Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/19/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR ~EET~NG TRANSCRIPT OF HEARIINGS HELD JUNE 199 2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Vincent OrIando· Member Gerard P. Goehdnger Member George Homing (untiI 4:15) Member Ruth D. Oliva Board Secretary Kowalski PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:38 am KENNETH CERRETA #5282 (carryover from 5/15). Based on the BuildA~g Department's Octuber 9, 2002 Notice of D~sapproval~ this is a request for Variances under Section t00-244B for a garage addition at less than 10' for a single side yard, less tha~a 25' for total side yards, and less than 35~ from the front lot l~ne, at 1655 Bay Shore Road, Greenport; Pared 53-4-6 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? KEN CERRETA: I'm in favor of the application. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm shocked. MEMBER OLIVA: ][ wonder why. MR. CERRETA: They did away with the 2-car garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Could yon speak into the microphone? It may be a little hard to pick you up. MEMBER OLIVA: Just tm'n the microphone around. That's r~ght. MR. CERRETA: Eliminated the 2-car garage, made it a one car. And put it back almost even with the house. But the garage next deor is like 5' past my house, so s~;e tried to make a little porch there, just for aesthetics, more than anything else. And I hope that's okay. CHAIRWOMAN: I see that you brought it back, you did not bring it back level with the house as we had discussed. What was the reason for that? So~o~ Town Board of MR. CERRETA: The garage ~ext door sticks out 5' past the fron~ of my house, so we thou~t tha~ would be air[gI% you know? It's even with M~MBER GOEHR~GER: ~aFs the setback then. Mr. Co. Ca? ¢&aFs tko proposed setback? MR. CERRETA: 30' MEMBER GOEHR~GER: 30' ~om~ Bay Shore Road? ~. CE~RETA: R~t. it's now 35. CHAIRWOMAN: [fF:'s coming our 5'~ ym~ suxwey is showing 34.7. So. 34.7 minus 5 wouId be 29.T The real problem [s~ as we smd. ~he house M~t r~ow is Mmost ~00~ long on the propm~. ~d the board was nol in favor of extendin~ ~.~ning out beyond MR. CE~ETA: ~e house is2't 100' Ior~g, M~ss. CHAIRWOMAN: ~2a1 is MR. CERRETA: It's doou~ 70' CHAIRWOMAN: 70' iong. And the addition is sti2l going io bNng you 4' ~-om ti2e property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: We had said we didn't have a problem w2{h ~ha~ last time. though, CHAIRWOMAN: if he c~e all the wayback. MEMBER ORLANDO: Ri~t. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see whal the board's comments are. Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORN~G: I'll hold offGr a minme. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I have absolu?ely no objection to it. r do concur wi~ the appiicant that brea&Jng tha{ up a lit{le bit is aveU good idea. not only aesthe~icaiiy. And the difference belween 29.7' and 34.7' doesn't bother me. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr, Orlando. ?,,igc 2 of 3 June 19i 2003 Sauthold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ubiic Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: I concur. I know we spoke last time about making it even with the house because no other garage was forward. I don't recall off Ge top of my head, but I believe you if your garage is even with your neighbors garage, that's fine. We had a problem last time being so close to the only one irx the neighborhood. Now if you e~re typical in your neighborhood, that's fine by me as well. MR. CERRETA: Well I was mislead to believe that what I proposed the first time was okay. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I would agree w/th Mr~ Orlando. CHAIRWOMAN: So this would be 29.7, right? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: 29.7 to Bay Shore. And this is per the revised site plan of June? MEMBER ORLANDO: And you're accurate with 4' off the northeast property line, is that correct? MR. CERRETA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The survey, was the survey amended here? I'm trying to figure ~ut how we ca~_ identify it on the survey. Because the new plan... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The new plan submitted on June 4th, received by us on June 4th. CHAIRWOMAN: Yeah, but it doesn't show anything. MEMBER GOEHRrNGER: Well, we can write it in. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's 4' to the adjoining property for the June 4th ZBA stamped plan. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 3 of 125 4 June 19, 2003 Sonlhoid Town Board of AppeMs Regui~r Meeting Public Hearing 9:4~ am E. and R. TRI[??B #530~ & 5308 (carryover frorr~ 5/~5'.o Based on $~e Building Department's January 2L 2003 No,ice of Disapproval ~PF ~ieants reques~ Variances ~nder Sections i00-33~ Sectio~ 100-31A. to cons~rnc~ accessory swimming pool and garage/accessory srrn :ture ~n a fron~ y~r~ area. T~e accessory b~i~d2ng Property: Central Aven~e. Fishers isi~nd: 6-3-6.1. Amended floor p~ans may submJ~ed by attorney 6/195 CHAIRWOMAN: is someone here who would like to speak on behalfofihe epplic~t7 Good morning Mr. Ham. STEVEN HAM, ESQ: Good morning. When I le~ Ms* moni~ we had a mamber of opez issues, which ~'ve addressed in a supplements2 memor~xdum, which ~ tins* you received yesterday, along with revised plans. ~mse issues conceK2 Erst was the desi~. The T~ppe's have gone back to the &awing board. Their ~c?