afnernoen. Garret Strang, Architect, representing Karen Brown with respecE Ee this application. Quick overview of the prelect here ms we have an exlsEing one-story, single-family cottage with two very small bedrooms and one bath which has been used as a part-time vacation residence, weekend residence. The proposal for this is to mainEain it as a one-story, single-family residence, but te make it full-time use as the owner will be retiring here full time, and to enhance it so that it has three bedrooms and Ewo baths. The additions that are being proposed ~re basically needed nc mee~ not only the owner's criteria te cenverm this from a coenage tea full-time residence, but te address nonconforming bedroom sizes into 2ode compliant bedroom sizes and creaEe a master bedroom and bath area so that it would be compatible with full-time use. The challenges that we've met here is that the house is on a 76 er 75 foot wide lot, and the house sits askew on that lot. If it were parallel with the side lot lines we wouldn't really need to be before the Board. Unfortunately is sits askew, and the existing location of the house dictates the location of where the bedrooms are and where they will remain, be increased in size and to address the code issues with respect to the size. And there's really no other practical alternative available to us for placement of these expansions. Therefore, we need and are seeking the relief from this Board. Things that we'd like the Board to consider in making a determination is the fact ~ that what we are seeking for relief is minimal since the areas that are or will become in violation to the codes are triangular in shape, they're stepped back from the property line intentionally so as to minimize the impact on the side yard, and they total the -- how should I say -- the area that's nonconforming or will become nonconforming, November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 6O totals ten square feet and six square feet respectively, and they are in one-story addition; we're not going up a second story in the house. The remainder of all the additions are compliant with the zoning as are the front and rear total si~e yards. If the Beard has any questions, certainly I'd be happy te address them at this time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there and is there any way on that eno side yard instead of a 10.2 setback you couldn,t -- it's just a ti~y piece there that you're coming out. Could yon just do that in line in the front and beck instead ef coming out? MR. STRANG: We investigqted that and the addition to the rear ef the house is for the master suite, and the addition toward the front is te create a little area that would be sort of a computer room er a little den or office toward the front. Se that whole side of ~he house would basically be a master suite. The opposite side of the house is the other two guest bedrooms. If we can't come forward -- there's a hath in the middle new that we're going te enhance. We're trying te keep the plumbing and everything that's there in place. As I mentioned earlier, we ~kd step it back te try and keep that reduction. If we were te try and come forward and maintain that 10.2, that ream in the f~ont would be unusable in size and not compliant with the cede as far as the minima~ dimensions that are required by cede. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tertora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The eno story addition is going to be how many bedrooms you said? HR. STRANG: The total in the house will go to three bedrooms. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So in the 14 by 27 addition that you're doing? HR. STRANG: The 14 by 27 feet addition encompasses the master bed~oem and master bath. The other two bedrooms are enhanced by the addition en the apposite side of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's my November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 underStand[n% {hot this is an A frame house, a cathedral ceiling? HR. STRANG: It's a cathedral ceiling in the living area, which is in the middle of the house. Obviously the house was a little tiny cottage and had some bumps put on it over the years. BOARD M~HBER TORTORA: The ten foot setback line, is that where you have marked 27 en the survey, there's a variegated line. And it says en the llne it's almost even where the measurement 27, is that the ten foot setback? MR. STRANG: The ten feet setback is basically the corner of the existing, where it says 10.2 in the unhighlighted area or the clear area, it says 10.2 on the front of the house, that corner on the property line is 10.2 as it presently exists. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was trying to visually see which, of what portion ef those juts are nonconforming and there's ne way for me te ascertain that on this survey? MR. STRANG: I only have eno copy of this, but I'd be happy it to share, leave it with you. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: This line here. MR. STP~tNG: Right. That is the ten foot setback required by zoning. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things, on the face of it, these little juts are insignificant. MR. STNANG: Yes. BOARD HEHBER TORTORA: However, if we grant it, if the Beard were se inclined to grant an eight feet minimum setback, it would be only for these plans? MR. STRANG: That's perfectly fine. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: Se if they were modified te increase that, and it would be very specific to that little jets and these plans so, if the Board -- so that you couldn't come back and say oh, my gosh, we're going to ge all along the property line. MR. STRANG: No, I de have a floor plan already prepared and submitted to the November 20, 2003 12 13 14 lB 16 17 24 25 i 62 owner for their review and ~ave given a positive response to which relates to the relief that we're seeking here. So. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You would agree -- this relief plans in so concerned? MR. STRANG: We would agree. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- that would be specifically to these far as that side yard is MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLiVA: Mr. Goeh~inger? BOARD MEMBE~ GOE~INGER: Can t go next? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Geehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll even go a little bit farther than that and that is the plans are generic or site specific te this particular one-story structure and that there be no further trying er attempting te develop that vacant piece ef property, which I know has a garage on it, but would have a significant impact if the Beard were so inclined to grant this to create another lot en Hobart? MR. STRANG: I believe the lets are merged. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand they're merged. But one never knows what's going to happen to zoning in hamlet areas. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: He's got a garage on there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wouldn't make any difference. It's still succinct and still separate from the existing house. It would double the lot coverage if they tried to split that off. Again, I would like to mention within the decision assuming the Board was so inclined. MR. STRANG: If the Board was so inclined to grant what's been applied for here with the condition on that -- I'm just trying not to put my client in a corner, if you will -- could that condition be read that they have to come back before this Board if they were to entertain the idea of splitting that November 20, 2003 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 63 off? I don't know that hhey have any intention. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They would have to anyway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They wou~d have to anyway, Ga!rett. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The feeling here is that we're looking at eno let now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. STRANG: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA; We're looking at a plan to devetep eno lot. If there are planning te be twa lots, I wouldn't be inclined to grant any varilances because it would be overcrowded. MR. STNZANG: There's no plans te that nature te my knowledge. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think that's where we're all going here. HR. STRANG: I don't have a challenge with it. I just, if the wording is such that they'd h~ve te come back and there's no guarantee the Board would grant that lot be split off, I'm just -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, mainly because it would be probably be 2% percent lot coverage then or maybe even greater, er it may be 34. MR. STRAiqG: It would depend on the ground where that lot line fell it would necessitate a rear yard variance. It's net the intention of my client te split that let. Right now they enjoy a nice view fram their rear yard of their house and their deck across that vacant piece of property te that creek. Fortunately, the neighbors across Hobart are staggered in such a way that they de have a view ef that creek, and I think that they'd want to maintain that so there's never been a discussion or intention to try and split that lot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ne questions. Wait, I do have a question. On the eastern side of the survey you have with the master bedroom suite, et cetera, is that a hallway, that narrow hallway connecting? CHAIRWOMiTN OLIVA: What you November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 propose to be a computer room in the front. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are you just blowing out the wall of the existing -- MR. STRANG: This may help. This is the proposed floor plan that the original wall ef the house is along here, actually, it's along here comes across here. It's not a hallway, it's a bump te accommodate the master bath, part of which is already in this area as the only existing bath'in the house. The hallway's internal. EOARD MBMBER HORNING: This is actually erigina!; where is the original -- MR. STRANG: The original building line is about where the fireplace is here. BOARD MEMBER HORNIHG: This way? MR. STRANG: That way it's pretty much about here. Actually may be all the way out, I'm sorry. It may be all the way out. I don't have the existing condition overlay te relate to that. