Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/22/2004 Hearing 2 TOWN OP SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD 05 APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 3 5 TOWN 0 P S O UT H 0 L D 6 7 ZONING BOARD O P APPEALS 8 Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Hain Road Southold New York 11 January 22 200% 12 9:30 ~.m. 13 Board Members Present : 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRING~R, Board Member 17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Hember 18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Eoard Secretary 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING Ai~ID TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63!) 878-8047 ~ 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN 0AIVA: Joseph an~ Danielle Helinski on Route %8 postponing! that 3 until we have further information from the Transportation Committee. % BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are you doing on that? 5 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: She is taking a petition around the whole neighborhood just te 6 see if the right turn she feels that would be some help, and the long term the 7 Transportation Commission is meeting with DPW te see if when they have enough money, it is 8 not in the budget this year, then te seeiif we can't make that into one lane before it gets 9 to Tucker's Lane. MS. KOWALSKI: Mrs. Helinski 10 called and said she had an amount of names on the petition. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She'll take that te the Transportation Commission. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I den{t think that's DPW. That's a state road. 13 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: That's county. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: County. 1% CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're going to de a whole project from the end of the four 15 lane coming up and de the drainage and everything else all the way up te Greenpert 16 actually, but they don't have the money in the budget. They're going te do home by Seundview 17 Restaurant and the motel moving some of the poles further south. Bring a median in and 18 putting curbing in se you're net backing!out into the road, make it far less dangerous, but 19 I think that's at least two years away. iNe money in the budget. 20 Our first hearing is at 9:30 !a.m. with Debra Victoreff and that has been 21 postponed te April 22nd. The next eno is 9:35, which ms 22 Joseph Gulmi and Susan Braver Gulmi, and iwe're delighted to see them here again today, iWould 23 you like to have any comments en your proposal? We did receive your new amended and 24 a geed survey going there. We did it finally. De you have any comments that you would like 25 te tell us? MS. BRAVER GULHI: Just good January 22, 200% 3 1 2 morning and I hope the papers speak for i themselves this time. 3 CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: Finally survey here, se we knew what we're doings. % BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: I need to ask a question. 5 CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: Now? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sure!. Ge ahead. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: Could you tell us -- by the way, I like your plan, 8 and it's very nice, and thank yen £er doing it, it's very cohesive. But could you tell us 9 what's going to go in the cabana storage building again? 10 MS. BP~AV~R G~LMI: Place for!me to change and a little section te put my peel 11 toys in if my kids and guests come out, and I might put in a sink. I haven't decided to de 12 that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se the 13 question is, is it going te be seasonal? MS. BRAVER GULMI: Yes. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's not going to be any heat in it? It willibe 15 shut down during the winter? MS. BRAVER GULMI: That's right. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEMRINGER: Weltey with the words "peel house/cabana" and it goes 17 back and forth, net in your particular situation but with the applications we have 18 before us. So this very simply is a pool storage building with a changing room. 19 MS. BRAVER GULMI: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the 20 water will be shut elf in the winter se there's ne need for heat? 21 MS. BRAVER GULMI: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So ican 22 we say it's going te have hot and cold water, er is it just going te have cold water, or 23 what? CHAIRWOMAi~ OLIVA: I think if !you 2% want a shower, you might want a little warm water in there. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yeu'r~ net going to make the grandkids have a cold January 22, 200% 4 1 2 shower. MS. BRAVER GULMI: I wanted a 3 shower outside and I assume if my husband wants a shower inside, it's going to be hot 4 water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will 5 be some sort ef hot and cold water, either inside or -- 6 MS. BRAVER GULMI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 7 te tell you that that clears the whole issue when you get your building permit er yeui 8 attempt to get the C.O. all we're trying!to do is clear that issue. 9 MS. BRAVER GULMI: I didn't know where you were coming from, but thank you very 10 much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some 11 people consider it a grilling, it's not a grilling I assure you. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's just ithat some people before you knew it they haveihot 13 and cold water and suddenly a kitchen appears and some bedrooms appear, and they're renting 14 it out. MS. BRAVER GULMI: Don't want any 15 family. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie, de 16 you have anything? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. 17 CHAIRWONL~N OLIVA: Hr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No 18 questions. You've done everything we've!asked in the past and everything looks fine. 19 MS. BRAVER GULMI: Thank yeu,i Mr. Orlando. I'm sorry if there was some 20 misunderstanding here whatever the communications were they somehow didn't pass 21 between you and I the way they should have. So I'm hoping there won't be any further 22 problems. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's good 23 your own sake when you go te the Building Department that you have the survey so 24 everybody knows where everything is so then when the Building Inspector comes out and you 25 start something, all efa sudden they won't say, well, that's net where it is. Well,i I Jamuary 22, 2004 5 1 2 just gave a kind efa thing. Well, they!don't ge by that, they want an actual survey. It's 3 just te your benefit really. MS. BRAVER GULMI: Thank yeuL 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I~d like to close the hearing and reserve decision. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 6 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 8 hearing is Wilbur Osler, and this is en Pecenic Bay Boulevard for a porch addition of 9 4 X 34 feet by 45 feet from the retaining wall; is there somebody here te represent 10 Mr. Osler? MR. LARK: Good morning, Richard 11 Lark, Hain Read, Cutchegue, New York, for the applicant. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: ©oed morning, Mr. Lark. 13 MR. LARK: I want to hand up!the affidavit of posting to the clerk se the 14 jurisdiction now is complete on this, {handing). 15 The application before you is fairly straightforward. I think you have all 16 the exhibits and the map. I just have a couple ef comments. The notice of disapproval 17 by the Building Department, although the section they quote is accurate, some of ~he 18 facts in there are not. As you will note, the ordinance requires that any buildings be i75 19 feet from the bulkhead under that 239-4B.i The Building Inspector there in the notice of 20 disapproval that the perch extension is 45 feet from the retaining wall. That's true, it 21 is 45 feet from the retaining wall, but again, the retaining walls have ne significance 22 because under the zoning ordinance it's from the bulkhead and retaining wall by definiltien 23 is two sides of earth on either side, whilch is the case here; whereas, a bulkhead is watler en 24 eno side and earth en the other, earth and materials I think the section says. So I! just 25 wanted te point that out. The applicant idees have Trustees approval and has relocated ithen, January 22, 2004 6 1 2 it will be then 61 feet from the bnlkhea~ at its closest point. Se when you do all the 3 mathematics like a lot of times that yo~! like to de, the variance request is five point % three-fourths percent ef the requirementlof 75 feet, just se you have that for the record. 5 Mr. Osier is here, if you have any questions. As I said I think you have 6 everything there. You have the Trusteesl permission te de that because they did some 7 renovations en the bulkhead; then he wants te -- can extend this out as you have in!your 8 application, so if you have any questions. One last comment, I was able!to 9 obtain a 1947 survey ef the property, and the survey you have is exactly the same. There is 10 no difference in either location ef the building, the garage or the bulkhead. It's 65 11 feet in '47 and it's 65 feet today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No erosion? 12 MR. LARK: It's amazing te see everything exactly the same. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A let ef the those hemes down there, they're very old. 14 MR. LARK: Right. This home,! I was told by Mr. Osler, where he's livinglin 15 new, the original part ef it was started!right after the turn of the century. It was built, 16 and he's lived on the premises er his family since '47 when they bought it from Dr. Wright, 17 and a let of them have stayed in the family names over the years down there, and there's 18 been little er ne change, that's true. Se if there are any questions. He's here. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? 20 BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with you, Mr. Lark, it is a retaining wall, 22 net a bulkhead and also, by New York Sta~e Zoning Beard te give minimal relief, and ~a 23 four feet deck I think is pretty minimal.i Se I have no other questions. 24 MR. LARK: It will be an encllosed porch actually. They're just going te push 25 out four feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Enclose t~e January 22, 2004 7 1 2 porch? MR. LARK: Yes. 3 CHA~IRWOMAN OLIVA: Heat? MR. LARK: I don't knew about 4 heat; are you going to have heat on the porch? MR. OSLER: Ne heat. 5 MR. LARK: No heat on the porch. It's screened right Now. It's just moving 6 everything out four feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it's only 7 going te remain a screened porch, or are~yeu going te glass it in? 8 MR. LARK: Wilbur Osler, for!the records. 9 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Would youicome te the mike so Florence can pick up yeuriname? 10 MR. OSLER: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning. 11 MR. LA~K: What is this going to leek like when it's done, the porch area? 12 MR. OSLER: Good morning. At the present time the perch seven and-a-half feet 13 wide extending te the south towards the water, and it's the full width ef the house, which is 14 about 32 feet maybe, and when we extend the perch we'll ge out four feet. The northeast 15 corner, which is where the bad weather comes from -- excuse me, southeast corner, has ibeen 16 glassed-in just te protect the furniture iand keep the weather out. We will de that en the 17 east side and on the south side through the doer, and we'll probably stop there, andithe 18 rest will be screened in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you Mr. 19 Geehringer? MR. OSLER: You're welcome. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That answers all my questions. I have to write 21 this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.i Is 22 there anybody in the audience? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One more 23 quick question. This is net going to be ia two-story, I mean it's going to be the exact 24 same height that it reaches now? MR. OSLER: De you have the 25 photographs? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. January 22, 2004 $ 1 2 MR. LARK: That was the reason why they had to extend the porch, there was no 3 room to do it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Without the 4 ether? MR. LARK: Right. They haveito 5 put the foundation en it, but the porch will remain the same, but on top of it will be the 6 extension ef the master bedroom. I think yen have that en the plan? 7 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, thank you. 8 C~AIRWOHAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like 9 to speak on this application? If not, I{11 close the hearing and reserve decision until 10 later. Thank yen. HR. LARK: Thank yen. 11 CNLAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Beard Hembers 12 responded in favor.) 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Gilloely for a garage. 14 that has been placed in a yard other than a rear yard. Good morning, Mr. Smith, hew!are 15 you? HR. SMITH: I'm fine, thank you. 16 Madam Chairman, Members of the Board, my~name is Allen Smith, I'm an attorney. I practice 17 law in Riverhead. My street address is 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead. I represent the 18 applicant this morning. If I may submit the following for 19 your consideration, I will pass copies of the same up. On the Southold Board of Appeals 20 letterhead dated May 3, 1985 correspondence addressed to William Gillooly, signed bylMr. 21 Goehringer. Reads as follows: '~Board reviewed and discussed your proposal for lan 22 accessory building (garage) to be located west of the most westerly end of the existing 23 dwelling. It is the opinion of the Board that the premises as a whole 13.421 acres congains 24 two front yard areas sits and front on the east side of Village Lane and the west si!de 25 Taber Road, Therefore, locating the accessory garage in the location mentioned above would January 22, 2004 2 require a variance since it's not a rear! yard." The application then for the building 3 permit is dated 5/13/85. A building permit was issued June 3~ 1985. Inspection report is 4 dated 11/7/85. Okay to continue? CHAIRMOM~ OLIVA: That's for the 5 house, correct? MR. SMITH: This is for the 6 garage, ma'am. And the i~spection certificate for 7/98 referenced accessory garage, okay for 7 C.O. (Handing.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think itialse 8 said on that report that it was refused because the garage was supposed to be attached 9 to the house. We have that in our file. MR. SMITH: Okay. I'll bring 10 forward Mr. Gilleely relative te these matters in a moment. I'll have him sworn. And you de 11 have, ma'am, hopefully, a copy ef Mr. Angegne's survey, showing existing 12 conditions? CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I'm looking at 13 it right now. HR. SMITH: Thank you, ma'am~ 14 That's the part ef the presentation that I can make. What I would like, please, is for 15 Hr. Gilleoly to be sworn and/or him te testify as to the construction of the garage, and its 16 history. Mr. Gilloely, please. 17 MR. GILLOOLY: For the record, my name is William, I'm the applicant 605-645 18 Village Lane, Orient, 11957. A little history, I purchased the 19 property in 1983, my brother and I did, and it was a piece ef property that stretched as 20 noted from Tabor Road to Village Lane. Et was 15 acres. 21 I came into the Building Department and I wanted te build a house and 22 we with, vic LaZard and the rest of the ~eard, decided that the front elevation of my house 23 would be exactly as it is in the permit, iand as in the CO, that it would face north, iWe 24 built the house. We applied for the CO and we get the CO. During that summer Swim King 25 Pools was contracted with me to build a swimming pool. They came in and requeste!d a January 22, 2004 10 1 2 building permit for the swimming pool, which they received. They built the swimming Wool 3 and they requested a CO, and they got the CO. As I discussed with some of the members ef the 4 Zoning Board, it was our understanding along with Vic LaZard at that point in time that the 5 locating of the pool and the locating ofithe front facade of the house, front door ofithe 6 house, established my backyard. The swimming peel had te be in the backyard; it was, in 7 fact, in the backyard. The next year I came in and I applied for a building permit for the 8 garage, and they gave me a building permit for the garage. And they said at that point!in 9 time, Vic, and Ed said, you can build a trellis, you can build a six inch raised!deck 10 connecting the garage to the house, not a problem. Okay, we proceeded to build the 11 garage exactly as was the permit required, built the garage, they inspected it on a 12 number of occasions, told me to continue building it, which we did, and applied for a 13 CO and, if you look at the thing, it said okay for CO on a number of their correspondence. I 14 subsequently, during '85, called Vic on a number of occasions and said, I need my CO, I 15 need my CO; yeah, yeah, we'll get around!to it, we'll issue it. It never came. When my 16 ex-wife and I were preparing to sell the house, I came up and wanted a copy of the CO 17 and the Building Department said, oh, you can't have a CO, that's in your front 18 yard. You'll have to go to the ZBA. It iwas very much established that the front yard of 19 my house was the front elevation; the swmmming pool and the garage were built behind the 20 house and another thing that is not unimportant, but when my brother and I decided 21 to get a setoff and have my property setoff from the rest of the property, which we did 22 and we came before the ZBA and had it setoff, we made sure that -- two things: We made sure 23 that the frontage on Village Lane, which!was 50 feet, we cut that in half; we made two 25 24 foot pieces, and we did that because there had been considerable concern before we bought the 25 property en Village Lane that a read might go through January 22, 200% 11 1 2 there. And when we be~ght the preperty ene of the reasens we beught it was we wanted te 3 prevent a read frem ever going through there. And we felt, aleng with the pewers that be at ~ that peint that by dividing that 50 feet fr©ntage on Village Lane and making it two 25 5 feot pieces, it weuld preclude any chance ef ever having a read because it weuld be two 6 separate ewners, and as it is new, it ceuld net be put back again. We very much with the 7 Building Department established that my front yard was the frent elevation of the heuse. I 8 built everything accerding to their permits. I built it in a professienal and workman-like 9 manner and they had ne complaints abeut any ©f the censtructien, and the enly question before 10 yeu is twofold. One is I would like a CO for my as built 20 year eld garage that's been 11 there fer 20 years and has been used strictly as a garage for 20 years. There's been ne 12 medificatiens to the garage; there's ne bathreem in the garage, there's ne heat. It's 13 a cempletely epen -- CHAIR~OMAN OLIVA: For sterage 1% only and fer cars? HR. GILLOOLY: Exactly. I mean, 15 when I say a loft, there's plywood dewn and a set ef stairs geing up there. There's ne 16 facilities for demestic use in the thing And yen know, as I say, it's been there fer 20 17 years without incident, and I'd like to Have a CO fer that garage as I built it and given to 18 a permit 20 years age, and I'd like te have it established that the front ef the house is, in 19 fact, the front ef the heuse, and the backyard is, in fact, the backyard of the heuse. 20 CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: ~asicallyiye~r driveway is right en the right ef way geing 21 threugh it. The Building Department changed its opinien as te the frent yard, I weuld take 22 it. I~ ether words, the eld ene weald have been your front yard weuld have been village 23 Lane, and then with your right ef way, that weald have been yeur front yard? 2% HR. GILLOOLY: Right, Ruth, hut the questien I had always with the two pieces 25 and the split was, it was always -- I always relied on the ~uilding Department since it was January 22, 200% 12 1 2 15 acres in an area ef 50 by 100 feet lets, we had this 15 acre property, and I always relied 3 en the Building Department. I came and Said, I need a permit, they said face the house this 4 way, this is your front. I said, okay, we'll do that. On another part ef that whole tNing 5 was that if we ever wanted to build anything on the ether property, they mentioned that a 6 road would have te come in from Tabor Road, if we ever did that -- which we don~t want to de 7 that, we never wanted to do that - and that a road coming from Tabor Road would establish 8 the fact that the front yard was facing north as it was. I thiRk it's a simple 9 situation. As I say, the building's been there for 20 years. I did it exactly as~I was 10 told te de it as far as the Building Department was concerned. I get all permits 11 and the only thing that I didn't de was, I didn't put a trellis up because they told me 12 when we did that it's net important, everything's fine, it's okay fur a CO. If you 13 have any questions, I'd be happy te answer them. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What kind 15 of trellis? MR. GILLOOLY: What they really 16 said, if you looked at the plans they talked about having a three foot wide wooden platform 17 that would attach between the house and ~he garage. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That looks te be how long? 19 MR. GILLOOLY: It's like about %0 feet lung. Let me say, I said te the Building 20 Department, should I put the trellis up or should I put a deck up or something like ithat? 