Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/18/2004 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BO~qD OF APPEALS COWNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 ........................................... ~X 5 TOWN O F S OUTHOLD 6 ~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 March 18, 2004 12 9:30 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present : 15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 18 JA~4ES DINIZIO. Board Member 19 LII~DA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 20 Absent was : 21 LYDIA TORTOP~A, Board Member 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING A~ND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631 878-8047 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: Our first 3 Public Hearing is Joseph Trencheny, which was 4 a carry-over from 2 26. They have amended 5 their plan to make it a 12 yard setback 6 instead of the ten. Is there anybody here to speak about that? Yes, sir? 8 KR. TRENCHENY: Yes, good 9 morning. 10 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning. 11 MR. TRENCHENY: As per your 12 requesE -- 13 MS. KOWALSKI: Could you give your 14 name for the record? 15 MR. TRENCHENY: Yes, Joseph 16 Trencheny. The propermy in question ~s 120 17 South Lane mn East Mar~on. I believe, as per 18 your requesu, of the last meeting of February 19 26th I did meem with Mr. Craig Thorpe on 20 Sunday March 7th, and revzewed my plan with 21 him, spenu about an hour gomng over the plan, 22 and, in fact, had mentioned that the plan 23 indeed looked like a very nzce house, ~nd 24 qumue frankly made also some suggestion as Eo znEerlor, which I really appreciated. And I March 18, 2004 3 1 2 left him on March 7th thinking that I didn'm 3 have any further cause for concern, and E then 4 subsequently received his letter last weekend 5 pertaining no Dther requesns that he might 6 have. 7 Ail I'm looking ~o do really is mo 8 improve upon a properny that I've }wned for 9 the last ezght years. The house is in need of 10 repair am this poznt, and ~'d like mc take it 11 and make it a full season situation E now 12 have a family of six, my wife and now my 13 latesm addition. And E'm loDkinc to pum about 14 a 2,000 maybe a 2~100 square foot home on this 15 parcel and nothing really, I don'n believe, 16 ouE of the ordinary as mo what's in that area, 17 what's in hhat Gardiner's Bay Estates area, 18 and I ceme here leekin~ ne seek yeur appreval 19 with regards no the variance and answer ~ny 20 further questions you might have. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yeu did 22 increase that setback from 10 feet te 12 feet? 23 HR. TRENCHENY: Yes, I think Mr. Notaro has provided you with a new plan 25 fer that. March 18, 2004 4 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, do 3 you have any questions? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dznizio? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a map right here, is this the mosm recenm one, 9 March 16th we received mt? 10 MR. TRENCHENY: Yes, that would 11 be. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And mhe 12 13 foot setback would be the rear corner? 14 MR. TRENCHENY: That would be the 15 nornh -- the southwest corner. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The 17 southwesm corner cue that back a little bit. 18 MR. TRENCHENY: We cut that back 19 mn order mo accommodate ~ny kind of m fire vehicle that mmght need mo gem back there. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess 22 that would be ~o the northeast, seems to be 23 like a shaded area with lines through it 24 that's 3.6 feet. 25 MR. TRENCHENY: That could be a March 18, 2004 1 2 patio I think. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see a 4 patio in the rear. Al~n~ that there's some 5 shading there? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's the existin~ house. 8 HR. TRENCHENY: That's the 9 eXlSEmn~ house. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was 11 wondering why mt was ~haded. 12 CHAIRWOMAN CLIVA: ThaE's 13 exlsElng. 14 MS. KOWALSKI: Second sEory's 15 going over that? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're 17 going above that 3.5 feet away from the 18 properEy line, you're going ~o go say from 10 19 feet Ec 20 feet, nee going any closer? 20 HR. TRENCHENY: Ne, I'm hoe going 21 ~ny closer ~¢ the line aE all. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not going 23 any closer. That's all E have, thank you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehrin~er? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The March 18, 2004 6 1 2 question with Hr. Notare -- and correc~ me if 3 I'm wrong, Mr. Trencheny -- was that the 4 second s~ory will no~ go any farther than how 5 far ~o the proper~y line on that side? 6 MR. NOTARO: We say 7'6" second floor setback off the building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 9 that's going to be another four feet, 1£ Mr. Notarc, is that correcn, from the existing 11 3.6? 12 MR. NOTARO: No. I believe it's 13 actually 7.6 from the line. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From ehe 15 actual house line? 16 HR. NOTARO: I den'E have the 17 drawings zn front ef me. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could 19 you let us be that so we know what thaE is? 20 One of the critical areas that we've dealt 21 with down there is the mssue of heine ~ble uo 22 work on your piece of properuy without going 23 on your neighbor's properuy. We realize that 24 we have a preexlsuzng setback and I think 25 tha~ was one of the things that Member Dinizio March 18~ 2004 1 2 was questioning aE this point. He's here, he can answer that quesEion. We, of course, know 4 that we would be dealinc with 10 feet if zE 5 wasn't for the fact £hat that setback ~s 6 preexisting a~ this pe~n~; is that correcn, 7 Madam Chairman? 8 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA Yes. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's 10 critical to know that the second suory is hOE 11 going £o mower over the first s£ory so as mo 12 make the setback much more nonconforming. 13 Dkay? 14 MR. NOTARO: Yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You'll 16 lee us know, Mr Notaro. 17 MR. NOTARO: You do have the 18 drawing. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Come up here. 20 Would you show -- 21 MR. NOTARO: We haven't modified 22 it. Last week's meeting we did pu£ in Ehe 23 setback. I need the actual floor plans. 24 Right there. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 6'10" March 18, 2004 8 1 2 off the side of the building? 3 MR. NOTARO: Correct. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 5 going Eo be over 10. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thas's what 7 you have now? 8 MR. NOTARO: This ms the later 9 drawing. Yes, correcu, exactly. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So ~n 11 effect you could still pus a ladder on shat 12 side and gee u~ no the second floor? 13 MS. KOWALSKI: What zs the setback 14 from the second smory Ee the properEy line? 15 MR. NOTARO: 6'10" plus 3.5 feet, 16 so 3.5 is 3.6, so tha£'s 9 foot, a little over 17 10 fooE. 18 MS. KOWALSKI: It's nos 7'6"; is 19 that what you're saying, setback from the 2{ second ssory co ~he propersy line? 21 MR. NOTARO: It would nos be a 22 wall of buildings on she house. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 24 you, Mr. Notaro. 25 MR NOTARO: Sure. March 18, 2004 9 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry to 3 confuse this. 4 CHAIRWONL~NOLIVA: Thanks so much. 5 MS. KOWALSKI: That chan~es the 6 total figure on hhe side yards, on the second floor. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the second 9 floor. 1£ MS. KOWALSKI: The lesser 11 varmance, and it would be it looks as hhough 12 the total side yard would be over 25 feet, 13 Mr. Notaro? 14 MR. NOTARO: Yes. 17'6" plus -- 15 MS. KOWALSKI: 17'6" plus 10 feet 16 for the secend fleor would mean yeu don't need 17 a variance? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Not fer 19 the secend floer. 20 MR. NOTARO: Per the second floor, 21 first fleor is preexisting. 22 HS. KOWALSKI: What is the new 23 area on that side, then? The secend floor you 24 said doesn't need a variance because it's 10 25 feet back? March 18, 2004 10 1 2 MR. NOTARO: We're here because it was disapproved by nhe Building DeparmmenE. MS. KOWALSKI: For 25 foot total 5 side yard. 6 HR. NOTARO: Taking lnE¢ account the existino house. 8 MS. KOWALSKI: You're changing the 9 existing construction £c new consEruction? 10 MR. NOTAR0: From the first floor 11 deck up we have ~o change the walls Eo conf~rm 12 with the new code. 13 MS. KOWALSKI: You have Eo 14 lescribe that in the decision, that's why I'm 15 asking you. 16 2HAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Fhat's what we 17 ]use said. So from the second floor it's 18 really like 10 feet something, but from the 19 firsE floor it's preexisting au 3.6, correct? 20 MR. NOTAR0: Yes. 21 MS. KOWALSKI: How do we describe 22 this new area? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This ms 24 existing. 25 MS. KOWALSKI: The total side March 18, 2004 11 1 2 yards are 25 feet and hhe code allsws you ~o go no 25 feet, so don't need a variance. 4 MR. NOTARO: On new construction on the alteration portion of the - 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You still have the nencenfermiay. 8 MS. KOWALSKI: And the alteranion 9 ms on the ease side~ rightl 1{ MR. NOTARO: Correct. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're 12 ge~ng nc tear this house down ~nd put another 13 ene up? MR. TRENCHENY: Yes. Te about the 15 foundanlon unless there's anything workable 16 with mn currently, that wouli be the -- 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeu're non 18 gelng ~o put the addition on hep ef the heuse? 19 HR. TRENCHENY: Prebably non, no. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: We're 21 basically grannzng a 6{ percenn variance 22 because my understanding was that yeu were 23 going Eo ge up an the 3.4, but that's nou se. 24 You're going ~o go back 10 feet and then go 25 up. You have an established senback au 3.4? March 18, 2004 12 1 2 MR. TRENCHENY: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The house's 4 been there forever? 5 HR. TRENCHENY: Since '37. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Rlcht. 7 You're nee proposing ce do any additional 8 building, except you're going ~c tear lc down 9 and put it back up, but say if you didn'n, say 10 you're putting ~ ~ecend addition, all you 11 would de is ge back 10 feet and gc up a sEory? 12 MR. TRENCHENY: Right. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a 14 little confused about the nomice ~f 15 disapproval also. The Thorpes had ~sked for 16 an additional ~wo feet, and I also was 17 wondering what would be the problem with 18 letting them have it. It's a 6C percent 19 variance, if we're looking au it the wal the 20 noElce ef iisappreval says. 21 MR. TRENCHENY: I'm ne~ aware if 22 that's the number. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My 24 understanding is we go£ a letter from Thorpes, 25 the neighbors, and they were nee satisfied March 18. 2004 13 2 with what -- 3 MR. TRENCHENY: What we were proposmng. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: -- wha£ you 6 were proposing, and my mind thinks it was cwo mere feet. I don't remember quite what hhe 8 numbers were, I was wonderinc what your 9 objection to that was? 10 HR. TRENCHENY: I'd like Ee 11 establish a house that's conducive eo the size 12 o~ my family. With four kids that aren't 13 getting smaller, I'm Eryzng Ee maximize on a 14 parcel that's zrregular a~ bes~ and Erying ko 15 maxlmzze what I have, and that's, again, the 16 reason why we're here. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think 18 that's all I have. Thank you. 19 MR. TRENCHENY: Thank you. 2( CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Thorpe, do 21 you have something Eo say? 22 MR. THORPE: You have my request 23 in wri£ing. You can see the existing 24 foundation, and if Hr. Trencheny deesn'E use 25 the exlsEzng feundatlon~ I think they should March 18, 2004 1 2 have £o conform Eo the present code, which 3 would be 1£ feet and then he 2ould go 15 feet on the other side, which would gzve him ~ house~ if he wenn nwo snorles high of 2 700 6 square feet, if he smays mn the 30 feet which he can'E go anymore than 30 feeE because he's only 35 feet from the road, he can'E come more 9 forward because the irreaular line. Do you 10 have any quesnions on my request? 11 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: No, thank you. 12 Just one more question, Mr. Notaro, how high 13 is the proposed new consErucEzon going mo be 14 aE the ridge? 15 MR. NOTARO: I believe it's 16 approximately 27 feet. It's a one and-a-half 17 smory type house. If I may jusE say one thing, the original application Eo the 19 Building DeparnmenE did noE include the 2£ setback we jusn discussed, it was actually in 21 line with the 3.5. It also included the 15 22 foot setback on hhe sther side, which we then 23 modified, with our client's requesn. So we've 24 acnually trimmed in the house about eight feet, n~ne feen on the secDnd floor. I jusE March 18, 2004 15 1 2 wanted £0 make that nome, that there has been 3 an aEtempE no compromzse on the ormginal 4 request. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like no 6 make ~ motion no 2lose the hearing and reserve deciszon until later. 8 BOARD MEMBER IOEHRINGER: Second. 9 CHAIRWONSkN DLIVA: Ail in favor? 10 Whereupon, all Board Members 11 responded ~n favor. 12 CHAIRWOMi~N OLIVA: Opposed? So 13 moved. 15 CHAIRWOM-AN OLIVA: Our nexn is for 16 Martin Bancroft, Jr., who wishes to put a lap 17 pool in Drient. Good morning, how are you? 18 Would you like to explain what 19 you'd like to lo? We've all been there, well, 20 one couldn't find it. It's a lovely spot and 21 you have -- it's a very cuEe little cottage 22 there. 23 MR. B~LNCROFT: Thank you. I'd 24 like to puma lap pool, but the law says I 25 cannon pun it in a side yard, either the front March 18, 2004 16 1 2 or the back. The back yard goes ouE Eo ~he bluff with my aseptic system, so I can't puE 4 the pool there. The front yard is where I 5 park the cars, E can't pu~ 1E there. Sc the 6 only ~lternaEmve is on the side yard. When I 7 puE the application, I knew it was going Eo be 8 rejected. Se I decided Ec apply for the 9 variance Ee see if it could be in the side i0 yard. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. We did 12 gee a reputE. We always send things that near 13 The bluff Ee the soil and waEer, and they have 14 some geed suggestions for you as far as that 15 lip because it's all planted with grass Ee the 16 lip. This is not zn~luded in the thing. This 17 iS free advice if you wane Eo take it or nee 18 take it, but it undercuts underneath tha5 lip, 19 and they're suggesE~ng that you slice that off 20 and puE some sore of plantings there mo hold 21 it in. We can give you a copy. 22 MR. BANCROFT: I sEopped by 23 yesterday and I spoke to Nicole who came and 24 did that siting. She said the same thing you 25 lus~ sai~. mo shave back part. In the Mar2h 18, 2004 17 1 2 meantime, Chuck Hamilton ms a ~riend, and 3 Chuck would come eum with me Ee show me 4 exactly what I can do and wham I can'£ do. But she said if I jusE took that lip off, 6 ef 2ourse it has nothing ne de with the pool, it's just prevenmlng the erosion. 8 C~LAIRWOHAN DLIVA: The reason I 9 say that zs, I live in Orient and I'm very 10 familiar with that whole bluff line there, 11 which is very unstable when we have a 12 nor'easter~ and they were so badly undercut in 13 the '9Os, in the early '9Os, '94, '95 because 14 you are all composed of this kind of silty 15 21ay and cobbles, and it jus~ tears m~ away. 16 Further, au Petty's there was one house that 17 tid the same thing, lusm had grass right up mo 18 the edge, and they shouldn't have dena that. 19 They need plantings up there, they didn't. It 20 started mo erode se badly, the poor man has 21 spenm, I would lmaclne, many thousands of 22 dollars putting a whole rock rip rack in fronm 23 of his house. So what I say ms lusm advice me 24 you, mo promecm your own prepermy, not thac 25 you have me de 1~. March 18, 2004 18 1 2 MR. BANCROFT: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, 4 any questions? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 6 commenE. 7 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Hr. Dinizie? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. 9 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Mr. Orlando? I0 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, I'm 11 the person who couldn'L find your place. I 12 tried. I don'm have ~ny questions. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further 14 ~uestmons. I'll close the hearing and reserve 15 iecislon until later. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail zn favor? 18 Whereupon, all Board Members 19 responded in favor. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? Oh, I 21 always forgeu, is there ~nybody zn the 22 audience uhat would wish Eo speak Dn this 23 a~plication? 24 MR. BANCROFT: Can I leave? 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. We'll March 18, 2004 19 1 2 have a decision in probably a week or so and the final maybe four or five days of that. So 4 within nwo weeks. MS. KOWALSKI: April 8th, then we 6 make our decision and 1E will be a little bit after that. Thank you. 9 CHAIRWONLAN 0LIVA: Our nex£ 10 hearinc is for Setaro, and this is for you 11 wanu uo propose a second snory. You have that 12 nice little white couuage. 13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. My name 14 is Nlgel Robert Williamson, I'm the architect for the Setaros. We're asking for relief from 16 ~ctal side yard setbacks from 25 feet mo 20 17 feet. The existing are 10 feet either side on 18 the existing house right now. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your lot is 20 really that big, so you're rather confined as 21 to what you can do. 22 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correcn The lot 23 width is 50 feet. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, 25 amy questions? March 18, 2004 2O 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this 3 a tear down er are you going to pum it ever 4 the top of the first s~oryl 5 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going me 6 pun it ever the firsm smory. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And 8 they'll be no changes mn ~erms of side yards 9 mn any way? 10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 12 ne problem. 13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Jus~ may I make 14 no~e also that I'm asking for the front 15 deck is coming two feet se we're asking for 16 that five feet as well. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. We see 18 that. Mr. Dinizie. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whan you 20 jusE mentioned is nc£ pare of hhis 21 application, E believe that it won't be turned 22 down. I saw that in there toe, it's an exEra 23 mwe feet. What if it was? I questioned the 24 building inspector on that. He said tNat you 25 won't be turned down for hhat. But I'm March 18. 2004 21 1 2 concerned aboun why you were turned down. You 3 have an existing family dwelling that has 4 total side yards of 20 feet. 5 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correc£. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It says -- 7 this is your notmce of disapproval -- 8 following the proposed consnrucElon, the 9 dwelling will remain an the same setback, 10 correct? 11 MR. WILLIAMSON: CorrecE. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have 13 personally trouble with than nomzce of disapproval~ because it doesn't tell me what's 15 wrong with what's going on here. It's not 16 your fault because I'm sure you're scratching 17 your head au the same mime you're reading 18 this. You're noE going ~o tear the house 19 down? 20 HR. WlLLIAMSON: CorrecE. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have 22 these existing setbacks and they're going ~o 23 remazn the same, correcE? 24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So all March 18, 2004 22 2 yeu're doing ms adding an existmng stery on 3 hhe heuse, yeu're net geing to exceed 35 feet 4 high? 5 MR. WILAIAMSON: Cerrect. 6 BO~t~E MEMBER DINIZIO: Your lot ceverage is ~eing te be okay, loeks like 8 you're less hham 20 percenm, whatever it ms. 9 Okay, thank you very much. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 11 BOAteD MEMBER ORLANDO: The height 12 nc the ridge as honed in the plan is 20'~", 13 correct? 14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the 16 back patmo is gomn~ to remazn a back patio or 17 that's going mo become livin~ space? MR. WILLIAMSON: The back panlo Ls 19 an enclosed screened porch area, and that's 20 going to remain the same. The whole first 21 floor footprint other than the front ~Drch, 22 which has been extended two feet, is gomng to 23 remain the same. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it's a cune little design, good luck. March 18, 2004 23 1 2 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I de 3 have ne further ~uesElons. Does anybedy in 4 the audience wmsh ee speak en behalf or 5 ~g~mnsE this application? If neE, I'll 2lose 6 the hearing and reserve decision until later. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 8 second. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANEO: Ail mn 10 favor? 11 Whereupen, all Board Members 12 respended in favor. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oppesed? So 1% moved. 15 ......................................... 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearino is 17 Charnews. They wish to pUE a garage additien 18 enmo that house. I love your siding. Weuld 19 yeu like mo ]use explain to the Board what you 26 w~sh mo do? 21 MS. CHARNEWS: We have a Ewe car 22 garage attached to the house now. We wane 23 puE a third bay on the back, which will go euE 24 12 feet, and I'm 50 feet off the line new, and 25 this weuld enly -- I would be no£ in the March 18, 2004 24 1 2 setback limits. 3 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: You would be 4 about 40 feet? 5 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I don't want 6 to pu~ a free standing buildin~ because I like the openness ef that properEy and I ion't want 8 ~c clutter is up, ~nd it would be obscured 9 from everybody. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you need 11 the other garage for what reason? 12 MS. CHARNEWS: My toy car. We 13 boucht a convertible and we don't want to 14 leave it outside, ~nd that's basically what we 15 wane it for. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Dinizio? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No 18 quesEions. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlmndo? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no 21 ques£zens. You did as I did in my house, I 22 see my house further back from the road, which 2i reduces your backyard, but sometimes it's nice 24 ~c be further back from hhe road as I chose ~o 25 do. March 18, 2004 25 1 2 MS. CHARNEWS: Pequash is a 3 speedway. 4 2HAIRWONLAN OLIVA: I've always 5 liked that heuse, by the way. 6 MS. CHARNEWS: Thank yeu. - BOA_RD MEMBER ORLANDO: And your 8 garage will have jus~ electric fer lights. 9 that's no heating, nc plumbing? 10 MS. CHARNEWS: Nc, it's same as 11 the other cwo. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Nothing 13 above? 14 MS. CHARNEWS: No. storage, lawn 15 chairs, ]unk. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLAN£O: No other 17 questions. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your roof 19 line is going co match the roof line of the 20 other garage? 21 MS. CHARNEWS: Yes. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIN©ER: I have 24 no quesmzons, beautiful. 25 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Is there anyone March 18, 2004 26 1 2 in the audience who wishes to commenm on this 3 application? Zf nee I'll make a motion mo 4 close the hearinc- and reserve decision until 5 later. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail mn favor? 8 Whereupon, all Board Members 9 responded in favor. 10 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Opposed? So 11 moved. 12 ............................................ 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our nexn 14 application is for Steven Szczeniak on 15 Marlene Lane in Mattituck, gomng to exceed the 16 lot coverage by a fair amount? 17 MR. SZCZENIAK: Yes. My original 18 requesm was denied and we reduced the lot 19 coverage substantially. The other problem is 20 the garage, which is now located in the rear 21 of the yard and that will be situated on the 22 side of the new addition. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically 24 you're just going 25 MR. SZCZENIAK: Just pushing the March 18, 2004 27 1 2 back ouu. 3 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's ri?ht, 4 with the masuer bedroom. You're the one with 5 that mezzanine? 6 MR. SZCZENIAK: Yes. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you 8 explain that uo me? 9 MR. SZCZENIAK: There's a 10 staircase situated right au that point that 11 goes down co the basement, it's kind of a 12 light ~ower that also would acn as a small 13 home office on the second suory. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the second 15 suory? 16 HR. SZCZENIAK: Right. 17 CHAIRWOMA2N OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Having 19 grown up in the specific area, I understand 2{ the confines of a 75 foot lot. Unfortunately, 21 I grew up on the nexu bleck, which had 50 foet 22 lets, so I 2an understand the lot coverage 23 becomes a preblem when yeu have a 24 free-standing existing garage, which also adds 25 to the lot 2overage. I really len't know any March 18, 2004 28 1 2 other way to ask you ~o reduce this, se in 3 that respecm, I'll just continue with the 4 hearing. 