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I was just curious about this little piece here, I mean if there was a wall on either side it would make me wonder. MR. STRANG: No. There's not a wall. The exterior wall will be removed. HS. KOWALSKI: Would any board members like extra copies of it? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have to write this thing so it might be helpful. MR. STRANG: will you like mere copies of this? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We don't have one for the file. Proper protocol, file first. MS. KOWALSKI: Then just a photocopy of the survey that you were referring to earlier. MR. STRANG: But a couple of additional copies. BOARD MEMBER TORTONA: Please, just make sure I got one because this is my file, please. MS. KOWALSKI: At least two more, Garret. MR. STRANG: No problem. You'll notice when you look at that proposed floor November 20, 2003 C 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 24 6~ plan that the spaces, the additions are quite modest, it's not anything palatial we're proposing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beard members have any other quos%ions? Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak far er against this application? If net, I'll make a motion to ciasa the hearing and reserve decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Board me,ers responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. Next hearing is Dimitri and Helen Sogoloff, and a request to have a new deck construction at less than 100 feet from the sound bluff or bank. Mr. Lark, I have a little problem, The notice of disapproval says that the as built deck is noted as being 49 feet from the bluff. There's no deck. MR. LARK: I know that. I can explain it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope so. MR. LARK: If I might. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I walked all around looking for that deck. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You didn't fall in the swimming pool~ I hope? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. It's a very nice swimming pool. MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road Cutchogue, New York for the applicants. This is an application for a variance requiring the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance 100-239.%, which requires all buildings or structures to be 100 feet back from the top of the bluff when the property faces on Long Island Sound. The application has two proposals;~one to obtain a variance from the 100 foot requirement for the proposed 14 and-a-half by 16 foot bedroom to be added onto the westerly portion of the house, and to obtain approval of the reconstruction of the wood deck, which was also within the 100 feet. And I'll do the bedroom first then the house November 20, 2003 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But your notice of disapproval doesn't say that. MR. LARK: I can't speak for their English, Mrs. Otiva, but the application clearly before you and the plans and everything were for the bedroom and the application submitted to the building department was, in fact, for the bedroom. I'll explain the deck. The deck was there at the time the original application was made. CHAIRWO~OLIVA: Then what happened? MR. LARK: To the deck? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. LARK: Very simply, the builder dealing with the building department, as you see in the notice of disapproval there he said the deck illegal, I cannot give you a permit for your addition. He then told the contractor that if you remove the deck, since the addition is not going to be any more forward toward the bluff than the existing house, which sits back that 64 feet, I will give you the permit. Against my advice, the contractor removed the deck that was there and so hence you do have -- and then the building inspector denied -- he lied, and he denied. He's lied, it's as simple as that, and then he still had to come for his variance because he wouldn't give him the building permits for the bedroom, which is what the initial application was. And I've got that covered in my presentation but that's what happened. Okay. First of all, as I understand it, the bedroom is the primary application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the west side of the house, correct? MR. LARK: The west side, yes, ma'am. I think you have photographs of it and I think it's shown on the survey the proposed addition. I understand from the past action of the Board of Appeals, that the balancing test, criteria, which you made the benefit of the applicant against the detriment -- the welfare of the neighborhood, will be utilized like we do in area variance cases to be applied to this application. November 20, 2003 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 67 When I first got the application to look at it, as I said, the deck was there. I went te the property to see what was involved with the setback and I was immediately impressed by the mature growth of the trees and the shrubs in the rear yard aPea~ and having some experience in bluff erosion and knowing the reason for the 100 foot setback, I then went down to the beach to investigate what the story was on the bluff, and if you've been to the pro~er~y, you'll ~ee how, 'cause I was ~ery impr~ssed~ how lush or well-established it was, and there was littie or no erosion. I was particularly concerned because there was no bulkhead on the property or rock rip wrap. I was there fortunately at a period of high tide, and I noticed that the high tide that the water did not come anywhere near the tow on the bluff, storm water at will, so I looked around and there was no evidence of erosion there that had taken place on the tow of the bluff. I thought, all right. This has been here a goodly amount of time. I think this application will be okay. Then I updated the survey to determine exactly how far the existing house and the deck was, and I think you have that before you. Mr. Metzger did the survey and the house is 63 feet and the deck was %7. It was a little difficult for me to guesstimate accurately because of the irregularity of the top of the bluff line coastal thing is at that point. In any event, that's what the distances are. Then I looked, 'cause I noticed the unusual architecture of the house, and I looked at what was going on there with why they were proposing it. It turned out that the house itself, it has a -- I investigated then as to what the story was on building permits and everything, and I discovered that the house was built in 1975 and it was a Charles Moore house. I didn't know who Charles Moore was, but little investigation I found out he was a famous architect and there's only two houses on Long Island that he did, one here and one over in East Hampton. This one here and the one over in East Hampton. I found that out from November 20, 2003 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Mr. Sogoloff because he went back to that architectural firm. He didn't want to do anything with the integrity ef the house, that's who designed -- with the plans I think you have before you -? that's who designe~ the one story bedroem~ So in any event, that's wha~ the story is en the house. The building CO on that was issued by Howard Terry in 1975, and aS I looked at the original plans and that deck was on the origiRal plans, and if you go te the property, it's obvious in order te get out of the French deers into the living area, you get to have some sort of landing or deck because it's about two feet~ BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you going to recreate this deck? HR. LARK: That's what the proposal was. If you leek on the plans, he was going te replace the decking because when I saw it they had deteriorated ever time. It's all landscaped around it so it's going te go in that little alcove situation there. Because I just couldn't understand when I get te that with the building department, I'm not into this building business like architects are, but they put that guest cottage connected te the house with the front deck in the front in 1998 er '99, and if the deck was illegal then, Mr. Forester I'm sure would have never given them the permits or the COs at that time te do that because deck was involved, even though it was en the front ef the house at that time. But in any event, that was in '99 and then for the house, and so and the original plans did that have that deck in the back. In fact, the assessors have been assessing it ever since then because I checked the assessments role and they calculated it to be 63 by 14 feet when they calculated for their assessment. Prom personal experience having been there can say it was obviously there a long time because I could leek at the decking itself, the wood and a lot of it needed to be replaced. But the main thing that they wanted te get approval net only to put that back and that same exact footprint, but also te get the permit for the bedroom November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2£ 2~ 22 23 24 25 69 because of the W~ the house is configured, they have two small children and they need another bedroom. Although I was kidding with the client, I said when they're teenagers they will want the guest cottage, not to be in your bedroom, not in the house under your control. But taking everything into consideration all the standards that you have to apply and the balancing test, I don't think there will be any undesirable change in the neighborhood at all, especially with the addition Of the one bedroom and the replacement of the deck that existed. The relief is not substantial. The bedroom's only 232 square feet, footprint of 1,582 as you have on plan. There should be no adverse impact on the environment. I was gratified I got a copy of the soil and water conservation department in Suffolk County and they had confirmed all that I had found when I went there several months prior. The one thing they did point out, and I think it's a valid point and I will bring it to the Board's attention also, not only with the new construction but it's much better to have dry wells for the roof runoff in that particular property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think the trustees will be -- MR. LARK: I think that will be a good condition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They never did have a CO for that deck? MR. LARK: I say they did. Mr. Terry was very prone to give a one-family house. That's all he wrote on the thing. It could have a detached garage; it could hard an attached garage, not a swimming pool, a deck