21 They said, eh, ne, new you'd have to build a whole legal addition, that was heated and all 22 that stuff. Again, I don't want te cite ithe fact that it's a hardship. I feel like Ii did 23 everything that was appropriate at the ti!me. I built it well, and it would be a 24 considerable hardship fur me at this time! for me te tear down the 44 by 24 foot garage.i The 25 property is three and-a-half acres. Our nearest neighbor is I think it's 125 feetl January 22, 200% 13 1 2 away, it's not like I'm crowding anybody!, and, like I say, the building has been there ~or 3 almost 20 years at this point. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: It leeks to 4 me like it's well within the principal building if anything you could probably ~rn 5 it around make the house a garage and the garage a house, and certainly 150 feet away 6 from that property line. I have ne objection te that. The trellis thing sounds to me~ like 7 way back when you put a 2 by ¥ and HR. GILLOOLY: I didn't wantlto 8 mention that, but that's exactly what they told me, they said nail a 2 by 6 from the 9 house te the garage and you're okay. Then when I went down there, I said should I nail 10 my 2 by 6 up now? And t~ey said, nor don't worry about it, you're fine. And I relied en 11 that. And as I said, I called that summer probably six or seven times -- this is my 12 fault, I didn't ~ellew up en it -- and every time I called they said we're booked up and 13 we'll get you a CO, and after awhile, byithat time I ~ad been in the garage for over alyear 14 and it never dawned en me te do it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Orlando? 15 BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: That's a long two by six. I feel for your pain. il 16 read through this and I can see there's confusion there er interpretation. I Nave ne 17 problem with that. HR. GILLOOLY: Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 19 objection. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Anybody in the 20 audience that would like to speak to this? HS, BP~ZI~: Yes, ma'am. Hi,i my 21 name is Carrie Brazil. And I live in 6%0 Village Lane, right across from the Gillooly's 22 property and driveway. Their driveway comes right into my -- the lights £rem any cars from 23 that driveway come right into my parlor window. It's a fine thing te have a garage 24 there. It all makes perfect sense, it's inet a problem. But I'm mindful of the fact that 25 things are changing on Village Lane and t!he whole ef Seutheld town and Bill is selling his January 22, 2004 ~4 2 house, and this is a question to you. I~ the C of O is granted, the variance granted, i what 3 ether rights does this allow a new ewnerP Pot example, could the garage suddenly be turned 4 into another little separate dwelling? Can it become a workshop? Is th.ere anything else 5 that could happen te this? Because I've!been in the town for about ten years, and slowly it 6 has dawned on me that one thing morphed into another. That variances are given, you can de 7 something the wrong way against the Building Department, and as long as it's there for 20 8 years somehow it's suddenly allowed. And while net -- I don't knew, the garage, as I 9 say, I'm not objecting to this garage, b~t I would like te find out and hopefully prevent 10 it from changing into anything else, and that's my question for you. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can make it a condition ef approval that the garage ms 12 only be used as storage only, ne water, ne heat, ne nothing, and that weuid be withithe 13 land, so people could not legally de anything. Then you'd have something if yen saw something 14 going on, that yen could call the enforcement officer and have him come and look at the 15 property? BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: Can I 16 comment? CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I hav~ to warn you, looking at the survey, if this 18 gentleman, or the person who buys it wants te take the house and extend it to the garage, 19 make it a square, he's perfectly entitled to do that. Just se you know, if you do see 20 construction, if that guy decides te build a mansion he still can do that. 21 HS. BRAZIL: Sure. There's Plenty ef land back there, and I knew you could ihave 22 a much bigger house; that's not my concern. Thank you for clarifying. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bill, justl eno mere question, is that a three car garage er 24 two car garage? MR. GILLOOLY: It's a four oar 25 garage, Ruth. It's 44 feet by 22 feet, Snd it's get two 16 foot doers en it. January 22, 2004 15 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Four small ones. 3 CN~IRWOHAN OLIVA: Four cars or put boats in there toe? 4 MR. GILLOOLY: Over the years I have had a lot ef Boston Whalers. Yes, I've 5 kept eno side as a hobby shop and kept my beats in there and the ether side I've get the 6 two cars. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is 7 there anybody else in the audience that would like te comment on this application? Anybody 8 else on the Beard? If not, I'd like te make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 9 decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Members 11 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? Se 12 carried. MR. GILLOOLY: Thank you for your 13 consideration. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is Martha Cassidy. This is an 15 application for the building efa tennis court ena vacant piece ef property en Yeungs Read 16 in Orient; is there anybody that would like te speak te this application? 17 MS. WICKH~kM: Yes, thank you~ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham. 18 MS. WICKHAM: I have an affidavit ef posting which I will give to you at the 19 conclusion ef this talk. I am Abigail Wickham. I represent the owner, Martha 20 Cassidy. She is unfortunately away en business, but her business partner Susan! 21 Gardner is here and has been working with me on the application if you have any 22 questions. We have applied for what we think 23 is a fairly simple application merely te build a tennis court with conforming setbacks ena 2% parcel which does not yet have a principal residence. The intention would be to build a 25 principal residence at some time but there are no current plans se I can't tell you when that January 22, 2004 16 1 2 might happen. But the location of the court has been designed to accommodate the location 3 of a residence as well. And being that Miss Cassidy owns a residence almost immediately 4 across the street, I think that one of the concerns that this particular statute was 5 enacted to prevent was having an accessory structure that's net going to be supervised or 6 maintained properly when it's net a principal residence, and being that her residence is 7 immediately across the street I would think that that concern would be alleviated. As far 8 as that fence height goes it's fairly typical for a tennis cenrt and I know this Board Nas 9 considered these things before but this is the way the Cede is se we de have te come in, but 10 it certainly does make playing tennis a lot easier te have a fence of that height and it 11 would be constructed of a material that would net be egregiously unattractive and the court 12 will not be lighted. So ether than that, I'd like !to 13 ask if the Beard has any particular questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just feel it 14 is net a permitted use in that zone en an empty let. If yen wish te put up an 850 15 square feet building en that, liveable building, and a permitted use, it is net a 16 permitted use en there to put a tennis court. MS. WICKHAM: That's cerrect~ And 17 that's why we are here for a variance in that the applicant owns the property across the 18 street which takes it out ef the norm. It seems excessive er practically difficult to 19 have te build a house structure in order to get a tennis court, and I don't think a tennis 20 court is a noxious type of use. C~AIRWOH}~ OLIVA: I'm net saying 21 that, Hrs. Wickham, but if the Cede, if you follow the Cede, it's net a permitted use. 22 That's where our jurisdiction is, but then again, let the members ef the Beard say 23 anything. Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree 24 with you, Ruth, it's net in the Cede. MS. WICKHAM: I do believe the 25 Beard has granted this relief in the past. I would like to research that if that would January 22, 2004 17 1 2 help, but whether they have or haven't it! just doesn't strike me that the burden of adjoining 3 owners er the Town is any way exceeding the practical difficulties ef net being able te 4 utilize a lot that they have been paying taxes on, been maintaining and would like te use for 5 recreational purposes short ef having to build a house. You knew, we don't want te have to 6 build more houses in the neighborhood if we don't have to right away. I would ask that 7 you to consider that that is this is not an application that would cause a great deal ef 8 difficulty in terms of the detriment. I will mention that Hiss Gardner 9 did try te reach her neighbor -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you're 10 a little bit late sending out your notices. MS. WICKHAM: They were served 11 timely, there was a mix-up in one ef the tax numbers and two er three of the notices went 12 out after the notice that we originally sent, but certainly if the Board feels, and 1%hink 13 from your agenda you intend to put it ever, that's fine. She wanted you to knew she did 14 try to reach him ahead ef time and discuss his concerns and will hopefully do that before the 15 next hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 16 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Very unique situation, and it would be interesting 17 for you to research this to see where weare. And it would be interesting if Counsel would 18 allow us te consider it if there was a time limit placed when the house was going teibe 19 constructed. MS. WICKHAi~: I'll have to talk to 20 Miss Cassidy about that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean 21 our Counsel. MS. WICKHAM: Oh. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We~weuld have te discuss that with our Counsel, and I 23 don't know if you ever discussed that with our Counsel. 24 MS. WICK~AH: No. ~ut the practical difficulty is having te spend 25 hundreds thousands ef dollars to construct a residence just so the applicant can have a January 22, 2004 18 1 2 tennis court ena piece ef property that She owns immediately across the street from her 3 house. I don't see it as an insurmountable difficulty. Apparently the Board is concerned 4 about it. I don't think overriding Town policy is going to be affected by this. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I comment on that? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, 7 Gall, I'm new te this Board MS. WICKHAM: I knew. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Over the years tennis courts in particular, we have 9 heard tennis courts in particular, we have heard neighbors come in and complain about the 10 noise from the tennis court. I always thought, well, if it's on that person's 11 property they got to live with it too, and now I thought new this is net en this person's 12 property, and it's en another piece ef property that this person happens te own. 13 That's just one mere -- they remove themselves from any annoyance and put that onto the 14 neighbors. So I would like to hear, and certainly if there are cases in the town, I 15 don't know of if there are, but if there are, that's what I'm leaking for. It's been 16 already discussed and it seems to work out. MS. WICKHAM: I would agree with 17 what you said except that she does live there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But net on that 18 piece ef property. MS. WICKHAM: No. But about as 19 close as you can get. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. 20 But what about the next guy that wants to put it somewhere. 21 MS. WICKHAM: Well, that's a different question, that's a different factor. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it may be, that's what I'd like te see you 23 investigate whatever we did in the past er whatever, even other towns. 24 MS. WICKHAM: I'd like to ask my client. Miss Cassidy and Hiss Gardner own the 25 house immediately te the south ef this. !Mrs. Gardner's mother lives there. Se that would January 22, 2004 19 1 2 be another factor that would mean that they are, ih fact, affected as much as another 3 neighbor, and the only other immediate neighbor is te the north, and this court would 4 be mere towards the south end, actually, more towards the house her mother lives in than 5 towards that neighbor. Se if there's going te be ann©yance from noise, they're going te be 6 affected by it also, and would I presume not want te have that occur. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about merging your lets? 8 MS. WICKHAM: If that can be another distinguishing factor te -- 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about merging the lets? 10 MS. WICKHA~: Having to merge a buildable lot just so you can put up a tennis 11 court without a principal residence that ~would fit en that property would be horrendous. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hew about tying it te that lot; in ether words, that let 13 could be sold tomorrow. MS. WICKPLm~: Yes. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then we're back te Square One, which is a tennis court 15 net en the property with the principal residence. 16 MS. WICKHAM: I think this is where you were going, but if they would net 17 leave the tennis court on the vacant lot without a residence if they sold it. We have 18 to come up with better language, but they would be willing to say as ieng as they would 19 not sell to a third party. BO~D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That 20 would be construed as a conditional Cef O. HS. WICKHAM: Ail right, yes. Net 21 precluding them from building a house there. But precluding them from doing what 22 Hr. Dinizie said, which is selling tea third party, somebody who didn't have a vested 23 interest in the neighborhood could cema and make a racket -- no pun intended. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. 25 MS. WICKHAM: That's a good suggestion. January 22, 2004 2O 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOAi%D MEMBER ORLANDO: I have two 3 reservations besides the eno that was brought up already. The first eno is elevation. The ~ elevation would have to be brought up, you're kind of in a valley. 5 MS. WICKHAM: There would have to be some leveling, yes. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a matter of the drainage. 7 MS. WICKHAM: So you're not going to be bringing it up to the point where the 8 drainage from the let is coming onto the read. You would merely regrade to accommodate 9 a proper base. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 10 elevation is at least below the read. MS. WICKHAH: Below. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The second reservation I have the most is if I sew a 12 tennis court ena vacant let, it would become a community tennis court. 13 MS. WICKHAM: Not if you live across the street. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I would be kind ef afraid ef er shy te ask 15 someone if I could play tennis in their backyard, but if you put a tennis court ena 16 vacant let, I wouldn't be afraid te go ask a person to go play tennis en your tennis court, 17 because that wouldn't be intruding. I'd feel mere apt te de that and I feel the petential's 18 there te become a community tennis court. MS. WICKHAH: That's true, but 19 again, they have the residence next deer and the residence across the street, and if it 20 became an annoyance by having them de that, they would step it. Se I think their presence 21 there would mitigate that concern, otherwise I would agree with you. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Full time residence across the street or summer 23 residence? MS. WICKHAM: They are here year 24 round but net full time. Your mother lives there full time? 25 MS. GARDNER: No. My mother: lives there from May te October. January 22, 2004 21 1 2 MS. WICKHAM: Tennis season. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And across 3 the street? HS. GARDNER: And we're there from 4 June through September full time, then weekends the rest of. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's mainly a summer -- 6 MS. WICKHAM: The mother's house to the south they're there during tennis 7 season May to October full time; and across the street full time June to September and 8 weekends during the rest of the tennis season. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Gail, I'd like 9 to see if there's anybody else in the audience that would like te comment en this 10 application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 11 need to ask one more question later. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 12 Hr. Hughes. MR. HUGHES: Good morning, my name 13 is Robert Hughes, and I am an adjoining neighbor to the property. And I've get a 14 bunch ef points I'd like to bring up. My address is 1025 Peaks Hill Road in Orient. 15 First of all this is a use variance and we need to maintain that point of view by the 16 definition in the Town Law, Section 267. And that ef course, imposes a burden ef proof on 17 the applicant to shew that the Zoning Code has imposed an unnecessary hardship. 18 There are four criteria, reasonable return en your investment, the 19 uniqueness of this piece of property, what it will do to the character of the neighborhood 20 and whether this is a self-created hardship. Then also, apart from the issue of the use 21 variance, I have certain concerns about the environmental impact. This concept of this 22 tennis court being accessory to the owner's or the applicant's other pieces of property, and 23 then whether actually a tennis court is appropriate on this piece of property. And 24 then, as we have now been discussing, I think there are probably a couple of alternatives 25 such as merging the let with the eno te the south and/or building the house first. January 22, 2004 22 1 2 Now, the definition efa use variance is that it shall mean the 3 authorization by the Zoning Board ef Appeals for the use ef the land for a purpose which is 4 otherwise net allowed or is prohibited by the applicant by zoning regulations. I think that 8 pretty well nails what we're talking about here. And then it is the burden of the 6 applicant te shew that the zoning has --ithe Zoning Code has caused an unnecessary hardship 7 te the applicant. The various criteria, reasonable return on their investment at this 8 point, apparently the biggest burden that they have, they have a $432.92 a year tax bill. If 9 this has caused an economic hardship to them, have they tried other options for ameliorating 10 their economic hardship, such as selling their property if the tax burden is toe high on 11 them. I don't think that the values in that neighborhood have gene down se that this is 12 the only use you can use for the property for. They bought the property in 1998 and according 13 to the assessors tax card, they paid $80,000 for it. At this point from what I've heard 14 from Hiss Wickham, I've heard ne dollars and cents proof that they are in really any sort 15 of economic hardship. Secondly, there's the issue ef 16 whether this let is unique in the neighborhood, and in their application they 17 say that there's few er any vacant lets that are owned by adjoining homeowners. Well, 18 you're looking at one. I live just to the west, and with my sister I own a vacant lot 19 which is adjoining to this piece of property. So it isn't totally unique. I would admit 20 that it's rare and most of the lots have been built on and developed. 