Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/26/2004 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 3 5 TOWN O F S OUT H 0 L D 6 7 Z ON I N G BOARD O P A P P E A L S 8 9 ............................................ Seutheld Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Seuthold, New York 11 ~/~__ ~ ~04 February 26, 2004 12 9:30 a.m. 13 14 Beard Members Present : 15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairweman 16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 17 LYDIA TORTORA, Beard Hember 18 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 19 JAHES DINIZIO, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Beard Secretary 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first public hearing is eno that was carried over 3 from January 22nd, that is Hartha Cassidy, who wishes to build a tennis court en an 4 undeveloped piece of land. Miss Wickhami MS. WICKHAM: Good morning. 5 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: How are you this morning? 6 MS. WICKHAM: Very good, thank you. Hy name is Abigail Wickham, representing 7 the applicant. I have Susan Gardner here, who is the owner of two of the adjoining lots and 8 has been working with me on this application as well as Mr. Cybulski from Sea Breeze 9 Tennis. I'd like to start by emphasizing, 10 I think mere than I did at the last hearing, that we believe this is an Area Variance, it 11 is not a Use Variance. The distinction is quite specific and an Area Variance does not 12 involve a use, which is prohibited by the zoning ordinance and does not seek a change in 13 the essential use of the land. A tennis court is clearly a permitted use in this district 14 and on this property. The variance is merely as to whether or not a residence or principal 15 use needs to be established in order to maintain it and that is an Area Variancei 16 It's a little bit confusing because we're talking about whether you can use it fer~a 17 tennis court but it's not a Use Variance} and I think quite clearly the criteria ef an Area 18 Variance applies. As te these criteria, we de net 19 believe there will be an undesirable change because the applicant and her partner, Susan 20 Gardner, own the property immediately to!the south en which there is a residence located, 21 and it is occupied by a family member, and the residence immediately to the east, which is 22 owned jointly by beth of them. We would be willing to covenant that should -- first} two 23 things, first ef all that they would netisell the lot in question with only the tennislceurt 24 on it outside of the family; and~ secondly, that if they sold both of the houses, the one 25 adjoining and the one across the street, lthat the tennis court use would be discontinued er February 26, 2004 3 1 2 a residence added in order to comply with the cede, and that could be the basis of a 3 covenant en all three properties which would be clearly marked and enforceable. 4 The impact ef that is that you don't have the concern that was expressed 5 previously, which is an isolated court that nobody lives nearby, nobody is supervising and 6 ne eno has te listen to. Se I think that's very important. 7 The benefit to the applicantl cannot be achieved by any ether method other 8 than merging the let, and as I described before that would have a severe financial 9 consequence, which I think would be far outweighed by balancing of the equities in 10 terms ef what the downside here is te the neighborhood. The amount ef relief is not 11 substantial because they do have adjoining and adjacent property, which are going to be as 12 impacted by this as the neighbors. And for that reason it would not have a significant 13 adverse impact er effect en the physical~or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 14 It is a permitted use in the zoning district. The variance I think has been 15 self-created. That does not in and ef itself require you to deny the variance and the 16 construction is net existing, something that we're here to do with safeguards that you 17 might impose. The applicant does have the option 18 and has seriously considered if this variance is denied just going ahead and building a 19 small house for rental and putting the court en it, and she obviously doesn't want te have 20 to go te that financial expense either, but that is an option, and I think that that would 21 have a significantly more aGverse impact en the neighborhood than the granting of the 22 relief that's requested. I'd like te address two other 23 things briefly. The first is the issue ef drainage. Obviously, that's going to be! 24 discussed and Hr. Cybulski can talk about that. The work that was done on the property 25 was merely te punch through the top layer ef soil to get te the sand in order te alleviate February 26, 2004 1 2 an accumulation ef water. In the summer~ that's a concern. The tennis court regrSding 3 will eliminate the concern for the entire neighborhood, which would be to their benefit. 4 And there was no fill added en that as far as that pile of dirt that is there, it will be 5 graded out as part of the construction. ~ It Oas what was in the hole that was removed, and 6 they put sand back in. Se the sand that was added is under the ground, it's net the pile. 7 That pile is not added. It was merely to alleviate a minor drainage issue, and we did $ speak to the Building Department and Mr. Forester before proceeding to make sure it 9 was allewed~ I did have quite an effort trying 10 te find a comparable precedent. I knew that there are several tennis courts in the T©wn 11 that I believe are preexisting en vacant lots, and these have been there for years without 12 incident. One is the eno en New Suffolk, en New Suffolk Avenue on Kimogenar Point, that's 13 been there many, many years. The other I'm aware ef is the ~raut's tennis court en 14 Vanston Road in Nassau Point in a very densely populated residential neighborhood that has 15 been privately used for many, many years without consequence. 16 There was, interestingly enough, a variance granted by your Beard in 1977 te 17 Hr. Lamerte, Appeal Number 2313 for a tennis court. The variance was for a fence but that 18 variance did allow a tennis court ena lot that didn't have a principal building on!it. 19 It happened to have a swimming pool on it, but the house is on a separate lot. For some 20 reason the accessory nature of the use -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham, 21 that was 30 years ago, times have changed. MS. WICKHAH: Yes, that was 22 another instance of when a court existedl I spoke to the neighbor, Mr. Cope, who has lived 23 next to that for many years, and he has never had a problem With it. So I think that While 24 the Board has not granted that type of precedent that I have been able to ascertain, 25 certainly these situations de exist in the town without, as far as I've been able te February 26, 2004 5 1 2 tell, adverse consequence, and we would be able to understand that the condition eflthe 3 approval be that the court not be used for commercial purposes, in other words, that a 4 commercial instructor could not come in and give lessons te people who are Net related te 5 the family because I think Mr. Dinizie had concern about that er perhaps Hr~ Orlando. 6 The only other precedent that I can ascertain, and I have it here, I'll get it 7 when I sit down, is the granting ef an accessory use permit down in Pine Neck Read. 8 If yen recall, some time ago that Hr. Berger asked for your permission te split an 9 undersized lot, and that left a garage en the property. The concern there was the condition 10 ef the property and there were covenants put en that relating to screening condition, et 11 cetera. I don't recall if there were conditions as te ownership, hut i think we 12 discussed that as well, and I have that appeal number for your reference. 13 Screening is something that we would be willing to do. I think given a 14 tennis court's seasonal nature, the putting of shrubbery that grows up high, natural looking 15 shrubbery like forsythia, which is in the neighborhood at this time, might be something 16 appropriate, or if you have ether suggestions, we'd be glad to consider them. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would yeu~ refresh my memory, how far from the read would 18 this tennis court be? MS. WICKHAM: From the read the 19 court is setback, if you'd let me get my map out, quite a number of feet because we had 20 projected a full residence setback without variance, and then with the residence itlis 21 62.6 -- 67.5 feet from the property line te the fence, and se right inside the fencing is 22 the court. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also 23 there's a natural grade going downhill te the west from the read. 24 HS. WICKHAH: That's correct. CHAIRWOMiLN OLIVA: That's going to 25 have te be filled in? MS. WICKHAM: I'll have February 26, 2004 6 1 2 Mr. Cybulski address that. That leaves the tennis court %7.5 feet from the rear line, se 3 it could be moved back further, if need be, that was the proposal. 4 Can I have Mr. Cybulski answer your questions about the amount ef fill and 5 grading? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. Ge0d 6 morning. HR. cybulski: Geed morningi. Bud 7 Cybulski. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: How are you? 8 MR. Cybulski: I guess just to answer your questions, if you built the court 9 at the grade that's there right now, you!d end up with a swimming peel rather than the tennis 10 court. Se it will have to be raised approximately a foot from the existing grade, 11 which would still leave it about a foot above the road, drainage will be necessary if there 12 is a layer ef clay in there, which we found when we made the drainage there now. 13 It was not a problem, it wasn't that deep, and it should work out all right. 14 The topsoil and clay that is removed would be left on the property and then graded back up 15 to the tennis court when it's finished, so it really wouldn't leek out ef place. 16 One ether concern I've heard~is there's noise from a tennis court when people 17 play. This is proposed to be a clay court and a lot less noise from a clay court than from 18 an asphalt court. Any ether questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ Ne questions. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ Maybe with 21 Gall, net with Mr. Cybulski. CHAIRWOHAN 0LIVA: Jerry? 22 BOARD HEMMER GOEHRINGER~ What would be the negative effect, Mr. Cybulski, if 23 you lowered the court and you actually built walls around three sides ef it? 24 HR. Cybulski: Drainage problems I think would be the negative effect, but could 25 it be resolved, I'm sure, it's done all the time, but you get quite involved with drainage February 26, 2004 7 1 2 then and it gets quite expensive. BOARD'MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you 3 said this is a clay court, you were saying it's a composition of clay, er is it that new % material? MR. Cybulski: It's the new 5 material the Hard True court, which is the improved clay court. I think you've each get 6 a handout in your folders that I presented te the Beard. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is this court now that we can look at it again? 8 MR. Cybulski: This type ef court? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 9 MN, CYBULSKI: Derek Seefus in Orient. We built eno last year that you 10 approved in Southold for Copala. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 11 MR. CYBULSKI: That's that type of court. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's off ef Town Hall, right by the 7-Eleven?! 13 MR. CYBULSKI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se!we 1% can check the boing factor out on that, net that we don't believe you. 15 MR. CYBULSKI: North Fork Country Club has halfway clay, halfway Hard True~ 16 It's net a full Hard True court, but they are the same, basically the same court. 17 BO}~D HEHBER GOEHRINGER: I was happy to hear from the attorney in reference 18 te the possibility ef screening. In reality if there's a situation where you have this 19 huge, massive thing -- please, in ne way am I degrading this court because a court is a very 20 nice thing -- but I think screening is an effective tool if the Board is se inclined to 21 grant this. MR, CYBULSKI: Derek Seefus' court 22 in Orient, you cannot see it from the read. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's got 15 23 foot high privet there. MR. CYBULSKI: Ruth, you canisee 24 it all the time, I'm sure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can hear it 25 too. HR. CYBULSKI: You can hear it? February 26, 2004 8 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sllre. I can hear it when they play. I don't mind it. I'm 3 saying if the wind's right. MR. CYBULSKI: It would be louder 4 if it was a hard court. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's not 5 objectionable. Mrs. Tortora, de you have any 6 questions for Mr. Cybulski? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Nc, I would 7 like te address counsel. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Miss 8 Wickham, Hrs. Tertora. BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: You stated 9 this is the Area Variance because the ~rea is in question. I don't necessarily agree with 10 the way that the notice ef disapproval was written. It appears te me that what you are 11 requesting is te put an accessory use ena vacant let that has no principal use on it. 12 The cede clearly permits tennis courEs as an accessory. There is ne principal use on the 13 property at this time. The preperEy is vacant. 14 MS. WICKHAM: Right. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have had 15 ether cases similar te this, and I was trying te recall it, and I just did recall it. It 16 was a case involving a cell tower out in Orient where the applicants wished to place a 17 cell tower ena vacant lot and there was no principal use en the lot. I'm pretty sure we 18 could dig up these records that it was denied. As far as it being aR Area 19 Variance, it could only be an Area Variance if the area in question was insufficient. In 20 this case, the area is not really -- I don't agree with you. I don't think it's a question 21 that the area is insufficient, there's ne principal use on it, and the cede simply does 22 Net permit an accessory use ena let where there's ne principal use. Se in my mind, that 23 is the issue. The only question i have is that 24 you say it would create an extreme financial hardship if the let was merged, but you are 25 willing te covenant and restrict it se it would be sold te family members. Why net just February 26, 200% 1 2 ge ahead and merge the lots? HS. WICKHAM: Becanse then they 3 could never at any point in the future sell it separately. They wenld lose incredible Value, 4 and she has children, you know, some day she's going te want to use that for her family or 5 pass that down. Saying that yen're going te covenant against lack ef common ownership is a 6 let different than saying you can never have a separate let. It's a lot different. 7 Could I ge back te the Area/Use Variance use issue? Area Variance is a 8 confusing term because it doesn't just mean area consideration. It's the nature of the 9 variance that's being addressed. There's a case I can give you a copy of, Boyagen versus 10 the Village ef East Kills, that had the definition that I cited earlier as to the 11 distinction between an Area and Use Variance. But an Area Variance has te de with building 12 heights, setbacks, all different types of things that are net specifically area. Use 13 Variances have te do with something that,s just not permitted at all. A cell tower is a 14 commercial use, I think that's a distinction. A tennis court is a residential use that is 15 permitted as an accessory. Ail we're asking is that the principal use net be required at 16 this time. A~d that is an Area Variance} although it doesn't sound right because it's 17 not addressing the area, but it is an Area Variance net a Use Variance. 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know that we also did have a similar case, and would 19 have to pull up the files on this, about a year age involving the same argament, and at 20 that time a lot of court cases were submitted as te whether it was an Area Variance or 21 Use. I think the real point here is net that a tennis court is not permitted, a tennis 22 court is a permitted use; it's a permitted use as an accessory tea principal use. There is 23 ne principal use en this property. MS. WICKHAM: Correct, that is the 24 nature ef the application. I agree withiyeu, but I don't think it's a Use Variance. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Miss Wickham, you've said if we denied it, that February 26, 2004 10 1 2 they would possibly build a small house -- MS. WICKHA~: Yes. They haVe 3 that right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: - on thei 4 property and then put in the tennis court. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That was my only thought. Perhaps, as I say, I don't 6 agree with the way the notice of disapproval was written because I de agree with you that, 7 yes, it is a permitted use, but it is not permitted as a principal use; it's permitted 8 as an accessory use, and there is no principal en the property. 9 MS. WICKHAM: That's cerrectl. But it's an Area Variance request, it's net a Use 10 Variance request. Because a Use Variance is when you want te take a piece of property 11 that's zoned residential, for instance, er let's say, residential office or something, 12 and make it something different in terms of the use that's allowed en that property per 13 se. Per instance, there was a case that!had to de with -- let me ge back while I'm 14 researching that to give you the citation that I have on the accessory use that you 15 determined previously, 5058, and that appeal number did have the common ownership 16 conditions that I talked about previously. Do you have other questions? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: ONe 18 question I wanted to clarify, the adjoining lots on the west side of Young's Avenue, 19 you're saying both lots surrounding the tennis court are by family members? 20 MS. WICKHAM: No. On the west side of Young's Avenue the southern lot is 21 owned by them. The northern lot, I believe the owner of that lot was here last time~and 22 spoke in favor of the application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you have 23 copies of case law, Miss Wickham, would you submit? 24 MS. WICKHAM: I will submit it I don't have seven copies, so I'll submit them 25 later today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? February 26, 2004 11 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No! further comment at this time. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. 4 can't get by this principal and accessory structure, Gall. I don't know where the 5 Zoning Beard has the power te grant a variance ef the law. 6 HS. WICKHAM: That's your charge. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne, I{m 7 sorry. If it says in our cede it's net permitted, we can't say it's permitted. 8 MS. WICKHAM: You're net permitted te put a house closer than ten feet to ailine, 9 but you can grant that variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ That's se. 10 That's under nonconforming uses, and our cede specifically -- 11 MS. WICKHAM: You granted the variance in 5058, you granted that variance. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What I'm saying te you is - it's only me personally - 13 that this particular application wouldn't even be before us if this were ena let that had a 14 house. MS. WICKHAM: Right. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeu'dihave it and it would be wonderful, but our code 16 says, you don't have a house, you can't have a tennis court. 17 MS. WICKHAH: We want you to!say it's okay te defer the building of that house 18 so we don't have to go through, the extraordinary expense of adding another house 19 te the neighborhood so that we can have a tennis next to and across the street from a 20 house that we already own. I think it's clearly -- 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whereiin our code dues it say that we can do thati that 22 it says we can defer? We defer the codeite say you cannot have -- you can have a building 23 permit fur an accessory without principal; where does it say that I can do that? 24 MS. WICKHAM: It doesn't saylthat specifically. It charges you as the Zoning 25 Board ef Appeals with authority te vary the provisions of the code where you feel the February 26, 2004 12 1 2 criteria we talked about are me~ BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ~gree_ 3 One of the criteria in our sode 2s if you want te build ena let, you have ee have a 4 principal structure. That's one of our criteria. 5 MS. WlCKHAH: That's the one we're asking te you vary. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO i don't see hew you can grant a variance en that 7 particular part of the law. I don't know how we can say, Oh, you just go ahead and do mu. 8 HS. WICKHAM: Hew do you decide what you can grant a variance on and what you 9 can't? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because 10 there is a part in our cede that says, if you Nave a nonconforming use, you may do this, 11 this and this, you can grant relief. MS. WICKHAM: That's not a 12 nonconforming. I don't think that's related to this argument. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We deal mostly with that. I don't knew that someone 14 can come in to us and say, unless you're asking for what Mr. Hughes -- un]ess you're 15 asking for a Use Variance that you want te put this particular use in this piece of property, 16 I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that a principal structure is required on this 17 piece of property before you put a - MS. WICKHAM: The use is a tennis 18 court. The character ef use is principal versus accessory. And that's what we're 19 asking you to vary here. But the use efa tennis court is permitted. It's net like 20 we're asking you te put up a shopping center, or a sign, er something that's net allowed 21 here in the code. It's something that's acknowledged to be appropriate in a 22 residential neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As an accessory 23 use. MS. WICKHAM: As an accessory use, 24 that is correct. And we are saying that we have the types of situations - circumstances 25 here that ameliorate the reason that law was enacted, se that you don't have an isolated Pebruary 26, 2004 13 1 2 accessory use away from somebody's residence where they're not going to supervise it, 3 they're net going to take care ef it. That was the basis when I objected in that other 4 case, 5058, that was my concern that there be a presence immediately there in the 5 neighborhood to address the reason that law was passed. 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~t~ Wait a minute. You're making a lot ef assumptions. 7 You're assuming that is why the legislative body enacted this. And that's a big jump. 8 You're assuming that the legislative body said, we do not want te have accessory uses 8 sitting on lets by themselves because they'd be unattended. I don't know that for a fact, 10 and I don't know hew you would possibly knew that as a fact. 11 MS. WICKHAH: I can't imagine any ether reason it would be. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That'S speculation. 13 MS. WICKHAM: No, but that'sithe reason. I mean, if you look at why would 14 somebody pass a law that says that, there's got te be a rational basis. I'm suggesting to 15 you that that's the rational basis for that provision, and that we have addressed that 16 concern. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail right. 17 Let's get te the meat ef this thing. MS. WICKHAH: Okay. 58 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the reason why you want to put an accessory 19 structure on this piece ef property without a principal is to save your equity. 20 MS. WICKHAM: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hew does 21 the Town get involved in that? Why should we? MS. WICKHAM: Because you're~a 22 Zoning Board of Appeals, and you're balancing the equities. Wrong. You're balancing the 23 benefits and the detriments. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right~ I 24 agree. MS. WICKHAH: The detriment %e the 25 applicant if this is not allowed, is that they have to lose a significant amount of equity. February 26, 2004 ~4 2 The benefit -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That'S only 3 if they cheese te build the tennis ceurt~ MS. WICKHAM: That's right. 4 That's why we're here. We want to buildla tennis court, and if we de it without a house, 5 we have te lose equity er we've got to add another house te the neighborhood, whichiwe 6 don't want te have to do. BOARD MEMBBR DINIZIO~ Waiti what 7 I see here, they don't want te put it en the piece ef property they have a house on, why? 8 MS. WICKHAH: There's net enough sufficient room. ~ BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I pretty much assumed that. New they went out and got 10 another let te give them enough room. It's another let. 11 MS. WICKHAH: Well, they have had that in the family for years. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ Why don't they enlarge their property te the peintiwhere 13 they can afford to actually put this ena piece ef property that they own, that has a 14 principal structure and meets the code? MS. WICKHAM: Why should theiTewn 15 force them te do that if the consequence ef that is going to be a severe financial 16 hardship without creating a significant detriment to the neighborhood? And they!can 17 build the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Theiri 18 hardship is self-imposed. The Town has nothing at all to de with their hardship~ 19 MS. WICKHAM: Yes, it is. Many variances are self-imposed. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I can tell you, ne, they're net. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie and Miss Wickham, why don't you supply us with 22 your memorandums of law and we will discuss it. And I want te see if anybody else in the 23 audience has any questions. MS. WICKHAM: Thank you, fine. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir. MR. ©IANELLI: Geed morning, I'm 25 Frank Gianelli, and I'm a neighbor. I don't knew why I'm nervous, I get nervous at these February 26, 2004 15 1 2 things. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Don't be, iwe're 3 nice people. We don't bite. HR. GIANELLI: I have had 4 conversations, and thank you for lettimglme come, because I couldn't make last month's 5 meeting. I actually came to say that I was 6 semi-in favor ef putting the tennis court where it is, but after hearing some 7 inconsistencies, I'm actually - my dander is up. There was a point where there was a 8 bulldozer across the street regrading things, taking trees down, that I thought it wasipart 9 efa Building Department process that I just assumed was okay to do. Them I hear, again, 10 inconsistencies about the pile of dirt that was across the street. I am still in favor of 11 a tennis court, but I don't know what's real anymore. I don't know if, in fact, when 12 people say allow them to put a tennis court, then when they ge to sell the property that 13 the tennis court will net be sold with the property. Yen knew, we all knew that the 14 Building Department is overworked and certainly doesn't have the staff te see that. 15 Again, I don't know the laws, but there has to be a more definitive way of, if, in factj you 16 do allow the tennis court that, in fact, if it's sold that the tennis court is removed. I 17 could imagine if the tennis court was allowed te stay and a house put in front of it, then 18 semebody's going te come here and say, well, the tennis court is preexisting, allow us to 19 build a bigger house, then again gettingl closer to the street. Another inconsistency, 20 that again upsets me, there was no acknowledgment that I live directly across the 21 street. My property -- again, I don't have a full survey - is at least half ef wherelthe 22 tennis court is going te be, if not more~ Se I'd like te look into that. So I am east, 23 directly east, and I'm the person that's going te be at 7:00 -- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have the new house or the brown house? 25 MR. GIANELLI: Susan's is the brown house, mine is the renovated house~ We February 26, 2004 16 1 2 moved to Orient in hopes that I would retire here and the thought of -- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know where you are. 4 MR. GIANELLI: So I believe there's an inconsistency about the fact where 5 the tennis court is going to be. So these inconsistencies make me very apprehensive te 6 say, go ahead and put a tennis court in. i For those reasons that, my wife feels, some of the 7 neighbors feel, some ef the neighbors who did net attend here today, maybe it is better te 8 have a house so that we can sort of police, let's say somebody can pull up in a car, ipark 9 across the street from my house and play tennis, and I have no way ef knowing if it is 10 a stranger, kids can come across. We talked about the advantage tee for Susan te have the 11 property next door and she would be ablelto monitor. Obviously, you can't be there 24-7, 12 and there are times in the year, especially in the fall, where a child can come and play en 13 the courts. I just have lots of questions and 14 if maybe we would find out a little bit mere about what we talked about in terms ef putting 15 something te buffer the noise, the seund~ Keep it consistent with one of the things that 16 the neighbors asked me to say, the Bartinos, just remember it is a residential area without 17 providing parking for the tennis courts, iwhere are the people going te park te get te the 18 tennis courts. At last month's hearing Robert Hughes had mentioned that someone had steed up 19 saying that they were given permission te play tennis, again, not a family member, not 20 someone else. Again, hew do we stop that tennis court which we can't -- from being 21 used from sun up to sundown. Se I guess if there aren't any 22 ether questions that you guys have ef me; I would be certainly glad te just say, I'm just 23 not happy about issues like things where! people said the dirt -- that dirt was net out 24 of that hole. That dirt came -- in fact~ the Lathams had told me they had seen a very~large 25 dump truck dropping the soil there. HS. GARDNER: The dirt that was in February 26, 2004 17 1 2 that pile came from the hole, the sand. HR. GIANELLI: Can I sit down 3 please? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes thank you. % MS. KOWALSKI: You have Ec use the mike and state your name, please before you 5 speak. MS. GARDNER: Susan Gardner. And 6 I have the house across the s~ree~ and I'm co-owner of the house across the sureeE. 7 co-owner of the house to the south. The dirt that's piled there came from the zesE hole. I 8 was there when they did it. He, Gary Taber came, dug a hole, took that dirt eu£ and then 9 came and dumped sand in. I asked him Eo spread dirt around. He said it's just got 10 junk and rocks in it. It would be worse £c spread around in there, and they would reuse 1] it when they were digging up to put fill underneath the tennis court, which is why it 12 was there. The tennis court will be locked. There will be no issue of parking, since we 13 are the people using the tennis court, and we have our house and our car right there. We're 14 going te walk right across the street and play tennis. There will be no parking on that lot. 15 If you de not grant the variance, I am an architect, I am prepared and have 16 submitted plans to show a house and I will build a house there. Ail right, with the 17 house, there will be a rental tenant, a driveway, cars and whoever the rental tenant 18 wants to use the tennis court, will be permitted te use it. I don't see where 19 there's any question here that we're trying te de something that's better for the 20 neighborhood, net worse. We've owned this let, my partner 21 has owned this let before we bought the house next door, right. We purchased the house next 22 doer from my mother. It's vacant most of the year. No use, no tenants, we own four lots on 23 that block. The lot next to us is a buildable let, we could build a house en it. We have ne 24 intention of doing that. We have a vacant piece of property that we would like to get 25 some benefit out ef for my kids. Let's build a tennis court on it. But if you deny it, I February 26; 2004 18 1 2 will build a house with a tennis court. CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: Thank you. 3 Any questions? If net I'll move close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 4 BOARD MEMBER GO~HRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 5 (Whereupon, all Board Hembers responded in favor.) 6 CHAINWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? moved. Thank you for coming in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 8 application is Trencheny at South Lane in East Marion. And they have submitted ether plans 9 because the neighbor had requested, I believe, a 21 feet setback rather than the one that was 10 submitted. And is Aggie here? MR. NOTARO: Actually, I'm here 11 today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, hew!are 12 you? MR. NOTARO: My name is Prank 13 Netaro. I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Trencheny. 14 After last month's meeting and a letter that was received by Mr. Trencheny, he 15 requested us te look at various options and questions that you had also. We have shewed 16 the second fleer setback new at 7'6'~ YOu had requested a little bit less than that but it 17 works out and the client is happy with that solution. The client asked us te explore 18 possibly a compromise between his original request snd the request by his neighbor, 19 Mr. Thorpe, and we came Up with a numberief 17'6", which is splitting the difference 20 between the two. Hy client feels that that is a workable solution te what they're looking 21 for. This will be a permanent house at eno point in the future. Right now my client 22 cannot be here, they just gave birth to a baby and they're kind of involved at this point. 23 By the way, we have not received any feedback from Hr. Trencheny regarding Mr. Thorpe, se I 24 don't think he get any additional feedback on that. Perhaps you have received a letter 25 subsequently. So basically, that's what we have done since the last meeting. February 26, 2004 19 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, do you have any questions? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that is a fairly geed compromise, % Mr. Notaro. The only question I have, is there going to be the ability te make a turn S to utilize the south part or the southeast part of the let? TNat 10 feet looks kind of 6 tight. There, are you going te be able to utilize that? 7 HR. NOTARO: We believe se. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From a $ fire and emergency point ef view, since it's on that angle, that may be a little difficult. 