5 MR. SZCZENIAK: Thank you. The 6 only thing I could add is the perch }n the 7 front is substantially large, and I could 8 reduce that if need be. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Th~ 1{ would be a help. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be a 12 help because we don't really like ~o granE 13 variances ever 20, 25 percenm. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give us 15 a percenmage reduction mn square footage and 16 tell us what the percenEage effect would be. 17 MR SZCZENIAK: Okay, dc you need 18 that in writing? 19 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Yes, please. 20 MR. SZCZENIAK: Dc you need that 21 today er is that something I could submit mo 22 the office? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Brin~ im into 2% the office. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: By the 8th. March 18. 2004 29 1 2 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Friday 3 before the 8th, that's when our nexn meetzng 4 5 MR. SZCZENIAK: I'll have it mo 6 you by nomorrew. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's groan. 8 Mr. Orlando? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The front 10 perch zs non exishing new? 11 MR. SZCZENIAK: Ne, ne perch. 12 Actually the ennrance is en the side now, the 13 main ennrance. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANEO: Actually, I commend you for your efforts. In my opinion 16 only, it's easy far people me go straight up 17 and pun ~ second snory buildinc in that 18 neighborhood, which I feel is nam within the 19 character of the neighborhood E think you 20 came within hhe character Df the nemghberhood 21 and kepm it a Dna ~nd-a-half snery building. 22 Even though you may be over a little bit, I 23 didn'T have a problem with that because I felt 24 you stayed in character of the neighborhood, and I commend you for that. Thank you. March 18, 2004 3O 1 2 MR. SZCZENIAK: Thank you. I also 3 like ranches. I don't like Eo go up. I kind 4 of like the ranch feel. 5 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Also when you 6 gan eld and gray, you don'E have ~o climb 7 stairs. Mr. Dinizio? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm writing 9 that se, the sooner you gee that percenmage, 10 the better. I knew you say you have 23.43 11 percenm lot 2overage after you build it and 12 ~nything you can gem down below that that 13 would certainly be a plus because I know, 14 live en ~ small let myself, and you de have, you wane ceruamn things and it's nice £e have 16 them, but this let coverage does seem to be 17 detrimental for people who have small 18 lets. You volunteered mm I wouldn'm have 19 asked you for lE. 20 MR. SZCZENIAK: I feel like the 21 front perch is very large, I could easily 22 reduce that. I could have the information 23 today, I just have me call the architect. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Get 25 something zn writing to us that says Mar~h 18, 2004 31 1 2 MR. SZCZENIAK: You wanm 1£ am 20? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Don't cut 4 anything eue that yeu feel 5 2HAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Because you 6 have a small lot and we're very understanding 7 ef that, but if yeu gem that dewn a bit im 8 would be very good. 9 BOARE MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I 10 wouldn'z have asked yeu that questien. Like 11 Mr. Orlando said, it's certainly well within 12 the parameeers that I weuld fellow, but you 13 did effer, and if that's the case, if you 14 ceuld tell me whaz that reductien ms when yeu take thae porch off, you've ge~ a 23.43 16 percent let ceverage with all the new stuff 17 you wan£ To puc Dh, tell me what that 18 reduction's geing To be, what it's going co 19 end up, if it's 22, 23. but don't lop anything 20 elf that yeu don'm wanm, because that's nee 21 what we're askin~ fer, okay? We're asking fos 22 wha£ you volunteered and bring it in and let's 23 see. 24 MR. SZCZENIAK: Es it fair ce say that am this 23.43 you weuld definitely March 18, 2004 32 1 2 disapprove? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can't say that. t gave you what I said. it's being taken down. There are five members on this 6 Beard, we all discuss, we all comprommse, and you made an offer. Se again, the decision's 8 net gomng me be made until the 8th so you 9 ion't have Eo rush around today, but I would 10 like mc have in writing in the record that 11 this ms whaE you're ~roposmng, and we'll puE 12 iE in the decision. Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you can get 14 lm down eo 22 something, that would be nice. 15 MR. SZCZENIAK: I can. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANEO: It sounds 17 like you wanted to reduce lm, like there was 18 an argumene, and you couldn't 2onvince your 19 wife. 20 HR. SZCZEN[AK: I mean it's large. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If we gave 22 you ammunition ~o help you. 23 MR. SZCZENIAK: Thank you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a 25 memmon mo close the hearing and reserve March 18, 2004 33 1 2 lecision until later. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 5 Whereupon, all Beard Hembers 6 responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 8 moved. 9 MR. SZCZENIAK: Thank you, have a 10 ~ood day. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our nex~ 13 hearin~ is Richard and Nancy Willett, down on 14 Private Road. They wanm a proposed addition 15 with a rear yard setback aE less than 35 feet, 16 basically because you're surrounded by rmght 17 of ways, even if they don't go all the way 18 through. Rmght, you're kind of hampered mn 19 there. 20 MR. WILLDTT: Correct Z don't 21 know what else Eo say. The ormginal site plan 22 that was approved showed a Ewo car garage with 23 a 10 fooE setback on wham is, zn fact, a back 24 yard. We never built ~ garage. At the time we didn't have the money and this is much March 18, 2004 1 2 smaller. This g~ves us about a 24 foot 3 setback roughly for the carport. 4 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's 14 by 5 34, 2orrect? 6 MR. WILLOTT: I believe so. 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a nice 8 ~rea down there. 9 MR. WILLOTT: So far. Every 10 year -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've goE that 12 new house going up down there. 13 MR. WILLOTT: Yeah, looks like a 14 hotel. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Nice way of 16 putting it. It's big. 17 MR. WlLLOTT: Zt's a big house. 18 But that's our problem, as you can see. we 19 found euE that our driveway is our back 2£ yard. 21 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: You have chat 22 right of way is really mn the back of your 23 house, that does nee cue through at 211. 24 MR. WILLOTT: No. Ail the way 25 there Ee Dan WesE. As a matter of fact. Dan March 18, 2004 35 1 2 West had the same problem lasm year when he 3 was building the little addition on the side. 4 He built my house originally. 5 2HAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the reason for the second story deck? 8 MR. WILLOTT: We wanEed an exEra 9 room upstairs, if you see on the plans, the 10 house Ls sore Df cut off. We wanted an exEra 11 room and my wife wanted a studio where she 12 could work. So that was going eo be a 13 relatively small studio as an exeension of the 14 ups£alrs, and then since we wanted a carporE, 15 a one car carporE anyway, they figured that a 16 deck over that would be nzce. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Dkay. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 19 BOAteD MEMBER ORLANDO: No 20 quesmmons, lush since you're surrounded by 21 right of ways hhat ms technically your rear 22 yard according Eo your code but if zm was a 23 side yard setback you wouldn'm be here because 24 there's plenty of room. No quesmzons. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinlzio? March 18, 2004 36 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sorry you 3 find yourself in that situation in all 4 honesty. I have no problem with this 5 whatsoever. 6 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that would like ~o 8 speak for or against this? If no~ I'll make a 9 motion to close the hearing and reserve 10 decision until later. 11 BOARD HEHBER }RLANDO: Second. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 13 Whereupon, all Beard Members 14 responded in favor 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: ipposed? Se 16 moved. Thank you very much for ceminc in, 17 sir. 19 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: The nexE 20 application is ~ waiver ef merger for Robert 21 and Kelly Krudop. It's an interesting 22 application. 23 Mr. Lark, would you like Eo 24 explain it Eo us? 25 MR. LARK: Sure. Richard Lark, March 18~ 2004 37 1 2 Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the 3 applicant, Kelly Krudop. 4 This zs really ~wo applications 5 rolled zn one, but since they effect the 6 common proper~y in the middle, they're being 7 treated as basically one application before 8 you for a waiver of merger of the lots that 9 ~re involved there. I think for purposes of 10 discussion I'll use the Eax lots. I know the 11 applications that you have before you non only 12 ~ive the history of the propernzes with the 13 title searches but you have accurame surveys and everything else in mhere. And I think it 15 would be in simplistic sake jusn no refer them 16 to as Lon 6, which ms the vacanm lot on the 17 corner of County Road %8 and Tuttle Road, 18 okay, which zs a przvane road. And then I'll 19 refer no max Lot 9, which zs mo the northwest~ 20 but it's the one that's ad~acenE and bounds on 21 the Southold Town properey with the 22 reclamation area. 23 Tuttle Road has had some confu~zon. It's basically, it's got a 25 let, but it's a private read w~nh an unknDwn March 18, 200% 38 1 2 owner, and it always has been a right of way. 3 For those ~hat can remember for over 20, 30, 4 maybe even more years it was the only main 5 enmrance ~o the Southold Town, which we used 6 £o call the dump in those days, we ion't do that anymore, but that's what it was. It's 8 2onfusing. I had always been under the 9 impression under hhe highway law that the Town 10 took it over by use, but apparently when they 11 fenced 1E off they really abandoned that use. 12 So zE truly does have an unknown owner until 13 somebody warms nc do something about it. But 14 it is ~ rmght, it was always ~n the deeds as a 15 r~ght of way Eo those propertmes which border 16 on either side, and basically there's today, 17 there's five differenn lots, the three that you're concerned with an this hearin~ en the 19 northerly side, and Ehen the two lets en the other side. But that jusn ge~s that ou~ of 21 the way as far as what the snanus of Tuttle 22 Road is. 23 As you know from the Building 24 Deparnmenn they have under the Town zonzng 25 ordinance merged Lot 6 with 8 and Lot 9 with March 18, 2004 39 l 2 8, these are max lots, and we're aero today 3 pursuanm to the provismons mn the Town laws 4 100-26 to ge~ a wazver of that merger. The 5 applications that you have, I won't go through 6 them all and belaoor the recDrd with them. You have them; I Ehink they're fairly 8 self-explanatory. I'll jusE ~ry Eo deal with 9 the sEaEuEory crineria on the merger. As you 1£ can see, those lots were always separaze until 11 the fateful evenn in I think '96 or something 12 when Sue Mason put them in her name. Sue is 13 here and she will explain that. She is the 14 daughter of probably one of hhe original 15 owners, James and Ida Mason. Basically Lot 8 16 was assemblage of ~we different -- because 17 back in the '40s, 1940s, from her mother and 18 father, it was all bounded and described 19 properties in those days, and they bought nwo 20 pieces of property from Sterling and McBride, 21 and they built their home there, then 22 eventually added a second one. Then I think 23 zn the early '50s -- and Let 8 was owned by 24 James and Ida Mason. Lot 9 was owned lusE by 25 James Mason, he acquired that and built a March 18, 2004 4O 1 2 rental home mhere. In fact, I noticed when I 3 walked in there I was surprised one of the 4 menanms that lived ~here, Denzse Ross. who 5 works for mhe Town, was occupying the premises 6 as a Eenann when it burn£ down in 1990. then the other let, max Let 6 was in the family but 8 ~hat was acquired by Pearl Taylor whc was ~he 9 ~unm ef Sue Mason here. James acquired that mn 10 hhe early '80s and that was vacanm aE the time 11 he acquired lt. Prier me that, as you have in 12 nhe record, in the application, that did have 13 a family house en it, a small family house 14 where Sue Hason's ~randmether lived. But that 15 gom morn down after hhe highway goE widened, 16 County Read 48 gom widened, and some of the 17 propermy mn the fronm, which would be tax Lot 18 6 gom shortened, and mt was kind ef falling 19 ~n~o disrepair se they had jus~ oaken the 20 house down so that's been vacanm since. That 21 would have been probably about 1982 and '83, 22 when the County Road 48, the dual of highway, 23 was pum mn. 24 In with the application and if you 25 have any ~uestlons ~ san answer on the history March 18, 2004 1 2 of the property, but I didn't wanm Eo belabor 3 it excepn Eo paint put until Sue Hasen put them together, and she's here ~o explain what 5 happened in '96, how that occurred. So that's 6 an overview. I wane Ee deal with the 7 criteria. The first Dna is the waiver that 8 we're requesting of you of these ~we lots will 9 not result in a significan~ increase in the 10 density of the neighborhood. I can make the i1 argumenn it's nothing mere than a replacemenn 12 because aE one nlme even prior ~o zoninc and 13 while zenina was on since 1957, Let 9 had a house, if you've been ne the properny, the 15 dilapidated foundation is still there of nhe house. 17 CHAIRWOMAN ~LIVA: That's the eno 18 that burnt dawn? 19 MR. LARK: That burnt down The 20 eno that's up againsn the Seuthold Town 21 reclamatie~ area where the fence is. And in 22 efface there was a one-family house on Let 6. 23 But that being aside, them both being vacann 2% at the presen~ time, with ne dwellings on 25 them. the density ef the neighborhood, you're March 18, 2004 42 1 2 only going ~o mncrease it by mwo, one on each 3 lo~. 4 You are familiar with this 5 propermy because you had a zoning application, 6 I ~hink z~ was 5027, Appeal 5029 on Lot 8, where you allowed Mr. Krudop no move the 8 encroaching building on Lot 9 solely on Lot 8 9 with a minimum of a three foot side yard, 10 which has been accomplished because it was 11 over the line. It was ever the properEy line. 12 And Tax Let 8, I haven'E Ealked about, that 13 was the original homestead ef the Masons. It has their residential house which is new being 15 renovated, it had fallen lnno disrepaIr. The 16 Dther home, rental home, which was pu~ up by 17 Mr. Mason, again -- that did have a building 18 perm~n and a CC; that was allowed. That wen£ 19 up zn the '60s, as I'm remembering it, and 20 that was late '50s, so nhat had a tenant house 21 on zE too. So there's two homes on Lot 8 with 22 a large garage that's existing on nhat 23 lot. But you did have an application before 24 you, and then, ef course, this whole area got 25 well publicized when Mr. HcCarthy and March 18. 2004 43 1 2 Mr. 2hidic were zoned light indusErial au £he 3 E~me, and they had proposed some kind efa 4 storage warehouse there, which was evenEuelly 5 declined by the Board and the Town Board then 6 wane int¢ some varzeus studies and sc en and 7 se forth and rezoned the whole thing. Fifteen 8 lets, Df which these three were targeted, wane 9 from light industrial ~o residential. 10 It was interesting Eo me when I 11 was researching this ce gee this ready for the 12 Board today, that it was a mixed bag prior Ee 13 that. The early zoning, some was zoned 14 industrial, some was zoned residential; it was 15 a mixed bag. Because I remember I used ~o 16 represent Mr. Mason when I first came Ee 17 Seuthold ~n the late '60s ~nd '70s and preuny 18 much with the main entrance ne the dump there, 19 in all than confusion there, people preEny 20 much did what they wanted there. It was kind 21 ef an open zoning, if you would, for lack of a 22 better word. 23 So E don't believe mL meens the 24 criteria of the denslEy. I don't think there 25 will be a sIgnificant increase. It was March 18, 2004 44 1 2 targeted as 15 lots, and we're lust putting a 3 residence en each eno of these two lots that 4 zs subjecn ne your application. 5 The second criteria is the waiver 6 would recognize that the lot ~s consistent with the size ef the lots in that 8 nezchborhood. If you ]usn look ~t an overvmew 9 of a tax map, which I know you have ~n 10 file, I think that's self-evidenm. They're 11 not out of line. They're small, but they're i2 all small there, and why it went no R40 13 never did understand per se because the Town 14 then had mo recognize mhat they were ~11 15 nonccnferming. Because none ef nhem in the 15 16 nargeted lots is 40,000 square feet, and 17 ien't 2are hew you merger them ~egether, 18 you're never gomng to gee there. Even if 19 merged all three of these, I'd only end up 20 with 25,000, 26,000 square feet 21 So it's nonconforminc from the 22 gem-gc as far as our modern zoning is 23 concerned, but the smze ef these lots are not 24 disproportionate no the lots in the 25 nelchborheod. In fact, Lot 7, which ms March 18, 2004 1 2 immediately adjacent to Lot 6, is the exact 3 same size and has a one-family house en it. 4 So the proposal that Mrs. Krudop has for you 5 is ne pun a small, modest home en that lot 6 facing over on eo Tuttle Lane is no~ inconszsmenm with what the housing and what's gomng on in that neighborhood. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Speaking ~bout 10 Lee 6, and it will have the house [acing 11 Turtle Lane? 12 MR. LARK: That's basi2ally the 13 way eo do it. As her application stated when 14 they bought it, it was light industrial and 15 they were going eo put a small contractor's 16 buildin~ on that, that would have probably 17 faced more the dual highway for obvious 18 purposes, for advertizing sc on and so forth. 19 But here the house would be the lncress and 20 egress wouldn'n be en the dual highway. 21 There's a turn lane there, and there's 22 much confusion. It would be pu~ back on the 23 lot as you see in the proposal. As far as Lot 24 9 is concerned, that ~ne would basically -- 25 they would utilize -- they would have £o redo March 18, 2004 1 2 ehe fonndation, but they'd use that footprint, 3 that particular area ce locate a house. And I ~hink it would fit in quite n±eely there. Se 5 the size of the lots I don't really think is 6 an issue. The naME crmnerla is the waiver to 8 avoid economic hardship. Mr. Krudop has had 9 appraisals on 1m because when he had mo go and 1{ gem some financing mo remodel, if you would, 11 and resnore the buildings and sn Lot 8, he had 12 Lo gan appraisals of everything. Of course, 13 those appraisals were done zn the mimes when 1% lm was light industrial and ~he vacant land 15 was worth a lot more. It's probably 16 depreciated, round figures around 50 percenu 17 from that standpolnm. But the problem we have 18 here today zs that we have lots, and he'll gem 19 more specific with it, that probably are 20 appraised bemween I would say between %5 21 and 55, depending where you gen the appraisal 22 and so on and so forth. That didn't bother me 23 because that seemed realistic from what I know 24 about real estate. What bothered me is if you 25 merged them, as has happened, with Lot 8, it March 18, 2004 %7 1 2 doesn'~ add any appreciative value, and, as 3 one appraiser mold me, Mr. Winters, 1E could have a negative value because they would have 5 to tax, assessors would have nc tax Lot 8 more 6 because it had more property with all that so-called read frontage and you ceuldn'E do anything with ~t. I'll hold off on Mr. Krudop en that and talk about the economics en lt. 10 The last criteria you have te 11 consider is also self-evident is the natural 12 details and character of The contours and the 13 slope of the let would not be significantly changed or ~ltered in any manner, and there 15 will be ne substantial fillinc Df the land 16 that would have any environmental er create 17 any flood areas. The land, if you have been 18 there, ms level. End of case. It's level, 19 nothing's going te be done. As far as the 20 environmental is concerned, there would be no 21 filling er anything like that and you just 22 have te go up there when the tub grinder's 23 grinding and the wind is the right way. So 24 I'm non worried about the environmental issue 25 am all there. But the actual building of a Harch 18, 2004 48 1 2 home here would non ~n any way 2hange. There 3 wouldn't be anything szgnificant. It's level. 4 There's nothing no do there. 5 With that, I would like, because I 6 think the key that you will wane to understand 7 ±s how these things gee merged, because prior 8 to her father's loath they were all separate 9 lots. and he died I believe -- she'll tell 10 you -- I think it's in '96 or '97. 11 Sue. 12 MS. MASON: Geed morning, my name 13 is Sue Mason. As Hr. Lark told you, my 14 parenes goE sick, I had mo move them ~o 15 Virginma. I sold -- I had Eo my mom died 16 first, then they ccld me my dad was dyzng. I 17 had no dc something fast, puE them in my name. 18 So I quick deed chem to myself. I didn't know 19 that if I pun them all moge~her in my name 20 chat would cause a problem. I cculd have puc 21 them in my kids' names, but I didn'm know 22 that. But they were always ~eparaEe lots, 23 always, and that's how they gom lnuo separaee lots, but I didn'e know I was doing something 25 wrong. I'm the culprit here. March 18~ 2004 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did what you 3 had mo do aE the time. 4 MS. MASON: Thank richt. ~ CHAIRWOMtkN OLIVA: Thank you. Any 6 questions from the Board? ~ BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No 8 questions. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You live mn 1{ Vzrgmnia? 11 MS. MASON: Yes, I do. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You've 13 lived in Virginia for hew lengl 1% MS. MASON: About men years. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You've 16 lived Ehere quite some time. Aha the lawyer 17 you consulted witk, where was he from? 18 MS. MASON: Babylon. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Bakylen, 20 Long Island? 21 MS. MASON: Yes. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He was your 23 father's lawyer? 2% MS. MASON: No. Z ]use picked him 25 am Lhe mzme. It was somebody fast, you know. March 18, 2004 5O 1 2 BOA/~D MEMBER DINIZIO: So you jusn 3 picked somebody ~u~ of a phone book and called 4 them up? 5 MS. MASON: Right. I smgned the 6 papers, had my father sign them. and he didn~ file nhem until nwo years later. I didn't 8 know why 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know why, 10 same reason we all, procrasnLnaEe. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Procrastination. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In an~ 13 case, your ~nnennzon was never eo merge these 14 lo~s? 15 MS MASON: No. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you had 17 no idea than you, mn fact, had done than. 18 MS. MASON: Right, I did non. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You ~lways 20 received separane Eax bills? 21 MS. MASON: Yes. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you 23 sold the lots. did you sell on hwo separane 24 deeds, three separame deeds? 25 MS. MASON: Yes. March 18, 2004 51 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So was it 3 three separaEe Eransactions? 4 MS. ~ASON: Yes. 5 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: One for 6, one 6 for 8 and one for 9? 7 MS. MASON: Yes. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you 9 very much. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehrincer? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't 12 have any quesElons. 13 MR. LARK: On that, I became, when 14 I gee this application no do far the Krudops, 15 I became not suspiczeus, but when I looked an 16 the deeds, yeu have a cepy of them in the file 17 there, they were hand-drawn, and I lush didn't 18 undersnand hew than happened, and nhat's hew I 19 ended up talking to Sue, and she explained 20 what she was doing. She was teld just do it 21 because he had morngages, they were all 22 morEgaged and everything else. I do know in 23 talking Eo her also, she seld them at a loss 24 no pay off the mortgages ~nd there was nwo or 25 nhree years back taxes, things had just ganged March 18, 2004 52 1 2 up on her there, but what she didn't tell you 3 and she should have, she was born and raised 4 on that proper~y, on nax Lot 8, and lived 5 there until her first child was born. Se she 6 is familiar with the neighborhood, and nhe affidavit that she puE in that I asked her if 8 she would dc that, and she did that. came 9 solely from her. And you have z~ in your 10 files, so if you have any questions on that, 11 jUSE fire away. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a 13 question. Actually, it's a statement. My 14 question was to the fact that she was probably 15 nam aware of the law an the time, net that she 16 was familiar with the property. 17 MR. LARK: I'll let her speak for 18 herself. 19 BOARE MEMBER DINIZIO: She did. 20 She was very clear on that, she wasn'm aware 21 thee these lets were merged E knew that she 22 actually grew up there. I was lush concerned 23 if she knew, or if there was any implication 24 whaEsoever that those lots were intended Eo be 25 merged, and from I see on the record, from March 18, 2004 53 1 2 what she stated, that's nee the case. Every 3 lot was sold separately. Every one had a deed. Every one had a tax bill There may be 5 some problems with setbacks, but the place was 6 built many, many, many years before that time 7 and that's something that you can't change 8 right now. We're talking about the lots and 9 whether they're merged. 