and he never mentioned them. I could show you many, many, and it's only been the last ten years and they were given all this proof of the original plans, and it's only been this last ten years that the building department has taken great delight because it's not spelled out specifically to say it's illegai. How they can make a determination it's illegal anyway, the common sense of this one just absolutely blew my mind because it was clear November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 7O that had been ~here a long, long time and the house was built in '75 and the original architect plans and everything when you consider everything, it made no sense not to have it built at that time. How would you get out of the French doors ~rom the living area to get outside? And when you look at the vegetation that surrounded it, it was -- they were obviously not fresh planted. They have been there 20, 30 years, especially the cedars. BOARD ME~R TORTOP~A: Mr. Lark, I see, actually, we had ene quite similar te this this morning. It was handled differently. But we did have one quite similar to this. Run it by me again how they got yeu to destroy the deck. MR. LARK: Can t have my secretary in my office is my witness 'cause I couldn't believe it. Told the builder the deck is illegal. If yeu take down the deck, I'll give you your permit because yeur bedroom addition is net any more forward than the existing house. The builder, against my advice and teld the client it weuld expedite the permit, you weuldn't have te ge te the Board, yeu wouldn't have to do all these things te expedite it, and teak it dawn. It was net a big deal when they went back te get the permit issued, and which they already applied there and which you see two different dates. He said sorry abeut that, I made a mistake. I can't do that. Yeu still have to ge befere the Board ef Appeals. And I said now you really have te go to put the deck -- there is ne deck. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just a little amazed, as I'm sure my celleagues are, and having gene through a similar situation with the applicant this merning. BOARD HEMEER GOEHRINGER: Same exact thing happened with McAllister, where they enjoyed the heuse and the swimming pool. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But the same thing. I den't have any questions. MR. LARK: That's what happened. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I went leoking far a deck and I couldn't find it. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 71 MR. LARK: It was there, I saw it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I suspect that is the reasen why the deck deteriorated was in 1975 when the deck was built, there was no CCA. MR. LARK: That's what it was. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's all I can say. I concur with your environmental analysis. MR. LARK: It's pretty nice back there. BOARD MEMBER GOEP~RIHGER: It's very, very, nice, and I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: George. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ail set. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, we have to give you a variance for the deck and for the bedroom addition. MR. LARK: I was hoping just the bedroom addition but that's what we developed into. MS. KOWALSKI: Is the bedroom addition there? MR. LARK: No. You have the' photographs. There's too much money involved here to be messing around with that. BOARD MEMBER TORTONA: Very nice house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very nice putting a nice grape arbor in there. Anybody in this audience that wishes to speak for er against this applicatien? If net, I'll clese the hearing and reserve decisien until letter. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRING~R: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. (Whereupen, all Beard members responded in laver.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is Marian Junes number, 5420 request fur a variance, notice ef disapprevat fur the garage that you would like to convert that to accessible space. Is there anybody here to speak for the application? MS. JONES: I'm Marian Jones, good afternoen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afterneen; November 20, 2003 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 how are you this afternoon? MS. JONES: I'm okay. We're here because we relied on the plans. We liked the design that he made, and the Town approved the plans. So we built what was on the p~ans~ we had absolutely no idea anything was wrong with the cupola design until the building inspector came and told us we had to take the floor out, which had already been installed. We know at this point that the architect made several serious errors in the design, and specifically with regard to the cupola. P~ght now we have this structure on top of our house, it's just sitting there, and we would like to ask the Board for relief in order to convert that cupola space, which is right now a big open space with a steel beam running through it, to an accessible space with limited use so that I can get up there and clean the windows and open and shut them in the summer, and so we can occasionally go up and look at the view 'cause you can see Horton's Point and Goldsmiths, and watch the sun go down and things like that. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: This is open from the second story I take it? You can't see it from the first floor. MS. JONES: You come up the stairs and there's a big wide open space; there's a bathroom and a bedroom and another bedroom and a little study area. That's the big story part of it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, you wanted? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was going to say, this is very similar te Levine and at Grand View. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It's a ladder stair. MS. JONES: That's the design as it was proposed, yes, BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is it a pull-down thing er permanent fix? MS. JONES: A permanent thing. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are you providing for any kind of fire prevention or fire extinguishing system up there or anywhere in the house? November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: There isn't right now. My name is Bob Jones, I'm the hnsband. And that's one of the dilemmas we have. This was a renovation of the summer cottage that we're going to retire out here to, and we would have to undo almost the whole structure to put a sprinkler system in at this point, and what we wanted to do was te very occasionally use and really what Marion's saying, to do the windows also to occasionally look at the view. It's not going to be a bedroom or a sleeping room or a den. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Again, tell us, you got a building permit, did you? MR. JONES: The original plans called for what you have. We got a building permit. I mean, the building department inspected periodically. When it was substantially finished, the building inspector told us it was illegal. We had already -- I mean, we paid for everything we put the floor in and everything. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They had your plans with the cupola, gave you the building permit? MR. JONES: Yes, and we built it and then after we built it, when we were going for the certificate of occupancy we were told we'd have to take the floor out in order to get a CO, that it was in violation, the numbers in the variance thing. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They think made it CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would have a third story, which is not allowed. MR. JONES: Right. We know that now. We didn't do this willfully. We kind of relied on the architect. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I understand. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: didn't say you didl CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: questions. don't know what We Homing. No CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really to do on this. November 20, 2003 2 3 5 8 9 11 12 13 14 ]_5 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ GHAKRWOHA~ OLIVA: Mrs. Tortora? ~0~R~ MEMBER TORTORA: The only concern that I really have is from a safety point. I just wanted to knew if the building department approved that type of ladder, MR. JONES: It was in that type ef plan, that it would be like a ship's ladder. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There's no problem with that? MR. JONES: There wasn't when we got the permit. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRtNGER: Can I ask a question? Are you going to be there on Saturday? You actually were there when I was there one Saturday, but it was extremely early in the morning. MR. JONES: Marion's there from now until Monday. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I could come over like 10:00, 10:30 on Saturday? MR. JONES: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it will be before 12:00, I can't guarantee. MS. JONES: That's fine. BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: Can I have your telephone number? MS. JONES: 631-- Southold 5 -- 765-5489. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You would be installing some sort of flooring up there? MS. JONES: Yes. MR. ALLEGRO: My name is George Allegro, and I was the construction manager of the project. The plans that were approved showed a wood floor with spaces between them so that the air from the six windows surrounding the cupola would filter down and ventilate the second floor. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Talking a couple inch space? MR. ALLEGRO: Just a half inch. And five-quarter by four decking over 2 by 10 joists, which the new plan cells for a little heavier joist. That was my idea te make it more decorative because the joists are going te be visible from underneath. At any rate, it calls for a ship's ladder and I have the approved plaRs, if you would like to see, and November 20, 2003 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opening on the top. And I just, if I may, just wanted tO add the fact that the Joneses have spent an awful lot of money en this renovation, and the high point of it was the cupeta. It leeks beautiful from the outside bet it serves no purpose on the inside. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree. MR. ALLEGRO: Even though they have spent a let of money, they have te spend more now to install a new floor and new joists and so forth, and even though that's a financial hardship. I think it would be a greater hardship to them if they were net able te utilize that space. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: I would like to say one thing. If it suits the Beard, Hadam Chair, I suggest that we recess this to the December 4th hearing, and let me just tell the Beard what I see when I ge and inspect it. And we're net going te continue the hearing, we're just going to basically close it to all verbatim testimony. MS. KOWALSKI: That's not CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I prefer te close it, reserve decision, and give us whaLever input you have. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: It may include a covenant that the Joneses do not utilize it for any ether reason. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course. BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Much more than just a condition. We're treading on new water here. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Without a fire suppression system. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have no objection to that? HS. JONES: No, that's fine. MS. KOWALSKI: I have a question about the size of it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the overall size of the cupola? HR. ALLEGRO: Roughly 12 feet by 12 feet outside measurement, about 144 square feet. November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 76 CHAIRW©MAN OLIVA: Is it round? MR. ALLEGRO: No, it,s six-sided. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unless you have something else to say. MS. JONES: That's all, thanks. MR. ALLEGRO: If I may, I'd just like to give you the phohographs from the outside of what it looks like. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could I ask you one mere question, are you going to put any furniture up there? MR. JONES: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One more final question, the estimated cost that you think this could cost you construction-wise, just for the cupola? MR. ALLEGRO: Per what we have to do now? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, what the actual cost of construction was. HR. JONES: At this point we're sufficiently distressed with the architect that we're suing him. The lawsuit's for over $100,000 because we had te put a steel beam, I mean, there's a staple in the house, if there's ever a hurricane that hits Southold at least the beams will still be there. There's a steel beam that we had to put in and have fabricated to build that thing to support the weight of the cupola. We would never have done any ef that if we were just going to have the second fleer. It's been a huge expense te do that anyway. It was all in the original plans se that's what was se difficult for us. Se it's probably about $100,000 to get it, to this point, and I guess te finish I'd love to hear Buddy's answer what it will cost to finish. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision until later. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is Joseph and Danielle Helinski, November 20, 2003 C 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this is on Tuc~er's Lane, Route 48 addition less than 35 feet from the property line. Is there somebody here who would like te speak te the application? MR. HELINSKI: My name is Joe Helinski, I reside at that prope~y. Me are here today for your consideration for a variance te our property te add a~ open perch at the south and north sides ef our house. The variance is for the reasons that you mentioned, the 35 feet setback. A point to note the corner of the existing structure is two feet to the property line. That was reduced to two feet when the county put the road in numerous years ago, unfortunately. The distance to the corner ef the proposed perch would be 2.3, net much of a difference. Our reasons for wanting the perch are simple, we would just like to have a perch te sit on. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Watch the traffic ge by? MR. HELINSKI: That's always fun. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, question please, you said the county expanded the width ef the read; did they own the right of way er did they expropriate? MR. HELINSHI: Eminent domain. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hew many years ago? MR. ~ELINSKI: '67. I can't calculate a footage difference, but I can show them te you, you may be able to approximate. BOARD HBMBER ~ORNING: If you could submit these. MR. HELINSKI: Sure. In fact, I dug these out earlier today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se you're installing a perch across the entire front ef the house? ~R. HELINSKI: Yes. It will be a wraparound porch. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have it staked? MR. HELINSKI: Yes. BOARD HEHBgR TORTORA: Net to be silly but why would you want te have a porch November 20, 2003 l 3 4 5 7 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 two fee~ ff0~ Cddn[y Road 48? MRS. HELINSKI: Can I answer that? MR. HELINSKI: The house is two feet from County Road 48. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know; but in all reality -- MRS. HELINSKI: It's for our safety. It's going to be a nice thing to have on the home. The home is very plain, very farmhouse looking, which I don't mind, but I'm trying very hard to improve the look of the house and where it's situated it's a hard place to live to begin with, I can guarantee you that, but my thinking was is with having a perch on the corner, that corner's my bedroom, and I can tell you how many times I've come out of my bed at night. MR. HELINSKI: There's been numerous times over the years where vehicles have wound up in our yard and a secondary structure may be enongh to slow things down. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have just witnessed me that this is a safety issue to me. MR. HELINSKI: We are in contact with Suffolk County Department of Public Works about that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It's a safety issue. The idea of having a porch is a wonderful idea. The idea of putting the porch two feet from a county road where people and children could be there, I mean, I simply could not envision it. I wouldn't want my grandchildren on a porch, yes, it's right in front of your bedroom now, but if you have company and they're walking on that porch and you've already stated for the record that you had near accidents right there. It's simply too close. There's got to be a better method for you to be able to protect yourself while creating, in my view, what's going to be a very serious hazard. The back part of the wraparound porch I have no problem with. MRS. HELINSKI: If you would just understand where we're coming from, I'm not going to use that front. If you want to know the God's honest truth about it. November 20, 2003 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You may not always own this house, and the next owners may, and what you're asking us to do is to approve a variance after stating right here that it's a safety factor because it really puts us in an awkward position. BOARD MEMBER @OEHRINGER: They have te do the same thing that we may be doing en the last hearing. They have to issue a covenant that they will net utilize the perch. The purpose ef the porch is cosmetic enly~ At least it goes on the deed for future owners. BOARD MEMBiER TORTORA: It's net enforceable. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I don't care if it's enforceable. Ail it does is put the neighbors en notice, the current and future owners. That's the purpose of the covenant. HS. KOWALSKI: Is this a copy we could keep far the record? MR. HELINSKI: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ail set. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I really, I know that corner because I go by it almost every day, and it really is a dangerous corner, and Mrs. Tertora deer have a point there. I understand how you feel about it. I don't know if there's some other way yen caD solve your problem. MRS. HELINSKI: Not that's going to cast us se much money. I've tried to get kickbacks er something with the highway department, and pleaded with these people, and said, come sleep in my bedroom far one night. Just go through what we ge through. It's a nightmare. This is our hame, and it's been in his family for 150 years, and we've leaked at moving that hame. We just don't have the money far that. You knew, we're a young couple. We're trying very hard te maintain the home that we have because I thi~k it's a very eld hame for Seutheld, and t try very hard te keep it in the restriction and guidelines that Southold Town has, but my only problem is any time I cam try to find cut anything I can do, I've bee~ told, you know, November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 how mu~h m@ney de we have to spend, and we don't, that's our whole problem. BOARD MEMBBR HORNING: What kind of foundation does the building have? MR. HELINSRI: Brick. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is there a basement? MR. HELINSNI: There's a cellar in the middle ef the house. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Have you gotten any estimates o~ moving it? ~. HELINSKI: It's a very delicate structure to move. MRS. ~ELINSKI: It's all plaster lethe, and they told us if we try to pick that up it's going te fall apart. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Se you don't have any estimates? MRS. RELINSKI: Ne. We have been told that number one they have to come in and take down lines. We have te have the power company come out and take down li~es. BOARD MEMBER EORNING: It would be cheaper to demo the building and put another one on the site. MRS. EELINSKI: Basically it probably would, but because this is a family home, we're trying te so hard te keep it i~tact. ~OARD HEMBER TORTORA: What did the department of transportation tell you? ~RS. ~ELINSKI: I've been passed around to about %0 different departments, but the last gentleman I spoke to actually was e~ly a couple of weeks ago, had said to me that just like you guys, he can't determine the right thing to do. He's going to come out. He's the first one to cema out and leek at it for me though, and t'm so happy. And he is proposing that when you come to the end ef Tucker's Lane that it's a right turn only, which would be a huge, huge, safety thing. And I told him that. MR. ~ELINSKI: Not only that bu~ reducing the speed limit to 45. It's a terrible intersection. Everybody knows that. It's a blind merge. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I never want to November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 l& 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 come ou~ of than, MR. HELINSKI: We szn there on the weekend and watch the -- no pun zm mildly -- the snupidity that people do when they nry no jump ahead of each other. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I sympathize with you. I simply don'n know whether this is the solution. I say no myself, if something happened ~nd you did sell the house and here we gran£ a permit for you to creane a porch in an area that's virtually uwo feen from a very dangerous intersection. I would feel horrible if anything happened there and it doesn't maueer about covenanns and restrictions because they're ne~ enforceable. MRS. HELINSKI: We have a front door, I've never been out the front door BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: I Dan see why. MRS. HELINSKI: I tell people de nee ge in my front yard. I have lots ef family that come up from down south that come vzslE, and I can hell you I de net let kids in my front yard. I den'£ ge in my front yard. E had the surveyor hhat came out, and he happened ne be standing en the corner ef that house, I was standing there with him, and somebody hit their brakes, ~nd we've ~o~ bushes sc you can't see. ~nd he said Dh, my God, I feel so bad for you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm on the nranepornanion comminnee, why don't you appear before them and they could probably go ko the DPW and ask the DPW if they couldn't make the s~ngle lane? MR. HELINSKI: That's what we were nrymng to do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Way before you }e£ mo Tuckers Lane. HR. HELINSKI: But have a merge. CPLAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But I do know somebody down there, and I would be more than happy Ee be of assistance in any way I can if I could change that MRS HELINSKI: Than would be ~bsolutely greaE. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 2hack with the November 20, 2003 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3_3 14 17 20 21 22 2~ town clerk when we're meeting again, and ask for an appointment to come see us. It's usually a Henday morning around 10:00. And we've done it other places. We've changed the whole direction there at Boyce's. I~fR. HELINSKI: They started, they made a right turn lane on te Tuckers. MRS. HELINSKI: I don't knew if that was directly from my calls er net, that was eno thing that was done. It does help a little bit, but it doesn't stop people from going over to that laze and trying to pass. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's why I think you should have a single lane. MR. HELINSKI: If that was a single lane, would you feel more comfortable with granting a variance? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'd think about it. MRS. HELINSKI: But you don't know how many years down the line that would be. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That is in the works. I can tell you to redo that whole stretch there of Route 48. There is not money in the budget this year but it might be two, three years down the road depending on finances with the county, but they can restripe things; that's an easy thing to do. MRS. HELINSKI: It's also an easy thing for them te do to make it right turn only. I've been here for 12 years. And in the 12 years that I've been here, every year it just gets worse and worse and worse. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. HRS. HELINSKI: As far as Mrs. Tortera's worrying about us selling the property, I can't get him out of that house, and I'm going to spend my final days there, period. We don't have enough money. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: De make an appointment. Let's see what we can de to make it safe. HRS. HELINSKI: I'm open for any suggestion. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the wood steps, I have no problem with any of that. MRS. HELINSKI: That's why I made November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it, if you see those corner seeps the archiEece kept arguing with me, let's pun them in front, I said, no, no, put them on the side because it's away from that corner. And like I said, the only reason why ~ want that porch extended the way I do is because I don'n want -- if somebody ever crashes into our house Number one, god fearina chat we're non killed, our bed is as far away from Lhat corner and in one spark that house zs so old z~ will be gone, and I'm so terrified with itt and I live with zE every nzght of my life and I come one of my bed sE least once or twice every night especially on weekends with the kids screeching oun of there. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What you really need tc do is gec the counny nc give you back about five feet of that road. MR. HELINSKI: I know that. In hindsight zn would have been better Eo terminane that road on a strazght away. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The angle's that way anyway. If you look ac the survey you can see it's ~ngled, and it's the angle that cues right down no gmve you that into your propermy where it gives you that two feet. MR. HELINSKI: No argument from me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can recess this hearing for two months no see if we can find resolution no your problem. MR. HELINSKI: Sounds gDod no me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a monroe recessing this hearing mo January 22nd. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. MS. KOWALSKI: 9:30 mn the 2PiAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail zn favor? Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. 2PL~IRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing -- MRS. HELINSKI: Excuse me. I got a neighbor here 2~AIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry. Please, do gee uK. November 20, 2003 1 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 2~ 84 MR. MUTT: Indeed privileged I am to be afforded this opportunity talk in defense our good neighbors, the Helinskis, on their appeal. And I have always prided myself what with a terrific memory~ however, I find as I age it's sometimes appears microscop±c, and therefore, I find it easier if I write down things on paper. So I'm going to refer to my paper, if you will. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine. MR. MOTT~ My bride and I when we came to this area we met all our neighbors, the Donohues~ they were four brothers who worked very hard, friendly God-fearing compassionate and always helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, genuine pleasure for us. And it's so comforting in finding that some people are really doing their jobs like this Board is, though we must recall that all of these homes were built long before zoning, and that's so easy for us to say we should have or we c~uld have. When this North Road was upgraded, many of us lost considerable property, although we were compensated fairly supposedly. It has never been the same. Leaving us with a strong, extremely hazardous corner, very unsafe, and this still has not been addressed. Now come the Helinskis, who are found to be, just like the others, just good neighbors who toe will do anything for you. Upon knowing all these people for over 50 years, we're pleased to say we couldn't ask for any better. The questions we must address now is this extreme, unsafe, hazardous situation. We just can't wait any longer for more serious accidents to happen. Therefore, we know that ~ou will de the right thing and respecting their wishes there's not more that I can say except we all knew it is Lord, our God who built the entire world in eight days, but he sure didn't need any building permit. C~AIRWONLAN OLIVA: What is your name, sir? hear you. MR. MOTT: I'm sorry, I couldn't CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you give November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 us your name, please? MR. MOTT: Jim Mott of Southold, M-O-T-T. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Our next hearing is for Jeffrey Porchelli. It's a request for a variance for a proposed addition at less that ten feet em a Single side yard and lot coverage excess ef code limitation of 20 percent at 405 Lake Drive, Southold, and Miss Hoore. MS. MOOR~: Good afternoon. I want to begin with responding tea letter that you have in your -- befure I start, I'm sorry, I have the green cards that came in, so I want to make sure I submitted them (handing). I want to give you a little bit ef background here because every effort was made to avoid this variance at least to the side property line. The vacant lot, known as Let 6, Mr. Rapp, who you received a letter from earlier today, and I thank you for forwarding it to me, he's voiced his objection and made some statements in the letter that I want to respond te and I want to include exhibits into your record. This let, Lot 6, Hr. Rapp had sought te get approval te construct a house on this property, and as with any parcel that doesn't have public water, needed to ge te the health department board ef review fur separation of sanitary from the neighbor's wells. That resulted in a hearing at the board ef review where the two property owners across the street, across from Lake Drive, Hrs. Ferchelli, who is the owner of this parcel, with her husband and the parcel to the west, which is Mr. Pinkum, they all objected te the development ef this property and actually offered at the hearing to purchase the property from Hr. Rapp and keep it as -- sterilize the property, and ultimately it would become, it would be eventually lot line changes would be pursued Ferchelli and Pinkum would do a lot line change and reserve a right ef way fur the two property owners across the street, essentially you would end up with nondevelopment, sterilization ef this November 20, 2003 2 3 4 5 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25· 86 property. Through the board of review hearing, I guess the board of review ignored the objections of the neighbors, a lawsuit in Article 78 ensued and the court ultimately ruled that the board of review should have considered one of the issues be it that the neighbors had offered fair merket value for the property. So it was remanded back to the board of review, and during that period of time there were contracts that were actually prepared~ that's