~itec/has eliminated the bath. Cut the size of the bat5= in hale eliminated tko interior Ere ~lace. and put the shower outside. That should be suficient to avoid the violation of code section '~ 00-3 i'm told by ~e Building Depm~enr ~B~ that. tha~ would, iflhe iacation were acc~idole, that would =or be a problem. So I ~hink that issue has beeu eliminated. So we ~e ie~ wffk the issue of the size of this slmcVa, re, it's iocatior m~d proximity m lines. ~d whether it should be a s~,arare stmc~e, or attached to the main dweliing. Insofar as the size of/he s~c~are. I discussed with ~ine TNppe's. aier o,~ last he~ng, Fm advised Kant they keep ~o vehicles, a nmmber ofkayaks, and ot:~er equipment on the island, m~d really need a 2-c~ g~age. Othe~ise ihe c~s would be in Pall sight. tbey propose re put a ping-pong tdole ia g~a~ exercise room. So ii does need ~o be of suficient size for i:~at reason. I also point out. in ~5e memormnd~, that ~xe increase lot coverage, leaving the footp~in~ as it is, is relatively minor, and still we~i below the 20% maximum. As far as the location near ~e side lot line, I've done ax anaIysis 5n tha~ memor~:dum, and Fve since spoken to the real prope~y tax se~ice agency who conchs with my conclusion that the easterly T~ppe prope~y line is not 52e same as the wesPerly Howard propemy line ~nd they have revised a mx map. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham. we just got this yes*erday, yo'~ memorandum. And that's why, in the Suture. the bo~d is nor going to be able to review your submissions if you submit them the day before a public hearing. So thai is going to ~a~er delay a~y acnom on this because we simply haven' t had m~ c ppomuaity the review the submissiom MR. HAM: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: That's only going ~o delay the hea~ng because we won't be able to close it today because we haven't had mn oppo~anity to look a~ k. nor kas opposing ieg~2 council which is standard operating proce&are with us. Page 4 of 5 June 19, 20¢3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: I have the architect here, if yon had any questions to present to him. Why the structure is... MEMBER ORLANDO: What lot number are we looking at on the tax map? MR. HAM: 6.1 is the Trippe lot. Current tax map shows what's now that little piece 9, that ~ght triangular piece as part of lot 7. It's, they've changed it now to show, to change what Howard actually owns which is 7.1. And there's a little piece in there, which my research indicates is now owned by the utility company. So that although we appear to be 15' off of the easterly property line, there is additional area in there that would indicate that we're about 30' from Howard. I'm going to recommend to my client that they purchase that little piece from the utility company too, so that not only is there a lot increase, but the distance from the lot line, the Howard property line is much farther than it otherwise appears in the site plan that we have. MEMBER ORLANDO: Since the utility company owns that, do they have anything on that? MR. HAM: No, they probably don't know they own it. I'm fairly certain they don't know they own it because the tax map has never shown this until 2 days ago when I presented this evidence to Dermis Gates at the, at real property tax service agency. MEMBER GOEHRtNGER: Can I just tell you that you must tell them that they own it. Because if not the county will end up taking it for non-payment of taxes. MR. HAM: Well, I think, it may be included. Fm going to see Mr. Scott after this. It may be included in the Howard assessment. MEMBER GOEHRtNGER: Yes, so it's a double assessment. MR. HAM: There is a deed, west end land company owned all this land at one point. And prior to the 1960's and conveyed it out to Oaks, which is Howard's predecessor, and to Opalenski. And the, well, you'll see when you get a chance to review my memorandum, but the point of giving you this today is that the real property also agrees with my analysis of this. So we are not as close to the Howard property line as it otherwise may appear. The finaI issue related to the localion of the structure as a separate, or the constmctiou of it as a separate structure as opposed to trying to attach it to the main dwelling. And that, I had, Mr. Homing had raised that issue at the last hearing and I suggested, well the expense of doing that might be great. I also point out, there are two other reasons why that would be not a feasible solution. One relates to a utility line easement, whicl', goes through the area xvhere that structure would have to be attached. The site plan, which the surveyor prepared, indicates that the easement is to be abandoned. And I was told that initially by Mr. Wahl of the utility company. I did call him back after the Trippe's told me "no, that was an active easemenf'. He checked with Page 5 of t25 6 June 19.2¢03 Sou~hok[ Town Beard of Appea~s Regular l~eefing Public Hearing