10 MR. LARK: At the time she sold 11 them, en max Lot 8, she was able Eo produce 12 COs, and, of course, the other nwo were 13 vacanE. So I can see what happened because that's Monday morning quarterbacking, after 15 the fact, what she told you was se. Kelly, do 16 yom wane 17 MS. KRUDOP: I'm Kelly Krudop and 18 I Dwn Lot 6 and Lot 9 en Tuttle. And I would 19 ~ppreclaEe you looking am this ~¢ be unmerc-ed. 20 De you have any questions? 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don'm, Jerry? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: When did 25 you purchase the lots? March 18, 2004 54 1 2 MS. KRUDOP: June 15, 2001. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 4 BOAi%D MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I have 5 some ~uestmons. When you purchased the lots 6 what were they intended ~o be used for? MS. KRUDOP: We were going to pun 8 up some small contractor's buildings. My 9 husband had some equlpmenm, and we were 10 excited Eo clean up the area and pun these 11 lets ~hat we hheught were se needed mn 12 Southold Town, and we were gomng Ee renE them 13 DUE and house his equIpment. And as you know 14 the industrial park gee taken away fram us~ se 15 we had no other choice but co go residential, 16 and we were shocked when it was merged. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you 18 purchased these lots, your znEenEmon was mo 19 puma business? 20 MS. KRUDOP: Absolutely. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because it 22 was zoned that aE hhe time? 23 MS. KRUDOP: Absolutely. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You 25 purchased all three lots with the intention of March 18, 2004 55 1 2 doinc that? 3 MS. KRUDOP: Yes. Separately. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 5 understand what happened because I was am 6 those meetzngs, I was actually on the other side from you folks, and I jusE wane me say 8 that your decision Ee do what you're doing new 9 ms ~o me commendable. You would encourage 10 what the Town has voted mo encourage. ~ wish 11 you the best ef luck and hope we can work 12 something out. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I jusE wane mo 14 say Eoo, Kelly, it's wonderful you're building 15 small house down there~ and hopefully they 16 will be sold, and I do admire you for, instead 17 of gozng E¢ sourn, doing what you're doing and 18 making ~ a residential area. I thank you for 19 lm. 20 MS. KRUDOP: Thank you. 21 HR. LARK: You can ask Robbia 22 quesmlens. He did this. As I explained to 23 you. I 3us~ wane mo get the economics ~n. I 24 thought he was going mo do mt. He had Lot 8 25 appraised back am the time that he was before March 18, 200% 56 1 2 you to renovate, and co move the buildings 3 Dver. And as of 2/13 03, I have nc assume 4 that this was done -- initially was done on an 5 industrial base because the Stype Agency, 6 which is a certified appraiser, Andy Stype, signed off that the estimated site value ms S150,000 on Let 8. But even today as a 9 residential, it's worth more than the ether 10 because it's get Ewe residences en it. But he 11 did ge and net only talk no Hr. Stype, 12 Mr. Winters, and Valerie Goede, because after 13 he found euE that they were merged, what he 1% was going te de, he ended up it was kind of 15 interesting, jusn so you have ~ for the 16 recDrd - Lot 6, the one on the corner, they 17 were apprazsing i~ around $%8,000 se when you 18 talk Eo them it runs between s45, }00 and 19 S50,000. When it was industrial, it was worth 20 much mere than that. It was worth $124,000, 21 because it was right on the dual highway. So 22 it s kind ef an inverse proporEien hew Ehat 23 wenE down. Whereas, zhe eno in the back, Let 24 9 next ~o the Town area, that was never 25 appraised as high. That only came in around March 18, 2004 57 1 2 S96,500, between $95,00£ and $100,000, while 3 it was industrial. Now that it's gone down mo 4 residential, that's worth between s50,000 and 5 S55,000, the appraisers have said. So it's 6 kind of ~nneresmzng how that worked. The one wenm down lower because it's residential, and 8 nhan if it was industrial, and nhe other one 9 didn'£ go as much because it's back Dff the 1{ dual highway. So I thought yo~ should have 11 that for Ehe record, that there is an economic 12 hardship if we can'~ unmerge these and gee 13 some small, modest single family homes. 14 Obviously, the area is gozng no dicnaee the 15 size and the suyle of the home. The Ewo 16 proposals you have I think in frone ~f you, I 17 think are realistic, and you're right, they 18 could be, unless they can get them mn the 19 envelope for those nonconforming lots, they 20 mzght have a side yard problem. I'm hopmng 21 against hope that they can be situated, and 22 that's why the home on Lot 6, I had the 23 surveyor pun it recuangular Ec see if it 2ould 24 conform no all the side yards, rear yards, and 25 thau Eype of hhing. Of course, we have the March 18, 2004 58 1 2 question who awns Tuttle Road whether that 3 2auld be included er net ~ncluded since same 4 of the deeds say go to the cenEer line, some 5 Df the deeds say you lus£ have a right of way 6 there. So who knows. That's another issue. - Fhank you very much, unless you have any 8 quesnions. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One more 10 thing. You lust mentioned that ~here's an 11 enermeus amounm ef disparmny between the 12 value, what it was and what it is, and I'm 13 wondering why you didn't come for a use 14 varzance then. I mean, you're talkin~ ~bout 15 better than 50 percenm the value of that lot 16 am the time this was voted. 17 MR. LARK: I would answer that by 18 saymng Mrs. Krudop, Kelly, who you mem this 19 mornzng said no, let's just go with the 20 one-family residences there. Tax Lot -- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think 22 Mr. Krudop would like no say something. 23 MR. LARK: I want ~o answer his 24 question 4.1, Kelly, there are family 25 members that own that, Mr. and Mrs. Walberg, March 18, 2004 59 1 2 which is Mr. Krudop's uncle, and they have a 3 szngle-family house there. They ~ere connemplating Eo do something, and they decided ~o leave it. So mt was considered the 6 path of least resistance with everything that took place in the Fown with the rezoning and 8 everything, lusE leave it alone and go with 9 modest homes there. There is a need for 10 those. So E'm hOE worried about being rented 11 or sold. Did yDU wanm mo add something? 12 MR. KRUDOP: [ wane nc alse add mo 13 the fact that it's kind of lUSh my wife and I 14 made the decision Eo go with the house because 15 ~ wane Ec have the area -- I have more mmes mo 16 the areas than you know. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Take your ~zme. 18 I know it's been a very difficult mime for 19 you. 20 MR. KRUDOP: I've been no many 21 meetings. It's been very stressful. My 22 fathered passed away recently. Some 23 arborvitae that I planted down t~ere, the last 24 four, he was gomng down mhat morning fell mn 25 the holes where we take them from. The March 18~ 2004 6O 1 2 Eracnor had a flaw zn ze. It flipped. It 3 killed him and he fell in holes for the 4 ~rborvitae I was planting zn there. So ~ jusn 5 wane ouE of here. Took a short Eurn, made it easy with those nwo houses, and I jusn wane z~ done. I don~m wane ~ny problems with the 8 community. I like everybody. We jusn wane to 9 go for this, and it's affordable housing 10 that's needed. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's wonderful 12 whae you're doing. 13 MR. KRUDOP: If you have any 14 quesnzons, lusu fire ~way, 'cause I can answer 15 them. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I Lhink what 17 you're doing is a wonderful idea, and I'm very 18 sorry for your loss. I feel very badly about 19 1E. Thank you so much. 2£ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We all 21 are. 22 MR. KRUDOP: Sorry. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's quite all right. Is there anybody else in the 25 audience that would like eo speak for or March 18, 2004 61 1 2 against this application? Hearing none, I'll 3 reserve decision and close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All mn favor? 6 Whereupon, all Board Members 7 responded in favor.) 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Against? So 9 moved. Thank you so much for commng. Take a 10 five minute breaK. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to 13 reconvene the hearing. Our nexu hearing is for Gilson and Ebel, uhis is on Mill Road in 15 Mattituck. Their garage I believe is now in 16 the side yard instead of the rear yard, and 17 they have spenm a great deal of time and 18 efforn and money reconsErucElng a very lovely 19 old farmhouse. Debra Dedi is here. 20 MS. DODI: 3ood mernzng, 21 everybody. Lovely spring weather we're having 22 here today. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It ms, rlrpical March. 25 HS. DODI: [ have an affidavit of March 18, 2004 62 1 2 posmlng here. I gon no more cards back. I 3 nhink we're mmssing one. This ms a request 4 for a variance from The Building Department's 5 requiremenn that a garage, three-car garage 6 that's been in ~ms currenn location for more than 20 years be picked up and moved into the 8 rear yard. There's always been ~ s~ruc~ure in 9 this spon. When I say always, as far as I can 10 find out it was a barn and stable previously 11 that was destroyed by fire, mt appears, ~n 12 1982. The then owners applied for a building 13 permit Ee reconsErucn, Eo build a garage in 14 the location that the stable was, and is that 15 three-car garage was built. It remains in its 16 location, the same location. 17 Hy clients purchased the preperny 18 in late 2001, and in the spring they applied 19 for a building permit ne rencvaue and resnore the farmhouse. I ~ssume the Board has taken a 21 look an the building. They've done ~ nzce job 22 on it, Dne th±ng they did do was add an open 23 porch no the back of the house. And as a 24 result of that front porch, which zs eight 25 feet deep, it's increased the preexisting March 18, 2004 63 1 2 non-conformity from approximately 6 feet £e 1{ 3 feen. 4 When my clients applied for the 5 building permit, they had all their 6 con~racnors lined up, they were ready no go, 7 they were going no lift the house, pun zna 8 new foundation in the sprlngnlme, perfect time 9 to do in. The Building Deparnmenn came at them and said you're gomng no have no agree Eo 11 move the garage back because you're increasing 12 the nonconformity. They said, well, what's 13 our other choice. And they said a variance. 14 I have Eo assume the Building DeparnmenE said 15 Ehat. My clients said we gee the cennracEers 16 here, let's gee going, and that's what 17 happened. New they're an the pcint where the 18 house is almost finished, and they're looking 19 aE the ~ractical manners of moving that 20 garage, which is on a slak, can't be picked 21 up, or in probably could be but it would 2osn 22 20, maybe S20,000 no de it. And it jusn 23 doesn'n make sense, that's why I'm here, for a 24 variance. There would be no substantial 25 mmpacn on the nezchberheed be2ause the garage March 18, 2004 64 1 2 has always been there. If we were ~o move it, 3 we'd have ~o de grading and brine in fill 4 because there's ~ slope behind the garage. We would jus~ like ~o retain the garage where it 6 is. We can't anEach 1E te the house because it's tee far away. Does the Beard have any 8 questions? 9 CHAIRWOMAN CLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I lon't 11 have any questions. Thank you. 12 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Mr. Drlando? 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just maybe 14 a clarification because the notice of 15 disapproval, nhat's why I was reading it, it 16 sounds like they had an agreement that, we 17 will mere the garage as long as we can 18 continue the work. 19 MS. DODI: They hadn't started 20 work. Cause they 2euldn'E s£arE work until 21 they had the building permzt. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. 23 Sounds like they agreed Eo move the ~arage. MS. DODI: At that point in time 25 they did. Because it was a choice of March 18, 2004 65 2 2ancelling all the contractors that they had 3 lined up. I can't say they were sitting in 4 the smree~, but l~ was virtually that, they were ready mo go. And then coming before nhe 6 Board ~n that time and then applying and 7 getting probably into the fall before they 8 could start ~heir construction_ Amd then they 9 started looking an the garage and realized zm 10 financially wasn't feasible. It just didn'm 11 make sense ne pick up that garage and move mt. 12 Sc yes, originally they said, skay, all right. 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You basically have no rebuild that garage Dnyway 15 I don'~ knew if you saw in. Structurally it's 16 an Dlder garage. It has no historical value. 17 I meal 1~ really -- se that's why I don't 18 understDnd why -- 1~ would make sense mc move 19 it Dr rebuild it. 20 MS. DODI: They wane no leave it 21 where it is. They don't want mc do anything 22 ethez than re-side it. And when they looked 23 into ~he practical aspecms ef picking 1E up and moving 1E back it jusm didn't make sense. 25 BOARD MEMBER DRLANDO~ I len't March 18, 2004 66 1 2 know if it's a financial hardship, because the 3 construction you're doing there is going To be 4 well over a half million dollars on this 5 house. It's a beautiful house, the work 6 inside, I looked, it's absolutely nzce. So in perspecEmve to moving hhe ~arage in comparison 8 ce building that house ms minimal. 9 MS. DODI: They didn'm build the 10 house. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They're 12 rebuilding in, remodeling it. 13 HS. DODI: Renovated BOARD HEMBEN ORLANDO: Renovated 15 it in excess of -- I mean, it's net done yec, 16 but by the work you're doing in there, it's 17 beautiful, it's going ~o be a lot of money. 18 MS. DODI: I have no idea how much 19 they spen~ on the renovamlon. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They have 21 far co go. So there's plenty mc be spent. 22 MS. DODI: I'm non sure they do. 23 They're inside painting as far as I know 24 They ~re ~ the pomnm where they're looking mo 25 gee a CO. March 18. 2004 67 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I didn't 3 see a kitchen, bathrooms or anything. 4 MS. DODI: I haven't been inside. 5 I can't answer the question 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is it a 7 hardship financially if they can'E move it? 8 MS. DODI: S20,000 I think is a 9 hardship. It doesn't make sense Ee move lB. 10 It's always been there. 11 BOARD HEMBBR ORLANDO: But they 12 agreed ce move it. 13 MS. DODI: Initially, they were 14 between a rock and a hard place, as they say. 15 You know, we'll give you the permit if you 16 ~gree, or you goE EO go before the ZBA, and 17 nhat's basically what happened. And then they 18 started lookinc a~ z~, and spoke ~o the 19 architect, they said it's going to cost 20 between $10,000 to S20,000 £o move it And 21 he's not even certain that at san be moved 22 because it's on a slab. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: About 24 right. No other quesnions. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just on Ehe March 18, 2004 68 1 2 house did they do interior work on the house 3 or exnended the house? 4 MS. DODI: They added an open 5 perch with a covered roof. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the back? 7 MS. DODI: In the back, eight 8 feet. I mean, we could make that off and non 9 be here, I guess. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Igc by 12 that house six mimes a day. I live around the 13 corner. They picked that house uF 12 feet in 14 the air, destroyed mhe rock foundation which 15 was crumbling and rebuilt the house ~n 16 presenn location. It is ~bsolutely, truly 17 magnificent, the lob that they did. Phe 18 ~arage itself was much newer than the house 19 itself, which is an historical home. I see no 20 reason why that garage has nc be moved because 21 of the topography of nhe land I do soncur 22 with you and uhe engineer, whoever that might 23 be nhat any movement in that garage would 24 require additional fill, new foundation and so 25 on and so forth. So I support the garage March 18~ 2004 69 1 2 i~s original location. 3 MS. DODI: There was no encmneer 4 who said anything abeu~ the fill, that was an attorney's opinion. I was in the backyard and 6 I looked. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You 8 can't take a garage on a slab and pick it up 9 without totally reenforcing the garage. 10 mean, the cosE of lumber of jusu doing Ehat ms 11 a very expensive thing. But the 2osm of 12 picking that house up, what they spenE, I know 13 they spent Ln excess Df S340~000 for the 14 property, in buying it because I knew Mrs. 15 Bergen very well, who was a neiohbor of mine 16 who sold it Eo them. So they have spent a 17 phenomenal amount of money there. But that's 18 non hhe real poznt here. The real point 19 that the garage is zn its location, and we 2£ understand sometzmes you have to do things 21 that you don'~ like uo do, and because of the 22 topography of the land, and because hhe garage 23 really, quite honestly, is hOE doing any harm 24 in 1Es original location, I supporn ~he 25 application as it stands. March 18, 2004 7O 1 2 MS. DODI: Thank you. 3 BOARE MEMBER DINIZIO: May I make 4 ~nother comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It kind of struck me that zm actually was nonconforming 8 Eo beczn with, and really it didn't increase 9 anything, any degree of nonconformity. I'm a 10 little concerned about the building inspecuer 11 basically gran~mng a varmance mSSulng a 12 building permmE that he really shouldn't be. 13 A lot of people are being turned down for 14 exactly what he's saying you ~hould have done, 15 which is either move the garage er don't gem a 16 building permit. He shouldn't say agree ne 17 move the garage, and I'll give you a building 18 permit. That's really not his -- I don't 19 think that's his choice to make MS. DODI: I may have been puE~zng 21 words mn his mouth mhat was my understanding 22 as ~o what happened. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He was 24 aware that that garage was there. He 25 shouldn't have issued the buildinc permit mo March 18. 2004 71 1 2 begmn with. In my opinion, if he's Eurning 3 iown other people he should have turned you 4 down. In any case, he didn't. The fact that nothing is going mo change here, there's no 6 increase. I don't think you should have been here, but if you're going no be here, I don't 8 see any reason why you should have no move 9 this ~arage now an this point in time. 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you did ll mncrease the house by addinc the porch, that's 12 what caused it. If they would have kepE the 13 erzginal kouse~ this wouldn'n have happened. 14 And I agree with Mr. Dlnlz~e, the Buildin~ 15 DeparEmenm shouldn't have made a back reem 16 leal stating you move it and we'll give you 17 nhe building permit, and we ~romise we'll move 18 it, and they gave iE me you anyway. 19 HS. DODI: The application was for 20 renevaElen ef the house. The permit was for 21 renevaEion and relecaEzon ef the garage 22 renovam~on ef the house and relocation of the 23 garage 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ And Ehe 25 renovation zncluded the back addition on the March 18. 2004 72 1 2 porch, sc they clearly saw that. 3 MS. DODI: Yes, that was in there. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He admits 5 to that in the notice of disapproval_ 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. I agree it was the care before the horse en nhis 8 one. 9 MS. DODI: I'm no£ blaming the Building DeparEmen~. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 12 engineer knew he could lift the house ~nd wcrk 13 on the house, but he didn't know that he 14 couldn't lift the garage an the time? 15 MS. DODI: It's a very differen£ 16 sErucEure. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 18 engmneer didn't know that, right? 19 MS. DODI: Well, when the plans 20 were drawn for the house -- 21 BOARD MEMBER DRLANDO: You agreed 22 £e something that could be dena, and then all 23 of a sudden he can't de it. 24 MS. DODI: When we did the plans 25 for the house, we focused en the house. Amd March 18, 2004 73 1 2 the plans that were submitted no nhe Building 3 Depar~menE were for the renovation ~f the 4 highway. They came back and said do this. We 5 never submitted any plans no relocate the 6 garage. We never even looked at the garage I mean, we looked aE the garage obviously. 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But they 9 didn't do it, according mo this. 1{ MS. DODI: As I said. rock and a 11 hard place 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 13 questions. 14 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: Anybody else zn 15 the audience wish ~o speak for or against this 16 application? If non, I'll make a motion Eo 17 close the hearing and reserve decision until 18 later. 19 BOARE HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail mn favor? 21 Whereupon, all Beard Members 22 responded in favor. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? Se 24 moved. Thank you very much for commng in. 25 You'I1 have our decision, ~ur nex£ mee~mng is March 18, 2004 74 1 2 April 8th, we'i1 make our decision then, and 3 then maybe a week after you'i1 have the 4 sfficial findings. MS. DODI: Okay. I'm on the nex~ 6 hearing also. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Yes, you 8 are. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: George and 11 Donna Diakeumakes, for a waiver of merger for 12 a lot on Three Waters Lane in Orient, I'm 13 familiar with the proper~y. This ~s the empmy 14 lot and they wish Eo build a house there, I 15 take it. 16 MS. DODI: The ~pplicant's name is 17 Diakoumakos. I have ~n affidavit of posting, 18 and E have one additional card. I'm somewhat 19 KE a loss as mo why I'm here today. I feel 20 very much like I did when I called Mr. Sawyer, 21 who zs the nez~hbor with the house mo the 22 north, and tried mc explain the situation mo 23 him. 24 The przor owners applied to ~he 25 Building DeparEmenn in November of 1996 and March 18, 2004 75 1 2 asked for a determination of merger. At that 3 point ~n time the senior building inspecEor 4 .ssued a notzce of nonmerger. Ownership 5 didn'E change between then and 1999, and those 6 owners were precluded from cominc no the ZBA for a wamver of merger. In 1999, the house 8 lot was sold to ~he Sawyers, with whom I have 9 had conversations~ for s180,000. And in 2003 10 mn December, nhe vacann land was sold ~o the 11 applicants for $170,000. Both transactions 12 were made mn good faith based on the notzce of 13 nonmerger, and they were arm's length 14 transactions. In January we applied for a 15 building permmt, and zn February we were ~zven 16 a not~ce of disapproval based on the fact that 17 the lots had merged apparently prior ~o 1997. 18 ~ tried to get the Building 19 Departmenu 5o withdraw the notzce of 20 disapproval. I spcke with the town attorney 21 about the issue, and I'm here because they 22 will not withdraw i~. It is possible that the 23 determination in 1997 was in error, but 24 frankly, now ~s non the Ezme Eo bring it up. 25 They're mnnocent people who bought prcperty mn March 18, 2004 76 1 2 reliance of a document, and they're going to 3 be damaged here if the mwe lcms have been 4 merged. I'm net going Eo go through the 5 criteria. 6 I am going to ask the Board to grant the waiver ef merger as quickly ~s 8 possible. They're walmlng. They've waited 9 two months ce stare their house. They want to 10 get moving, and they can as soon as the snow 11 sEops. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Could be a 13 while then. 14 MS. DODI: Pardon me? 15 BOARD MEMBER DRLANDO: Could be a 16 while. 17 MS. DODI: Tomorrow afternoon if 18 we could get a building permit, which I would 19 appreclaEe the Board's quick action en this. 20 And I'm also going me ask the Beard. and I 21 don't wane tc delay your decision au all, but 22 I think my clients are entitled Eo a refund ef 23 their fees. They shouldn't be here. The 24 prior owner should have been here in 1997, and 25 new we have me pay the fees. I'm not talking March 18, 2004 1 2 about my a~erney's fees~ whatever else we've 3 had uo dc, I'm jusE talking about the S185 4 we've paid to the Town co be here. But, 5 again, I don'E wane ne delay your 6 deterwmnauion en this manner. 7 BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: So you're 8 saying you're reuurnin~ your fees? 9 MS. DODI: No, sir. I'm not 10 saying Ehat. But I did Dna ezme say, and I'll 11 say it again this time: Nobody should be 12 before this Board paying any money en an 13 application like this. The Building 14 Depar£menE should have the flexibility uo say, iS cops, we made a m±stake, here's your building 16 permit. And an aEEorney sheulin'£ be here, no 17 represenEa~lve should be here en something 18 like this, Dr on merger by death, which is 19 another one ef my favorites, hut in any evenu. 20 MS. KOWALSKI: The Zoning Beard 21 did nee requzre you Ee 2ome here. I jusu wane 22 ~o me~E~on it. 23 MS. DODI: I'm aware ef that. I'm 24 no£ saying hhat you required me, ~nd I 25 certainly tried Ec avoid getting- here. March 18, 2004 78 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN DLIVA: I read, 3 especially, the notice of nonmerger or wamver 4 Df mercer from Mr. Fisher mn 1997, £e me that 5 sheuld be Ehe end of lE. If that's mhe way 6 he's interrupted it at that time, that's the way He lnterpremed it. 8 MS. DODI: I made Ehe aroumenE. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some ef 11 miner criteria, the let line -- and I'm 12 fercing yeu inte this conceivably there ~s 13 ne change of let lines. The let lines shand 14 the way they are. There is ne change of 15 nepography, there's no change of mnything, 16 it's a weoded lot from when I mnspected when I 17 leoked am it. 18 MS. DODI: Yes. It will be 19 cleared obviously for building. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 21 But I mean, it wasn't deterred and then 22 replanted? 23 MS. DODI: Ne. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As for 25 the fee issue, we don'E remurn fees, it's the March 18, 2004 79 1 2 Town Board that does se. We did have thi~ and 3 we are holding this hearing ef which this 4 Beard spends money te do so. = MS. DODI: I'm aware of that, and 6 I tried ~o pull it cff the calendar the day it was going in far advertizing by talking uc the 8 Eown aEmorney, and I was unsuccessful au that. 9 So I was doinG- everything that I 2ould uo 10 avoid being here. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: It's an appeal 12 ~rocedure. 13 MS. DODI: I'm ~ware Df all of 14 that. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 16 you have very interesting circumstances in 17 this parEicular application, and I also Ehink 18 that the lets de conform mc many ef the lets 15 in £he neighborhood, mosE Df which are built 20 en in this general vicinity. But I'll only go 21 that far. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When was the 23 Sawyer home built; has that been there far a 24 long time? 25 MS. DODI: That was built by the March 18, 2004 80 1 2 Krens. I think mn was built in the '60s, the 3 early '60s. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was S built by the Yules. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. It's 7 been there for a long time. 8 MS. DODI: Yes. It's been there 9 for a long time. 1{ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. 11 Mr Orlando? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm going 13 Eo apologize in the beginning. I'm ~eing to make you go through £he transitions agamn. I 15 got lesn. We're talking Lot %1 and 42, 16 correct? 17 MS. DODI: I believe se, yes. I 18 use Let 10 and Lot 11 'cause those are the tax 19 map numbers. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 21 uransactions, transitions -- 22 MS. DODI: Transfer. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 24 Eransactien transfer, could you run in threegh 25 eno mere time? I'w sorry. March 18, 2004 81 1 2 MS. DODI: There's a chart that I 3 provided you. The lot that the applicants own was crea~ed in 1957 as ~art of the 0rienn by 5 the Sea Section 1 subdivision. It's .287 of 6 an acre. It was purchased by Alfred and 7 Marion Kren in 1962; in 1989 it was 8 Transferred no Alfred P. Kren, and E suspec~ 9 an that poinn in tzme they were doing some 10 merger issues and possibly esnane planning, 11 although I didn't represent them. In '96, it 12 was transferred by the Estate of Mr. Kren no 13 the Kren children. In '97 we got the notice 14 of nonmerger; 2003 it was sold ~o nhe 15 applicants. That's the vacan£ lot. 16 Lot 10, which is Lot %0, was also 17 2reared as pare of that subdivision in 1957. 18 It's .316 of an acre. In 1960 it was 19 purchased by the Krens, and I assume aE that 20 polnn in tzme it had a house on it, but I 21 don't know. In 1989 it was mransferred Eo 22 Mr. Kren and mc Ewc of his children. Agazn, 23 the nomlce of nonmarket in '97; and in '99 it 24 was sold Eo the 2urrenE owners, the Sawyers, 25 for $180,000. March 18, 2004 82 1 2 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Who was the 3 a~orney on the closing of the vacant let; dc 4 you know? = MS. DODI: On the purchase? 6 EOARD MEMBBR ORLANDO: Purchase. MS. DODI: It was a man from New 8 Jersey. ~ BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You don'u 10 know if they did a single and separame search? 11 MS. DOBI: He told me he did 12 not. And I believe au that paine mn Eime -- 13 well, we weren't geEEzng ready mo do the 14 buildin~ permz~, so he didn't heed it. You 15 need it for a buildinc permln, but I believe 16 Gary Olsen, who was the seller's anEerney, 17 gave him Ehat 19~7 notice ef non-merger, is 18 what I call it, but I wasn't a par~y ~o that 19 nransaction. I was only brought in by the 20 builder who said, wait a minute, they're non 21 gmvmng me my building permln. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I consider 23 that letter on Town letterhead to be prenny 24 assuring that it's unmerged. 25 MS. DODI: I would hope that o~e March 18, 2004 83 1 2 could rely on something like that. 3 CHAIRW}HAN OLIVA: I'm surprised 4 ~oo that when ~he ~awyers purchased the house, 5 that if they wen~ for a morngage, that it 6 wasn't picked up then, that it was merged. HS. DOBI: It wouldn't be. I, aE 8 one time, had nwo houses, one in foreclosure 9 and they had merged, on Nassau Point. and ze 10 wouldn't be picked up. They don'~ lock aE 11 5hat. You know, nry no explain to somebody 12 what happened, it's very difficult 13 particularly in this insEance that this could have happened. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The nexm 16 ~uesnmon you may non know, but Dm the survey 17 ze shows £wo existzng cesspools on that 18 proper~y. 19 MS. DODI: Which property? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO~ The 21 proper~y mn quesmlon. 22 MS. DODI: That's what the Health 23 Department requires. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No It 25 says "existing cesspools" according ~o the March 18, 2004 84 1 2 survey that I have 3 MS. DODI: That's -- neither one 4 of those are on the proper~y Are you looking 5 an the big survey~ There are cesspools ~o the 6 north and cesspools mo the south, and this ~s 7 a ~reposed sanitary system nhat was approved 8 by the Health Departmenn, I believe. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm looking 10 aE the wrong lot. 11 MS. DODI: The Sawyer's lot, yeah, 12 they have cesspools. If I may approach? 13 BOAteD MEMBER ORLANDO: Please. 14 MS. DODI: These nc the north are 15 the Sawyers' cesspools. This zs the proposed 16 consEruction with the proposed cesspool. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's The 18 site with the existing test well ~n the 19 corner? 20 MS. DODI: Yes. Where the sign 21 is, ~nd these are the existing cesspools nc 22 the south. 23 BOARE MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm on 24 track then. 25 MS. DODI: For the Board's March 18. 2004 85 1 2 information the proper£y to the south had a 3 waiver of merger granted about mwo years ago, 4 jus£ FYI. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you, 6 nc other questions. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Only Ehat I 9 kepn trying to read the thing from Tom Fisher, 10 and I couldn't understand it. Ail it says no 11 me is they were held single and separately for 12 15 days, mhat's all that thine says. I don'm 13 knew why that is any basis in legality in our 14 code that says that that meets aEy crlEeria 15 for unmergmng a lot. Now, with that said, 16 certainly you should be able nc rely en the 17 building inspector's determination. I have 18 absolutely ne problem with that, and I grant a 19 let of weight mo t~e fact that me is en 20 Southeld Town letterhead, and we de rely en 21 the building inspecEer mo make proper 22 decisions; he's supposed me knew the cedes. 23 So~ got a let was sympathy here, 2ertainly, and I knew you have a lot of paperwork. But I 25 don'E know -- I mean, I have me write this March 18, 2004 86 1 2 decision. And I think that writing the 3 decision is just going to be just granting the 4 waiver. I don't think I'm going to reject the 5 application in hand based on a faulty document 6 fram the building inspecter. I'm geing to 7 contemplate that. I think you asked us to 8 contemplate that? 9 MS. DODI: I just want a waiver of 10 merger; that's all I want. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask 12 you, why, what you just said, all you want to 13 do is just get out of here. 14 MS. DODI: No. It's not that I 15 want to get eut of here. I think we need a 16 waiver ef merger because they are innocent 17 parties here who have been damaged by 18 purchasing property in reliance ena Town 19 document. It's as simple as that. There are 20 one set of people that are out $180,000 and 21 another set who is eut $170,000. Now, if it 22 deesn't unmerge, whe's going to get their 23 money back? And who are they going to get it 24 back fram? 25 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, I March 18, 2004 87 1 2 appreciate that. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thanks, Deborah. Is there anybody in the audience 5 that wishes te speak for er against this 6 application? If net, I'll make a motion to 7 close the hearing and reserve decision until 8 later. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 11 (Whereupon, all Board Members 12 responded iN favor.) 13 CHAIRWONU~N OLIVA: Opposed? Se 14 moved. We'll have our next meeting to make the 15 decision on April 8th. Then within the next 16 week you should have your papers. 17 MS. DODI: Thank you. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 20 hearing is for Mr. George Penny who wishes to 21 put up a barn for use for his horses on 6.9 22 acres and the requirement is 10 acres. 23 What would you like to tell us? 24 MR. PENNY: I'm George Penny. My 25 wife Cindy is here. We bought this property March 18, 2004 88 1 2 about a year ago. Actually, we bought it for 3 our children, and at the same time we figured 4 it was big enough so we were going to put up a 5 horse barn. My wife has a horse and my 6 daughter is still big into riding, however, my 7 daughter and her husband moved back to 8 Virginia and my wife has decided at this point 9 not to proceed with the plans for a house, but 10 to go ahead and put up the barn. And I was 11 told that I could build a barn by the building 12 department but I can't keep horses in it, and 13 it just struck me as a little bit strange 14 because of my experience with the cedes we 15 always considered it back in the '80s that 10 16 acre requirement was for a commercial raising 17 breeding, horse training, and that type ef 18 thing. We have a barn on our existing 19 property where we house two horses en an acre 20 and a half, which I get with full approval of 21 the Town. Plus, I got a variance from the ABA 22 at that point te put it in my front yard 23 because we live on the water. We live on a 24 pond. So I know that there's room in here to 25 do these things, but I think I'm caught March 18, 2004 89 1 2 betwixt a couple ef different sections ef the 3 cede. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 5 unfortunate wording in that code, George, you 6 knew, is the keeping ef horses, which is kind 7 of ridiculous if you want to keep one horse, 8 you have te have 10 acres, it's either piece 9 in the code that should be changed. It's 10 ridiculous. The only way Mr. Grim is doing it 11 is because he has five tillable acres that we 12 can count as a farm. I don't know if your 13 whole piece of property is weeded, we might 14 have a little problem. But if you can do 5 15 acres and plant alfalfa or something else, it 16 takes us out of that thing, you knew, you're 17 farming and therefore, it's an accessory 18 structure. 19 HR. PENNY: Well, we're net an 20 accessory at this point because we don't have 21 a house, but we did plant an acre and a half 22 of pasture, which was just a start because I 23 didn't want to clear the whole property at eno 24 time. It about seven acres, which was 25 originally farmland up until about 20 years March 18, 2004 9O 1 2 ago. So it's overgrown with a bunch of 3 nondescript brush, which really doesn't 4 benefit anybody. There's a few trees in 5 there, which we obviously would save, but we 6 really didn't want to go into any sort of 7 commercial aspect in there. I can plant a 8 tree farm in there, I have plenty ef land, I 9 can plant trees in there, and call it a tree 10 farm. You tell me what I have to do and I'll 11 de it. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me just 13 see what everybody else has to say. 14 Mr. Orlando? 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a 16 question on reserved possible future 17 dedication of the Town, on that survey, is 18 that still active? 19 MR. PENNY: There's nothing going 20 on there, my understanding. Mr. Venitas, who 21 owns the property behind me, has no intentions 22 of going anywhere with his property from what 23 I've been told, and that the Town put that in 24 there when this subdivision was created for 2S access to the piece of property behind us~ March 18, 2004 91 1 2 And it's kind efa crazy situation because if 3 a road ever did go through there, it would % segment a parcel of property that's somewhat 5 less than one acre. It would create a 6 substandard let, plus it would create 7 substandard setbacks for road frontage for us, 8 which would only lead te difficulty in the 9 future. We only have 155 feet on Penny's Road 10 te start with. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was 12 reserved access, the lot behind you? 13 MR. PENNY: Yes. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Otherwise 15 it's landlocked? 16 MR. PENNY: No. Venitas' property 17 comes out on County Road 48, and there's a 18 deeded access on the north end of it. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the 20 likelihood of them using it as an access is 21 limited to none? 22 MR. PENNY: I hope you're right. 23 BOAi~D MEMBER ORLANDO: NO other 24 questions. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. March 18, 2004 92 1 2 Goehringer? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 4 the only question, George, is the issue that 5 we mentioned regarding Donnie Grim, as long as 6 you have five tillable acres at this point, I don't think there's any consequence. At this 8 point you say you do, and that's the issue. 9 MR. PENNY: I have seven acres, t 10 just haven't done anything with it yet. I 11 just have te move some cedar trees off the 12 pasture area and put them en the boundaries. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 14 the whole issue. I have ne objection. It's 15 almost the exact same application, with just a 16 little difference on conformity en type and ef 17 lot lines that we just had. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. Jim? 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I 20 thought it was kind ef odd -- not odd, I 21 thought it was fortuitous that you mentioned 22 tree farm because there's nothing in our cede 23 that says you can't have a tree farm, and our 2% cede doesn't tell you what kind ef tree ~eu 25 have to grew. Tillable land is, you know, and March 18, 2004 93 1 2 a farm is a farm} no matter what it is. 3 Whatever a farmer decides to plant and grow is 4 what it is. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Cerrect. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it 7 would be a travesty te require yeu te clear 8 five acres of land and plant alfalfa so you 9 can have a couple of horses. Also, is this 10 subdividable land? 11 MR. PENNY: No. It's a result of 12 the subdivision. It's the largest lot in the 13 subdivision. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you 15 could put a house on there and have as many 16 horses as you want. 17 MR. PENNY: If we put the heuse up 18 first, I weuldn't be here. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's right. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could 21 put an apartment on the barn. 22 MR. PENNY: Cevenants and 23 restrictions don't allow that. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say ifl the 25 barn is attached to a house. March 18, 2004 94 1 2 MR~ PENNY: That's another story. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say ifl you 4 went 40 by 60, you went 60 by 60 5 upstairs/downstairs, you wouldn't be before 6 us. 7 MR. PENNY: Exactly. I think we 8 need to clarify the code. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, we 10 do, no question about it. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINiZIO: There's so 12 many things you could do. A person on one 13 acre of land could do more than you're allowed 14 to do, to me, I find that upsetting. Thanks, 15 George, I appreciate your presentation. 16 CHAIR-WOMAN OLIVA: It's too bad, 17 George, you weren't contemplating this when 18 you were on the Board; you could have changed 19 the code. 20 MR. PENNY: It's my fault. I 21 passed the Master plan. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's all your 23 fault, George. 24 MR. PENNY: We never picked up on 25 it because it was never interpreted this Way March 18, 2004 1 2 before. We had a 10t of discussion on this 3 impact of the code and this was supposed ho be 4 commercial on the deed because that 10 acres 5 you fall under Ag and Markets; that was my 6 understanding. I'm not here to tell the 7 boards which way that they should decide, but 8 I'm just saying that's the way we discussed it 9 back in the '80s. I know that there are a 10 terrific amount of young people that want to 11 ride horses that have been turned down by the 12 Town in very similar situations to mine. They 13 er their parents would go te the Building 14 Department, and they say, no, you can't. I 15 mean, we're supposed te be a rural community. 16 What's more rural than people riding horses? 17 BOAteD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se the 18 question is what are we requiring Mr. Penny to 19 do at this point, anything? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At this point 21 put some trees up, call it a tree farm. 22 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I would 23 like te suggest we write this as reversal ef 24 the notice of disapproval and interpret that 25 line to -- March 18, 2004 96 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd have to 3 check with the Town attorney. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We've done 5 that in the past, and I think the intent ef 6 the Town Board, if you want te discuss it now, 7 from reading, everything except keeping, 8 breeding, raising and training certainly 9 suggest commercial enterprise, and keeping 10 would also be that. In ether words, keeping 11 to me is he's -- you have a horse. Do you 12 need for me to keep it for you for a few days? 13 That's what that means. Because if our Town 14 code, a person with one acre can keep a ~orse 15 because it's residential; it's their horse; 16 they can put a horse on the property. They 17 can't breed. They can't have more than a 18 certain amount, I don't know what the 19 restriction is. They can't train the horses 20 on there, only their own horses. This 21 certainly te me as I read it before is for 22 commercial. I think I can write an 23 interpretation ef the cede that makes that 24 clear so that people with six acres ef 25 residential property can put a horse en it March 18, 2004 97 1 2 without coming before us, and make it clear to 3 the Building Inspector that that is the case, 4 I'm merely suggesting that I would like you 5 all to mull it over. The alternative to me 6 would be turning them down because you're 7 talking about a 40 percent variance, 30 8 percent variance. Seven acres and you need 9 10, or tearing down a wooded lot in order to 10 plant alfalfa, which sounds to me ridiculous. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, 12 we just said we don't care what he plants as 13 long as he has five tillable acres. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We cannot 15 write code. We can't change what's in there. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Penny 17 can grow scrub oaks. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't care 19 what. 20 MR. PENNY: Bayberry's a big one. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Poison 22 ivy? 23 MR. PENNY: Ne poison ivy. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: George, you're 25 going te have to show en the map. We just had March 18, 2004 98 1 2 Don Grim in here with almost the same 3 situation except he has shown five tillable 4 acres, if you could do that. S MR. PENNY: It would be everything 6 across the back. 7 MS. KOWALSKI: Just have him label 8 it. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we will 10 approach the Town Board to change that, do 11 codes because it is ridiculous. 12 MR. PENNY: Thank you. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody 1% else want to speak for er against this 15 application? 16 MR. ARINA: Yes, my name is Alan 17 Arina. I am the owner ef the Lot 1. When I 18 purchased the area, it's my understanding that 19 this was a residential zone. Personally I 20 have some reservations about a horse barn 21 being built in close proximity te my property, 22 for several reasons. One of them being 23 potential odor, also any other drawing ef 24 vectors, such as rodents, whatever. I have no 25 intention of putting a horse on my property March 18, 2004 1 2 even though, as you say, maybe the code may 3 allow it. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would. 5 HR. ARINA: It's my understanding 6 that looking at the size ef this lot, just 7 look at it. I see it as a let ef perimeter 8 compared to the amount of acreage he's got. 9 Which means that ne matter what you put en 10 this property, it's not going te be tee far 11 from the boundary. A 10 acre lot if it's 12 rectangular er squarish, you could always put 13 something somewhere that might be off, might 1% not affect the property around it. In this 15 particular case, it's just not the case. I 16 have plans -- right now I am paying a mortgage 17 off for this property -- I have plans to build 18 a home consistent with the homes that are 19 being built there right now. I have plans to 20 do that in the future. I want to maintain my 21 property value and the quality of life that I 22 intend to have down the road, and my feeling 23 is that I don't have a problem with the horse 24 or the smell of the horse. I just don't ~want 25 to have that smell continuously that I have to March 18, 2004 100 1 2 deal with it~ Okay, where I am, if I wanted 3 to live next to horses, I would have bought a ~ piece of property next to a horse farm that 5 was on 10 acres. When I bought my property I 6 wasn't next tea piece of property that had 10 7 acres. Now the conditions I hear that the 8 Beard wants to change those conditions for the 9 property next te me. I don't think -- that's 10 not in my best interest. I would hope that 11 the Beard respectfully understands my position 12 there. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Certainly. 14 MR. ARINA: Also I'd like to 15 mention that as far as the barn goes, I'm also 16 seeing that pretty large barn, kind of big for 17 eno horse, so, I don't knew what the plans are 18 down the read, but my feeling my position is 19 that this piece of property was zoned 20 according to the code te have horses, te keep 21 horses, and again, my feeling is that I think 22 it definitely will affect the quality of my 23 life down the road because I plan te be a 24 member of the community when I build my home. 25 Thank you. March 18, 2004 101 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very 3 much. 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Excuse me, 5 sir, just remember the code does state if 6 Mr. Penny does build a house he does have 7 every right according to the code today. I 8 just want to let you know. 9 MR. ARINA: To do? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To do just 11 what he's doing now because in the code you 12 can have almost a half acre lot and still keep 13 a horse. 14 MR. ARINA: Right. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's 16 a failing in the code which is not his fault. 17 MR. ARINA: So the code curremtly 18 allows, let's say if somebody had an acre 19 and-a-half you could have -- 20 BOARD MEMBER G©EHRINGER: You! 21 could have a horse. 22 MS. KOWALSKI: Or a couple. I 23 think it's 3. 24 MR. ARINA: Up to 3? 25 MS. KOWALSKI: I think it's two March 18, 2004 102 1 2 horses and a pony, two ponies and a horse~. 3 MR. ARINA: But you wouldn't be 4 allowed, like what the code says now, you 5 wouldn't be allowed to breed or raise. 6 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Correct. The 7 10 acres was really for the training of horses 8 or -- 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: For 10 stables. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For stables 12 that you would have the acreage for riding 13 corral and jumping through, all of the 14 barriers and what have you. But unfortunately 15 in the old code it says keeping of horses and 16 also training. Keeping of horses, means 10 17 acres. 18 MR. ARINA: Right, okay, thank 19 you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? 21 MR. KANNER: My name is Steven 22 Kanner, K-A-N-N-E-R, thank you for the 23 opportunity. I own Lot 2, which is right next 24 to the Penny's lot. I also bought my land 25 about three years ago and have not yet built a March 18, 2004 103 1 2 house, although we are actually in the 3 planning stages of doing so. Our intent has 4 also been to build a house and come to live in 5 the community, and although we have not 6 specifically, as far back as possible on the 7 lot and as far from the read frontage as 8 possible. If we do follow through on that 9 plan that would make the proposed barn 10 approximately 50 feet from our house, and we 11 also have issues of oder, sanitation, possible 12 flies and/er rodent infestation, and 13 questions, not only the location, but the 14 granting of a variance. If the zoning law 15 states that there's supposed to be a house on 16 the land in order to allow for their to be 17 horses, obviously they don't want people to 18 put up a barn. And the Pennys have a house. 