9 I don't knew if you could round it, if you could clip it, whatever the case might be, but 10 yo~ really need like 12 feet. That's just my opinion. 11 MR. NOTARO: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's split right down the middle. Ne questions at this 13 time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tertera? 1% BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. The only tNing that I would share is the concern 15 for fire access, because I think that corner, that 10 foot, particularly at that angle? you 16 could really run into some problems with trying te navigate a fire truck. And I'm net 17 even sure that you could because ef the sharp angle of the property line. What is along 18 that property line, Mr. Netare? MR. NOTARO: I believe from!my 19 recollection is like hedging there. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There ifs 20 hedging? MR. NOTARO: I'm not 100 percent 21 sure. It's been a while since I looked at the property. We could look into that, and I feel 22 we could take that into consideration, and I feel we could probably modify the plans te 23 accommodate that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It imay 24 even leek arcNitecturally nice. Excuse me, Lydia. 25 BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: That's ell. MR. NOTANO: It would give me a February 26, 2004 20 1 2 geed excuse to use angles again. We would definitely leek into that. That is a 3 consideration. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree 4 tee because we're kind ef concerned about being able to get fire equipment around our 5 houses. It's important. Mr. Dinizie? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. !I 6 have a note here that says you're going to remove the house; you're going to take the 7 house down and build a new one; is that right? MR. NOTARO: Well, no, they'r? 8 going te take it down te the first floor deck. It's really not structurally stable to build a 9 new second fleer on the existing walls. BORRD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail the 10 walls are going te come down, just the foundation and the deck en the foundation. Se 11 essentially you're tearing the house down? MR. NOTARO: We're reutilizing 12 the foundation and the first fleer deck and probably some ef the walls if it's possible to 13 · use them. We haven't opened everything up te see the full extent. Just by judging by what 14 we could see, the structure is not up to today's cede, so te speak. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you did a nice job on compromise. And as far as 16 the driveway's concerned, the fire department's going te get in there whether yen 17 have a curb in there er not, believe me. It's net going te make that much difference. Thank 18 you. MR. NOTARO: Thank yen. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Thorpe? MR. THORPE: Geed morning, I'm 20 Frank Thorpe. I live at 180 South Lane, the property te the east, and this morning I'm 21 also representing my brother and his wife, Edward Thorpe and Virginia Thorpe, who live at 22 80 South Lane, the property immediately to the west. This word compromise has just come up. 23 No one has ever talked to me about this at all, from Hr. Trencheny er his architects. I 24 apologize te yen people for not having this testimony in writing, but this was only 25 submitted on Honday; I became aware ef iti on Tuesday, and I was net able te communicate February 26, 2004 21 1 2 with my brother until last night. We both strongly request that the westerly setback be 3 established at 20 feet. This would give a combined east/west setback ef 23.4 feet, which 4 would be in conformity with all the other setbacks required in the community. 5 We thank you for consideration in this matter. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have anything else you would like to say? 7 MR. NOTARO: If I can just respond to that. I can give you for the 8 record a copy of the letter by Mr. Trencheny sent to Mr. Thorpe. He asked us te review it. 9 We looked at it, we agreed with it, and he supposedly sent it, we're net 100 percent 10 sure, but I can give you a copy. That was sent en January 26th. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a 12 question? MR. THORPE: Just te respond~to 13 that, if you leek at the last paragraph of Hr. Trencheny's letter, it says, "As we get Closer 14 to finalizing the plans, my intention it!is to set up a meeting with you at your convenience 15 and review the options the architects have come up with." 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And that didn't happen? 17 MR. THORPE: No. Since theylwere only submitted en Monday. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you would be happy with 20 feet ef side yard? 19 MR. THORPE: Yes. It would conform with the 3.4 from my side te just a 20 little under the 25 feet combined sideyard, and it's required of everybody else since the 21 cede went into effect. And which also has been required for the property two doers away, 22 the Walzes, which you spent a great deal of time on. Questions? Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Notaroj do you have anything te add? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to ask Mr. Netare a question. What would be 25 involved in making that a 20 foot setback? MR. NOTARO: It's kind ef February 26, 2004 22 1 2 difficult to explain that. We did explore that issue. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What would be involved? I'm talking about dollars and 4 cents; what would you have to do to make!a 20 feet setback en that side that you're not 5 willing to do? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Whichiis a 6 new construction, by the way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I den{t ? know. I'm asking him, how would you come to that 20 foot setback if we required it? 8 HR. NOTAR0: Either the client would have to be satisfied with a smaller 9 footprint and second floor, or they would ge out further towards the water side. Those are 10 the two possibilities. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't 11 mean digging up the foundation and that kind of stuff? 12 MR. NOTARO: Ne, net ef thei present house, that would remain. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Notaro, your let te the south is very narrow going 1% down to the harbor, would it be difficult to extend the house in that direction without 15 coming back for another variance? MR. NOTARO: I really would have 16 it leek at that, I couldn't answer you right new. It's all how the layout works inside. 17 As it is, we've compressed it a little bit new. We'd have to look into that. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the Board's pleasure, to keep this open er te 19 close the hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 20 want te say before, if you ge to the southeast, it's going te further exacerbate 21 that CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is theil0 22 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 10 23 foot. I was thinking, Mr. Netaro, what if you held 20 feet to the garage, okay, and the 24 garage would be 17' 6~' and then put a small addition en the front of the house. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Cut it in? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. February 26, 2004 23 1 2 You know, to make up the difference of what you lost on the 17' 6". That's the only!real 3 I think genuine compromise that could exist. I mean, South Drive is a private road and % there are buildings closer to this than this house is, net that it makes any difference. 5 MR. NOTRe0: There is an infinite amount ef possibilities that can be dene~ The 6 only thing, again, in defense ef what we{re proposing is, it's net an overwhelming scale 7 efa home, and I can shew you two cases that I think are extraordinary in terms of how they 8 present themselves to the road right in the neighborhood te this home. Again, they didn't 9 intend to make a McHansien there. This is a home that they feel will be liveable in the 10 future for them. There's an infinite amount of possibilities for everything. They felt, 11 and they directed us te compromise with the request of the neighbor. That was the 12 direction we had from the client. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But the 13 meeting never took place as addressed inlthe letter? 14 MR. NOTARO: I don't know that. In ether words, our client added that inithe 15 end ef his letter. I don't know what went en after the letter was sent, but that was sent 16 en the 24th. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Stating by 17 the neighbor, it didn't happen. HR. NOTARO: Obviously it didn't 18 go on, but we had ne knowledge of this, and the client did not contact us. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think we can close the hearing if you agree te the 20 20 foot setback, otherwise, we'll have to keep it open. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we ought to keep it open in deference te the 22 gentleman that get up before, and let them work out a compromise. 23 BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Maybe!the meeting should happen. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? MR. NOTARO: I can't honestly 25 speak for the Trenchenys at this point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we'll February 26, 2004 24 1 2 keep the meeting open, and have that meeting with the Trenchenys and come back ~g~ln nex£ 3 month. HR. NOTARO: Okay. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The date will be Harch 18th at 9:30. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Hembers 6 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our nexu 8 application is for Patricia Zanaboni for a new single family dwelling at less than 35 feet, 9 after demolishing the existing building. Is there anybody here to represent? 10 MS. ZANABONI: Hello, I'm Patrlcza Zanaboni, I think it's misspelled, it's 11 Z-A-N-A-B-O-N-I. I wish I was part of the ice machine family, but I'm not. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, MS. ZANABONI: As you will be able 13 to tell from the documents you have, Architect Notaro and his staff have set the house back 14 another 10 feet, as you requested, to 23 feet. That said, I am still requesting a compromise, 15 a couple of extra feet. The house has been there since the '40s. It's been in my family 16 since 1954. This is 50 years we have had a lot of good years. It's been a summer home. 17 Unfortunately, we can't live there permanently especially if we want to have children. There 18 isn't enough room. If we were to renovate, we could probably keep the same footprint and 19 stay exactly the way we are, but the construction is not stable enough to add a 20 second story. We could expand and stay in eno story, that would be adding another 1,500 21 square feet or so to our lot coverage, requiring us to take down severa- trees and 22 becoming closer to our neighbors_ I don't think the elevation that we're requesting is 23 substantial. We're really looking at eno and-a-half stories. Se what I'm asking for is 24 another five feet. If you look, we were measuring the south stake of our house, 25 Minnehaha and Opeache, that set in about 10 feet from the read per se. Se the 13 feet, February 26, 2004 25 1 2 starting from that stake, that pretty much gives you visually about 23 feet from the 3 read, net 13 feet. I measured or looked~at the files for a neighbor ef mine two streets 4 down that built two years ago. Eileen Gallagher, her setback is 23.8. I'm just 5 requesting a couple extra feet. The house has been there. Our neighbors are used te seeing 6 a home. It won't be that much higher. I don't think it will have a negative impact on 7 Hinnehaha. Pat Leane has just built a huge house just around the corner, and that is 8 towering over all our neighbors. It's very high. I'm net looking at anything like that. 9 I'm looking for a small home. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hew high will 10 your home be to the ridge, te the top? MR. NOTARO: It's a story 11 and-a-half. I would guesstimate maybe around 26, 27 feet. There's nothing peaking out 12 beyond the ridge. MS. ZANABONI: I like the 13 location. I understand it's nonconforming, but most ef the houses in that area currently 14 are nonconforming. I enjoy the backyard~ I want to leave as many trees as I can. We have 15 dogs; we want to keep the area open for dogs and children. We have Neonacema waters right 16 facing onto us, I really can't have children running around the front yard with the four 17 intersecting reads. Se I request, I guess, setback ef 18 maybe 19 feet with the additional visually, I mean, there's about eight feet because ef 19 where our stakes are in relation to the road. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which road, Minnehaha? 21 MS. ZANABONI: Hinnehaha. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm 22 confused. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Yes. I'mi 23 confused tee. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm 24 confused because the amended plan shews a revised setback of 22'9~', and 22'7". 25 MS. KOWALSKI: I don't think!Mrs. Zanabeni has seen this. We just get it. February 26, 2004 26 1 2 MS. ZANABONI: I saw the one corner, I guess of the 23. 3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Well, iwhat are we proposing? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Notaro, maybe you would like to clarify? 5 HR. NOTARO: I think what she's referring te is net the let line, she's 6 actually measuring off of the read to the lot line, then you have the additional 13.7 feet. 7 So we're talking about basically the same thing, but we basically took what was on the 8 original survey, the 13.9, I believe it is, and added 10 feet to that per your request. 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Se that's 22.9. Se what you're requesting is what has 10 been submitted te us? MR. NOTARO: Yes. But actually, 11 subsequently, my client investigated ether projects in the neighborhood and found that 12 they were a little bit closer to the front let line. 13 BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: So what you're requesting is not what you submitted to 14 us; is that correct? MR. NOTARO: Correct. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: My opinion, is only my opinion, this is now a continued 16 hearing. It's been the subject ef four notices of disapproval. I'd like te knew what 17 you're requesting. Have that information before us before the public hearing. 18 Because -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're wasting 19 your time and our time. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We're!going 20 around in circles here. This was -- youiknew, we were led te believe in your letter that 21 this is, in fact, what you're requestingi The letter is only dated February 23rd. In 22 fairness on your client as well as the Board, please let us knew what you're requesting, 23 come into the hearing and we'll hear that. But as you can imagine at this point, it's 24 very confusing for the Board because we have a set ef plans that we received en the 23rd, and 25 now we're told, ne, that's net what we're requesting, new we want something else. This February 26, 2004 27 1 2 is my opinion, not necessarily the Beard{s. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Mr. Orlando? I 3 feel the same way, really. We can't move en something like this when you're still net 4 clear on what you want. MR. NOTARO: Actually, if I just 5 may ask my client is she willing to ge with this number. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 22.9. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Please do. ? MR. NOTARO: She is willing then te ge with what the Beard suggested last week, 8 and that's what the drawings CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: That's yeer 9 final answer? MR. NOTARO: That's my client's 10 final answer, yes. MS. KOWALSKI: You'd have to! 11 reapply if you change it again. MR. NOTARO: Correct. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer, de you have any ether further questions? 13 BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Ne. I was trying te think if there was any ether 14 option, and I can't see one at this point. I think the difference ef what Mrs. Gallagher 15 has and what these nice people have are virtually about a foot. And in their 16 particular case, Mrs. Gallagher's property, which has turned out absolutely beautifully 17 down below as I'm sure this one will, has a garage, which is to that point. I realize 18 there's another story on top ef it, which is an accessory apartment, but I don't think a 19 foot makes that much difference. A foot on a house is really that much more plentiful in my 20 opinion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortera, 21 are you satisfied? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ Yes. 22 BOARD HEMBBR DINIZIO~ I'd like te make an explanation maybe to the applicant. 23 We can only make decisions based on the notice ef disapproval. Whatever the Building 2% Department says te us is what you asked for, and that notice of disapproval comes to us~ 25 those dimensions come to us. And we can't vary, we can make it less, in other words, if February 26, 2004 28 1 2 you wanted 30 feet, we could de that, actually, but we can't give you 26 feet, 3 because you didn't ask for it. It wasn't published. Everybody didn't have a chance te 4 understand what you're working on. You have te understand that. You knew, we look at 5 these applications, and we're trying te prepare ourselves for what you're going to 6 say, and if it's not on this one sheet ef paper that I go by, then, if I have te 7 consider it again, you're back te the Building Department, and you've get te ask them, again, 8 you have te tell them exactly what you want, go through that whole nine yards again, er you 9 let us make a decision based en this and!live with it. I for eno, I don't mind if you come 10 back. If you feel strongly about 19 feet, I don't mind if you come back, but I think we've 11 gone through the discussion once already that what you wanted te de last month wasn't going 12 to fly, end you came and you cempremisedi I think that trying te come back again, I think 13 you may have a problem with that. Se I think you're going to have a really nice house~ I 14 think Mr. Notaro did a really wonderful job on explaining what it's going te be. I just want iS you to be clear that it's net the Board that's really fed up with it. It's just we can{t 16 make a decision based en that. We have to listen te what the Building Inspector says. 17 He's the one that tells us what the cede is. Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you~ I make a motion te close the hearing and reserve 19 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 21 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? Se 22 moved. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is Mr. Gordon, who wishes te putlan 24 accessory apartment onto his house. Mr. Gordon? 25 MR. GORDON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you February 26, 2004 29 1 2 today? Give your name and address, please. MR. GORDON: Joseph Gordon, %85 3 Gardiners Lane, Seuthold. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would yeuilike 4 te tell us what you want to de? MR. NEWMAN: 485 Gardiners Lane, 5 Southold. We want to put an addition on,his home for myself and my wife te live. 6 MR. GORDON: My grandson. MR. NEWMAN: Grandson. It'sijust 7 an accessory apartment en his house, right there. There's a couple setback problems, or 8 whatever, on the front. I didn't bring the plans with me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You also have problems, it's a second dwelling unit en~tep 10 of a garage, which is net permitted. MR. NEWMAN: Why net? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you're less than %0 feet from the frentline, which I knew 12 already. MR. NEWMAN: From the 38 feet from 13 the property liner I'm 50 feet from the street. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZlO~ I'm a 15 little confused by the notice of disapproval in that I always thought that you were allowed 16 te have an accessory apartment. CHAIRWOM~ O~IVA: In the house 17 but net above the garage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ it looks 18 like it's attached. MR. NEWHAN: The garage is 19 attached te the house. I understand what you're saying but there's fifty million houses 20 down the road that Nave structures ever the garage. I don't understand that. 21 HS. KOWALSKI: I think I can explain what happened en the disapproval by 22 the Building Inspector. When they applied, they applied to the Building Department 23 knowing they needed a varience, se they applied for an apartment, and it was denied on 24 that basis but when they applied te us, they were not aware that there's a special 25 exception procedure for accessory apartments also. So that's why they filed beth, and the February 26, 200% 3O 1 2 Building Department does not usually address the special exceptions of the code. So that's 3 why they're both there and they left it up to the Beard te decide. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I just could see, it sounded to me you were 5 building an apartment above the garage. You're not. You're building an apartment in 6 the house. It's adjoined. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's an 7 apartment. It just happens te have a garage underneath it. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's neither here nor there. Our code doesn't 9 address that. Se you knew that part ef the notice of disapproval we don't need te 10 address, I think BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ne. He 11 has applied -- may I speak, Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ You have applied for an accessory apartment, a special 13 exception directly to us. New, I was a little confused tee, because the notice ef 14 disapproval -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is confusing. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ - is confusing, but you have gene ahead and applied 16 for an accessory apartment to us and filled out all the applicable information. So I'd 17 just like to go through a couple ef basic things on the size ef the accessory apartment 18 with you if that's okay. MR. NEK~AIN: Ge ahead. 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ Can you give me the size of the accessory apartment? 20 MR. NEWMAN: 1,181. BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: 1,181 21 square feet? MR. NEWMAN: Uh huh. 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTO~: And the size ef the existing dwelling? 23 MR. NEWMAN: 2,480, total square foot of 3,661. 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Total square footage of 3,661 combined~ 25 MR. GORDON: With the garage it's 27.5 percent. Pebruary 26, 2004 31 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~A: I'm going through the criteria and it just has accessory 3 apartment shall net be 40 percent ef the livable floor area of the existing dwelling. 4 So that's what I'm looking at. MR. NEWMAN: 32 percent. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What's the percentage? 6 MR. NEWMAN: 32. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Parking, 7 exterior parking far the accessory apartment. MR. NEWMAN: Existing garage!and 8 existing driveway that's there. BOARD MEHEER TORTORA: In leaking 9 at the parking is there sufficient room to park without backing into the road? 10 HS. KOWALSKI: You need an area for three cars. How big is the garage, eno 11 car or two cars? MR. NEWMAN: It's twa now. I'm 12 putting a third in. It's going above that. It's getting setback four feet, as you can see 13 en the plans. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: De we!have 14 sufficient area se that we're net going to be parking? 15 MR. NEWMAN: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER TORTO~: And you 16 would have ne objections tea condition en the special exception that there be no backing out 17 of cars fram the accessory apartment into the read? 18 MR. NEWMAN: Yes. MR. GORDON: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ The existing building, it was created prier te 20 1984; it was built prior to 1984, sir? MR. GORDON: 1971. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ And we have a CO that indicates that it was? 22 MR. GORDON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think 23 I've covered all the questions that I have, and thank you very much. 24 MR. GORDON: I hope i gave you all the answers. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think you did. February 26, 2004 32 i 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: To follow 3 up a little bit with Board Member Tertora, the driveway will be as wide as the three car 4 garage then? MR. NEWMAN: Yes. 5 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Plenty ef room. The ether question, the let behind you 6 en the east side, is that owned by a family member or -- 7 MR. GORDON: It's a vacant 10t. No, ne family member owns that. 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Wouldlthere be a problem putting a condition in our 9 decision about ne outside rentals outside your family? 10 MR. NEWMAN: Oh, definitely. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would 11 object to that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Renting 12 outside immediate family? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would 13 object te that. MB. GORDON: I object te that. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They didn't have a problem with it. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the problem with it is that the Town says you can 16 have an accessory apartment, why are you restricting them to just family when everybody 17 else in the town can have someone else living in there? Our accessory apartment law doesn't 18 say it has te be a relative. It just says yen have to meet a certain criteria, you can have 19 an accessory apartment. You can rent it to anybody you choose. Why would we restrict 20 these gentlemen to that? What are they doing that's so egregious that we have to restrict 21 them to just family members? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It was my 22 opinion te the applicant. MR. NEW}4AN: I'm not going 23 anywhere any time because real estate's ridiculous around here, so don't worry. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sorry? MR. NEWMAN: I said, I'm not going 25 anywhere anytime soon, so yen don't have!to worry about that. The real estate here is February 26, 2004 33 1 2 ridiculous. MS. KOWALSKI: What would haPpen 3 to the apartment after you left? MR. NEWHAN: If I die tomorrow, 4 then he's going to have te deal with it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not getting in the middle ef this, and I have ne 6 comment. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Like I said, I don't think the applicant does not 8 have te certify this by having that restriction on it. I think he should not 9 agree with it. Ne one in the town has te agree with that. 10 MR. GORDON: Then I don't agree with it. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then my statement en this, my notes en this, you! 12 wouldn't even be before us if you had built the house the other way. 13 MR. NEWNLa~: If it was twisted a little bit, it was fine. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Way back then who thought that kids couldn't afford te 15 live here. MR. GORDON: That's exactly the 16 situation. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: I offer 17 that as part ef the explanation as te the reason why you're doing it. And I wish you 18 luck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, 19 Hr. Dinizie, if it was an accessory apartment, it would still have to cema before us. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not worried about them coming before us, I'm 21 worried about you restricting them more than you restrict anyone else. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand your point. I'd like te make a motion clesing 23 the hearing and reserving decision until later. 24 MR. NEWMAN: Hew much later? MR. GORDON: Excuse me, if it's at 25 all possible, could you please act on this today? The reason I'm saying this is it'is February 26, 2004 34 1 2 been eight months, and we have a three month eld baby living in my house. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, we are having a meeting a week from today and you'll 4 have your decision then. MS. KOWALSKI: Verbally. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At least verbally, we're moving very quickly these 6 days. It will be written up as soon as possible. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 8 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'i1 take a short recess now. 10 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 11 .......................................... CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 12 hearing is for Mr. Cernwell, on West Cove Read. I believe Mr. Strang is here for us for 13 a single side yard setback of 9.5 feet; is there proposed er existing? 14 MR. STRANG: I'm sorry, I missed your question. Would yen mind repeating it? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That 9.5 setback, is that existing er that it will be 16 proposed? MR. STRANG: The 9.5 setbacklis 17 existing te the retaining wall. It is our intention te build this addition en top ef the 18 existing retaining wall. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se then yen're 19 not really increasing the degree of nonconformity - 20 MR. STRANG: Ne, with the exception -- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- ef going up? HR. STRANG: -- of going vertical, 22 yes, which years ago we wouldn't be before you but now we are. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I knew. We did have a letter from Mr. Slattery asking us te 24 postpone this hearing until June becauselhe is in Florida, I believe. 25 MR. STRANG: I am aware of that letter. I have had several conversations with February 26, 2004 35 1 2 Mr. Slattery trying te enlighten him as te the nature ef what we're proposing te de there and 3 the minimal scope ef it. I sent him a copy ef the drawing that you Nave in additie~ to!the 4 site plan~ He also has the very rudimentary, three dimensional overview en the phot©graph~ 5 se that he can see again that wefre ~et doing some sort ef monstrous addition here. It's 6 something very small scale. I can appreciate his concerns ef not being able to see it 7 firsthand because he's in Florida at the time, but I also leek at it from the point of view 8 that what we're proposing is quite minimal as far as the encroachment, we're building ever 9 the existing retaining wall, mot getting any closer than that. The side ef the house that 10 it -- the side of his house that is being impacted is a garage, which is approximately 11 28, 30 feet off the property line because he's got a side loaded garage. So he has a 12 driveway area and he backs out into Lee. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's not 13 against his house? HR. STRANG: It's not against his 14 house. There's a stockade fence that exists. It's been there for some time. There's also 15 heavy vegetation that's established, that's going te remain. In fact, if we were te take 16 that retaining wall out, it might compromise that vegetation. Se we don't want to dolthat. 17 Se that's a reason we want te build right up en top of what's there. Se, again, I can 18 appreciate what he says, and we made every effort, and my client has spoken with him also 19 to tray and allay any concerns with respect te this, and I think putting it off to June is 20 quite a hardship to my client. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did 21 Mr. Slattery seem agreeable in your discussions with him for the 9.5 and what you 22 proposed te de? MR. STRANG: His only comment te 23 me that I had is well, I can't visualize this, I'd really like te come out and walk it and 24 see it firsthand. He didn't say he'd object to it or that he'd be in favor ef it. He just 25 wanted te see it firsthand. Again, I did try to make it perfectly clear that, he is Pebruary 26, 2004 1 2 familiar I believe with the property and!he knows the existence of the retaining wall, and 3 I tried to explain te him that we're net getting any closer than that existing 4 retaining wall and that we're only going~up eno story on that in a relatively small area, 5 se that the peak of the addition isn't even as high as the peak ef the main house, which is 6 quite clearly depicted en that little CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Schematicithat 7 you gave us. MR. STRANG: Exactly. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer, de you have any questions? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There was a significant amount ef snow over there 10 when I was ever, but I don't actually see any problem with the application. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My quick 12 question, I did some pacing while I was there, the hole, we'll call it the void, which is 13 down to grade, the first level, er the basement, that's the void you're filling, 14 correct? MR. STRANG: We're net going!to 15 fill it. That is going te be a basement. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Filling te 16 create a living space in that area? MR. STRANG: That will become a 17 basement area, which they plan te use for storage. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There's a concrete retaining wall in there, and that's 19 where the foundation, we'll call it - HR. STRANG: That will be the 20 foundation. Except we're only going te come out -- bear with me a moment while I look at 21 the plan to refresh my recollection. We{ll come out into that area by 14 and-a half feet. 22 That retaining wall does extend toward the bay further than that, but with the actual 23 structure, we're coming out 14 feet, and!then we're putting a deck, which is open, 24 unenclosed, just a deck with a rail. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no 25 problem with this, but, Madam Chairman, I think you may want te at least give that February 26, 2004 31 1 2 gentleman a right te came and speak before we close the hearing. 3 MS. KOWALSKI: He can't be here before June. ~e left ne telephone number. We % tried to contact him. HR. STRANG: I do have a number 5 for him. If the Board were te entertain holding the hearing open, my client did speak 6 with his neighbor, Hr. Slattery, as recently as yesterday afternoon. And Mr. Slattery did 7 indicate that he may be up sooner than June, so, if you were te -- although we prefer you 8 didn't -- if you were te keep this open, we'd ask that maybe you could put it on the April 9 calendar, and we'd see if that would work far Hr. Slattery. Because, again, we're trying 10 net te have this delayed unnecessarily. Again, my client would prefer to have this 11 action taken at this time on this, given the fact that we believe it's a minimal situation, 12 and it shouldn't have any impact at all en Hr. Slattery, given the nature of his offset 13 and his garage. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 1% have any particular problem. I don't see any concerns. I don't knew what his concerns may 15 be. HR. STRANG: He seemed to make 16 reference te landscaping in his letter which we're net touching or disturbing. He hasn't 17 been clear with me what his concerns are other than the fact that he can't physically stand 18 there and say, oh, new I see what you're doing. I thought the diagram was relatively 19 clear, the minimal aspect ef what we were preparing, but -- 20 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Hr. Slattery said you didn't provide him with elevations er 21 a landscape plan. Se I continue to feel disadvantaged in terms ef my ability te 22 visualize the impact of this addition. MR. STRANG: I did give him %he 23 diagram that you have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Wkich was 24 helpful. MS. KOWALSNI: Was there a height 25 to the ~op of the ridge? MR. STRANG: There probably Wasn't Pebruary 26, 2004 38 1 2 a calculated height to that. It's net as high as the ridge. What did I say, the building's 3 14 feet, it's at worse case, it would be -- I'm just trying to mentally calculate that 4 real quick -- the building were 9 feet above grade, plus the reef, which would be at worst 5 case another 7~ so 16 feet. MS. KOWALSKI: He's trying te 6 visualize that so I can explain that to him en the phone when we call him. Sixteen feet from 7 the ground? MR. STRANG: From the existing 8 front grade, of course the grade slopes as it goes te the bay. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam Chair. 10 C~=IRWOMAN OLIVA: Hrs. Tertora first. 11 BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: I would like to make a suggestion. I would suggest 12 that the Beard write Hr. Slattery a certified letter, sending him a complete packet ef this 13 and advising him that, while we understand that he is physically in Florida, we cannot 14 leave the hearing open indefinitely, and that a reasonable time for him te make comments or 15 be present at the hearing, and give him until April as suggested. But I don't think it is 16 reasonable to held this until June. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But I iwould make sure that the packet and information is 18 sent certified. As to whether Hr. Slattery said this or that, it's all hearsay. So he 19 has to either appear here or put his comments in writing because anything else is hearsay 20 about what he said to who, and then that would include yourself, your client, and our Beard. 21 MR. STRANG: I appreciate your position en that. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 23 going to suggest something quicker than that, de a telephone call. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would be better te have a paper trail. And I think 25 Mrs. Tertera is correct and he would have the ability te write back and we would have his February 26, 2004 39 1 2 answer in writing. HR. STRANG: Can we move it until 3 the March then, give him until the March hearing te respond? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OAIVA: It wouldn't be enough time. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We're trying to protect your interest as well as 6 protect the Board's interest. We are obligated te entertain, and should entertain ? the concerns ef the community. On the ether hand, it can't just be an open door 8 MR. STRANG: I understand and I appreciate your considering that. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, are you agreeable? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it's reasonable te give him another month, but 11 I think we should be prepared to give this man an answer that day. I have some questions, 12 because I'm unclear. I went to this piece of property and I still can't quite figure out 13 why you're here. MR. STRANG: Okay. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at your survey, and I see that it's a proposed 15 two-story addition. Now, are you extending the corner ef that house? I mean, are you 16 extending, or are you building up above thst second I don't quite -- 17 MR. STR~NG: Okay. The reason is it says two story is by definition the fact 18 that there is a lower level, if you will, which is the patio down below, the retaining 19 wall encloses, is open te grade, is accessible from the lower grade. It would be by 20 definition considered a story. Then, we're putting en top of the retaining wall that's 21 there a one story, which the house is a cape, a Cape Cod design, se it's the eno storylplus 22 the roof above it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm leaking 23 at that picture. It doesn't look like there's a retaining wall there. 24 MR. STRANG: You can't see i~ from the vantage point ef that picture, but that 25 was the best picture I could use te depict the massing ef the element that we're adding. February 26, 2004 4O 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically you're not adding, you're not building onmc 3 the house, you're putting this ~vez a pan~o. MR. STRANG: We're putting 1£ ever 4 a patio that's already there. The retazn~ng wall -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Indentation ef it, you're just going up? 6 MR. STRANG: That's 2orrecm. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not 7 like you're adding a second snery £0 the house. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ne. MR. STRANG: No. ~ C~AIRWOMAN OLIVA: All rmght, I'd like to make a motion - 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I finish, please? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. 12 So you get rejected basically for that reason, that you're putting a structure en -- 13 MR. STRANG: On top of the retaining wall. 14 BO~D MEMBER DINIZIO: Your comment before about this pertaining me 15 something that's changed recently MR. STRANG: Well, yesrs age the 16 established setback would have been grandfathered, but under recent interpretation 17 ef the Zoning Beard, anything that is built vertically above an established setback, above 18 the height of that requires a variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does a 19 patio necessarily establish a setback? MR. STPJ~NG: Well, the retaining 20 wall is the structure, 1 believe, that would establish the setback. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The patio is a grade level and the patio is existing at 22 15 feet; is that correct? MR. STRANG: The patio is -- the 23 lower patio is existing at the lower grade. The retaining wall comes up te the forward, 24 the front grade and the retaining wall, in fact, creates a structure. It is by 25 definition a structure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're February 26, 2004 41 1 2 saying that that's your established setback? HR. STPANG: I believe that it is 3 but the fact that the Building Department says that anything above that point would require a ~ variance is the reason we're here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let melask 5 you this question. You were definitely then, you were definitely -- there's net a 6 nonconforming setback according to this notice of disapproval. This notice of disapproval 7 says you're going to build a nonconforming. MR. STRANG: We're going te 8 build en top of by the nature ef t~e fact that we're building on a conforming setback, 9 the fact that we're building an addition to that er going vertical means that what we're 10 adding is net conforming, and that's what requires the variance. 11 BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: I'm net getting that. I know you're an architect. 12 But te me, you're net increasing the degree of the nonconformity. You have an established 13 setback of 9.5 feet; am I correct? MR. STRANG: I'm not going te 14 debate that with you because I agree with you it's an interpretation that's come down in the 15 last few years. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail I want 16 is, Garrett, is te get en the record. You can disagree with me, if you want, but I need te 17 be clear on this. You were sent to us because you're going to put a second story en an 18 existing nonconforming setback? MR. STRANG: Well, we're going to 19 put a one-story addition on an existing nonconforming setback. 20 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: An established setback 9 and-a half feet and the 21 degree ef that nonconformity is what, what is it supposed to be, 15 feet, 10 feet? 22 MR. STRANG: 15 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Se that's 23 what, 30 percent degree of nonconformity;I am I correct? 24 MR. STRANG: Yes. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: Hew are 25 you increasing that? MR. STP~ANG: I'm net, ether than February 26, 2004 42 1 2 the fact that we're going vertical. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn'E 3 ask you that question. I said you have a side yard, how de yen intend te increase that side 4 yard degree of nonconformity? MR. STNANG: I'm not~ 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ Have you been de~ied for the height ef this? In other 6 words, does this exceed 35 feet, which is what our cede says yen can have a building be. 7 principal structure? MR. STRANG: No, it does noE_ 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sc you weren't denied for height, but that's the 9 nonconformity you're here for, even thDugh this notice ef disapproval doesn't say that. 10 MR. STRANG: The way the disapproval was interpreted by the Build,no 11 Department is because there was a preexisting nonconforming setback te the exisnino 12 structure, i.e., the retaining wall. and we proposed to put an additional sErucnure en top 13 ef that vertically, that in their interpretation we are increasing the 14 nonconformity by building ever that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: }kay. 15 Garrett~ yen're a friend ef mine, sc I don't want yen te think that I am trying ne hound 16 yon, but I am trying to grapple with the fact that you are denied for a side yard setback, 17 the degree ef that nonconformity is what it will be, yet you're here before us, and I'm 18 net understanding that. Yen're not the only applicant today that's going to hear this 19 question, and by all means, I have absolutely ne problem with what yen intend to de here, 20 just the fact that I just can't quite understand why you're here and not down there 21 putting your finishing touching on this addition. 22 MR. STRANG: I've posed the same questions in the past, but, again, there has 23 been an interpretation made. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 24 interpretation was done by the Waltz decision and the Building Department going along with 25 that. Mr. Dinizie did not approve ef that decision and that is why he is adding this February 26, 2004 43 1 2 into the record, te prove his point again. BOARD MEHB~R DINIZIO: I think 3 what I'm trying te de is get a decent notice ef disapproval, eno that tells me exactly why 4 the applicant is before us. I think if we ignore that we're net doing the public any 5 justice, that's what I think. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I will go down 6 and discuss that with Michael when he gets back en March 1st. 7 MR. STRANG: Before the close, I just want te make a submittal te the Board, if 8 I may. We de have in our possession at this point in time, a copy of which I'll give you, 9 is a determination of no jurisdiction from the Trustees and a permit from the DEC. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Great, okay. Otherwise -- 11 MS. KOWALSKI: In the futureiif you would give us seven sets, we would really 12 appreciate it. MR. STRANG: Okay, I will get 13 them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to 14 make a motion adjourning this hearing until April 22nd at 9:30 a.m. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 16 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail opposed? Se moved. Thank you, Mr. Strang. 18 ............................................. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 19 hearing is for an as-built deck that was constructed by a pool that the Building 20 Department decided was a side yard, which they thought was the rear yard. Hr. Hi~ton, are 21 you here? MR. HINTON: Yes, good morning. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Why don't !you give us your name and address? 23 MR. HINTON: John Rinten, 515! Herseview Drive, Cutchegue. 2% CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you ~ery much, would yon like to tell us what happened? 25 MR. HINTON: We had the okay for the pool. The pool was built in the back February 26, 2004 1 2 yard, and I got paperwork to build the deck, and when we built the deck we were told later 3 on by the Town that the peel is now considered in the side yard. I have it coming out off % the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ No questions. I saw that now that you attached 6 it, just became a little gray area in the code. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortera? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No 8 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 11 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in 12 this reem that would like to speak en behalf ef this application? If net, I move te close 13 the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 1% CHAIRWONIAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Members 15 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 17 hearing is Scott and Tuffy on Main Road in Cutchegue for a proposed addition less than 50 18 feet from the let line. Yes. MS. TUFFY: I'm Sandra Tuffy.i I'm 19 trying to put two additions onto my home, eno en each side, and because of the house is 20 closer to the road than the current building codes allow, my additions, even though they -- 21 when you back them up te the back line ef the house, are still -- and they're setback from 22 the fromtline ef the house, they're stillI closer than the 50 feet. And that's why I was 23 disapproved by the Building Department in the first place. 2~ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most of the houses along the road are not 50 feet from the 25 road? MS. TUFFY: One addition willi be February 26, 2004 45 1 2 49 feet from the road, and the ether side it will be only 28 feet from the read because the 3 house is in two parts. I've sent certified letters out te the neighbors. I get all the 4 return receipts back except one. It went to New York City, and I think it's the Peconic 5 Bay Vineyards address, and I didn't get that back today. But I have the ether enos with me 6 today. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Give them!to 7 Linda. HS. TUFFY: Yes. I also have two 8 letters, one from each ef the people I sent to saying that they have no objections, if they 9 need to respond in a letter. I didn't make copies yet. 10 MS. KOWALSKI: Could you just enter the two names? 11 MS. TUFFY: One is from the Cutchegue Hethedist Church, and the ether is 12 from Starky Brothers Nursery, who is in the back. And I have the other ef these, and I 13 didn't make copies of these yet. HS. KOWALSKI: They will be in the record. MS. TUFFY: Do you want me to 15 leave these here? MS. KOWALSKI: Unless you want te 16 take them into the office and have copies. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie, do 17 you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I 18 think the applicant is as confused as I am about the notice ef disapproval. I don't see 19 anywhere where your notice of disapproval pertains to your addition. You're not 20 increasing it and you're not adding any setbacks. 21 MS. TUFFY: Well, at the tim~ they said they had to disapprove because it is 22 closer than 50 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But that's 23 existing, and it's always been there, and it's quite a beautiful house actually, and our code 24 does make provisions for the fact that you can have that house there in that setback and you 25 could even add to that by putting an addition on the back, and we're not policing anything February 26, 2004 1 2 anymore. I don't know why you're here, and deference te you, I think that you should just 3 take what we give you, which is probably hopefully the whole thing, and I just 4 appreciate your not -- I don't know how you could fight this, and I don't know hew we 5 could say no to you because there's no reason why. 6 HS. TUFFY: That's geed news.i CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tertora? 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want 9 to say, two nice little additions putting on the side, are very nice and should complement 10 the house. The reason why you're here is that the current cede requires a 50 feet setback, 11 even though you're preexisting nonconforming, that's the reason why you're here. I don't 12 have a problem with your nice little additions there. Geed luck. 13 MS. TUFFY: I think it will be nice because it's a very high house. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Rise, !I wanted te put on the record, they are single 15 story, correct? MS. TUFFY: Yes, both additions 16 are single story. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 17 BOARD HEMBER GOEHNINGER: Mrs. Tuffy, the addition on the west side is the 18 eno that will be 28 feet from the Main Read; is that correct, which is addition A? 19 MS. TUFFY: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 20 ether eno will be 49 feet? MS. TUFFY: Yeah. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have any questions. I think it's a lovely house 22 and I wish you lots ef luck with it. It's a beautiful place. 23 MS. TUFFY: Thank you. MS. KOWALSKI: Did you want to 24 take these so you can get copies? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 25 anybody else in the audience that would like te comment en this application? If net February 26, 2004 1 2 like te close the Nearing and reserve dec!ision until later. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sec!end. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. Thank you very much for coming in. Next 6 Thursday we'll make our decision and then after that we'll have our decision in writing. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Have a nice day. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 9 hearing is for Mr. Skrezec, the interpretation for a landscaping business is permitted to 10 stockpile landscape materials as an accessory use without the need for a special exception, 11 er special exception for a contractor yard. An interpretation I should say at that point. 12 Mr. McCarthy? MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning, !Tom 13 McCarthy, HcCarthy Management, representing Mr. Skrezec. I have an affidavit of posting 14 I'd like to give te you (handing). I think the reason we're in front 15 of you today is because ef our code, and what we seem te see is some really very pearly 16 written language within the code specifically in this case within the LB District. A little 17 bit ef history en the property, Mr. Skrezec purchased this site back in 2000~ The parcel 18 was split zoned. The area on Route 48 was R40, and the rear portion was towards the Long 19 Island Railroad, was Hamlet Business. He looked at this and said that this would be a 20 good spot for his landscaping business. !At that point he went through all the appropriate 21 channels and approached the Town Beard and was successful in getting a zone change to Limited 22 Business and Residential Office. The parcel is still eno piece of property am this point. 23 He Nas net subdivided the Residential Office section off ef the Limited Business section, 24 that you can see en your site plan, so it is again a split zeno parcel, but the intention 25 will be te carve out what will be a conforming eno acre let in the RO Zeno, and have that as February 26, 2004 1 2 a separate entity here. The funny part of the matter lis 3 that going to the Town Beard and asking for permission for limited business, we're all 4 under the interpretation that he's a permitted use within that LB sene. Just, I guess for 5 the record, the language within the cede ithat we were leaking at when he applied for limited 6 business is in the permitted uses, 100-81 A6, which at the bottom ef the paragraph permits 7 landscape and ether service businesses. However, going down to Section B Number 2, it 8 speaks of contractor's businesses er yards as a special exception use. And I don't know 9 what litmus test the building inspector uses te determine what is a landscaping service 10 business and when does someone become a landscaping contractor. 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Hay I iask a question? 12 CHAIRWOM}~ OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: So I don't 13 get too confused. Did the building inspector review this? Because I don't have anything 1% from him. MR. MCCARTHY: He would not give 15 us anything. We're presently in the Planning Board awaiting site plan approval. 16 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Per this? HR. MCCARTHY: Yes, for this, 17 We're with the Health Department, we're with Suffolk County DPW, we're with the 18 Planning Board for the approval for a 5,000 square foot building en this property. 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ Why did you -- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because -- go ahead. 21 MR. MCCARTHY: Why are we here? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 22 BOAteD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. MCCARTHY: We'd like to know. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Who sent you here? 24 MR. MCCARTHY: The Planning Department sent us here. The Building 25 Department has determined, although they would net give anything in writing, that we're February 26, 2004 1 2 similar to, I believe your other applicat!ion of Reflecting Nature which was a landscaper in 3 an LB zone. We have not gotten anything in writing from them, and the Planning Board 4 would not proceed to set our final hearing for site plan approval until we got an 5 interpretation from your Beard as te his en this property. 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have had no request from the Planning Beard er Building 7 Department for interpretation om this matter. We have had nothing from either the Building 8 Department er the Planning Beard -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the use of this property 9 or as a permitted use is not permitted, period. So I personally fail to see where our 10 jurisdiction is without -- you're here because somebody told you to be here. 11 MR. MCCARTRY: And they saidlit would not proceed with site plan. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have nothing in writing to substantiate what you're 13 saying. I don't question you. I'm just saying, it's like somebody walking in off the 14 street and saying well, Joe Schmo told me I had to come to you to get XYZ. 15 HR. MCCARTHY: We're caught between planning and building. We've been 16 told that our application is akin to Reflecting Nature. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chairman, I think that the Board has to 18 require a letter. If this is what the Planning Beard wants, they've get te put that 19 in writing with us. I'm net willing to ge any further with this until I see something from 20 them. MS. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, I don't 21 know if you had spoken about this or net} but I understand you were sent here because there 22 was no outside stockpiling proposed. MR. MCCARTHY: There are two, 23 issues, one is the use, and the second is stockpiling materials. 24 MS. KOWALSKI: That's not what we were told. But it's also my understanding 25 that Darrin Skrezec wanted to apply for a contractor's yard to move his applications February 26, 2004 5O 1 2 along quickly and get approvals from the planning office? 3 HR. MCCARTHY: That's correct!. MS. KOWALSKI: That's why you're 4 here. Which is the priority for you? MR. MCCARTHY: The second issue is 5 he has put en his site plan that he is stockpiling materials, a small amount ef 6 materials that he uses in bins, be it mulch, be it topsoil, er whatever he needs within his 7 landscaping business, and that was listed as a special exception use within the code. 8 There's been a let ef things that procedurally perhaps are not correct, but the Town engineer 9 came along and net the building inspector and said that we're not allowed to have those 10 material storage bins within 20 feet of the property line, and declared them te be a 11 structure, although they are a movable, concrete piece ef equipment, temporary walls 12 that he puts up in order te stere his materials and keep them segregated from one 13 another. Se we've been bouncing betweenlthe Building Department, Town engineer and the 14 Planning Board was unwilling te proceed without direction from your Beard. And we're 15 here kind of with our hat in our hands saying we'd really like to proceed with the Planning 16 Beard. We've been in this process for a long time, and we're looking for year intervention 17 either te give direction te the Building Department that the use is fine within the 18 zone and to address the issue of the stockpiling ef materials. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. McCarthy, do you want te just ask us for an 20 interpretation of that saying that contractor's yards, whether it means 21 landscaping contractors er what? MR. HCCARTHY: I would like te 22 know -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want 23 just a separate interpretation? MR. MCCARTHY: I would like to 24 have a special exception if that moves us along through the process. Actually, if we 25 could move forward with the special exception then address the cede issues with the Building February 26, 2004 51 1 2 Department and with the cede committee ann clean up some of the language that's here, se 3 that ether applicants don't have te ge through the same thing, I think the applicant woeld be 4 better served and anyone else coming down the line would be better served if we could clean 5 up the code language. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No eno will 6 give this gentleman something in writing,! so I think we need to start to put something in 7 writing so at least they can bounce something around. 8 MR. MCCARTHY: If you don't want him in the LB Zone where do you want him? 9 Maybe in the Ag zeno? CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Personally 10 speaking, te be a contractor's yard it can mean a landscaping, as long as you're storing 11 materials and Nave it properly screened as Carpet Green has done down the read from 12 you. I just don't see a big problem with this, frankly. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I said ask a question, Mr. McCarthy? 1% CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is 15 a general question te both you and the Board. Is the Planning Beard still meeting en 16 their Henday afternoon situations? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. But they 17 did not have a quorum this past Monday. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the 18 question is I think we should put this on and at least two members of this Beard should ge 19 along with Mr. McCarthy and find out exactly what they want. Then after we determine what 20 they want, then they can put it in writing te us, and then we can fully proceed with the 21 application. I've done that before. MS. KOWALSKI: We've asked the 22 Planning Beard for a letter, and we didn't get -- 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm very sympathetic to the application. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you are, but you just want something in writing. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But you're here based on se and se told me this, se and Pebruary 26, 2004 52 1 2 se told me that, So and se told me this, iand that's net your fault. But new I think t~his 3 Beard has te go back and demand that they put these concerns in writing. Otherwise, I'm 4 going te say you don't Nave te be here, period. 5 MR. HCCARTHY: Can you say that in writing? 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think the proper thing to de is to write a letter te the 7 PlanniNg Board, to tNe Town engineer~ te ithe Building Department saying we have an 8 application that is before us pursuant to your request. Please confirm this. If you don't 9 respond within 10 days, we will assume that this application is null and void. This zs 10 nonsense. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I 11 speak? MR. MCCARTHY: It came as a 12 surprise te me that the Town engineer is reviewing the plans with regard te setbacks 13 and ether things tNat are the Building Department and Planning Department's purview. 1% BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why don't we grant the guy the special exception and let 15 him be on his way. MR. MCCARTHY: We would love it. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree that, you know, he's entitled to ask us for a 17 special exception. He doesn't need any writing for anybody. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He wants an interpretation ef the regulation. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ Grant,him the special exception. It's allowed by the 20 special exception in that property; am I right, Tom? 21 MR. MCCARTHY: Landscape contractor is allowed by special exception, as 22 is the stockpiling of materials. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: Right!new 23 we could de it. Just make a motion, give him his special exception. My feeling is, you 2% might have other problems, but that's not our thing. You're going to have to deal with 25 them, but at least then we say, this is what we want; this is what he's asking for; let him February 26, 2004 53 1 2 have it. I see no reason why he shouldn'it have. I agree with you 100 percent, RutH, the 3 Planning Beard's going to take care ef the screening, and the things that are necessary for this contrac'tor's yard. Why are we even arguing? Just give him the special exception, 5 if we need te do it in code committee, then some other time -- let's have it some other 6 time. Let this applicant ge en with his thing. I think that's the way we should act, 7 and we can act, and we can de that soon. Then we don't have te worry about what the Planning 8 Board says, or what they don't say, because this is an application that he's entitled te make without any comment from any other board in this town, 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You're entitled te make it, whether you have to make 11 it, that's another story. That's what my point is. 12 MR. MCCARTHY: It comes downito, there are several factors in here, not the 13 most important of which is timing, the Planning Beard would net move forward to,set 14 the public hearing for the final approval ef his plan without this from the Building 15 Department, and I think it's an administrative problem within the town and how things are 16 reviewed when you get the certification of your site plan, te be honest with you. And I 17 think that's some ef the things that cede committee is looking at right now. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you have a landscaping business, obviously, just like 19 Landings by the Sea, you have te stockpile some things in the back. 20 MR. MCCARTHY: Absolutely. We're here asking for in an honest fashion 21 everything we're looking te de. We're not sitting here saying, leek, we're only looking 22 te put up a building and then we're going te be doing ether things later. We're here, 23 everything on top ef the table and Mr. Skrezec would like te get his approvals for exactly what he intends te de en this piece of property. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which~ is surrounded by a stone and gravel yard. Pebruary 26, 2004 1 2 MR. MCCARTHY: Railroad track's. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And he'll 3 probably screen it iN there and probably !make it look a hock of a lot nicer. 4 MR. MCCARTHY: It's going te nicer than it does new. But we've been 5 through the Architectural Review Beard. iWe've consented te some ef their suggestions 6 regarding the elevation of the building, ~and we have been everywhere except for the Town 7 Clerk's office to get a permit for a dog irun or something. We have been in every other 8 department in this town, and everybody's had their little shot at us, and we're just 9 looking te move forward and set a final public Nearing and get a building permit. 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I also agree with Mr. Dinizio, if we could go de the 11 special exception, we could get the ball rolling. 12 HR. MCCARTHY: We w©uld appreciate your help. 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have ne objection te that. I have ne objection to it. 14 I do feel that after we do that we should still fire off a letter in bold in the future 15 if they want to require an applicant to do something, they need te put that in writing to 16 ~s. MR. MCCARTHY: And I don't know 17 why the Planning Board hasn't responded to the Zoning Beard's requests for comments prior to 18 this public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ne, they just 19 asked us for our comments. MS. KOWALSKI: We sent them a 20 letter, and they came ever and said, we would like another letter requesting comments. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd llke te repeat that he did follow the rules. 22 CHAIRWONLU~ 0LIVA: There's no question about it. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So even if the Planning Board just suggests that it 24 really doesn't make too much difference in this case because he followed the law. He 25 applied for what he thought needed te be, and he's right by a special exception he has the Pebruary 26, 2004 55 1 2 opportunity te use this property for his business, and if we just grant that I think 3 that move en down the read. Certainly you can have your disputes with the Building % Department and the Planning Board. They thought something. They may have legitimately 5 thought something. They thought maybe we can't give you this, se they wanted some 6 clarification, but it's not their responsibility te ask that. It's his 7 responsibility. He has to convince them what he has is a geed use there. I understand that 8 the Planning Board and Building Inspector, there's a blur there, but I still think 9 prevalent in this town any board seems to be able te ask any question, whether they are 10 expertise in it anyway, and when that happens, even if they have the right to de se, what 11 happens is you have an applicant out here that's spending money monthly, and all he 12 wants te de is get it ever with. So I say let's get this one ever with. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 14 prepared to go through the special exception criteria that you're looking for at this time, 15 er would you like to spend about twenty minutes reviewing it? 16 HR. MCCARTHY: I'd like te review my file en the application and I'd be happy te 17 come back in front of you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Geed, de that. 18 Ail agreed? (Whereupon, all Board Members 19 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: lsd like te 20 move that we will wait 20 minutes fur Mr. McCarthy te review. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: SO second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in faVor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 23 responded in favor.) 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is fur Mr. Sampieri, who's down on 25 Bayberry Road in Cutchogue for an existing dwelling at less than 15 feet on single yard Pebrmary 26, 2004 56 1 2 setback. HR. MCLOUGHLIN: Good morning, 3 Kevin McLeughlin, Winds Way Professional Center, SoutNeld. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning. MR. HCLOUGHLIN: How are you? E 5 would like te hand up seven copies of a letter I have prepared for the Board basically 6 outlining the application and the legal criteria for granting an area variance Like 7 many of the people that apparently have appeared before the Beard se far today, we are 8 here basically going up a second s~ory ~n an existing seven to eight foot side yard setback 9 oh a property that requires a 15 foot side yard setback. We are also adding a very small 10 first floor addition also within setback au that same seven to eight foot as the existing 11 residence. Se none ef these snrucmures nhat are proposed under our application will be 12 nearer te the property line than the exlsming one story dwelling currently is. I de have 13 with me -- I don't want te spend ~ let of ~zme going ever what's contained in my letter, but 14 we do have both Mr. and Mrs. Samp±er~ here today and we also have represenEa~lves of Bush 15 Associates, they are the architecE?englneering firm. They're in charge ef this project. But 16 basically what this is, we're demolishing part of the first floor of the existing dwelling. 17 We're putting a second floor on and some small first story additions. There is also a 18 currently existing shed with a concrete pad underneath it that is actually much closer to 19 the easterly neighbor's property line than the house is, that will be removed as part ef this 20 project. So, in fact the closest structure te that property line is going to be removed and 21 everything else is in line with existing buildings. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there. I don't have any problem with it. Mr. 23 Goehringer? BOAi%D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fortunately 24 Mr. McLoughlin, this is the only one I didn't see out of the repertoire for February, but I 25 will be up on Saturday te leek at it. Se I don't have any comments at this time. February 26, 2004 57 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I walked 3 the property, I don't have a particular problem, but you get the illusion that the % side yards aren't as tight because of the major encroachments ef your clients en the 5 east side ef the property, you knew, the fence. 6 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I'm not sure !what you mean by encoachments, into the side yard 7 area? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I~to the 8 side yards. They've kind of borrowed same property and cleared it and vegetated it en 9 the east side. It gives the illusion it's a big side yard. 10 MR. HCLOUGHLIN: It's approximately an eight foot setback fremlthe 11 property line to the existing structure. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just 12 wanted to put on the record that it gives the illusion of a larger side yard there because 13 they have a fence that runs perpendicular on the corner ever into the neighbor's side yard, 14 and it's kind of cleared and maintained there. I was confused, I couldn't find the seven feet 15 until I found the markers and paced it off, because the side yard leeks probably close te 16 15 or 20 by the maintenance, but I just wanted to put that in there. 17 MR. HCLOUGHLIN: For the record, the distance between the closest paint ef my 18 client's house and the neighboring house te the east is going te be almost %0 feet. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ Righti But the gate en the east side is almost en the 20 property line, that's what I was getting at. It's an illusion right there. I don't have 21 any particular problems with the additions. Ne ether questions. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. TortOra? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don't 23 have any questions. The setback to the top ef the bluff is what? 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: 61'2TM I believe. We de have Town Trustees approval on this file 25 already. BOARD MEMBER TORTOP~A: I was just February 26, 2004 58 1 2 trying to see from the top of the bluff ms far as our jurisdiction is concerned, I ion't see 3 that on here, but I guess it must meet it because it's not indicated. Was that % indicated; do you know? CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: What was the 5 question again? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The 6 question is our jurisdiction was 100 feet ~c the top ef the bluff. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is 61.2. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is the 8 proposed addition within that 100 foot Dr net? MS. KOWALSKI: That hasn't been 9 addressed by the Building Department ~n their disapproval. 10 HR. MCLOUGHLIN: It's just ~e~ng straight up, it's net any new. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: If it's snramght up, then it's landward ef the existing 12 footprint. MR. HCLOUGHLIN: We're coming ne 13 closer te the water. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. That 1% answers my question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. According to your notice ef disapproval, you 16 were denied for a seven feet setback from the side yard; am I correct? 17 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That's 2errecE. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: You have an 18 existing seven feet setback, and they cited 100-2%2-A and I think B toe or C, no? And 19 also 100-30-A-3 on your notice ef disapproval? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That's correct. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Se, what was the reason that they told you that you 21 couldn't build, that you needed a variance? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: As in all 22 applications similar te these, their position of the Building Department is even if you are 23 net in any way reducing an existing side yard setback, if you ge up ena second story, that 24 is considered grounds for denying and requiring an area variance, because they deem 25 it, I guess some kind ef an additional encroachment on that required 15 foot setback, February 26, 2004 1 2 even though the line has been established by previous structures. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you didn't find that anywhere in the cede, though? 4 HR. MCLOUGHLIN: I have never bothered te thoroughly search the code for it. 5 I know that up until fairly recently that was not the position of the Town and that you 6 could go up along an existing established setback, but it's no longer the Town Building 7 Department's position and that's why we ended up here. 8 CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Jim, could we just ask -- 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'm trying te find out the reason why this 10 gentleman's here. I think I have the right to ask these questions. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like te move this along. You have already stated your 12 objection te things like this. We could just say refer back. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Ruth, we're here for a hearing. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Before, 15 when you had this problem, wasn't it just because they would just assume that if you had 16 seven feet that you could always have seven feet and going up didn't make a difference 17 because going up wasn't your nonconformity, your nonconformity was the seven feet, right? 18 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Historically that was true until fairly recently. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right2 So you don't have a nonconforming height problem 20 here. You weren't denied for height? MR. HCLOUGHLIN: No. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: You were denied for a side yard setback ef seven feet? 22 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you're 23 net increasing the degree of that nonconformity, are you? 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Not in the least. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all 25 I have, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd also like February 26, 2004 6O 1 2 te remark that Mr~ Dinizie previously, when the Beard enacted the Walz decision, veteld 3 against it, and I guess on every applicat~ien he is going te ask the applicant te explain % exactly what is the degree of nonconformance specifically. ThaNk you. 5 Does anybody in the audience ilike to comment? 6 MR. DOWNING: Good morning, I'm the neighbor to the west en Let 119, Richard 7 Downing, at 1280 Bayberry Read. We have ne problems with their proposals. I guess we're 8 unusual. We're asking to increase, if they could have a variance that extends further 9 down the property line t© possibly allow them te move their garage, which is down at the 10 lower portion ef the site, the northern part, which is going te take the removal efa number 11 ef trees. It's also where the migratory path ef all the deer are. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I knew, I iran across eight of them. 13 MR. DOWNING: Right. Se we're hoping maybe it would allow them where they 14 have the existing area, which is asphalt inow possibly they could bring the property line 15 d©wn se they could construct the garage on the property line, preserving the trees, 16 preserving the deer path, that's our ©nly concern. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Where was this, by the garage? 18 HR. DOWNING: Where the current pr©posed garage is trees, that's where all the 19 deers move, and up where they have an existing asphalt parking let, they have right now~ 20 It's almost right en the property line, and you know, possibly if we could extend the 21 variance that would allow them to construct their garage where there's already the 22 existing asphalt area, we're looking to preserve the trees, preserve the wildlife. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's net before 24 HR. HCLOUGHLIN: Legally speaking, that's net part ef the application before the 25 Zoning Beard. We don't need any variances to site the garage where we prepese~ It's up Pebruary 26, 2004 61 1 2 near the front ef the property near the road, setback, oh, I don't know maybe 20 -- I mean 3 65 feet er se fram the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. % MR. MCLOUGHLIN: In fact, again, it's net before this Beard, but if we were te 5 move the garage to the east, we would actually have to end up taking out larger, more 6 substantial trees over there and the applicant does net wish te do that. But, again, it's 7 really not an issue before this Board in any event because we don't need a variance in 8 order te site the garage at the proposed location. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You two can discuss that in private. 10 HR. DOWNING: In order far them to construct the garage, we'd have to come back 11 here. If they wanted to put it right en the property line, they have to come back here for 12 another variance. MR. HCLOUGHLIN: If that's what 13 they wanted to de, but that's not what they want te de. They want to put it where they've 1% got it en the plan, and that doesn't require any variances before this Board. 15 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of 16 this Nearing? If net, I'd like to close this hearing and reserve decision until later. 17 BOARD H~HBEN GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 18 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 19 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 21 hearing is Steven Pisacane, and he's proposing additions and alterations at less than %0 feet 22 from let line en County Route %8 in Cutchogue. Yon're the eno with the nice big hedge in 23 front. MR. PISACANO: Yes. Stephen 2% Pisacano, 16%05 Route %8, Cutchogue. Like yen said, I'm just trying to put an addition te 25 the west ef the house, 12 feet, and I am too close to the North Read~ Continning the house February 26, 200% 62 1 2 line, no closer, I didn't cema any closer, I'm just going west. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That house has been there I'm presuming for a long time. % MR. PISACANO: Probably than the North Read. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Definitely longer than the North Read. 6 MR. PISACANO: And I think they even chopped it off. Just if it means ? anything or not, I actually tried to go out the back because I didn't want -- I'd rather 8 be away from the North Read, but I couldn't afford new stairs, it was like building a 9 whole other house instead ef an addition. It was three times the cost, and I actually get 10 through the plans, and went through that cost and that trouble, se the only way te make 11 sense ef any addition, you know, 'cause the kids get bigger, 1% and 12, it's the only way 12 te de it. When Penny Lumber did draw the plans, they didn't knew. They weren't even 13 aware that they drew the plans wrong. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? 14 BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: I'm going te ask you the same questions I've been asking 15 every applicant. It's net you, Steve, it's the way that this is being handled. You have 16 a degree ef nonconformity, that's 26 feet. That exists there; that's what our Town 17 code says you can have that as that house is built. I want you te tell me hew you're going 18 to increase that 26 feet. MR. PISACANO: I'm not. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not going to? 20 MR. PISACANO: Ne. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: It's net 21 going to be 25 feet, right, it's going to be 26 feet? 22 MR. PISAC~kNO: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ That's the 23 way it was and that's the way it's going to be. You're net going to increase that. Se 24 that's all I have te ask you. The h©use is just basically going to be extended. 25 MR. PISACANO: And what I learned earlier from what you said to somebody about a February 26, 2004 63 1 2 patio, there is a patio that continues west also, it's just a slab but if that matters. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There's ne vertical retaining wall. % MR. PISACANO: So that one had it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yours is at 5 grade, different application. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want te 6 be sure you're net g©ing to increase that 26 feet. 7 MR. PISACANO: Ne. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tertera? 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no 10 particular problem. This will be a one and a-half te match the existing eno 11 and-a-half? MR. PISACANO: Yes, same ridge, 12 same. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 13 BOAND MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have te de this decision but it's my understanding 1% that the ridge line ef the existing house will be the same as this addition or will it be 15 lower er higher? MR. PISAC~O: I think it's the 16 same. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same? 17 MR. PISACANO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you 18 see any change in that would you let us know? MR. PISACANO: Okay. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like t© 20 comment en this application? If net, I'd like to close the hearing and reserve decision 21 until later. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Members 23 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? iSo 24 moved. Good luck. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Mr. Licalzi for a pool February 26, 2004 64 1 2 house that is shown as a barbecue pit and a swimming pool. 3 MR. HICALZI: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you this morning? MR. LICALZI: Fine, thank you. 5 I'm Luke Licalzi at 2105 Calves Neck Road. I guess this application has two parts. The 6 first part started with the peel setback and I'd like te handle it with two separate, when 7 we discuss it here. I'll give you a little history. We purchased the property in 1996. 8 In 1998 we did a lot ef construction. We remodeled the primary residence. We 9 constructed the pool, and we als© remodeled the pool house. Wow, in 1999, I was issued a 10 CO. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Per what, sir? 11 MR. LICALZI: As it turns out it was for the permit for the primary residence. 12 The pool was constructed by a pool contractor, and it had a separate permit application with 13 a separate number. When I received the C of O in February of '99, I didn't even look at it twice. I received the CO, I've never gotten two COs for a property I ever owned, I assumed 15 it was for the entire job that had been done. In fact, when the building inspector had 16 inspected the property for the C of O, the peel was completely constructed, it was 17 fenced; it wasn't landscaped because it was February, but even the remodeling job had been 18 completed. Everything had been completed in the late fall of 1998. Se I didn't think 19 twice about it until I received a letter from the B~ilding Department about three years 20 later asking me if I wanted te renew my permit for beilding my pool. I didn't knew what that 21 was aL1 about but I investigated it, and I found out my building contractor~ apparently 22 had applied for the C of O for hls permit and I guess the pool contractor had never done 23 that. In any event, then I had to have them come back and they inspected the property. 24 There was a little bit efa delay because the latches on the fence that surrounds the pool 25 were ~et in compliance, and it took me about almost a year te get the fence company, which February 26, 2004 65 1 2 is in Ridge, te come and change the latches. I had te finally threaten them befere they 3 would do that effectively. And then, ef course, I had the survey, which shewed that the ene cerner ef the poel was 49 feet frem the read -- frem the preperty line that abuts 5 the read. And that's why this began with the Zening Beard appeal fur the variance. 6 The peol centracter had used a survey which was done in 1996 by a 7 Hr. VanTyle, and that was a survey that was arranged by the seller, and that was in 8 preparation fur the sale and it was alse in preparatien fur the pre C ef 0 which was given 9 te the seller, which was given in 1996 and that's germane tee because it cemes up abeut 10 this peol heuse. The poel centractor used that survey te measure, and I think I 11 indicated in seme ef the things I gave yeu, 52 feet he had measured and staked from the 12 property line. Then when it was remeasured by a new surveyer Mr. Ingegno in 2000, and that 13 survey actually was done because we had te de seme revetment work down by the waterfrent, it 1% measured %9 feet, and that's why we're here teday. 15 I supplied some photographs of that cerner of the peel that's the %9 feet 16 between that and the road. It's heavily landscaped, even in winter you can't see the 17 poel item the road. And that's pretty much the story behind the peel. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How abent the peol heuse? 19 MR. LICALZI: Ail right. The peel heuse is I think interesting in that that was 20 amended to this application a couple weeks age, in February. New, the Building 21 Department inspectors have been at that heuse numerous times over the course of the 22 censtruction, the remedeling, the peel, and the reasen it was added te this is when 23 somebedy leoked at the survey as was told, previously where there's a peol heuse new en the previeus survey it said barbecue, and in additien, on the pre C of 0 it says barbecue 25 with shed. That pre C ef O, I don't leek at that. I got that at the sale ef the heuse and Pebruary 26, 200% 66 1 2 filed it away, never looked at it again, ~ever looked at it twice. In fact~ the information 3 that I provided te you, that structure, the exact footprint, that structure's been there % since 1946. The original owner of that property, the single owner e~ that property 5 prier te the time we purchased it~ that was the first structure he built on the property. 6 He was an avid sailor, se he built himself a structure that had cabinets and a sink. It 7 had a bathroom, half a bath, and he had built a brick fireplace, a barbecue, which was en 8 one wall on the exterior, so he could barbecue and he had his picnic table out there. So it 9 had plumbing, it had a bathroom and it's been there for many, many years. When we remodeled 10 the property in '98, the contractor discussed it with the Building Department who said, we 11 don't care what you do with the place as long as you don't make it bigger, as long as nobody 12 can sleep in there, and as long as you don't put in heat. Se what we did was, as I 13 indicated in the letter, is that we remodeled it, but we kept the entire -- as you walk in 14 there's a knotty pine kitchenette. There's no appliances in there. There's a sink. We 15 remodeled the bathre©m, which was very old, and made a changing room. We left the reef. 16 We left all the original doors. We remodeled the closet because we use that for storage and 17 there's also the electrical boxes in there. I also indicated that I sent some information 18 from when we purchased the house, a description from the realtor about what was 19 there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I saw 20 that. BOARD MEHBER TORTOP~A: Host of 21 what you're saying we have before us in the record. Is there anything that we do not 22 have? HR. LICALZI: I have some 23 photographs, if you're interested in them. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA~ Certainly. 24 MR. LICALZI: Just to shew you what was there. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Licalzi, have you gone te the Building Department te February 26, 2004 67 1 2 have at least a pre CO of that shed, which is now the half bath and the plumbing and that, 3 because that's something I think you would need. 4 HR. LICALZI: It was preexisting. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: But you need a 5 pre Cef O. Because on that eld survey all we see is a barbecue pit. 6 HR. LICALZI: Yes. But the Building Department will take all this 7 information, and they would issue me a pre C ef 0 based en the information I can provide. 8 You see, the problem with this is Number 1, the Building Department never brought this up 9 because they have had these surveys; they have been at the property; they never questioned 10 this structure. This only came up after the survey was reviewed here because the surveyor 11 labeled it pool house. It's only labeled pool house because we have a peel. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you still have te ge back to the Building 13 Department. We can't certify that it has a CO or is proper unless we have something fram the 14 Building Department. MR. LICALZI: But I'm shewing you 15 that it's preexisting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To show that it 16 was preexisting? MR. LICALZI: They can make that 17 determination. It was my understanding, I spoke te Damon, he said that they could net 18 make that, that I had to present it here that it was preexisting. 19 MS. KOWALSKI: If you apply to them for a pre CO and they deny you, then you 20 can apply here separately. You haven't gene that far. 21 HR. LICALZI: Okay, se can we leave this with the setback en the pool then, 22 okay? CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: You may have te 23 come back again, but sure. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then he's 2% going te have to make a whole new application. MR. LICALZI: That was the reason 25 we added this an. I sent in another $150. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is February 26, 2004 68 1 2 what I suggest you de, does it fall within the limitations of the advertising? 3 MS. KOWALSKI: Ne, it's not properly before the Board en the preexisting ~ nature ef the building. BOARD HEMBER TORTORA: Then we 5 don't have a choice. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why 6 don't we just hold it up and add to it. MR. LICALZI: I indicated that in ? my letter te the neighbors, my discussions, it's indicated te them that, I mean, they're $ all aware ef it obviously but this is part of the application. 9 MS. KOWALSKI: I don't believe the Zoning Beard can say it's preexisting. It's 10 up te the Building Department to de that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we delay 11 you until say the April meeting? De we have any room in March? Maybe he can do it by 12 March. MS. KOWALSKI: It will be more 13 than that. HR. LICALZI: Can we just separate 14 out the twa separate checks? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then it means 15 you just have to cema back before us and pay again; de you want te de that? 16 MR. LICALZI: It's difficult ifer me te take another day to do this. 17 MS. KOWALSKI: I wenld recommend that they rule on the pool, if they want, to 18 do that, but do the pool house separately, come back in March or April. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO~ No. Can I say something? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think 21 you'd be better elf just marching dawn there today and getting an amended disapproval} and 22 letting us put you on far the next month. Because if you don't, and we grant this, then 23 you've get to go through this process all over again. You could be June. It's up te you, 24 but -- MS. KOWALSKI: Part of the problem 25 is it's amended far setback, Jim, but it hasn't been reviewed for the design ef it with Pebruary 26, 2004 2 the bathroom and everything. So it may Ma here for another issue which would be the 3 design from the living area, and they haven't addressed that. % BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see ithis as built survey has been added on to. 5 MS. KOWALSKI: Yes, for the location ef it. 6 MR. LICALZI: If you remedel,~ you don't need permission to remodel something if 7 you're not going to change the footprint. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If depends 8 on what you're putting in there, if you're putting in a fireplace, three bedrooms and two 9 baths, then they're going to say it's net a pool house. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make it two stories. 11 MR. LICALZI: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZI0: I think we 12 have the information te give him what he needs. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Per the pool. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Even for 14 the structures. MS. KOWALSKI: But he's saying 15 he's preexisting, and the Building Department gave a letter explaining why it's net 16 preexisting. MR. LICALZI: I gave you an 17 explanation ef why that's incorrect. It's incorrect for a couple of reasons. 18 MS. KOWALSKI: He's not asking for a variance. He's asking the Beard te issue a 19 pre CO. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can't do 20 that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No} te 21 acquiesce that it exists and it has existed, basically, which is exactly what we're going 22 to say. But, Doctor, we really de have to inspect that building. I mean, we have te 23 make an appointment with you regardless ef whenever we de this, te at least go through 24 the building, and it's not that we in any way object to it. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Object tolit. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I've February 26, 2004 ?0 1 2 already leaked at it, Jerry, through the windows when I visited the site, and there are 3 appliances in. There's a refrigerator, I think that classifies as an appliance, and 4 there's a shower. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And there's 5 the Building Department is saying that it's net a pool house, that it was a cottage, 6 that's what they're essentially saying. MR. LICALZI: But I can argue this 7 in front of the Building Department; they have a mechanism where I can argue that it was 8 preexisting even though the pre C of O says it wasn't and they're in error, obviously. 9 That's the problem here, is that the inspection for the pre Cef 0 is net adequate. 10 MS. KOWALSKI: That's what I'm saying, it's net before the Board before these 11 issues. They haven't denied it far that reason and you need te get a denial fram them 12 saying why they can't issue a pre CO. They haven't dane that yet. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think according te this they have, Linda. I haven't 14 seen that one. MS. KOWALSKI: But they haven't 15 given the section of the cede that they are basing that on. They only denied it for the 16 location and the side yard. They didn't deny the use. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn{t deny the use. Linda's right. 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In other wards, this article, which is not submitted, 19 100-33. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does not 20 meet the front yard setbacks, three buildings and structures° 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the problem is he's asking us for the use. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: With the amenities in that building, you have basically 23 three dwellings on that property. You have a shower, a bathroom, a refrigerator, a little 24 kitchenette. MR. LICALZI: There was electric 25 in there previously. There was a bathroom in there previously, there is a toilet in there February 26, 2004 71 1 2 previously, the kitchenette was in there previously. There's nothing new in there. 3 The only thing we remodeled is the bathroom. BOARD MBMBER DINIZIO: Is there a % plan before the building inspector en that? MS. KOWALSKI: No~ hot for the 5 design of it. MR. LICALZI: What de yen mean? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At some point in time, did someone apply for a 7 building permit to bnild that structure? MR. LICALZI: Ne. It was 1946, 8 the photograph, that's when it was built. I have a picture of the bathreem~ the original 9 bathroom from the structure. The original toilet I have a picture of. I was faced with 10 a structure that existed that we decided to place the pool in a certain location, and this 11 was a natural structure te remodel. It already had a bathroom in it. It already had 12 electricity. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: It almost 13 made a dwelling it could be interpreted as. MR. LICALZI: There's ne place to 14 sleep and there's no heat in there. That was the comment the Building Department had at the 15 time. We didn't need to do any special -- we didn't need to get a permit. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What did yen pet, new siding? 17 HR. LICALZI: We put new siding and a couple ef new windows, the little 18 windows the contractor had left over in his garage. We preserved a door, which is a dutch 19 deer. We preserved the door which goes te the closet, which used te be the door to the 20 bathroom, and we stere our pool stuff in there, and has the transfer box. But the 21 footprint is exactly the same. See, that's why, I mean, the Building Department didn't 22 really question this. MS. KOWALSKI: But they're 23 questioning it new. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're 24 questioning it new~ and you're just going to have te ge back and show them the plan that 25 yen have the bathroom in there and whatever amenities you have, and if they deny it, February 26, 2004 72 1 2 you'I1 have to come back to us. Legally speaking, that's all we can do. We have no 3 authority at this point te grant a pre CO to your peel house. They're the only ones that 4 can grant that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But we can 5 address the pool today. MR. LICALZI: That would be fine. 6 I'd appreciate that. That would be great. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you ? have any trouble with the setback of the pool? BOARD MEMBER DINiZiO: Ne, ne, one 8 foot. But I still am a little confused about why we can't address that building. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Linda says you cannot de it because of the use, and it says 10 the as built peel house. MS. KOWALSKI: It hasn't been 11 denied under the cede section for the use ef the building; it was denied for the setback 12 location, 100-33. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The 13 building was. I thought it was the pool. MS. KOWALSKI: The peel house. 14 The pool's okay to ge ahead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The peel house 15 you can't do it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The 16 building did preexist. MS. KOWALSKI: We don't knew that. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We don't have documents. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It only says the eld survey is a barbecue pit and a shed, 19 and it says it en the property card, but it's net as a pool house that has a bathroom, a 20 shower and whatever else it has in it. MS. KOWALSKI: And I also did not 21 advertise te say that the Beard is considering the issue of whether or not this building is 22 preexisting, so I'd like te be able to advertise it properly. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't see that second, that updated -- I mean, I'm 24 dealing with just the peel. So this is all new to me. 25 HR. LICALZI: But the Building Department can make that determination? If February 26, 2004 23 1 2 they say that they can't, and it comes back here, are you going te base it on the same 3 information I provided today? BOARD M~MBER DINIZIO: No. You're 4 going te provide them with information te make the decision. They're going to ask you for 5 this, they're going te ask you ier that, titles, surveys, all this stuff. Then they're 6 going to say, either it preexisted and yew don't need it, er they're going to disapprove 7 it, and you're going te be before us with their explanation as te the reason why it's 8 net allowed in the town. You have te make an application to them. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Night. De I have a motion te close the hearing and reserve 10 decision until later for the peel? BOARD MEMBER GOEHPINGER: Yes. 11 BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRWOM}~ OLIVA: He'll be making 12 that determination in a week. Then you'll have t© ge back te the Building Department. 