21 The character of the neighborhood en Youngs Read is basically as one acre zoning 22 mostly, and the lets there are pre-existing nonconforming. They're smaller than eno acre, 23 such as this let. This lot is less than an acre, se it is nonconforming. Amd this area 24 abuts two acre zoning, and I thought of two ether areas in Orient which are very similar, 25 and I wonder whether the neighbors there would want a tennis court on the vacant lot. One of January 22, 2004 23 1 2 these areas, I think Miss 01iva's very familiar with, which is the end of Narrow 3 River Road, which is one acre zoning abutting two acre zoning, and the eno acre zoning lets 4 are all pre-existing nan-conforming small lets. The area between Narrow River Road and 5 Kings Street and Douglas Read. Putting in a tennis court in a vacant lot in that area I 6 don't think would be appropriate. The other area that I thought of was Village Lane, 7 Oyster Pond Road, one acre zoning abutting two acre zoning with pre-existing nonconforming, 8 and there are a couple vacant lets on Oyster Pond Read. Having an absentee owner putting 9 up a tennis court ena vacant lot would be net desirable -- that was Oyster Pond Read. 10 Then the ether issue en the use variance is whether this is a self created 11 hardship. Well, even the applicant admitted that in their application. There are, I read 12 a nice little quote out efa Clark versus the Beard of Zoning Appeals, that was a variance 13 en the grounds ef special hardship. I don't think the applicant has met the burden of 14 proof en the use variance. There are a couple ef ether things 15 that I am concerned about. As a neighbor I've seen - I'm environmentally a little 16 concerned, and Mr. Orlando I think you had a valid paint, the topography of that land. I 17 actually have a survey here fram 1920 that was dena by VanTyle, which shews that that 18 property back then had the same elevation above sea level as the land that's a little 19 farther te the north about where Miss Cassidy's mather lives now. And where Miss 20 Cassidy's mother lives now it says pond -- I can show you a copy ef this. What has 21 happened since they cleared the land, they have had fill brought in, and they have raised 22 the level of the land. I'm concerned about drainage when there's heavy rain. We have 23 just te the west ef the applicant's property, we have a right of way that serves seven 24 building lots, that goes from the Main Road to the Sound. And I'm worried about if they 25 raise the level ef the land there enough that I'm going to have a drainage problem en my January 22, 2004 1 2 right ef way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There is a 3 drainage problem in that whole area. MR. HUGHES: Exactly. They have % already brought in some fill and anything done as an approval here, they said in their 5 application, there would be minimal regrading. I think we've already had more than that, and 6 I have no idea whether this is true or not but I have had people in the village tell me that 7 they have plans to put in 1,100 yards ef ifill for the tennis court, whether that's true or 8 net, I don't know. New the concept ef this -- and 9 you've already discussed this a bit about this idea that the tennis court would be across the 10 street from the applicant's house, and they're not going te want te be disturbed by the 11 tennis court because it's accessory te their house, quote/unquote. Well, you have 12 addressed this issme, what about somebody that buys that lot with the tennis court en there 13 but they live someplace else? They don't care if their kids ge up and play tennis all day, 1% all night er -- not all night obviously, but the fact ef the matter is there's no guarantee 15 that this -- that the applicants aren't going to sell their houses and leave town, and we're 16 going to end up with a tennis court that isn't attached to it, or isn't physically attached 17 to another piece ef property that has a house en it. 18 As far as whether a tennis court's appropriate in a parcel, I understand what the 19 zoning cede says that if you're in one acre zoning you can have a tennis court. These are 20 undersized lots already, and I understand that if it was just an area variance, then, you 21 know, it would probably ge through with certain strings attached, but the tennis 22 courts that I know are -- the private tennis courts that I knew of in the area, along to 23 the west before yon get te the causeway, have been there for way before there was zoning. 24 I'm thinking of the one up on Steven Sons Hill, the one on Sterns and Dormans those are 25 all en eno acre zoning. Even though they're pre-existing~ they conform with the zoning as January 22, 2004 25 1 2 far as net being nonconforming small lets~. The other thing, the last thing 3 really is -- oh, yeah, there is a public tennis court at the school, okay, which is a 4 quarter-mile from the applicant's house, end I can hear that tennis court, the ball hitt!ing 5 the net er hitting the racket and it is hitting the ground from my Nouse. So it's net 6 actually net a noxious activity, net a noxious act. So the twa alternatives - because I 7 don't want te be a negative person on that eno -- is that they merge the let with the let 8 to the south where the applicant's mother lives, then have a tennis court in a side 9 yard, okay. That could be worked out, you can buffer it or whatever; and the ether thing is 10 you build the house first, then you put the tennis court in. Thank ye~. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,! Hr. Hughes. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hughes, I have to disagree with you that ~this 13 is the use variance. The use ef this tennis court is residential. This Beard would net 14 entertain -- we have te entertain the application, but we would net make this a 15 community tennis court on a residential let unless it was awned by the community itself. 16 And that is net the case. It's awned by twa individual people. Se I'm just saying to you 17 I'm net an attorney, but the use is residential. Okay. The issue here is -- 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to interrupt you. The Beard hasn't decided 19 whether it's a use variance. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 20 my opinion only. Whenever I express my opinion, it's my opinion only, and I'm just 21 mentioning it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: ThaNk youi 22 Mr. Hughes. Anybody else in the audience that wishes to comment? Yes, sir. 23 MR. ESPOSITO: My name is ~sposito. I live north, adjacent to wNere 24 they're talking about. MS. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry, your 25 name? HR. ESPOSITO: Edward Espesite. January 22, 2004 26 1 2 My family and I are full time there. We ijust moved about a year age. 3 CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: You live iln the eld Horten house? 4 HR. ESPOSITO: Yes, we do. And his concern right there with the drainage 5 because I'm in the same position, and I knew that they're talking about elevating, and 6 putting in material for drainage and stuff like that. Hy biggest concern was 7 environmental because we had an empty lot next te us. I had te worry about - I have a four 8 year old and a nine year eld, worried about these kids with the ticks, the mesquites. 9 They have cleaned up the land. The only thing I can see out ef this, it can only be geed 10 even if it's how you ward it, either make next to her mother's house or whatever. They're 11 cleaning up the land. They're going te put grass. It's open now. I don't have te worry 12 about my children with the West Nile, the deer ticks. I can only say it's good for it, 13 because noise-wise, they're only there a certain part of the year. They're only there 14 certain hours ef the day. It's net going to be lit. Our biggest concern is drainage and 15 the noise. I live next deer. I have ne complaints about it and whatever. Ail we have 16 te de is discuss what kind ef drainage they need to do. Te me it's only going te beautify 17 the area, and my kids can run back and forth and play en it. I don't know environmentally 18 I just think it's going te be better. I don't feel I need another house next to us, if 19 that's what we're all trying to do. I moved out fram Queens and Hicksville to get away 20 from all the building house next te house and that's why I'm out here for my kids, making it 21 better. That's just my opinion, I hope it helps. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like 23 te speak on this application? Seeing as there's other people 24 that do have concerns, I'd like to keep it open, Gall, te our February meeting. 25 MS. KOWALSKI: February 26th~. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Either 9:30 or January 22, 2004 27 1 2 9:35, okay? MS. WICKHAM: Okay. And I th~nk 3 we will come in with more information about the drainage and the fill figures. I do want 4 to just -- I think I addressed most of Mr. Hughes' comments, I'm not going to do~ it 5 again now. But the work that was done on the lot was after consulting with the Building 6 Department, merely to punch a small hole through a small level of clay, and there was a 7 little bit of sand to put there to effectuate better drainage because there was a mosquito 8 problem, but there was not fill added to elevate the let at all. But I will give you 9 more information on what that is going to entail. Also regarding the Oyster Pond court, 10 that's a hard court, makes a lot more noise than this, which would be a soft court. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Make a motion to recess this hearing and keep it 12 open until February 26th. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 13 moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second? 1% BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 15 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.} 16 ............................................. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 17 application is for Joseph Trencheny -- I hope I'm pronouncing that right? -- On South Lane 18 in Bast Marion. MS. DROZDOWSKA: Hy name is 19 Agnieszka Drozdewska from Architecnologies. Mr. Trencheny is apologizing he is 20 net able te be present. His wife is having a tough pregnancy. Se hopefully, next month 21 will be better, we would like to postpone it, and I would also like te tell you that we will 22 add information on we have received a letter from Mr. Therp, our next doer neighbor, and 23 his concern is with the side yard setback. It's a non-conforming lot and East Marion is a 24 very tricky area, as we all know. He especially has a very tough situation with the 25 setback. One side is a 3 foot 6 setback and the opposite side, which is neighboring with a January 22, 2004 28 1 2 neighbor's driveway, is a total setback ef 34 feet. His existing house is 20 feet wide by 3 %0 feet deep. Hr. Trencheny would like te expand en the size of the house. He has !five % kids, his fifth eno is on the way, and he would like to enjoy the neighberh©od and stay 5 within a reasonable impact ef the environment, which wouldn't be so great. We'd like to keep 6 the house as friendly and as neighborhood friendly I guess I should say as possible. 7 We are proposing a house with a four bedroom living space. One bedroom 8 downstairs and another three up above. It is existing one and a half story, about eight 9 year eld house. It is falling apart. We are planning te restore as much as we can ef the 10 existing with an addition to the side ef it to the west side ef the existing house. As you 11 can see, the property splays out. It is a flat let. We are proposing a 1S foot setback. 12 Hr. Thorpe in his letter proposed 20 foot setback, 23 foot 6. Hr. Trencheny has net had 13 a chance te review the letter. He's apologizing again. He is not having a good 14 time right now. It's something we can leek into. It's s©mething that I would ask if we 15 can look far some feedback in seeing what we can de te accomplish a reasonable size house. 16 He is la©king for a eno car garage. We are trying to fit that within the house. We are 17 doing our best te accommodate his wishes and Mr. Thorpe's wishes. Before we ge along with 18 anything we do have to take care of - CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Did you want to 19 postpone this hearing? HS. DROZDOWSKA: We would line te 20 postpone until next month. I'm sure the Beard has received a letter as well. Hr. Trencheny 21 has received it en Saturday. We will have a meeting with Mr. Trencheny, the owner, next 22 week possibly to speak any further on. Would it be feasible far our office to submit 23 revised plans to what we can de te accommodate Hr. Thorpe, and I'm asking if at all p©ssible 24 far us te de that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if 25 the Beard has any questions ©f you the way it's presented in the notice. Hr. Orlando? January 22, 2004 29 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. Right now you're looking for a 50 percent reduction 3 in the current cede, se I'm speaking for myself, I would be mere favorable to the 4 neighbor's request efa 20 percent setback. MS. DROZDOWSKA: Everything is S doable obviously. But if that would be the only way out, I think if that's what the Board 6 would decide on. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's just 7 my opinion to your neighbor's request. MS. DROZDOWSKA: We don't want te 8 stretch this. They want to start building seen, obviously, and move in possibly at the 9 end of the summer. So any way that we can. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's tight 10 quarters there, and it's five foot makes the neighbor happy then it's continuity amongst 11 neighbors. MS. DROZDOWSF~: The neighbor has 12 mentioned that if we had come up with the 20 foot setback, it would be as equal te all the 13 ether neighboring lots. We have net dena research en it. We don't feel, we ourselves, 14 our office has constructed a few hemes in that area, and we don't believe that that's the 15 case. And we would like to look into it and cema up with that and come present possibly -- 16 I mean, this letter just jumped en us. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You knew my 17 feelings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly any research you do in that regard would be 19 helpful for the Board, and it's difficult for us to drive through the neighborhood. YeN 20 certainly have a compelling reason to do that. 21 MS. DROZDOWSKA: Mr. Trencheny would net like to compromise se much because 22 as he quoted me on the phone yesterday, why should I? I would like te see if I can de 23 something and cema up with a nice house and still accommodate the neighbors, but why 24 should I be losing out when the lets -- we all know they're very tight lots. They all have 25 very tight setbacks, and we like te research it a little mere. January 22, 2004 3O 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with Mr. Orlando, you're asking an awful ~ot. 3 The way it is right now -- MS. DROZDOWSKA: We realize 4 that. BOARD MEMBER DIN!ZIO: I for one, 5 if it were just me you probably wouldn't even be here. But there are laws in the Town end 6 we can't -- I'll encourage you to de that. MS. DROZDOWSKA: So the next 7 meeting is on the 26th? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like 8 te knew the height of the roof on the left-hand side, the east/northeast side ef the 9 house where yea have a 3.4 feet setback. have had numerous discussions with neighbors 10 and applications on that particular side where the setbacks are se substandard that I have a 11 specific concern en that side. MS. DROZDOWSKA: This is en %he 12 east side? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's still 13 that's the eno-story existing house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEN: It's 14 really two-story one. MS. DROZDOWSKA: To be honest with 15 you, everything is a non-conforming house basically. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have te establish one thing, that this 17 house is going te be a complete tear down? MS. DROZDOWSKA: We're trying te 18 save it, but in the long run it's a lot of money we believe. It's net efficient te just 19 tear the whole thing down, besides the fact that there is these eld features in the 20 house. It's a let of money, it's a very nice cottage; it's beautiful. We're afraid ef rot, 21 I mean, we haven't opened the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm 22 looking at the limitation of that story en that side where you have the greatest 23 non-conforming setback. MS. DROZDOWSKA: We're looking at 24 about 22.6. We're looking no more than that, that's the top ef the ridge. It could be less 25 with the different heights and different reef pitches. January 22, 200% 31 1 2 BO}~RD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has always been my opinion that a homeowner should 3 have to place a ladder en his er her own property and net be en the neighbor's property { so as te work en the house, and that's what I'm concerned about. 5 MS. DNOZDOWSKA: That's the tough setback that we are dealing with 6 unfortunately. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree 7 with mast all ef them that you really should leek to see if you can compromise with your 8 neighbor, do research te see the ether facilities in the neighborhood, if tNey're 9 very close, and also Mr. Goehringer's concern about the height of the house with the ridge. 10 MS. DROZDOWSKA: Se would you like us to leek in te lessening the house? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se eno-story en that side, even if you cut it 12 four feet in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there's ne 13 other questions, I will keep this hearing open and postpone it until February 26th at - 14 MS. KO~}ALSKI: 9:35. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 9:35. 15 MS. KOWALSKI: Aggie, if you!have amended plans -- 16 MS. DROZDOWSKA: We actually lhave come up with plans since we got the letter. 17 That does help. We did not do the elevation change. We'll leek into that, and we'll 18 submit the plans into the next hearing. I should just stay up here. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We~need te veto. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hay I have a vote, I move that we postpone te the 26th. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 22 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se moved. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is Isabella and Samuel Distasi far 25 additions and alterations te the existing single family dwelling with a front yard January 22, 2004 32 1 2 setback at less than 35 feet, at 125 Youngs Avenue in Southeld. 3 MR. STRANG: Good morning, Garret Strang representing the applicant, Mr. and 4 Mrs. Distasi. What we have proposed here's !is a 5 brief history, the house is an older homE, original home that dates back probably to 6 somewhere around the late 1800s when the original house was built, and at some time and 7 possibly originally there was a front porch on that house. We do have a survey which I 8 believe is part of the application that we presented that isn't that old, but the survey 9 is dated in '57 -- '57 or '59, I can't tell from the copy we have, and it shews an 10 existence efa perch en the east side ef the road, Youngs Avenue side, which wraps around 11 the north side ef the house. Over the years, that perch disappeared as well as many of the 12 ether architectural features ef the house. It's kind of a big box new. My client would 13 like to restore some ef the architectural character of the house, bring it back 14 somewhat. And part of that is te reinstate that porch en the Yeungs Avenue side ef the 15 house, and wrap it around the opposite side from the way it originally was; wrap it around 16 the south side as opposed te the north side. He's also seeking to enhance that ~perch 17 somewhat by the addition of an octagonal corner where it makes the wrap, and what 18 happens in that case is that the porch that was originally there had a setback ef 24 feet, 19 which we're looking te reinstate. It was nonconforming originally, obviously, it's 20 nonconforming new and the octagonal corner would reduces it to 20 feet. The impact; in 21 my opinion, is really not that great. It's an open porch, it's roofed ever. But it's 22 unenclosed; it's open. The one corner sort of overlooks the c©mmunity park and marina, 23 across the street is a very large lot with a house that's set way back, and immediately to 24 the west the house is en the corner of Mechanic and -- sorry, I'm forgetting the Name 25 ef the street, Petty and that setback, it wouldn't even have a view ef the perch, iSo I January 22, 2004 33 1 2 believe that the impact ef the neighborhe!ed -- there is one house sort of across Youngs and a 3 little bit up, I don't know if they have an abjection, I haven't seen anything in the 4 file. But that's pretty much what we're attempting te accomplish here. I'll be happy 5 to answer any questions the Board may have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 6 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Net at this time, thank you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's thinking. I can smell the weed burning. Mr. Dinizie? 8 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. It looks like mostly you're squaring off the 9 house except far that little piece that sticks out. I have no objections, no questions. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD M~HBER ORLANDO: The 11 hexagon, is that going to have a turret-type roof on that corner? 12 HR. STRANG: I haven't gotten into the actual architectural design. Obviously, 13 we haven't dena the design yet subject to what this Board has te say, but if the Board had an 14 abjection te -- what we're seeing a let of these days and we could do it flatter. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because ef the topography, because it's up en the hill -- 16 MR. STRANG: That's true. BOARD HEHBER ORL}~DO: I don't 17 have a problem even extending it. It just gets real close on that eno corner. What de 18 you believe ef the client's interpretation ef this standard wraparound and will cut back a 19 couple feet? MR. STRANG: As opposed to the 20 octagonal corner and directly but that was eno of their desires, if you tell, right fram the 21 get-go would be to have this nice feature en the corner, again, help embellish and bring 22 back same ef the character. It tends te dress it up a little more, but I can defer te 23 Mr. and Hrs. Distasi. BOARD MBMBER GOEHRINGER: You 24 think it would make that much difference in reference to footage? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Only -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's so many January 22, 2004 34 1 2 trees down and I hardly even noticed thatl that house was even there, to be honest. 3 BOARD MEMEER DINIZIO: You're~ going te end up setting it back maybe a feet 4 and-a-half more, it doesn't look like it sticks out that much mere. 5 HR. STPsI_NG: If we squared it! off we'd be going fram a 20 feet at the octagon 6 back to the 24, would make it a little mere bland, I'll say, at least the octagon does add 7 a little mere interest and character in keeping with reflected that detail at that 8 time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do your clients 9 have anything they would like te say? MR. STRANG: Do you want to share 10 your thoughts en the octagon en the corner? MR. DISTASI: I'm trying te 11 remember the footage there is from the road. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Would you give 12 your name, sir? MR. DISTASI: Sam Distasi. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. ~R. DISTASI: I've been 14 maintaining that property all these years. I maintain about 25 feet all around my house. 15 Even my driveway that I maintain belongs to the Town, is larger than most driveways, you 16 knew. And it's really -- en the map it looks like it's close, but it's really setback very 17 far from the road because the way the property's cut. The read gees straight and 18 the property cuts in on an angle. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As I say, il 19 didn't know your house was there. ~OARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm 20 actually on the fence. I would actually~ge with whatever the Beard favors on this one. 21 My heels aren't dug in. MR. DISTASI: My grandchildren are 22 talking about it already, how they're going te be sitting out on that perch. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would 24 like to speak on this application? If not -- SOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One 25 question, Mr. Strang. You're going te give us a plan showing the height ef the roof lowered January 22, 2004 35 1 2 a little bit? MR. STNsING: We can give you ian 3 elevation view of this subject te approval -- I mean, I don't knew how the Beard might want 4 te word that, approval with this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Subject 5 to your plan. MS. KOWALSKI: You want te see it 6 before you vote en it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 7 MS. KOWALSKI: February 26th, it will have to be in before that. 8 MR. STRANG: Okay. And your preference, if I understand correctly, is to 9 have a lower pitch -- the same pitch on the octagon that would be on the perch reef, which 10 is the shallow pitch, as opposed te one ef these tall "witches hats" so te speak. Is 11 that correct? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 12 MR. DISTASI: That's no problem. BOAP~D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 13 that's a very good point. We haven't had a chance to discuss it, and I didn't want te 1% prejudice any discussions we would have. I tend to agree with you, I think a lower pitch 15 en the octagon would be mere -- I mean if it was a true Victorian and had another turret in 16 it, it would blend it. MR. STRANG: Geed point. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a motion te close this hearing and 18 reserve decision. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 20 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se moved. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pending the receipt of the elevation. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pending receipt ef the elevation. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Going te take a five minute break. 2% (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:55 a.m. te 11:15 a.m.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next January 22, 2004 36 1 2 hearing is for Patrizia Zanboni. This is concerning a new single-family dwelling en 3 Minnehaha Boulevard in Southeld; is there' somebody here who would like to speak on 4 behalf of this application? MS. DROZDOWSKA: Agnieszka 5 Drozdowska, Architechnologies. It is a corner let, beth setbacks are nonconforming. 6 Minnehaha Boulevard has a 13-1 foot setback and Apeache Avenue is a 23.1 setback. We are 7 asking to keep the existing porch intact. There's an existing sun room en the corner ef 8 Apeache and Minnehaha. We are asking to construct a new two story house in place, 9 following the same footprint off of Minnehaha Boulevard. With an attached two car garage. 10 Se in place of existing, we'd like to put a new structure. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. 12 HS. DROZDOWSKA: In place of existing a two car garage and a two story 13 house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: After 14 demolition what's left standing? MS. DROZDOWSKA: We wouldn't!want 15 te move the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basicallylthe 16 same footprint that's there new? MS. DROZDOWSNA: We're expanding 17 into -- the depth ef the house currently is 22 feet. We are proposing a depth ef 26 feet. 18 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Two front yards. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ge ahead, Jerry. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a 30 feet read. I saw where the property 22 lines were, I think you're going to have to, in my particular opinion, this is net the 23 opinion ef the Board, te push it back a little bit off of Minnehaha Boulevard. I don't 24 have -- my personal epinion I have no problems with the setback off the side read, but it is 25 just entirely tee close te Minnehaha Boulevard. January 22, 2004 37 1 2 MS. DROZDOWSKA: Including the existing perch and sun room, you mean? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have enough ream as long as you're knocking the whole 4 thing down you could move it back. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That 5 measurement's 12-9 from Minnehaha. It's i12-9 te Minnehaha. It doesn't mention that in the 6 notice ef disapproval. MS. ZANBONI: Helle, my name'!s 7 Patrizia Zanboni, the owner ef the house.i The reason I'd like to leave it where it is is 8 there's weeds in our front yard and coming through the house through the front deer, we 9 enjoy our backyard. We're going to be going te the two story, there's the advantage to the 10 neighbors in the back. We're not going te ge higher than the two story right behind us and 11 there is the road that goes into Nonacema Waters right across from me, so I don't see a 12 problem, or I'd rather leave it where it is, I can move it back, I guess. But it's just a 13 there's weeds in front of me and there's a road that goes into Nonacoma water, but we 14 enjoy the back and we like te put it in its current location, and we're not bringing it 15 any closer to our neighbor behind us. CI{AIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is 16 your house going te be te the ridge? HS. DROZDOWSKA: One second. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 23-9. MS. DROZDOWSF~: 23-9, yes. We 18 didn't take the plans. Where we had a construction document created because we 19 wanted to know what we can and can't de. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Point of 20 clarification, 22-9 to the mean er 22 foot 9 te the ridge? 21 DS. DROZBOWSKA: Te the ridge. MS. KOWALSKI: 23. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 23k MS. DROZDOWSKA: 23. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite 24 honest, I'm a little confused by the disapproval and going through all the 25 different measurements, and I was wondering if you could clear that up about the size of the January 22, 2004 38 1 2 house. Say you toke the house down excep~ for the porch, you're going te build en that very 3 same foundation? MS. DROZDOWSKA: There is ne % existing basement. So we would create a footprint, about 2,000 square feet, and we are 5 proposing a total -- that's lot coverage-- we are proposing a total ef 2,800 square feet 6 thereabouts. I don't have an exact, about an 800 feet addition that's including the two 7 foot addition te the rear -- te the side of the house and the two car garage. 8 MS. KOWALSKI: 1,800 square ~eet plus the perch and the two car garage. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Se the lot overage is still well under what's allowed. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15 percent. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 15 percent. 11 Se you're net going any closer te either road? MS. DNOZDOWSF~: Ne, we're not 12 touching either ef those. It's perfectly aligned. Actually, the width of the house 13 when yon're standing in Minnehaha Boulevard is the exact same one. It has not changed. The 14 sun reem is as-is. The only thing being added to that is the two car garage, that's 15 basically all that's happening to the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess, 16 let me be honest with you, okay, your argument's a little weak when you say you want 17 to save your backyard, when yen're tearing down the entire house. Then you have the 18 opportunity to remedy this noncenformity~ MS. DROZDOWSKA: The location's 19 been the location for the past numerous years, and we felt that it would be best not te 20 disturb that and keep it the same way it is 21 MS. ZANBONI: I don't understand why the argument's weak. We're always in our 22 backyard. We have doings. I would like te net tear down. It's a summer cottage. If I 23 make any additions te it, it's like wasting money. 24 MS. DROZDOWSKA: It's wasting money to try te keep the existing house 25 standing while adding to the new. HS. ZY~BONI: We just enjoy the Januery 22, 2004 39 1 2 back. Ne're always back there. We're never in the front. Most people are never in tihe 3 their front yard, we just walk around. You rarely see anybody. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You understand that and you have a nonconformity 5 there, and we're supposed te as a Beard grant the minimum amount, you know, myself 6 personally if you just kept the house there you would never have to be here. And so what 7 you're asking now is basically to tear it down, build the same thing that the Town 8 considers nonconforming, and I'm just being honest with you, that if there's any other way 9 you think you could maybe do something may be helpful. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The new 11 prepared addition would that have a full basement? 12 MS. DROZDOWSKA: It will have a crawl space plan for the garage and the 13 foundation work will be redone if necessary. HS. ZANBONI: Full foundation. 14 MS. DROZDOWSKA: And then the -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Full basement? 15 MS. ZANBONI: Full basement. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: New you're 16 coming to a construction factor that you're going to have to dig this out and keep this 17 perch from falling in the hole, which only has a crawl space footing. 18 MS. DROZDOWSKA: If we were to keep the existing house, keep the whole 19 structure up and standing. We've done it a let of times. It's net undoable. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless you plan on picking up the porch and moving it and 21 doing it and then putting it back eh. MS. DROZDOWSY~A: Ne, it's not at 22 all. HS. ZANBONI: Right new it's !a 23 slab. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: By digging 24 down next te it, you're going to lose the~ integrity of that whole structure. You're 25 going to end up with nothing. By the time you're done digging that hole the whole January 22, 2004 40 1 2 thing's going to fall in the hole. MS. DROZDOWSKA: That's something 3 that could be argued. I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Then you'll 4 have the whole thing to move, so -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move it now. 5 MS. DROZDOWSKA: It's something that can support you. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're going to have te put down timbers. Trying to 7 connect the two, you're compounding problems with compounding costs. 8 MS. DROZDOWSKA: The whole idea is to basically keep the house in the same 9 setback. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm trying 10 to -- then there's ne argument at all. I'm agreeing with my Board members here. 11 MS. DROZDOWSKA: Pushing it all the way te 35? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Walk out te your front deer right ente Minnehaha, which is 13 close. HS. DROZDOWSKA: If I may, Iithink 14 we have to speak about it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's just 15 two members speaking. MS. DROZDOWSI{A: If I may ask what 16 would be a feasible compromise on the setback? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Another ten 17 feet. MS. DROZDOWSKA: Another tenifeet 18 creating a 23 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 23!-- what you just said 23? 20 MS. DROZDOWSKA: Keeping thei23 feet. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It{s the impact ef the second story that is my concern. 22 If you were merely rebuilding the existing house on the existing footprint, then there 23 may net be as much efa contest. But it{s that impact. 24 MS. DROZDOWSKA: That could be something to consider, maybe. What's the 25 point? You have only a eno story house. BOARD MEMBER GOEWRINGER: What's January 22, 2004 1 2 so interesting about this is the let you ihave dawn tNere happens te be a larger lot than 3 mast ef the lots in the area; so the impact and I'll use that phrase again -- the impact 4 of moving it back ten feet is almost insignificant because you have a nice rear 5 yard, and you're still going te be able te utilize a nice rear yard with a ten feet 6 MS. DROZDOWSKA: So I think it's something that we should consider and leek 7 mere into. We would like te cema back next month far a meeting, if passible, te present a 8 new plan. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe!even 9 think ef turning the whole house and have your front and garage off Apeache, which is more of 10 a very secondary read than Minnehaha. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hinnehaha~is 11 mere traveled. MS. ZANBONI: It's my favorite 12 spat, and I got the view ef the water. If I put the garage there, then I don't. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Cema backien the 26th at 9:40. 14 MS. DROZDOWSKA: We will again submit plans prier te that. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion te recess this hearing until February 26th. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 17 (Whereupon, all Beard Members responded in favor.) 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se moved. ~Is there anybody else in the audience that would 19 like to speak to this? I'm sorry. No. iOkay. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is far Reid Mahaffy concerning an 21 addition to a house en North Bayview Read; is there anybody here te speak te that 22 application? MS. DROZDOWSKA: I am. 23 CHAIRWOM3~N OLIVA: You have a~busy day. 24 HS. DROZDOWSKA: It's Aggie from Architechnelegies. We're representing 25 Mr. Hahaffy. Mr. Hahaffy's not present here. It is an existing two story frame January 22, 2004 42 1 2 house, again it's a corner lot, eno setback is nonconforming. There is the house is located 3 North Bayview Road. The setback directly off ef that, which is the south side ef North 4 Bayview, is 22 feet. The second setback, which is a proposed road, is there. I have a 5 site plan which has not operated yet, it ihas been a proposed road is a 37 foot setback 6 which meets the setback of the cede. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Briggs Read is 7 there already? MS. DNOZDOWSI{A: Yes. We are 8 asking for the 22 feet setback. It is an existing two story house. We are proposing an 9 addition west to the house following the same lines, will following the same angle ef the 10 house of additional two bedrooms, one and-a-half story height with a third bedroom 11 up above. It's basically just an expansion to an existing house. The existing house has a 12 very low pitched roof. We are not altering that. We are following, that's why one 13 bedroom following the ether two of the addition. The rooms are very small, they're 14 unfeasible for the client. That's basically what's happening te the house. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Couple 16 things. When I looked at the notice of disapproval it says basically that you're 17 going te have the same setbacks you had before, non-conforming. 18 MS. DROZDOWSY~: Just in the front, but once we actually get to the 19 addition part it will be in more conforming than that. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The part where you're putting the addition, is there no 21 way increasing the nonconforming? MS. DROZDOWSKA: No. We're just 22 basically asking for the existing nonconforming approval. 23 BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Right~ MS. DROZDOWSF~: Here than the 24 addition. We get this approval with the~22 foot setback~ 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This has a 29 foot setback. January 22, 2004 43 1 2 MS. DROZDOWSKA: 22. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 22 land 3 317 MS. DROZDOWSKA: 22 and 37 4 actually. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You didn't get 5 back a new disapproval? MS. KOWALSKI: This disapproval 6 was dated September 5th, and your plans are dated October ?th. What they're saying your 7 disapproval says doesn't shew -- MS. DROZDOWSKA: But the Building 8 Department reviewed -- yeah, we're asking for a 22, that's the existing. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me just, I'm still a little confused, that 22 10 foot is there? MS. DROZDOWSF~A: Yes. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That 22 foot has been there since the house was built 12 and you're net increasing that 22? MS. DROZDOWSKA: Net at all. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The addition that you're putting eh, hew that 14 increases the nonconforming. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reaffirming the 15 nonconformity. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: You're 16 going te have te address that change with the Building Department. 17 MS. DROZDOWSKA: That's something that - yeah, when I went down te the Building 18 Department for the existing setback and they told me that was something and they 19 disapproved us. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I'm 20 not going to put you in the middle of it~ To me it doesn't make any sense what variance are 2i we going to grant that hasn't already been given to you. 22 MS. DROZDOWSKA: They will not issue us a building permit without the Board 23 issuing us a variance on this nonconforming 22 construction. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you're entitled te it as a preexisting. 25 MS. DROZDOWSKA: That's whatithey quote the law. January 22, 2004 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We ne~d to clear that up. 3 MS. DROZDOWSKA: They told me once. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You didn't give me other explanation than they gave ~yeu 5 the reason why you're here ether than the fact you have a preexisting nonconforming setback. 6 MS. DROZDOWSKA: That's basically what it is, and that's what they told us. We 7 know that it's obvious, it's net 35 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Our law 8 does say that you can have that, and still be within the law. 9 MS. DROZDOWSKA: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I like iyeur 10 plan. It looks geed. Expedite it. BOARD MEMBER ORLA~NDO: It's tlhe 11 logical spot to put it. The 22 feet that's actually still not habitable. It's the front 12 deck out there? MS. DROZDOWSKA: Yeah, it's just 13 the deck coming out. I mean the house you can't even see the house. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We understand, ne ether questions. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, ye~ don't have any problems? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne.i I have a question. This is net a tear dew~, 17 it's very simply an addition which matches the other portion ef the house. I just want ~that 18 for the record. MS. DROZDOWSKA: It actually 19 matches the reef line we're following se that when you do happen to see the house if they 20 clear up the BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm 21 going te give you this reasoning why you !were denied, because we made an interpretatie~ two 22 years age which indicated there were certain issues that were before us that we wanted te 23 leek at. Se these situations have now been expanded te all issues, okay, and that is the 24 reason why you have been denied in a couple of these situations, all right. We would h©pe 25 that in the future that the Code Committee would meet and limit those te specific issues January 22, 2004 45 1 2 so that you don't have to come back. MS. DROZDOWSKA: I understand!. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm speaking particularly te the notice ef 4 disapproval. That's my -- MS. DROZDOWSYgt: That's the 5 incorrect version. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: In tha~ 6 it's not specific. If you read this and you look at the plan, there's nothing in our icede 7 that says you need to be here. I'm reading this, and it's saying you're doing exactly 8 what you intended to do. MS. DROZDOWSKA: We're following 9 the rules. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Te me 10 you're net disapproved for anything because you had it. 11 MS. DROZDOWSKA: I'm as confused as you are. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a reconfirmation of an existing. 13 MS. DROZDOWSY~A: It's something we waited the four months for. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see !no law in Town that says we need te reconfirm a 15 nonconforming. CHAIRWOMJkN OLIVA: I agree with 16 you. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: And there's 17 too many of these applications before us2 MS. DROZDOWSKA: I concur. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank yen ivory much. We're going te close the hearing and 19 reserve decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 20 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Members 21 responded in favor.) 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next addition is Cathy Stankewicz for a proposed 23 addition. MR. STANKEWICZ: I'm George 24 Stankewicz. We basically want te put a little addition on the side of the house. There's a 25 small paper road which leads te an area behind our house which cannot be developed because I January 22, 2004 46 1 2 gave up devel©pmental rights years ago. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry, the 3 development rights? HR. STANKEWICZ: Yes. It's 4 basically a 25 acre parcel ef land they gave up development rights years age. Per eit~her 5 farm er game preserve. The owner has it !game preserve, and we're a couple feet too close. 6 Probably if I had known about it at the time, we probably would have made the house a Little 7 shorter. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I notice yen 8 have the chain link fence into the paper !road? MR. STANKEWICZ: Yes. 9 CHAIRWOHA~ OLIVA: But you don't own the paper read? 10 MR. STANKEWICZ: Ne. We didn't even realize it was a paper road when bought 11 the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm concerned 12 about your legality. If you decide te sell it, I don't know if it should extend into the 13 paper road. MR. STANKEWICZ: It was 14 pre-existing when we purchased the house.i Basically it was swamp land. We cleaned!it up 15 and graded all brush off, and now it's alnice yard. That would be an issue for hopefully 30 16 years from new if we're living te worry abeut~ but I'm net really, it was just always there. 17 CHAIRWOM~kN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, de you have any questions? 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, 21 absolutely not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have 22 any questions either. MR. STANKEWICZ: Okay. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just wondered about the chain link fence. 24 MR. STANKEWICZ: It was justithere when we did the title search on the house that 25 was the first time we -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a January 22, 2004 1 2 point in question regarding the property ~n the rear, it was connected all the way wi~h 3 all those cottages on the Sound -- MR. STANKEWICZ: Yes. % BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- and CPF Grand Corporation came in and said to! the 5 Planning Board we want the cottages te exist, and they said you will covenant this as eno 6 let. That's what happened. That's why the land is not divisible at this time. 7 MR. STANKEWICZ: Right. That!'s when Ken Branch bought the property. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody el~se like to speak en this application? If not, 9 I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 11 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 12 CHAIRWOMA2q OLIVA: You should hear in a couple of weeks. CHAIRWOHAiN OLIVA: Our next 14 application is far Daniel and Tina Finne ifor a waiver ef merger at 970 and 1020 Greenpert 15 Driving Park; de you know how it ever go~ the name Greenport Driving Park? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I do. It used to be a racetrack there, horse 17 racetrack. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, really? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Turned into a subdivision. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Finne.! MR. FI~E: I purchased the 20 property not knowing that it had been merged with the piece ef property next to it. Amd 21 when I applied for a building permit, that's hew I found out it was merged. And whatlI 22 want te do is the house that is there now is i guess nonconforming square footage-wise, land I 23 would like te build something there thatlmeets today's, you know, the side requirements~ and 24 something that will fit in with the neighborhood because of the houses in that 25 neighborhood are tea smaller scale, and that's what I want to. And right new I can't January 22, 2004 48 1 2 do it because the two lots are merged. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What lot 3 is it merged to? MR. FINNB: The one to the right % of it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is i!t 197 5 MR. FINNE: 19, yes. I guess Frank Field awned that piece of preperty.i 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The!re's a structure on 19, right? 7 MR. FINNE: There's a structure on both pieces. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one on 19, though~ is really -- 9 MR. FINNE: The one on 19, I imean someone's been there woods shingling, it'is 10 being all wood shingled. Beth ef them have been lived in far the last few years. When I 11 bought the piece ef property, the day that I closed en it I went in there and water was 12 spewing all ever the place. It was flooded, se I gutted same ef the walls and thinking I 13 was going to put it back the way it was. Because I had a couple people who I had in 1% mind w~o wanted it. It was a single maniwho wanted to live in the place, but when I went 15 down te file a permit te de the work I was told I couldn't, and, actually, somebody!who 16 was doing an inspection around that time,! and they saw the house had been tern apart 17 somewhat and they gave me a stop work order. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie, de 18 you have any questions? BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: You 19 purchased a lot, and that's the lot that'is here today? 20 MR. FINNE: Yes. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: And someone 21 else owns the lot that's merged with your let; is that right? 22 HR. FINNE: Somebody else owns it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Somebody 23 else owns it. You're here today to get these twa lets unmerged se that you can de en your 24 lot what you would like to do, which is improve the house that's there? 25 MR. FINNE: Yes. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: Are you January 22, 2004 49 1 2 tearing down the house? MR. STANKEWICZ: The way that! it 3 is, due to the nonconforming, I'm going t!o have to get a guy to move it back a littlle 4 bit. Mike Verity told me to take the averages en the house en the block and use that as my 5 setback. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Front iyard 6 setback, that's fine. Does that house that you own, your let, does that house in any way 7 straddle that line, en that line, ever the line en the next property? 8 MR. FINNE: No, net at all. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There'!s ne 9 other buildings that you think you own on that other piece of property? 10 MR. FINNE: Not at all. BO~ID MEMBER DINIZIO: CesspOols? 11 MR. FINNE: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Water? 12 MR. FINNE: NO. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: EverytNing's 13 separate? HR. FINNE: They both have their 1% own separate utilities. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your tax 15 bill? MR. FINNE: Separate tax bill. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn'it de a single and separate in the title search? 17 MR. FINNE: I guess they're net required te de a single and separate 18 search. Something I would have requested. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Being that 19 Mr. Pield owned beth lots. MR. PINNE: Actually, 19 haslbeen 20 sold I think about two years age, and since then he has sold it again. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He was ini He had applied te merge them and -- 22 MR. FINNE: Yeah, Mi!lenniumlHomes knew they were merged and he sold the piece. 23 MS. KOWALSKI: He sold it as two separate lets, right? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He must have because they both have it. 25 MR. FINNB: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's stuOk in January 22, 2004 5O 1 2 the middle. Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Who di!d you 3 purchase the lot from? MR. PINNE: I bought it from iFrank 4 Fields. He owned it back in 1993, he sel~d it te George Foreman -- George Friedman. George 5 Friedman didn't make geed en the mortgage and it get foreclosed on and at the foreclosure 6 sale Millennium Hemes bought it and since they have sold it again. 7 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: Frank probably held the mortgage en that for 8 Mr. Friedman. It never had te go tea bank, he never had te have a title search. 9 MR. FINNE: As a matter of fact, he's holding the mortgage for me on the piece 10 that I owned. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's not 11 cede that they -- MR. FINNE: I was told I couldn't 12 get a permit after 1983, and clearly en the books it was issued a permit in 1986 and iit 13 was also issued a CO. I mean, I asked them and they said it was a mistake en their part. 14 It was a mistake but you guys did it. I can't -- 15 MS. KOWALSKI: That's because the cede added a minimum, 850 square feet minimum 16 for each house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Single and 17 separate, are you building this as a spec house for someone else er building it for 18 yourself? HR. FINNE: Actually I'm 19 building -- I have in-laws, my wife's sister who have two small children, what I'm trying 20 te de is build them a house so they can stay in the house. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You'll probably have to come back te us for variances anyway 22 because the lot's se small. MR. FINNE: Actually, I had plans 23 drawn up already, and I meet the side yard setback. The house I'm going to put there is 24 only 20 feet wide, just need the ten and the 15. Backyard wasn't a problem. Amd theifront 25 yard I went through the expense of having John Ellis de a survey which included all the!ether January 22, 200% 51 1 2 properties on the block, and my average i!s only like between 17 and 18 feet. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which lis more than enough. You have ne objection ito 4 that front yard? MR. FINNE: No, not at all. 5 BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: You we!n't be back in front ef us if we unmerge the ilots? 6 MR. PI~E: Hopefully, if you guys unmerge the lets it will be free sailing. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There will be ne regrading ef the let? 8 MR. FINNE: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're 9 net going to change the topography of the let in any way? 10 MR. FINNB: Net at all. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the 11 only nonconforming setback will be that front yard setback? 12 MR. FINNE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There 13 will be ne change ef any let lines, they~will stay? 14 MR. FINNE: No. Stay exactly as they are. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have te ask you these questions. Those are some ef 16 the questions within a merger. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone onithe 17 Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience have any questions? If net, I'll 18 make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOM~{ OLIVA: Ail in favor? 20 (Whereupon, all Board Hembers responded in favor.} 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you!for coming in. 22 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like te 24 recenvene our ZBA hearing and have our li00 p.m. Public Hearing, John McGuire en North Sea 25 Drive in Orient; is there someone here te represent the applicant? January 22, 2004 52 1 2 MS. RIVERA: Yes, I am. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are yoU? 3 MS. RIVERA: Madam Chairman, my name is Christine Rivera. I'm here to 4 represent Monseigneur McGuire for the application before you regarding a secendl 5 story addition on 3630 North Sea Drive. It's pretty simple. The exis~ting 6 structure, as I'm sure you've seen, is geiing to be built ever with a bedroom and handilcap 7 bathroom. There's ne extension beyond the existing footprint ef the property. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are si!ngle yard now of 12 feet and total ef 31 and t!he 9 new eno will be you're having a better one. MS. RIVERA: Pardon me? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The existing single-family dwelling it says single side 11 yard setback ef 12 feet. MS. RIVERA: Correct. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the ether with total of 31 feet. And your new 13 construction will have a minimum side yard of 15 feet and total side yard ef 35 feet? 14 MS. RIVERA: Ne. It's exactly the same. The code requirement's 35, and new 15 we're 31 plus er minus. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine. 16 Mr. Dinizio, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's Ehe 18 same thing as this morning by the way. You are putting an addition on this house? 19 MS. RIVERA: Putting an addition on the existing dwelling, yes. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your Side yard setbacks are total is 31 beth ef which 21 are nonconforming? MS. RIVERA: Correct. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're net increasing that? 23 MS. RIVERA: No, I'm not. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: So, hew 24 high are you going? MS. RIVERA: It will definitely be 25 below the 35 mean. You can see from the~ elevation, this structure. January 22, 2004 53 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA It's rathe~ high now, isn't it? 3 MS. RIVERA: The proposed second story addition, there is structure there 4 already. We're just taking the roof line! off and building out ever the existing perch 5 that's there, and there is a bathroom there new, we're going to extend it. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just continuing the reef line? 7 MS. RIVEPA: Exactly. It wil!l be less than the 35 to the mean ridge as 8 required. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything e~lse, 9 Jim? BOARD M~MBER DINIZIO: No, I idon't 10 have anything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You!'re going te raise the reef line from the exi!sting 12 house, se you're going te have that step idewn as it gees down? 13 HS. RIVERA: Correct. We're trying te keep it in continuous. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The~ house sits fairly low on the property anyway. 15 So you should really be well be under that 35? MS. RIVERA: Yes, it will be.i 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it looks very nice. 17 MS. RIVERA: The property to ithe west is 30 acres of non-developable land. 18 It's been sold to the Town ef Seutheld. development rights have been sold and Fat!her 19 McGuire owns the property directly behind him and the Sound is in front of him. Se 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No problem. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you 21 have any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I jus~ want 22 te confirm the findings, the extension is going to be beyond the existing foundation? 23 MS. RIVERA: Ne, it's not. It's going over the existing structure and evsr the 24 existing foundation. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: I thought 25 you said you were covering over a patio. MS. RIVERA: Ne, no, ne, ne. January 22, 200~ 54 1 2 There's a old sun porch there new. If you have a copy ef the site plan. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I do. Maybe it was old survey which shows that notch 4 filled in just yet. Get a survey from '19, doesn't shew it going all the way te the iback 5 of the house. MS. RIVERA: I don't have the 6 dimensions on that. Well, it doesn't BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Look at 7 the new site plan. BOARD MEMBER ORL}~DO: The new 8 site plan shews the back is flush. But tlhe '79 site plan shows a slight jog. I just want 9 to verify it's still a jog. MS. RIVERA: I believe that 10 extension there is probably a patio on the existing house now, that jog-out. If I 11 remember correctly I think that's a patio there. But from the existing feundatien,i if 12 you go to the building plans, is 23-10 is the existing -- is going te be the new structure 13 and the overall structure is 29. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it'is 12 14 by 23 the new extension? MS. RIVERA: Is 23-10 and it'is 15 15 -- almost 16 feet, 16-2 en the second story. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm asking these particular questions because I'm writing 17 the decision. So I need te be accurate en it. 18 MS. RIVERA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank lyeu. 19 MS. RIVERA: You're cuite welcome. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 20 anybody in the audience that would like speak te this application? If not, I'lllmake 21 a motion closing the hearing and reserve decision. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor. 23 {Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se moved. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Delores Ullmann on January 22, 200% 55 1 2 Minnehaha Boulevard, for additions/altera!tions at less than 35 feet from the front. Yes~, sir 3 what can you tell us? MR. MUROLE: I'm Dolores Ull~ann's 4 sen. I'm putting an extension on. We hilred an architect to draw those plans, and I hired 5 a mason te put in the foundation, and he put the foundation in a foot and a half tee far 6 out. The extension is designed for a 20 !by 22, and that's what's there, a 20 by 22. He 7 should have started at the house five feet in, instead he started three and a half feet 8 in. When I was there, I was there the day he put in his marks, I never thought, this ss net 9 what I do for a living, so I never even thought te check where it started on the 10 house. I just checked to make sure the size of the room was correct. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: Are you David Muralo? 12 MR. MUROLE: I am. CHAIRWOM}~ OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 13 BOARD MEMBER ORL}~DO: Ne questions. I visited the site, and I saw the 14 structure does exist there, and it does say they documented it correctly en the original 15 survey, but they're not rocket scientists se site tolerance is sometimes -- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No 17 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions at all. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think I do either. Live and be well. 20 MR. MUROLE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion 21 te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 23 (Whereupon, all Beard Members responded in favor.) 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. We won't make a decision now; we usually have 25 make a decision in two weeks. We usually review the decisions, and then it will be January 22, 2004 56 1 2 written up, and then you will have your papers. 3 MR. HUROLE: Thank you. I del have one question, I do have an affidavit ef signed 4 postings. MS. KOWALSKI: Thank you very 5 much. 6 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: The next hearing is Helen Stratiges down en Sound!Beach 7 Drive in Mattituck. MS. RIVERA: I'm Christine Rivera 8 representing Hrs. Stratiges en this application before the ZBA. I just want ire 9 make a correction en the drawing, it shows 31-6. It's actually 3%-6 te the mean, as the 10 plans right now. The reason being is that this house has to be raised en pilings. 11 Because we're in the flood zeno, we're in 50-13. It's going te be 3%-6 te the mean. 12 This is a preliminary drawing before you !right new because we haven't finalized the actual 13 structure, and it may be a slight setback en the roof lines on the gable end. Again, ithe 14 reason being it has to be raised on pilings, the existing foundation. She has a full 15 basement that's going te be filled in, drmve the piles, screw the piles and then drive the 16 piles, and then elevate the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much does 17 she have te elevate the house? MS. RIVERA: Well, her first fleer 18 elevation is missing, new it comes to 12-6, se it could be technically she only has te raise 19 it 13-6 because we're in a 13 feet flood!zeno; however, in order te obtain storage space in 20 the garage we're going te elevate it mere than that just te raise it a feet. What FEMA{s 21 making us de -- actually I went down andlsaw Eric Start before I even put the application 22 in, and she does have a full basement and they're making her fill it in cempletelylwith 23 sand. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's net filled 24 with water? MS. RIVERA: No. It's amazing. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That is amazing. January 22, 2004 57 1 2 MS. RIVERA: I live en the same block, and I've done about nine houses there 3 already and the ones on the end are dry a~s can be, and they were built long after the % original bungalows were built. They're m~aking us fill it in with sand we're going te bel able 5 to possibly cut the two feet of foundation act as a breakaway wall, and either fill !it in 6 with cinder blocks er plywood breakaway walls. We have to elevate it in order te put thel 7 mechanicals above the floods plain, et cetera. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. MS. RIVERA: The setbacks are 9 existing. We're net changing these at alll as you were discussing. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Diniz~e. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 11 questions at all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ne questions. You're staying en the existing 13 footprint, going straight up? HS. RIVERA: Straight up on 14 pilings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 15 BOARD MEHBER GOE~RINGER: Mrs. Rivera, as you knew I knew you and, ef course, 16 I've toured your house, and I assume you'ire doing somewhat similar to this house as you're 17 doing, but the important part ef this analysis is this is the first house on that end ef 18 Soundview Road that this is gein? to be done to. Se we're going to use this as a model 19 because I suspect there's going to be a domino effect in years te come going west to east. 20 MS. RIVERA: I have done two! garages. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Like this? 22 MS. RIVERA: Detached garages en pilings on Sound Beach Drive, and I knew!I'm 23 going to be doing -- I've already been contacted about some ethers. This is really 24 the first house that's on a really narrow let. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I mean. Se we may come down and look at January 22, 2004 58 1 2 this one through the progress so we underlstand the whole situation. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are there houses across the street? 4 MS. RIVERA: No. The property gees right up the bluff. It gees down to 5 Sound Beach Drive. The house has to be jlacked up and screw piles and fill in the foundation 6 in the existing basement. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're 7 going te held the house in that position iwhile you're doing it? 8 MS. RIVERA: Yes. BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Yeu'ire 9 not going te move the house off the property? MS. RIVERA: There's ne ream, 10 actually, te move it off. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's a House 11 next deer te me, it had te be lifted about four er five inches. Okay, ne further 12 questions on the Board. Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment on ithis 13 application? If net, I make a motion te iclose the hearing and reserve decision until later. 1% BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se0ond. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 15 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se moved. MS. RIVERA: Thank you. Madam 17 Chairman, I am just so delighted that you are having daytime meetings. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So are we. MS. RIV~PA: The quality has 19 improved 1000 percent from previously. The night meetings staying here until 12:00, 1:00, 20 it just makes it more convenient. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybodylis 21 more sparky. MS. RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 23 hearing is for Edwin Reeves for a garageiin a yard ether than the required rear yard. !Mr. 24 Reeves, de you wish to comment? MS. REEVES: My name is Laurie 25 Reeves. I'm the spouse of the applicanti and I picked the short straw. January 22, 2004 59 1 2 The request is for an accessory building. The unusual planning of the 3 neighborhood has our let encompassed by three roads or rights of way, consequently the % proposed site is defined as a front yard;i and the additional request, because it's defined 5 as a front yard, the additional request lis for a relief from the 50 feet setback for a front 6 yard. The survey shows %0 feet from the proposed site to the -- 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right of way? HS. REEVES: -- to the right 8 way I believe, and in the request it says not less than 30 feet, and that's because this 9 isn't rocket science, as we have discussed earlier, we wanted to be sure that we didn't 10 encroach on a restriction. We're not asking for 40 feet because we don't know exactly 11 where that concrete will be put. Se the request is for not less than 30 feet setback 12 and an accessory building in the front yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I ask iwhy 13 that garage is as big as it is? MS. REEVES: The hobby use for the 14 building is te house a fishing beat in the winter time when it's out of water. The 15 fishing boat is 25 feet long on the trailer. It needs 30-some ~eet ef flat space te pull in 16 undercover, and the winter hobby is ice boating, and there are five ice boats in 17 possession, three of which are historic ice boats built in the 1880s, 1850s. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't ihave one out now? 18 MS. REEVES: Yes. It's on the trailer in the yard. And the hobby use is 20 extended also to the maintenance and repair of those beats, and se the garage houses the 21 fishing beat, the pick-up truck that tows the boat, the ice boats and a work bench. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did have a letter from the Historical Society about :any 23 drainage that would come from the garage; Is there going to be water and heat in the 24 garage? MS. REEVES: Ne water. Heatlis 25 propane, possibly a propane space heateri CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But no wash January 22, 2004 6O 1 2 basin or water? MS. REEVES: No. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are they concerned about any drainage from the 4 construction ef that accessory building t!o the old cemetery there? 5 MS. REEVES: We did the survey additionally with the topographical features 6 in order te shew the steep hill. The proposed site is in a spot adjacent te the existing 7 driveway, which is already a flat spot. !If the concrete slab were put ena spot that~'s 8 already flat, it should net change the drainage. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You ceuldiput in gutters and leaders and put dry wells lin 10 there tee te catch any rainwater coming off the garage just to relieve anybody's 11 concern. MS. REEVES: Yes. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess as 13 long as you're willing te put the gutters in and dry wells, that would help, I have no 14 objection to it, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I feel for your dilemma. You're logistically challenged 16 with the topography of your property. I actually made it up your driveway with a 17 jeep. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn't. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So my!only concern was habitable space up top; it's ~net 19 going to be open attic space? MS. REEVES: The fishing beat will 20 be in the eastern bay ef the building, and above that it will be open. Se the leftiwill 21 only be 24 feet ef the depth ef the building and ever two-thirds of the width of the 22 building. The back 12 feet is lean-to, so it would have ne left above it. 23 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Also you're surrounded by three front yards? 24 MS. REEVES: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 25 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? January 22, 2004 61 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Youi may have answered this question. It's built iinto 3 a hill? MS. REEVES: Ne. The tepegr!aphy 4 there is the only remaining flat spot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 5 picture, photograph? MS. REEVES: The survey? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The! survey and the picture, yes. 7 MS. REEVES: Oh, that, yeah, iit's in essentially the center ef the two acre site 8 and surrounded by trees. It begins in the upper left corner ef the photograph you can 9 see the end ef the switchback for the existing driveway, and then te the upper right is where 10 the embankment falls off in the area adjacent or overlooking the cemetery property. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no issue en height on this? 12 MS. REEVES: The blueprint is designed te meet the restriction of the 18 13 feet average mean height. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many feet 14 to the ridge? MS. REEVES: 22. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 22. MS. REEVES: If I measured 16 correctly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 17 utility, you have electricity only? MS. REEVES: Yes. 18 BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Nelheat? MS. REEVES: We have a propane 19 space heater. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I heard 20 that. Is that a fixed unit? MS. REEVES: Ne. 21 MR. REEVES: No. MS. KOWALSKI: Could I have your 22 name who gave the answer? MR. REEVES: Edwin Reeves. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. I have te write this decision, 24 that's why I'm asking all these questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the old 25 Stern house? MS. REEVES: There are two Stern January 22, 2004 62 1 2 houses. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One is thei 3 barn. MS. REEVES: Joe and Jack. 4 MR. REEVES: Joe and Derotheak HS. REEVES: Joe and Dorothea 5 Stern in the property in question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have ne 6 further questions. Jerry, I'm sorry, did you? BOARD MEMEER GOEHRINGER: Just one 7 ether thing, do we have all the distances en here, all the property lines? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I de. MS. KOWALSKI: There's ne distance 9 to the property line on that one north side. It looks like it's a centaur line. 10 MS. REEVES: It's the edge eS the right of way. The dashed line is the edge of 11 the 25 feet right ef way. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 12 the only one we have, right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the house. 13 BOARD MEMBER ©OEHRINGER: I thought I had eno from the house. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have one from the house, it's 7.7. 15 MS. REEVES: The setbacks that are shown are for the closest corner of any 16 existing structure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGE~: Right. 17 Haybe if it's not an imposition, Mrs. Reeves, maybe within the next couple of days you could 18 plot out what the distance is from the house, what the distance is from the lower right of 19 way, it's se we can get a distance in the decision. It's only to your benefit anyway. 20 MS. REEVES: I'm net sure I understand. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A distance from the proposed garage te the 22 house, which would be west, a distance from the garage te the lower right ef way er 23 property line, and I know these all havei names. The south is Maple and whatever the 24 eno is en the east and you can express them in a plus or minus situation, but at least it 25 gives us great credibility in the decision te be able te tell us, tell any future people January 22, 2004 63 1 2 reading this. MS. REEVES: I can tell you in 3 about twa minutes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Why! 4 don't you let us ge an. You can just giv!e it to us. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Yeul can go look it up. We'll ask if anybody else 6 is there anybody else in the audience that would like te address this application? iYes, 7 sir. MR. KENNEDY: Yes. My name i!s Jay 8 Kennedy, and I have the property immediat!ely te the south ef the Reeves' house, and I ihave 9 struggled with this request for the variance because on the one hand at the same time,i I 10 would like to have a living situation that I would like, which is the neighborhood that 11 bought into, that I moved into. It's a mature neighborhood, meaning there are ne vacanC, 12 unbuilt lots; there are ne subdividable lots and there are zoning restrictions, residential 13 enos that limit future building. I think this request is excessive at 1,225 square feet and 14 22 feet in height, that's a house, and I didn't expect te see a house when I bought my 15 house. I thought I had reason net to expect to see another house when I built my house 16 when I bought my house. I came here in {he spirit of compromise with a suggestion. 17 understand that the primary reason for this variance request is se that Hr. Reeves can 18 work en his boat. I understand that's a hobby. I asked how tall the beat was and I 19 saw it was 12 feet tall, yet the building is 23 feet in height. I asked why there was an 20 additional bay te the garage, and I was told that was te stere a pick up truck. Well, 21 there are twa garages in the basement ef ithe house, and there's also an existing separate 22 large garage, I think it's 21 by 23 square feet. I would hope that there would be ream 23 far the pick-up truck to be stared in either eno ef the twa garages in the house er the 24 large stand alone garage. I would hope that the proposed building could be lower than the 25 23 feet in height, and still accemmodatelthe 12 feet boat. If that were the case, I Would January 22, 2004 1 2 have no objection to the variance. Se my! suggestion is that the variance request b!e 3 resubmitted for a lower structure and a smaller structure. Again, I would have ne % problem with this. It's awkward to do this. I ~epe 5 it's doesn't cause any friction with neighbors. Thank you for hearing me. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank yeu.i Ma'am. 7 HS. SMITH: Hi, my name is Ro!na Smith, and I live in the house te the east ef 8 the Reeves' property. I feel the way Jay does. We really want to be cooperative with 9 the neighbor's use ef their property. I !think part ef the problem, as you mentioned earlier, 10 is that it's a very hilly property, and se that this garage is going to be placed aU 11 about 48 feet above the surrounding rights ef way. Se before a single thing is built, fit's 12 already %8 feet above the roadways. When you put something that at its peak is somewhere 13 between 22 and 28 feet, that's really, really tall. As it is te the person walking en ithose 1% reads, these are unpaved roads, they're single car reads, they're maintained by the people 15 who live in this area; they are frequently -- everybody walks or jogs en these paths. 16 People who don't live right in that area!de because they're se pleasant, country-like. 17 This is a very, very large structure, and it's being placed at almost the highest point ion 18 the hill. Se the fact that it's 36 feet iby 3% feet with a 1,224 feet footprint makes it, as 19 Jay says, as large as a house~ and I think that's a problem. I think it's really a 20 two story tall garage, and I would hope that again, in the spirit ef compromise maybe 21 making it eno story would really help, and then possibly reducing some of the bulk in 22 addition te that so that maybe not everything single thing that you would like te de in it 23 is possible, but at least the main function of working en the beat and the ice beats is 2% possible without having too much space because, as Jay also pointed out, there's a 25 double bay garage under their house and plus a free-standing garage en the property. Se it's January 22, 200% 65 1 2 a question, I think, of how many garages iand hew much storage is appropriate ena 3 residential property, even though I don't~ think zoning addresses that issue, I think 4 that's an issue also. Also, the adjacent old cemetery 5 that's maintained by the Historical Society in Orient is really just below this structure, 6 and while I know they raised the issue of water runoff, which probably isn't an issue 7 because there's ne running water in the structure, I think perhaps they haven't 8 thought about the fact that it looms over that cemetery. The cemetery is really quite, iquite 9 old. It's the sort ef area that you would walk to rather than drive to, and I just iif 10 you look at the survey you can see point ~at which this is being built en almost of the 11 crest of the hill is directly above the cemetery. It's closer to the cemetery than it 12 is to my house. So I have some real concerns of it just changing the character of the 13 neighborhood as it's currently being proposed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.~ Is 14 there anybody else in the audience who would like to address this application? 15 Mrs. Reeves, de you have anything else? HS. REEVES: The framed garage 16 that was mentioned is original te the property, which is 19%0s vintage when vehicles 17 were smaller. The pick up truck is toe small te fit in that garage or the garage in the 18 house. The garage under the house isn't ieven large enough te accommodate an S~IV. We've had 19 a house guest dent the roof ef an SUV making an attempt te try to get under the heuse.~ Se 20 those are both our facilities which will inet accommodate the truck. 21 In addition, the framed garage houses the pressure holding tank associated 22 with the well, which en the survey is shown just to the south ef the existing framed 23 garage and encompasses a good deal of that lower corner} southwestern corner ef the~ 24 garage. The framed garage is adequate te house landscape equipment and tools and 25 gardening projects. The proposed garageihas a small loft, with a roof line that's already January 22, 2004 2 shallow to meet the zoning requirements, iand a knee wall of only three feet, so that it'is not 3 likely to be adaptable te any purpose other than storage. 4 For one of the earlier questions, the distance from the proposed garage to ithe 5 nearest corner of the house, approximately 75 feet te the south te the norther border of the 6 Maple Lane right of way, is approximately 120 feet. The right ef the way te the east is a 7 circular path; the closest point is approximately 120 feet. 8 One of the comments about the topography, the lower portion of the hill is 9 not at zero sea level, understandably the proposed garage is at 58 foot elevation. ~ The 10 building does net sit 40 feet above the road. The read is at 40 feet, the garage is placed 11 18 feet above the read bed and one ef the drawings that I turned in this morning, and 12 may have been added te your package, is my geometry class rendition ef what it would 13 appear in line of site from the 40 foot read bed up abreast the 60 foot high peel and the 14 house that sits at a 68 foot elevation and a full one and a half story at ~hat elevation is 15 net visible. The garage is only visible at a very small corner ef the peak ef the reef from 16 the read bed on the southeastern corner. ! I've lost track of what the other questions were. 17 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I need te ask two other questions if it's all 18 right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for that information, by the way, that you 20 just presented. Is there any other intention at all at any time, Mrs. Reeves, te try and 21 build this into a hill situation without taking down a let ef trees? 22 HS. REEVES: There are more trees elsewhere en the property than there are!- 23 elsewhere en the flat portion. The original thought was to put the building in the 24 southeastern corner of the property so that it would be closest te the access ef Munn Lane, 25 which is the roadway that we use, and the excavation would be extensive with the depth January 22, 2004 67 1 2 of the building to accommodate the length ef the beat, the excavation into the hill side 3 would be extensive. The front ef the building would be even with the read bed, the bach ef 4 the building would essentially be buried in the hillside, and we thought that would 5 execute a bigger drainage problem because Of the removal of the tap sail. The central 6 location of the garage in the lot, which is twa acres, is surrounded by trees in the 7 summer time. It's probably net highly visible. The amount ef square footage R{0 $ zoning, as I recall from the rejection letter fram the Building Department stating less than 9 20 percent, I believe that would be the restriction. The percentage ef let covered 10 with the proposed garage at 1,224 square feet footprint is .0438 percent ef let coverage. 11 The zoning permits up te 20 percent and this proposal is far total lot coverage ef under 12 five percent. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER~ I ~now 13 the ground is frozen, is there any ether ~way that you could have your neighbors 14 understand -- this is just a rhetorical question -- hew the impact of this weuldibe 15 since they peso certain concerns at this time? MR. REEVES: Yes. This morning we 16 went out and put a piece ef cardboard painted white so that it would be highly visible~and 17 nailed it on a tree which is on the eastern border ef the property at the height that we 18 estimate to be the peek of the roof. As~we drove around the property, we could see it in 19 fram only the southern road and fram the northern read, net from the east. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other! questions from the Board? 22 BOAP, D MEMBER ORLANDO: One question you're not open te negotiation with 23 your neighbors? HS. REEVES: The size the building 24 is that was the smallest that we thought would support that hobby use. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ And the size of the beat is? January 22, 2004 68 2 MS. REEVES: It's 30. Which iboat are you talking about? 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The l~rger beat? 4 MR. REEVES: It's 35 feet long on the trailer. The beat itself is 26 feet 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can back it up the driveway? 6 MR. REEVES: I can drive it up the driveway. That's why I bought an P-3 pick-up. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have te jack it in? 8 MR. REEVES: Ne, back right next to the house and back into the garage. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the garage doors are going to face the garage 10 deers en your existing house? MS. REEVES: The garage doers 11 facing south, 3% feet is the front of'the building and that has two garage doors. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pull in and then back it in. 13 MR. REEVES: One ether thing!eh the ice boats new, the ice boats are stuffed 1% into the lower garage up into the rafters and there's absolutely ne way in the world ef 15 working on them. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Have you 16 tried to pull your beat up and put it position where the garages are now? 17 MR. REEVES: Yes. But there'is a trailer with two ice boats en it, and that's 18 the same position. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: In this 19 place? MR. REEVES: Yes. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's why I didn't notice it. You can't shorten this 21 up? MS. REEVES: We tried drawing it 22 beth, north, south, east, west, just about any way that we could, and one ef the items that 23 we attempted te make -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ Because the 24 average person doesn't house a large vessel like that. 25 MR. REEVES: No. The average person doesn't work on it himself eitherk January 22, 2004 69 1 2 What we did to reduce the impact ef the structure was to Nave the back portion ef the 3 building in a lean-to shape so that the roof structure is only 24 by 34, then the back 12 4 feet is a lean-to portion and this photograph, this drawing was part ef the original 5 application whether it's still in the file, I don't know because the original drawing in 6 July was net accepted. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ne other 7 questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 8 just ask one more question? Mr. Reeves, ~was there any attempt to attach the garage tO the 9 house at any time, basically in the same position that the garage is in but moving the 10 garage and attach it te the house and actually the lowering the garage area? 11 MR. REEVES: The only way to ido that would be to put it on the northern end ef 12 the house, and we had discussed that, bu~ the width ef the building would run out ante ithe 13 area of the topography that drops off steeply, and that would require a retaining wall to 14 house the northwest corner ef the new structure. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be primarily cement block anyway, the 16 lower section ef it? MS. REEVES: And it would still 17 encroach on the front yard setback. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're 18 going to de that anyway because ef the three front yard situation. This is a typical 19 Fishers Island house in Southeld in Orient and it's unique because it's close to Fishers 20 Island. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sort of. 21 Mr. Kenny, you had another comment en this? MR. KENNY: Yes. The garage ideers 22 would face the south road, which is where my house is. We have a deck en my house which is 23 where finally we Can spend outdoors whenithe weather permits, and that would be directly 24 facing te the garage deers. And because fit's farther back, if you de your geometry, you see 25 mere ef the garage. Se I think this is excessive. I would like te see a compromise January 22, 2004 7O 1 2 where it's a smaller building, a lower height and less square footage the depth of the 3 garage, 35 feet ef the garage doesn't affect my view. Because I'm just seeing the front, 4 the width and the height of it. I would iask that the variance be denied and be resubmitted 5 with plans for a smaller building, thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.! Anybody else in the audience? Any ether 7 questions from the Beard? I'll make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision 8 until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 9 CHAIRWOH~ OLIVA: Ail in favor? {Whereupon, all Beard Members 10 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Seth and Barbara Eichler who wish te propose a 13 swimming pool at less than 100 feet fremthe top of the bank er bluff, in fact, it's about 14 ten foot; is someone here to represent the Eichlers? Hi, how are you? 15 HS. MOORE: Sorry, we didn't !want te talk in here, so we were out there. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like te tell us? 17 MS. HOORE: We thank you for forwarding to us the report from the soil 18 conservation I think it was. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct. 19 MS. MOORE: We took a look at the report and I wasn't sure if they were 20 leaking -- because we were -- they were talking about trees, and we don't have any 21 trees en this property. There's a property te the west of this property that has lets ef 22 trees, se we don't knew if they went beyond the property line when they were looking at 23 the conditions ef the bluff. Just se you knew, we don't have any trees. 24 This project has gone through the Trustees and the Trustees have us removing 25 some decking on the bluff and bulkheading. We're talking actually going te be improving January 22, 2004 71 I 2 the conditions of the bluff and stabilizing the bluff because, obviously, the owners iwant 3 te make sure that their bluff is protected and the house will stand there f©r another 50 er ~ 100 years. What they are here requesting is the removal ef the above ground pool anditHe 5 construction ef the in-ground pool. And ~we have an original proposal, which is ten feet 6 off the retaining wall with the fact that the soil conservation raised some concerns b~tween 7 Tom Samuels and I and the client, who's Here today, we came up with an alternative plan $ that actually increases the setback even~mere se te give assurances that we're going to 9 protect the bluff. I have an alternative plan and it pushes the peel to 20 feet from the 10 retaining wall. We kind ef squeeze te the extent we could the pool and the terrace, 11 moving everything toward the house. Se I'd like to submit that as an alternative plan 12 that I would like you to consider. Here'is one good one, one original eno. Tom, do youihave 13 beth the old and the new here? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Moore, you are aware that we like this information a 15 little bit before? MS. MOORE: Had we had it we!would 16 have given it to you. Something we're trying to respond to the soil conservation letter 17 that came in. Certainly we would prefer the proposal that's been submitted te you. This 18 is actually to try to address the concerns of the soil conservation. That's why rather than 19 dickering back and forth, we just present it to you right off the bat. 20 HS. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, the plan's dated November 12th. 21 MS. MOORE: I don't knew when did you de it? Could have been November 12th. 22 MS. KOWALSKI: The original eno? That would have been done a couple months age. 23 MR. SAMUELS: The original was dated 11/12. Are you saying th.is eno you just 24 gave us? MS. MOORE: Oh, no, no, I don't 25 think you changed the date. HS. KOWALSKI: Okay, I'll write en January 22, 2004 72 1 2 here revised on today's date. HS. MOORE: Actually, it's been 3 done by fax. Se it's hot off the press. You can see here that we have an existing house 4 that the family's going te renovate, and then the pool is in peer condition, it needs ~e 5 either be replaced er reconstructed. And the plan is to remove the above-ground pool and 6 push back and build an in-ground pool, which I have Tom here te testify with respect te ithe 7 gunite pool system, which is actually a self-contained structural element so that we 8 don't have pressure, the equivalent pressure of a house en the bluff. You have the 9 accessory structure. Tom, why don't you!put in the basis for the gunite peel? 10 HR. S~UELS: You want me to explain now? 11 MS. HOORE: Yes, please. HR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom 12 Samuels and I spoke te the soil conservation folks about pressure en the retaining wall on 13 the top of the bluff. In fact, this would be a gunite which is self-contained. There 14 should be no outward pressure, just downward pressure. And as long as the retaining wall 15 at the top of the bluff is secure and we iare going out now to patch that up and make sure 16 that it is secure, there should be no structural issue. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm goingite be honest with you right from the outset. There 18 is ne way I'm going te grant a pool en the top of a bluff even 20 feet away. I will net 19 grant it. I have always been extremely concerned about putting anything near a bluff 20 en Long Island Sound or en the bay. I will Not de it under no uncertain terms. I am tee 21 worried about the bluff up there, and we ihave one Nor'ouster and your bluff is gene or,very 22 severely eroded. HS. MOORE: Okay. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do my ether members, Jim, speak to that. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I could understand, Ruth, what you said, the fact that 25 the peel was there caused the erosion, I ithink we're getting testimony and have heard January 22, 2004 73 1 2 testimony before that that's net a fact. You knew the erosion is erosion, and it's caused 3 by factors ether than the gunite peel. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hate to 4 interrupt y©u, but also the hale fram the house dawn to the bluff slopes dawn te the 5 bluff. The bluff sometimes is Nigher and slopes dawn towards the house. 6 MS. MOORE: Just se you know, we'll put in any kind ef dry well system 7 certainly landward ef the bluff te make sure that there's no water runoff that gees dawn to $ the bluff. In fact, the ren©vations, all ef these improvements are going to actually 9 enhance the conditions ef the property that is presently there because right now I don't knew 10 that there are any dry wells, there's probably just standard gutters and the renovations are 11 all recognizing the need to retain waterand keep the water fram running dawn into the 12 bluff area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do ne~d a 13 new retaining wall in the first place. You have all this ream dawn here. I see no need 14 far a pool up there. I knew the view is lovely up there, and it's very nice, and!to me 15 it's very dangerous. MSo MOORE: I appreciate that. I 16 knew that waterfront property owners don't want te have peels in their front yard. It 17 will affect the character of the area because all the hemes there they don't want te see 18 families playing in peels in their front iyard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have plenty 19 of room if you want put a pool in front. MS. MOORE: That's not the 20 request. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think 21 that would require a variance also. MR. SAHUELS: Why would that 22 require a variance? MS. MOORE: Our request is not for 23 a peel in the front. I knew my client does not want a peel in the front. 24 MS. KOWALSKI: We do need a variance far a peel in the front yard. 25 MR. SAMUELS: Because it's a~ variance. January 22, 2004 74 2 MS. KOWALSKI: YOU don't need a variance. 3 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I haven't had any pools in the front yard requested. 4 CHAIRWOMAihl OLIVA: That's it? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Like 5 everyone else, the bulkhead is failing se is the deck, and I believe just by glancingiat 6 the peel, the pool failed, I believe the ipeel failed, I think it's shifting up there, iThe 7 house has some cracks on the side ef the concrete, which indicates that the whole !thing 8 has kind ef shifted a little up there. Maybe stabilization with a new bulkhead may reassure 9 that the bulkhead is shifted, the peel tilted. MS. MOORE: You know, we are 10 replacing the bulkhead. We actually have a Trustees permit in place ready to start the 11 work. And, I mean, the Trustees looked at this plan including where the peel is and that 12 was fine. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That may 13 sway soil and water which has downward pressure, not outward pressure, that mayI 14 satisfy the Chairwoman. MS. MOORE: I don't know what te 15 tell you, soil and water, and they made recommendations and some of which are 16 observations that there is deer tracks going through, and se eh, and eating vegetation and 17 some things you can control and some things you can't. We can keep the deer out. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Geehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can 20 suggest two things. One thing I can suggest is we hold this in abeyance until the bluff is 21 reconstructed, se we understand exactly What we have after the bulkheads are reconstructed, 22 and that sleuth slay effect that everybody's talking about is dena. The second issueiis 23 should this area, because ef the size ef ithe area seaward ef the house really accommodate a 24 swimming pool? This is a very similar application that I did net vote en because my 25 father-in-law had C and Rs en property adjacent te it in Mattituck ena much larger January 22, 2004 75 1 2 piece of property, not larger in referen0e to size but larger in reference te depth te ithe 3 top of the bluff so to speak, and what the neighbors ended up doing was taking a deck 4 away~ putting stick fittings underneath and driving pilings underneath a peel and putting 5 a quasi-lap pool in which was the maximum depth of a regular pool. And I have te tell 6 you from an architectural point ef view, iTem, it worked out wonderfully. And that would be 7 probably my recommendation after the bluff or the bulkheads were reconstructed. They also 8 -- these are extremely nice people -- they may allow you to ge up and take 9 a look at this project. Se what I'm saying is, in effect, let's wait and see when it's 10 reconstructed. Hold in abeyance. Let's isee hew much we can really fit one in, if we!can 11 fit eno in at all. Te my knowledge, their pool is a gunite pool, and it is extremely 12 close te the house, which gives you maximum depth to the top ef the bluff. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Tea lap peel right next te the house? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It'is actually, it's almost triangular. It's 15 probably one ef the magnificent architectural feats I've seen. I suspect it was not cheap. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do like Mr. Geehringer's ideal Stabilize that bluff 17 first and correct that bluff first and correct all that sleuthing that we're seeing coming 18 down te the house to the back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It{s 19 just very difficult to visualize it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It scareslme, 20 frankly, I'm thinking of the homeowner himself. When is the proposed reconstruction? 21 MR. SAMUELS: I suppose it could be within that time frame. 22 BO~_D MEMBER ORLANDO: You would be doing the bulkhead before the peel anyway? 23 MR. SAMUELS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ I think it 24 had to be done no matter what, peel or no pool. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think itlhad to be dena. January 22, 2004 76 1 2 BOARD MEMEER DINIZIO: What about turning the peel sideways? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like Jerry's saying put it up against the Nouse and do a 4 lap pool. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that they 5 want a lap pool, I mean, they have children. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please 6 excuse me, this is not a lap pool that this gentleman built. It fits the uniqueness iof 7 the situation. It does have maximum depth and that's exactly what this lady and gentleman 8 did. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The way you 9 turn it around it may need a kidney shape instead, but keep it larger than a lap. I0 BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Lap only means it has a maximum depth ef four feet. 11 MS. MOORE: What I knew is lap peels are ten by ten. 12 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: They architecturally constructed this peel that the 13 deepest end was at the worst possible situation, and they did that by driving 14 pilings underneath it and putting spread! footings in and believe it or not, your father 15 did the job? MR. SAMUELS: I think it's 16 sticking up in the air. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It{s 17 truly magnificent. MS. MOORE: Do we want to leave 18 the hearing open? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leave it open 19 until we get new plans in for the reconstruction of the retaining wall. 20 MS. MOORE: That's the Trustees permit is it reconstruction or is that your 21 dad? MR. SAMUELS: The DEC was the ones 22 that wanted the meat specific. The Trustees did net require detail. 23 MS. MOORE: We'll give you copies for the plans, we assume they were approved as 24 they were submitted. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm net 25 clear on that, we're going to hold it, until you come back with some plans approved by January 22, 2004 77 1 2 somebody, right, they're going to be approved by for this bulkhead? 3 MS. MOORE: I think the way t understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, 4 hold me in abeyance. You're going to have the plans for the reconstruction. Once the DEC 5 has approved it, then we know it's an approved plan and then we can tell yen what our 6 construction schedule is. At that point ithen we can have a better idea and -- 7 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: You'll have an engineer's report too? 8 MS. MOORE: We have an architect. MR. SAMUELS: I would probably 9 want to back it up for my own sake. MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. We could 10 certainly provide the documentation that you're comfortable with that the peel would 11 net undermine or further erode er affect the bluff in any way. I'm hopeful that that's the 12 kind of response that we should get. And then if we can even further 13 design this peel, eno possibility is thei possibility that the pool could actuallyiceme 14 closer to the side property line te ten feet, which would give us a little more teem en -- 15 it's still, unfortunately, eno of the triangles ef the peel is going te be parallel 16 to the bank, but we might be able to squeeze a little bit. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very goodl Thank yen. Is there anybody else in thei 18 audience that would like te speak en this application? 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One mere thing, the peel en the alternative plan is 18 20 by what is it? MR. SAMUELS: 28. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:: I can{t read it on my copy. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I~11 makeia motion to hold this hearing in abeyance until 23 we receive the proper documentation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Member~ 25 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So meved, i January 22, 2004 78 1 2 Thank you very much. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is for Mark Stufane by Camp 4 Mineola Road in Mattituck? MS. MOORE: That's mine, 5 Stufano. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There was!a 6 prior on that? MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you very 7 much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you wanted 8 to amend that te conform with the prier? MS. MOORE: Two things, one, ~thank 9 you, Linda, for conforming that prior and Seutheld has certainly been agreeable to that 10 prier decision. The prior decision had a 27 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot rear 11 yard setback. The only thing if you could amend the decision ef the no enclosure ef 12 whatever deck, whatever the plan was, we don't have a copy of the plan ef the house that was 13 submitted. Se my only concern in reading the decision was that we have a design that has a 14 covered perch, a roofed-over porch, and as long as you don't consider that te be 15 inconsistent with your decision, I won't submit it to the Building Department with that 16 decision and have the Building Department reject it and say, did you mean this or did 17 you net mean this; er is this plan okay under your prior decision. Se in order to do some 18 housekeeping, I want te make sure that since we already had the filing fee, the notices 19 we're here, we just want te be sure that!our plan with a roofed ever covered perch would be 20 an acceptable plan within the parameters ef the 27 that you had established. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ Closest point from the rear yard te the covered deck 22 is 27 feet? MS. MOORE: Right -- nor thelfront 23 yard. Did you say rear or front? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Rear. Te 24 the edge of the deck. MS. MOORE: To the deck or 25 whatever they've got and the front is 27k The only issue I guess you guys said no stoops. January 22, 2004 79 1 2 It said something about stoops included, land I was like steeps are usually setback issues. 3 And se maybe you want te double check your decision to make sure. 4 MS. KOWALSKI: Still need a map. MS. MOORE: I had the surveyor 5 take out the stoop based on what I read from the decision, I thought, oh, I can't have a 6 stoop. MS. KOWALSKI: There was a 7 question at one time what they would allow a 5.6 feet stoop area and the applicant agreed 8 te include the steep area in that footprint. MS. MOORE: Now they're specific 9 in the cedes it says that stoops aren't included in the setbacks. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEH9INGER: As long as it's not a steep that's seven or ten feet 11 wide. MS. KOWALSKI: Five by six? 12 MS. MOORE: Five by six is the maximum that's permissible without affecting 13 the setback. MS. KOWALSKI: Yes. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, do you have any questions? 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're 17 going to what, withdraw this? MS. MOORE: I don't knew hewlyou 18 want te de it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a past 19 decision they made in '97. We're just following it, just going back te it. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I hadiit down as granted for the same reason? 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's fine. MS. MOORE: Just read through the 22 decision since the stoop is no longer issue. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Copy the decision, white out that. 24 MS. MOORE: Ne enclosure, we have the plans today, but I don't know what the 25 plans were. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Covered January 22, 2004 8O 1 2 porch not to be enclosed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're !not 3 going to say, hey, you abide by the decision of such and such. 4 MS. MOORE: I don't know how iyou write it. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Since !you spent the dime. 6 MS. MOORE: Since you spent ~he money already, just clean it up. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess you're offering proof ef the fact they already 8 had the variance; why shouldn't you just iget the variance. 9 MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 10 anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application? If not, I'd like 11 to close the hearing and reserve decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 13 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 14 .............................................. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 15 hearing is Thomas DeWelf, who would like ire put an addition en his reef en Sterling Place; 16 is that correct? MR. DeWOLF: Yes. I don't have 17 much te add te what I submitted in writing. At the moment there's a large living room with 18 .a small bedroom te the south of it, an addition very small. And upstairs there iare 19 two attic rooms whose floor area is basically equivalent to the main ream en the downstairs. 20 Se I want te convert the two little attic rooms upstairs for a bedroom for myself and 21 add a small, I think it's about seven foot area er square er something, bathroom to 22 accompany Ehe bedroom. It's really that simple. 23 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer, de you have any questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been there, no, I don't have any questions. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. January 22, 200~ 82 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want 3 to verify what I think I see there. You'ive added ente the existing structure, net going 4 beyond the existing footprint, includingla little section on the second floor over that 5 south side over there? MR. DEWOLP: Exactly. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tell us hew big that square footage is. 7 MR. DEWOLF: 125. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, 8 we're only putting 125 square foot on? MR. DEWOLP: Yes. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like 10 te speak en this application? If net, I'ill make a motion te close the hearing and reserve 11 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 13 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Se moved. 14 .............................................. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Next 15 application is Richard and Dorothy Poggi they wish te put a window out on their second 16 floor, six foot setback up high. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir. 17 MR. ULLENDAHL: Yes, my nameiis Frank Ullendahl, I'm the architect. I was 18 approached by Hrs. Poggi actually. She feels that the wall facing the driveway is just toe 19 bland, and she would like te give it some more life. In addition, she needs a little more 20 air, actually more light in the bedroom. I'm suggesting -- I proposed to cantilever the 21 existing dormer that's there out above the driveway by 36 inches. But this, ef course, I 22 need a variance for this. The combined side yards already the existing condition is less 23 than 25 feet so we would be encroaching by two and-a-half feet into this. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne 25 questions. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Hr. Orlando? January 22, 2004 82 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The dormer ridge is going to be straight out continuous? 3 MR. ULLENDAHL: Correct. I think I did a little sketch. What I would have te 4 de is we would have to demolish part of the dormer because I have to project the dormer 5 out and then suspend the three feet cantilever from the roof structure because, you knew, we 6 don't want any columns underneath. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 7 questions. CHAIRWONL~N OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been there. It's a beautiful house. I have 9 no specific objection. It does elongateithe house, of course, but it is a cantilever iand 10 it's suspended in the air. So it's got to be 20 feet in that general range. I don't have 11 any objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 12 anybody in the audience that would like te speak on this application? I'd like te make a 13 motion closing the hearing and reserve decision until later. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 15 {Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 17 application is a stone's threw from Mr. PiN~e. Todd Jenson 819 Linnet Street, Greenport. 18 MS. BISHOP: Stacey Bishop from Future Surroundings representing Mr. and!Mrs. 19 Jensen. Mrs. Jenson is here, Mr. Jenseniis at work. 20 What they propose te do is replace an existing structure nonconforming with!a new 21 one that conforms te Town Cede as far as! setbacks and lot coverage. They have received 22 Department of Health permits for the project and in the course of obtaining the building 23 permits we discovered this property was merged with the Purcell property next doer. Each 24 property is owned by a separate family, ilt has separate dwellings, separate facilities, 25 separate tax bills, ne encroachments, ne!need to change any let definition. We're just January 22, 2004 83 1 2 asking that this be unmerged se they can proceed with their building project. Pat had 3 found from Building Department let creation 71. We have submitted the subdivision maps ~ and the plans and this lot should stand on its own. I would ask the Board to expedite a 5 decision in this matter because presently the Jensens are residing in a rented ream at the 6 Blue Dolphin in East Marion, which they Nave and which they have until the first. I have 7 spoken with the vice-president of the modular manufacturer who can jump their production 8 ahead, and I have local trades en standby. So pending approval ef this unmerger, I can!get 9 the house in and get them in before theyilose their lease en that. Otherwise they're 10 essentially homeless. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, if the 11 Board agrees we usually have our meetinglin twa weeks, and after that they will be written 12 up and you can wait another week, so yeul should have it in early Harch. 13 MS. BISHOP: Okay, because I de have the Building Permit approved pending the 14 outcome of this hearing, everything elseiis in order. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if anybody else has any questions. Mr. Dinizie? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. I think you said everything that I want you to 17 say. You received separate tax bills. When they purchased the let, did it belong teithe 18 person next door? HS. BISHOP: Ne. Prank Fields. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The lot next door, who does that belong to? 20 MS. BISHOP: The Purcells. At the time that the Jensens purchased it, they!did 21 receive clear title. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The titlei 22 company really screwed up. MS. BISHOP: They have another 23 clear title search. They have a clear title, again, they have approval for septic issues 24 and the Building Department. It's a single and separate search which I don't believe the 25 mortgage companies t!rpically do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It depends January 22, 2004 1 2 on who's doing the loan. They were not eware of anything until -- 3 MS. BISHOP: Just until we went to the Building Department. He's applied for and 4 received for additions to the home and COs to the home through this whole process. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Two properties don't share anything? 6 MS. BISHOP: Nothing, nothing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne wells, 7 no nothing? MS. BISHOP: Ne. 8 CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Glancing 9 through here, there was a CO issued to this parcel in 1967; is that correct? 10 MS. BISHOP: Ne. On the property card? 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:. Or '69. MS. BISHOP: '69 yes, yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that the original house? 13 MS. BISHOP: We weren't able te find that out. The closest we could find in 1% 1970, and this made it a single and separate property but that's -- 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The house is long gene since. I drove by. No other 16 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same as the questions this morning. Ne additional 18 change in topography, ne extensive fill te this property for the construction ef the new 19 house? MS. BISHOP: No. The proposed 20 structure conforms to everything with respect to lot coverage, no change in topographyi 21 whatsoever and -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was 22 the question this morning? MS. KOWALSKI: Lot lines. 23 BO~D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: NoI change in lot lines? 24 MS. BISHOP: No change in lot line. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One other question. Were people living in that home? January 22, 2004 85 2 MS. BISHOP: Yes. The Jensens moved in when the purchased it in 1991, but 3 were done with it in preparation of this project. 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So they have lived there since 19917 5 MS. BISHOP: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Paid ~axes, 6 separate tax bill you have, went for building permit and they didn't own the property. 7 MS. BISHOP: What happened was the existing structure had extensive termite 8 damage. They just welcomed their newborn sen and the cold weather, you don't want a little 9 baby around the demolition. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right.i So 10 they demolished it, and they found out when the went for the building permit? 11 MS. BISHOP: This is a new process. They have been contemplating this 12 for a number of years. I think Mr. Jenson had the opportunity with regard te his friend te 13 demolish the house at that time se he took advantage of that. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have anything else. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else who would like te comment on this? If net, 16 I'd like te make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 18 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for coming. 20 .............................................. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 21 hearing is Hr. Grim's request, his famous horse barn. Mr. Grim, you need ten acres, 22 right? HR. GRIM: Yes. 23 MS. KOWALSKI. You submitted!a new map, right? 2% MR. GRIM: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garrett kind ef 25 etched out for your tillable acres, I believe. MR. GRIM: Right. I think that January 22, 2004 86 1 2 was a question you had, yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What else ido 3 you want te tell us? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 4 ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. iGrim, you have teld us that this is primarily fer 6 use of your family? MR. GRIM: Yes. 7 BO~D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have three girls? 8 MR. GRIM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many 9 horses do you anticipate en this preperty? MR. GRIM: Prebably just two.i But 10 I have three girls and if ene gets upset. I've been through toe many battles with the 11 three of them where they go, Dad, she gets treated better than me, se we have te try to 12 ge equal. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This may 13 seund redundant. What do you think the max weuld be, ene for each girl? 14 MR. GRIM: Yes. Strictly family, strictly my girls. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Se there's 16 no boarding of other herses? MR. GRIM: Ne, sir. 17 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I think Garrett Strang is fairly clear. I don'tieven 18 knew why this is here, that's all I know] CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's here 19 because he's needs ten acres. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No 21 questiens. I give Mr. Grim my reservatiens the last time with the reads and the rifle 22 range. So there was no qualms later that that didn't exist. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the berm, you're geing to keep the berm or -- 24 MR. GRIM: Whatever you guys!want, whatever yeu want. I'll de whatever yeu~want. 25 Yeu want it te go, it goes; yeu want it te stay, it stays; you want the bushes te stay, January 22~ 2004 87 1 2 whatever you want. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going 3 to keep the trailer there, Den, or what? MR. GRIM: The security trailler? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. GRIM: I'd like te 'cause when 5 the horse comes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've go~ that 6 already? MR. GRIM: Yes, I got that and 7 that should be numbered with a Town Beard number. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's geed ifer what, six months? 9 MR. GRIM: And a Town Board resolution. Ed Forester was looking all !along 10 the north fork and Southeld Town, and he ihad to give them tea lady in the Town Clerk'is 11 office, and she's been out with a bad hip. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Joyce. 12 MR. GRIM: Okay, I spoke te Jeyce. It's en ones they give me. 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Grim, you don't have set plans for the barn, you 14 just want te get through this stage first? MR. GRIM: I know everything!takes 15 time. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, true. 16 MR. GRIM: Something with the doors facing south for the sun, the barnl 17 doors. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 18 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in 19 the audience that would like te speak onithis application? Mr. Heinrich? 20 MR. HEINRICH: The name is Bernard Heinrich. I live en County Road 48. I think 21 you have to consider what Mr. Strang hasldene is just an estimated not actual. Your 22 particular application calls for a survey, which is net in the file, an accurate survey. 23 According to the latest document he has %.89 acres, which is less than five tillable 24 acres. My only concern in this particular 25 property is, number one, it's been used mostly as an industrial lot. Second of all in this January 22, 2004 88 i 2 town we have a me too, living on 48 it ko!eps creeping up. Adjacent te him is also a 3 security trailer. What they need securit!y for I don't know. We have a police department. % There's no local vandalism on a local lot~. Thank you. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Grim? MR. GRIM: We went in front of the 6 Town Board for the security trailer because we were getting not vandalism, but a let ef 7 things dumped on the property; I guess 'oause it is an industrial area. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also you're zoned AC? 9 MR. GRIM: Ne, I mean, pretty much everything around it. I mean, if you want to 10 give me an industrial zeno I'll take it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That wasn't my 11 question. MR. GRIM: But at night because 12 the areas from workers that are there from 8:00 te 5:00, there's not many residents iin 13 the area and every morning yqu cema and people have dumped things all ever. The security 1% guard trailer was just so people wouldn't dump things, and because on that easement there was 15 a lot of dumping going eh. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: Hew does 16 the security trailer benefit you; what is the purpose ef it being there is; how is it used 17 te deter people? MR. GRIM: Well, if they see fat 18 night -- if they see a light en er movement. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: It's kind 19 efa working movement? MR. GRIM: Yeah. There's a little 20 action. Let's net pull down there, I see something. That's what I'm trying to say at 21 night most ef the people leave. At night en Cox Lane most of the people ge home. It's 22 busy during the day but at night when everybody gees home that's when people drive 23 down there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam 2~ Chairman, I think I alluded to the fact that I sat in on the hearing because I had a Town 25 Beard appointment when I was chairpersenien this Board on Mr. Thomas' property, which is January 22, 2004 89 1 2 next door. Mr. Thomas is a landscaper. that hearing, he told the Town Board and Has 3 granted a similar permit te what Hr. Grim has. He told the Town Beard that he had e lot 4 gasoline and diesel fuel stolen from his vehicles, and that it was extremely costlly te 5 him, and I suspect that that was probably one of the reasons why the Town Beard granted him 6 a security trailer. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also Rich 7 Cerzini had one put in last year also. MR. GRIM: That's what happens. 8 That's what I'm trying to say, at night when everybody goes home. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's not unusual for Cox Read from what I knew ef !it. 10 But maybe te mitigate some of the problems ef the neighbor and you need eno for a building 11 permit anyway, can we do a real survey from a licensed surveyor? 12 HR. GRIM: Yeah, Garret. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: He just 13 sketched. MR. GRIM: I can't answer for 14 Garret. We'll get you whatever you want. MS. KOWALSKI: Because the Beard 15 had asked for a survey. Just make me a punch list, but I think actually it says there's 16 five tillable acres. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He just 17 sketched it out. He sketched out areundithe edges. He didn't make it clear. 18 HR. GRIM: I knew but I think he does show. 19 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: We'lllput everyone's mind at ease. 20 MR. GRIM: Whatever you want} I'll get you. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: would the!berms be shown on the survey? 22 MR. GRIM: If you want them they'll be there. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leave them there. 2% MR. GRIM: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we know 25 where they are. MR. GRIM: You want to give me a January 22, 2004 90 1 2 punch list. Whatever you guys want. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I thinx 3 it's just the eno thing, it's just the su!rvey. HR. GRIM: You want seven cepiies % of the survey showing the five tillable acres. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO. And alil its structures. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail the be~rms and -- 7 MS. KOWALSKI: We'll give you a letter. 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is stamped by an architect not a surveyor. 9 MR. GRIM: Okay. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the 10 Building Department will want that as well. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You'll need 11 that anyway. MR. GRIM: Whatever you want.i 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any anything further to say, Mr. Heinrich? 13 HR. HEINRICH: If I may, I'd like te add something else. If you look at the map 14 you'll see the location of the so-called security trailer. There's ne way in this 15 world anybody in that trailer en the west -- north end of the property blocked by a large 16 industrial building can look ever the property. Thank you. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions from the Beard? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Grim, is that where the trailer's going te stay or 19 are you going to move it to a more visible trailer? 20 MR. GRIM: Wherever you want] I was just trying to not have it visible. I was 21 trying to do the right thing 'cause I know -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Town Board 22 doesn't like to see visible trailers. They try to screen them in so they're not obtrusive 23 right out on 48, I'll p~t it there. MR. GRIM: That's what I wasi 2% trying to do, but if you want it out by 48, I'll put it there. Put it in the letterL 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I den~t think that we should get in the business~of January 22, 2004 91 1 2 telling Mr. Grim how to do security on hils property. Thet's not our -- he got approval 3. for a security trailer. As long as he meets the setbacks. It's his property, as far !as 4 I'm concerned. And he's get it for security, and we don't know what his problems are. 5 MS. KOWALSKI: Garret's coming in now. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Per the record, I just want te tell the Board that I 7 toured the building in the rear of the property at Mr. Grim's, okay, and in that 8 b~ilding I found four historical tractors, and a couple historical trucks. I saw ne ether 9 use of that building ether than for storage ef these vehicles, ef which are hobby vehicles 10 for Mr. Grim and whomever; is that correct, Mr. Grim? 11 HR. GRIM: Yes, okay. Thankiyeu very much. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MN. STRANG: Thank you. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a motion closing the hearing and reserving 14 decision until later pending receipt ef the new site survey. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 16 {Whereupon, all Beard Members responded in favor.) 17 (Time ended: 2:45 p.m.) 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 January 22, 2004 92 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public f!or the State of New York, do hereby certify:! 5 THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. 6 I further certify that I am net related by bleed or marriage, to any of the parties ite 7 this action; and THAT I am in ne way interested in the 8 outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, I have hereunto set my 9 hand this 22nd day of January, 2004. 10 11 12 Florence V. Wiles 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 January 22, 200%