19 I have no objection to them keeping horses at 20 their house. I have objections to them 21 keeping horses at my house, which is where 22 this land is. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you~ 24 Any other questions? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the March 18, 2004 104 1 2 barn's going ~o be a little farther from the 3 property line, you're net going te build your 4 house on the property line. 5 MR. KANNER: No, but it is 6 going -- 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's 8 going te be probably 100 feet. 9 MR. KANNER: That's still closer 10 than I want. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want 12 to say, please be aware they were not denied 13 for the present or proposed location of either 14 the barn or the paddock. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very 16 much for coming. We appreciate your comments. 17 Make a motion -- 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One second. 19 Before you do that, I was wondering, to the 20 two land owners to Lots 1 and 2, would it help 21 if the barn was on the back property line? 22 MR. KANNER: I could say that it 23 would help if there has to be, of course, I 24 prefer it to be as far as possible. 25 MR. ARINA: If I might add, as far March 18, 2004 i05 2 to the south as possible away, I mean if 3 that's possible we have a whole section there, 4 that property is spread there. 5 MR. KANNER: The house is built on 6 Lots 4 and 5 at the front. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Penny, do 8 you have anything to add? 9 MR. PENNY: No. I'm caught a 10 little bit on this particularly on Lot Number 11 1 and because Lot 99, Number 1 was sold, and I 12 don't know if this gentleman was the original 13 purchaser, was sold with the covenant, and 14 because they're going to run into the same 15 situation and position, only they'll be able 16 te put a barn up as seen as they have a house. 17 As far as going as far south as possible, you 18 run into the right ef way and that possibly 19 segmented one acre at some point in time in 20 the future, that's why we put it where it is. 21 It's 50 feet, which is the setback. The 22 prevailing winds in that areas are out ef the 23 west. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: West, 25 northwest. March 18, 2004 106 1 2 MR. PENNY: Which is to their 3 benefit (1); and (2) horses don't smell and, 4 breeding, my wife has no intention of doing 5 that. We live in a residential neighborhood. 6 Now we have horses right in our front yard and 7 my neighbors used to bring their grandchildren 8 over to ride the horses or ride the ponies 9 over there, and nobody ever complained about 10 it. It's not like you're going te deal with 11 something that's totally obnoxious. It's a 12 quiet, passive thing, and the odor is barely 13 there. 14 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Thank you, any 15 further comments from the audience? 16 MR. ~kRINA: May I add something? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you may. 18 MR. ARINA: Yes, my covenants and 19 restrictions give me the right to, according 20 to that, I can have two horses for personal 21 use, okay. When I purchased my property,! I 22 purchased them pretty much saying these are 23 the covenants and restrictions. I didn't ask 24 for them; that was in there. I have no 25 intention of having or owning any horses. March 18, 2004 107 1 2 Also, these Covenants and restrictions say Lot 3 1, and I was led to believe at the time these ~ covenants and restrictions apply to all the 5 lets, okay. I had no idea there were any 6 other lets by my lot te have a horse. So at 7 the time I purchased my let, I had ne reason 8 to believe that any of the other lots in this 9 residential subdivision would have had the 10 ability to put up a barn, to have a number of 11 horses in there. So, again, my feeling is 12 that it's a little too close te my property. 13 If this had been a much larger piece that 14 was next to me and sometime down the road the 15 owner wanted to put some horses on there or 16 somewhere where it wasn't close proximity, I 17 might not have too much ef an issue, but at 18 this particular point my plans for the future 19 and where I want to live, okay, I am concerned 20 about the impact on my property and the 21 quality ef life, and I would hope that the 22 Board would consider that. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Penny has 24 offered to move the barn back, if it was moved 25 back further, would that satisfy you? Harch 18, 2004 108 1 2 MR. ARINA: I would have to 3 consider that movement back, I can't say 4 whether I would agree with that at this point; 5 I would have to consider it. But also the 6 other factor that's playing into here, is that 7 not just back but away, and also some 8 consideration given to hew many horses. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I believe he 10 mentioned only two horses. 11 MR. ARINA: And I believe I 12 mentioned his four stalls in the proposed 13 barn. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's 15 correct. It does show four stalls. 16 MR. ARINA: Ail right. I would 17 have to consider that, but I know there's a 18 large -- a lot of property up there, so a full 19 seven acres. There's a lot of property up on 20 the T part, up on the top to have it in such 21 close proximity to me, I have some concerns 22 about that. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 24 MR. /kRINA: Thank you. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Penny, March 18, 2004 109 1 2 would you have any objections to moving the 3 barn back? ~ MR. PENNY: Further east? 5 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: I guess 6 northeast. ? MR. PENNY: Further east. It's 8 almost due east, that's not a problem, and 9 we're restricted also te two horses at this 10 time, and that was the arrangement we made 11 when we bought the property from the original 12 owners. And at some point, once the house 13 gees UP that would change and the barn plan 14 which I submitted, not knowing whether I'm 15 going to get a variance or not and although it 16 may show four stalls in there, probably one 17 half of it is going to be a garage, which we 18 have ne intention of fully occupying, and one 19 er two stalls at this time in the area, it's 20 going te be a barn that could be subdivided 21 because I have a tractor or I have equipment, 22 and I would sure love to have a place te Store 23 my boat in the winter, so build something a 24 little bit bigger than we really needed. 25 CHAIRWONLAiq OLIVA: Thank you. March 18, 2004 110 1 2 Board Members, have any other questions? 3 Anybody else in the audience have any other 4 questions or comments? If not, I make a 5 motion to close the hearing and reserve 6 decision until later. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 8 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: All in favor? 9 (Whereupon, all Board Members 10 responded in favor.) 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed?So 12 moved. 13 MR. ARINA: Will we be notified of 14 the decision? 15 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: It's an open 16 meeting. We will be meeting on April 8th 17 starting at 6:00 p.m. 18 MS. KOWALSKI: You could either 19 call the office or attend the meeting, 20 whichever you like. 21 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Thank you very 22 much for coming in. 23 BOARD M~MBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 24 make a statement en it? 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. March 18, 2004 ill 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 3 want yon to be aware that the session we're 4 dealing with is a deliberation session for the 5 Board. It's not an open forum similar to 6 what you just experienced. 7 MS. KOWALSKI: It's a public 8 meeting but not a hearing. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You can just 10 listen to us make our decisions, in other 11 words. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 14 hearing is for the Suters. They want to do 15 quite a bit of things at Dean Drive in 16 Cutchogue. It's an odd piece of property, and 17 they want te change the garage areund, and do 18 all kinds of things. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Irregular 20 shape. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Irregularshape 22 is right. Beautiful site down there. What 23 weuld you like to tell us? You are Mr. Suter? 2% MR. BOWMAN: No. I am Charles 25 B©wman. March 18, 2004 112 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Chuck, I didn't 3 recognize you. Good to see you. 4 MR. BOWMAN: It's been a long 5 time. Good to see you too. 6 The reason I'm here is because 7 the~e was quite a few hoops that we had te go 8 through with wetland approvals on this 9 property. Like you say, it's a beautiful 10 piece of property. It's a very narrow piece 11 ef property. It's about 90 feet en the water 12 frontage, and it reduces in size to about 50 13 feet at Dean Drive. Dean Drive also wraps 14 around the property at that location. The 15 Suters who are present here intend to renovate 16 house, and it will be their retirement home. 17 They wish to add some space to it because it 18 will be their full time residence. The 19 proposed addition is any 792, I believe, 20 square feet. There is an existing detached 21 garage on the site. Ail the structures are 22 approximately 50 years eld. One ef the things 23 that I first noticed when they approached me 24 with this problem is that the existing 25 sanitary system for the house is about 30 feet March 18, 2004 113 1 2 from the wetlands, not a good thing. And what 3 we try and do and certainly, I'm sure yeui'd 4 all agree, that applicants should be 5 encouraged to try and bring that sanitary 6 system up to cede and meet the setbacks. That 7 is the purpose of the relocation of the 8 garage. The existing garage is 16 feet from 9 the front yard. We intend to move it to the 10 minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet and 11 rotate it, and it actually will increase the 12 front yard setback from 16 to 23 feet. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 14 opening of the garage will then be like this; 15 am I correct? 16 MR. BOWMAN: The opening's going 17 to be in the same direction. It's just going 18 to have to be moved over and straightened up. 19 And the reason for that is that so we can fit 20 the sanitary system in and meet the 100 21 setback for the Suffolk County Health 22 Department and for DEC. You'll notice that 23 this expansion all occurs within that 100 foot 2~ area, the expansion of the dwelling itself. 25 DEC is willing to give us a variance for that March 18, 2004 114 1 2 small additional living space as long as we 3 mitigate it, most properly, by making the~ 4 sanitary conform. The other variance that is 5 requested is for the side yard. Presently the 6 existing dwelling has a 5.1 foot side yard. 7 We will be maintaining that with the addition 8 so that there will be no reduction in the side 9 yard that we will be asking for. And again, 10 the property is constrained by the shape of 11 the parcel, the road on two sides and, of 12 course, the wetland regulations on the bay 13 side. So there is a practical difficulty in 14 maintaining the setbacks as are contained 15 within the zoning code. 16 We've gone through, as I say, 17 DEC's just about to issue their variance, and 18 we're here asking you for approval to do this, 19 and most importantly to also allow us to be 20 moving the sanitary system which is going to 21 bay. Everybody lives out here because they 22 want good water quality and this is one great 23 way of insuring that that improvement 24 continues. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is going March 18, 2004 115 1 2 to be a one-story addition? 3 MR. BOWMAN: That's correct. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's all going 5 to be one story? 6 MR. BOWMAN: That's correct. If 7 the Board has any questions for myself er the 8 Suters they certainly are available, but I do 9 think it's a beneficial project. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Dinizie? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINiZIO: I've been 12 back a~d forth with the building inspector on 13 this, and it's my -- I have to write the 14 decision on this, so. The second part is what 15 concerns me because you stated that you're not 16 going to increase that non-conforming setback. 17 MR. BOWNLAi{: That's correct. 18 We're going to maintain that nonconforming 19 setback. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the 21 notice ef disapproval states that. It states 22 that the existing single-family dwelling has 23 an existing single side yard setback ef 5.1 24 feet, and following the proposed addition and 25 alterations proposed dwelling will mainta!in March 18, 2004 116 1 2 those setbacks. 3 MR. BOWNL~N: That's correct. 4 BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: So your 5 degree of nonconformity is whatever it is 6 above that 5.1 feet, or 4.9 feet is your 7 degree ef nonconformity, and you're not going 8 to increase that, are you? 9 MR. BOWMAN: No, we're not, and I 10 was a bit confused with that myself. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why were 12 you confused by that? 13 MR. BOWMAN: Well, because I 14 thought that if we did not increase that 15 setback that wouldn't be one ef the variances 16 we needed. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because 18 your degree ef nonconformity -- 19 MR. BOWMAN: Is staying the same. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: -- is 4.9, 21 and if you're not going to increase that and 22 if you look at the law, it says that you can 23 increase it, remodel, do all those things, as 24 long as you don't increase or as long as you 25 don't add another nonconformity, which is March 18, 2004 117 1 2 somethinc you're not doing. 3 MR. BOWMAN: I thought perhaps the 4 building inspector had a different 5 interpretation. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ne. We had 7 made a different interpretation, and that 8 interpretation stands until such time as ithe 9 Town Board changes the code. 10 BOAteD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just 11 complete this because we do have the Town 12 attorney here, and I would like, if it'slat 13 all possible, te have the Town attorney look 14 at this, and only this disapproval, and tell 15 me where they're doing anything wrong, okay. 16 That's what I would like. I would like to 17 have that opinion before we make the decision 18 somehow in writing. I'm net instructingiyeu 19 to, but I have a question about this notice of 20 disapproval because it doesn't disapprove 21 anything with respect te 100-242A. 22 New, I knew what the assumptions 23 are, okay, but those are not in our code} the 24 assumptions that they made, and if they're not 25 in our code, they're net law. March 18, 2004 118 1 2 CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: I'm sorry,i I'm 3 going to disagree with you, Mr. Dinizio. Let 4 me finish. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZI0: Well, let's 6 let the attorney speak. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I already 8 called the Department of State, the chief 9 lawyer there and explained what it was, and he 10 told me, if the Zoning Board ef Appeals makes 11 a determination, an interpretation ena piece 12 of cede, that interpretation is binding until 13 such time as it is overturned in the courts or 14 the code is changed by the Town Beard. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree 16 with you 100 percent. I am net arguing that 17 position. Ail I'm asking you te do is have 18 the Town attorney explain to me what it is 19 that is being denied here. That's all I'm 20 asking for at this time, and I think that he's 21 here; he's heard the testimony and he could 22 certainly expound upon it, certainly try to 23 convince me as to the reason why this person 24 was denied on the basis of 242A. That's all 25 I'm asking for. The rest ef it will come in March 18, 2004 119 1 2 time, I'm sure it will, and this applicant 3 shouldn't be caught in the middle ef that. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you should 5 be asking the Town attorney about that before 6 the hearing and don't sit here and -- 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Now is 8 the time. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're 10 harassing the applicant as far as I'm 11 concerned. 12 BOAteD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. I'm 13 asking the Town attorney to leek at this. 14 He's heard the testimony and make the decision 15 for us. That's what he's here for, and he's 16 here. He doesn't have t© do it new. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 18 Corcoran. 19 MR. CORCORAN: Right. I'm 20 certainly net going te give you advice new on 21 the record without evaluation of the file, but 22 we would be happy te review the application, 23 the prier interpretation ef the ZBA and give 24 you some advice on the matter. We will not 25 make the decision on the matter and instruct March 18, 2004 120 1 2 you to act in any way, but if you would like 3 our advice we're always available for it,! and 4 we'i1 be happy to review it, and wu'il do it 5 quickly. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly 7 all I'm looking for is the building inspector 8 to put on the notice ef disapproval what the 9 applicant is doing wrong. I think the 10 applicant's entitled to that, and se are we. 11 And I just don't see that here, and if you 12 want to sit down with me by yourself, you're 13 fine, but I think we should have that for 14 this. 15 MR. CORCORAN: And I'd be happy to 16 de that and certainly the purpose of a notice 17 ef disapproval is to inform the applicant what 18 is disapproved, and sure, we'd be happy te 19 look at that. I'd be happy te talk te you 20 about it, and we can do it certainly before 21 April 8th. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you, 23 Mr. Corcoran. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you say 25 you were going te leek at it and make a March 18, 2004 121 1 2 determination before our interpretation besed 3 on the code? 4 MR. CORCORAN: No. We're not 5 going to make any decisions. I said we'd be 6 happy to take a look at it and give you our 7 advice, and I thought that advice was being 8 requested before April 8th. So if that's what 9 you're asking, I'm assuring you we can give 10 you advice before that. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And your 12 research will look at the code and our 13 interpretation of the code? 14 HR. CORCORAN: Correct. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm 16 assuming you're going te look at the code 17 because that's what it's based on. 18 MR. CORCORAN: We will certainly 19 leek at the code, we'll leek at the 20 interpretation, and we'll leek at anything 21 else that we think er you think might be 22 relevant. 23 MS. KOWALSKI: I think the 24 applicant wasn't finished with the hearing. 25 HR. BOWMAN: I certainly have no March 18, 2004 122 1 2 problem with clarifications, again, it was 3 confusing te me as well, and we trust in ~the 4 judgment of the Board and the Town attorney's 5 office. Saying that, if you have any ether 6 questions. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As I said 9 on the earlier application, I commend you on a 10 nice single story expansion en the house, it 11 looks very nice. I think it's appropriate for 12 that area. It is in character of it. It's 13 easier te go straight up and make a larger 14 house, it takes a little mere effort te de 15 this. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. 16 MR. BOWHAN: Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 18 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I hope 19 this doesn't spark another issue of 20 controversy, but I'll threw it out te you, Mr. 21 Bowman, it's a pleasure seeing you. I haven't 22 seen you in a long time. Was there any 23 attempt te make that 5.1 foot addition any 24 more conforming? 25 MR. BOWMAN: Yes, it was. March 18, 2004 123 1 2 Mr. Suter's brother is actually an architect, 3 and he went over the house plans. And the way % the existing house lays out, this just makes 5 that small space that is added much more 6 useable, I guess you would say, in the 7 interior space; and again, without trying to 8 go through a whole second story addition to 9 make the house larger that way, it just made 10 the design much better. Yes, it was looked 11 at, but the design was much mere usable %his 12 way. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: The only 14 reason I say that is I always look at it from 15 a fire and emergency point of view. If the 16 neighbor has large bushes which they may or 17 may net have at this time, I did look at the 18 property. It's very, very difficult to get 19 involved in that when you have, I call it the 20 double scissor effect at five feet. I knew 21 it's somewhat redundant te the application 22 that we had this morning at 3.6 feet, but we 23 did ask that applicant to widen their yard 24 around se that fire vehicles could get around 25 the house. In this particular case the entire March 18, 2004 124 1 2 west side Of the house is really stagnant 3 based upon that situation. 4 MR. BOWMAN: The existing 5.1 5 setback would prevent the fire equipment from 6 getting around the house. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know 8 but at least we'd be able to get around the 9 new addition and that's what the difference. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would be 11 another five feet? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I'm 13 not talking five, two feet would be much, much 14 better. 15 MR. BOWMAN: Making that a seven 16 foot setback. 17 MR. SUTER: The problem -- Den 18 Suter, the applicant. The real issue here is 19 whether we go two stories or eno story. What 20 I tried to do is maximum the size I could do 21 eno story and stay within the confines of the 22 area. I've lived en that beach for 50 summers 23 now. I bought the property because I liked 24 that area, and I wanted to stay one story. 25 The easy way is to go two stories, a March 18, 2004 12B 1 2 people tell me I'm crazy for not going two 3 stories. I worked with my brother, the 4 architect, to try and stay within the confines 5 of the property. The house when it's done is 6 2,000 square feet. I currently live in a 7 4,000 square foot house. I've got to go down 8 to half the size and get rid of a basement. 9 So that's a challenge in itself. My wife and 10 I have had a lot of decisions, should we go 11 two or one. Our answer's we're going to try 12 and stay one, but we wanted to maximize. What 13 happens is, if you try and move that over, 14 lose that whole long wall. I lose quite a bit 15 of space. The way it lays out there it's 16 about a 27 feet addition I put over there. 17 Yeu got te mere the whale thing dawn. I lose 18 the center hall of the house, try and put the 19 bedrooms in the back. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What 'if 21 yeu rounded it, Mr. Suter? 22 MR. SUTER: Yeu mean re~nded the 23 back end ef it? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Rounded 25 the whale corner. March 18, 2004 126 1 2 MR. SUTER: I lose a bedroom.i 3 There's a bedroom back there. ~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm 5 trying to take away from the corner. I'm 6 trying to get a foot or so more on that 7 corner. 8 MR. SUTER: I guess the other 9 thing I want to address is that area in there 10 behind that house used to be the road. And 11 the garages were back here, and the houses 12 were here, and nobody's ever put anything in 13 there, I mean there's eno or two trees in 14 there. It's an open area and our neighbors 15 couldn't build that far back anyhow. Their 16 houses would be way too big. Prom a lot 17 coverage standpoint, they couldn't build!back 18 into that area. I could shew you a picture of 19 what that area looks like. 20 So I think, just to address your 21 concern about another house being there, there 22 couldn't be a house there. All of us are 23 within that 100 foot and if they try to build 24 that there, they'd be over their 20 percent 25 lot coverage. I'm at 15 percent on mine March 18, 2004 127 1 2 too. We all have the same problem, because of 3 the wetlands in front of us. So I think from 4 the fire standpoint, I think we're in pretty 5 geed shape. There's a fire hydrant right back 6 en the corner behind our houses there. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please, 8 in ne way am I imposing this on the Beard. 9 I'm merely asking a question. I will tell you 10 this, that just as we have experienced a 11 domino effect en properties down en Sound 12 Beach Road which is down on Long Island Sound, 13 just below Captain Kid, so is the situation 14 occurring down here. People are converting 15 these houses, which you have lived in, 16 interesting you're an original owner, ef 17 course, the Suter name will stand forever in 18 Mattituck, and this will be a domino effect, 19 not necessarily your house, but all the rest 20 of them will be going through this entire 21 renaissance. 22 MR. BOWMAN: I think this is good 23 precedent then. We're keeping a one story and 24 moving the sanitary systems, and we're not 25 trying to make mini-mansions. One of the March 18, 2004 128 1 2 problems is taking these cottages and trying 3 to make them huge houses. I think this is 4 more in keeping with the character of the 5 neighborhood, and you can point to this in the 6 future and say this is how it should be done 7 properly. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 9 want you to understand, in no way am I 10 criticizing you. I am merely asking you, we 11 have to basically grant minimum necessary, and 12 that's the reason I ask the question. You 13 have explained to us why you need it. 14 MR. SUTER: If you round, 15 a bedroom in the back, that's the problem. 