Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/21/2002 HEARSOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD FEBRUARY 21, 2002 (Prepared by Paula Quintieri) Present were: Chairman Goehringer Member Tortora Member Homing Member Oliva Member Orlando PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:43 p.m. Appl. No 5063 VICTOR RUTKOWSKI This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's November 30k 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing dwelling with a front yard setback of less than 40 feet. Location of Property: 340 Theresa Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-115-13-22. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rutkowski we've been over to see your property and you've done a wonderful job in the additions you've put on this house. I believe the application beIbre us is tbr the front porch. VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: What would you like to tell us? VICTOR RUTKOWSKh I'd like to put a front porch on the house. Other than that, that's all I'm asking for. I'm looking for about a foot difference on the variance that is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no objection to this. This is a roof porch, but it's completely open, it's not. VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: It's completely open. On the sheet that you guys have I believe it shows that its 42 x 8 measurement on it. Its between I foot 11 ½ inches. MEMBER TORTORA: 41 and l 1. VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: and ½. MEMBER TORTORA: 41 plus or minus. VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: You told me to be exact. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, and on the side that is 4' 6". Is that still 4' 6"? VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: Yes it is. MEMBER TORTORA: And the 6' 6" on the other side'? VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: Yes it is. MEMBERTORTORA: So its just the 4, 41, 11 and V2 inch. VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: Corrcct. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, very clean application and we enjoyed seeing the property and I really don't have a lot of questions. The nearest point would be, which would be 33' 3" on the south side, excuse me, on the north side and 39' 5" on the south side. VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: You said 33 it should be 38, correct? MEMBER TORTORA: Its just my reading, okay 38 north and south is 39.5. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What's the real number? VICTOR RUTKOWSKI: 38.3. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 38.3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Oliva is there anything you'd like to ask Mr. Rutkowski? MEMBER OLIVA: No. Everything isjust fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright we're on a roll here. Okay, we will ask if anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against this application. Please don't leave until we close this hearing. Thank you very much for coming in. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this hearing? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 6:48 p.m. Appl. No. 5055 VINCENT O'NEILL This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspectors May 1, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Thc applicant is requesting approval of the location of an existing (deck) addition with a side yard setback of less than 15 feet. Location of Property: 3500 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-113-8-1. CHAIRMAN: We got a letter from Mr. O'Neill saying he is not going to be present. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He asked the Board to go ahead without him if possible. CHAIRMAN: Does the Board have any specific concerns regarding this application? MEMBER TORTORA: Well I think we need to get into the record. UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: I'm one of the owners of the property I'm here instead of Mr. O'Neill. CHAIRMAN: Oh okay. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could we have your name please? DONALD HAMMIL: Donald Hammil. CHAIRMAN: How do you do? DONALD HAMMIL: Good day. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us? DONALD HAMMIL: Well this is a Variance for a deck that existed when this property was purchased. At the time of purchase on the C.O., the Building Department unfortunately it didn't include the deck. In my opinion the meaning of this variance is a deck outside a kitchen door. Here's a 7' side yard is required, 15' side yard. In my opinion no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The deck, and the appearances of it it has been there for twelve or fifteen years. The character of the neighborhood includes the deck, at this point in time. No adverse effect on any nearby property will occur if this variance is granted. The 7' side yard becomes the side yard of another property it's a steep uphill slope, the house next door is about ten or twelve feet above the level of the deck and all side yards are wooded so it won't interfere with anybody's privacy. The ground underneath the deck retains its natural slope to the north and to the east. This is the property that borders Mattituck Creek and drainage is unaffected by the deck. So there's no standing water underneath thc deck, there's no adverse environmental impact created by this deck. The deck's pre-existing, as I said. We can't achieve the benefit we need, a deck outside our side door, because the sidc door is already in the building, in any other way. The only other place wc could possibly tie in to thc deck is in thc rear distance of the kitchen. But the cost of removing this deck and re-building a new deck, in my cstimation based on my experience, would be in the $4,000 or $5,000 range; which I don't believe is economically feasible. MEMBER TORTORA: That's $4 5,000 to remove the deck? DONALD HAMMIL: And build a new deck, based on my experience. I used to be a carpenter who did this for a living. For that reason I don't believe the benefit of a deck outside our kitchen door is achievable in any other way. As I said, no adverse effect on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood will be produced. It as it always was. The privacy of the neighbors won't be effected. In my view, in view of the other houses in the area, particularly the other houses around the block from us which have small side yards, and looking at the side yard we have compared to these other houses, I don't believe that the variance is substantial when compared to other houses in the area. Although the problem may be said to be self- created, because we did purchase it with the deck already there, at that time, as I said we believed the C.O. did include the deck. So, in conclusion I don't think any detriment will be created to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, the community if you grant the variance requested. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The deck has been there tbr many years. There's no detriment to any nearby property, the only neighbor, their privacy won't be affected. They have an elevation higher than us. There's a wooded section between the deck and the next house. CHAIRMAN: Did you speak to them about this? DONALD HAMMIL: I spoke to several of the neighbors and everybody said they had no objections to the deck. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. DONALD HAMMIL: I don't think its feasible to achieve the goal of what we need, a deck outside an existing door in another manner. For that reason ! believe the application should be granted. CHAIRMAN: The deck is going to remain open to the sky, there's no intention of ever enclosing it or roofing it, is that correct? DONALD HAMMIL: No, what's there is what we want to keep. CHAIRMAN: So that restriction is not a problem on this. DONALD HAMMIL: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing, any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER HORNING: Can you provide thc actual dimensions of the deck? DONALD HAMMIL: At one time I did know them, I'd say it's probably about, at a gucss right now, 15 feet by 12 feet. That's, like I said, i can't remember the exact dimensions, that's estimated. MEMBER HORNING: Would it be 12 feet coining offthe house? DONALD HAMMIL: About 15 feet coining otl'the house. MEMBER HORN1NG: 15 feet that way? DONALD HAMMIL: And that's an estimation MEMBER TORTORA: I have a plan here that shows the deck, the existing house and deck. Perhaps you could tell me if this is the correct plan. DONALD HAMMIL: Okay, so its 16' 7" by 13'. CHAIRMAN: You know what 1 think we'll do is we're going to ask you to measure the deck and just get back to us. MEMBER TORTORA: We have the plans. CHAIRMAN: Yes, 1 know but I just want to verify that. DONALD HAMMIL: I would agree with that plan. I was just speaking in estimation, I couldn't remember what they were. MEMBER TORTORA: I will accept this plan. DONALD HAMMIL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Well the portion in back of the house is really part of the deck is it not? DONALD HAMMIL: There is a deck that goes around the back o£the house, but I don't think that needs a variance. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not the variance. DONALD HAMMIL: That actually goes across. MEMBER TORTORA: You're 7 feet now, so there's only a small part of the deck, there's only 3 feet of it that's non-conforming. It's a very small percentage. CHAIRMAN: I'd say its 18. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a small percentage and the perceotage is at an angle. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hammil we may have more questions. Mr. Orlando any questions? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: No questions, okay thank you. Just don't leave until the hearing is closed please, l think you might have dropped something. Is there anybody else that would like to speak tbr or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much tbr coming in sir, and thank you for the presentation. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 6:58 p.m. Appl. 5067 - CHRISTOPHER AND IRENE VITTI. _This is a request fbr a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Inspector's December 4, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling with a rear yard setback of less than 50 fbet. Location of Property: 11805 Soundview Avenue, Southold; 1000-54-5-45.9. CHAIRMAN: Good evening, would you state your name for the record please? IRENE V1TTh Yes, Irene Vitti. CHAIRMAN: How do you do, a pleasure to meet you. What would you like to tell us regarding your application? IRENE VITTI: Well, we're proposing to build a sunroom and decks flanking it on either side. Our home lhces the Long Island Sound, its not on the Sound, but we have an unobstructed view. The home is about, greater than 1,000 feet from the Long Island Sound, but we do have an unobstructed view except that there are not outdoor facilities on that side of the property. I am the adjacent property owner immediately closer to the Sound; and I believe that this proposed addition would be in character with the area because it will be constructed in traditional style. It will be very well rounded and go nice with the surroundings, and it will provide us and also to be available for us to enjoy the outdoors and the exposure to what we all love about living in this area. CHAIRMAN: This is rather unique because you own the piece of property on North Sea Road directly in back of it. Is there any particular reason why you've chosen to go as deep as you have with thc porch. 1 usc the word dcep as opposed to the solnetimes width, but thc plan shows 25/bet. IRENE VITTI: Yes, that's correct. Well having lived in the house now tbr almost tbur years, you might noticed that the house is also about that wide in its main part. With the traffic, 25 fect sounds like its ample but with the traffic in there we found that it was quite narrow. So one of the objectives we were trying to achieve was to widen thc house without making a major expansion of it. This seemed to be the most desirable because it would also permit us to have the view and some additional light. The house is also quite dark because of the way the roof is constructed overhangs the house on the right quite a bit. So that the interior rooms in the house are very dark. CHAIRMAN: So basically what we have from west to east is proposed deck, sunroom, which is roved, and proposed deck again. And both of those are unroofed. IRENE VITTI: Right, that's correct. CHAIRMAN: I have to tell you it's a magnificent spot. I did knock on the door when 1 was down there. I sometimes come with one of my old pickups, and I look like the garbage man and I just wanted you to be aware that it wasn't the trash man. It was kind ora crisp day so I didn't spend a lot of time in the back of the house, but it's a great spot. I think what I'm asking is there a possibility of widening the decks out and giving and actually making the improvements that you're anticipating less deep than what you're doing? IRENE VITTI: Well, we did toy with different dimensions. What I didn't want to do is cover the back of the house entirely. I wanted to put something that would relatively unobtrusive and would fit with the character of the rest of the building. As it is, it would be about a little over BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How much, I couldn't hear that because the door was closing. IRENE VITTI: I'm sorry; as it's drawn in the proposal it will be a little over 600 square feet. I guess its 625. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. IRENE VITTI: To make it economically practical to build it and to justify the expense which I understand will be considerable because, in other words I didn't want to spend the money and not get something for it. 1 suppose we could cut it back a little bit. But given that we're not, it's not in anyone's direct line of sight; and being the adjacent property owner, I'm the one that's most directly effected by it and I don't mind. I think, if we feel that we need to compromise, we will. But I don't really see that it serves the purpose. I would appreciate it that if there is a reason, if you feel that it would be too massive or opposing, then I could understand that. CHAIRMAN: Well, the lot that you have is a build-ablc lot in l-~ont, is that correct'? IRENE VITTh That's right. CHAIRMAN: All right, so you could, I'm not saying you're going to but you could sell that piece of property if you wanted to. IRENE VITTI: I could but I don't think we CHAIRMAN: I mean that's the only reason why we're looking at it, As I said, this is a very unique instance because you have to this property. Mrs. Tortora has a question. IRENE VITTI: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: The overall dimensions of the two decks and the sunroom, the width is 65 feet? IRENE VITTE Yes, that's right. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's a 65-tbot by 25-foot addition with a minimum rear yard 29 tbot on a parcel that is 89,000 square feet or a little over two acres? IRENE VITTI: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things; one, the Board has always been in the past very reluctant to grant this type of variance on this type of parcel. You have 89,000 square/bet, and regardless of whether you own the adjoining property in the rear now, that does not insure that it's going to remain there in perpetuity. Nor would we ever want you to sign such a covenant or such a restr/ction. IRENE VITTI: If I could just respond to that point. MEMBER TORTORA: Sure. IRENE VITTI: Presumably if I were to sell it, which I don't intend to do, somebody would buy it and the value would be determined subject to what was in the surroundings. So that would be, in effect, my cross to bear. If I were creating something that would diminish the value, I certainly wouldn't come back to the Zoning Board and say MEMBER TORTORA: It might not diminish the value but it would limit their building options. IRENE VITTI: That's completely a conforming lot. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but by putting your structure virtually on their line, you'rc limiting thcir building possibilities. The other thing is, under New York State Town Law we're required to look at alternate areas that would not require a variance. This is an enormous lot. IRENE VITTI: Well this is the only portion of the lot that faces the water. I mean there would be no purpose to building this structure anywhere else on the lot. Thc purpose is to enjoy the water view and the air circulation on the northwest side of the property. MEMBER TORTORA; What is the elevation on the deck? IRENE VITTI: It would be at the same elevation as the house, which is, I would say the floor, on the first floor is approximately fuur feet above grade and the grade is approximately (inaudible). CHAIRMAN: Are you done, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: One quick question, the lot that you own, the adjacent lot is several feet below grade that you are now, are you going to do a retaining wall on that back part of the sunroom? IRENE VITTI: I don't think the construction will require that, but I guess we did intend to make sure that the rear slopes off and its properly maintained, we intend to landscape it. MEMBER OL1VA: In the back where you have the deck that slopes down quite a bit, you are going to have to put a lot of fill back in there to bring that up to grade and then, as Mr. Orlando said, you'll have put some sort of retaining wall in there to hold in that soil. IRENE VITTI: The sloping area is beyond where the deck will be, I believe. MEMBER OLIVA: It slopes down quite a bit. IRENE VITTI: Whatever is required to maintain the structure we'll certainly 1 haven't gone ahead and asked Ibr final plans because I'm waiting for a decision. If that's what's required certainly we can do that. CHAIRMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: 1 was intrigued myself looking at the design. I kind of associate sunrooms with a southerly exposure and what you're explaining is that you're really trying to get more of a water view than anything else here and that's the purpose of the location on the property. IRENE VITTI: It does actually face to the, you call that the west side, so you get the after mid-day, the sun is on that side of the house. MEMBER HORNING: I would call it the northwest side. IRENE VITTI: 1 think actually the compass point shows that it faces the southwest. MEMBER HORNING: Anyway, noting that what's going to insure that lets say you did sell the adjacent property and/or the property across the street that someone doesn't build something that obstructs your view and then you don't have a water view there any longer where you built something for that purpose. IRENE VITTI: Well there are two parcels across the street, one of them is not in our direct line of sight and the other one is a double width. It is conceivable that somebody could build something that was so massive it would create some obstruction. I don't think anything ~vould create a complete obstruction. The likelihood of that happening I think is small because its proximity to the water. The fact that it may be regulated by the Town, but also by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and unlike the perspective that the Board seems to have, which is renowned to what may happen in the future, 1 prefer to look at what is there now and what we can enjoy and begin making our plans on that basis. MEMBER HORNING: I think what we're looking at is a very large lot that, in fact, you could have decks and a sunroom probably elsewhere that you wouldn't need a variance at all. IRENE VITTI: Well this was the, here the house was situated on the lot when we purchased it and if you spend some time there you very quickly realize that this is the, this side of the house is the most desirable and has the best exposure. The rest of the line is fairly ~vell treed, the grade is uneven; we tried to come up with a plan that would both satisfy our needs and also was practical in terms of~ I'm sony the architect couldn't be here tonight but we have been looking for over two years trying to develop a plan that was both practical and suited our purposes. We went from two stories and the extension off to the north side of the house and all sorts of permutations and this was what made more sense both tbr our, to serve our purposes and quite lYankly having walked the neighborhood quite thoroughly, I think its consistent with the other kinds of structures that have been built in the area which is that they maximize their exposure to the water side with these somewhat low line extensions that are precisely that, extension of the existing property rather than steel off on its own somewhere in perhaps in a much more obtrusive area. So that's how we came up with it. CHAIRMAN: Are there any somewhat contiguous or ad. jacent to yours that you could point out to us that have this, let's use the word, maximize the use of their rear yard'? IRENE VITTI: I'm sorry I don't CHAIRMAN: Are there any that are contiguous or adjacent to your property that you are indicating to us that have maximized the use of their rear yard? IRENE VITTI: Well actually the property directly to the north, the existing structure I went in and measured one night to prepare for this meeting, and that property is 30 feet off of its rear yard line. The property on the south side, while it's a single parcel its not divided in half with one parcel on the north and one on the sound view, its one that goes straight through. The side lot is five feet from the property line. As tar as the specific use that we're making on this, well getting back to the house on the north; 1 understand that they built an extension to the house in the rear so that they could utilize what was the waterside of the house as a porch, as a sunroom. So in a sort of round-a-bout way they didn't extend in that direction, they extended back so that they could tree up the use of that portion of the house for recreation. There are some houses on the other side of North Sea on the Sound front that have structures similar to what we're proposing to do. An extension more or less in line with the existing structure on the waterside. CHAIRMAN: Based upon our conversations with you, what we're in effect telling you is that we may not have three votes to grant what you are requesting. So, therefore, we may come up with some alternate relief in reference to footage. I was just mentioning that to you. This is only a hypothesis on my part at this point. IRENE VITTI: I understand. CHAIRMAN: So that's where we are and we will see what develops. IRENE VITTI: Will we have a further discussion about it? CHAIRMAN: Well that's really the point, if you want to go back and reconfigure I have no objection to this at all. I have no objection to you bringing your architect in at a different situation, different meeting. Why don't you think about what you want to do? None of what I'm saying is sarcastic. Whatever you'd like to do, you tell me. If you want to think about it for twenty minutes, we'll let you; do you want to make a telephone call, we can recess the hearing ~br twenty minutes so you can come back and tell us you want to call the house, you want to call anyplace. IRENE VITTI: No, my husband is here and the architect is out of town, but I was trying to understand do you want me to make a counter proposal? CHAIRMAN: Based upon some of the testimony that was received here it certainly would be to your benefit to let us look at an alternate plan. IRENE VITTI: Well, I can suggest perhaps we reduce it by, offthe top of my head, 20% and it would substantially meet our goals. On the other hand 20% of 25 feet is 5 feet. It makes the room generous if you have the five l;cet, and I'm not sure that it would necessarily accomplish your goals if we didn't have it. Nevertheless, 1 put it on the table if that makes it more palatable. CHAIRMAN: Okay. IRENE VITTI: 1 imagine it could work. CHAIRMAN: Do you, I think you owe us green cards? Did you give them to me? IRENE VITTI: Yes, I only received two back. CHAIRMAN: Could you give them to our clerk over there? I thank you; we'll see what develops throughout the hearing, 1'11 continue with the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:15 p.m. App. No. 5070 - ART SAFALOW. This is a request tbr a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's December 21, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes to locate a garage partly in the front and side yards, rather than a rear yard. Location of Property: 737 Old Wood Path, Southold; 87-1-23.4. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir is there anybody representing you? We need you to state your name for the record. BOB BOGER: Bob Boger. CHAIRMAN: Hi Bob, how are you? BOB BOGER: Fine how are you? CHAIRMAN: Bob we're looking for a Sign Posting Affidavit, do you have any idea? BOB BOGER: It's probably here someplace. I'm representing Arthur tonight he couldn't make this; he called me up late to stop in. This Affidavit was it supposed to be dropped off, or delivered or mailed or what. I'm not sure of this, but I know it was done. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKh That's lbr thc sign, putting up of thc sign. How many days it was put up lbr. You can send it tomorrow or have somebody call up tomorrow. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what you would like to do here. BOB BOGER: What he's trying to do I guess is to build a garage here, instead of being behind the house they require, he just wants to go tbrward of the house. You have the wetland problem there, you have the water thing, and you have a swimming pool back there. As it is now this proposal, this garage is probably, I'm guessing without a ruler, I'd say its about 200 feet back from the property line anyway. It's a pretty well wooded area. CHAIRMAN: It's a big piece of property. BOB BOGER: Yes. 1 think he has about two or three acres if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen it before. CHAIRMAN: It's 2.8 on the tax map. BOB BOGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any indication that he's going to use this for anything other than the garage? BOB BOGER: It's definitely a garage. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what utilities he intends to place in the garage'? BOB BOGER: A lot of bikes and mopeds that kind of garbage. They have another garage, they have two cars, and I don't really know what he's putting in it. CHAIRMAN: Probably just electricity right? BOB BOGER: Yes, there will be electric for the garage. There will be a drain in the bottom of this garage. 1 don't know anything else 1 can tell you, except I don't see anything hurting anybody here as far as the location goes. He would like to be; I don't know who drew this up exactly here, my son was involved. I know he would like to get closer to the 20-foot requirement if he could. His felt was that it was going to start to look like a nursing home. He wanted to put some plantings between the two things now and maybe a little bit closer. If you look at the house, you've been there; its kind of spread out now, and this would like a continuance of something like the San Simeon. We would just like to get a little bit closer, spread it apart a little bit. CHAIRMAN: Okay so he's talking 33 feet from the existing garage now. BOB BOGER: Yes, he'd like to just shove it over more. You've got plenty of room; the sideline minimum is 20 toot. I think hc'd like to get this to that as he could, not right on it but I know he asked me if we could ask the question and I'm asking it. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll start with Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. Bogcr? MEMBER HORNING: Thc existing garage would become what? BOB BOGER: Still a garage. MEMBER HORNING: And it will remain a garage? BOB BOGER: As thr as I know, yes. MEMBER HORNING: Do you need two garages? BOB BOGER: Well. Do you need three cars or two; its what the guy wants. MEMBER HORN1NG: Did he consider attaching or making, attaching the new garage to the old one or making the old garage larger? BOB BOGER: There's no way you could really do that. The garage doors are coming in Ii'om the side. If you would do an attachment here, all you would be doing is making a two-car length, you can't come out in the front. That's all stonewalls there, if you were up there you'd see that. It's just what people want. He's got a lot of stufl; he's got quite a bit of junk that they play with every weekend as far as I know that's what its for. MEMBER HORNING: And there's no other location on the property? BOB BOGER: No, you can't go behind it, you won't be able to get back there and you can't go off to the left and you can't go much further back anyway. There's a swimming pool right behind the house now, and then you're getting close to the water and the restrictions on the wetlands. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Somehow I thought that he was going to take the old garage and make that part of the main house. BOB BOGER: No. As far as I know, no. I have no idea about that. Most people try to dream about this, you and I all know that but I can't say that. He's going for another garage, that's all l know. MEMBER TORTORA: So that we essentially then BOB BOGER: If it were me, I'd probably make a couple of rooms out of that big thing. MEMBER TORTORA: Somehow that's what I thought; 1 thought that he was going to take that, the existing. BOB BOGER: I don't know what tbr with a house that big and two people. I really don't know. I can't answer that. MEMBER TORTORA: While the existing driveway, which separates the two garages, that little area now. BOB BOGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Between the existing garage and the proposed garage, one of the things, you know that's tight at 20 feet because you are in a side yard, partially in the front yard. BOB BOGER: Right. I know there's another house right over there. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, so that's really. BOB BOGER: He'd like to steel whatever he can, other than whatever this was, you know, we started out with a 20-foot thing. MEMBER TORTORA: That was good. BOB BOGER: I'd really like to spread it a little bit. MEMBER TORTORA: That was good, stay right where you were. BOB BOGER: I can see his feeling as far as the continuance of the building. It really gets a little bit overdone. It starts to look like, what his name, Levin's place down around the Sound. MEMBER TORTORA: It is, it is an unusual piece of property and there are a lot of wetlands in the back and the pool area. But you're pretty close to the lot line on that side and it is a front yard. BOB BOGER: You do what you could, you're the forces here not me. MEMBER TORTORA: But I do understand his particular plight and arrangement of the. I~age I t~ Fcbrumy 21,2002 ZBA Public Iteming [mnsct~pl BOB BOGER: He docs it up. If you've been up there he does it well. Hc spends a lot of money on landscaping. CHAIRMAN: It's a beautiful spot. BOB BOGER: It's done really nice. It's well done. He pays a lot of taxes too, and he'll be paying a lot more now. We don't want to bring that up. He's paying over $9,000 in taxes up there right'? MEMBER TORTORA: It's about that; I don't have it on the survey but Mr. Boger, and it looks to be, to mc, to be about 200 feet back. BOB BOGER: I scaled it with my thumb and it came out about 200 feet as it is. MEMBER TORTORA: Because its 500 on one side and 413 on the other. So that's at a minimum at least of, l'd say 200. BOB BOGER: I took a piece of paper and I grabbed that front line that said 183 and turned it sideways and ran that down the line. Its over 200 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay we'll say over 200 feet. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for coming in. Please don't leave until we close the hearing, this hearing. BOB BOGER: I thank you. CHAIRMAN: ls there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application? Ma'am. State your name ~cbr the record please. ANITA DILLWORTH: My name is Anita Dillworth, and I'm the adjacent property owner, l'm not really happy with the idea of a three-car garage. I wish it were smaller and I really don't like the idea of having to look at the back of a garage. I mean it is a beautiful area, and I think the gentleman before me said something about $9,000 taxes, mine are close to that; its just that if you do grant the variance l just hope that you'll be so kind as to permit him to put some sort of a screening so I don't have to look at the garage, preferably some mature evergreen trees. MEMBER TORTORA: That's doable. Are you familiar with the, this 20 feet that's just exactly what 1 had discussed with Mr. Boger a couple of minutes ago that I didn't really want to see it go any closer to your lot line. ANITA DILLWORTH: I don't understand the setbacks at all, and 1 think I spoke to you and you said that his garage was within thc setback. I don't understand that. MEMBER TORTORA: Well its not really within the setback, its in a front yard and the fi'ont yard setbacks arc considerably more. It's thc location, its here for thc location. Accessory garages are supposcd to be located in thc rear yard, but in this case, thc configuration of the lot and everything and the existing driveway are partially in the front yard. So that's what he's here for, partially the front and side yard. CHAIRMAN: I'm a little miffed about how the garage doors are opening, are they opening toward your side? ANITA DILLWORTH: No. CHAIRMAN: No, they're opening toward the other garage. ANITA DILLWORTH: l do believe that they are opening that way. CHAIRMAN: So what you're going to be seeing is three sides of this garage. ANITA DILLWORTH: I think so. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boger is shaking; we'll get that determined in a minute okay. So what you're really requesting is mature evergreens which we don't have any particular problem with. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Have you seen the map Mrs. Dillworth, showing the garage location. I don't think you did. ANITA DILLWORTH: I think it was sent to me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Okay it's the same one. ANITA DILLWORTH: Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boger, you wanted to react to that? BOB BOGER: I would just say that he would be more than willing to put shrubbery or whatever it takes to, he doesn't want to hurt anybody in the neighborhood. The doors do oppose the other doors that are there now. CHAIRMAN: So they're lace to face? BOB BOGER: Yes, she will see windows probably in the rear of this; there are a couple of windows going in. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:26 p.m. App. No. 5062 - JOHN AND ANNEMARIE CURTAIN. This is a request fbr a Variance under the Zoning Code, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Inspector's November 27, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicants propose additions and alterations to dwelling with a setback at less than 35 feet from the front property line. Location of Property: 745 East Road, Cutchogue; 1000-110-06-13. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir, how are you? Could you state your name fbr the record please? JOHN CURTAIN: Good evening, I'm John Curtain and my wife Annemarie is here with me tonight also. CHAIRMAN: How do you do? JOHN CURTAIN: Nice to see you. CHAIRMAN: You also enjoy a nice type where you are, where your house is. JOHN CURTAIN: Yes, we have kind of on the top of a hill. I believe you have the plans, and what we're proposing to do is try to stay within the keeping of the neighborhood homes, add on to the current house. Currently because we're on a coruer lot there are apparently two front yards; and although our address is on East Road, this Variance involves extending a new addition out closer to Fleetwood. Since our house was situated originally not parallel to either street, we're somewhat limited by this setback. The extension of the variance that we're asking for is relatively triangular shaped, and it does go from currently the feet the setback now. It was built originally 26 feet from Fleetwood and we would like to move that to 19 feet 5 inches on the extension, and as ! said, it's triangular so its really just 244 square feet extending into the various area according to our architect's calculations. The total height of the structure I this area will actually bring this lower roofline up to the current roofline, so we're not extending or exceeding any of the height restrictions in the area. The total new footprint of the structure on the lot will equal 13% of the total square footage, so we feel we're well within the allowed amount. And again in some of our adjacent neighbors immediately adjacent to us, the house on Fleetwood is within 22.5 feet and immediately across the street on thc other house therc's a garage imlnediatcly across the street from us, and then in the next house heading to thc north there is another garage there. So it doesn't really changc the character, it won't interfere with anybody else's views and will just give us a little more room and allow us to put a garage underneath existing non-useablc garage which wc have to use just a parking area off Fleetwood. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Curtain I notice the Tax Map indicated that these road are about 33 feet wide. Where does your property line actually start from the road? Does it actually, does the property line actually go to the road, or is there some grassed area there in between the wooded area? JOHN CURTAIN: Its all lawn down to there. On the east road side we havc landscaped that and had one of the landscaper put some telephone poles about five feet off the road, several ycars ago, just to kind of keep some of the landscape and some of the cedar bark that we were putting down there to kind of hold it from going onto the road. But there are no wooded sections there, there's scattered mature trees on the property now which, there's one relatively new maple tree that will probably have to come out, but none of the other mature trees will be removed by this position. CHAIRMAN: How about on the Fleetwood side? JOHN CURTAIN: On the Fleetwood side, just off the corner there, that's where the sugar maple would probably come out. Right at the tip there there's currently a maple tree that's approximately eight to ten years old. CHAIRMAN: But now let's talk about where the property line starts in reference to the pavement of the road. JOHN CURTAIN: My understanding is that within five feet of the road, there is no, to me CHAIRMAN: About five feet? JOHN CURTAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So you have about five feet of lawn or driveway or whatever you have there before you actually start to the road. What I'm saying is that the road JOHN CURTAIN: There's a little embankment there, but it's mostly grass that goes fight down to the edge of the road that we maintain. CHAIRMAN: You maintain but its part of the town property. Its part of the right of way. JOHN CURTAIN: Yes that's correct, fight. CHAIRMAN: So your 19-½ feet really is probably 24 feet, to the road. JOHN CURTAIN: Yes, I mean 1 don't have to agree with you because I'm uot sure, l didn't watch the surveyor do this. I'm unclear about that myself. You would know that better than mc. CHAIRMAN: 1'11 go back and take a look. We'll start with Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The deck, is that elevated on that retaining wall on the Fleetwood side? JOHN CURTAIN: The proposed covered porch? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. JOHN CURTAIN: That is actually pretty, it's a foot or two up, but its not. MEMBER TORTORA: Not the covered porch but, you show a retaining wall, in other words, is it 19.5 fbet to the edge of the property line? JOHN CURTAIN: Yes, its 19.5 feet and that is an extension of the structure, that's not decking. The decking would stay in the back where it fits within the MEMBER OLIVA: Where it is now. JOHN CURTAIN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, I just wanted to try to fix that because there was some confusion about that. Okay, that's all. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: On the first floor you obviously have a below grade garage to use, and the use of terrain is at your advantage. But on the second side, you're not doing a two-car garage? That's going to be storage on that one side? JOHN CURTAIN: That's correct. As I said the garage currently, as you can tell, there's no driveway through the garage. We bought the property that way, its used strictly for storage. We will change the driveway and make it a one-car garage. We would prefer not to have a two-car garage and probably have some storage adjacent to the area/:hr one MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, so you'rc going to have the sliding glass windows on that side, sliding glass doors ou the storage side. ANNEMARIE CURTA1N: We were thinking about making it a playroom at one time, but we're just going to leave it. JOHN CURTAIN: The sliding glass doors will be based in the back so that, as you look at it, we would come around out of the garage, and currently we don't really use the front entrance where there's a walkway that comes from the asphalt driveway to the back of the house where the deck is. We would, somewhere along that back wall, situate the sliding glass doors. In the front and on the side there will be just windows and then the existing door is toward East Road in the middle of the house. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the depth of your garage is going to be the same as your basement floor is now, because you're going to dig below. JOHN CURTAIN: We're going to dig below and excavate and then build, put the new foundation on top of that. That currently is a slope, so that we walk down the hill to the existing asphalt driveway; so we're coming underneath the existing garage now and there is a finished basement in the house already. We would probably make some connection to the finished basement to the garage area also. It would be on the same level. MEMBER ORLANDO: What are you putting on top of thc cupola, what are you putting on top of the cupola, l'm just kidding. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: Well the only reason we're having that is because I have credit at Penny Lumber and I couldn't figure out where else to use it. CHAIRMAN: We're not sure we picked you up Mrs. Curtain. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure if we picked you up by tape. MEMBER OLIVA: Is the closest point from your existing garage to the road 29 feet? JOHN CURTAIN: Yes, I realize now 1 misspoke about that, I think I said it was 26, it is 29 feet currently, CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Did you consider any alternative plans that you would not need a variance Ibr in your design? JOHN CURTAIN: We spent a lot of time and have met with several, a drafts person and then an architect and have a irhmily member who is an architect and have gone over this quite a bit and felt that this really would allow us to make maximum use of the home and a bigger family and the ability to have comfortablc living, and space per kids to have their own privacy and things like that. CHAIRMAN: Auything else sir? JOHN CURTAIN: No. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. JOHN CURTAIN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Any fi~rther comments? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's a gentleman over there. CHAIRMAN: Oh pardon me sir. Would you state your name for the record please? BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: My name is Benjamin Schwartz. I live on the property directly across the street, across Fleetwood Road there, and also on the side of East Road, I'm on the other comer. CHAIRMAN: The opposite comer. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: I'm excited to hear that the properly might be improved, but 1 couldn't live with myself if I didn't state my honest opinion of this plan. I think it would degrade the entire neighborhood. Essentially de-maximizing the value of their property by encroaching on the public right-of-way, whereas I'm sure an architect could be found able to build within the building envelope in the backyard rather than build their own backyard, extend into their backyard, they want to extend into their front yard which is overlooking my backyard and the road. If this is correct here, and 1 don't, there are some things here which 1 see that are not correct. There's a side yard setback of 35 feet towards Fleetwood Road and it talks about that as a front yard setback. So I don't know which CHAIRMAN: There are two front yards. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: But they've got two side yards, a front yard and a rear yard on the survey. There was an error there. CHAIRMAN: It depends upon the interpretation. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: 1 don't know why there are two front yards. CHAIRMAN: Because it's a comer lot. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: But there's no access to East Road. There's a steep slope there. There's never been a path or anything. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't make any ditt'erence Mr. Schwartz, it's a comer lot. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: The property was purchased as a residence that didn't need any work or any extension or anything, and they bought it and they were happy with the way it was. Now they want to make it bigger and the way the property is situated it's a small property. It's going to be difficult to find a way to enlarge it that works for everybody. This plan here I think would entail some serious negative impacts esthetically, environmentally and the public's health, safety and welfare. The property is on a very. corner. The property is on a very steep hill. There is no topographical information on this survey. But recently there was installed a sprinkler system on the front lawn here. When that runs in the summer there's a stream that goes into the road and down the road past my house fight into the creek. This is not near the wetlands but it's a very short distance from one the finest beaches in Southold. The last time I really spoke up on any public hearing was when they tried to build a house on that beach. CHAIRMAN: I remember that hearing. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: I was there when they started piling the dump trucks. They didn't have the proper permits. Basically, just as in violation of department and l believe it would have negative impact and I hope that my neighbors can find a way to enjoy their property without imposing on the neighborhood. I do believe that there are alternatives that would be available here and this neighborhood; these streets are used by people everyday. Many people walk their dogs or just walk themselves all around the estates and the kids play around there, And I think to have a structure of that size closer to the street, 1 know there are some existing structures that are even closer, but the size of them is much smaller and this being on a hill, so there is no topographic the size would be apparently much greater than the actual height. It is not a fiat property. Again, I regret that I can't speak in favor of this and I hope that they do find a way to, and the Board maybe can help them find a way to improve their property to suit their needs, rather than imposing on the public. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Mr. Curtain? Mr. Curtain do you have any original copies of the ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: Actually I spoke to Benny's father who owns the property and he was very excited about it our renovation. I .just needed to make sure that the Board knows that Benjamin Schwartz is not the deed holder. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now we get to the important part and that is the part of what are you willing to give up if the Board is not willing to give you 19 ½ feet? Just wait one second Mr. Schwartz I'1l be r/ght with you. JOHN CURTAIN: Well we certainly are willing to seek some level of compromise. It's a little dii'ficult to say that right offhand. I think that looking at the dil'fcrcnce there, I guess we could, between the existing structure and the proposed there's ten feet. So the part in the fi'ont it was hoped that we could bring that out along with the proposed covered porch. 1 would say that we could bring that down to five feet possibly within some rai~ge in there and again, pointed out that that's a triangular shape that would severely reduce the total square footage that's involved in the variance here. CHAIRMAN: That's one of the risks that you have when you deal with placing a rectangular structure and its offside, it puts everything else out. And in no way am I gloating about this, I'm saying it pragmatically sir I assure you. JOHN CURTAIN: I understand, And I couldn't do the geometry in my head but I'm sure it will reduce the total variance of the square ibotage; but the point would still be the comer would be outside of the current accepted setback. Again that depends on your interpretation of front yard versus side yard, but I understand with a comer lot you have two front yards and that's the way it is. CHAIRMAN: So in other words what you're saying is 19 ½ we're now talking 24 V=? JOHN CURTAIN: Yes, and 1 think that, again our architect Mr. Heines was not able to come tonight but 1 think we could probably work a little bit with him and try to come up with some approach here as you mentioned, not being an architect there's a lot of right angles here but I guess we could work on the right angle. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to work on this plan and come back at another time? JOHN CURTAIN: Sure. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: This has been going on for a very long time. If this is going to be denied, which I hope its not, because we spent a lot of time on it. CHAIRMAN: Just let me say this to you. Knowing me, which you don't know, I am a person that works things out. So that was the reason why 1 asked the pointed question to your husband. I also go back and do a lot of research and you will see me back there on Saturday morning, walking around and looking at the neighborhood and looking at your spot; looking at the concerns that Mr. Schwartz has mentioned. That will be a situation that I will deal with. So very rarely do you get a denial out of me, and then I tell the Board what I have seen. I don't tell them what to do, we're all independent thinkers arid so, what we're telling you is that we're searching tbr some alternate relief, We have no objection to you stopping it at this point and saying yes we will accept alternate relief. 1 guess my question to you is, are you going to go along with the five feet that your husband is mentioning? ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: I could go along with that, but 1 do hope when you come on Saturday and you look at my property which abuts the back of Benja's property, which the rOWll is aware that numerous neighbors have called and colnplained about the state of that property, but that we won't get into. CHAIRMAN: That's really counter-productive. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: Our whole idea is that we need storage to put thc children's bicycles. There is no area in the back behind the deck to put a freestanding garage. We actually voted that putting it along the property line north of the asphalt driveway that would block a neighbors view. We didn't want to do that. As it is we're really just popping it out eight feet where our hedges are and that's it. We considered the possibility of, because we don't really need the garage, we just have it as re-sale of knocking down the existing garage still excavating below it instead of putting a garage, just put a storage area. [ don't know the correct term for it. And building up the garage right where it is. But somehow excavating underneath that garage, but we were told you cannot just excavate, the garage has to come down in order to have the storage under that. So this is how it evolved into this garage thing. If you're going to do something like that, you mi~t as well put in a garage we were told. MEMBER TORTORA: Who told you that? ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: Pardon me? MEMBER TORTORA: Who told you that'? CHAIRMAN: Did your architect tell you that? ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: We had a couple of builders come out telling us that you can't just excavate underneath the garage. Several builders have told us that it's just not structurally possible to do it. Although we had some guy today come out and say he could do it, but he's one out of about six people who have looked at the job. CHAIRMAN: It depends upon the retainance of the house at the time that they're doing the construction. MEMBER TORTORA: It's on a very steep hill. Looking at the plan, the overall survey of the map and you look at the permitted building envelope and you say, gee yes I see what you want to do. As the Chairman says we are always concerned when it's a corner lot and when you're going that close because of vision, because of traffic problems. And making sure that there is a clear vision across there. If it weren't, we probably wouldn't be looking at this that strongly. But it is a used right-of-way; it's not an inactive paper road. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: Right, but the eight feet will not obstruct the fence. I made you all copies of the house next door, the Smnusc house is actually 22 feet ~?om the road, and that juts far beyond. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not on the corner though. JOHN CURTAIN: No it's perpendicular to the left. MEMBER TORTORA: Its not a comer lot. That's the dift'crence. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: That's correct, so when we made the plans and we spoke to the different architects and bluepr/nt people no one thought it was a concern or something that was irrational to conceive and that's why we decided to do it. JOHN CURTAIN: In looking again just pointing that out I can see the concerns about a corner but where this comes out is still quite a ways, if you look where the variance is, its midway to the property and again the front structure is well within the 35 foot setback and this would be, before you get to the corner would be probably another 70 f~et from the natural distance of this, so we're not talking about an ama that's going to be really very close to the corner. CHAIRMAN: But there's no question that it's a blind corner anyway because of the elevation factor. I think the main concern is distance to the road in general. So I mean if you give us that five feet or you want to stop that's fine with me. MEMBER TORTORA: Just one more thing, what is the height 28 on the house? ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: I don't think I have that 1 didn't bring that with me. JOHN CURTAIN: I think maybe the architect had a response to that. The total height of the structure will be just 21 feet, which is well below the 35-foot height allowed. MEMBER ORLANDO: Now that 21 feet does that come up against your original ridgeline or are you exceeding it? JOHN CURTAIN: No the current ridge line over the existing garage drops down and we're going to bring up the addition to the existing ridge line and not change. So it will be a unified ridgeline all across the house. MEMBER OLIVA: The height of your proposed building, it would be the same as your house is now? JOHN CURTAIN: The highest point, the height is the same and we would add some house dormers to current roo£ Thereby again would not exceed the current roofline. CHAIRMAN: Okay just so we know what our perimeters are and that's what we're going to be dealing. We will probably be dealing with this next week. It's entirely up to you, if you want your architect to come in, we'll hold it off sometime. But it's going to be a little while because we are inundated with applications, I'm just telling you that. But I don't want that to be criteria for the reason why you don't want to. We are very happy to discuss it w/th your architect. ANNEMARIE CURTAIN: l don't think we need to discuss anymore, I can see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN: Mr, Schwartz, please excuse me for stopping but I can only focus on one thing at a time. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: I apologize but I wanted to speak while it was still fresh, because I don't own the house, my father does, but I did speak with him and he did receive the plans and when I discussed it with him he told me that I should come here and speak with you. 1 would also just like to add if I may that one other thing which at this point I'm just thinking about the future and the future of the neighborhood and there's a history. This house is built facing southeast and it enjoys a view both of the bay and the creek, and in current proposal to add to northeast side of the house, basically is to increase the view' of the creek. My own house was added to when we purchased it. it was the original creeks hunting cabin by the previous owner. He added a shower only in the basement, very primitive before the addition on the one side there was a bathroom on the first floor and a shower and a bathroom on the second floor. If the house ever gets added to again, its very likely that that addition will also continue in that direction which would essentially block any view that would be enjoyed by this improvement of this property in this manner. Alternatives to this property I believe exists in going straight up over the existing footprint or in moving this proposed addition back in line with the existing structure. I'm not sure that would give you the 5 feet or not. But thank you very much for your consideration. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like speak? Seeing no hands Pll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later, Thank you very much both groups. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:58 p.m. Appl. No. 5057 - DAVID & TR1SIt HOWE. This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-242A based on the Building Inspector's November 16, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes an addition and alterations to the existing dwelling with a front yard setback of less than 40 feet. Location of Property: 90 West Dr., Cutchogue; 1000-110-5-45. Garrett Strang, Architect. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Strang how are you tonight? GARRETT STRANG: Very good. First of all I would like to submit the last remaining green card obtained late this afternoon. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us sir? GARRETT STRANG: Just briefly the existing house is, I'm sure the Board is aware having secu it and reviewed the plans, is a i gl story family home. There is an existing first floor deck on the cast side. There's a second floor deck above it. The proposal is to replace that first floor deck with a one story addition, and a second floor deck which is smaller, smaller than what is presently there, which would basically sit within the confines of thc roof of that first flonr addition. We're also proposing some new first floor decking, which would attach the existing front entry landing and steps to this new addition work. If I understand correctly, Section 102-30 of the Code allows fbr an average fi:ont yard setback [bt properties adjacent or within __feet. Our existing setback is 20.8 feet to the building line and 17.8 feet to a landing. Our nei ~ghbor immediately to our west is 20.8 feet to his building line and our neighbor immediately to the east is approximately 19 feet to a roofed over porch that runs the full ~t?ont of the building. What I would like to do at this time is submit to the Board a copy ora survey that I have of the neighboring property to the west which substantiates their setback and a couple of photographs taken from the west side of our property and the neighbors property. That's the survey of our property to our west showing the same setbacks. These two photographs were taken, this one was taken from this side of this house which shows that the house, especially this one, which is the one I'm trying to make reference to which is east of my client. (TAPE AT END - MUFFLED) MEMBER TORTORA: This is the west? GARRETT STRANG: This would be west, correct. This is my client here, this is the house to the west which is number 28, this is the house east which is 19, approximately. I didn't have a survey on that; 1 was able to eyeball it from the monument. If my understanding of that section of the Code is correct. MEMBER TORTORA: It's the average on the same side of the road within 300 feet of the proposed. GARRETT STRANG: Right so if that is a correct assumption the 20.8 would be at least acceptable and nothing or that there wouldn't be anything built behind us. MEMBER TORTORA: There's nothing beyond the 300 feet Mr. Strang? GARRETT STRANG: Well the point is I'm just trying to take the addition that we're building out of the need for a variance, basically because of the establishment that that was upon the onset. So in doing so, what we're really addressing here is the minor deck additions that would be forward of that 20.8 feet. And basically there are two of them. They're unenclosed, they're unroofed, and they're open. One of them is 3 feet by 3 iEet on a 45-degree angle. So it's approximately 7 square feet. The other one is 3 feet by 7 feet, part of which is at a 45-degree angle, which is about 17 square feet. Neither of which is closer to the front lot line and the existing front entry landing. And, as 1 said, they're kind of minimal in their imposition. My feeling is that neither of them would have any sort of negative impact on the community or the character of the neighborhood or the zoaing. I think that they're, in my opinion, they're necessary to maintain the architectural balance and character of that addition, as well as being able to connect the existing landing to that addition and the minimal that we could possibly provide and still be able to walk offto the side of the deck, CHAIRMAN: These arc first story decks'? GARRETT STRANG: These are first story decks only. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll start with Mrs. Oliva. Any questions Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: Not at this moment. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: When I just looked at the old survey it was 28 feet and then what happened at some point you put in a deck along there; or the owners put in a deck along there and then they enclosed that deck which brought it down to 20.8 feet? GARRETT STRANG: That's not really accurate. The house, the footprint of the house is exactly the way it's been from when it was first built. There was not a deck but there was an enclosed projection toward the front of the street. For whatever reason way back when, the previous surveyor took his dimension to the main part of the house and didn't take into account that, and I have documentation from the Assessors Office, as to what went on there. So that bump has always been an enclosed space right from the get go. MEMBER TORTORA: Really? GARRETT STRANG: Yes, with a Certificate of Occupancy tbr the whole thing. So that was never a deck that got added; that's always been an enclosed structure. MEMBER TORTORA: And just one other thing, so what we're looking here is 17.8 at the closest point of the deck addition is that correct? GARRETT STRANG: That's correct, 17.8 to the deck addition which is the same as the landing that us now, at the top of the stairs. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, I just want to make a couple of other notes, the lot does have a number limitations in that it was only, I believe, the width of the lot GARRETT STRANG: The width of the lot is 110 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: 110 that's a narrow lot, and the house has existed there for many years in its current location. CHAIRMAN: One thing that's unique Mr. Strang regarding this area of West Road is that a lot of these houses are built very close to the road. GARRETT STRANG: They were, I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind that but many years ago I guess they just a lot of long driveways. MEMBER TORTORA: Actually it was probably when there was snow out here. GARRETT STRANG: Could be, many years ago right. CHAIRMAN: Are you done Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes I am. CHAIRMAN: Oh wonderful thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Well don't put it that way. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll see what develops Mr. Strang. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application? This is appeal 455057. Seeing no hands, hearing no yells, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:08 p.m. Appl. No. 5059 JOSEPH AND BETH CASTRONOVO. This is a request for a Variance under the Zoning Code, Section 100-244, based on the Building Inspector's October 25, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicants propose a second-story addition to the existing dwelling with a setback at less than 35 feet from the front property line. Location of Property: 250 Wesland Road, Southold; 1000-59-20. Cannella Associates, Architect. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir. STEVE CANNELLA: Good evening, my name is Steve Cannella, I'm the architect for the proposed project. Let me just give you a quick overview of what we're proposing. We're proposing a second floor addition over the existing footprint of a residence. As you are aware, the lot is an existing non-conforming lot with respect to side yard setbacks. As fhr as what we're doing, we are adding a new front porch, and we're maintaining the existing front yard setbacks. Esthetically just basically we have made some efforts to reduce the impact of the project from the street with a great deal roof exposed from the t~ont giving the appearance a 1 72 story home, in fact it actually will be a 2 story home. Secondly, we lowered the plate heights in order to gain the minimum impact from the street. Basically that's it. CHAIRMAN: I've bccn to the site, I've looked at your plan, and I don't have any objections. We'll start with Mr. Homing, any questions'? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I've been to the site and I would like to note for the record that this was a very small lot and you're plans are very modest, and for the second floor you're going to keep the same, essentially 9 and 14, you're doing a modest addition to a very small lot that, in my opinion, will have a minimal impact. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: I would second what Mrs. Tortora has, you've done the best you can with what you have. CHAIRMAN: Let's see what develops throughout the hearing and we thank you. Please don't leave until we close. Is there anybody else that would like to speak; is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:11 p.m. Appl. 5065 - PETER & MARIA NICOVIC. This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's August 16, 2001 Notice of Disapproval, for approval of the existing location of an as built deck, near the existing deck. The new deck is considered an accessory structure, which is located partly in an area other than the required rear yard. Location of Property: 505 Miriam Road, Mattituck; 1000-99-1-35.1 William Amato, agent. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amato how are you? Just state your name for the record please. WILLIAM AMATO: William Amato. I've been asked by Mr. and Mrs. Nicovic, the applicants, to represent them at this hearing and I will answer any questions that you would like to have regarding their application. So that's where it stands right now. CHAIRMAN: I think we're all right on the green cards, I think I have everything here. WILLIAM AMATO: There are some green cards missing which haven't been returned yet. CHAIRMAN: Right, okay. You are aware of the letter from Mrs. Wickham? WILLIAM AMATO: I did get a copy of it yes. CHAIRMAN: So we will probably adjourn this to some later date after your presentation or whatever we can grill you about. It is our understanding that this deck is attached to the house, the existing house. It looks like almost solely in the side yard. It's approximately five feet to the property line. WILLIAM AMATO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: It is open? WILLIAM AMATO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And there's a swimming pool, and that's pretty much all I know at this particular time. WILLIAM AMATO: Let me make some statements. CHAIRMAN: Sure. WILLIAM AMATO: There was a pre-existing deck, and if you look at the survey you'll see a wood deck directly behind the house. Prior to that addition, that wood deck and an addition being made in 1993 which is to the east was an addition made. That was a pre- standing deck which I just came to learn not tot) long ago that at the time it was built, ~vhen we first resurfaced the deck and re-built the deck, and when it was originally built it was called a wood patio. That was why there was a problem with the semantics between the deck and the wood patio. I assume that prior to 1987 or 1987 going back that if it was on ground level, it was considered a wood patio, not a deck. That's why there was never a permit for it. That's I believe the reason why there was never a permit for it. Now what happened was when the house was added onto which was in 1993 or 94, you see a roof over and a garage to the east. Those were added on. When they were added on, that's when that deck in the back, directly to the back was added on, and that's where the attachment comes to the pre-existing pool deck, or pool wood patio to the wood deck. So what we did, what Mr. Nicovic did was re-surface the deck and some of the underpinnings. And that's, I assume, the reason that the variance is that it became attached to the structure itself when this wood deck was put in. This wood directly behind the structure itselfi CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you lbr that information. We'll start with Mr. Horuing, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: I'm not sure I have that right here. On the survey portion right behind the garage is an extension is that what is as built? WILLIAM AMATO: Not directly behind thc garage, the pool deck and thc wood deck directly behind the house were attached. Thcre is a little walkway which is also wood going directly to the north in between the roof ovcr. This walkway is like a little walkway an enclosed walkway that you get from the front of thc house to thc backyard there. MEMBER HORNING: I see the wood deck on the back. WILLIAM AMATO: Right, that was added later prior to the pool the wood deck or wood patio had been there. MEMBER HORNING: You're saying that the whole thing with the chain link fence is that the wood deck there? WILLIAM AMATO: The chain link fence, the pool and the wood patio were added at the same time in 1987. At the time it was assumed that the wood patio was included in the C.O. but the C.O. only states for the pool and tbr the fencing. They need a C.O. for the deck, wood patio at the time. MEMBER HORNING: How much above grade is? WILLIAM AMATO: At the time it was on the ground. What happens is the grade on that property slopes three or four different ways. Directly behind the house it's on the ground, then it slopes off toward the Sound which would be to the north, and it also slopes off very radically to the east. So what happens is this, when the deck was re- surfaced, we had to elevate the deck on the east side because we did add a few feet to that. MEMBER HORNING: And it goes right up to the front? WILLIAM AMATO: At one time, it was a horseshoe, in the comers in the enclosed area attached to the fence, come up to the fence I should say. Since then they've been taken back to the west five feet was cut off of that deck. I have pictures if the Board would like to see them. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Take your time Bill. WILLIAM AMATO: There are a number of sets of prints here. MEMBER HORNING: The closest point to the property linc that east side is WILLIAM AMATO: Five feet right now. These were originally taken with the old deck in place, or the old wood patio in place. MEMBER HORNING: Could I ask a question for clarification, what exists on this area? Page 34. February 21,201)2 ZBA Public Healing I mnscnpt CHAIRMAN: Its another house. WILLIAM AMATO: There's a house. There's about 3 to 5 feet right there. Within 3 to 5 feet of our west end. MEMBER TORTORA: What year was this one taken? WILLIAM AMATO: That one was taken 2/29/2000. Some of these are dated, some are not. CHAIRMAN: Prior to the WILLIAM AMATO: Prior to the resurfacing and adding to the deck. I have a letter from the previous owner who owned the house in 1947, I believe it was 47, 48 right up until it was sold to this owner Mr. Nicovic, Indicating that that deck was there, or that wood patio was there at the time the pool was built and that was in 1987. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay it's the objecting neighbor that WILLIAM AMATO: Here's some more pictures that were taken in November I believe and these are the most recent that were taken in, I can't tell you when they were taken, they were taken within the last 6 - 8 months. And if you want other -- you can keep them. CHAIRMAN: I don't remember, but we have a lot of applications on Mrs. Twoney property at one time and I just don't remember if we had an application for the swimming pool. WILLIAM AMATO: I have the C.O. for the swimming pool and the fencing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The file would be noted on the lower left side. CHAIRMAN: No prior's show, so maybe not for that. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know if it would be required because that is in a rear yard. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes that's right. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's actually in the rear of the house. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: When it met the three-foot setback. WILLIAM AMATO: If l may make a statement, it only became an accessory after that deck was attached. Page 35, Fcb~ umy 2 I, 2002 ZBA Puhllc [Icmmg TIansc~ CHAIRMAN: Right. WILLIAM AMATO: And the extension was put on. Other than that it was free standing. CHAIRMAN: Okay where are we with the questions of Mr. Amato, anybody? MEMBER TORTORA: Can we keep these fbr the file? WILLIAM AMATO: Certainly. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you very much, CHAIRMAN: Let me pass them back down to George so everybody sees them and then we'll pass them back down to you. MEMBER TORTORA: We need to identif~ them. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How many are there? How many do you have there Lydia? CHAIRMAN: There are actually four sets. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The first batch is a little more than that. MEMBER TORTORA: Eleven 4 x 6's, and MEMBER HORN1NG: Some of the pictures show drainpipes and everything. There's nothing draining into the neighbor's property? WILLIAM AMATO: That is where a pool filter was located, or is located. The filters not there because it was taken after the season, and the drainage on that when they backwash it goes onto the lot, not onto the neighbors directly to the west of the pipe leading onto Mr. Nicovic's property which extends down the hill. MEMBER HORNING: And it drains into what kind ora system? WILLIAM AMATO: Its just down,hill, not much. He's got about another 100 feet from the back. It just runs down the hill. CHAIRMAN: Those pictures Mr. Amato from the prior deck prior to the renovation are very valuable. That was good of you to take those. We appreciate that. MEMBER TORTORA: Do we want to recess this? CHAIRMAN: We have to recess this. MEMBER TORTORA: Do we have a datc, a possible date for a recess on this? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well wc were going to do the 21~t of March. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to do thc 21~ or do you want to do the 28th? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 21~ Jerry. please. We have the others on fbr the 28th. MEMBER TORTORA: Is that okay? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The 21st, yes. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak regarding this hearing tonight? Yes, we'll be fight with you. Just wait one second. Okay, thank you Mr. Amato and we'll see you back. Yes sir how are you? PHILLIP MORROW: My name is Phillip Morrow and I'm representing my sister Mrs. Perretta. We're objecting to the deck because it is, our house is five feet from the fence. And their deck would be five feet from the fence. CHAIRMAN: Are you being represented by Miss Wickham? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So you just want to voice your objection now. PHILLIP MORROW: My objection is that the deck is well above grade. Well let me put it like this, the fence come back even with the roofline of our house there. So with the deck being elevated the fence becomes not a 6 V2, 7-foot fence but becomes a 4-foot fence there, after you get done with the elevation of the deck and they're practically on top of the house. MEMBER HORNING: So who built the fence? Who put the stockade fence up? PHILLIP MORROW: The original owners of the house. MEMBER HORNING: Of your neighbor? PHILLIP MORROW: Twoney. Yes. Which parts of it is in violation, part of the fence is. MEMBER HORNING: Your not objecting to the height of the fence though are you? PHILLIP MORROW: Right now my issue is that there on top of our building which they can ahnost look in our windows, our tbur side windows. MEMBER HORN1NG: And the situation has existed i-hr a number of years. PHILLIP MORROW: The fence, not the deck. Thc deck was always about, I'd say about 16 feet away from the fence originally before it was altered. MEMBER TORTORA: When was it altered? PHILLIP MORROW: It was altered about three years ago 1 guess, less than three years ago. MEMBER HORNING: And you didn't object at the time? PHILLIP MORROW: l did object. MEMBER HORNING: And where does that leave you.'? What was your objection and where did you make it to? PHILLIP MORROW: We just objected, then we decided to have an attorney represent us because we realized that it was too close to our property and it was my understanding that a piece of property that's 30,000 feet or better square feet should be a 15 foot setback on a deck. The original deck was within confonnity of the law. Then when they added this other part, I don't think that it con[brmed any more. MEMBER HORNING: Did you call the Building Department and ask why your neighbor they built PHILLIP MORROW: Yes. MEMBER HORN1NG: And what did they say? PHILLIP MORROW: They inspected it and that was it. MEMBER HORNING: So it's taken this long t¥om a few months ago actually? PHILLIP MORROW: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you this question sir. Looking at the Assessors Record, Mrs. Twoney sold to Mr. and Mrs. Nicovic on 6/16/97. PHILLIP MORROW: Yes. CHAIRMAN: You're saying that the alteration of this deck occurred after 6/16/977 Page 38, Februmy 21,2002 ZHA Public tlcaun~, Tmnscnpt PHILL1P MORROW: Yes. There was no Building Permit for it either. CHAIRMAN: Right okay. So wc will be addressing this issue back on the 21s~ of March with your attorney. We thank you tbr coming in. PHILLIP MORROW: Thank you sir. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amato? WILLIAM AMATO: May 1 just rebut something? When the complaint was made by the easterly neighbor to the Building Department they were asked to cut back five feet from that deck, which is what we did. We built it in conformity with the deck as to regard of the permit. But we did cut back five feet to satisfy the neighbor next door. That did not satisfy him. Originally what was planned was a buffer between the deck and the fencing of high shrubs, so it wouldn't be a problem with the neighbor who was now situated essentially in a hole on the side of the hill. This house is, yes, lower, but it's right next to the property line. What happens is when you're up there you're on a deck which is on the property, you walk to the edge of the property, maybe you're a I:bot or two now. Because what happens is the property drops off radically at this side. So if you stand there you're on the top of the hill you still can see over the top of the fence. Now the fence is situated down here from me, and the hill comes like this. It's a radical drop offto the neighbor to the east's property. And that's why I can understand his complaint, you can look in; but its not like the neighbors are there looking in. They're at that house maybe a month out of the whole year, and there's never been a complaint from any of the neighbors or any complaints that I know of record of noise or any kind of activity which would disturb that neighbor. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question on that Bill. Are you going to be here on the 2 1 st? WILLIAM AMATO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So what you're telling me is when the Building Department asked you to cut this deck back to five, the deck that existed on the rear of the house was not existing at that time. WILLIAM AMATO: No, yes it was. CHAIRMAN: It was existing. WILLIAM AMATO: It was existing. CHAIRMAN: So they said that the five feet was adequate at that time? WILLIAM AMATO: That's my interpretation of what they told me, yes. To cut it back five feet. I don't have anything in writing for that. I>agc 39. I:cbrumy 21.21/02 ZBA Public I [caring Tmnsc~ yt MEMBER TORTORA: Why was there no permit issued for it then? WILLIAM AMATO: Because we were resurfacing the deck and he added on. That was an oversight. MEMBER TORTORA: Decks have never been exempt from a C.O. WILLIAM AMATO: It was a deck at the time. It was considered a wood patio. We thought because it was enclosed there we had the right to resurface that deck, to add on, no. CHAIRMAN: So there was a different interpretation by the Zoning Department then, at which point it no longer became a patio it became a wood deck. WILLIAM AMATO: Right, it became a wood deck. CHAIRMAN: I was just trying to get to the point where the five feet was assumed because there was no addition to the deck in the rear. WILLIAM AMATO: That was assumed. And they also have to get a permit. We procrastinated on that. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER HORN1NG: And you never did get a permit'? WILLIAM AMATO: No we did file for a permit. It was turned down because the deck is considered an accessory structure, because now it was attached to the house. Okay, and now it was considered a deck, they are no longer considered wood patios. Okay, so if its confusing. MEMBER TORTORA: At the tone you are talking about I think the favorite saying in the Building Department was if you can run over it with a lawn mower, that was the saying, then it's a patio. If you can't run over it with a lawn mower, then it's no patio. W1LLIAM AMATO: I assume when they gave the, when they issued the C.O. on the pool and the fencing the deck was there. So they would not have issued that C.O. if that had been considered a deck. MEMBER TORTORA: Not necessarily. WILL1AM AMATO: Well I'm just making these assumptions because I wasn't back there in 1987 to find that out. CHAIRMAN: As long as you can walk thcy don't have to be attached. But as long as you can walk from one to thc other, it's still considered to be attached cven though it may not be. MEMBER TORTORA: This is attached. CHAIRMAN: I know it's attached, but I'm just telling you. Thank you Mr. Amato. MEMBER TORTORA: So is it, do we have the 28th, is that correct? CHAIRMAN: No, it's the last hearing on the 21st. 1'11 offer that as a Resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION CHAIRMAN: I am requesting a 3-minute recess at this time; I apologize to the people who have been patiently waiting. MEMBER TORTORA: Could I make a motion to make two more minutes out of that? CHAIRMAN: As long as you hold to those two more minutes. 8:48 p.m. Appl. No. 5066 POS1LLICO CONSTRUCTION. This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's December 7, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes to locate a garage in an area other than the required rear yard. Location of Property: 3040 Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport; 1000-53-4-44.35. (Also see possible Amended Notice of Disapproval for change in yard identification due to modified location of new dwelling closer to the front line.) CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir could you state your name for the record? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Good evening Members of the Board, my name is Anthony Posillico and I represent Posillico Construction on this application. CHAIRMAN: How do you do. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Before we get started I'd just like to point out a typographical error, i think on the agenda. The next application 5069 referenced August Acres Lot 33. That's the lot in question on my application. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN: That's the reason why we put the Tax Map numbers in. The Tax Map number in yours is ANTHONY POSILLICO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ANFHONY POSILLICO: First of all i would like to provide some intbrmation that Linda requested this afternoon. That additional intbrmation shows the existing setback to the front porch and thc house under construction as 53' 6" and the proposcd garage as it was staked out. The proposed front yard setback would be 4' 2" and the side yard setback would be approximately 28'. Also included in that handout is the Wetlands Permit from the Trustees that I received today. I also have some photographs. CHAIRMAN: Let me just digress back one second Mr. Posillico; you said you have staked the garage'? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Yes, just yesterday. CHAIRMAN: We'll go back and look at that. ANTHONY POSILLICO: I would just like to give a brief history of the project. About a year ago a customer came to us to build a house for them. We entered into contract. The customer was aware that there were water views on the lot that they selected. The house, the way the house was placed on the lot. They also selected to have a detached garage including a front courtyard in the front of the house, in between the house and the garage. They had a very young child that became ill, and they needed to stay ~vithin the proximity of the doctors. Subsequent to that we decided to go ahead and build the project on speculation. It's a modular house and garage. We had the Health Department approval and we went ahead and ordered the house and the garage. We got plans and we submitted them to the Building Department and at that time we became aware that there was a problem with this detached garage being in other than the rear yard. We decided that, we got the Permit ibr the house only. We decided to go ahead with the construction of the house. The house arrived January 29th and it's currently under construction. We made our application to the ZBA for the garage. That's where we stand at this point. 1 would just like to point out that I don't think there's any negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of the design of the house and the garage is a traditional design in keeping with the rest of the homes in August Acres. Like I said before, it creates a front courtyard in between the house and the garage that 1 think is upscale and would benefit the homeowners. There are no property line setback infringements. In other words, the entire project is within the required property line setbacks. During the construction of the house we became aware that there was some wetlands on the property. At the time, the original sub-division map showed a pond off the lot, that was what we could see on the survey. During the construction, we became aware of it, and the Bay Constable came down. He recommended that we go to the Trustees, which we did, and file an application. And having we received that permit yesterday. And lastly I would like to read a letter, if I may, I know that the Board has it I believe, but if I can for the record read the letter from the neighbor? Mr. and Mrs. Harry Bondarchuk, 2825 Kerwin Blvd. Greenport, New York. February 17th, 2002. It was addressed to the Town of Southold, Board of Appeals. To Whom It May Concern: We are owners of a home in August Acres and live diagonally across the street from the home being built by Mr. Posillico. According to the information given us, Mr. Posillico, is having a problem getting a variance for the garage he wishes to erect on the new home he is building. As tar as we arc concerned, we do not see any problem with this garage being erectcd. We fcel that this new house with the garage will enhance the beauty of the neighborhood. Sincerely Mary Ellen and Harry Bondarchuk. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you Mr. Posillico, why a two-story garage'? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Its something that the original buyer was interested in. It's not a two-story garage it's just a walk-up loft. It's a one-story garage __ roof pitch and a storage loft. It is not finished. I built a house in December around the comer in August Acres with the very same detached garage with the walk-up loft. CHAIRMAN: Do you remember what address that was? ANTHONY POSILLICO: 430 August Lane. CHAIRMAN: I just want to look at it. I won't go on the property; l just want to look at it. Okay, I'm going to start with Mrs. Oliva because I think she wants to ask you a question. MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, one thing I see here. On your one survey you have 54.2 inches to the front line and on the Trustees survey it says 52 feet. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Right that was a sketch that I did myself that was not completely accurate. That 54 foot 2 inches is the exact setback as staked out, as the stakes exist right now. MEMBER OLIVA: And you have that all staked out so that we can see because we were rather in the quandary when we were out there last Saturday. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Yes 1 apologize for that, the stakes went in yesterday. MEMBER OLIVA: And do you need kind of relief or non-jurisdicfion from the D.E.C.? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Not that I'm aware of, no. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, so the initial plan, the house was setback 100 feet which was what the initial Notice of Disapproval was based on correct? ANTHONY POSILLICO: I don't have that in front of me. MEMBER TORTORA: At that time they disapproved you saying that the garage was located in the front yard. Page 43, Feb[ual7 21,2002 ZBA Public Heming I]ansc]ipl ANTHONY POSILLICO: That is corrccL MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. So after you got your Notice of Disapproval then you applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we looked at this map which is the map that shows that it was a 100-!hot setback. Then last, which is the map that I fbllowed when i wcnt out on inspections by the way. So then we got a revised map from you showing the house was initially 60 feet back and then another revised map now showing the house as 50 feet and 6 feet back. So we've had one Notice of Disapproval and the Amended Notice of Disapproval, which puts the garage in the side yard, however, now its back in the front yard because of the exact dimensions that you have just given us. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What was the side yard Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: Its, the front of the house is 53.6 and the garage is 54.2. So yes it is BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: So it's a foot back from the house. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. So I guess what confused us, what threw us was on the initial application it said that there ,,vas no wetlands permit involved on the tbrms that you'd filled out for our application for office, you said there was no authorization needed from the Trustees and there were no wetlands involved and naturally when we went to see the property we said hmm it looks kind of wet. So I think we have it straight now. It was confusing because there was a lack of permission that was put in the application. ! want that in the record. ANTHONY POSILLICO: There was a question about the setback, the original proposed setback. Like I said, we were aware there were water views on the lot. The original proposed setback, once we were staking the house out and once we had a clear view, once the lot was cleared of the water view we adjusted the placement of the house to coincide with the water view. That 60-foot setback shown on the survey, the surveyor did that to the comer of the house. That is accurate. Linda asked me today what the L shaped structure was around the house, and that's a wrap-around porch. That's always been on the design with the Building Department. So I went back today and took an actual measurement to that front porch. MEMBER TORTORA: Its what happens when you get a, when you go to the Building Department and they look at the plans, they'll issue a Notice of Disapproval based on your plans and if you change the plans between the time you go to, you know you get your Notice of Disapproval and you come to us it could also change the application. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Okay. CHAIRMAN: Only because we've never seen you before. Mr. Orlando? Page 44. Febmm'¥ 21. 2002 ZBA Public Homing Tnlnsclil)l ANTHONY POSILLICO: l would like to answer Lydia's question earlier. You asked about the D.E.C. There was a D.E.C. policeman that showed up on the site during the construction. He's the one that suggested, he called thc Bay Constable, I was down there at the time, and I met with the two of them. I asked them what i should do. The Bay Constable was the one that suggested that l contact the Trustees, which I did. And the D.E.C. officer said that he did not think it was in their jurisdiction and he was going to cheek it out. He had my name and nmnber of information. This was back probably about the 1st of February, and he has not contacted me since that time. MEMBER OLIVA: I think we still need a letter of non-jurisdiction because I think the rear of your property is still within 100 feet of our wetlands and then you would need that letter from the D.E.C. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For the Building Permit. CHAIRMAN: So what we're asking you to do is just to call that gentleman up and say, are you going to give us something, are you going to say that there is no jurisdiction, since ! haven't heard from you. Is that what you want Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: So I can get a better feel for this, when I was there there was a survey stake with a 20 foot offset on it. Was that for the garage? ANTHONY POSILLICO: That was for the original garage on the original survey. MEMBER ORLANDO: So that offset has changed then? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Yes its increased. Its now about 28 feet. MEMBER ORLANDO: From that offset. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Right. When my surveyor originally came down to stake out the house and the garage as on the original plan to do so. And at that time we realized that we made a mistake first of all in the placement of the house. When we realized, we took advantage of the views and we had to change the placement of the house. But the stakes for the garage we left in place and also they got destroyed during construction. MEMBER ORLANDO: The reason l asked that 1 used that as my guide, when I saw that 1 assumed that that's where your garage was going to be. ANTHONY POSILL1CO: That was wrongly staked out. The current stake out is further MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's actually further away fi'om the 28 foot offset? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Approximately, yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the double windows on the garage, is thai utilizing God's natural light as opposed to putting electric off there? ANTHONY POSILLICO: That's part of that storage loft up there and again it's thc same design as 1 built around the comer. MEMBER ORLANDO: With using the windows for natural lighting. ANTHONY POSILL1CO: Yes. You're not putting electric up there or you will be putting MEMBER ORLANDO: electric up there? ANTHONY POSILLICO: I was not putting electric up there but its not being finished. In fact, l'm not sure of that, I'm not even sure if there's electric on the plan upstairs in the loft. I know there's not in the garage that I built at 430 August Lane. There's no lights upstairs. CHAIRMAN: But you're anticipating putting lights downstairs. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Yes. There's going to be electr/cal in the garage, there's going to be an overhead door operator and so forth. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. George? MEMBER HORN1NG: Would you tell us again if you haven't already why you would not attach the garage to the house and make it a lot easier to accomplish your plan without a variance? ANTHONY POSILLICO: At this point, or from the beginning? MEMBER HORNING: From any point since you haven't made the garage yet. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Okay, well at this point if I attach the garage I will either be closer to the wetlands, where I would be in violation of side yard setback on the other side. So it's not possible at this point to attach the garage. And the original reason for not attaching was that I liked this layout of the lot. I thought it added value. I thought it would help me sell it. It shows on the plan the side of the house facing the wetlands, there's a second story balcony, with the starting having the door of the master bedroom on that side. So that certainly concluded having an attached garage on that side. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Please don't leave uuti! we close this hearing, ls there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? ls there anybody -- yes sir? I need you to use the microphone sir and state your name/rbr the record if you would. CRAIG SALZBURG: My name is Craig Salzburg, I Jive at 2890 Kerwin Boulevard which on thc is lot #9. So we are adjacent. We don't have any objections. We do have some questions and concerns about drainage. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we do this; why don't we have you meet with the builder outside for about five minutes and then we'll bring those questions back in if he can't answer them. Okay, maybe he can answer what he intends to do, rather than go through all that. Would you mind doing this? ANTHONY POSILLICO: Not at all. CRAIG SALZBURG: The concern was and I don't know if you're aware or not, that coming up Pheasant Lane, as you can see there's a drainage area pond, Coming up Pheasant Lane, that was quite flooded ~br two or three weeks at least and the people on Lot 29 they really couldn't even get out of their driveway and the water was halfway at their mailbox post. So what our concern was here with the clearing of the land and this much l presuming their pouring asphalt, as against stone. Dissipating more run-offs into an area that has already demonstrated a problem. Because, as was explained to us by Mr. Posillico, that the drainage ponds somewhere a few feet down is just solid clay. So water has no place to go, it just comes up the street. Our question is will there be some provision made to assure that we don't get additional water to just add to a known problem to that. MEMBER TORTORA: How far did the floating come up, just in the drainage area pond or? MEMBER OLIVA: In lot 29, in other words, they couldn't get out of their driveway. CRAIG SALZBURG: All the way down Pheasant to August, from past the driveway of lot 29, not quite to the corner of Kerwin and Pheasant, all the way down to Pheasant and August. CHAIRMAN: Would you just come over here and point out to me what Plot #29 is? First of all I can't read it offofthis. CRAIG SALZBURG; It's across the street. CHAIRMAN: Right directly across the street? CRAIG SALZBURG: Right directly across the street. CHAIRMAN: Okay so it's that one right there. CRAIG SALZBURG: We live here, and we don't have a problem, and water ran, the water was really fully up the street to about there. They really couldn't get out of their driveway. If they're not objecting, I can't objecl obviously. MEMBER ORLANDO: That's the wetlands there. CRAIG SALZBURG: That's a park there, that's really kind of like a park area, but you can't do anything with it because it so MEMBER OLIVA: The sump there was really just filled to the top. CRAIG SALZBURG: The sump was filled to the top and the problem is that as you continue on Pheasant Lane towards August the road level drops below the top itseli~ It's a known problem; it's been there. We're just concerned is whether there will be any provision to prevent significant additional mn-off from this now open driveway into that area. I think the neighbors who wrote the letter said it will probably look very attractive. And its not going to be a detriment to the neighborhood and should add to all the homes that Tony Posillico's put up. They look very good and well made. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to address that at the end Mr. Posillico? ANTHONY POSILL1CO: The flooding problem. CHAIRMAN: No what you intend to do regarding the driveway aspects on this piece and any drainage that would be required. You are of course going to put lawn down to stop any water. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Yes, I have not decided what surface I'm going to. MEMBER ORLANDO: Pervious or non-pervious. ANTHONY POSILLICO: I haven't made a decision on that yet. MEMBER OLIVA: Would you object to a blue stone or not, a pervious driveway? ANTHONY POSILLICO: I think I would strongly consider it. 1 think that it is a real issue, its an on-going issue with the Town; this problem of over-flooding there. ! don't think it's relevant to the Variance. CHAIRMAN: Well he's only saying that it may further exacerbate the situation and we're taking that into consideration. ANTHONY POSILLICO: What may? CHAIRMAN: The water run-offti'om the driveway onto tbe road. Because you do have some elevation there. ANTHONY POSILLICO: Right, But the driveway is also not really relevant to the (iuaudible - coughing in background) CHAIRMAN: Not the place from the garage, but the garage is associated that you're going to have a driveway to it. If the people parked in the road okay, and they chose not to have a driveway then there would be no significance at all. But by the tact that this gentleman is bringing up an issue that there was a flooding problem there, we're trying to eliminate as much flooding as we possibly can. ANTHONY POS1LLICO: Okay, specifically is it an issue because of the size of the driveway'? CHAIRMAN: No it's an issue based upon the surface of the driveway. MEMBER TORTORA; I'm not sure there's a strong enough nexus between the two. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: Two subjects with two conditions like you're suggesting. CHAIRMAN: Now the one we had down on Beebe Drive. MEMBER TORTORA: That was a different CHAIRMAN: No it was not. MEMBER TORTORA: What I think we should do is do what we CHAIRMAN: Sure, its part of the health, safety, welfare issue in my opinion. MEMBER OLIVA: Mine too. CHAIRMAN: Okay, sir? CRAIG SALZBURG: I recognize that if the law had been different and if there had been an attached garage, or detached, it doesn't matter to me. And had been another driveway running into the street that would've been on every house on the block and I recognize that. And from standpoint, I think it will be very attractive. From our thinking it just added a lot more, open, potentially non-draining surface to add to a problem. CHAIRMAN: Okay. CRAIG SALZBURG: If that's not part of this or doesn't belong there CHAIRMAN: As tar as l'm concerned it is, but 1 could be. MEMBER TORTORA: Who owns the park and playground area'? CRAIG SALZBURG: It is owned by the August Acres Homeowners Association. MEMBER TORTORA: That is all of you? CRAIG SALZBURG: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: All of the property owners own the parkland adjacent to this? CRAIG SALZBURG: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Because that was my concern of making sure that the garage was placed sufficiently beyond any wetlands that were in that area. CRAIG SALZBURG: I don't think that was a concern of the homeowners where the garage was relative this property that we would never really be able to use for any reason other than MEMBER TORTORA: No its just wetlands. CRAIG SALZBURG: The Trustees did address that in the Permit. They were aware of the proposed garage. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else on anything else regarding this? Seeing no hands I'1l make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:14 p.m. Appl. 5069 - HOLLY VESCOV1. This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, concerning a portion of the existing chimney, which extends into the 10 ft. side yard setback limitation. Location of Property: 370 Rocky Point Road, in East Marion; 1000- 31-2-24. Lynch Homes, builder. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir. Would you state your name for the record please? TIM LYNCH: My name is Tim Lynch I'm from Lynch Development Corp. I am the builder of the house that's in question this evening. I'm not going to be 100% knowledgeable of everything that's going on at this point, because my sales manager lrene is away on vacation for two weeks and she's coming back soon but I want to get Miss Vescovi into her house as soon as possible. The six-inch in question basically was a communication or non-communication from 95% of the time we obtain permits for customers and this particular case Miss Vcscovi already had her Building Permit and honestly we didn't know that thc Town of Southold returned a set of plans with thc Pcrmit and the red stamp. Most of our work we do is on the South Fork and East Hampton, and Southampton and there are diftiarent policies that go with each town. Basically the chinmey that was built was 2 It. 6 inches, there was a red note on the plans saying you wanted two foot but in asking the homeowner tbr the Building Permit we got the Building Permit without the set of plans which neither one of us were really (inaudible) and therefore we're six inches encroaching oil the side yard. CHAIRMAN: 1 have no objection. George? MEMBER HORNING: Generally is it used for something other than a fireplace, like a furnace? TIM LYNCH: The furnace flute also, yes sir. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Okay, just don't leave please until we close the hearing. TIM LYNCH: Sure, thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN: ls there anybody else that would like to speak for or against this application? Is there anybody that would like to entertain this application on the Board? I mean I'll close the hearing first. MEMBER TORTORA: Its mine, I have no objections. Yes, I'll make. As-built chimney measures 2.5 feet of the exemption of 18? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It depends on the size of the chimney. MEMBER TORTORA: So 1 will make a motion to approve it as applied for. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:16 p.~n. Appl. No. 5054 - JOHN & PATRICIA STACK. This is a request fbr a Variance under Zouiug Code Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's August 14, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose to relocate an accessory structure (shed) to a front yard area. This property has two front yards and two side yard designations. Section 100-33 requires a rear yard locatiou. Location of Property: 7650 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; 1000-118-3-4.2 CHAIRMAN: Good evening, how are you Mr. Schwartz? MARK SCHWARTZ: Good. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with a storage building is that correct? MARK SCHWARTZ: Yes. Two sheds actually. CHAIRMAN: Two sheds. What would you like to tell us? MARK SCHWARTZ: The owners purchased the sheds and had them placed on the property about seven years ago. They were unaware of what the setback requirements were. We're proposing to move the rear shed ten feet away from that is required. In the front yard we're proposing to shift it at least to get it into the side yard; so it will be three feet from the side property line and ten feet from the front. CHAIRMAN: So we're dealing with a total of 140 square feet? MARK SCHWARTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN: We saw the position of the tree area around it and so on and so forth. This shed only contains what utility, if any? MARK SCHWARTZ: Garden supplies. CHAIRMAN: No electricity'? MARK SCHWARTZ: No. CHAIRMAN: All right, we'll start with Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: When you turn that shed around in the front isn't that going to encroach on the driveway? It will be right up against that driveway, which is fairly MARK SCHWARTZ: Yes, that's what we're planning to. Yes its not shitting front to back its .just shifting, same location. MEMBER OLIVA: Oh okay. MARK SCHWARTZ: The doors will still fhce west. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: This is going to seem like a silly question but why are you proposing to move the shed on Nassau Point Road. MARK SCHWARTZ: It's in violation of the Code. It's in less violation if we get into the side yard setback, into the side yard rather than a front yard. 1 was involved with the kitchen renovation several years ago, and the Building Inspector when they came back for the final noted that the shed was in the wrong location so that's why we're here. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but you can also apply irbr a variance to leave it right where it is. I guess the reason that I'm saying that and I usually don't say this, is we looked at the shed and its existing location the front on Nassau Point Road, And we said if you move the shed over as you're suggesting, actually now its kind of nestled in, its very well buffered from the road even though its closet to the road. There are hedges in the front of it and its buffered. If you come fbrward, as you are suggesting you are going come closer to the stone driveway and create lesser access and narrow that access which is pretty narrow already. So I said to myself why are we doing this'? If we're doing it to, it's where it is. If it's a question of moving it three feet over semantics in my mind, why move it. MARK SCHWARTZ: Sounds good to me. MEMBER TORTORA: It's just that, I said this man is moving this inches, a couple of feet here and l couldn't figure out why. Especially on that one, because in looking at it from Nassau Point Road it is nestled behind that little area, you're bring it out, you're bringing it into vision of the neighbors, you're bringing it into the stone driveway in an impractical solution and you don't have to do it from where I'm sitting. CHAIRMAN: So basically what are the MEMBER TORTORA: If you want to move the other one, okay. But that one it's very blatant, what are we doing this for? CHAIRMAN: So what location are we going to address in the decision assuming that we're going to approve it'? MEMBER TORTORA: We just say we approve it where it is. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: End of story. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Why couldn't you have it in a conforming area? MARK SCHWARTZ: Well we could move it because in order to get it in the rear yard, then its awfully close to the existing garage that's there. That's the reason why we didn't want to move it, its very convenient where it is. MEMBER HORNING: Oh so it's a matter of convenience is what you're saying, the placement itself~ MARK SCHWARTZ: Where it is now is where they'd like to keep it, it's convenient. If we have to move it into the rear yard, it's going to go back by the garage and there are trees back there and the proximity to the garage is closer than they rather have. They would rather have it in another location. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Schwartz we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in fhvor of this application? ls there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:25 p.m. Appl. No. 5056 _GEORGE S. CAMBOURAKIS. This is a request fbr a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-244 based on the Building Inspector's November 16, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes additions and alterations to the existing dwelling with a front yard setback of less than 40 feet at 200 Cedar Drive, East Marion; 1000-22-1-3 and 4. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us? GARRETT STRANG: Simply that this particular application, my clients doing a total renovation and addition to his existing house including alterations to the existing portico is 3 V2 feet deep by, actually I'm sorry 3' 4" deep by 6' 4" wide that presently exist. Our original proposal to the Building Department was to make that portico 4' deep by 8' wide. On the original review by the Building Department they said that wouldn't fly but it had to be no greater than 30 square f~et, so we discussed it and we changed the dimension to be 3' 8' by 8' wide and at that point they said it was okay. However, by the time they wrote the Building Permit they basically said it's still not good because, although the 30 square feet is okay it still couldn't be 8' wide it had to be less than that. They basically keyed in Section 102.30C2 which states the portico can only be 6' wide by 5' deep, which Page 54. Fcb~uat): 2 I, 2t)02 ZBA Public Ilcming II,rescript basically equates the 30 square feet required and that's probably where thc original comment came fi'om that thc 30 square feet was originally okay. According to that section and this is where I gucss there's some confusion on my part, not really confusion I just sort of scratch my head on this particular situation. We could have that portico five feet out from the building, which is a foot morc closer to the road than we'rc proposing which kind of docsn't make sense to me since we're asking that it not be; so basically we're asking the Board's consideration to allow the 8' width due to the rcduction of the depth of the 3' 8 and we're still not exceeding that 30 square l:bot overall area. MEMBER TORTORA: So the whole area is 3' 8 x 8, right. GARRETT STRANG: That's correct. We believe that's the minimum we need to make the portico have, anything less than that would really make that portico look terrible on the front elevation of the house. 1 don't think, and hopefully the Board concurs, that its really isn't going to have impact whatsoever on the. MEMBER TORTORA: ls that, because I went through the same thing you did I was going through the 30 square feet and the five feet. As far as the closest to the front yard. GARRETT STRANG: Let me look at the site plan, it should be noted on your site plan. MEMBER TORTORA: l just wanted to confirm that with you. GARRETT STRANG: 32.5 feet to the front line. MEMBER TORTORA: Good that's what we want to know. GARRETT STRANG: That's it. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: Well Garrett it seems you like to design a little curb appeal on both your applications tonight, which is a good thing. Curb appeal sells. I think this addition off of the front which almost exists already just less the vertical supports. GARRETT STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a little bit wider than it was. GARRETT STRANG: It's a little bit wider and it runs into the reverse gable over the living room. Page 55, Fcbl'ua~: 21,200? ZBA Public llcming h'anscdpl CHAIRMAN: We would only hope that you would bring more applications like this in. GARRETT STRANG: Me too. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak tbr or against this application. Seeing no hands 1'11 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:26 p.m. Appl. No. 5060 RUTH ANN BRAMSON - This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Inspector's December 7, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, and the building permit application was disapproved for the reason that the height is three stories instead of the Code limitation of 2-1/2 stories. Location of Property; 12042 Main Road, East Marion; 31-14-4.5. Patricia Moore, Esq. CHAIRMAN: We've all been out to this house Miss Moore and, of course, twice because there were two applications on this. Not one that you represented, the last one was represented by Mr. Tohill. I spent significant time in this house with the builder. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh he gave you a tour? CHAIRMAN: Before the sheetrock was up. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh good. CHAIRMAN: The Board saw it, primarily most of the Board saw it when the sheetrock was up. MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't go to the crow's nest. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Did you climb the ladder? MEMBER ORLANDO: I didn't have a choice in the matter. CHAIRMAN: He wanted to see the view anyway. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: We actually have for those of you who didn't go up the ladder we have a very lovely architectural model that the roof comes off and you can see it. So if you would like to see it. CHAIRMAN: It's with you? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure Mr. Homing would like to see it. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Okay, but do I have a chance to speak or just going to CHAIRMAN: No, I'm just giving you some ground rules. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Okay, good so you're familiar with it, so I don't have to start. 1 do want to have a moment to introduce Dr. and Mrs. Bramson, who are here. Peter Gould is the architect is also here, so that if there are any questions they can address them as well if I can't. So you have seen what is considered the crow's nest. The reason, as you know, that we are here is that crows nest was placed on an existing height of the ceiling for the living room. This house was renovated; they wanted to obtain the original ceiling heights, particularly in the living room. And when the crow's nest was added the Building Department considered that to be a third-story and that's why we're here. We did put in, I think they may have shown you the sprinklers; they're already installed and ultimately will be connected. So one of the considerations when I did meet with them that the Board has a tendency to like, recommend that third story space, if you do consider it a third story space, has sprinklers and since it was already in the process of having the rough plumbing being put in it was prepared fbr that. So that will be enclosed. CHAIRMAN: Let me correct you on that. That's the only way you get my vote. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh okay, I know that's the only way 1 get your vote. Whether or not it is required by the Code. MEMBER TORTORA: The sprinkler system, where is the spr/nkler system? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I have the engineer, Mr. Sambach, had the location of the spr/nklers, actually you can see the lines that run up and then go over the crows nest space. The drawings here show the two arrows are the sprinkler heads. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the identification is there a number on that? PATRIC1A MOORE, ESQ.: No, this is new. So I'm going to give this to you tbr your records it was engineered by the architect and Mr. Sambach is the engineer, New York State Licensed Engineer we had to have that stamped. So place that on your records. One I'm going to keep ~br the Building Department and one for your records. Do you want to see the model? CHAIRMAN: Yes, Page 57, Fcb~ umT 21,2O02 ZBA Public Hearing I ~an~,cnpt BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jerry what's the date on that map so I can enter it into the record here? CHAIRMAN: February 2002. We'll put it right here first. DR. BRAMSON: This is the house, thc building is out here. That's the first floor plan, this space here is thc living room. When you put in the second floor this becomes the master bedroom and this becomes support areas for it, that living room is a two-story space. It was my initial contention was that I'm adding another floor over the living room but I've only got two floors here, not three. The Building Department said no, we're going to regard that as a third floor. That's why we're here and actually what happens here is just the opposite of what happens in this quadroon where I basically have a kitchen under this, and this is the master bedroom and the space goes up under the roof in that master bedroom and that's the element that we're talking about. And it's a crow's nest that the owners will use as a study. That's what its for. MEMBER HORN|NG: And above the Master Bedroom is attic? DR. BRAMSON: No. It's totally vaulted. MEMBER OLIVA: And where are the stairs that are going to get up to that? There was just that ladder. There was a very narrow hallway. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: They haven't installed the stairs yet. MEMBER OLIVA: What is about a 29-inch space, because we measured it. PETER GOULD: Its 30 inches yes. MEMBER OLIVA: 30 inches. And there will PETER GOULD: There will be real stairs going up there. MEMBER ORLANDO: Now the plans shows retractable stairs is that tbr the crow's nest? PETER GOULD: No, that was at one time we were going to do that. But there's now a real stairs. This part here has always been. MEMBER HORN1NG: Storage? PETER GOULD: It goes from six foot high down to nothing. So this is real attic space, the same way this is real attic space here. PATR1CIA MOORE, ESQ.: If you need it for your deliberations, but 1 think the owners would like to have it back as there. CHAIRMAN: Noru~ally, we have to givc a determination on this Miss Moorc, but normally and our suggestion is that we keep it thirty days after thc filing. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think that we have to keep it that long but its very nice because it really clearly shows what's there and going through thc plans and everything because but this is very clear. PETER GOULD: There's nothing like a model to MEMBER ORLANDO: The crow's nest is for reading or for the tea. PEER GOULD: It's the crow's nest that is going in for our study. MEMBER TORTORA: We were up there; he was the only brave soul that went up the stairs. We said we'd trust his judgment. CHAIRMAN: It's a great idea. We thank you very much. And I want to tell you that you did a really magnificent job on the house. PETER GOULD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I know that it all originates from you, as well as the builder. PETER GOULD: It also originates with good clients and it also originates with a good builder and I've been blessed with that. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Do you want a little history, this is very interesting, the three houses that are on the property are from the 1800's. For Mrs. Tortora who has artists in the family I thought this would be interesting. I thought it was interesting which is that Mrs. Bramson's grandfather was Charles Henry Miller who traveled in stagecoach out to that property. He is, or supposedly renown as the artist who discovered Long Island. So there's a very interesting lineage on this property. MEMBER OLIVA: Did you also know Mrs. Moore that the original road went behind the back, went right by there. In other words Mrs. Mosbeck's house which fi'onts on the road that's actually the rear of her house and the front of her house faces the bay. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: And this is the dam pond that the bridge was done. MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, 1 guess. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh okay. MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, many years ago because when I went out with the Landmark Preservations Committee they told mc, which I didn't know about. So it's kind of interesting. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Its very interesting property. We are, I know you are all going to do your best to come to a quick decision, we do have, as you can see that the house is being finished up and they would like to be able to proceed with the building department and finish up the second story, so anything you can do we would appreciate. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora has a question. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. The Building Department apparently has decided that this is three stor/es as opposed to two and a half stories, and I've been having trouble figuring out what the difference is. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we ask the architect? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, the architect could certainly explain that V2 story definition. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you tell me? PETER GOULD: That half story definition ! think according to the Code talks about space under the root: MEMBER TORTORA: Right it says that 50% and 7 feet more. PETER GOULD: That's when it becomes regarded as a third story. It is my contention that I don't have that here because this top floor level where the crows nest is, is only one floor below it. So this, if you will, is a second floor in this quadroon of the house it's in the exact opposite in this quadroon of the house where I have a 7 foot 6 story space down below and basically a two-story space up under the roof here. So its just flipped if you will. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: This has actually happened on other occasions, Edgewater for example is an application I have with a third story space that was a master bedroom which again had no second story below it, hut that's because it rises above a level. CHAIRMAN: I hate to disagree with you, but I go by 8 8 8, or whatever the difference is. Regardless if it's there or if it's not there. PETER GOULD: The Code doesn't say that. CHAIRMAN: I understand that. Page 60 FeN umw, 21.20(12 ZBA Public [[ealing I~ansc~ipl MEMBER TORTORA: Let me ask you a question here, what is the height on the crow's nest? PETER GOULD: The height on thc ridge of the house is 31 feet off MEMBER TORTORA: Right, so what is the height on the PETER GOULD: Of the floor level? MEMBER TORTORA: The floor level to the top of the ridge? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Is it seven feet? In other words less than. PETER GOULD: Oh it's more, well from the floor level to the ridge of the house MEMBER TORTORA: From the floor here, from the crows nest. CHAIRMAN: You don't have to give it to us now. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have to. What I'd like, in other words, what I'd like are the dimensions of the crows nest, so I can see the attic. PETER GOULD: Give me the sketch back I gave you, if I have the dimensions in the plan. The sketch I just gave you of the sprinkler. CHAIRMAN: Oh yes, I just logged that in hold on one second I have to find that. MEMBER TORTORA: Because I don't have dimensions, that was what I was trying to get from you. CHAIRMAN: Give him your copy for a second. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: The engineers? PETER GOULD: I do have dimensions on the plan here. It's a 3-foot dimension that way, l 1 feet and 4 feet offthe edge. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. PETER GOULD: But you would like to know what this height is here to that point? MEMBER TORTORA: Well my own knowledge, I want to know why this isn't a half story. I can see why it could be viable, why it's not a half story; I'm trying to figure that out. PETER GOULD: This would be regarded as a half story. A person standing in this spacc is approximately that size. And that's not a half story; I mean that's a useable space, or story. And what l'm saying is underneath thcy can havc a space that's two stories high in spite what he is sayiug in regards 8 8 8. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. CHAIRMAN: Or 7 ½, 7 72 and 7 ½. MEMBER HORNING: On this model then the access to the crow's nest is up this flight off the comer and turn again and go up. PETER GOULD: Yes, that's correct. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. PETER GOULD: I think that shows on the plans that you have that were filed on this. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we thank you. It appears that I must have stuck that into another file, so I'm going to borrow this for one minute Pat, we'll make a copy of this and give it back. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, that's fine. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Or we can ask you to mail me a copy tomorrow or something. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Well if you locate it. We'll just need it for the Building Department. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We just need it for the ZBA file. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: No, you can have that one. Just send it back. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: All right 1'11 write it down. CHAIRMAN: It would make like so much easier if everybody did that. MEMBER OLIVA: It's confusing, it's very confusing. CHAIRMAN: Great plans from Robin's Island that you've been holding. Anything else? Any other qucstions from Miss Moore, or the architect'? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else like to speak in thvor? Anybody else like to speak against. Sceing no hands I'll makc a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:43 p.m. Appl. No. 5058 - PETER & VAL LEONIAK. Area variances 1) lot sizes, 2) garage location. This is a request tbr Variances under Zoning Code Sections 100-31A.3 and 100-31, based on the Building Inspector's November 29, 2001 Amended Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes Parcels 1 and 2, each with less than 40,000 sq. ft. in size. Parcel #l will also contain less than 125 ft. of lot width (frontage), and includes the existing accessory garage on a lot, presently vacant and without a principal use, Location of Property: 2040 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue; 98-l-15, 16 and 17 (approx. 1.5 acres as exists). William Goggins, Esq. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goggins thank you for your patience, how are you tonight'? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Good how are you? Good evening, William C. Goggins office is located 13125 Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Good evening to Members of the Board and new members. CHAIRMAN: We've asked you to go back and re-draft this and come back with parcels I at 22,397 and parcel 2 at 36,000, one of which contains the garage, the existing garage and the other of which consists of the In my particular opinion we were in gq'eat hopes to put this to bed tonight until we, of course, received a letter from Ms. Wickham. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So I assume that, I don't want to take anything away from the presentation, but if there's anything that you would like to add to this, I would be very happy to listen to it. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Just briefly, from the other application with an adjournment for our response. So I'll keep my comments briefi Based on when we made the applicafion the unmerger of the rear lot that according to the law these lots merged to the point where which would have meant that lot 15 and 16 have merged and they by virtue of the law making one lot 45,000 square feet and the other lot 13,000 square feet which would not really be conforming with the other lots in the neighborhood. And I think that's why the Board asked me to re-apply and to amend my application, which we did and we submitted, as you said before, two lots which are definitely confbrming with the neighborhood and probably larger than a lot of the lots that are there, one being 23, 397 square feet and one being 32, 617 square f~et. I think its also effectual with the intent of the merger law so that the neighborhood conform and for the zoning to have more ora consistent pattern. We did what you asked for, and I think it shouldn't delay the fears of the people that are opposed but maybe not. But I will answer any questions that you see fit at this time. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No l think it's very clear the way it's explained. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: 1 just, just to get it in the record that you had come before us before for a Waiver of Merger and at that time, (inaudible - tape beeping). It involved four lots, three of the lots were merged and the teeny little piece was unmerged. So it made them, and when we looked at this thing, we said it doesn't add up how can we make sense out of this. So it was the Board's recommendation to Mr. Goggins that rather than trying to jimmy rig these lines here, that instead of just to put that aside and to apply tbr a straight area variance by way of a sub-division, and this is where we are. WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: Yes ma'am. MEMBER TORTORA: So you're before for an Area Variance fbr the two parcels and I presume you filed something with the Planning Board at the same time. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: No 1 did not. CHAIRMAN: Not as of yet, probably. WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: Whatever the Board directs us to do, we will do. MEMBER TORTORA: We cannot, I know of no way that it could not go through Planning. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Well it was suggested that there were two ways to do it, one was the way it was suggested to do it before the Board, another way was we just move the lot line change. MEMBER TORTORA: You can't do that. CHAIRMAN: We'd have to make an application. Let's wait until after opposition is heard. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, I simply know of no way that yon could not do a lot line change with an approval of the Area Variance for a subdivision or approval or review or whatever they want to do with that. They can do a lot line change, because right now remember it is one lot. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: No I understand. Actually its two lots, because it would be 15 and 16, but basically however you want to do it, but lots 15 and 16 were merged given the excess of 40,000 square 1bet according to thc bulk schedule leaving one lot 13,000 square feet and the other lot 45,000 square feet. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why they can do this, in other words you have two lots right now and you would be taking from the parcel that has more and giving it to, making ~nuch more even parcels. So they can do a lot line change. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: That may make more sense, as far as the neighbors and whatever. MEMBER TORTORA: And ! probably think that's probably the quickest way to go and. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: So you want me to apply tbr on the Board's decision or a Planning Board application shnultaneously. CHAIRMAN: No the Planning Board is not going to act until the Zoning Board makes a decision anyway. So it makes sense just to wait. I mean we're only talking about a couple of weeks. Assuming that what opposition has to say doesn't dissuade us from. Let's ask the further members here? Vince? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Alright we'll see what develops with opposition tonight and then we'll see are we going to anticipate putting this back on the 21 st or the 28th. MEMBER TORTORA: For what purpose? CHAIRMAN: Abigail Wickham is requesting it. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: It's kind of disappointing that we have to do this because Wickham's firm has several attorneys, any one of which could appear ton/gilt and it has delayed us, and I understand that the Board is returning it anyway. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Goggins, in the meantime, maybe it would be good just to touch base with the Planning Board on a preliminary basis so at least you can get that started. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be heard for or against this application? Yes sir. Kindly state your name for the record when you come up here. How are you? TOM CATTRELL: Fine thank you. My name is Tom Cattrell. My wife and l live on the adjacent property across the street. First of all I would like to state an objection based on thc creation of the lot that has an accessory building. I'm sure that thcre are landscape architects and engineers who could redraw the lines would near to be necessarily split (tape at end - inaudible) an accessory' building on an undeveloped lot with actually two owners is even worse to me and 1 think this Board should consider that. CHAIRMAN: We Mil, and now doctor from the Waiver Merger aspect of it, or the Waiver of Merger aspect which we have no involvement of making those individual restrictions to now the Area Variance aspect of it, which we now can place reasonable restrictions on. TOM CATTRELL: Well 1 want to make it clear that what my objections are based on. CHAIRMAN: Of course. TOM CATTRELL: This hearing was scheduled for much earlier in the month of February, originally, and my attorneys are not here because before that time they had made reservations for this period of time, but they more than prepared to speak on my behalf earlier this month. And I'm not too sure what Mrs. Moore's relatives but I tell you that my wife's grandfather, Father John Teri was the director of the Holy Trinity Church in Greenport for a number of years, and I thought that might have some historical relevance just the way her grandfather does. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anything else? Seeing no hands 1'11 make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision, I'm sorry recessing the hearing until the 28th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: March 28th right Jerry, March? CHAIRMAN: Right BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: March 28th Mr. Cattrell. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:57 p.m. Appl. No. 5064 - MARY LEONARDI._ This is a request for a Vari,'mce under Zoning Code Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's December 5, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The applicant proposes a new dwelling a with a rear yard setback at less than fifty (50) feet. Location of Property: 1285 Reydon Dr., Southold; 80-2-15.1. Proper-T-Services, Inc., agent. JAMES FITZGERALD: Let me, if I may, give you the background. The problem we have here is the fact that this lot is triangular, essentially triangular in shape. Then it's a comer lot, so that makes it as two front yards and the Building Department felt that it would be appropriate fnr that other yard to be a rear yard requirement 50 foot setback. Thc house that we're proposing to build is a relatively modest build, its less than 1500 square feet. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure, I shouldn't say its on the record Mr. Fitzgerald but its possibly the glow of the lights or from your red sweater. JAMES FITZGERALD: The funny part of that is that I went to the Trustees meeting last night and got beaten up twice and I had my blue sweater on, I should've had my red sweater on. Anyhow, that leaves us in a position of having a situation, which the rear yard in this lot backs up on a side yard of the adjoining property. The house that we're proposing is modest in size, its 1500 square t~et of living space. The lot size is a little bit over 20,000 square t~et, the coverage is only 11% and yet we have to compute a moderate variance to get that house on this piece of property because if the property were there would be no problem. I think a significant factor is when people drive down that street its not going to look strange to them because the distance between the house we're proposing and the only neighbor, the only adjoining property will be more than would be required with a side yard setback. The situation that you refer to is that the inl-brmation concerning the footprint of the house was gotten directly by the surveyor from the draftsman architect at Penny Lmnber. And in the transfer of the data on the inl-~*rmation, somehow or other the front porch of the house disappeared. When Linda asked me ten days ago for additional information on the house, 1 became aware of the missing front porch for the first time and it would have to be done in order to rectify the situation and that was to provide a new drawing which I did myself because the architect was unable to do it because of his health and provided you with and in addition the photogn'aphs that were taken after the stakes on the property were relocated appropriately to the change in the size and location of the proposed house. CHAIRMAN: So this is where we are now, these figures that you have given us are the figures that we are to deal with, JAMES FITZGERALD: I think so yes. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else that you would like to say? JAMES FITZGERALD: Just the only other thing is that this property was originally purchased by Mrs. Leonardi's thther in 1940 through 42, it was purchased as two separate parcels and the property has been in the family ever since then so it isn't a case of having acquired it five years ago and expect it to be able to finagle something that would cover the setback requirements. When it was purchased, obviously, 1 should say probably we would have been able to build this house without having to go for a variance. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER HORN1NG: The Notice of Disapproval is incorrect. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: He's changed the plan. MEMBER HORN1NG: It says I I% lot coverage rather than 9%? JAMES FITZGERALD: Its 11% now with the added front porch. MEMBER HORNING: And the Notice of Disapproval talks about a rear yard setback of 25 feet? Why does it say that? JAMES FITZGERALD: The rear yard setback is 50 feet and this is a non-conforming lot and a non-conforming lot of that size requires a 50-fbot rear yard setback. MEMBER HORNING: And you're asking fbr a 40 foot one? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 34. MEMBER HORNING: Oh 34, I'm sorry. And where do they come up with 25? MEMBER ORLANDO: A typo I gmess. CHAIRMAN: Let mejust say this to you George, here is, and everybody, this is a prime exmnple of what were dealing with down on East Road the minute you have these conformities of house to interesting types of confbrmities of lots, so you can see the way each pivot of the points of the house stick out and project in different areas. Actually, to be honest with you Mr. Fitzgerald, it's pretty well centrally located on the parcel. JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Was this sub-division, was this all part of this Reydon Shores sub-division? JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: The private road that is behind here is that a road or a right-of- way? JAMES FITZGERALD: It's the other front yard. It shows on the tax map as a road. MEMBER TORTORA: It does show on the tax map as a road. CHAIRMAN: The road exists. MEMBER TORTORA: Well that's what l MEMBER OLIVA: ls it a Town road'? CHAIRMAN: No, its all part of roads m there. MEMBER TORTORA: Actually on the tax map all it says is private. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say this to you further, the purpose of that road and the establishment of that road was actually to pick up trash, so that trash trucks would not block the road when they were picking it up. And that was the purpose of it. And that came many years ago. (inaudible - coughing) now if that was true I don't know. I mean I assumed it was true, the person was telling me it was true. But that was the establishment of the road, and then it was only a dirt road at that point and then it evolved into something else. JAMES FITZGERALD: Its paved now. CHAIRMAN: Yes, its paved now. MEMBER OLIVA: But the Town does not service those roads? CHAIRMAN: No. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's a private road. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: They're all private roads. CHAIRMAN: They're all private. All the roads are private there. JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes, the roads on the other side are owned by the Association. CHAIRMAN: Let's just let this one go. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. MEMBER HORN[NG: Consider it a front yard? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing that I would like to say is this, I see your plight and am glad that you went ahead and did this. It clarifies a lot of questions. The only thing l want to know is this, right now there's a very, its only this comer actually, a little, that's intruding m here. This is what we're looking at for the intrusion. Right? JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: So if the Board is inclined to approve this would you have any objections to us approving the intrusion in accordance with this map, so that to put it bluntly, you wouldn't go back and change this. This is why I'm saying this to you and square this all oul to 34? JAMES FITZGERALD: No we're submitting that plan. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I want to know. Okay. JAMES FITZGERALD: I mean we have, the plans were submitted to build this, to the Building Department and they bounced it back. We thought originally that we would be able to designate that yard as a side yard and in which case, we wouldn't be here. We'd all be home. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mrs. Oliva, any questions? MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr, Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: Quick question, this is your house. JAMES FITZGERALD: No, I'm an agent, MEMBER ORLANDO: Agent Ibr? JAMES FITZGERALD: Mary Leonardi. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Proper-T-Services. CHAIRMAN: When you see that red sweater coming in you know that Mr. Fitzgerald is here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jerry, do you want to close the hearing, this is all on tape. CHAIRMAN: 1 understand. I'm asking George if he has any questions? MEMBER HORNING: No I don't. CHAIRMAN: All right. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION End of Public Hearings ~ 10:07