13 Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Members 14 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: Opposed? So 15 moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 16 to tell you, Doctor, it is a magnificent location. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you think -- what would be a convenient time for you to 18 come beck, March er April, for the Building Department? 19 MR. LICALZI: Can I let you know? BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: We have te 20 wait for the Building Department. MR. LICALZI: Maybe they will say 21 it's no problem. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. McCarthy? MR. MCCARTHY: I'm happy te speak 23 to the special exception criteria that you need to address. 24 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before you start that, this is my file. We are 25 only this is everybody, we are only discussing the special exception, and that is Pebruary 26, 2004 74 1 2 the only thing that this Board will be granting when we have a special meeting; is 3 that correct? MS. KOWALSKI: This is en the % 8krezec hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that 5 correct everybody? (WNereupon, all Board Members 6 responded in favor.} BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The fleer 7 is yours. MR. MCCARTHY: I understand 8 there's been new correspondence from the Planning Department, but they would not make 9 that available to us. MS. KOWALSKI: They gave a letter 10 and they came back in and took it back. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you 11 make a copy quick? MS. KOWALSKI: I tried and the 12 machine was jammed. MR. MCCARTHY: I went to try and 13 get records out ef the Planning Board this morning, and they told me I had to file a FOIL 14 request. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On your own 15 application? MR. MCCARTHY: On our own 16 application. Then I went back te speak with our Planning director said, well, we can't 17 officially release it because I haven't polled all the members yet. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ge through your special exception. 19 MR. MCCARTHY: As I read your criteria, we feel that our use will net 20 prevent an orderly and reasonable use ef adjacent properties and properties in the 21 adjacent use districts as they are more intense. We are hacked up to the railroad 22 tracks and we're backed up te light industrial zoned properties. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before you go farther with that. Again, my 24 application, these pits that you're going te put in, will be in that rear portion of the 25 property? HR. MCCARTHY: That's correct, February 26, 2004 75 1 2 they're designated en the site plan. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Amd the whole 3 front is going to be nicely screened so we don't see any of it. 4 MR. MCCARTHY: It's going to be beautiful. 5 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a vast amount ef woodland en this property, 6 that woodland will be carved out te allow those pits to be iN, so virtually clearing the 7 entire piece? MR. MCCARTHY: The materials that $ may be stored here, maybe five, ten, 20 yards ef material. We're net talking about bringing 9 in 20 tractor trailer loads ef goods and stockpiling them. The site plan shows that 10 the bins may be 10 er 12 feet wide, and they're just pre-cast concrete blocks just te 11 keep the topsoil separate from the sand and from the mulch. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Proceed. HR. MCCARTHY: The use will net 13 prevent the orderly and reasonable uses, the use ef permitted er legally established uses 14 in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located er permitted or legally established 15 uses in the adjacent use districts. When the Town Board looked at rezening this to LB, they 16 saw it as under the guise ef it being a transitional zone from a more intense use to 17 the west tea less intense use ef ROte the east, and this fits in within that transfer ef 18 intensity. The safety, health and welfare, the comfort and convenience and the order of 19 the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. The use has 20 been in the front ef the Planning Board and all of the site planning concerns have been 21 addressed by the Planning Board as well as the DOT for curb cut permit and the Health 22 Department, and we have addressed all of the concerns with anyone that has raised them. 23 The use will be in harmony and will promote the general purposes intent of this chapter, 24 and this chapter, by the virtue ef the fact that it is a listed special exception use, is 25 telling us that, yes, this is an area where we want to have your use in the LB Zone, however, February 26, 2004 76 1 2 you need to come forward and ask us for permission. That's why we're here, because 3 you have told us this is the zone you want us to be in. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 5 ne questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have none. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't either. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Se you'll 9 finally get something in writing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a 10 motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 12 (Whereupon, all Board Hembers responded in favor.) 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That will be next week, right? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That will be next Thursday night iS MR. MCCARTHY: We will let the Planning Board know and hopefully they will be 16 able te schedule the public hearing for the site plan. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wish you luck. 18 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you very much. (Whereupon, a lunch recess was 20 taken from 12:00 p.m. te 1:05 p.m.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reconvenethe 21 meeting this afternoon. Our first resolution te be a request from Osprey Dominion and LIPA 22 KeySpan te adjourn the meeting until March 18th at 11:45 a.m. I'll move that resolution. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 24 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? Se moved. Pebruary 26, 2004 77 1 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first 3 application this afternoon is for the Bakelaars. They wish to propose an addition 4 to their house which will exceed the 20 percent and go to about 24 percent. Would 5 they like to stand up and tell us what they want to do? 6 MR. BAKELAAR: I'm John Bakelaar, and I'm representing my mother and father, and 7 basically they are in need of care, residential care for somebody to be there. My 8 daughter and grandson and sen-in-law intend to move in. We need te add en two bedrooms and 9 two baths to the residence in order for them to be in residence and take care of my mother 10 and dad. That's it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, do 11 yOU have any questions of Mr. Bakelaar? BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: No 12 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hrs. Tortora? 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you could wait just a minute. 14 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Sure, Vincent? BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Yes, I 15 spoke te the applicant briefly when I was there, and he briefed me en the scenario. I 16 believe because the logistics, layout ef the property being se close te one side, it really 17 doesn't leek out of place even though it is a little bit larger than the average house, but 18 we had spoke about it. If yen leek at the face ef the house there's a reverse gable on 19 the left side and have the matching reverse gable en the ether side. So there will be 20 symmetry, and I think it will leek pretty nice right there. I just didn't know what was the 21 largest percentage ef over 20 we've given, Linda, er, Jerry, de yen recall in the past? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 27.9 percent, Sigsbee Road, Mattitnck. I think it 23 will be a nice little addition there and I understand your concerns there. 2% MR. BAKELAAR: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't really 25 have a problem knowing you're there to take care of the folks, and it's better te have February 26, 2004 78 1 2 them there at home than te send them off ~some other place. Jerry? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no ether questions. 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just have one question. What's going te be in the new 5 addition? MR. BAKELAAR: Two bedrooms and 6 two bathrooms. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It will 7 also stay a eno story structure? MR. BAKELAAR: That's right. 8 BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: I don't have any ether questions. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in the audience wish to comment en this 10 application? If not, I'll make a motion te reserve decision and close the hearing. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 12 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Bakelaar. 14 MR. BAKELAAR: Thank you. BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: Have a geed 15 day. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Gary Mangus down at Island View 17 Lane; would you like te tell us what you wish te de? 18 MR. MANGUS: Good afternoon. ! We want to be able te stay out here more, a~d we 19 have a really small cottage, and so we want te add another bedroom and two baths to it. It's 20 marginally considered a two bedroom, but the one bedroom is seven and-a-half feet by 21 something. Se we're proposing te put an addition that gees back away from the water, 22 toward the read. The house is set back quite a ways from the road. And we were going te ge 23 up to a second fleer ever part of the existing house, and the addition would have two fleers. 24 There is a roof bulkhead and stair that gees up to the reef, and a small mechanical ream up 25 there that's a half story. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you February 26, 2004 79 1 2 explain te us what the mecha.nical reem entails? 3 MR. MtkNGUS: We're pretty low elevation there. We can't have a basement or 4 anything like that. So I was putting the mechanicel~ instead of putting it en the first 5 or second fleer, I was setting it en the top floor, and that gives us potential in the 6 future, to add air conditioning if we want to do that. I can put air handler and stuff. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want central air conditioning? 8 MR. HANGUS: We're not going te do it new, but maybe down the road we will. So I 9 was allocating space, and instead of having a condensing unit other places, the condensing 10 unit will probably have te be out in the yard, but the air handler and stuff in the package 11 system is usually set on the reef, and it can look -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it makes your structure quite high. 13 MR. MANGUS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And I think 14 your neighbors -- HR. MANGUS: Yes, it's about 30 15 feet. Basically it's just enough -- what I tried te do was keep the reef eve the same as 16 that proposed for the garage, and -- CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: I see. It's a 17 little bit higher. MR. MANGUS: Ne, it's higher~ But 18 it was the same proportions and same line. But I could flatten that out. Ail I need is 19 enough room for head room at the top ef the stairs te get out. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There would be no living space up there? 21 MR. HANGUS: No. Ceiling height inside is 7'5" right now. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Goehringer, do you have some questions? 23 BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: You have te raise this entire structure, sir, to do 24 this addition or is this very simply -- HR. HANGUS: I was just talking to 25 John Metzgar and the elevation above the flood plain finished floor is 7.6 feet. Se we're February 26, 2004 8O 1 2 going to have to lift the house, you know, to get it up te eight foot, which is the zone 3 that's required. These were done on shaky foundations, and there's been a significant 4 amount of termite damage. I have a feeling we're going te have to rebuild most ef it. I 5 was hoping initially te maintain a let of it, but there are a lot of materials like asbestos 6 shingles and ether things that I think are environmentally wrong to have, and I want to 7 get them out and do natural materials. And we're doing a lot of things te try and work 8 around it really te site. BOARD HEMBEN GOEHRINGER: This is not a rip-down, though, why you're net ripping the house down. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically he's going te have to. 11 MR. HAN©US: I'm pretty much going te have to. The walls are in the same place, 12 but I don't know hew much termite damage and ether things and whether it's even going te be 13 worth salvaging. I doubt if it will. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As long as 14 you're going to have to raise the house anyway for FEMA. 15 HR. HANGUS: I think it makes sense to de it. I've been considering some 16 alternate foundation systems that I think might be mere environmentally friendly. We're 17 trying not te take any trees out and there are a let ef big trees on the site. And I've 18 worked around that, and I've worked around -- if I can show you en some diagrams. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: Mri Glever, could I ask you to close that back 20 door, er front deer? Thank you. MR. MANGUS: There are big trees 21 here, here, here, here, another eno here, big trees here (indicating). And we're trying net 22 to take any of them out. There's another one here. Se what we're proposing is a second 23 story over this area. This is the existing house, and there are existing sheds here. We 24 would rip those out, get rid of them. Go through this corner, essentially going through 25 that corner but paralleling the property line, but the existing setback with stuff that's Pebruary 26, 2004 81 1 2 there is seven for the shed, six for the perch, and the house is at just about eight, 3 and that's what we want te try and maintain is that eight feet. Se we're not taking any 4 trees out. We've got an accessory garage, which is probably net part ef the variance, 5 but it's required te be 35 foot back from the road. We're setting back te 39. Se we could 6 de two things, be able to get our two vehicles in without having to necessarily pull into the 7 garage every time; and to get a service truck around in here (indicating). If I went 8 forward I couldn't get past here. The additional dilemma is going to be septic and 9 because ef the elevations, we have te ge te the eight foot, diameter, two foot deep 10 precast rings. They have to be set back 10 feet from the buildings and five feet from the 11 property lines. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me, do 12 you have public water down there? MR. MANGUS: Yes, we do. And I 13 have a proposal in te the health board just put it in for this septic. Water is Town 1% water, comes in here. There is an exceptio~ in there, if yo~ de certain things you can 15 actually run water below these, but it has te be done appropriately. 16 Se, given these constraints, given the trees, there isn't any area to accomplish 17 the space things that we need. The house right now is 700 and some square feet, and 18 with. the additions and stuff, we're going to be abe~t 1,935 I think outside walls and 19 everything in it. So, that's that part of it. There is one other aspect and 20 that's there were questions about sunlight and neighbors and views. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. HR. MANGUS: The other thinglthat 22 we did was this neighbor is two and-a-half, under three feet from our property line, and 23 if we were to have gone in that direction, we would have been close te them. Se as it is 24 we'll be 19.8 from the property line en that side, and the neighbor here the closest point 25 it splays out is 23.4, and that's from the property line here. Te the corner ef the February 26, 2004 82 1 2 house, corner ef their house is 38 feet. i We had an earlier proposal that was te the 3 Trustees and the garage was up; there were questions about that and the septic. I 4 shifted the garage back. I think it addresses some ef those concerns for proximity, and I 5 have no windows in the gareges on this side. I have some on this side for natural light. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How far are you setback from the bulkhead, I don't seem to 7 see this among the drawings? MR. MANGUS: I believe it's 54 8 feet from the foundation, and according to Damon and I'm not sure if he took it here 9 because these are en weed piers, or he took it to the house, but it's somewhere in the 60 10 feet range. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe 11 we need an accurete measure, if we need to write a decision en that. 12 MR. MANGUS: VanTyle had done a survey earlier, it's not. But I have these te 13 scale, and I can tell you right new. BOARD MEMBER ORL}~DO: I didn't 14 mean te jump in there, Madam Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's quite 15 all right. Wait, I think I do have it en eno. It's 38 to the one porch and 51 feet te 16 the corner of the house. MR. MANGUS: That's about right. 17 'Cause I'm measuring five plus inches se that's accurate. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you have to get a Trustees permit for this? 19 MR. NLA/qGUS: Yes. And Trustees, the two dangling issues were septic and we had 20 also submitted to rebuild er repair the bulkhead. I'm not sure we'll continue with 21 that, but I want te see where I am with DEC. I think that's going to be the stringent test. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One never knows, the Trustees can be pretty tough. 23 MR. }JkNGUS: It's true. The other question that seemed to 24 come up was impact on neighbors. Setbacks here, our next door neighbor just get a 25 variance. She's 7.3 feet from the property line and total of 12 feet 3, that's window -- February 26, 2004 83 1 2 to bedroom window. This is 2 and-a-half land the next property is en this side ef Frank 3 it's 6, and then the property line to the house is 4 and-a-half en the next eno, and the 4 next one is S feet. So it's pretty typical in this area. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right there. Off of Private Road it's quite close. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But these ether houses -- net to interrupt, I'm sorry, 7 sir were first fleer additions. MR. MANGUS: There were three in 8 the neighborhood, not looking at Heffernans or other -- 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. Because your closest neighbor we gave a 10 various to was only a single story addition, but that's irregardless. 11 Since I jumped in, I'd like te ask a quick question. By the evidence you've 12 submitted here, it almost looks like you're demolishing and starting over, which I don't 13 have a problem with. But I was just curious, if you didn't want to turn your house and face 14 the beautiful view that you have and really expand en that. It's on an angle there. But 15 I thought maybe if you'd want t© turn it and enjoy the beautiful site you have there, you 16 might get a better side yard and a better view. 17 MR. MANGUS: The good view is here, but we actually have geed views out 18 these windows and these and here. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're 19 trying to share it amongst the people in your house there. You're a nice father. 20 HR. MA~GUS: I probably could have rotated it. I think it w©rks pretty well 21 there, but I've get problems with trees. I have problems of big tree here. I have a big 22 tree here. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: I was just 23 throwing it out there. Take advantage ef the view yen have. 24 MR. HANGUS: Initially we started by trying te keep it as a cottage look, and 25 realized that there's ne way we could begin te get anywhere near three bedrooms and the space February 26, 2004 1 2 that we needed to retire. I'm an architect, licensed architect in New York State. Hy 3 wife's a psychologist, and we do work out of our house. 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you have thought through this. 5 MR. MAi{GUS: I have gone through this many, many, many iterations. I really 6 was trying net to touch any ef the trees because I think it's a tough environment for 7 them to grow in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They make a 8 shade in the summer, too. MR. MANGUS: Yes, they do. It's a 9 rather special environment. This is coming in from sort ef north, and that's the house and 10 this is the house, and there's trees here. And there was a concern by our next deer 11 neighbor for sunlight. But this is her house and these are the trees between her and the 12 sun. Se she doesn't get sun until later in the day, and we have privet in here and 13 there's some evergreen trees in here. And in the summer I don't think there's any view in 14 there. Maybe right new you could get a winter view, but I believe she's a summer resident 15 only. Yeah, I've been agonizing over the impact and the mass on it. One of the reasons 16 I stepped it back in the front was I take the primary place that the house is seen, because 17 almost everything else is buried in the trees, the trees are well over that height. Se the 18 primary massing, the place it will be seen is from the water. I tried te step that back and 19 massage that en the elevations, and we leaked pretty hard at the ether elevations, feeling 20 ef the mass en it. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: The only 21 thing I can see is we'd need an official drawing shewing the setback to the bulkhead. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sorry 23 she did say she had that. I have ne further questions. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hrs. ~ertora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just note 25 that you're planning en demolishing the existing foundation. Pebruary 26, 2004 85 1 2 MR. MANGUS: Yeah. I may try to go tea point foundation se the land can run 3 through and under the house. It will be mere expensive, but if environmentally it works 4 better, and we're looking at some alternate water retention methods. Beyond what will be 5 required by DEC, and we're trying to bring these back up away from the house so they will 6 have better seepage into the ground. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The other 7 thing I see is there are two sets of the breakdown ef the plans, and one set you are 8 proposing 16 feet, 16 percent lot coverage, which is en the notice of disapproval but en 9 the handwritten note that I have here it says 19 percent and the dimensions are different. 10 HR. MANGUS: I'm not sure which the two are. I know when I was doing zoning 11 calcs, I had someone in the office doing, I didn't catch some that went out that were 12 later, but I think there are some incorrect numbers in the latter eno. Damon projected 13 the let coverage at I think 16, and he did a take off en it. 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is not from Damon, this is from you? 15 MR. MANGUS: Right. That's probably the one that went out. This went out 16 later, I didn't catch the zoning calcs en it. They will be corrected. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: They really need te be correct for us se that when we 18 approve a plan, when we send a plan over to the Building Department, we can cite that we 19 are approving are XYZ plan. MR. MANGUS: Okay. 20 HS. KOWALSKI: If you could just confirm by letter, confirm what the percentage 21 is and which plan we're supposed to be relying on. 22 MR. HANGUS: Okay. The eight feet setback that we're trying te maintain is for 23 the bulk of the house. There is a side perch that comes into it's an entrance t© a 24 bathroom, so that when we're muddy working in the yard, we can come in and use the bathroom, 25 se it will function like a bathroom/mudroom. Ail I really need is a room to get up and get February 26, 2004 86 1 2 in there. It's low and I'm confident I can do that in the perch with one tread. I was !just 3 leaking out there, se I don't need the second tread, which will bring it back to four feet. 4 It's not possible to see that porch. There's a six foot high stockade fence just beyond it 5 that belongs to our neighbor. Se it's net going te be visible. I just need it te get 6 into the house, but if I had to lose it, I could lose that. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else? BOARD HEHBEN TORTORA: No. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just a 9 little concerned about your tearing the house down, and I'm net se sure that another law 10 doesn't kick in once you de that. HR. HANGUS: That's the only 11 reason I have not made a final decision, but fram my conversations with people, it used te 12 be you had to maintain one wall, and another friend in Mentauk said that was the case. I'm 13 used to working in the city, se I'm not as familiar with the laws. But I will make sure 14 that that's net the case or if it is the case, then I will work around. I think it's 15 advantageous in many respects te actually take it down and rebuild, but I don't want te net 16 be able to build on the site. If that's the case i'll work around it. I'll leave it in 17 place. But I de want te get rid ef the red asbestos shingles, and there were termites in 18 it before we bought it, and we've had termites cema right through the side of the kitchen 19 cabinets, se there's mere damage, and there was a let of rot. Insulation, there was ne 20 air space, what i~sulation there is. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: I'm just 21 concerned that you're not going te be back here before us when you take that house dawn. 22 I would be careful about that one wall se-called room because I don't -- 23 MR. MANGUS: Yeah. I heard that it's not something that is required new, but 24 that was told te me by Ran Hermann, En-Consultants, b~t I will sit dawn. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, anything else? February 26, 2004 87 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.~ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to 3 make -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sorry, 4 two ether popped up in my head. The first was is there a square footage ef your non-third 5 floor, or third floor non-living space, hew you want te address that, the mechanical room? 6 MR. MANGUS: I can tell you probably what the mechanical room is easily -- 7 I don't see it here, right in front ef me, and it's probably there and I'm net -- 8 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I don't remember seeing the dimensions of it. 9 MR. MANGUS: I don't know see it. I can look it up and tell you. I don't have 10 it in front ef me. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Could you, 11 when you address the letter and also just out of curiosity, the mechanical upstairs, are you 12 going te be using natural gas, propane, ell? MR. MANGUS: I'm going te sit down 13 with some consultants and leek. I want something environmentally friendly. Initially 14 I was thinking why we don't have natural gas out there, se it would be either propane or 15 ell. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was just 16 curious about the pumping ef the ell from the ground up. 17 MR. MANGUS: I talked to with a mechanical engineer last week about it, and 18 there is another pump, we might have te put a second pump in near the tank te boost it up. 19 But he didn't think there would be a problem with it. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It has nothing te de with the applicatien~ I was just 21 curious. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's big en ell 22 spills. MR. MANGUS: One of my best 23 friends is a mechanical engineer, so I'll review it with him. 24 CHAIRWOMA2q OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes te speak 25 en behalf or against this application? Yes, Mr. McLeughlin. February 26, 2004 88 1 2 HR. HCL©UGHLIN: Good afternoon, Kevin HcLeughlin, Windsway Professional 3 Center, Seuthold, on behalf ef the adjoining neighbor, Rita Jones. I wenld like to hand up a letter and some photographs for the Beard's consideration. 5 My client's property borders ithe applicant's property basically te the west. 6 The proposal before this Beard sounds like it basically triples the size ef the existing 7 building. It's going to raise the house as it exists new, and add another living story and 8 then more space en top that te handle a mechanical room, all within eight feet ef the 9 property line. Then there is a garage that runs along 26 feet ef the common property -- 10 I'm sorry, runs along 26 of the common property line within three feet ef the line. 11 Initially I assumed that this variance application included that and then with 12 further review, much to my dismay, I discovered that that is an allowable three 13 feet setback for a detached garage which BOARD ~EMBER ORLANDO: With this 14 let size they change se much° HR. MC~OUGHLIN: -- frankly 1S horrified me. My client has ne problem with the 16 applicants trying te make this into a mere liveable year 'round residence. The problem 17 though, is the height of the proposed addition. What they have right now, if you 18 haven't been there, is a one story, small cottage, which frankly, with a 35 foot width 19 let is probably what was intended to be put on these parcels. She has a eno story house. 20 The neighbor en the ether side has a one story house, and new we're basically tripling the 21 size ef the house and making much, much larger and taller than it was. I'm also hearing that 22 perhaps the entire building is basically being tern down, in which event, again, as 23 Mr. Dinizio points out, maybe some ether problems. But assuming that doesn't end up 24 being the case, we have a very substantial portion ef the common property line being 25 drastically affected by this proposal. It seems te me by leaking at the site plan, i that February 26, 2004 89 1 2 a lot of my client's concerns could be greatly alleviated by simply moving the proposed 3 addition en the house a couple of feet basically to the east. It would get it Off 4 her property line, would de away with the necessity efa variance and would net 5 drastically affect the house te the east. It would center basically what this addition 6 would be. We would also like to request that the applicants consider moving the proposed 7 garage more towards the center ef the property se as te ameliorate any impacts on e very 8 substantial building, the 26 feet length of which is right en top of the property line. ~ have outlined in my letter all of my concerns from a legal point ef view. 10 We're else very concerned, there are overhead wires that run across this 11 property and service my client's property as well that obviously are going to have te be 12 dealt with because they virtually ge right next to the existing eno story dwelling. I 13 don't knew what the applicant's plan is for addressing that, what affect that will have on 14 my client's service or any interruption thereof. But I think with a little bit of 15 tweaking, we could move this project somewhat te the east. They could still accomplish 16 getting a substantially increased residence and lessen the impact on my client. Thank 17 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any questions? 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is this something that you would want to consider? 19 MR. M~GUS: If we look at right now there's a 10 foot setback here. It would 20 mean I've only got four foot away from these trees now, and I'm quite close actually to the 21 neighbor on the opposite side, much closer than I am to the neighbor on the other side. 22 On the other side this person would be 38 feet, as finished this would be between 24 and 23 25, 24 and change in this distance, and coming this way, I'm eight here and 10 there. 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTONA: The way the h©use is designed? 25 HR. HANGUS: The way the house is new sitting, yes. February 26, 2004 90 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And t~ere's ne other way you can design it? You're an 3 architect. MR. MANGUS: I think unless I ge % off the same footprint, I'm going to have some problems. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Your concern, just te clarify this, is te maintain 6 the same footprint for what reason? MR. HANGUS: I don't think 7 currently we would be able to build in this location en that footprint if this was new, if 8 we were just coming in because of the distance from the water. And there used te be 9 something in the cede that yen had to maintain one wall, I'm not sure whether that's still 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTOPA: I don't think there was ever anything in the code te 11 that effect, and, correct me if I'm wrong, anyone that's here. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, that was an interpretation made by a prier 13 building inspector in the 1980s and it left with him in the 1980s. 1% CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There is no 15 quid pre quo. MR. MANGUS: The main reason is 16 the trees. This is the house new. It would mean taking out quite a number of trees there, 17 probably three are four big trees. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Prom grade 18 te the ridge ef the top ef the mechanical ream, de yen have a height for that? 19 MR. MANGUS: I believe it's at 30 er 31 feet. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTO~: If yo~ ge up the other four feet, it's going to cema out 21 about 37 feet. HR. MANGUS: We're probably going 22 to need to lift the house six inches. It's at 7.6 feet, se it's 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It has te be eight? 24 MR. MANGUS: Has te be eight. Se five-tenths efa feet. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There~ is an old let neighborhood, and there are a lot ef February 26, 200% 91 1 2 smaller elder cottages and obviously as the years ge by everyone is going te want to 3 improve their homes and should be able te improve their hemes, hopefully with concern for their neighbor in mind. And that's kind of where I'm coming from here. It is going te 5 be a large house, and it is going te be close te the property line. Se, if it's a question 6 of preserving the trees or preserving the privacy between the two houses, it's my 7 preference I would try te preserve the space between the two properties. 8 HR. HANGUS: Right new with the foliage in the summer, I can't really see 9 Rita's property, the neighbor en that side. ANd if I take the foliage out they're going to 10 be still seeing the houses. BOARD M~MBER TORTORA: There's no 11 compromise, in ether words? HR. MANGUS: I think it's tough, 12 and what's particularly tough is this neighbor moving in that direction (indicating). 