how I originally knew about this property. A contract prepared hy -- excuse me, Porchelli agreed to pay for all preparation and contract payment of the transfer tax. There would be no expenses to Mr. Rapp, including there would be no broker's commission. It was a sale with 100 percent of the proceeds going to Mr. Rapp. After the contracts had been prepared, Mr. Rapp rescinded the agreement to sell the property, and that's where it stands today, still Mr. Rapp is the owner of the property and Forchelli, actually realizing that this could go on for some time, made an application to this Board for renovations to his house that would necessitate the variance for the side yard. The actual variance that is before you is to maintain the existing setback of the existing house. In addition, the wraparound or the bay window in the front is again, less than the front yard, the established front yard of 42.5. I also provided you a survey that the stoop or the steps have now been included, that would not have been considered lot coverage or setbacks, but rather than have any confusion about when this building permit was issued we had that submitted to you in the interim. This is a very straight forward application. It's an old home in Braden Shores. This is a well-established community. The setbacks have been established for many years and the owner is doing a relatively modest renovations, a dormer on the second story and the renovation on the first floor and the need for the additional -- November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 87 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Excuse me, this is a one story? MS. MOORE: Well, it doesn't have the dormers upstairs, so they're popping out two window dormers. So I believe the height of the building is staying pretty close to wha~ it is, but the dormers are going to be considered an expansion up. I believe I did submit the front elevation for yo~. It appears that the roof Iine remains the same, but I could confirm that. I don't believe that there is a variance with respect to the height of the reef. Everything will stay within the 35 foot limitation. For the record, here is the contract for the purchase ef the Rapp property, and here is the decision remanding the case back te the beard ef review with my client's cover notes, so. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The beard of review then subsequently they made ne ruling then because they were really interested in the sterilization? MS. MOORE: No, actually, what happened was there original ruling was to grant the variance to Rapp te install the sanitary system at less than the 150 foot setback required. That decision was overturned by the court and remanded. So the status of the board of review I don't know whether it's -- it's been remanded whether or not they continue the hearing, I don't believe they've continued the hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank yOU. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No questions, in fact, I've got to go. MS. MOORE: Goodbye, Mr. Horning. (Whereupon, Mr. Homing left the hearing room.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: Was there at any time any thought ef just trying to increase that side yard, er was there always just the time of maintaining the side yard? November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ~©©RE: Where it shows 13 feet right now I believe is the bedroom, and see where it says "proposed addition" with an arrow, it has a 13 foot line? I assume you're asking me about the five foot setback. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RtNGS~: Right. MS. MOORE~ Where it says 13 er subsequently where it saps 19.16, that area there, that corner I believe is the bedroom; se they're enlarging the bedroom, and they are having it meet up with the existing footprint, which shows as a 5 by 12 pop-out. So that was -- again, this a relatively modest renovation given the homes that you've been seeing in the renovations that have been occurring routinely in the town. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: At all times it's been maintaining? MS. MOORE: Yes. I mean, the five foot setback was the proper setback at the time; that was the conforming setback. This lot, I mean, it goes to the bulkhead; if it were just 1,662 square feet less, we'd be meeting the setback requirements. You've seen a lot of these type of applications where the difficulty arises and the 10,000 to 20,000 square foot lot size. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're in single side yard and lot coverage. MS. MOORE: Yes, single side yard and lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which is one percent only. MS. MOORE: Right. It's 21 percent total. Do you have a question, Mrs. Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was looking at the map but I was looking at it upside down. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Now that I'm looking at the map right side up. MS. MOORE: The renovation is where it says existing is the bedroom now. It's enlarging the bedroom, providing a closet in the bedroom, and there's a new bedroom, the front bedroom with a closet. So that's what November 20, 2003 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 89 the addition is. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And otherwise could be accomplished by utilizing any of the other areas that would not require a variance? MS. MOORE: Ne. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In ether words, the deck area in the rear. MS. MOORE: What about the deck area in the rear? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You can't make these types of additions? MS. MO©R~: Ne, that's probably where the kitchen i~ I don't have the whole layont of the house but my guess is the kitchen,s in the back. The bedrooms are in the front. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is going to be a one-story addition? MS. MOORE: . No, I believe that there's -- well, the picture that I have, the elevation, shows two windows on the top floor that are dormer windows. I looked at the house, the windows were there but at this point I can't visualize whether those two little windows were there or net. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think SO. MS. MOORE: You don't remember the windows? I can't recall. I wasn't really paying attention to the windows. BOARD MEMEER TORTOP, A: I remember one, I can't remember the other one. MS. KOWALSKI: One story with dormers then is that what you're saying, Pat? MS. MOORE: I'm saying it shows en the survey, the eno story framed house, but the picture shows the two windows. Se I would imagine it's either getting the second story or half story te provide the dormer, or it's got them there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Beth dog house dormers on are en the assessor's plan. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Se they're there already so the renovation is just the first floor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why, Miss Moore, is probably because November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 they probably have Eo bring a little bit of the roof line down no encompass a pare of it so the wa~er doesn'n become a sleuth slay between this whole new addition. MS. MOORE: Okay. And eventually we hope that everybody will agree en the purchase ef this let, then there wouldn't be a nee~ and the varmance would be limited because the properEy line will have been increased, the side propermy line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se Hr. Perchelli would like tc buy itl MS. MOORE: It's nee jusm Porchelli; it's Ferchelli, Pinkum and mhe ewe property owners across the way. The conEracm I have varies. I think the price had been upped, let me see if I have my names, there had been 2eunteroffers up to 340, end Mr. Rapp reneged, se. And they're nee that far aparm if he believes that the appraised value is 400 with a broker, then the offer is hOE too far away. E hope that they'll ge back ~o uhe bargaining table. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody mn the audience who woult like Eo speak for or against this application? Any ether ~uestions from our from Zeninc Board? If nee. I'd like BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Did we geu a lemmer on this me -- MS HOORE: That's hew I knew about mm. It gee faxed mo you today apparently, and I received it, thank you very much, that way I could respond me mE. CHAIRWOHAN DLIVA: If there are no ether questions, I will close this hearing and reserve decision until later~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. Whereupon, all Beard members responded mn favor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our nexE application As for Douglas end Lydia Defeis, and this ms for a frenE yard setback ~E less than 35 feet from the front line. We have already given a variance I believe from ce push lm further away from the bulkhead and new November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 you need a ~a¥ianee for the front yard. MR. D~FEIS: Yes, I think it's necessary because part of the conditions for the zoning, the ZBA~s approval was for us to move the house four feet closer to ~he road and away from the bulkhead, and consequently we were requested to have Mr, Joe Fischetti redesign the septic system, which we had done to conform to everything. And we didn't realize that we would be in a situation where we were being asked to create the nonconformity to comply. So we're here in front of you to accommodate an entry that was designed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a covered porch? MR. DEFEIS: The entry was covered, the boot scrape area a little to the left, which is a trellis feature. The final grading of the property hasn't been done yet. I know you guys probably went out there. Probably could grade the area so we could do away with two of the risers so that would consequently have less of an impact of those stairs coming to the road a little more. So what you're seeing is the drawing probably will be changed when we have the ability to finally grade the site and do away with at least two of those risers, get us at least another 16 or 20 inches closer to the structure. CHAIRWOMAN oLIVA: You didn't need any new building department okays for that deck, your double deck actually? MR. DEFEIS: No, it was all we had gotten approval. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gave them all the plans for the decks and so on and so forth? MR. DEFEIS: We actually had Trustee approval, because we had them to begin with, and it was there pre-wetlands 1968 it has been in the family 38 years or so. And what happens is the fact that the way this house was built, we have a ten inch, in other words, the ceiling of the first floor is not the floor of the second floor. It's actually another ten inches, so you ended up a little November 20, 2003 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bit higherj but still within the limits of height smrucnure requiremenns of the town. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course you haven'm graded it and landscaped it~ which makes a big difference. Mr. Goehringer. BOARD YPEM~ER GOEHRINGER: In wrmming this decision, if I refer no this as a nrellis and covered porch or enmry porch of 5 by 16 and-a-half, I would be 2orrect; is that correct? MR. DEPE1S: Well, it would be 5 deep, the ennry feature itself would be 10-4, I believe. BOARD MEMBER ~OEHRINGER: So 16 and-a-half. MR. DEPEIS: That's correcE. MS. KOWALSKI: That's the step area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because the seep area is exempu. MS. KOWALSKI: of Only if it's exem~m -- only if it's 70 square leon. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se it's 18 then from the property line. MS. KOWALSKI: Plus 20 inches less you said? MR. DEFEIS: Right. So it would probably be 2loser Ge 20 feet. and again, we're probably going £e landscape like a mound, again in front ef that so it will soften the approach from the read. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. TorEera. BOARE MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think I have any quesmlons. Is there anybody mn the audience that would like nc speak for Dr agamnsE this application? Hearmng none, I would like Eo close this hearing and reserve decision until later. Se moved. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGNR: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in [avor? Whereupon, mll Board members responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our nexE application ms for John amd Kathy Cheska en ~innehaha Boulevard. We had already given you November 20, 2003 8 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 2~ 22 23 24 a decision to gO dO a second story, I do believe. MR. RAGARABI: Yes, ma'am. Daria Ragarabi, John and Kathy can't make it. In ~aet, they're on the American Institute of Beirut. They won't be available for a few months. Originally, when I came before you they wanted te create a second fleer basically for the sake efa master bedroom suite. Since that time Kathy has experienced a problem with her knees. It's become qeite apparent that she's going to need knee replacement, ~ot in eno knee but both knees, rather unpleasant as you might imagine. Se the whole second floor idea has been scratched. The house is still s~all, ~till on a small lot. They still would like te retire there, many of the issues are still the same, however, the stairs have become an issue. Se, in essence, as opposed te putting a master suite on the second floor, we'd like to put a master suite en the first floor, scale it down just a bit. But the nature of the house, the nature ef the lot being the lot is about 7,500 square feet; the house is roughly 19.% percent of that coverage, just about anything we de to the house will infringe on the let coverage. Se what we've dena is proposed adding a small addition to the back, this way we can add the master bedroom. We can add additional bath and provide some closet space that the Cheskas' can make use of. We have not infringed en any ef the side yards. We have tried to keep it as close te the rear yard as possible. However, we are, I think it's 3.3 percent over, I don't remember the number off the top ef my head, something along these line~, three percent over the 20 percent limit and that's what we're here te ask for a variance for. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I realize it is a very small let. It is a very charming house. You don't have too much to ~erk with. Mrs. Tertora, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. I remember the lot from last year, and you November 20, 2003 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 frankty~ don't really have any other options. To your credit you will be meeting both the side yards, and the rear yard, and it's a very modest addition, and you have absolutely ne problems with it. HR. RAGARABI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What did you say the square footage ef the house was presently? MR. RAGAPABI: I don't remember the exact, if I leek o~ this I believe you have this print as well. ~ BOARD MBHBER GOEHRINGER: You said something before in reference to square footage. MR. RAGARABI: 19.4 percent. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: You said something in reference to square footage. MS. KOWALSKI: That was the let size. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was the 7,500. Can you furnish us with what the square footage is? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Dwelling is 1,022, garage is 301 and the deck is 156, se we're at 1,459. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. That's all I needed te see, thank you, I missed it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? Yes, sir. MR. MATHIE: Ray Mathie, I represent my wife, Jean Hethie. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you speak into the mike? MS. KOWALSKI: Could you please spell your last name? HR. HATHIE: I'm Raymond Hathie, M-A-T-H-I-E. Hy wife is Jean Mathie. We have no objection ef seeing a place enlarged three percent over the 20 percent. I think it's an improvement over looking at a two-story house where we always used te leek at one-story houses. We have a two-story house just to the north of them going up now, and I'm planting white pines. This~weuld make an improvement November 20, 2003 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1¥ 17 18 19 20 22 23 2~ 2S over that~ I w~ld like to see them remove the garage some day because it's rotting apart. And put a shed up into the north corner behind my garage and clean up eve~thing~ because the garage existing is rotting apart. The rai~ gutters are falling off; the facia boards that hold the gutters are rotting out. I don't know why they keep it. I don't think they have anything in it, but if they want a shed, put a shed behind my garage, that's fine, the northwest corner. We haee no objection at all. CHAIRWO~ OLIVA: Thank you very much, sir, Anybody else want to speak for or against this application? Otherwise I'll ask for a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMB~ER GOEHRINGER: So moved. favor? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. All in (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our last application. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second to last. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second te last Mr. Pagano. Who lives en -- trying to build a house on East Gillette Drive in East Marion, and he would need a front yard setback of less than 35 feet. Yes, sir. MR. DENICOLA: Good afternoon, my name is Pete DeNicela, here representing the Paganos. dHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MR. DENICOLA: Basically we're asking for a front yard variance of five feet, and the Paganos spent quite a bit of money on designing this house, and I think it would be an asset to the community, the neighborhood. It's got a lot of curb appeal and that neighborhood in particular has been subject to quite a few variances in similar matters. And I guess that's about it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house is is going to be 28.3 feet by 60 feet. November 20, 2003 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 I porch. MR~ D~NICOLA: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I said the house going to be 28.3 feet by 60 feet? MR. DENICOLA: Not including the CHAIRWOMAN OLtVA: Right. MR. DEHICOLA: Correct. CHAIRWOMAIq OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, Mr. DeNicola, we have had substantial variances as I think you mentioned in this area mainly because of the depth of the lots, right, and I have absolutely no objection to this application. The only thing I do have objections to in future situations people want to build large extensive decks on the backs of their houses after we've already granted a rear yard setback, and I went you to go back to the applicant and tell them I would not like to see a large extensive deck built on this house. If they should do so, it should be at ground level. MR. DENICOLA: Okay, that's no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no objection. However, I will say the variance in question on the front yard and we've done this on a lot of others on the Gillette Drive because what you're proposing the covered porch area, that's the area that's going to be the area of encroachment, so that if we grant a variance, the variance for the 30 feet, it's not going to run the entire length bf the house. MR. DENICOLA: No. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It will only be for the porch. MR. DENICOLA: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no further questions. So I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision unless there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application. I will make a motion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members November 20, 2003 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 responded in fa~er~) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. Thank you very much for coming in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our final hearing is for Haymond Nine, Your wish is to have a merger, Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDD¥: Good afternoon, I'm sure you're not unhappy to see us because we{re the last ones. BOARD ME~BEH GOEHRINGER: We're never unhappy to see you, sir. MR. CUDDY: Thank yeu. This is an application, as you said, pursuant he 100-26, which is a waiver of merger, I think yeu have before and if not let me know I'll make yeu copies, but we have submitted a map te you which shows three lets that were created at different times. The lot on the right-hand side, the east side, was purchased by Hr. Nine in 1964; the lot en the left-hand side, which is the lot that's aotually the subject at this preceeding, was purchased in -- I said before 1964, this was '63, this lot was '64, and then there's a nertherty let that was purchased in 1970. Each of the lots as shown in the areas the way the deed description is, in other words, there's been no change in that all that time. He has a house on the lot on the right-hand side, that lot has remained vacant on the left-hand side, and in back of the existing house, there's a third lot which has on it sand and gravel, and which is part of Mr. Nine's business. These lots were taxed separately when they were set up, and I'm going to put into evidence the tax bills from 1966, '67, which shows the two lots, and then there are two additional bills from 1970, '71 at that time they had merged two of the lots, but in each instance they recognized the separate'lot which is the tax lot that we're talking about here. They did that in 1966, '67. I'd like to offer these and put them in evidence, if I may (handing). CHAIRWOMJLN OLIVA: Sure. MR. CUDDY: I would also offer up a certified copy of the building zone November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ]_7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 98 ordinance, which ~s dated 1958, and also one from 1965, just to establish that when these lots were created, particularly this 20,000 square foot let that they met the code requirements, which were much, much less. They were 12,500 square feet (handing). CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. HR. CUDDY: I have one other item that I would like to give each of yen a copy ef and that is the current tax map for this particular street, which is New Suffolk Avenue in Hattitu~k (handing). The reason that I offer this up is to shew yon first, again, his lot which is outlined and highlighted, and then I placed X's en all of the adjoining residential lots. There is a house on every single let with an X en it; in other'words, that entire street has houses. There is no other vacant let that's there. And if yourll notice, there is only eno let that is even an acre. His has 1.6 acres. If you take out the half acre, you have left 1.1 acres, he is the only lot -- it's unique in that sense -- he's the only lot that that can occur to. He will have mere than an acre in this R40 district, and this entire area here is R%0. Se it makes some sense te say that here, far the only time that I've been doing mergers and unmergers, you actually end up with the second let which is exactly the requirement ef the zoning cede. I'd like to go through, if I can just briefly, the requirements ef 100-126. It says there that you can't have -- that you cannot have this unmerger result in any significant increase in density. Again, that's why I put the tax map in; there is going to be no real increase in density. In a couple thousand feet there's going te be one house. Secondly, it says it must be consistent with the neighboring lets and again the tax map shews that half-acre let is what most of these are, and, in fact, many of them are much less than a half acre. Thirdly, it talks about economic hardship. As a real estate attorney I think I can say to yen, and having done many, many closings in the Town of Seutheld, that there is ne vacant let right November 20, 2003 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 99 now that's a half ecru that sells for less than $I50,000. The lets at Laurel and Laurel Links, which are three-quarter acre lets sell for $300,000. They're lets on a golf course. There are lots that I deal with Rock Cave Estates, which is just at the edge of Greenpert, these lots are also under an acre; they start at $230,000. So, to have this let net available to him, would mean that not only would he lose the money from it, but he would have paid taxes en something for years that has no meaning to him. His son is with him today, and the reason that his son is with him is he intends that his sen use this let te move next door to him, se as he gets older he has his son and daughter-in-law to assist him in whatever he's doing. If he didn't have that he would have to sell the let to have some money, a significant amount ef money, so he could assist himself as he get elder. So, net to have the use of this lot is an enormous hardship. The final item is that you can't have any change in slope or centenrs; in other words, the character ef the area doesn't change geographically. This is a flat piece of land. If you see this land, he hasn't dena anything to it, he's mewed it all these years, kept it in decent shape. But there's nothing en the land. There's ne shed. There's virtually nothing, except bushes er trees, it's an open piece of land that would be utilized as he intended to use it, for a dwelling. Se I think he meets all the requirements that are set forth there. The deeds were taken separately, if he had known that a stroke of the pen could have put his wife's name on it, he wouldn't be here today. But people don't knew that and also in fairness to Mr. Nine, was one of the reasons it didn't happen was he could show that his business -- he's always been in business here in Hattituck -- and that he had some assets and they were in his name, se when we get loans for his business he had property that he could shew te secure those leans. So he took November 20, 2003 100 2 5 6 8 lC 11 12 13 14 15 18 them that way. I£ he Nad known differently, I'm sure he would have taken them differently, but he did net. I think at this point in time, his lot is not going te impact the neighborhood. 'His neighbors, three ef them have written in, I think you have letters from two, I will introduce, if I may, a letter from a third person, that's the realty company that's right behind his back let. And also bring up the last, the green cards (handing). MS. KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. CUDDY: I think that Mr. Nine would just like to say one or two words, if he may. MR. NINE: Good afternoon, Board, thank you for this hearing and my name is Raymond Nine. I am the owner of the property and everything that Charles Cuddy has stated is the complete truth. I do have my son here with me today, and he and his wife would love to move back to Mattituck and be next door to us, and, of course, we would like nothing better. I'm 63 years old and it's becoming more difficult for me to keep my place and do things, and he would be here to help me, and I certainly hope and pray that place, and if anyone has any me about it, I would be very that will take questions to ask happy to answer any questions that the Board would have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hrs. Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How did you end up with a split zoning? MR. NINE: Pardon me? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How did you end up with a split zoning? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's what I'd like to know. MR. NINE: John wickham bought the property from the same people I bought the property from, and like Charles said, three separate lots bought three separate times. John Wickham bought all the property -- there was probably about four or five acres of property in there, and it had greenhouses on it, and eventually John took down the greenhouses and he was chairman of the November 20, 2003 101 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 2O 25 Southold Town Planning Board and he had the property put into business zone, and that butted up to my property, and John had come to me and asked me if I'd be interested in filling out the corner. He said there's that piece in the corner, Ray, that I have that's business property he said you ha~e your property there would you be interested; and I said absolutely. And I bought it from him, and I still use that actively. I have a letter from -x you guys probably remember -- Howard Terry, he was ~he first building inspector in Seutheld Town. I have a letter from Howard back in the '70s stating that if I bought that property, it was business zoned and I would be able te use it for a storage yard. You could net use it as a mining place you can't dig in the ground and mine it, but he said it is business zoned property that can be used for your use. And that's what I've dena, and I still maintain that storage yard today. BOARD MENBER TORTORA: Se probably in 1989 it went from business to hamlet business which is the same thing. MR. NINE: Same thing se I assume, I still -- I've never had a problem using and I still would like te continue to do that. BOARD MEMBER TQRTORA: I was just curious. MR. NINE: That's actually how it happened. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Didn't he take those greenhouses and take some of the glass and put it back on the farm? MR. NINE: He did. He actually moved I think one or two of these greenhouses, he moved them down te Cutchegue. When we bought it originally he was intending te work. there for a few years and then move all the greenhouses down te Cutchegue. But it was a big project because those greenhouses were all concrete and glass. The glass wasn't se bad; they took most ef the glass out, but the concrete was just impossible to de anything with that se he wound up net putting them back up again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. November 20, 2003 i02 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Nine, you will see that this is one of the rare times I am in favor of this unmerger, and I am in favor of it for two reasons: Number one, because it basically reinstates the original lot lines~ and it Number two, it has been my past practice to vote on an unmerger on any application that concerns the creation of a lot for another family that wants to move in, particularly relationship situations as in this particular case. hR. NINE: Thank you for that comment. I'm not doing this to generate dollars, to make a big profit. I'm doing this so my son will have the lot hopefully forever. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? If not, I would make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MR. NINE: I'd like to thank you all very much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN 0LtVA: So moved. (Time ended: 3:10 p.m.) fl 7 24 25 November 20, 2003 103 2 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 CERTIFICATION I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, de hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I blood or marriage, te any of this action; and THAT I am in no way interested i~ the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, hand this 20th day of October, am not related by the parties to I have hereunto set my 2003. Florence V. Wiles November 20~ 2003