16 It's not a laundry room or utility ream. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 18 you. Is there anybody else in the audience 19 that would like te speak for or against this 20 application? 21 MR. MCCALLION: Hi, I'm Donald 22 McCallien, and my mother, Edna McCallien owns 23 the house right next deer east ef the property 24 in question. We really don't have any 25 objection to what is being planned. We agree March 18, 2004 129 1 2 with the Board and the sentiment that I've 3 heard here today that it's going to be done 4 tastefully. I've known the Suters for ever 50 5 years. They're geed neighbors, and I know 6 they're going to be doing a good job here, and 7 I understand the reason for moving the garage 8 because of the septic system~ I agree with 9 that, I think it's good. I think we need to 10 protect our waters, and I think when you're 11 doing something like this you might as well 12 move it as far back as you can se there isn't 13 any chance ef pollution. We understand that 14 the existing structure is nonconforming at the 15 five versus 10 feet, what's really going en 16 here is they're picking up the current angle 17 of the rooms and continuing it back. I'd be 18 wanting to do the same thing if I were doing 19 what Den and Irene were doing, I'd want to 20 pick up the existing angle of the house. Se i 21 really don't think it's going te have an 22 adverse effect on us. It's going to be 23 tastefully done, so we have no objection~ 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you~ sir. 25 Anybody else in the audience? If not, I make March 18, 2004 130 1 2 a motion closing the hearing reserving 3 decision until later. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 6 (Whereupon, all Board Members 7 responded in favor.) 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 9 moved. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Our next 12 hearing is for Mr. Ventura, who wishes to 13 build a new home on Rider's Lane in Orient on 14 an undeveloped lot. And it's going to be back 15 80 foot from the bluffs instead of 100 feet 16 from the bluff. Have you gotten the report 17 from the soil and water? 18 MR. VENTURA: Yes, we did. 19 CHAIRWON~IN OLIVA: What would you 20 like to tell us, sir? 21 MR. VENTURA: We purchased the 22 property almost exactly two years ago. We 23 also think it's a beautiful piece, wonderful 24 area. And we would like to put a house on, we 25 think it is reasonable in size, within the March 18, 2004 131 1 2 character of the community. In order to get 3 that, we need this variance to just give us a 4 little more depth in the house, otherwise I 5 think we would have a house that would look 6 similar to a railroad car. And that's 7 essentially what we have done here with this 8 design. Por the area we think it's a modest 9 house. We are very concerned about the bluff, 10 but I really don't believe the variance will 11 impact the bluff, which I think is the main 12 consideration here. The bluff in that area is 13 highly vegetated, actually, a lot more than 14 similar properties along that Sound View. 15 This will be our main house, I hope to retire 16 in two years, and that's about what I can 17 say. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is going 19 te be a two-story house? 20 MR. VENTURA: Yes, it is. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hew high is the 22 house going to be to the ridge? 23 MR. VENTURA: I think it's 28 24 feet. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have March 18, 2004 132 1 2 read the soil and Water conservation? 3 MR. VENTURA: Yes, I have. ~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you 5 do have a lip on the top of your bluff too? 6 MR. VENTURA: Honestly, I can't 7 see that right new with the vegetation. I 8 think when I review this, I think putting the 9 berm in, I think will absolutely help that, 10 I'd fa{her not touch that bluff at all. I 11 think that would be not a wise thing. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you have a 13 lip on the bluff and it's undercut, thenit's 14 better te take that piece off and then plant 15 vegetation. It just helps the revegetation. 16 The bluffs are very unstable where you are, 17 I'll just tell you, if you have a nor'easter, 18 this is just a piece of advice, you can take 19 it or not take it. If it toes out, and you 20 get a big nor'easter. Back, the bluff in, I 21 think it was '96, I walked that area after. 22 it was just devastation. The vegetation has 23 come back since then. I want to warn you, 24 you've got a bad bluff. 25 MR. VENTURA: It's a major March 18, 2004 133 1 2 concern. It's something, it's just such a 3 beautiful spot, that we would do anything to 4 prevent any damage on it. We lived for 1~6 5 years in New Suffolk. We love the area, and 6 we'd do anything. The berm, I'm just not sure 7 he's right, but if that's the case we could de 8 that. I mean, I have somebody else actually 9 come in and take a look at it. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. 11 Goehringer? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 13 taking off the survey, Mr. Venture, I see 46 14 feet wide the house, but I'm looking at the 15 actual plan which calls for 44 feet wide; is 16 there any particular reason why you have to 17 make it that wide? The survey calls 46 and 10 18 en the west side and the east side shews!46 19 and 7, and the plan, which is done by Surer 20 and Suter Architects, shows 44. I realize 21 it's a fairly large house, but it is 22 relatively deep in reference to width. 23 MR. VENTURA: I don't have that. 24 CHAIRWONSkN OLIVA: 52 feet. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have March 18, 2004 13% 1 2 52? 3 MR. VENTURA: We're talking width? % BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, 5 depth, from the read, talking about depth net 6 across but depth. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Depth is 4%. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But if 9 yon take it off the survey, Ruth, it's 46 then 10 10 plus -- that's 46 without the deck then 10 11 on the west side, which would be 56, then on 12 the east side, it would be 7, so it would be 6 13 and 7 is 13, would be 53. I think we have to 1% define how deep the house really is. If you 15 can't do that now, it's not a problem. You 16 can go back to the architect and tell us, 17 because the plan does not follow the 18 survey. If we can get another ten feet out of 19 this. 20 MR. VENTURA: Are we looking -- 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I~m 22 looking at the plan. I counted en the east 23 side 16, 8 -- 2% MR. VENTURA: I'm not sure which 25 plan yen have, Spitaliere Construction. I'm March 18, 2004 135 1 2 adding these little numbers up. We have a 3 step effect. 4 MR. SPITALIERE: 10, 16 and 8. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then 6 there's another 10 and 2, so maybe the 46 7 should be 4%. So there's the minus 2, but 8 that does not include the deck area. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it 10 does, Jerry. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 12 the preblem. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the 1% survey it's 44 feet. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 4% feet 16 including the deck? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why, 19 when you add it up dees it say plus 7? 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't 21 knew. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEKRINGER: That's 23 the preblem. 24 MR. SPITALIERE: 18 and 16, plus 25 34 and 10 foet deck, weuld be 4%. March 18, 200% 136 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's 3 cema back here, see increase it. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Still 44. 5 Now there it's different, right there. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's 7 44 to the end ef the deck. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I verified 9 that here. 10 MR. SPITALIERE: I know the 44, 11 the dimensions that we discussed -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's 52 by 44. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then the 14 survey would be correct; is that correct? 15 MR. VENTURA: That's correct. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the 17 80 feet. I was just hoping it was incorrect, 18 we could get another 10 feet out of it. Thank 19 you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can I ask an 21 important question, what materials are you 22 going to build this house, the exterior walls? 23 MR. VENTURA: Cedar, probably, 2% wood construction. 25 MR. SPITALIERE: It would be stick March 18, 2004 137 1 2 built. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not stucco!, not 4 heavy? 5 MR. SPITALIERE: No. Probably 6 cedar siding, shingles. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORL~kNDO: The square 9 footage of the house out of curiosity? 10 MR. VENTURA: About 2,700 square 11 feet. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Looks like 13 the majority of the property has the 100 foot 14 setback, a quick glance 60 percent of the 15 house maybe has the 100 foot setbacks. 16 MR. VENTURA: And I believe it 17 will be the farthest setback house in the 18 area. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have had 20 many applicants come much, much closer. We 21 appreciate the effort. 22 MR. VENTUP-~: We honestly tried. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Deck is 24 just a plain deck made out of the wood also? 25 MR. SPITALIERE: Preliminary!plan March 18, 2004 138 1 2 was for a wood deck. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not a ~ patio? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Open to the 6 sky? 7 MR. SPITALIERE: Absolutely. More 8 observatory platform. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How about 10 the drainage on that house? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think so long 12 as they take their recommendations as far as 13 dry wells and gutters and leaders comingoff 14 the house into dry wells, and I'd keep it as 15 far away from the edge of the bluff as 16 possible. 17 HR. SPITALIERE: Actually, the 18 plan shows two, general rule, when we build we 19 put a lot more than the requirements on the 20 dry wells. 21 CN2~IRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want you 22 te keep it away from the bluff so it doesn't 23 scoot out and you get a blew out. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there 25 any future plan for a swimming pool? March 18, 2004 139 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Took the words 3 out of my mouth. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry, 5 Ruth. 6 MR. VENTURA: No, absolutely. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 8 Anybody else in the audience wish to comment 9 on this application? Anything else from the 10 Board members? If not, I'll make a motion te 11 close the hearing and reserve decision until 12 later. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 15 (Whereupon, all Beard Members 16 responded in favor.) 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 18 moved. Thank you very much. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 21 hearing is for Mr. Herlen Wiggin who wishes to 22 place a swimming pool in a yard ether than the 23 rear yard. 24 MR. WIGGIN: Good afternoon. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Geed afternoon. March 18, 200% 140 1 2 MR~ WIGGIN: The reason we're 3 asking for this is, I think you have the 4 attachment, the recommendation for Mrs. 5 Wiggin's physician, you have that in here, and 6 I'll quickly read it if you like. She has 7 multiple severe medical problems, with 8 primarily severe osteoporosis and arthritis, 9 which are disabling. She's had surgery on the 10 hip, knee and has only limited ability to 11 ambulate. It will be extremely important for 12 her with her severe arthritis and pain to be 13 unable to get out and increasing her exercise 14 will significantly improve her overall health 15 and quality of life. Considered permit for a 16 pool to be acted on as quickly as possible as 17 this will significantly help her overall 18 health outlined above. Mrs. Wiggins is also 19 legally blind, so she can't go out and drive 20 anyplace to go to a pool for this type of 21 exercise. 22 Now, I'm somewhat confused as to 23 why I'm here, as some of the others. I gather 24 this is some sort of a difference of opinion 25 of whether what is accessory and what is not March 18, 2004 141 1 2 an accessory. First the Building Department 3 says, no, you don't need to come to the Zoning 4 Board because this is attached, and then they 5 said unless you have a deck all the way around 6 it, it's an accessory. We don't need a deck 7 all the way around. And she can't walk all 8 the way around it anyway, she wants it to be 9 attached on one end of it. So because it 10 doesn't have a deck surrounding it, it becomes 11 an accessory. 12 Then, of course, the other thing 13 that's somewhat surprising, we don't have a 14 backyard because we are on a right of way, 15 which is a corner lot right ef way on the 16 corner lot. So even though the proposed pool 17 is net a big pool, it's only four feet deep, 18 solar heated because they're ena corner lot, 19 we have no backyard according to the Building 20 Department, which is kind of rough on people 21 that are handicapped, and I think it's too bad 22 if everybody doesn't know you're handicapped 23 and don't get a corner lot. Amyway, this is 24 what we're faced with, and this is why we're 25 here for these two confusing reasons. Maybe March 18, 2004 1%2 1 2 someone can explain te me why putting a deck 3 around it makes it attached rather than an 4 accessory. I do not understand that. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 6 net our interpretation. That's an 7 interpretation by another agency. 8 MR. WIGGINS: I understand it. I 9 realize it's not your interpretation. It was 10 an interpretation that was made, and that's 11 the reason I'm here. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have 13 any problem with it, Merlen. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None at 15 all. It's net going te be enclosed Merlen, 16 right? 17 MR. WIGGINS: No. It's 100 feet 18 from the right of way. 19 BOAteD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 21 BOAt(D MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no 22 questions. 23 MR. WIGGINS: We didn't expect to 24 be here so time is a concern. To get the pool 25 installed this spring, we had to make the March 18, 2004 143 1 2 purchase in December. They want to do it! next 3 month or we have to wait until fall. So ii 4 gather we can't get a decision until April 5 8th. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any 7 problem with it, Jim, any question? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'd 9 like to fight the battle that Merlon has. No, 10 I think we can work on it today. I'll 11 volunteer to write the decision tonight if you 12 volunteer to sign it tomorrow if we vote on it 13 today. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whose decision 15 is it? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Lydia's, 17 but she's not here. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sure 19 she wouldn't have a problem. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When does your 21 contractor want to come in? 22 MR. WIGGINS: Second week in 23 April. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'll vote 25 today. I don't have a problem. March 18, 2004 144 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have a 3 problem. 4 MR. WIGGINS. I appreciate it, 5 otherwise, this time of year, you don't meet 6 the schedule, they say do it next year or -- 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this in 8 ground, it's above ground? 9 MR. WIGGINS: It's semi in ground. 10 It's four feet deep, two feet in ground, two 11 feet above ground. The reason they picked 12 that because she can walk to the edge of the 13 deck and go down steps, and the deck is above 14 ground. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this 16 your wife, Merlon? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, she's had 18 a hard time the past few years. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make a 20 motion. We have to decide how we're going to 21 do this because we need to discuss how I'm 22 going to word it because they're saying that 23 it's an accessory structure. I don't believe 24 that it is. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It,s not March 18, 2004 145 1 2 an accessory reverse the Building Inspector. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll 4 reverse this then I'll give some reasons for 5 that? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 8 objections to that. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 10 making a motion, Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll 13 Second. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 15 (Whereupon, all Board Members 16 responded in favor.) 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 18 carried. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 20 done, Merlon. 21 MR. WIGGINS: What does this mean? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just have to de 23 the paperwork, write it up, and then get it 24 over to the Building Department. 25 MR. WIGGINS: We don't understand March 18, 2004 146 1 2 the interpretation. Thank you very much !for 3 your consideration. ~ CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Thank you. 5 Make a motion recessing the 6 hearing until 1:00 p.m. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 9 (Whereupon, all Beard Members 10 responded in favor.) 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reconvene the 13 hearing ef Zoning Board of Appeals of our 14 hearing this afternoon is Osprey Dominion, 15 LIPA/Keyspan. What would you like to tell us? 16 MR. LELAND: My name is Richard 17 Leland, ef Kramer Levin in New York City. I 18 represent LIPA. We were here December 18th. 19 My colleague, Karen Mintzer, I think made a 20 full presentation. The hearing was continued 21 pending the completion ef the revised 22 environmental assessment, which was done and 23 was distributed by hand March 5th. I want to 24 report that on Monday the Planning Board, 25 after the work session, met and signed-off en March 18, 2004 1%1 1 2 the revised environmental assessment. LIPA, 3 in its capacity as lead agency has issued! a & negative declaration, which has been 5 circulated te the involved agencies, and I 6 believe there was a notice ef the negative 7 declaration sent te the Zoning Beard en 8 Monday. 9 We would be prepared to answer any 10 question that the Beard has and ask that the 11 hearing be closed and ask for a decision. We 12 are hoping if we can get eno in time to get on 13 the Planning Beard calendar en April 12th, so 14 we can have the public hearing before the 15 Planning Board en the site plan Hay 10th. I 16 understand, Madam Chair, that that is not 17 necessarily going to happen, but we're going 18 to ask, and, if net, we're going te hopefully 19 get on the June Board calendar for the 20 Planning Board. Se that we can get the site 21 plan and then we'd be ready te go with the 22 project. 23 I don't have anything further te 2% add other than to answer any questions. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think March 18, 2004 148 1 2 there are some assumptions you have in there 3 also. MR. LELAND: What are those, sir? 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That we're 6 going to grant this. 7 MR. LELAND: Oh, no, if it's 8 granted, of course. I recognize it's up to 9 you to decide whether you're going te grant 10 it. I'm happy to answer any questions you may 11 have. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The thing I 13 notice that you didn't address in the EIS is 14 alternative sites. 15 MR. LELAND: If you leek there is 16 a discussion in the EA ef the site selection 17 process that we went through. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not talking 19 about the site selection process, I understand 20 that. I think that was demonstrated, but in 21 the ElS I don't think that was addressed and 22 according te SEQRA, I think alternative sites 23 are required. MR. LELAND: It's net an EIS~ it's 25 an environmental assessment. And I don't March 18, 2004 149 1 2 believe that we're required to 3 analyze alternatives unless we find that 4 there's a significant adverse impact and do an 5 ElS. 6 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: I really, 7 frankly, have a problem with it in the milddle 8 of a vineyard for a couple of reasons. One 9 reason is that both Route 48 and Route 25 have 10 been designated as scenic byways. Now maybe 11 the Tewn Beard hasn't quite getten their act 12 tegether with that, but certainly coming along 13 Reute 25 and looking up at a vineyard that is 14 rural and seeing a 120 foot wind tower up 15 there is net exactly eye pleasing. 16 MR. LELAND: We have prepared a 17 visual analysis. 18 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: I've seen that, 19 thank you. I didn't agree with it, but that's 20 beside the paint. Also, far peeple even 21 visiting the vineyard and having parties out 22 there or weddings and if that wind turbine is 23 geing, it's very noisy. I think it would be a 24 disturbance unless it's turned eff or there's 25 some arrangement. I alse think that a far March 18, 2004 150 1 2 more proper place would have been up behind 3 the landfill on Oregon Road. There are farms 4 up there. Were ~here any other farmers up 5 there contacted? 6 MR. LELAND: The process that we 7 went through, Madam Chair, was that, working 8 with the Long Island Farm Bureau, we solicited 9 bids, if you will, from farmers who were 10 willing to enter into arrangements with us te 11 have the site, to site the tower, the turbine 12 on their facilities. And if you look at Table 13 1-2 en Page 1-5 ef the revised EA, you'll see 14 that there's a list of the addresses, and just 15 running through it quickly, we only had two 16 candidates in Peconic -- I'm sorry, two 17 candidates in Pecenic and one in Mattituck. 18 So it's really a matter of, obviously it's a 19 matter of contract between the Power Authority 20 and the farmer, er the owner ef the vineyard, 21 as te whether they would permit us te place 22 the turbine demonstration project on their 23 land. And the only other site, the site in 24 Peconic, which was also on County Road 48, 25 McGonagal Farm, it didn't meet the other March 18, 2004 151 1 2 selection criteria, which included the 3 proximity to our grid and enough open area to 4 be able to generate enough wind. 5 Now, with respect to the noise 6 question that you raised, we had a similar 7 question asked at the Planning Board with 8 respect to noise basically at the site, and we 9 had an analysis done, which I'll be happy to 10 send a copy te the Board of, that would 11 indicate that at a distance ef 200 feet from 12 the turbine, which is approximately where the 13 gazebo and the tables are lecated, the sound 14 would be at 54.4 decibels, which is in the 15 vicinity of the ambient noise during the 16 daytime, which is between 50 and 55 decibels. 17 So that the incremental noise would not 18 represent a significant nuisance, even to 19 those people who are on the property owned 20 by Osprey, which has asked us to come onto the 21 property and build the turbine. We have 22 looked at that and I'll be happy to send a 23 copy of this letter, or if we can make a copy 24 before we leave today, I'll be happy to hand 25 that to the Board. March 18, 2004 152 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: I'd just like 3 to refer to Mr. Orlando, who stopped about 4 1,000 feet to your project in Calverton. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Closer to a 6 half mile. 7 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: What was that? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It was very 9 loud. I didn't have a decibel reader with me, 10 it was very loud, and I was downwind. I was 11 east of the windmill, wind turbine, which is 12 identical to the one that you're putting up. 13 MR. LELAND: Same one. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It was very 15 loud. 16 MR. LELAND: Perhaps, 17 Mr. McAllister, from AK Electrics can tell es 18 what the decibel level reading would be from 19 1,000 feet. We do knew we haven't had any 20 complaints from anyone in Calverten regarding 21 the noise. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's 23 surrounded by a farm. I had to stop my car 24 and get out en the road. There's nothing but 25 farm out there. March 18, 2004 153 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Planning Board 3 tee, we're concerned about the safety if that 4 thing blows down. We have a lot of wind. The 5 past year and-a-half has been extremely windy 6 here. 7 HR. LELAND: We are addressing 8 that and we can address that in several ways. 9 (1) We believe that the nearest -- again, the 10 gazebo and the tables, are located outside of 11 what some people have termed "the fall zone," 12 and the other thing is we are going to 13 obviously be obligated te build this up to 14 hurricane wind requirements under the state 15 building code. 16 MR. PERTORO: Fred Pertere, 17 Project Hanager for LIPA. 18 This needs to be and must be built 19 according to the state building codes. It's a 20 new cede that's mere stringent. It also takes 21 into account not only the wind, but a certain 22 level ef ice onto the tower. With those 23 criteria, the tower is meant te withstand and 24 was calculated by the engineers -- and we'i1 25 get stamped drawings te shew that -- that it March 18, 2004 154 1 2 was meant to withstand those high winds with 3 ice en it. So the likelihood of anything 4 happening is very minute because the thing is 5 essence overbuilt as far as meeting the code. 6 It at least meets the level of the code and 7 then some. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hew many 9 miles per hour is that? 10 MR. WIGGINS: The actual miles per 11 hour would have to be determined by the 12 building inspector. The Town building 13 inspector would be the one to make that 14 ultimate final determination. But it's 15 typically about 80 miles per hour and about, I 16 think, they're using a half inch of ice with 17 80 miles per hour, se that would really test 18 that structure and the structure can withstand 19 that. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Those winds are 21 not uncommon here during a hurricane. The 22 winds here are let's say 85 to even 100 miles 23 per hour in some spots. 24 MR. PERTORO: This particular 25 design and structure is not unique for that March 18, 2004 155 1 2 location, that tower is designed for those 3 wind turbines and they're installed elsewhere 4 throughout the country. And I know of no 5 problem with the tower ever having a problem 6 ef having it fall or fail er anything like 7 that; te my knowledge, that's not the case. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But I think the 9 north fork especially is unique because of 10 being surrounded by the water and the winds 11 generated thereto are sometimes higher than 12 wind say inland. 13 MR. PERTORO: That's very true to 14 a certain extent because that's eno ef the 15 reasons why we're looking to find locations. 16 But with the wind, there is a wind profile 17 that's been done nationally, this area is more 18 like a 3 out of 5. You really look to have 19 something at a level 4 in order to justify 20 having a wind turbine economically. This is 21 more a 3 area, and there are times, of course, 22 when the wind does get up higher. There are 23 some areas ef the country where it's a 5, it's 24 a 4. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like Mt. March 18, 2004 156 1 2 Washington? 3 HR. PERTORO: Yeah, I was out at 4 Washington. 5 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: No, Mt. 6 Washington? 7 MR. PERTORO: East of the 8 Cascades, they have mountain ranges east of 9 the Cascades, yes, some nice wind out there. 10 But the towers are meant te withstand whatever 11 would occur in this particular area and then 12 some. They're actually overbuilt. They don't 13 just build it up te that level, they try to 14 build it a little bit above that level to 15 answer the question about the integrity ef the 16 tower. 17 MR. LELAND: The turbine is 18 designed to shut down at a 50 mile per hour 19 wind. That's an additional protection for 20 that concern that you indicated. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, do 22 you have any questions? 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When I read 24 the ES -- 25 MR. LELAND: EA, Environmental March 18, 2004 157 1 2 Assessment. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I got it 4 that you did look around, and that's what I 5 got frem this. It seems te it me, just in 6 passing, I'm not real adept at this, but it 7 seems to me like the Farm Bureau was 8 enceuraging this tea peint, and the state is 9 alse. And certainly, clean energy is 10 semething that we all should be contributing 11 te. I, for one, was there en Saturday, and 12 prebably parked at the same lecatien that 13 Mr. Orlando did, and I'll tell you, I didn't 14 find it ebjectionable at all. I theught it 15 was very difficult fer me to hear ever the 16 wind, which was part ef the ambient noise. 17 Beth myself and my wife get out ef the car. I 18 den't know what the wind was, it was pretty 19 heavy. It was coming out of the northwest. 20 If the blades were towards me, the wind was 21 coming tewards me; that's the way it works? 22 MR. LELAND: Yes. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Henestly, 24 I'm ene for sleep, if I can't sleep at night, 25 I think that's the mest important right March 18, 2004 158 1 2 everybody has, and if I thought it was going 3 to keep people up, I think I would not be too 4 favorable on this. But te me, it didn't sound 5 like that at all. When we went in the day 6 that we inspected it, they turned it on, the 7 noise we heard then was more the motor trying 8 to turn the blades as opposed to anything 9 else, and that was noisy. Honestly, I don't 10 know why you turned it on. I don't knew why 11 you wanted us to hear that. I don't think 12 that's something you ever do except maybe to 13 maintain or knock something off er whatever. 14 But if we don't encourage clean energy and we 15 don't give that an opportunity, we're in some 16 deep trouble, especially here on Long Island, 17 where we don't allow power plants and things 18 like that te be built. And again, when I went 19 through your thing, I thought it was very 20 thorough and I think the right agencies are 21 encouraging it. 22 So as far as us in any way 23 restricting you turning that off because the 24 Osprey Dominion wants to have it there, my 25 opinion is it's on their property, they're March 18, 2004 159 1 2 choosing to de it. In any way making a 3 decision based on that would net be fair ito 4 the actual person who is asking us to do it, 5 Osprey Dominion. 6 That's all I have. I think it's a 7 noble endeavor. I think you ought te pursue 8 it. Thank you very much. 9 MR. LELAND: Thank you. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 12 questions. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My 15 question's a little different. I was with Mr. 16 Dinizio the day you turned it on mechanically, 17 and he then subsequently went back and 18 subsequently again, I assume, by his 19 testimony. My concern is net for Osprey 20 Dominion because Osprey Dominion is going to 21 have to live up to this lease for 20 years, 22 and that's their problem. My concern is the 23 neighbors. And the majority of the noise that 24 emanates from the machine wind-wise, and I 25 call it a drone, is going to be heard during March 18, 2004 160 1 2 the times that the windows on houses are open 3 and the times that people are sitting outside. 4 And I guess the question really is, if it 5 becomes an annoyance to people at certain 6 times of the year, can the machine be turned 7 off? Can it be put on at selective times when 8 people are not -- when a high profile time, 9 which would be seven at night until seven in 10 the morning? 11 MR. LELAND: Let me start with 12 responding to your concern about residents, 13 which I think is well taken. Our study 14 indicates that, Number 1, the closest resident 15 is 670 feet, and that the sound level at that 16 distance is below ambient noise levels. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We 18 understand that, but we have some conflicting 19 testimony here, because I have a gentleman 20 that's vice~president of a corporation that's 21 close to that wind generating tower, and I 22 have a gentleman who runs his own electronics 23 business, who is the gentleman on the end, and 24 the other gentleman is the one next to him. I 25 think 670 feet is certainly a sizable March 18, 2004 161 1 2 distance, but not based upon Hr. Orlando's 3 testimony and that's what concerns me. We're % here to protect the citizens of this town, to 5 protect the code in question. We have no 6 noise ordinance in this cede, but at the same 7 time, I de agree with Mr. Dinizio, we 8 certainly want to try and create this model 9 within this town se that we can possibly 10 eventually de something that will even create 11 mere electricity that the 20 homes that this 12 is going te supply. But at the same time we 13 have to understand that people de enjoy their 14 peaceful coexistence. So that's some of the 15 issues that we have te deal with. 16 MR. LELAND: We appreciate that 17 and I think we worked very hard on a state of 18 the art noise study te demonstrate that the 19 increase in noise from this turbine, based on 20 the scientific measurement, I think it's 1.3 21 decibels, which is barely perceptible, 22 particularly at a distance of 670 feet, which 23 is where the nearest residence is. 24 As far as whether it can be turned 25 off if there's a complaint about the noise, March 18, 200% 162 1 2 maybe you can respond to that, Fred. But, 3 again, we haven't had complaints from the 4 other one we have operating in Riverhead. I 5 realize it's on a farm as opposed to it being 6 on a vineyard, but remember, the vineyard is 7 the one that invited us there. If people on 8 the vineyard have a problem with the noise, 9 that's going to be a contractual issue that 10 we'll work out. I don't say that to treat 11 that issue lightly because we have looked at 12 it and we have done a study, or we will be 13 giving the Board data with respect to even 14 what the perception of sound will be at the 15 vineyard, at the tables 200, 300 feet away 16 from the tower. 17 Fred, maybe you can respond to the 18 other questions 19 HR. PERTORO: Yes. Could you just 20 reiterate the question as you would like it 21 answered? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 23 question is the weather really gets the best 24 around here around the first week of Hay and 25 it stays that way until the end ef September March 18, 2004 163 1 2 and we, of course, have wonderful October days 3 also, but during that period of time for the 4 people that don't choose to air condition 5 their house, which are a great amount of 6 people in this town, and don't have heat pumps 7 and so forth, they chose te use the normal air 8 that is outside, and I believe you call that 9 ambient air, whatever the case may be. The 10 concern is that if this becomes a problem, 11 could we ask you te restrict the use ef this 12 machinery during certain times? I'll be 13 honest to you I have a 3,400 square foot 14 house, I wouldn't have an air conditioner if 15 my life depended upon it. I have six cars 16 with five cars that have air conditioning and 17 I don't use it. I just don't care for it. If 18 I was living in the immediate vicinity, what 19 I'm concerned about is a very old area called 20 Pecenic Lane. There are many stately houses 21 on Peconic Lane of which this is close 22 to. It's closer to this than it is to any 23 other cross street, and there is a possibility 24 that that drone can bother people. I'm not 25 saying every night, but I'm saying over a March 18, 2004 164 1 2 frequency of time that could bother people; 3 that's what I'm concerned about and that's 4 basically the issue. 5 MR. LELAND: Can we have a moment? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure. 7 Is that all right, Ruth? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 9 MR. P~RTORO: Well, to answer the 10 question directly, yes, we can, obviously turn 11 it off. That's to answer that question. But 12 also, some of the concerns that we wanted to 13 just discuss here is that most ef the time 14 when people are outdoors in the summer, early 15 summer, late summer, during the summer, 16 typically that's the time when the winds are 17 down, when we don't get the production we 18 would like out of it. Se in some ways it kind 19 of plays into it, that when the people are 20 outdoors trying te get a breath of fresh air 21 because there isn't that much happening, 22 that's when the wind turbine is shut down 23 anyway, because it needs a certain level!of 24 wind, it needs about 10 and-a-half miles per 25 hour in order te kick eh. March 18, 2004 16~ 1 ~ BO~D MEMBER GOEH~INGE~: ~s ~ou 3 described to us. It was not running at 11 ~ miles per hour, that's why you mechanically 5 generated? 6 MR. PERTORO: Yes. And it was 7 louder when we mechanically run it, but it 8 happened te be a nenwindy day. I didn't want 9 you people out there not seeing the thing run, 10 not hearing it. So we turned it on with the 11 explanation it's probably louder than it would 12 ordinarily be with the wind turning it. So we 13 did want te be fair. We wanted te present 14 that information. We wanted people te hear it 15 and make their judgments because we feel that 16 it's not very loud at all. The early versions 17 of these things were very loud. The ones out 18 in California that they first put in out there 19 were very loud. It's come a long way in terms 20 ef ambient sound levels, over and above the 21 ambient sound levels. 22 This turbine, we feel is not loud, 23 but that's a matter of judgment on our part. 24 What we did do is a rigorous analysis based on 25 distance, and one ef the criteria that we had March 18, 2004 166 1 2 when we sited these things was distance away 3 fram residences. Same locations you were ~ immediately eliminated; they were too close to 5 residences. We did net want that. Se that's 6 part ef the reason why they were located where 7 they were located. Receptivity, obviously, ef 8 the people who volunteered, but we 9 automatically eliminated these who would have 10 wanted them because of location. We didn't 11 want people to be tee close to the wind 12 turbine. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It absolutely 14 has to be 120 feet tall? 15 MR. PERTORO: The tower is 100 16 feet, the blades are 25 feet, yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This 18 Beard has placed restrictions en issues ef 19 landscaping and read construction and so on 20 and se forth, and that restriction er it's 21 basically a condition says the Board reserves 22 the right to request to enhance er de-enhance 23 a specific thing, whatever that thing might 24 be, could you -- this is my opinion net the 2S Board's opinion -- could you write far us in March 18, 2004 167 1 2 legalese an opinion that the Board could have 3 the right to request LIPA to limit the use of 4 this piece of machinery over a certain period 5 of time so as not to discredit the machinery, 6 but so as to keep the residents of a specific 7 area within a happy mode, so to speak, and I'm 8 being philosophical at this time. 9 MR. LELAND: I certainly think 10 that the Board is empowered to place 11 restrictions upon the granting of these kinds 12 of approvals. I also think that these could 13 possibly be a matter of enforcement under your 14 Town code and under a matter of nuisance law, 15 but I think that that can be dene te, at least 16 from LIPA's perspective, enly tea peint 17 because if we get to a point where the 18 restrictiens prohibit us from getting enough 19 production out of this te create the benefits 20 that we intend to create, and remember this is 21 a demonstratien preject fer clean energy te 22 see if LIPA can have more alternative energy 23 sources in its service area rather than fewer, 24 but I think as a legal matter it can be 25 accomplished. I'd like to think that March 18, 2004 168 1 2 throughout my career that a legal matter, 3 alm©st anything can be accomplished. ~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 5 true. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a 7 question? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to 10 expound on Jerry's thought. Would it be, if 11 we restricted it to time, would that upset 12 your study? In ether wards, this is a study. 13 Let's face it, you're not going to make any 14 money en this. You're trying te study to see 15 if it's feasible far Long Island te have these 16 things, and the last thing in the world that 17 anybody wants is far this to ge in and then 18 have these neighbors cema in and say it's too 19 noisy. Now, the reason for that is what 20 you're going to get is an absolute prohibition 21 ef it. What we're looking for, I certainly 22 would agree to, is somehow trying to mitigate 23 that se that they're net coming before us 24 saying that, or coming before the Town Board 25 far a noise ordinance. Does it hurt your March 18, 2004 169 1 2 study if we say that in the summer months or 3 whatever we come to, it's got to be shut down 4 during the hours of such and such. Does that 5 hurt you? MR. LELAND: I think the 7 difficulty that would pose is that we operate 8 based on the wind conditions, either the wind 9 is blowing or not blowing. It's not really a 10 matter of if you have a restriction based upon 11 time, it's a constraint on the efficient 12 operation of the project and the ability to 13 determine its use on a grander scale on Long 14 Island. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're 16 gathering information, I understand that. And 17 I think there's a concern or there can be a 18 concern about the noise. 19 MR. LELAND: We do meet the DEC 20 noise standards. 21 BOAteD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's 22 fine. 23 MR. LELAND: That's the only 24 subjective criterion we could work with. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree March 18, 2004 170 1 2 with you 100 percent. What I'm looking for 3 and we all have to kibitz here and then come 4 to a conclusion. I'm all for alternative 5 energy in any way, and I know that you had to 6 experiment in order to do that. Just this 7 week in our own local papers they did a 8 special on windmills, and I'm sure back then 9 the people thought they were ugly. We think 10 they're unique now. We go to East Hampton, 11 isn't that nice. I bet it wasn't so nice when 12 it was crushing whatever it was crushing and 13 wind was blowing through the sails. And it 14 was technology that advanced. It advanced our 15 society and te me it's the same. My concern 16 is that once it's up and running and then we 17 start having people come in about the noise, 18 then we have trouble. If we can now limit it 19 te most people, 10 miles per hour most people 20 are closing their windows, I think, and these 21 people don't have air conditioning aren't, but 22 can we limit it say between 10:00 p.m. or 6:00 23 en the summer months, how much does it hurt 24 your progress? 25 MR. LELAND: Let me speak te the March 18, 2004 171 1 2 client. 3 I think that we can respond this ~ way: Te begin with, I would suggest rat~er 5 than having some kind of restriction put in 6 now, that if the Board were, as in a condition 7 te retain jurisdiction, if you will, over a 8 certain test period, be it six months, be it a 9 year, and that if there are concerns raised by 10 the community with respect to noise, that we 11 could come back here and we could craft 12 together some kind ef conditions te the 13 approval that would satisfy the public and 14 certainly satisfy what we understand and 15 respect te be the Board's responsibility te 16 protect the people ef the town. The 17 difficulty in having a shut-off at a certain 18 time based ena certain wind level, there is 19 ne remote shut-off capability. So having it 20 shut down at a particular time would entail 21 having someone come out te the site and take 22 some steps te turn the machine down, and have 23 to come back and start it back up again. I 24 think that that could create more problems 25 than doing it because we think someone might March 18, 2004 172 1 2 complain at a future time. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: HOW often will 4 you have someone come out to see that it's 5 being run preperly? 6 HR. LELAND: We anticipate a 7 maximum of four trips a menth. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So about ence a 9 week? 10 MR. LELAND: Abeut a week, that's 11 hew we calculated the traffic. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We did a 13 restrictien like that to a bar in Hattituck, 1% remember? We went back a year, actually, 15 clesed the place dawn. 16 MR. LELAND: We think we'll be a 17 little less noisy than a bar. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're 19 agreeable to us coming back and revisiting 20 this -- 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If 22 there's a need. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If someone 24 complains within a year -- 25 MR. DOUGHERTY: Just, I think, March 18, 2004 173 1 2 yes, part of the process of demonstrating this 3 technology is to have the public accept it, 4 government accept it. If you're not going to 5 accept, then what's the point. And I think 6 we've tried to address in our selection 7 criteria all these potential issues that would 8 come up, as folks would say, they need to be 9 spoken to. And we've tried to screen out the 10 site selection based en those criterias and I 11 think we've gone through great lengths te do 12 that because we want to have public acceptance 13 ef renewable technologies. We're net trying 14 to impose this upon you. We understand your 15 position as representatives ef the public te 16 make the right assessment, and we want to 17 demonstrate that we want te work with you to 18 come to a successful resolution of any issues 19 that are out there. Hark Dougherty, LIPA. 20 MR. LELAND: We also as a public 21 agency have a responsibility te the public. 22 So I think that we would be 23 willing to have some kind of call back, if you 24 will, based upon the kind of complaints that 25 you were referring to, sir. But I think we March 18, 2004 174 1 2 would want te have a certain period of time to 3 work that out. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How long will 5 it take you to construct this? 6 HR. LELAND: Six weeks. 7 BOARD MEMBER HINIZIO: When they 8 get their CO. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have one 10 member of the Board not here now so she will 11 have to review the tapes. 12 MR. LELAND: I think Mr. Dinizio's 13 suggestion that the certificate ef occupancy 14 be the trigger for that one-year period is an 15 excellent eno, that way we don't have te worry 16 about time lags when things get built, er how 17 long it takes to get built. We still have a 18 few more processes to go through. If you do 19 grant us the approval, we de have to go to the 20 Planning Board for the site plan. It's net 21 likely that we'll get into the ground before 22 July. Se, we should keep that in mind in 23 crafting that kind of resolution. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hay I 25 say something? March 18, 2004 175 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is 4 my last issue. 5 Could we also have a commitment 6 from you that if fur any reason the overall 7 appearance within the next 20 years changes 8 that there will be some updating en that? Let 9 me give you an example, okay? We had an 10 application for us on a cell tower one time in 11 Orient, and the concern was the visual aspect. 12 We discussed the visual aspect of this the day 13 we almost froze to death -- excuse my 14 language -- over there in the middle ef that 15 field at whatever it was, 22 degrees or 18 16 degrees, whatever it was, and it was stated 17 clearly at that time that this is the minimum 18 and the maximum that LIPA is willing te 19 produce at this time. But Mr. Dinizie brings 20 up a very interesting point, if from a visual 21 standpoint over the period ef the test study 22 ef this, you find that te make it more 23 palatable, LIPA may in turn try to make this 24 more like a windmill or something like that we 25 could possibly impose some kind ef concept March 18, 2004 176 1 2 that would make it look a little more 3 palatable than a tripod with huge steel blades 4 on it. 5 MR. LELAND: I think the 6 difficulty in that is that we've purchased the 7 product. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 9 understand that. I'm talking about an 10 enclosure around it to make it look a little 11 more palatable, in case, throughout the future 12 of these years as we progress that something 13 may occur that may make you gentlemen and 14 ladies decide that from a visual standpoint 15 this could change. And I'll give you an 16 example, the cell tower issue, if you're in 17 Nassau County and the Manhasset area, they 18 have a tree, and until you really get in front 19 ef it you really don't knew it's net a tree, 20 and that may change in years to come. And I'm 21 not asking you to spend another $100,000on 22 this thing, I'm asking you to come up with a 23 realization that some of us are not terribly 24 happy with what these leek like. I'm not 25 speaking for the Chairperson, but that I think March 18, 2004 177 1 2 is one of the concerns. And this is net a 3 commitment aspect, ether than the fact that 4 I'd like you to say, yeah, I'd like you he 5 look at it because we have to live with it far 6 20 years. 7 MR. LELAND: I think as a matter 8 of the way LIPA likes te deal with the 9 community, we would, of course, say we would 10 leek into whatever improvements need to be 11 made on an ongoing basis. I don't knew 12 whether the Beard can retain jurisdiction te 13 reconsider the aesthetics after they've 14 granted an approval. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're 16 net offering us anything other than these 17 aesthetics? 18 MR. LELAND: This is the state of 19 the art as we speak in 2004. I've seen the 20 cell towers that look like trees. There's 21 actually eno en the Hutchinson River Parkway 22 that leeks like a 50 foot cell tower with fake 23 branches on it, so you have te be fairly 24 careful about those things. I also question 25 whether we can make that kind efa change March 18, 2004 178 1 2 without going to our friends in the Planning 3 Department and getting the site plan changed, and getting a new building permit, so I think 5 there's some technical issues there. But I think we can make a commitment to the Town on 7 a continuing basis to work with the Town to 8 make sure we can deal with the aesthetics as 9 they come along. 10 MR. PERTORO: That's fair enough. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If the Board is 12 finished with any comments, is there anybody 13 in the audience that would like te make a comment? Yes, sir? 15 MR. DESIMONE: Geed afternoon, 16 Madam Chair, Members ef the Board, my name is 17 Scott DeSimone. I maintain my residence and 18 my law practice at 41780 Main Road here in 19 Peconic. I have a few comments, I'll try and 20 keep it brief, but at the outset I would ask 21 that if the Board was going te close this 22 hearing if they at least keep it open for 23 several days for written submissions only. I 24 do have a memorandum in opposition te this 25 application which is nearly complete, and I March 18, 200% 179 1 2 would like to submit it to the Board. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be ~ possible. 5 MR. DESIMONE: This application is 6 very disturbing te me on several levels. 7 First, if the Beard is net aware, I am Deputy 8 Town Attorney in the Town ef Riverhead and the 9 Counsel te the Zoning Board in Riverhead. 10 LIPA was before us ena special exception 11 application for a substation in Calverten. 12 Their arrogance is incredible because in that 13 application they went out and bought the land 14 before they even came to the Zoning Board. 15 Here they went and leased the property before 16 they came te the Zoning Beard, very 17 presumptuous that this application's going to 18 be granted. 19 Secondly, living in Pecenic, and 20 being right across the street from the police 21 station, I already bear the burden of two 22 major cell towers. And I'm hearing everybody 23 talking about noise here today, and they want 24 to take you out te the Calverton site and tell 25 you that the visual impacts will not be March 18, 2004 180 1 2 severe, from Edwards Avenue, I believe that 3 that wind turbine is at least 1,000 feet off 4 of Edwards Avenue, and it doesn't look 5 horrendous from Edwards Avenue. New, I don't 6 knew if they produced photographs to give you 7 an idea what that turbine will look like from 8 Hain Read, 400 feet off Main Road, but it's a 9 12 and-a-half story building when that turbine 10 is at the very top. They're asking for a 11 relaxation ef natural 800 percent of the 12 zoning code. This is for a demonstration 13 project. This is not for something that 14 property owner requires. Quite frankly, I'm 15 not happy with Osprey's Dominion because as a 16 neighbor, they're already interfering with the 17 enjoyment ef my property because on Sundays I 18 have te listen to live music coming from 19 there. Now I haven't gone to complain. We 20 all want the vineyards in town; it's part ef 21 our community. They're net allowed te de 22 that. The vineyards are permitted to do a lot 23 ef things, the Town looks another way. This 2% to me is just piling on. New I've get te 25 drive up and down Main Road and look at this March 18, 2004 181 1 2 12S foot wind turbine. 3 I have reviewed the record. I % have reviewed the transcripts of the December 5 18th hearing. I have reviewed the complete 6 file. To get te the legal side ef this, they 7 have net made their case for a variance. You 8 know what your responsibilities are, the tests 9 you have to de, the criteria you need te 10 consider in order to grant an area variance. 11 They haven't met any of these criteria. 12 Site selection, they tell you all 13 about your criteria. You brought the point 14 up; they haven't demonstrated te anyone that 15 this site is one of the only sites that they 16 could put this. Why it couldn't ge back to 17 the railroad tracks, I'm not certain, that 18 could be 3,000, 4,000 feet off the Hain Road. 19 This should not be on the Hain Read. And this 20 is the first eno. When are they coming in 21 with the second application? If they find 22 this te be a very geed project, when the 23 moratorium is lifted~ the builder may say to 24 himself, hey, look at LIPA, they're generating 25 enough electricity for 20 houses, so you know March 18, 2004 182 1 2 what, I'm going to build a subdivision, and 3 I'm going to put my little wind turbine in 4 there and provide electricity for my 5 subdivision. 6 I just see where this is going. 7 This is not the first time they're going to be 8 before you. If they want to do this, there's 9 better places in town to do it. If the Town 10 wants to promote this program, let them look a 11 little harder for a better location. 12 Again, they have not met the 13 criteria in order for you to grant this area 14 variance, so I think you need te ge back te 15 the record, and I think you need te leek at 16 that very, very, closely. 17 Also in reviewing the records, I 18 did not see your referral to the Suffolk 19 County Planning Commission. It may have been 20 referred out. I didn't see it. Any variance 21 you issue without that is going be te be void, 22 as you know. 23 The SEQRA report is very 24 disturbing te me. Having them declare 25 themselves as lead agency is frightening; and March 18, 2004 183 1 2 for this Board not to take a more aggressive 3 approach in dealing with the environmental 4 form that's being considered, of course 5 they're going te issue a negative declaration; 6 this is their project. 7 With all due respect, Hr. 8 Goehringer, this is a small town like 9 Riverhead, we impose conditions as part of 10 granting variances, but we don't have the 11 resources to enforce those conditions or keep 12 an eye on those conditions. So, whil~ you're 13 well-intentioned in trying to grant this 14 variance and put conditions on it to protect 15 us, I don't see how once this is all said and 16 done someone's going to be out there enforcing 17 these conditions. 18 If you feel that you need to grant 19 this variance, you might want to consider 20 granting it for one year or for nine months. 21 Let them come back and present their 22 application again. It shouldn't matter te you 23 that they signed a 20 year lease; that's their 24 problem; that's the business decision they 25 made. So, if you think you want to grant this March 18, 2004 184 1 2 application, put a condition on it. Grant the 3 application for a year. Let them come back and then let's all revisit it. Maybe we don't 5 want to look at it. After it's there, maybe 6 we're going te decide we don't want to look at 7 it, and then they can take it down and ge 8 away. 9 But if this variance is granted, I 10 don't know that that's the end ef it. Even 11 though it's gone te the Planning Board, I 12 really don't think this Board has everything 13 it needs to grant that variance. Se I think 14 that there's a potential for a court te review 15 a variance that's granted by this Beard. And 16 I think thank you for your time. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much time 18 would you need to write your -- 19 MR. DESIMONE: If you could give 20 me until next Friday, I would appreciate 21 that. If it's sooner, I can do it sooner. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why not 23 give him until April 8th? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He said 25 Monday, that's good. March 18, 2004 185 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Until Monday. 3 MR. DESIMONE: Thank you very 4 much. 5 MR. LELAND: Hay I respond 6 briefly? I'll try not to keep the Board. I certainly don't want te get involved in 8 legal colloquy. 9 Before I responds I would like an 10 opportunity to respond to whatever 11 Mr. DeSimone serves the Board, and I'll give 12 you my card and hope you'll serve me with a 13 copy as well. 14 With respect to the fact that 15 Mr. DeSimone seems to have some problem with 16 something that occurred in the Town of 17 Riverhead and alluding to the fact that we 18 leased the property before we got the 19 approval, well, that's a risk that we took, 20 and I don't think there's any problem in an 21 applicant leasing a piece ef property and 22 saying, well, we can only build if we get the 23 approval. So I think that that argument I 24 think lacks any real reason, any real merit 25 with respect to this application. March 18, 2004 186 1 2 I think that with respect to the 3 aesthetics, I think the Board is going te make 4 its own determination. There is a photograph. 5 There is a photo simulation ef what the tower 6 would look like from Route 25. It's in the 7 EA. There's a series of photo simulations. 8 The fact that this is a demonstration project, 9 yes, that means if we want te build another 10 eno, we're going to have to come back here. 11 And if we build it and there are noise 12 problems and there are aesthetic problems, no 13 one's going to let us build a second eno just 14 because you let us build the first one. I 15 think that's a flood gates argument that is of 16 ne merit in this situation. But I would like 17 to reserve my ability to respond te whatever 18 Mr. DeSimene proposes. 19 I'd like some time after he 20 submits it. I'm going te be out ef the 21 country for a week, starting a week from 22 Tuesday. So I'd like an opportunity to submit 23 it when I return, not have it done while I'm 24 away. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could we Harch 18, 2004 187 1 2 close it on the 8th then? 3 MR. LELAND: I think, close % written comments. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like it 6 open until written comments until the Friday 7 before April Bth. 8 MR. LELAND: That would be the 9 2nd, that's my first day back so I'd -- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Monday the 5th. 11 MR. LELAND: Monday the 5th it 12 will be, assuming I receive it in a timely 13 fashion. I have every confidence Mr. DeSimone 14 will get it to me, he can fax it. 15 MR. DESIMONE: Se it's Monday the 16 5th for written submissions? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, you 18 should have yours by this Monday, so he has 19 time to reply. Anyone else in the audience 20 who would like comment on this application? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I 22 clarify, this Monday -- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr~ DeSimone 2% will have his, and Mr. Leland will have his 25 comments by the 5th. March 18, 2004 188 1 2 Make a motion to that effect. 3 EOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Surely, 4 I'll make it. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second 6 it. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? 8 (Whereupon, all Board Members 9 responded in favor.) 10 CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Opposed? So 11 moved. 12 ................................................. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Our next 14 hearing is Mr. Malon, who wishes to build a 15 structure that is more than 60 foot in width 16 ena piece ef property that is ever 30,000 17 feet. 18 MS. MOORE: Good afternoon, 19 Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Read, Seuthold. 20 You've got your report. The last 21 time we were here, I was told that this was 22 being referred to Nelson, Pope, Veerhis for a 23 report. I got the report yesterday, as ~ou 24 did. The report doesn't do anything more than 25 what the Town engineer usually does for the March 18, 2004 189 1 2 Town, which is review the site plan and 3 address typical drainage issues dealing with 4 site-specific drainage problems, and to keep 5 all drainage from going beyond the property 6 lines. That is what our mission going through 7 the site plan is, that's what the architect 8 designed. The site plan submitted will be 9 tweaked by the Planning Board based on the 10 Town engineers, and certainly they will 11 probably look at this as well, and what this 12 has said, but there are some mistakes 13 throughout this memorandum. But it really has 14 nothing to de with this Board. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, a let has 16 te de with just the Planning Board, and we 17 will net ge into that. I just advise you that 18 you're going to have to ge te the DEC, which I 19 was not aware of. 20 MS. MOORE: I wasn't aware of 21 that. We've gene, Speedy's Permit is a 22 standard permit that's usually issued with 23 respect to sanitary systems for commercial 24 properties, and it's things that are done 25 routinely. If there's an agency that has March 18, 2004 190 1 2 jurisdiction, obviously we will submit. 3 On the record, then, we can state, 4 we don't have to prolong this discussion with 5 respect te these comments that it really has 6 no bearing to what the Board was reviewing. 7 CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Basically, it 8 was my concern with the drainage that would 9 somehow give us a clue whether we should allow 10 the width of this building to be such as you 11 have asked for or not. And also, after 12 conferring with the Town attorney, I will let 13 yOU know that his interpretation of the code is it's net 30,000 square feet for each use 15 but merely, if you want a commercial building 16 in a B zeno, you must have 30,000 square feet 17 in order to,build that building, which you de 18 have. So we have already spoken to the 19 Building Department and they understand that, 20 that's fine. Se you don't have to chew your 21 fingernails over that one. 22 MS. MOORE: Thank you. My client 23 is certainly relieved te hear this because it is agonizing for her to go through this 25 process. March 18, 2004 191 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I must admit, 3 Pat, I still have concerns over the width of 4 this building with the difficulty with this 5 lot because of the slopes and the drainage and 6 the drop off, there's a lot of work that's 7 going to have to be done on this lot to do 8 whatever Chick Voorhis suggested, that's of 9 course Planning, and that is my concern. 10 MS. MOORE: We appreciate that. 11 And the owner is really prepared to invest a 12 great deal of money to put in the proper 13 drainage, the proper curbing, all the 14 retaining walls and this is the second round 15 of the site plan based on Mr. Glover's 16 identifying certain issues which would not 17 have been necessarily apparent from just a 18 test hole. 19 From previous hearings, you know 20 they've met at the site; he's resigned 21 designed based on the comments, and we think 22 we've addressed all the issues that are 23 legitimate with respect to this property. 2~ Mr. Glover has a problem on his property, but 25 it does generate from the north, from the farm March 18, 2004 192 1 2 fields and from the Town highway, and a very 3 brief discussion I had with the Town engineer, Jamie Richter, really, whether you or the S Highway Superintendent sends a memo to the 6 Town engineer and asks the Town engineer to 7 study the problem that's occurring on the 8 Glover property, he will look at it. Amd 9 Mr. Glover certainly has a wherewithal to 10 contact an engineer on his own and deal with 11 trying to address the problem. But, yes, it 12 is caused by outside sources primarily te the 13 north, and I think any runoff that has occurred while this property is undeveloped 15 will be addressed and will be mitigated with 16 all of the drainage and all ef the site 17 planning that is occurring -- that is proposed 18 for this property. 19 So I think you've heard enough. 20 You have a very extensive record with respect 21 to the character of the area, the design ef 22 this property, which emulates the property 23 next door in style and architecture, and I 24 think the end result of this will be really an 25 asset. My client obviously wants a very March 18, 2004 193 1 2 beautiful building and an asset to the 3 community. It's your decision whether or not to grant the variance. Even Chick Voorhis, 5 when he looked at this, called these two 6 structures, and the only reason they were 7 before this Board is because of the mezzanine 8 that puts it together setback, as you recall, 9 several feet into the property. So it's 10 really -- they are really two stand-alone 11 structures that for architectural purposes as 12 well as management purposes is getting a 13 cupola space, second floor space. We think 1% architecturally that that will enhance the 15 leek ef the building, and if yeu were to 16 cheose to not grant the variance and she 17 eliminates that secend floer, I think it will 18 destrey the integrity ef the design, which has 19 been worked on very hard and we think will be 20 a very attractive building. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to 22 remind you the Town and attorney and the code 23 says "building," not buildings on 30,000 24 square feet. You're saying it's two 25 buildings. March 18, 2004 194 2 MS. MOORE: They're saying if we 3 remove the cupola it's two buildings. 4 Well, the Town attorney, we may be 5 back here in interpretation. Given the 60 6 foot length rule, it talks about multiple 7 structures. You're allowed to build on a 8 piece of property up to 20 or 30 percent of 9 the structure. So whether or not the 10 interpretation's being accurately reported 11 back here under your understanding or not, 12 until I see it in writing I wouldn't be able 13 te appeal it. That doesn't make sense. The 14 let coverage determines the am©unt of 15 structures on a property. To say that you can 16 have eno building, I think that that 17 interpretation is going te lead en tea whole 18 other set of problems that you're going te be 19 seeing. Se, whether this applicant or the 20 next, that doesn't make any sense, so. 21 MS. KOWALSKI: Is this an area 22 variance for two buildings? 23 MS. MOORE: No. She's saying the 24 alternative is if we remove the mezzanine we 25 have two stand-alone structures. We want the March 18, 2004 195 1 2 building we want. 3 MS. KOWALSKI: You'i1 come back 4 then if there's a decision by the Building 5 Department that you need an additional 6 variance because you have two buildings and 7 less than 60,000 square feet or it's per 8 building, 30,000 square feet? 9 MS. MOORE: I'm saying I haven't 10 seen that interpretation and I don't 11 necessarily agree with that analysis. 12 MS. KOWALSKI: If the Building 13 Department decides that -- 14 MS. MOORE: We're going to de 15 whatever the Building Department decides. As 16 far as the application before you today, we 17 have this application. We want a building 18 that is more than 60 feet ef linear length 19 along the road, and this is a very lovely 20 building. 21 If you cema up with something that 22 is not supportive of this application, we'll 23 either be in court arguing over the merits of 24 your denial er back to the Building Department 25 with a redesign, and if they come up with this March 18} 2004 196 1 2 kind of interpretation on two structures 3 they only allow one structure per property, 4 think somebody should sit down and look at 5 that a little more carefully because that 6 doesn't sound right either. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Geehringer? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 9 comment at this time. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ne further 12 questions. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizie? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly 15 the Town would net encourage you to break up 16 into buildings a 60 foot length if they didn't 17 intend for that te happen. So I agree with 18 you 100 percent. 19 MS. MOORE: You wouldn't be able 20 to have te Peather Hill. Feather Hill was 21 designed te encourage individual structures 22 rather than one shopping center. Se to cema 23 up with that interpretation is going te push 24 you into everybody having one long, oversize 25 building instead of encouraging different er March 18, 2004 197 1 2 architecturally design which conforms with 3 that particular character of the hamlet. In 4 Mattituck that's one long building might be 5 appropriate; in Southold Hamlet, you might be 6 better off with the individual buildings that 7 have some connection. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly 9 the fact that we're arguing about the fact 10 whether that's two buildings or not that is a 11 testament to the fact that it's working. It 12 is a less visual impact because everybody is 13 saying that's two buildings, it really is one 14 just because it has a breezeway between the 15 two of them -- 16 MS. MOORE: The Building 17 Department considers it one building. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree 19 with you, the fire code lines and everything. 20 I think we're here, specifically we're 21 throwing out the top portion of this, which it 22 sounds like we're going to do, we're here to 23 give you eight feet more on each one of those 24 buildings, correct? 25 MS. MOORE: Well, total. It's one March 18, 2004 198 1 2 building the length from end to end. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 38 and 147 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again here 5 you go, I made the mistake but I think that's 6 what we're looking for. 7 HS. MOORE: No, i think what led 8 us into this discussion, is that Ruth put on 9 the record that the interpretation might come 10 back -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wanted you te 12 know instead of each use -- 13 HS. MOORE: I can only appeal the 14 interpretation that's before me now. What I'm 15 saying is that when you're writing your 16 decision, I would caution on how you write it 17 because it sounds like you're being advised to 18 say something that really makes no sense 19 whatsoever. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have not 21 been advised. 22 MS. MOORE: Good. Might be my 23 misunderstanding what you said. 2% BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 25 structure is a nice illusion of two buildings March 18, 2004 199 1 2 because it's connected above grade as opposed 3 te below grade. Tastefully done. 4 HS. HOORE: Exactly. Correct. 5 MR. GEPHART: Do you want to see 6 the rendering again? 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim hasn't seen 8 it. 9 MR. GEPHART: My name is Harold 10 Gephart. I'm an architect based in 11 Lindenhurst, Long Island. 12 When I first started this project, 13 I did analyze the cede. I did maybe net quite understand that 60 foot concept. But, what I iS did~ I tried to create two faces of the 16 building, which was less than 60 feet, and I 17 pushed that second portion back on the second 18 level se that it wouldn't appear to be longer 19 than the 60 feet. Se now we have 38, 38 and 20 14, which I think is four feet wider than the 21 building next te it. But what I did also 22 analyze the building, if we didn't do that 23 way, analyze a narrower building but deeper, 24 So maybe from the street, maybe 59 feet, but 25 the depth would be substantially different March 18, 2004 200 1 2 than what I have en this building. Now that 3 would make a narrower building facing the ~ street, and all the parking on the left-hand 5 side, that doesn't work planning-wise. People 6 driving up and down any road, any main road, 7 want te see the face of the building. And you 8 can see that up and down Main Road yourself; 9 all shopping centers have their faces facing 10 the street. Few people actually design a 11 building that's small face and deep because 12 that's not geed for marketing. 13 Se I thought I could maybe do a 14 better design with the design that I 15 presented, than one big long building. And 16 it's one building. There's no illusion te 17 make it two. One building; it's always meant 18 to be one building. Thank you 19 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is 20 there anyone else that wishes to comment on 21 this project? Mr. Glarer. 22 MR. GLOVER: Good afternoon, I'm 23 Leonard Glover. 24 The only thing I want to say is 25 last month I asked Pat to come see me, but it March 18, 200% 201 1 2 didn't transpire because I still have pictures 3 of the water coming down the road out ef the 4 horse farm next door because they regraded and 5 blacktopped the read and did away with the 6 crown and then it's flat. So all the water from the whole area comes in there. Once they 8 fill that there, that's the only iow spot left 9 for the water to go. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think the 11 applicant is trying their best and that's why 12 I had asked for a drainage -- 13 HR. GLOVER: I realize that. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- 15 recommendation because to make sure that when 16 this project is completed that the drainage 17 that's occurring from that piece of property 18 stays on that piece of property and not drain 19 into your piece of property or Mr. Kaolin's, 20 that was my concern. 21 MR. GLOVER: I've taken care of 22 mine, but still don't help any. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. Perhaps 24 you can call the Town engineer to see if 25 there's anything that the Town could de, ii March 18, 2004 2O2 1 2 it's coming off the Town road, to alleviate 3 your problem. 4 MR. GLOVER: I've been to the Town 5 since last year, and they was going to do 6 something about it, and now it's winter time, 7 it's too late. I was there last summer and 8 now they were talking blacktop, and now the 9 damn blacktop machine's in the building. Now 10 they're talking misery mix. Misery mix won't 11 hold the water anyways. You're not getting 12 anywhere. It's still going to be a flood 13 problem. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is. Thank 15 you. 16 Mr. Kaolin, do you have anything 17 to say? 18 MR. KAELIN: Net at this time. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone else 20 have anything to say, Board Members, anybody 21 else in the audience? If net, I make a motion 22 to close the hearing and reserve decision 23 until later. 24 BOAteD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail in favor? March 18, 2004 203 1 2 (Whereupen, all Board Members 3 respended in faver.) 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA~ So moved. 5 (Time ended: 2:15 p.m.) 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 March 18, 200% 2O% 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C AT I O N 5 I, Plorence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 6 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true 8 record of the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 bleed or marriage, te any of the parties to 11 this action; and 12 THAT I am in ne way interested in the 13 outcome ef this matter. 1% IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 18th day of March, 200%. 16 orence V. Wiles 2O 21 22 23 24 25 March 18, 2004