13 BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: If you left that design. 14 HR. MANGUS: If I left that design. I guess I'm maybe being 15 overprotective ef these trees, but they're trees that are over 100 years old and I have a 16 hard time taking them out. Because I think it's tough te get them there, and if you look 17 at it, everybody else has sort of taken them out in this area and we're iN this clump here, 18 and they have been thinned ever here, another neighbor just took another eno out. And they 19 have been thinned ever here. And so I think it's a major part of the natural, sort of, 20 environment and I also think they're pretty good for the soil and holding, protecting it 21 from erosion from storm damage. BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: I get the 22 impression by leaking at your drawing that the top ef your second floor, we'll call the flat 23 reef, almost looks like an open deck. It's a very large -- 24 MR. MANGUS: We probably will be able te use it as a deck. I'm net planning en 25 doing that initially, but I also want te be able to get up te it te work on it or de ether February 26, 2004 92 1 2 things or get up te the mechanical area. But, yeah, I wanted te run the stair up se I can ge 3 up, watch fireworks, if that kind ef stuff should happen ever Crescent Beach and sometimes to sit up there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 5 ask a question? Are yen done, Vince? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jerry. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you will be trying te utilize that flat reef as an 7 entertainment-type area? MR. MANGUS: Right. I don't knew, 8 I find that people don't tend to use other levels, when you're en one level, you kind ef 9 forget about it. So, I have had a lot ef clients have had me de roof decks that require 10 them going up the stairs, even in the city where it's harder te get to, and they're not 11 well used. So I want to be able te do that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can 12 envision it, not that I'd like to next to my house, but a beautiful cocktail party en top 13 of there, which could be, you know HR. ~ANGUS: Yeah. We had the 14 deck en the second level, and I think day te day, but I de think occasionally we will, 15 especially for fireworks. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's 16 like a third level deck area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, did you 17 have -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've 18 always, and I've passed this in the discussion before, this is the first application I have 19 ever seen in 24 years where we have had a mechanical area above the second story. A~d 20 maybe we have te start learning about this, but I really don't understand since you don't 21 exceed the lot coverage already, why the mechanical area can't be on the first story, 22 even if you put a smaller addition en to accommodate that. 23 MR. MANGUS: We're virtually out ef lot space. By the time I de the 10 foot 24 setbacks for the septic and I get this in and have te de five rings with two eptional,i and 25 the garage, I couldn't find any spot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure you Pebruary 26, 2004 93 1 2 can. You can wrap it around right at the end ef the proposed new addition. And that's 3 really where it should be because I have never seen a mechanical area ena third story. 4 Again, maybe it's something new for us. We're treading on new water, because not only are we 5 reconstructing this entire area, we're reconstructing an area called Sound Beach Read 6 in Mattituck, which is on the Long Island Sound, right long the Long Island Sound. And 7 we just started with the second reconstruction en that situation. But that's Number 1, 8 because I think that would lessen the height of the reef; it would lessen some of the 9 impact en the neighbors, and I think it's really something you really need te reconsider 10 to redraw. MR. MANGUS: Okay. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's my distinct opinion. And I don't see any real 12 merit for adding another foot on the neighbor's side because I don't think a foot 13 is going te make that much difference eno way or another. I think the tree situation has a 14 valid understanding, I just don't know how successful you're going to be. But the other 15 issue that I am deeply concerned about is the complete tear down about this house. This 16 house really can't be torn down. It has to be reconstructed in its original site. In the 17 past, we have been relatively standard about that iN these really significant nonconforming 18 areas, and I'm speaking for myself at this point as an observer of this Beard. And I 19 think that's something you have to consider. MR. MANGUS: I would be happy te 20 de that. It's net a problem. I can just work around it, and I may rede the foundation below 21 and maintain, I may set the wall aside and set it back up, but I don't have a problem doing 22 that. BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: But I 23 think you need te redraw that third story. I don't think we can accommodate any decks on 24 the third story. I don't think we can accommodate any overhangs on the third story 25 that would be -- excuse me, Ruth. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm just February 26, 2004 1 2 agreeing with you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -or 3 any mechanical areas on that third story.i MR. MANGUS: And in terms of 4 access to it, you just use a ladder I guess. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or a 5 pull down stair, MR. HANGUS: Okay, se I can have a 6 hatch. BOAND MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you think you're going to have te raise it, and then by 8 the time you get finished with the mechanical it's going te be almost 37 feet. 9 MR. MANGUS: It probably won't go over 31. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even 31. That's a fair height when everything's se 11 flat. If you could move that mechanical house someplace. 12 MR. MANGUS: I'll find a place for it. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I can just 1% address this Board briefly. I don't know whether all of you have had an opportunity to 15 visit this site -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 16 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: - because things leek a let different en the site plan then 17 they de when you get down there. It's extremely tight down there. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I couldn't agree with you more. 19 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Again, I think the idea ef this was always these lots were 20 set up for small summer cottages er bungalows. What is being asked for here, again, is 21 basically tripling of the size ef the dwelling on here. I haven't really heard the Beard 22 address toe much the perch addition that further intrudes upon the already 23 nonconforming side yard setback. It appears to be at less than four feet away from the 24 property line. Again, we would ask the applicant and this Board to give consideration 25 to the moving of the entire proposed extension addition two feet basically to the east and February 26, 2004 1 2 thereby do away with the necessity ef this side yard variance because the 10 feet is 3 wNat's required here. Again, all that will end up doing is basically moving it mere toward the middle of the let. Again, we're requesting that the applicant look at the 5 proposed garage and see if that cannot be moved somewhat te the south. Again, we're 6 talking about taking a one-story building and going up at least another story apparently. 7 And it goes right along that property line for a long distance. When you take the 26 feet of 8 the proposed garage and you take whatever distance that turns out te be, and I don't see 9 it marked clearly on the plan, from the corner of the existing - I guess it would be the 10 southwest corner ef the existing house to the end ef the proposed addition, that's a long 11 span ef building that's going te basically be imposing upon my client's house. We would ask 12 for some possible accommodation iN moving beth of these structures somewhat further south and 13 away -- I'm sorry, somewhat further east and away from my client's property line. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The new perch is very simply a single level. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I heard the applicant say he didn't have a problem with 16 that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's net 17 covered is it? MR. NUkNGUS: I had a cover ever 18 it, but I don't need te have a cover ef it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 19 3'3" by 8'5~ MR. MANGUS: It's under the 30 20 feet limit. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 21 Se where de we go from here? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have a 22 problem with what we had suggested te Mr. Magnus. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. 24 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Jim? MS. KOWALSKI: De you want a 25 diagram er just place conditions? Excuse me. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I think we can February 26, 2004 96 1 2 just place c©nditions as far as the mechanical room and that, but give us some extra 3 information about that because we de make decisions next week, can yen get them in 4 there? BOARD MEHBBR ORLANDO: Jerry, de 5 you want te sum up again exactly our requirements? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think he has te give us something by next week ise we 7 know exactly where the mechanical area is going. That's Number 1. 8 MR. HANGUS: It's what's as proposed er in lieu ef what's there in the 9 bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the 10 reduction ef the height ef the roof. Ne third story deck area and basically indicating 11 where, again, net being redundant, but indicating where the mechanical area is going 12 te be. MS. KOWALSKI: Are you going to 13 adjourn the hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: I think 14 we can accept it by the special meeting next week, can't we? 15 MS. KOWALSKI: We have te know now whether te adjourn the verbal portion of the 16 hearing, the verbatim portion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can adjourn the verbal and have written testimony. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can have written testimony from either person. 19 MR. MAGNUS: We're on Thursday. I can find it on tomorrow. Certainly if I PedEx 20 it Monday and you can have it Tuesday, would that be -- 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's fine. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. McLoughlin, if you wish te comment in writing te anything, 23 we'd be happy te have your written notification er written objection. 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I could be notified when you receive those plans. 25 MS. KOWALSKI: It would be easier if Mr. Mangus could send you a copy directly. Pebruary 26, 2004 97 1 2 MR. MANGUS: Sure, if you want to, I'll have it for you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Send a copy to Mr. McLeughlin. 4 MR. MANGUS: Sure, if you give me your address, no problem. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: In regards te the accessory garage, proposed garage, it's 6 as per our cede, se it's fine. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: To 7 answer your question, Mr. McLoughlin, I think in the future in these applications we are 8 going to require models so we can understand the medals and take those models apart, which 9 we have received in the past, and have them placed up here and have the ability to take 10 the reef off and see exactly what you have. And that's one ef the things that have been 11 very helpful in understanding these projects. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Little 12 pop-up books -- just kidding -- that was a joke. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have to pass a resolution depending on the 14 size of the property. I think we may have to require them. 15 HR. MANGUS: With the 3 D drawing stuff that we're using these days, I have it 16 in 3 D. I put all the trees in in 3-D, but when I get the trees in, I couldn't see 17 anything, and I was going to send stuff te shew that. But that is another way te de it, 18 it's interactive, and you can project it onto a screen. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what we have had, and it's been unbelievably 20 helpful. MR. MANQUS: Yeah, I have it so 21 you can pop the roof off. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do anything. 22 MS. ROWALSKI: The only thing is you can't require it en every application. 23 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: No, I'm saying for these type situations. We had it 24 all projected on a screen. We had two hearings like that in Southold. It worked out 25 wonderful. They rotated the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move this February 26, 2004 1 2 along. I'd like to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 3 BOARD MEMBBN ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? % (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All opposed? Se moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 7 for the Mattituck Fire District. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are 8 outside. I have te make a public Statement 9 prior to. I just want them to come in because I may need John Harrison to substantiate my 10 statement. I make a motion withdrawing Steel, 11 making a motion withdrawing Steel, Number 5478, make a motion. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. Ail in favor? 13 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. 15 .............................................. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll open the 16 hearing for Hattituck Fire District. They wish te make a new radio ream and a storage 17 and garage area in the rear. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam 18 Chairman, I have been a member ef the Mattituck Fire Department for 34, almost 35 19 years. This application before us is with the Mattituck Fire District ef which I am net a 20 member or an elected official ef the Mattituck Fire District. I see ne particular reason why 21 I have te recuse myself from this application. I'm just telling yen I find no conflict at 22 all. In the audience is a gentleman I just spoke te outside; he is a past chief. He is a 23 representative ef the Mattitnck Fire District, and that is John Harrison. He knows for a 24 fact that I am not a member of the Mattituck Fire District; is that correct, Mr. Harrison? 25 MR. HARRISON: That's true. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would February 26, 2004 99 1 2 like to participate. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody have an 3 objection te Mr. Geehringer participating? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, you can participate. Miss Moore? 6 MS. MOORE: Geed afternoon. I have with me today, as Mr. Geehringer pointed 7 out, John Harrison, who is both, he's involved in this project as a project manager, and I 8 also have Frank Ralph, who is the architect that hopefully will answer any kind of 9 technical questions that you might have. I know you've had a very long day. 10 What I'd like te do is have Mr. Harrison put en the record the reasons why it's been 11 designed the way it has been. John, would you mind coming forward? 12 MR. HARRISON: Thank you very much and good afternoon. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Geed afternoon. MR. HARRISON: As of right now the 1% Mattituck Fire District radio ream is inside the interior ef the building in the front efa 15 unit built in 1962 addition. There is no vision for the radio operator of the deers 16 since we added the ether addition to the west, the radio operator has ne vision ef the doors 17 te the west side ef him and a limited view ef the doors to the east side of him. As the 18 fire trucks pull out, they come out in soldier form, and the drivers have limited viability. 19 By putting our radio room extension out, we are giving the radio operator an opportunity 20 te see oncoming traffic. As you all knew exactly where we are, we also have a lot of 21 school traffic coming down the street for lunch times and things like this. Se we 22 wanted to make sure our radio operator would have the opportunity te tell our drivers if 23 there was a situation that they should be aware of as they pull out. We also, in 1962 24 when they built the existing radio room, there was a radio. Today we have computers, we have 25 radios we have to deal with with the county, radios we have te deal with ambulance February 26, 2004 100 1 2 companies, radios we have te deal with with all kinds of things, plus a let ef security i systems that didn't even exist in 1962. The physical space that is in the radio room Now is unable to hold that. The radio ©perater will be 5 elevated out as he protrudes out there and be able te see te beth sides, east and west, so 6 we will be able te have better control. He also will have the opportunity to view all portions ef the building around him, all entrances through cameras and security systems 8 so you can tell even people entering the building and where other vehicles are moving 9 around him as he sits. This is truly for the safety of our community, safety of our fire 10 fighters and safety ef our responding vehicles. 11 In 1962, the Mattituck Fire District probably responded te all of about %0 12 calls a year; last year Mattituck responded te over 500 calls. The world is changing and 13 this time we have te move up with it. The annex building, and this is part efa project 1% that is ongoing. The radio room was one of many projects we've been here for the Zoning 15 Board before for ether projects we have had to de. The building te the rear of the property, 16 the annex building, garage/storage area that you mention is presently a weed structure 17 almost right en the property line. We are going te move that in. The doors that are 18 existing in the existing wood frame building are net large for any ef our material, for any of our trucks. It's an old structure that was built, add eh, add eh, add eh. It was built 20 when we acquired the property ne~t to us from the original firehouse. We have now equipment 21 being stored outside that should be stored inside. It's time that we moved on and added 22 it on. Plus, the district office that we have converted from a house to keep it in 23 oemmunity-type setting instead ef another building, we gutted a house and put the 2% district office in that. It doesn't have an emergency generation system. The emergency 25 generation system is going to be put into the annex building in the back, will supply beth February 26, 200% i01 1 2 the annex building and the district offices. I don't knew what ether questions 3 you might have for me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you 4 going to put in the storage building in the back, net trucks, but -- 5 MR. HARRISON: I'm not going to say when in the future, what it is right new. 6 But as ef right now it's net planned to be trucks. It's more boats, trailer storage, 7 things like this, that we are presently storing outside or seasonal equipment. What 8 the chiefs in the Fire District cheese to de in the future, I don't knew. We constantly 9 change. If we would have stood here in the 1970s and said how many ambulance are we going 10 te have, we would have said we're never going to have an ambulance. Now we have two. I 11 don't know what the world's going te bring for the fire district, but at this time it's for 12 storage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are!the 13 doers on that storage building? MR. HARRISON: The doors en the 14 storage building will face east. MS. MOORE: Facing Wickham 15 Avenue. HR. HARRISON: Facing Wickham 16 Avenue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Orlando? 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I want to talk about the annex building, is that a 18 single story structure? MR. HARRISON: Single story. 19 MS. MOORE: Height of it, ne~ I think it exceeds, I think it's mere than 18. 20 MR. RUSSO: Michael Russo from Frank Ralph Architects. It is actually a 21 single story use building. The reason for the height of the building has to de with the 22 height of apparatus deers themselves. There isn't a second fleer, structurally it could 23 net held a second floor, nor does it have a mezzanine. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Next question, maybe the architect may want te 25 answer this one as well. If you didn't put the planters in front ef the radio room, would February 26, 2004 102 1 2 yen have to relocate the telephone pole? MR. RUSSO: Actually the 3 relocation for the telephone pole has te !de with line ef sight mere than anything else. 4 The electrical service is also being moved to underground. We're going te move -- 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Oh, actually the planter was actually something 6 that the district wanted te do te soften the edge ef the -- 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I eppreciate that. I was just curious if it had 8 any implication en why yen had te move the pole. ~ MR. RUSSO: No, none whatsoever. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The pole is 10 being moved irregardless ef the planter, ne planter. 11 MR. RUSSO: Right, line ef sight. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: And the 12 radio room, every time a call goes out, is there someone in the radio room? 13 MR. RUSSO: I just copy en to him. They don't have a 24 hour dispatcher, the 14 first man to the house is the man in the radio room. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He becomes the radio person. 16 HR. RUSSO: He becomes the radio person. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They don't have a dispatcher. 18 MR. RUSSO: They don't have a dispatcher. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Se every call has a radio person in there. 20 HR. HARRISON: Every call, first man in the house, he becomes radio operator. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. 22 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Mrs. Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTONA: The new 23 annex is going to be, from what it looks like, 200 feet beck from Wickhem Avenue, it's going 24 to be substantially back, metal frame with the cement block around it? 25 MR. RUSSO: Correct. It's going te have a decorative block water table that Pebruary 26, 2004 103 1 2 goes about five feet er se, from there it will have a barn red ribbed panel insulated, from 3 tNere around. Fire districts, when they to design a building they try to design 4 buildings that are going to last them for 20 plus years. Se we wanted te make sure that 5 the building was fully noncombustible to be construction as well as something that's going 6 to last a long time with little te ne maintenance. 7 BOARD MEHBER TORTORA: I'm familiar with the area and when I drove by 8 there I drove by there trying to imagine !what the annex was going te leek like, and I said 9 it's going te leek like it's snuggled in the back of the property, and I have ne ether 10 comments. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Dinizlo? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, ne questions. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 13 want to say, Hr. Harrison, that it's my understanding, that because the doers are 14 facing Wickham Avenue, yen would be restricted to the size ef the vehicles you would be able 15 te put in there anyway; is that correct? MR. HARRISON: Yes, that's 16 correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRING~R: I just 17 want the Beard te be aware of that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody 18 else in the audience have any comments? MS. MOORE: One more point that 19 hasN't been raised that really should be en the record, the location of the annex building 20 is in the corner, and it's in place there because we had the sanitary system that is in 21 this area for the district offices} is just north I guess toward Pike Street, that 22 portion, so it's tucked in as close as it can be without affecting the sanitary system. And 23 then -- is there anything en this side? Ne, just that clearance area. 24 MR. HARRISON: Ne. You need some kind ef clearance te get the trucks in and 25 out. MS. MOORE: Right. And it's been February 26, 2004 104 1 2 tucked in from the corner ef that little cut into the property in order te maintain the 3 clearance for the doers. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to 4 make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 6 {Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Our next is 9 Christopher Durkin in Mattituck. ~e wants to build a garage. 10 HS. DURKIN: Hi, I'm Danielle Durkin. We're going for an accessory garage, 11 and the variance we want is a height variance. There are a few reasons we need this extensive 12 storage. The first is when we built our house, we built it with the long term 13 thinking, knowing that both of our mothers are single and not healthy. My mother suffers from Maneers disease, which is debilitating vertigo, and she's slowly going deaf. Hy 15 husband's mother is diabetic, and we knew they will be living with us eventually. Se all of 16 our house space will be used for our family to live in. We're looking for the garage to be 17 used as storage space, not only for our things but for the things that our mothers will be 18 bringing with them. The second reason is I am an 19 educational consultant, I work for myself out of the home, and one of the things that I do 20 is motivational speaking and workshops for teachers. And every workshop that I teach, 21 and every session that I go to requires two or three or four boxes worth of supplies and I 22 keep that for the next time I'm going to teach that workshop, and we're just already filled 23 with boxes of things that I need a space for. The ether reason we're looking for a height 24 variance is that the garage we're proposing goes along with the height ef the house. I 25 only have one picture. I can give it te yen. But the angles of which the roof of our house February 26, 2004 105 1 2 and the pitch is the same, so we're also, we have a let of tree cover. We've spoken te -- 3 we have a nursery behind us. In front ef us is Suffolk County parkland that's -- what is 4 that called? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it 5 Strawberry Fields? MS. DURKIN: Strawberry Fields. 6 Then there's also a four acre lot that's preserved land, that's never going to be built 7 eh. Se really we have the two neighbors en either side. The one neighbor en the ether $ side already has an accessory garage, and the other neighbor hasn't even built yet, and has 9 been offered $256,000 for his piece of property, which he~s turned down. He lives in 10 Florida and doesn't want to build on the property. Se that's all. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 12 to tell you that this Board, Mrs. Durkin, I should say this -- I have never seen this 13 Board grant a garage of this height. And although I understand you're trying first 14 of all, I have to tell you it's an extremely unique spot that you live in -- I live in 15 Mattituck also, but mere up by the eld mill in the weeds also -- and because ef the 16 topography of your land it even makes it more interesting when you ge down there and look at 17 it. I have to tell you the height is really up there. Is there any particular reason why 18 the roof line can't be lessened? I realize you're trying te match the house in that new 19 modern Tudor style, but, I mean, you have a ten foot, 9'8~' ceiling in the garage, there's 20 got to be a reason why you need something that high. I mean, yen can stere stuff in 7 21 and-a-half feet. MS. BURKIN: In the garage area er 22 above it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Above 23 the garage. MS. DURKIN: Just really to have 24 easy access. I mean~ we're going te have three houses worth ef stuff, basically. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but it's usually not February 26, 2004 106 1 2 something that we see or I see. MS. DURKIN: Right. 3 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I just don't knew hew you're going te de it. By the way, this garage will coutain utilities of what, just electricity? 5 MS. DURRIN: Yes. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: No 6 insulation? MS. DUR~IN: Ne, we're net 7 insulating it, right? MR. DUR~IN: Unless the cede tells 8 us te insulate it. The plans shew insulation, but it's just going to be a storage garage. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: Ne heat? MR. DURKIN: Ne heat. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 1,200 square feet footprint? 11 MR. DURKIN: Yes, this way everything can be inside too. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree 1! with Mr. Goehringer, maybe how to resolve it, you have plenty of space, maybe make it a 14 little bit wider and then bring the ridge down, still keep your space. 15 MR. DURKIN: I'd have to take down more trees too. I'd have to take down one 16 large tree and the rest are small, and I'd rather not take dawn mere trees, then my 20 17 feet setback I have to keep, and also the LILCO right ef way behind us, we have te keep 18 also. MS. DURKIN: And we have a let of 19 the Beech trees that are growing in there and we wanted te preserve as many of these as we 20 possibly could. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Coming 21 before us, you look like very sincere and honest people, but if you sold the house five 22 years from new, someone could build the inside, put another dwelling in there, net 23 saying yom would do that. MR. DURKIN: You probably could. 2% BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's the size of a small ranch that's our reservation. 25 MS. DURKIN: But we're not going anywhere. I already told him I'm going out ef Pebruary 26~ 2004 107 1 2 that house in a body bag. We're looking at long term. We're looking at the fact that our 3 son also is not going to be able te afford to buy a house on Long Island, and if he wants te 4 stay, this is going to be his house, and we're going to become the grandparents living in 5 this house. This was such a long term, longsighted project for us that we feel this 5 is what we need for our family. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Ne ether questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When I first leered at it, I just thought you could 9 put the garage deers closer together and bring the ridge down. 10 MR. DURKIN: I'm net an architect. This is what - I told the guy what I wanted, 11 this is what he drew up. He told me the mean height was going to be too high, and that I 12 would have to ge for a variance. He said with the span this is what you have te do to get 13 that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you teak 14 a garage door, two car garage deer, then four feet, then you've got another two car garage 15 doer. If you put a three car garage deer in there, what does that do? Why couldn't you do 16 that? MR. DURKIN: Actually, I wanted it 17 to represent the house a little bit like it's offset like that, so it leeks architecturally 18 the same almost. 'Cause it's offsetting the house. I could probably de that, something 19 like that. I didn't think of that, to be honest with you. I don't know hew much that 20 woeld bring the roof line down. I'm net an architect either. This is what they came bp 21 with. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you need 22 sqeare footage, you've get so much ]and you can put square footage on. 23 HR. DURKIN: Yeah. But I like to have room, a yard for playing and stuff like 24 that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell 25 you what Mr. Orlando says is what most of the town is concerned about. If you have February 26, 2004 108 1 2 something ever seven and-a-half feet above this, it can very easily be turned into a 3 liveeble area. I personally have no objection to that, but that's the thought process. 4 That's why we have the height law for accessory structures. I'm thinking of a way 5 you wouldn't even need a variance if you just did it my way. 6 MR. DURKIN: I have a problem visualizing -- 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you made it narrower, you wouldn't change the roof 8 line, you would just lower the roof line. You could still keep the same architectural look 9 of the house, but you would just be lowering that reef line, you could put this jog on the 10 ether side ef the building if you felt you needed a jog to make it look a little mere not 11 like a box. MR. DURKIN: I didn't want aibex. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, it's four feet there. I don't knew what you 13 gain. Haybe you make a separate deer but only maybe a feet, so you pull it in three feet, 14 you put your little dog shed on there, whatever you want, maybe that brings you down 15 and you're not even before us. MR. DURKIN: Yeah. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just a thought. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or could you reduce the attic area, i~stead ef 9'8" down te 18 at least to eight foot. You could stand and it would still shorten it, wouldn't that be 19 able te bring the roof line down too? MS. DURKIN: It would also change 20 the pitch. We were like going for the pitch that matches the angle ef the house. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think the consensus of the Beard is it's a little toe 22 high. Mr. Dinizio had some good ideas, net to put you en the spot new, think about hew you 23 could lower it and also keep your pitch. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Keep it open 2% until next month. Are you willing to de something or what? 25 MR. DURKIN: If I brought this ever back te the guy at Penny Lumber who drew Pebruary 26, 2004 109 1 2 it, and say I need that -- I probably won't make the 18 feet, but what would the highest 3 be? MS. DURKIN: What would be a 4 compromise that you would accept? bOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is 5 acceptable for us? HR. DURKIN: Yes. What would you 6 pass, basically if I needed a variance? The highest I could ge, basically. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: To me, in my opinion, if you bought those doors within a foot of each other, whatever that turned out te be, that would probably be acceptable to 9 me. That's net speaking for the rest ef the Beard. It's going to come real close to 1£ that -- I think it's going to come close to 18 feet. 11 KR. DURKIN: So if it was 19 feet -- I don't want to cema back again, and say 12 I'm a foot ever and you're going to say the same thing. We were made aware of this last 13 week, net that we wouldn't need a variance, everybody just told us, eh, just go for a 14 variance. Then, when we handed in the last ef the paperwork, the lady in the variance office 15 says this never passes. MS. DURKIN: It never passed, I 16 wish somebody told us in the beginning before we paid $400. We could have fixed it before 17 we were here. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Well, 18 unfortunately, we can't make judgments en your application until you're here. 19 MR. DURKIN: We understand that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think 20 you'll cema real close to it but - HR. DURKIN: I'm net a builder 21 either. CHAIRWONLAN 0LIVA: If you do 18 at 22 the mean average, then you won't have to come te us at all. You don't need us. 23 MR. DURKIN: He was telling me when I was having him draw it up, he says he 24 couldn't get the 18 with the roof pitch like that. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give us a little bit mere then, see if it's February 26, 2004 110 1 2 MR. DURKIN: If it's like 19 or somewhere around there, if I put those two 3 deers together. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Never 4 have I seen -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yen're here 5 new. MS. KOWALSKI: Plus you might need 6 to have the Building Inspector take a look at it and have him confirm what the new height is 7 en that for you. See how much of a variance you'll need, because you're amending your 8 application. Originally it was denied at 25 feet, was it? 26 feet? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 22~1'' and three-quarters. 10 HS. KOWA~SRI: If he confirms hew much of a variance you're going te need, se if 11 it's 18 and a half feet, you're only looking for a si~ inch variance. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could they de that before we meet? 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would have to be for a month. 14 MS. KOWALSKI: It's going to be for a month anyway. IS BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could just deny that and grant them relief. If we 16 know that number by next week - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we could 17 grant them alternate relief. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not 18 saying we can agree with it, I'm just saying we can look at it 19 CHAIRWONLA~N OLIVA: Deny and give -- 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're not waiting. 21 MS. DURKIN: If we have a new plan in by next week. 22 MR. DURKIN: They basically go in their computer, as long as I can get in there 23 with them. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You heard 24 correctly about never granting, but there is ways te do relief. You want to build this 25 structure that looks like the house. willing te consider that but February 26, 2004 111 1 2 MR. DURKiN: Not at that scale. Okay. If I knew that because it was also hard 3 for me to go to an architect because every architect I said I just want te build a ~ garage, they said why don't you go to a lumberyard aud have them draw it up because it 5 really isn't worth my -- I'm going to charge you an enormous amount ef money for something 6 that's very simple, and then when I went to him, his options were I guess more limited 7 than aN architect. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There may 8 be problems with holding the building up, I don't knew. 9 MR. DURKIN: Well, the length of the beams. I wanted open space in there too. 10 I didn't want the columns in the middle. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You 11 understand what we're looking for to help you expedite this? 12 MR. DURKIN: Right. Get you another set of plans with the mean height 13 down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We can deny 14 this at our next meeting and then grant you alternate relief at what you've submitted when 15 you submit it to us next week. MS. DURKIN: Okay. De we just 16 need te bring it in by next week, er we need to be here next week? 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You need to submit it. 18 MS. KOWALSKI: You need to give us six sets, six copies, if you can reduce them. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: By what day? 20 MS. KOWALSKI: It would have been by tomorrow, but Tuesday's okay. 21 BOAt~.D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember, in any case, that any decision that 22 I'm going te make is going te be for an accessory structure only, nothing else. 23 MS. DURKIN: Okay. MS. KOWALSKI: No sleeping 24 quarters er anything like that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne 25 insulation, no heat, nothing like that. MR. DURKIN: No. I think on the February 26, 2004 112 1 2 plans it shows insulation and everything else, it's just en there 'cause that's the way he 3 draws it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I move that we 4 close the hearing and reserve decision until later pending receipt of new plans. 5 HS. DURKIN: All right. MR. DURKIN: This afternoon. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Members 7 responded in favor.) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next one is 9 Stanley Malon. Mrs. Moore, this is for the commercial building fairly adjacent to Cox's 10 Lane. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. I thought 11 we were done and you reopened us. Maybe you can tell me what you would like te discuss 12 before I start. CHAIRWONLAi~ OLIVA: Ail right. We 13 were trying te do this really in cooperation with the Planning Beard so that we both get 14 our acts together, that we don't give you something then they go back and say why did 15 the Zoning Board give you what have you. MS. MOORE: Right. I just 16 happened te be at the Planning Beard meeting yesterday. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As you knew your parking in the front ef the buildings is 18 not allowed. MS. MOORE: Ne. I would 19 respectively disagree. I have here the subdivision map that was approved by the 20 Planning Board and is the one that we have to follow. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For the three lots? 22 MS. MOORE: For the three lots and I have one for each of you. Let's start -- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: According to the subdivision regulations I believe you have 24 to have some sort of landscaping in front. MS. MOORE: Let me back you up. 25 This property was created back in the '80s, leeks like '82 may have been the final ~ebruary 26, 2004 113 1 2 approVal en it, '80 te '82. The Suffolk County Planning Commission came up with a 3 recommendation of cross easements and the Town agreed that that was a suitable way to treat 4 multiple properties that were all going to be developed as commercial properties. So what 5 the Town did is, through the county as well, they required a covenant to record a 6 cross-easement, that the cross-easement begins, only 10 feet -- there's a landscape 7 area of 10 feet, and if you notice the commercial building next te us, the wine 8 building, I call it the wine retail building, we followed the pattern, we followed the 9 design of that building because we wanted to create a building that was in character with 10 the area, which is the issue, the sole issue before this Board is the 60 foot rule, may we 11 have a variance to deviate from the rule that says linear feet of -- 60 feet linear feet 12 across the road. Keep in mind that that same section of the code deals with multiple 13 buildings, that if you have multiple buildings you push back to 75 feet, and you can do this 1% and that. It's the worst drafted - and I apologize if any of you were involved in that 15 drafting -- that is the worst drafted code I have ever seen. The first part -- obviously 16 you understand. The second part I cannot understand what they were trying to get. The 17 bottom line is there is 10 feet of landscaping then there has to be 25 foot easement area, or 18 cross-easement, driveway area. Then we will deal with whatever landscaping, whatever 19 parking is suitable. But all of these issues are issues we are addressing with the Planning 20 Board through the site plan. And every single one of these issues the Planning Board can 21 choose to waive based on the design of the surrounding properties, and ~n this instance 22 we are somewhat constrained by what the Planning Board did initially with this 23 cross-easemen~. So quite frankly, all of the ques%ions about landscaping and parking and so 24 on, I respectively disagree with you. It does not belong here. 25 CPL~IRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm only bringing that up because you had parking in February 26, 2004 114 1 2 the front, and I don't know how you're going to get parking and landscaping and the 3 building in the front. I don't think you have enough room. You have a much shorter lot than 4 the other two lots in question. MS. MOORE: No~ net at all. Our 5 lot is identical, in fact, it's exactly identical. It's the one that has a house en 6 it. If you leek at Let Number %, see Let Number 4, that is our property. That heus~ is 7 obviously being removed; that lot is the exact same dimensions as the let next doer with the 8 wine building that we followed. Gary Olsen's building, and Gary Olsen's property is 9 constrained by a 25 foot right 0£ way along the westerly side. Se that is the only lot 10 that is narrower, but as far as width, and it's 249, almost 250 en one side, 360 en the 11 ether. It's minimal. We also have dealt with the Planning Board already. This is our third 12 time before the Planning Beard with redesign -- I take it back~ second time. The 13 first time we came in with a proposal. The Planning Beard said, you knew, we like this 14 but we would recommend that you change the perking in the front slightly, and we moved 15 some parking back, that's the plan that you have. It's actually been pushed back towards 16 the building. We eliminated some parking that was in some areas of the front. We also -- 17 what else did we de? I'm trying te remember how far back it was. Let me pull out my site 18 plan. It will trigger my memory of what we did. We went te the Architectural Review 19 Board. They suggested some trellis in the front, which we added and gave back te the 20 Planning Beard. This design with the parking is what the Planning Beard originally looked 21 at and liked. We actually have land banking of parking in the back because there is toe 22 many parking spaces. We are required 61, we are offering 60, and we're land banking 23 actually 13 because there's a recognition that this type of use you have, it's not 100 24 percent occupancy; it's not 100 percent in and out. The cede overdoes it en the parking~ 25 We also, if you look at the adjacent and I only did eno because it's very difficult to February 26, 2004 115 1 2 copy and piecemeal from the Planning Board records, but I took the site plan from next 3 door that was approved and the building next door has eight tenancies, eight occupancies. & Again, instead of what we have, which is the two buildings with the large opening in the 5 center, they have three sets ef buildings with two passageways, openings. The only comment 6 that tNe neighbors have, that the tenants have had is that the openings next doer are toe 7 narrow, and yen end up with a wind tunnel effect, and they suggested te our architect 8 keep the pathway larger so you have less yen have better air flew, yen have less efa 9 wind tunnel, which is why our architect designed it the way he did. 10 I have a full copy of the site plan for your records and you can see, from 11 the site plan you can see that you have a building next deer that from end te end is 12 feet in width, again, with the two alleys instead of the one that we have, and narrower 13 alleys. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a point, 14 but their contours of their property are very different from yours. Yours goes from a 15 height of 16 feet down to 10 feet on the east and north. You're going to have a great deal 16 of fill to put in to get parking in the rear; how are you going to get the drainage? 17 MS. MOORE: Madam Chairman, precisely why we are at site plan and are with 18 the Town engineer. We should not be discussing these issues here. Your issue is 19 the 60 foot in character with the area. If yen say ne, we are not going to give it te 20 you. Well, all right, we take out the mezzanine and we have a conforming building. 21 We have two 38 feet wide buildings. This is a much nicer design. The site plan issues we 22 have dealt with. We actually created, and Mr. Glever showed me some pictures that he 23 has, there is a tremendous amount ef water runoff that is coming off ef the Town road, 24 net his property, net our property, but it's coming off of the Town read that the Town is 25 refusing te correct, and it is peeling en Mr. Glever's property, but he's trying te get February 26, 2004 116 1 2 us te ~ix it. I den't think it's pessible. We can fix all the grading, all the drainage 3 so that we take care e£ all the water runeff that eccurs on eur property and maybe off of 4 the Hain Read. We have far exceeded the drainage that even the neighboring piece has 5 had to de. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Meore, in 6 order to get a completely unbiased opinion, we have hired Chick Veorhis te do a drainage 7 study of this whole piece of preperty because depending upen what he says with the drainage 8 te me relates te the size ef your building and the parking that will be required. Because I 9 do feel respensible fur having any drainage running off into Mr. Kaelin's or Hr. Glever's 10 preperty and te that whole cerner, which is a very bad cerner to begin with. 11 MS. MOORE: I appreciate that, I understand that, and we'll see -- Chick hasn't 12 provided you with a rupert, has he? C~A. IRWOMAN OLIVA: No, he'll be 13 coming in abeut a week. MS. MOORE: The report er he will 14 be coming? C~AIRWOHAN OLIVA: The rupert will 15 be with us in a week. MS. MOORE: Has he been given our 16 versien of the site plan? C~AIRWONiAN OLIVA: Yes. 17 MS. MOORE: I have no ebjectien te having Chick Voerhis leok at the site plan. 18 It's certainly within yeur rights, and eur architect weuld leve to speak with Chick and 19 see how te make this better. We would leve to make it better. But if yeur purpese is using 20 drainage issues te deal with the size ef this building, I do have an objectien to that 21 because, again, the 60 feot rule, the enly reason we're here is because of that mezzanine 22 that puts the two buildings tegether. Otherwise, the identical building would be 23 b~ilt -- excuse me, the identical main structures would be built. We are conforming 24 to the parking. We ceuld eliminate some parking. We have no preblem with reducing the 25 amount ef parking. We are ebligated te shew the required parking based en the square Pebruary 26, 2004 117 1 2 footages that we have. It is certainly !in everybody's best interest, including you and I 3 as residents of the town, not te see a sea ef parking. Next doer they have their parking, 4 they provided 44 spaces. CHAIRWOMAi~ OLIVA: That will be up 5 to the Planning Board specifically. MS. MOORE~ Exactly. But you're 6 using - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not saying 7 specifically how many. I'm just saying with the contour of the rear and the fill that 8 you're going te have to put in, I just fear for the drainage that's going te be going, net 9 maybe now, but in the future will be going on to Mr. Glover's and Mr. Kaelin's property. 10 MS. MOORE: What can I tell you. You made up your mind before as far as not 11 wanting this size building, and you've put it on the record. That's fine, certainly every 12 Board member is entitled to their opinion. I think we're being penalized for drainage that 13 is occurring off site. And this building is going to be an asset to this town and a major 14 contributor te the tax base. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hrs. Hoore, I'm 15 net trying te stop the building per se. I'm just saying I don't think it should be as 16 large as it. I won't give a definite opinion until I get some sort ef drainage report. I 17 don't want te stop it, and I don't want to hold you up any longer. 18 MS. MOORE: Understand as large as yen suggest it is. We're talking about the 19 width of the building, two 38 foot. The size ef the building, you're looking at the depth 20 as far as size; that is not -- again, that's not part ef your appeal. Your appeal is the 21 linear footage along the read and whether er not it's in conformity with the character ef 22 the area. I don't know hew te shew to yen any -- yen look around the neighborhood and 23 yen can see that we're designing identical te the building next door in a subdivision that 24 was intended to have development that way. You could end up, I think Jehu Nickles 25 and I were discussing, you could end up with CVS come in with a large building. Yen have February 26, 2004 118 1 2 one tenant With maybe a little bit small!er building, but it's going te put the next guy 3 out ef business. At least the small mom and pop shop out of business. We have an owner 4 here who wants to put multiple tenancies for small mom- and pep-type ef operations, whether 5 it's a doctor or sole practitioner or one retailer. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have ne 7 questions. MS. MOORE: Per the record, t'm 8 going te give you the site plan for next deer. I had given you before the layout, the site 9 plan in a very simplified format se you could see what the dimensions are ef the building 10 for your file. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you~ 11 Mrs. Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ne. We're 12 just kind ef back where we were three months ago. I personally would like te see this 13 thing moved along. MS. MOORE: I don't knew what you 14 want from us, that's the problem. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I don't know. I don't recall ever discussing 16 hiring anybody te de a study en this, but, I don't know that that's within our purview, in 17 all honesty. I didn't witness the rest of the hearings, but I'm sitting here looking at the 18 notice ef disapproval right now, and the discussion that I'm hearing right new I can't 19 see it in the notice of disapproval. MS. MOORE: Site plan issues? 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. I see nothing in this notice ef disapproval that 21 says anything about we're going to discuss drainage today. A~d I'm just wondering -~ I 22 don't know how we got here honestly, and I would really like te hear some discussion en 23 the Board as to just what it is, what we are looking at here. If we're going te start 24 making decisions based on what eno piece of property has te take care ef the drainage for 25 all of the surrounding pieces of property, I have never, ever seen us make a decision on February 26, 2004 119 1 2 that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Diniz~io, 3 it's only this piece of property, not other pieces of property. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jim, you may have read the passages, but the two 5 gentlemen sitting in the back own the properties en both sides in the east, and we 6 have taken significant testimony from them. And we viewed their problems. We knew them, 7 and they, ef course, have been businessmen in this town for many, many, many, many years. 8 And we understand your problem, Mrs. Moore, and we accept the fact -- I accept the fact 9 that you are going to take care of the drainage. We just have certain feelings about 10 the drainage, and the Chairperson took it upon herself to do this. So that was it. 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The testimony, Jim, the last time I heard this was 12 probably three months age. There was considerable concern by Mr. Glover and the 13 adjoining neighbors about drainage on the property, and how that would be addressed to 14 insure that it would not be exacerbated. And that's kind of what the concern of the 15 neighbors was at that time. And I think everything else has been very well hashed out. 16 MS. MOORE: May I also add for the benefit of Mr. Dinizio that last time I had 17 the benefit ef the architect here. It takes him three hours to get out here. In all 18 fairness, this would have been his third time, so he didn't come. He's redesigned this site 19 plan with respect to the complaints or the concerns that were raised by Mr. Glever. He 20 went out on Mr. Glever's property, on this property, they must have spent a geed hour, 21 hour and-a-half there, and really he redesigned -- this site plan is the redesigned 22 version, the engineering behind it has been done based on Mr. Glever's concerns. And they 23 were taken seriously. We haven't blown him off; we haven't ignored him. We are cognizant 24 of the issues that he raised that were legitimate issues. We recognize that. But I 25 also have to state that we do net want te exacerbate his situation, but, en the ether February 26, 2004 120 1 2 hand, we may not have the ability to correct his situation because his drainage problem is 3 coming from an outside source. Maybe there's some that's occurring from our site because % i~'s undeveloped right now. That will be corrected and some by the development ef this 5 property. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: When are we 6 supposed te get this report? CHAIRWOMAi~ OLIVA: About a week. 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the report is a drainage report on the property? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. He has te take a look at what would be the proper 9 drainage, and the problems with it because the contours ef the land are se high, eno 16 feet, 10 then go down to 10 feet. Se Fen're going te have te have, in order to get the parking in 11 you have te put a considerable amount ef fill te level that thing elf. 12 MS. MOORE: Regrading. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Regrade it 13 considerably. Because the lowest I think in the £rent it's either 14 er 15, and then it 1% goes up to 16, then drops all the way down to 10 feet. And it's always wet back in there. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Or he may accept the drainage plan submitted. 16 CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: Right. MS. KOWALSKI: This is the first 17 time he's seeing it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just 18 wondering how the Zoning Beard ef Appeals comes te the conclusion that they can base 19 anything based on drainage. CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: This is just a 20 consideration te the neighboring properties. And, Jim, I really have a real problem, just 21 in general ef developing properties with ne regard to drainage and keeping drainage en 22 your ow~ property and not bothering somebody else. 23 MS. MOORE: Absolutely, I agree 100 percent with that. 2% BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think they're required by our Town cede to de that. 25 I don't think that's our purview. MS. MOORE: And the Town engineer February 26, 2004 121 1 2 reviews this Plan for that purpose. BOARD MEH~ER DINIZIO: I don't 3 think that's our purview. We don't make that decision. % MS. MOORE: No. We spend thousands ef dollars for a site plan for that 5 purpose alone, te deal with drainage because obviously residences are problems, farms are 6 problems, when a commercial property gets developed, they have te deal with drainage, 7 certainly with their legal obligations to take care ef drainage that is occurring from their 8 property. My concern is that we have surrounding properties that are having ~ drainage problems that are being used -- or that problem is being used te limit the 10 development on this piece when one has no relation with the ether. 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: May I ask a question? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as 13 the parking and the access te the building, you said this was part efa Suffolk County 14 Planning Board approval when the subdivision was created? 15 MS. MOORE: When the subdivision -- I think it's Miner is the name 16 ef the subdivision, Miner, I looked at the Planning Beard's records -- Minor subdivision 17 went te Suffolk County Planning Commission for a recommendation. Suffolk County Planning 18 Commission letter~ and I car look for it I made a copy ef it. The letter referred to the 19 fact that this is going te be several commercially developed properties, and they 20 recommended that there be a cress-easement between the properties. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We don't have a copy of that letter so we can kind ef 22 clean up many ef these points MS. MOORE: That's the survey. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you can, please, submit that into evidence se we can 24 get that cleared up right new, Number 1. Number 2, traffic and pedestrian concerns~ is 25 there an environmental assessment done by the Planning Board at this time? February 26, 2004 122 1 2 MS. MOONE: I would presume ~so. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There is 3 net er there is? MS. MOORE: I submitted an 4 environmental assessment form with the slte plan application so generally they de S~QRA S through the site plan process. Also DOT -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We haven't 6 received anything. MS. KOWALSKI: It hasn't been 7 coordinated. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Se it 8 hasn't been coordinated yet. Would those concerns net be coordinated through the SEQRA 9 process? MS. KOWALSKI: They should. 10 MS. MOORE: Excuse me, but isn't pedestrian and vehicular access on the state 11 route a State DOT issue? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Whether it 12 is er net it should be addressed through the SEQRA process and we are net an involved 13 agency as far as I know. MS. MOORE: You are a Type 2 14 action because it's an area variance so I don't believe you would get involved in a 15 SEQRA review aside from the area variance. C~AIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: I'm really 16 trying focus en what we're here for. MS. MOORE: I know. I just don't 17 want to create issues that don't -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Exist. 18 MS. MOORE: -- exist. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm looking 19 at the agenda here. As far as traffic and pedestrian concerns that would be addressed by 20 them as far as relating te the variance. The variance gees te the width. 21 MS. ROWALSKI: I understand the Planning office was going te send a letter 22 ever and we were supposed to get it so we could give it to the applicant last week. As 23 ef this moment it has not been submitted te 24 MS. MOORE: My understanding from being at the meeting. I'm relying on what was 2S said verbally, but they took - they understood the questions you were asking but February 26, 2004 123 1 2 these issues ape site plan issues. BOARD HEHBER TORTOPA: Let's get 3 this straight. I'm net asking ~hese questions, I'm merely reading what's on en 4 agenda that I have seen for the first time today. 5 MS. MOORE: No. There was a letter that went out, an internal 6 communication from the Zoning Board te the Planning Beard was give us your comments en ? five items, five elements, drainage, parking and things like that. 8 BOARD HEMBEP TORTORA: I'm merely looking for the first time today since I was 9 sic]{ for the last hearing, looking at it saying where are we at se we can move forward. 10 That's all. MS. HOORE: I'm trying te give you 11 the information I have. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only 12 thought that I have oR this is this is a variance; it's a request for an 13 interpretation. If the variance, which is the width of the building, is going te affect the 14 drainage er the parking or any of these things, then we can rightfully say it's within 15 our purview because we can make a nexus between the two ef them. However, if the 16 width of the building is net going te in any way be affected by those things, I'm net too 17 sure hew far we should be venturing along these lines. That's my opinion. 18 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I'm just waiting for a report to come back. If he 19 comes back and says this is fine, this is what should be done, we'll take care of it, then be 20 that as it may. I just want confirmation from an independent source. 21 HS. MOORE: Thank you. I'm going te submit for the record the Suffolk County 22 Planning Commission recommendation that was made October 15, 1982 to Henry Rayner, who was 23 the chairman of the Planning Beard at the time the subdivision was created, two items which 24 are an obligation on the subdivision. One is all storm water runoff resulting from the 25 development, an improvement of this subdivision or any ef its lots shall be February 26, 2004 124 1 2 retained on the site by adequate drainage structures so that it will net flew out into 3 the right of way of Hain State Read. TNet is a condition; that is one that's accepted; 4 that's what the site plan's all the about, and we understand it. And the width of the 5 building, because it's not really a width, we have two 38 feet wide structures connected by 6 a mezsanine~ the mezzanine being 10 feet extra setback, these issues Nave nothing de with the ? linear footage on the road. Then finally, the ether condition is that since Lets 2 through % 8 inclusive will eventually be used for business it is necessary that a pla~ be developed ~ showing hew the parking areas on these lets will be coordinated with the two proposed 10 points of access shew~ on the map. The layout of the parking area should also ensure that 11 the vehicle can move from one lot te another lot without having to reenter the state road. 12 Se again, the landscaping can't be put in such a way that it interferes with the 13 ingress/egress that's intended and it was a condition ef the snbdivisien between the 14 properties. Se we're balancing several balls, but these are balls that are balanced at the 15 planning level not at your level. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hiss Moore, 16 they can vary those, right? MS. MOORE: Absolutely, these 17 conditions are part ef the subdivision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, but 18 I'm talking about the landscaping can be cha~ged. 19 MS. MOORE: Yes. The rules in the cede are as a guideline but because of ether 20 factors, they have a right te waive any or all of these site plan issues. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, do you mind, I'd like -- we've heard your case. I 22 don't want te cut you off, you can come back, but we'd like te hear what Mr. Glever er 23 anybody else has to say. MS. MOORE: Sure. Thanks, I won't 24 take offense. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope netk 25 MR. @LOVER: Good afternoon, I'm Leonard Glover, and I'm the eno that has the February 26, 2004 125 1 2 problem with the drainage because originelly there was a big pipe went under 25, and then 3 with all the building that's cut off, and the water used to keep right en going down the % crick. But I just, i~stead of holding things up, I brought pictures en February 7th ef what 5 it looked like, and I'd like to leave them with the Beard se you can look at them. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. ? CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: Mr. Kaelin, do you Nave anything to add? 8 MR. HAE~IN: Yeah, Dan Kaelin. I have the property on the corner ef Cox's Lane, 9 on the northwest corner. The only question I would like te 10 direct te Pat is, you're talking about an easement, dues that effect me at all? 11 MS~ MOORE: Ne, not at all. MR. F~AELIN: Because I heard again 12 hearsay they were going te break through my west line se they could swing out to the let. 13 MS. KOWALSKI: We have a map here, if you want to take a look at it. It goes 1% right through your property. MR. KAELIN: Okay. I think the 15 water issue has already been addressed by the pictures. I think they speak fur themselves. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Dues Mr. McCarthy er Hr. Nickles have anything te 17 say? MR. MCCARTHY: Geed afternoon, Tom 18 McCarthy, Seuthold. My comments because ef the advertisement of reopening the entire 19 hearing, I don't want to necessarily go back ever all the eld things. I don't have any 20 comments en the drainage or the length ef the building, ether than the fact that 21 architecturally it looked good when I saw the plans. I'm here to talk about the number ef 22 uses en the property, and ere ef the disapprovals that was given at that point in 23 time. I was here te speak at the last public hearing, and just want te reiterate my 24 comments. I don't know if you're going te speak about any ef that today, but I feel as a 25 resident e£ the town and a local business person and knowing a lot of other small local February 26, 2004 126 1 2 businesses, that the strict interpretation that the Building Department has given and the 3 reason why Miss Moore is here on the number of uses, that strict interpretation under the 4 Zoning code will hurt a lot of the local businesses if they all had to have the minimum 5 lot size per use on the property, not just in the B Zone, which is advertised, but I ask 6 when you come out with your interpretation however that goes, that it's far reaching and 7 goes across all the business zoning categories. It doesn't just address the B 8 Zone with the number of uses that are allowed ena piece of property with the bulk schedule. 9 CHAIRWONLA~ OLIVA: I think we'll take that very seriously. 10 HR. MCCARTHY: I think that will make a tremendous impact. The way that the 11 building inspector is interpreting is definitely in contrast with having a 12 change in cede to the way it's been interpreted previously with ether multiple 13 tenant facilities around town, namely, Jim Gray's industrial park, the buildings on the 14 North Read, Feather Hill. If it was te be interpreted that strictly, the Town probably 15 wouldn't have been able te occupy Feather Hill with three different departments in town and 16 you wouldn't have all the little small spaces within that complex if that the zoning cede 17 had been interpreted that way at that point in time. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I !ask Mr. McCarthy a question? Fill me in then 20 Mr. McCarthy about this 30,000 square feet. I'm assuming that the discussion went toward 21 each particular business that they wanted to put in there to require that? 22 MS. MOORE: Maybe I can help en that. The building inspector interpreted that 23 here we have, for example, eight tenancies. They wanted to shew the extreme when they did 24 it because they could have said three uses given the fact that we have retail, office and 25 maybe restaurant use at the time. But they went to the extreme, eight uses, every tenancy February 26, 2004 127 1 2 being a different use. They look at the code and they say eno use per -- whatever the bulk 3 schedule says, and in business zoning it is 30,000 square feet se one use per 30~000, if 4 you were in a zoning district, one use per 40,000. So they're, I believe, 5 inappropriately using the bulk schedule for a minimum lot size that's used for minimum lot 6 size and setbacks and things like that to apply te the use schedule that's at the 7 beginning of each code, what uses are permitted in that zoning district. And the 8 last time I was here I explained in statutory construction, when you have a code that ~ says -- for example, RO, it says, specific language, eno use per 40,000 square foot. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I read that~ You wrote that -- 11 MS. MOORE: Right. It's very, very specific. Se therefore the fact that 12 it's specific in eno area and left out ef the rest of the cede implies as a matter ef law 13 that it was Never intended te be read that way. And so far people have come in for 14 variances rather than challenge that decision and say, Zoning Board, this is wrong, it's 15 undermining the zoning code. And finally, I just didn't think that was right so we're 16 here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would 17 seem te me that all you could be able to de is put eno deli in that building, right? 18 MS. MOORE: One use, exactly. And funny thing is though, I have te say, there's 19 another project that's being reviewed and the Planning Beard thought this is ironic, there's 20 another project that's a medical arts building. The medical arts building is 21 probably the same size as ours, same number of doctors -- let's assume it is -- because it's 22 eno use, a medical arts building, doctors office, it can proceed without any variance. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you can be a surgeon er podiatrist, 14 separate 24 doctors. MS. MOORE: I don't want te 25 ruin -- John, you had a very good example!-- I don't want to ruin John's thunder, but he had February 26, 2004 128 1 2 an excellent example of how it would not make sense. You could have CVS and in with one use 3 and build the same building and wouldn'tl be here. They would proceed with the Planning 4 Board. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm trying 5 to go the other way. If they had a deliithere to occupy a building this size and that's all 6 you could have in there, and then you wanted to have seven other uses in this town, you'd 7 have to go 30,000 square feet for each one of those. 8 MS. MOORE: You'd have to have a property that was eight times 30,000, 240,000 9 square feet there. It's impossible. There aren't any properties that size. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're saying that the code doesn't say that. 11 MS. MOORE: The cede doesn't say that and I think it's a misapplication of the 12 cede. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Not in this 13 district. I think there's two districts ~ that it does specify. 14 MS. MOORE: Correct. Marine business district, 1 or 2 and an kO. I know 15 RO because it's my office. If I have all offices I'm okay, but if I want to put 16 something different, I have to come to you guys. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: What we need to do is, we need to wait for the report. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just ask them to come back March 18th at 2:00 p.m. 19 MS. MOORE: You want ns back? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 20 Mr. Nickles, did you wish to say something? MR. NICKLES: Yes, thank you. 21 John Nickles, Junior, Southoid. The president of the Southold Business Alliance couldn't be 22 here so I'm speaking for him today. Namely on that last point that 23 Mr. McCarthy and Pat Moore spoke about, thank you, I really don't have any thunder though. 24 I think that that is a crucial point here in the Town of Southold especially for, I think 25 that the residents, and the business community in general have the same mutual goals. We February 26, 2004 129 1 2 would like to have the small businesses survive out here, and I think that that 3 interpretation, particular interpretation regarding the bulk schedule by the Building 4 Inspector is really going to send the town in the wrong direction. And I would hope that 5 the Zoning Board of Appeals straightens that out. Thank you. 6 CNAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Thank yen; John. If there's ne eno else te speak, I 7 would like to adjourn this hearing until Hatch 18th at 2:15 p.m. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? {Whereupon, all Board Members 10 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Se moved. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we take a four minute recess? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. (Whereupon, a brief recess was 13 taken.) 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like te call our next hearing, which is J and C 15 Holdings. It's for a piece ef property North View Drive in Orient for a home less than 50 16 feet from the property line, less than 100 feet from the top ef the Sound bluff. 17 MS. WICKHAM: I just want to quickly bring yen up te date since you closed 18 the last hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have 19 reopened it. MS. WICKHAM: You have reopened it 20 because my client was sensitive to the discussion about size ef retaining walls, 21 drainage and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Size of the 22 house. MS. WICKHAM: -- size of the 23 house. Looked at the plan again, went back te the engineer and the surveyor and was able te 24 redesign it se that there was one three foot retaining wall, and by putting the garage 25 underneath a smaller house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the size February 26, 2004 130 1 2 of the house now? MS. WICKHAM: One and-a-half 3 story, 59 by 32 foot house and the garage under and a partial second fleer, which is 4 about 300 square feet smaller than the upstairs than the prior one because they have 5 shortened the house by six feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it's 2~000 6 square feet or under 2000 souare feet for the total? 7 MS. WICKHAH: I'll get you the total. Let me compute that out. There are a 8 number of drainage questions. If the Board has any questions about that Mr. Fischetti is 9 here, and he can probably answer them better than I can. Let me leek at my notes en the 10 square footage. CHAIRWONL%N OLIVA: By the way, 11 Miss Wickham, did you get the report er letter from Miss Summers, from her engineer's report? 12 MS. WICKHAM: I did. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Joe has it? 13 MS. WICKHAM: Yes. MR. FISCHETTI: Joseph Fischetti. 14 As you know, after that last meeting, I did work with John Rertado te rede the house and lB te rede the drainage. I submitted the drainage te you. We used the drainage 16 calculations required by the Town, which is two inch rainfall. The calculations were 17 te -- the calculations that were sent to you were for the reef runoff completely, the 18 driveways and all the upper surface areas were retained, that was the question as te what it 19 retained, but it was retaining all the grass areas, the driveways and the reef areas. That 20 was into two drainage structures because one was going te be in the driveway because now 21 there was four, because the house was now at eno level and usually you put the dry wells 22 around; and two, because we were picking up part of the reef area and the driveway area 23 was new very important. Se we think we have addressed all the drainage issues. The 24 retaining walls now are only three feet. A let of the problems with the view and the 25 massiveness of the two walls are now taken up by having the garage under. I'll take any February 26, 2004 131 1 2 questions for the Beard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinis~e? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZI0: I thought eight feet was pretty high. I think you did a 4 nice job bringing it down. MR. FISCHE?TI: Yeah. We're down 5 to only three foot, and three feet is less. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Did yen address 6 the concerns that Miss Summers had in her letter te you? 7 MR. FISC~ETTI: Some of them~I don't understand. Se I think -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn't understand them either. 9 MS. WICKHAM: So the answer is yes. 10 MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. I addressed what was in that letter. I felt consistently 11 she's talked about five inch rainfall, but we don't use that in the town. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know we don't. 13 MR. FISCHETTI: We are containing -- there was a question about ~a 14 little depression and runoff, in essence -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. And 15 going down for that ravine that is on her property. 16 MR. FISCHETTI: We are retaining all the water en the site; se that's really a 17 moot point in that we are retaining everything on the site. Se that shouldn't really enter 18 into the analysis. Again, I think everything has been addressed with the change in the site 19 plan. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I did notice, I don't recall why, but the natural 21 screening on the west side was removed; was it necessary now that -- 22 MR. FISCHETTI: Well, we enlyhave a three feet retaining wall new, so we felt 23 that we were changing our grade. We didn't need that screening anymore. If it's required 24 we would be g~ad to put screening back again. But I don't think it's needed. We only have a 25 three foot retaining wall. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Correct. February 26, 2004 132 1 2 No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehr±nger? 3 BOARD MEMBER GO~HRINGER: You said the garage is under en the west side, is that 4 Belgian block that's retaining that water into that center drain, or is that some sort ef 5 poured concrete edging; what is that? MR. FISCHE~TI: The driveway would 6 be asphalt because it has to contain that. So there's really ne need to have an edging. I ? think if he wanted it for that purpose, but you can see it will just naturally go in that 8 direction because ef the way we placed it. So you don't have to contain anything because 9 that's the lowest point, and that's where the water wants te ge. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there will be no water runoff from the read ente 11 that driveway? MR. FISCHETTI: Say the question 12 again. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne iwater 13 runoff from the read ente the driveway? MR. FISCHETTI: Ne, yen mean North 14 View Drive? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 15 MR. FISCHETTI: No. Again, what we'll de is you put a very slight hump at the 16 beginning and bring it down. We don't want water, we don't want water from there, no, not 17 at all. We don't want te pick up their water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRING~R: Of 18 course not. C-tAIRWONLAN OLIVA: There's no 19 chance of making that a pervious surface efa driveway? 20 MR. FISCRETTI: We're trying te contain the water. We don't really want 21 erosion. If I did it as a gravel driveway, I think we would have a little mere of a 22 problem -- pervious, if it was bigger, I would concern myself. We're taking it all and 23 putting it in the ground anyway, Ruth. So it's all going in there. Se having it 24 pervious or impervious, I've taken into consideration that it's impervious, so 25 whatever water doesn't ge into that drain, it's going to go down. February 26, 2004 133 1 2 CHAIRWOMAI~ OLIVA: I don't know why is she asking about moving that retaining 3 wall 35 feet further back? HR. FISCHETTI: She asks fur! some 4 more buffer. I'm only 20 feet from the retaining wall right new. I'm trying te keep 5 a buffer from the coastal zeno erosion line, and I'm only giving myself maybe a little less 6 than 20 feet from the edge of that retaining wall te the house. Se, all it would do is 7 force the house te come closer te the property. I don't think it protects anything. 8 Her question is not of any protection, we've addressed all that. We have, in a number ef 9 letters that I have written, that we have addressed that. She asks about the weed is 10 net a maiRtenaNce issue. It's a lifetime issue. I mean, again, this wood block, the 11 wood crib will last probably 40 years, and it's net that it will -- if the retaining wall 12 was much higher and much mere massive, there would be a concern ef maintenance, but, again, 13 a three foot retaining wall doesn't require any maintenance. It would require repairs 14 over the lifetime. I know John and I have talked about that, and John is willing, if 15 it's a concern, to go with a Nicoloc, I think if you understand walls, which is an 16 interlocking block wall, and we'd be glad to do that. That's much nicer looking than that 17 and it's lifetime. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And also 18 if you get any water, it just seeps right through. 19 MR. FISCHETTI: So we would be willing te do that as a Nicolec on the 20 retaining wall, gives it a little more flexibility. It's easier to install instead 21 of the massive cribbing, which is a little harder te install. As you're laying it, you 22 lay it a little easier and less equipment, se we would be willing te de that. We talked 23 about that this afternoon as a response to her. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any ether questions fur Hr. Fischetti? I don't have any 25 questions. So what is the square footage ef February 26, 2004 13% 1 2 the house? HS. WIC~HAM: This is again a 3 conceptual plan. We gave you a rendition last time of what it would leek like. The only 4 change would be te reduce this side by about six feet and replace the garage door with a 5 window. So it will have the appearance on the front of the property as basically a eno story 6 house. In the back there will be a cape making it a eno and-a half story. The first 7 floor will be approximately 1,888 square feet, which is 59 by 32. The second floor, I don't 8 have the exact dimension, it's going te be somewhere between 900 and 1,000 square feet, 9 and then the garage under. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's still ever 10 2,000 square feet. HS. WICKH}~: The house would be, 11 yeah. CHAIRWOM}2q OhlVA: Does that 12 include the garage toe? MS. WICKHAM: Yeah. The first 13 floor about 1,900 square feet; the second floor about 1,000, and the garage I guess 14 they're about 600 square feet, but that will be underneath. And from the road side, as I 15 say, it will basically look like a ranch from the read. Thank you. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Miss Wickham, one quick question, refresh my 17 memory. The lot directly te the west -- MS. WICKHAM: Te the west, YES. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They own this lot and they're selling it? 19 MS. WICKPLAi~: That's not correct. Mrs. Dell did own a number ef properties in 20 the neighborhood and sold them years age, I think. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLAND6: The neighbor to the west doesn't own this right 22 now? MS. WICKHAM: Ne. She owned the 23 eno on the west er the east at eno point. I can look that up. But it's years ago. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The west, Mrs. Doll. Is there anybody that would like te 25 speak en this application? Yes, ma'am? MS. MORGAN: Hello, my name is February 26, 2004 135 1 2 Mary Hergan. I live in Brown's Hills I think you probably answered the questions, ~eidi 3 Hilde, who is my neighbor, asked me to submit her letter of February 24th. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have that. MS. HORGAN: You all have that and 5 you're answering the questions that she has? CHAIRWOP83~N OLIVA: Right. 6 MS. MORGAN: In what form will the questions be answered; will she get a letter 7 back or how do the answers come to her? CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Actually, it's 8 more in the decision. MS. KOWALSKI: Actually, the 9 answers in this letter would be addressed by the attorney for the applicant. If the 10 chairman wanted te do them one by eno. MS. WICKHAM: Well, the engineer. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: Or the engineer. MS. WICKHAH: He just did. 12 MS. MORGAN: Se the HS. KOWALSKI: Eech individual 13 question? HS. HORGAN: So at this hearing is 14 when the questions get responded to? MS. KOWALSKI: Yes. It's been 15 responded to and the court stenographer will transcribe it. That's hew it's entered in the 16 record. MS. MORGAN: And then she can get 17 a copy ef the record? HS. KOWALSKI: Yes. 18 MS. HORGAN: If she has further questions er if we haven't covered everything 19 that concerns her, should she send another letter? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think we're going to keep the hearing open any 21 longer. It's gene en long enough that we're just going to Nave te close it. 22 MS. MORGAN: Ail right, thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else would like te speak? 24 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want te clarify eno thing, Hiss Wickham. You 25 said that the total square footage of the house is somewhere in the area of 2,000; is February 26, 2004 136 1 2 that correct? MS. WICKHAH: Ne. I said --iMiss 3 Oliva asked if it was, and I said it's more than that. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that's with the garage that's underneath the 5 house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Living 6 space is closer to 3,000 square feet it sounded like. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I wanted the clarification. 8 MS. WICKHAM: First floor is 59 by 32, which is 1,888 square feet. 9 MS. KOWALSKI: That's living area. And the second fioor is a half story? 10 MS. WICKHAM: It's a half story, and I'm guessing about 1,000 square feet if 11 you took off the end of it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 12 about 2,800. MS. WICKHAM: The plan is right in 13 your file. HS. KOWALSKI: How big is the 14 garage again? MS. WICKHAM: I'm assuming it's 24 15 by 24. Plus a hallway, maybe, net more than 600 square feet, really. 16 MS. KOWALSKI: It's about 3,300 altogether. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And how high te the ridge? 18 MS. WICKHAM: The height to the ridge -- sorry, just put that map away. 19 MR. FISCHETTI: We're 23 feet from the first fleer. New, we lowered the house 20 eno feet when we redid the grading. So the first floor elevation was lowered from 93 to 21 92. Se it's 92 plus whatever 23 feet is. New, 23 feet is in essence a real ranch 22 height. It's not a two story house. It's just that it's a two story with a cape in the 23 back. If you looked at a ranch in the front, that's the elevation you would have. From the 2% first floor to the peak of the ridge is 23 feet. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEH~INGER: ~et me ask yen this question as an engineer. As an February 26, 2004 137 1 2 engineer, in square footage you do not take a garage and add it to the square footage of the 3 house? HR. FISCHETTI: Ne. I didn't want 4 te add te that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 5 why I just want you to be aware ef the situation. We are talking about a 2,800) 6 2,900 square foot house here. We're not talking 3,600. 7 HR. FISCHETTI: You don't add the garage because the garage would have been a 8 basement before, it just happens to be, we're using that are now because we moved it from 9 the upper level now te the bottom. It would have been a basement area before. So it's net 10 usually added, MS. WICKHAH: I wanted you to make 11 sure you understood that the garage is also there. And maybe I should give you this, 12 which is a mark-up ef the plan we submitted before, showing the reduced size of the front. 13 But this might mere specifically answer your questions in terms ef height. Twenty three 14 feet above the first floor is the actual top ef the house, which is net hew you measure 15 height under the cede. This is the midpoint, but to go to the ridge is 23 feet. So that 16 might help you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We 17 shouldn't lose focus en the notice of disapproval which is based on the setback of 18 the bluff. That's what we're addressing, but I don't think it was ever talked about here 19 again, but we've lost site of, went off en tangents. 20 MS. WICKHAM: B'luff in the south side yard, yes. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have te go to the Trustees? 22 HS. WICKHA~: Mr. Hertade has spoken to the Trustees, and when I saw the 23 note en the agenda today, I had him ge down and see them. And Lauren said that we could 24 advise you that she will give them a letter tomorrow to sign. There was no one there 25 today. She didn't see a problem with it, but didn't have an authorization te sign it. So February 26, 2004 138 1 2 if we may get you that after the hearing, I'm expecting that any day. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else would like to speak. Yes, sir? 4 MR. MORGAN: Tom Morgan. I also live at Brown's Hills. We just built a house 5 2,300 square feet, which is big, on a perfectly approved building let. And we 6 needed no variances. This is a negative building envelope, that's something else that 7 shouldn't be overlooked. Se basically it's a bigger house on a negative space than we built 8 a couple years ago. That's all I have to say. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree with Mr. Hergan, it is a big house. There's 10 ne way we can -- MS. WICKHAM: That's why we've 11 tried to come back -- we're not supposed to be using height -- a number ef times and 12 redesigned it and narrowed it down and limited to the one and-a-half stories rather than two 13 story. And that's the type ef house that he feels with the great teem and the layout is 1% really what he would need to have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any ether 15 comments from the audience? HR. KEE~ER: Yes, my Name is Brett 16 Keeler. Since when does everyone have to say what size a person's house can be? If you 17 meet all the standards, you get a variance, whatever, whether you're 1,500 square feet on 18 the first fleer and - CHAIRWOMAN O~IVA: It's just that 19 because ef the fragility ef the site. MR. KEE~ER: Price -- the 20 neighborhood. CHAIRNOMAN OLIVA: Of the site and 21 the dwelling, and the setbacks from the read, and the bluff's right there, they're not back 22 100 foot from the bluff as they should be, they're much closer, and the bluff is very 23 fragile in that area, that we are concerned that we don't have a big, heavy house sitting 24 en something, en that because the weight of that plus all the driveways. 25 HR. KEE~ER: Nell, the weight of a one a~d-a-half story house versus a ranch Pebruary 26, 2004 139 1 2 house is very equal. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not saying 3 not to make it one and-a-half. I'm just saying a 2,800 square foot house is a geed 4 size house. MR. KEELER: Right. But if a 5 person needs it, and you have a building lot that's an acceptable building let, then you 6 say you can't build a house te live in, but then you paid fur this lot. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm net saying you can't build a house. 8 MR. KEELER: Yeah, but if itl doesn't meet a person's needs. 9 MS. KOWALSKI: There's ne person yet. It's for sale. 10 MS. WICKHA~: To mere specifically answer your questions, that's why we have the 11 engineering to the extent that we did te make sure that it wouldn't be a problem. Because 12 ultimately you don't want your house te be a problem. 13 MR. KEBLBR: You ge through hiring professionals te tell yen it's net going to be 14 a problem, then you make a decision saying we don't feel it's going to be that big. There's 15 got to be other grounds. I mean, why do we have professionals? 16 MS. KOWALSKI: Major setbacks, major variances they need, so they're trying 17 to get it down te the minimum relief necessary. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is our directive from the Town law is to give the 19 minimum relief necessary. MS. KOWALSKI: Not the maximum, 20 but the minimum, and can you build a 1,200 square foot house. 21 MR. KEELER: If it was a 1,200 square foot house en the first fleer and went 22 two stories, it's 2,400 square feet. MS. KOWALSKI: The Beard hasn't 23 made a decision yet. This is what they came down to. That's a revised plan. 24 MR. K~BLER: Thank you. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Ne ether 25 comments from the Board? Make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until February 26, 2004 140 1 2 later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 4 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN OHIVA: Se moved. 5 MS. WICKHAH: Hopefully that's the final closed meeting. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope so toe. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Towbee, and it's because of a 8 building they're using for storage, which had two tenants =nstead ef just being owned by eno 9 tenant. Am i correct? Okay. CAPTAIN PROENHOFPER: It's owned 10 by eno person. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But yen have a 11 tenant in there. CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: Correct. 12 MS. WICKHAM: Since we were here quite a number ef months age for the setback 13 variances, we have been waiting for the Building Department to certify to the Planning 14 Board the site plan. And apparently Mr. Verity had an issue with the multiple uses 15 en the property since last summer, and I gave him the hearing testimony from our last 16 hearing, where we discussed what those uses were. He was still uncomfortable with it and 17 finally issued a notice of disapproval based en the multiple uses, and your Board was kind 18 enough te get us in very quickly te address it. We feel quite strongly that the variance 19 really isn't ~ecessary because this property has historically had multiple uses and 20 Mr. Rich and I did spend a tremendous amount ef time researching that, and we'd like te ask 21 yon to recognize that. If for some reason you can't, then I would ge on te the variance 22 nature ef the application. But I de think we've established a preexisting use of 23 multiple uses, which I would like you to recognize. 24 This is one of the really most interesting projects I've had in a long time, 25 and my client's going to be glad that I'm not going te be billing him for literally hours I February 26, 2004 141 1 2 spent on the phone with Mr. Rich and some of the other eld timers in town including Howard 3 Terry, Donald Tuthill, Pep Cochran, a let of people who know a let about the history ef 4 this town and what went on. Mr. Terry's comment was after 5 quite a while ef getting him to remember these things, he said, eh, yes, I remember that was 6 a very, very busy street, and that was back into the '40s and into the '50s when the small 7 produce businesses were getting started, and there were a let ef fellows ever that did have 8 businesses over there, and they were all different business, all in the different 9 buildings there, but most ef which are still there. 10 Specifically, on the building which Sea Tow will not be operating its 11 business in, which we're calling the ~ehn building, there were a number ef different 12 businesses detailed in the affidavit, sometimes as many as two er three different 13 businesses in that building. I think Hr. Verity recollected, 14 and it's understandable that when you're young and you're trying te recall something when you 15 were young, he had recalled that Southold Lumber was in that building with its cabinet 16 shop, and that's why he felt uncomfortable issuing the multiple use. We've since 17 discovered based on the tax records that that cabinet shop was actually en the other side of 18 the shop, and it was net a Seuthold Lumber building, it was a different cabinet shop. 19 But that's probably why he felt uncomfortable at the time, and, unfortunately, he has been 20 en vacation and was unable te review this affidavit prier te the hearing today in order 21 to determine whether we needed te ge forward. So we're asking yen te do that instead. 22 Rather than going on at length about anything else, I'd like te see if you 23 have anything specific. C~AIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 24 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Having lived out here most ef my life summers, then 25 living since 1964, there's no doubt in my mind that there were several businesses en that February 26, 2004 1%2 1 2 piece ef property, and, ef course, te date Hr. Bohn, having been there and occupying that 3 property. So I really don't have a problem with this application. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree. I've seen over the years going back and forth 5 there's been many different businesses in there. Mr. Orlando? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I knew this was coming back up, I thought for sure I 7 addressed every single building and what their uses were. So I grabbed the old transcript 8 and I spoke specifically about every building except that one because I assumed that was 9 your headquarters now, and it would stay a Sea Tow thing. But I did not address that 10 building, se I cannot -- MS. WICKHAM: I'm net sure -- 11 yeah, you were here. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I asked 12 specifically, what was Building 1 and what were you using it for 2 and 3. I heard this 13 was coming back, and I asked them every building what they were using for, I can't 14 believe that. I didn't ask Building E, I asked 1, 2, 3 but net E. 15 MS. WICKHAM: No. But I did address E in your hearing. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I see E, but I don't have a problem. No other 17 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? 18 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I'm wondering if you could fill me in en those 19 uses because I was net here for the last hearing. I've get te write this decision. I 20 want te make sure I get enough just information. So, what is the current use en 21 that property? MS. WICKHAM: First of all, 22 because I don't think you were here for the initial hearings. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I read some of this. You're here now for something 24 specifically -- MS. WICKHAM: Different, yes And 25 I want to make sure we're only on the one tax map parcel en the east half ef the block~ and February 26, 2004 143 1 2 that is divide into the east side and the west side. The east side, which is where the 3 office building, Building 1, the office building, Building 2, which is the existing 4 warehouse being renovated and Building 3, the new warehouse, will all be utilized by the Sea 5 Tow operations. Se that the Buildings 2 and 3 will be accessory te Building 1. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Building 1 is 7 MS. WICKHAM: The principal use on that east side -- 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is office. 9 CAPTAIN FROENHOFFBR: Office communications and dispatch. 10 MS. WICKHAM: With Building 2 and 3, warehouse storage accessory to that 11 business. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Those are 12 the established uses that are on this property that have been there for some time. 13 MS. WICKHAM: That's going te be the new use, but previously there were other 14 uses detailed in Paragraph 2 of my affidavit. CAPTAIN FROENHOPFER: There was 15 Digate, there was a weed shop, there was fertilizer, there was -- 16 MS. WICKHAM: Long Island Cauliflower. 17 MR. FROENHOPPER: That's right, that was Gagen and Karen. It gees back te the 18 '40s. MS. WICKH.%H: Most recently a 19 landscaper. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What ~beut 20 Mr. Behn? MS. WICKHAM: And meat recently a 21 landscaper. New, en what we call the west side ef the building, which is the Behn 22 Building, that has been potato storage, the small produce dealers and business, the 23 grange, which later became Agway, Mr. Cemshums repair appliances, the Telstar Electronics 24 business, which was run by Mr. Marsden, who Mr. Tuthill told me was really too eld to 25 call. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hew eld February 26, 2004 144 1 2 is he? MS. WICKHAH: How old is 3 Hr. Tuthill? MS. WICKHAM: Mr. HcCarville was 4 there, Mr. Marsales was there prior to him and then Seutheld -- oh, ne, and then Richard 5 Greenfield had a garage equipment business, then Mr. Bohn went in. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is Mr. Bohn's principal business? 7 MS. WICKHAM: Contractor storage yard. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what the Town says he is. 9 MS. WICKHA~: Yes, that's correct. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Building E 10 is strictly? MS. WICKHAM: Contractor's storage 11 warehouse yard, for that type of use. He's a tenant new. I understand he's got another 12 location, whether he'll be a tenant there, that would be the use. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I get that list that you were reading off of? 14 MS. WICKHAM: I submitted itl but I can give you another one. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not necessary. If it's there, it's there. I 16 think that's all I have, thank you. MS. WICKHAM: And I can also tell 17 you about most ef the buildings nearby which some ef these guys thought I was talking about 18 but wasn't. It was an interesting experience. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 19 anybody else in the audience that would like te speak on behalf or against this 20 application? Seeing no one, I'll close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 22 (Whereupon, all Beard Hembers responded in favor.) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: Captain Joe 24 Froenhoffer. As this is a continuation of basically, I feel, of the first hearing, we 25 submitted basically two checks, $400, I think in the beginning, and a second check for $400. February 26, 2004 145 1 2 I feel that the secend check was unnecessary, and I would respectfully request a refund. 3 BOARD M~MBER GOEHRINGER: You have he request that frem the Tewn Board. 4 MS. KOWALSKI: That will be up to the Board. The Zoning Board didn't require 5 the variance. The Building Department did. But it's up ~e the Board if they want to 6 refund that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The Town 7 Beard approves those. CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: I don't knew 8 how that werks. (Time ended 3:45 p.m.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 February 26, 200% 146 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I CAT I O N 6 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 7 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 8 THAT the within transcript is a true 9 record of the testimony given. 10 I further certify that I am not related by 11 blood or marriage, to any of the partiesto 12 this action; and 13 THAT I am in no way interested in the 14 outcome of this matter. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 16 hand this 26th day of February, 2004. 17 18 19 2O Florence V. Wiles 21 22 23 24 25 February 26, 2004