the ~e]ephone company tha~ advised ~]m t~a "yes, it does se~e several propel]es eas~, so we have ~ easemen~ in ~ie middle or,he ~ea where 5an struck,are would 5~ve be atached, an active easemenfL So ~hat makes ~hat impractical Secondly, t~a~ is area of the Tippe's prope~y where they have done a fair amoux~ of [awn maintenance. and ~dscapmg. So whi~e that's not as good a reason nor to Fur it there, it's another reason% in addition to the easemem, and the expense of attaching iL Sam MitcheE. who~s iht architect, is here. There are several q~.esiions, which [ could nor answer a Iht meeting. Probably phmaNly the topo~aphy and why ~his is designed the way il is i~o the side ofa i~tL If you have any ~uestions of me_ i'm happy re take lhem now. ~ can in~oduce Mr. Mitchdl if you have questions of him. Again I apologize for the detive~ of those documents. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Cmn I ask a question of Mr. Ham? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, Mr. Goekdnger. MEMBER GOE[~R~GER: Mr. Ham I have to tel[ you fha, of co,arse, we were discussing tine size and the munificence of the stmcPare. And we were noi ~.ecessa~iy looking a the placeme~: of it other than iht facl of where il was. i krzow 12~a so,ands a little red~d~t, a fne Iast being. But now 4Lea you raise 2nis issue smd Mr. Homing just pointed out ~o me tlna the TN_ppe house really does crowd the re~ propexy line. Ar_d because of/he issue of fha easement tha you were discussing, I can see the reason for placing it k~ this proper position, in the proposed position ~ should say. CHAIRWOMAN: i can't hear you fe~. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: ~ said tea the last time we were actually discnssing the size of the stmc~e~ r_ot really tine issue of ~o~e location. Z mean. we kzew that the was where it was_ but... CHAIRWOMAN: The central thing was ~ha it looked like a second dwdling, desired as a second dwe!li~g, fha ii's cie~!y nor, as the BD said_ is nor an accessou, cusroma~ and incidental accessou s~mcmre as defined in our coat. MR. HAM: And as you wi]l see ~om the plans, and I'm again. I'm so~ for iht late delive~ of those. Bu* the pitons have beep. changed now. So we don't need relief from your board in te~s of the desi~ of iL I:' contains a half bath now. k contains n( inrer4or fireplace. And the shower has been placed ouiside as it wou*~d be with ~ tradkiona] poolhouse. So, we would ask for variances for ~he Iocaion of the swimming pool and the detached accesso~ structure in the fi-Chi yard. And tha's ali the relief that we need this pomr. CHAIRWOMAN: Have you been back to 'the BD? Tha ~hey have reviewed these oians, and they've made that de~erminaion? Or Js that your opinion? ?r~ge 6 of 125 7 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public HearLng MR. HAM: It was discussed with the BD at the time of the initial submission as to what it would take to not have them not issue a NOD as to design. No, I have not taken this specific plan back to them. However, it is my opinion based on their opinion and experience in reviewing these designs that, that would pass muster with them in terms of and as ofr/ght structure so long as it's location were proper under zoning. CHAIRWOMAN: Without having the benefit of the BD's review, we could not make that determination. I think there are a number of things that they base that determination on. And I, I simply could not take that without... MR. HAM: Right, I would, I can provide you with a determination from them if you need it, but the relief I would ask for would be merely if you could focus on the location, size and so forth of the structure in the front yard. I couId even, I'd feel comfortable even withdrawing that aspect of the application. However, I will leave it on hold until I get a determination from them if that's what you would like. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes we would like you to take these plans back to the BD and get a determination if their original determination still holds. Okay?. You have someone you would like to testify? MR. HAM: Yes, I would like to introduce Sam Mitchell, who's the architect involved with the Trippe's. He's come here from Connecticut. SAM MITCHELL: Fm, excuse me, I'm Sam Mitchell, I was, I just want to discuss a couple of things about the design. One is the position relating to the topography of the site. As you can see from the side elevations, the structure is recessed into an existing grade so that on the garage level, the doors are exposed, but only visible is one story on the backside of the structure to decrease the apparent bulk. The other issue that ~ wanted to address was the possibility of attaching it. In addition to the interference of the easement, attaching this structore to the primary residence, would, in my opinion, increase the bulk and visual impact of this structure on ail of the neighboring properties. By detaching it, we avoid a cumbersome coinection to the structure, and that would increase the bulk, or the, or from the street, and impact the neighbors adversely for that reason. If there are any other questions about the architecture of the building that I can answer? CHAIRWOMAN: NS, not at this time. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? HELEN ROSENBLUM: Good morning, Helen Rosenblum 1287 E. Main St., Riverhead onbehalfofthe Opalenski's. Ifyou're going to adjourn this, maybeFlljust reservemy comments until the next date. Page 7 of 125 8 June ~9~ 2003 So,third Town Board of Appe~ts Regular Meeting P~b~c CHAIRWOMAN: You have no comments a'~ th~s time? MS. ROSENBLUM: WeS~ you :~qow. last ~ime ~ was hem. ~ sa~d a lo~ of ~aat you know~ my cl{en~s reit. A ]o~ of it hasn'~ rea~]y changed. The fac~ ~hat the barroom and stuffhas been modi~ed a~d ~he ~rep~ace has been removed does net a!]ay their fem~s concerning the size of the stmctv~e ~d that the s~cture, in ti~eir m]nd~ ~s inevi~abiy and de,hi,dy going to be conve~ed for living sp~ce. They just don'~ see. you ~.ow. ~hat issue as hav~ng gone away due ~o the size. Ido, you know. I thi~k the ~ssue or,he easemen~ is a s~iScan~ one. And Mr. Ham is going ~o f~.mish me wit~_ concerning ths~ But as f~ as the need for a structure like this on a lot that ~s appar~rily subst~dsd by a ~eat deal on which {here is no simils stPac{ure on m~y pared in {he ~mmed~ate nei~borhood concerns my clients ve~ much. So really my commen~s P:ave no~ ~eal]y ch~ged. ~ m going ~o get ~ copy of the memory&mm and ?d like to review thai too. And then the next gme we are here ~f tI~ere's something add~tiona! tha~ I this~ can add I wi~I. CHARWOMAN: ~a~ you ve~ m~ch. Yes. Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORN~G: Mr. 2~mm. what's the ac~s~ distance on a re~ y~d setback to ti~e existing bu~Id~ng? MR. HAM: 4.8' based on what was in the memor~dum tha~ [ submitted [~s~ using em o[d su.~ey. They had done some renovation on ~he house but kept 5ne rear MEMBER HORN~G: [ not[ce o:~ the revised p~ns. there's st[5 [dent[~c~t[on or, ce in this proFosed ~ccessou bu3[d[ng. ~at is tine pu~ose of~he of Sce? MR. MITCHELL: Mr. T~qppe o~s his own bus}ness. WSen he's there on weekends or vacations, he b~qngs si~can~ work w[~h him ~md w~nts a piece ou. ts[de of the house where he can focus his ~t~enfion. ~EMBER HORN~G: Will he be hav~ng chants and such at ~he ~ fSce? ~R. M[TC[~ELL: No. his business is offshore. MEMBER HORN~G: I have a concern for ~r~ ofSce sp~ce in an ~ccessou build[n~ residential... ~R. ~[ITCHELL: [ th[~ you can c~[1 [~ study more tl~ or, ce. [:'s no~. ~s you ~ske& Ws not a piece where c[[ents would come ~o meet him. Ws a p~ace w[~ere he wou~ 5 k~ve a desk and a f~x machine so ke could... MEMBER HORN~G: Of Sce means a ce~ain ~hing in tS~e code. Study means somethin~ eisa. 9 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MITCHELL: It should be labeled study rather than office. CHAIRWOMAN: I think Mr. Homing is right. A home office is permitted in the principle dwelling. It's not permitted in an accessory structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are doing a flip flop in Nassau Point on a similar situation right now. And I don't think we discussed this issue. We can flip flop the accessory building for the swimming pool and put the swimming pool, and put the swimming pool forward of that and put a link, some sort of link between this house and I know the architect just discussed the difficulty of doing this. But if you flip flop it and put the swimming pool again in the front or between the house, I'm sorry between accessory structure and the, which would then be linked to the house with some sor'r of enclosed, heated, porch. MR. HAM: Again I'd have to defer to Mr. Mitchell on that. MR. MITCHELL: I can't say that, that would not be possible, however the grade, the grade change from the street to the house is fairly significant. And we were using that, as I described before, to decrease the apparent bulk of the structure, keeping the garage parking below. If we moved it back and attached it to the house, we would have to excavate significantly more. MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: Ijust don't know where this is going, Mr. Ham. And as you know I'm a bit of a facilitator and I try to allay some of the fears of the board in the past, and some of them have been successful. Nor am I trying to prolong this project. What I'm trying to do and I appreciate what you've done up to this point. But at the same time, as you know, we are not scheduled to go over there until early August, and so therefore not going to physically see the site. We are basically taking your testimony and, of course, our Fishers Island member. But I fi]ink there's a possibility that something like that could be worked out. I'm asking you if that's a possibility rather than... MR. HAM: That's something that I think the architect has to discuss with the Tfippes. And he'd have to look at the feasibility of that, the expense, and so forth. The additional expense of earth moving. If you're telling us that you're opposed to... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not opposed to anything other than the fact that it's " certainly a use, I mean, that we are not used to on an accessory structure. But, I mean, have we done it before, I don't think so. Have people done it before, yes. Is it primarily legal, no. MR. HAM: What use are you referring to? The office now, or? To have a study? Page 9 of 125 i0 Seutho[d Town Board of Appeals M~MB~R GO~HRNG~R: Aeeesso~use. CHAIRWOMAN: [t does no% ~ppee~ }e~ b[s not an ~ecesse~ build[n~ es we kne~ them~ ~R. HAM: Fm gokxg ro the BD and ~ w~} repo~ en wh~t tkey say. But ~s ~r. ~c5e~[ sa~d_ th~s ~s not a home ¢~ce ~n the tra~t~ena~ sense ~fhome or, ce where ~e's ~mmn~ng business out of there. It's a phone~ and a fax machine, and a desk. ~md a computer. ~ess. is tee extent of it. ~nd if you have concerns about that_ we can, you know. ce~ainIy have whatever limitations you'd ~ike to pm on ~a~. Z don7 think that's... CHA[RWOMAN: Xf we approve something iike this, subject ro an ~nuai inspections, would your c~ient be wiHing to have his pe~k revoked if we cme back in a ye~ ~md there were ogner uses in here? MR. HAM: Oh ~ thi~ he intends to obey the ~aw so that, thafs [ mean with him. But ~ don't see that as a. for anyone, as a problem. CHAIRWOMAN: Because ifWs a home or, ce. then it's... MR. HAM: I understand, having p~icipated with the Patterson apphca~ion. MEMBER HORN~G: And they withdrew theirs and came up with... MR. HAM: A~er one hea~ng, so... CF[A[RWOMAN: We w~r m get this going. Are there any o~her question? MEMBER GOEH~GER: Opposing council has not presented ranching in reference to. and [ know Fm not putting words in her mouth. [ ~ow her veu we[k reg~ding ~my screening or an~hing e]se regarding this prope~y. [ don't ~ow if she~s rese:wing that MS. ROSENBLUM: Fm going ro ask ifi could just. I have something Fd like to address the bo~d again bMehy, not on that issue, but on the issue ~hat when you are looking a~ the ~andness of this s~mcmre. ~ thimk I020' of which more lhan hale 630' is devoted living space~ I don't think it includes ~he ofLc~, l think that's just the exercise room on O.e 2~*~ 5oor. And there's an or72ce. And there's a covered porch. ~ memm l ~ust think thc thing is clearly not intended ro be used as an exercise room. That's the conce~u~ of my clients. The screening issue, they are nor on the smme side. The sri~crure :s on the other srde from ~nem. [ thimk there is an issue about *he location being a self-created hardsbio But I thir~ on other issues other than the size or,his [wou[d ask you ~o jus~ caicnlate actual size of the covered porch, the size of the so-called exercise room. You need 630 sq. 8. t mean. ro me. there's no question about wha~ it's going ~o be. And know. b~gger th~n the garage. So ~ would say :he garage is ahnost accesso~ ~o this P~ge ~O o: !2~ June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meefirxg Public Hearing dwelling, I mean, structure, rather than the other way around. And I would reserve other comments until the next time. Thank you, Jerry. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. MEMBER HORNiNG: One further question for Mr. Ham. Were the Oaks, or the Howards, were they actually noticed on this based on that sliver of land in between here? MR. }-lAM: No, they weren't required to be. They weren't on the assessment roll as owning that particular sliver. That's come to light only in the last couple of weeks. And, in fact... MEMBER HORNING: That's an unresolved issue. MR. HAM: Well, it's not entirely unresolved. I think it's fairly clear that the utility company, I'm going to get a title company to look at it as well, but based on my research and what the surveyor was able to tel1 me, and real property at the SC clerk's office agrees with me, obviously. They've already assigned a number to that little sliver. So, if anyone, the utility company would have had to have been notified. MEMBER HORNING: Were they? MR. HAM: Well, no, because they are not record owners. Well, they are not on the assessment roll. The notice provisions of the code indicate that we look at the assessment rolls to determine who's required to receive notice. MEMBER HORNING: So you have the effected side without the neighbor being noticed effectively tbxough this... MR. HAM: We have complied with the code. Yon have jurisdiction to act on this matter. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, Mr. Ham would you be able to give notice to the utility company to let them know the next hearing date? MR. HAM: Oh sure, in fact I intend to call them to tell they own this land. Because I doubt they know it. And the Ttippes may be interested in buying it at some point. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could yon send them a certified letter so we have something for the record, please? Noxv that we know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to address one question to the architect and then that's it. Could you just give ns the approximate mean height to the ridge of the proposed Page 1I of 125 JuRe 19. 2003 South®id Town Board of Appea[~ ReguIar Meeting PubI~c Hearing dweEing? And I know that this is a discussion we had before_ ~d i dcn'¢ know where it went at the last hea~ng to be honest with you. MR. MITCHELL: Offthe cuff. Z wouidn't be able to do that. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: No. ~ don~t need ~t now. If you wonidn't m~nd. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay~ we need a date we can a~oum this to. MR. HAM: Can ~ jusL.. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Hmn. we ~e. ~t now we are a halfhou~ bePind, so we do have to move abng. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~ny don*t we do AuFast 14t~: so then we can ac27:a!ly go to the site ~d bok a~ ~t. MEMBER HORN~G: I don't ~ow if1 can make a special meeting on that date. BOARD SECRET~RY KOWALS~: So the repalm' meeting would be July 24:h or Au~st 21 s~ MEMBER HORN~G: ~ would 80 for Aup. st 2P*, They are nor going to be bu~Iding on that_ I don't see how *hey can. MR. HAM: Yes. that's acceNaNe. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: So I paess we wi11 see ~t in the s'ammer. MEMBER ORLANDO: Especially since t~e topo~aphy seems ~o be an issue, we can actually go and walk ~t. MEMBER GOEHRNGER: Sometime before Gat. if they could just stye N? CHAERWOMAN: Mr. Hm. 9:30. AuFusr 2?? MR. HAM: Sure you don't want to put me last? F!I be sure *o get my supplemental, supplemental memorandum earlier. CHAIRWOMAN: Earlier. earlier, ever~hk~g must be into the board by thc FNday pr~o: MR. HAM: Mrs. Kowalsk~ has me as weN. Page 13 June 19, 2003 Sonthold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So, if your late, you won't get heard. I'~ going to make a resolution to adjom~n the meeting to 9:30 August 21st. All in favor. t{):11 a.m. LEONARD AND HELEN COSTA #5337 - Request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's March 6, 2003 Notice of Disapproval Applicants propose additions and alterations to an existing dwe~ing with a front yard setback of less than 35 feet, at 900 Gin Lane, Southold; CTM CHAFRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LEONARD COSTA: I was just requesting to extend the garage forward. CHAIRWOMAN: Can you speak up a little so we can hear you? MR. COSTA: I'm just requesting to enlarge the garage and it exceeds the setback of the 35'. CHAIRWOMAN: One moment, Mr. Costa. MEMBER OLIVA: So it just would move it forward another 10'? CHAIRWOMAN: The only question I had on here, and I do understand what you want to do. Is that the existing house is 39.7', bnt you have that little curve, that 1.9' niche where you are going to extend the garage coming out. So, and on the last revised survey that you showed us, you are showing a setback of 29.7. I actually think that's 31.7 because of the little niche. MR. COSTA: I believe you are right. I didn't realize it was written 29 on there. CHAIRWOMAN': I don't think, it couldn't possibly be 29 if it's 10' becanse at the point where you are showing that, it's 41' and 39.7 on the other side. So I just want you to conirm that the setback at the closest point would be 31.7. And I think we just need that confirmation. MR. COSTA: I believe you are right. I didn't realize it was written that way on the plan I submitted. CHAIRWOMAN: On the last one, it says 29. MR. COSTA: I know it's wrong because I have it on another copy and it's 3 I. Page 13 of 125 Son~old Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting PubEe Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No. I really don't have axy ~.~her questions. straightfo~ad Lefs see iftke bond members kave a~y questions. MEMBER OLIVA: No questio=s. MEMBER ORLANDO: No. I met wit~ Mr. Costa at 5is house. [ spoke in detail him, and it's a 3 and a half foot variance, and there's no problem with that, MR. COSTA: Tka~ you veu much. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORN~G: Ne cuestions. CHAIRWOMAN: Excellent So we ds have a con~ation of new setCack would be 31.7 MR. COSTA: Tha~ you ve~ much. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's wait ~d see if there's anyone m the audience, MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted ro give him. he requesled another copy of the plan. CHARWOMAN: And [ also put another copy m the office Is there anyone in the audience xvho would like to speak for or against the applicant? Seeing no h~ds. m~e a motion closing the he~ng rese~wing the decision until later. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION ~0:~5 a,m. ROBERT REILL~Y ~5316 - A Variance ~ requested ~nder Section ~00- 244. based on ~he Building Pepartment~s J~nuary 24. 2002 Notice of App[~can~ proposes addMons and al~er~%~ons ~ a ~ocai~on a~ !ess ~han 35 fee~ fro~ ~he front lot ~ine~ Location of ProperS: 470 ~new ~510 Locus~ Lane. Sontho[d: CTM ~1000-62-3-30.1 29 and 3{] comNned as oriel CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like !o speak on behalf of the appiican~? ROBERT REILLY: I'm Robe~ ReiEy. Good morning. Fm asking for the same. almos~ Page 14 of 125 15 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public HeariI~g the same, setback. I'm asking for a setback of 32' from Corn Road and 28' from Locust Lane. CHAIRWOMAN: The, the, on Locust Lane, what do you have? Do you have 28? MR. REILLY: I ha~e a 24' setback now at the existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: And so you're proposing on Locust, you are proposing 28 is the closest.'? MR. REILLY: Yes. I have a little niche in there stepping back, not stepping forward. MEMBER ORLANDO: Self created noche? MR.REILLY: Yes. Well, architecturally. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if the board members have any questions. MEMBER OLIVA: It's a fairly large addition. MR. REILLY: It's a very small house fight now. And my truck is 21' long. It's a big truck. It's a Chevy Silervado 8' bed extended cab. I'd like to be able to walk around the truck in the garage. So Fmjust asking for 3 more feet out towards Corn Lane. CHAIRWOMAN: Right now you're 58' from Corn Road. And you want to be 32? MR. REILLY: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no questions. It's a small house. I saw it, took a look at it. And you do have two front yards, which makes it unique and difficult for an addition. MR. REILLY: Yeah. I'm trying to attach it and put a little master bedroom in there too. I'm not too good with stairs. My knees are bad. So I'd like to keep a nice bedroom downstairs. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehrlnger. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there. I understand the problem. I g~ess it's pretty much centrally located to the best of the applicant's ability. I'1I make no comment at this point. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. Page t5 of 125 Jnne 19, 2003 Souti~old Town Board of AppesIs Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: ~ don't have a~y questions. CHAIRWOMAN: is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Yes ma'am, could you come up and state yo::r name please7 E][LEEN W~,'NGATE: Hi_ i'm Eileen Wingate with Penny Lmmber And I helped Bob design his house. Becw~se it's an existing nonconfo~ing, and it's so tiny, il presented a lot of problems. By stepping the house back that little notch. I lried to not impact Lc cas~ L~e as muc~ as we could have. ~nd I [fled to ~.ange i~ so that he could have access ~o tine existing basement by ~ker keeping eye,hint kind of where it is. Not only is bis track really, really big, the existing house has tiny, little bedrooms. ~n order re get ~. nice sized master bedroom, ~nd a ba~oom, we were fdriy modest ix using these propo2ions to get this. Going up was kind of out oft~e question because of his i<nees so we [fled to keep eve~hing on one floor and keep it all pretty reasonable without impacting a neighborhood. The other thing that Bob failed re memlon was that the nei&~oors aE have houses ve~ close to the road. The neighbor on the s~e side o~tb_e street has a 17' setback. And across the srree'r, there's only about a 10' setback. So it's really not o:t oF ch~acter with what's going on ~o~d the nei~Voorhood. CHAfRWOMAN: Okay, th~-~ you veu much. Bo~:d members have ~y other questions? ['!~ make a motion to close tine heaing ~d rese~e decision until later. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTfON 18:20 :~.mo JOHN AND MARTHA TUTEILL #5328 - Req~:es~: u Variance under Section 100- 244B~ based ox t~e B~gding Department's February fi, 2003 Notice of Disapproval Applicants are proposing to construe: ~ deck addition a~: ~ess t~an 35 CHAIRWOMAN: ts someone here who would like re speak on behalfofthe applfcsnt? MARTHA TUTHILL: HL I'm Ma~ha TuthilL And we're just requesting an open fi-on[ porch thst would exceed the setback of 35'. We m~e. fight now. at 39' and we're askin8 for ! 2' under ~er consideration, we'd actually be happy with i0. [ don't think we'll go Pa~her than 10. CHAIRWOMAN: You're talking about the width... MS. TUTHfLL: the width of the porch, exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: J read t~ou~h your submissions. Yhc only thing [ would_ I note. ~s tha~ you, thc average setbacks in the neighborhood are, you ~now. even according re your 17 June 19, 2003 Snuthnld Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing figures, are 31'. And you want to be forward of that at 21 '. It is a very... MS. TUTHILL: No, not quite 21. CHAIRWOMAN: ¢7, excuse me. You want to be 27. MS. TUTHILL: Actually, as we said, we'd probably, we would only go the 29. CHAIRWOMAN: Because the setbacks according to the surveys of your neighbors are 39.6, 40, 40, there's one at 25, way down, that's a corner lot, but most of the other setbacks are considerably, none of them are as close as you want to be. MS. TUTHILL: That's the only one, fight. CHAIRWOMAN: So that's my observations that we had made. The board, generally, does not like to grant any variances forward of the average setback in the neighborhood. We don't like to set a new line. Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: You would accept the 10' instead of the 12'? MS. TUTHILL: Yeah. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it 29.4, or is it 29? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, I cruised the neighborhood looking and that's quite large compared to the neighborhood. And it would be the very closest to the front yard. And ~ was looking for similar front porches. I only saw one neighbor with a partial, small, little porch and a notch. But, in my opinion, I'm not telling the board what to do, I would agree to an 8' deep deck, not 10. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horuing. MEMBER HORN?NG: Well, I'd, I would think that 8' is too shallow for a porch. I'm agreeable to the i0' as the applicant proposes, not the 12'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm agreeable to exactly a 30' setback. We're doing even figures here today. MS. TUTHILL: So that would be 9. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 9', actually, it's 39.4, so it's a little more than 9'. And you can suck that right up in the overhang anyway when you use the rafters. CHAIRWOMAN: This is kind of like a bargaining thing here today. We have 8 or 9. Page 17 of 125 $ou('hold Tow~ Board of Appeals The bo~d will make a decision. Let's see if anyone in the audience has any comments on the application, ~aank you ve~ much Seeing no hands, i'll make a motion ciosin~ the heating rese~ing the decision ~til later. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR ~ESOLUTION i99-244~ b~sed }~ the B~itdi~g Dep~rtment Febr=ar] lL 2903 Noffce of Dfs~pprsv~l, Applicant proposes a dwelling at less then 35 feet fro~ t~_e CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone her~ who would like to spsak on bchalfofthe appllcant~ i~ FITZGE~LD: Yes ma'~. Jim Fitzg~ald for Ms~ V~ctoro~ I tlnis~ thc ~mponam thing for thc bo~d to consider is what we arc proposing is nm at ail out of keeping witt: the other houses in fine area. Thc lots, p~icularly on thc same side of thc street, arc ali r~laffvely shallow. Dcpfihs of about 80:. And. offco~sc. ]5 ~nd ~ front and rear setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: Zen you spc~ up a little Mt? Or take thc m~ke up a ~ft so we he~ you? MR. FITZGE~LD: Is finis thing on? MEMBER OLIVA: Yes it is. MR. FITZGE~LD: Do you wsnz mc to go ff~ou~ that ag~n? ~Znc lot's being as shallow as they are, prcscn~ a problem when :wo S~' sc~sacks are enclosed. In this pa~icui~ case. fifths two B~: setbacks were imposed, the house could only be t2' deep. And as i said. i thk~ th~ our mMn interest is in indicating that the house will not a: al! out of ch~actcr wit~ the other h~uscs in the neighboffnoo& whh resard ~o both the s~zc and thc setback, both in the front and thc rear y~d. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of questions here. You presented your application for a building pcm~ft in Nowmbcr. And I noticed that the su~w, which is showins: also shows a proposed pool in a s~de yard. And I wondered hsd the Building (BD reviewed pool as pa~ of this proposal? MR. FiTZGE~LD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: And. oksy, let's make s note MR. FiTZGErALD: ~ mcan that sudsy was submitted, i mean thst same plan was Page I8 of }25 19 June i9, 2903 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ublic Heaving submitted to the BD. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, a couple of things. The neighbor, adjoining neighbor has sent a letter saying they would like time to retain legal council on this so they can review the plans. That they didn't feel they had enough time to review them. And we will definitely take that into consideration. The setback you're proposing to Dogwood Lane is to the porch. What would the setbacks be without the porch? MR. FITZGERALD: That porch could very well be a stoop so it would be exempt from the consideration of the setback requirements. It's 5' deep. CHAIRWOMAN: The porch is 5' deep? So that could be increased to 25'? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: T~e Notice of Disapproval (NOD) says 18'. 18' is to which point? On thc survey. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: Pardon me? MR. FITZGERALD: There is no 18' setback. MEMBER ORLANDO: It looks like the pool fence is the only 18' I can see. CHAIRWOMAN: And they wouldn't do it to the fence anyway. So it's not clear to me where the 18' setback is to. MR. FITZGERALD: No, it's not clear to me either. I 'think what xve are proposing is what you see on the map that you have. CHAIRWOMAN: The deck that goes around the pool, is that where the 18' is? MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. That would be the northeast comer of the deck is 18' from the rear property line. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Homing, any questions? MEMBER HORN1NG: Not at this time. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What complication? We are waiting for opposing council, Page ~9 of 125 2~ so this wilt be adjourned? MR. FITZGERALD: Do we have any indication from the neighbor what his problem was~ MEMBER HORN~G: No. they don't say they have a problem. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: fjust want to say that I wes down and looked at property and I do understand ~nst the agem er applicmnt is telling as in reference to shallowness of the lot okay, ~d the ability ro place something on the propexy. Se ali that of conrse, will be taken into consideration. CHARWOMAN: ~ underst~d yo-~ w5dth of the property. What is really exacef)at~ng the ¢reNem is the fact {~at yo~ put a deck on ~:e back of it. which is cresfdng a width of 34' as opposed to 25'~ which is one of t[~e reasons thal's requiting more of a setback. And the deck ex!ends the ~11 length or,he house. And that whale ~ea ad, acer_{ to the Se a lo~ of that could be minimized. Mr. Orlmndo. MBMBER ORLANDO: 2s this a one-smzv or rwe-sm~ house? MR. MTZGE~LD: Debra7 MS. V~CTOROFF: Two-sto%*. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's approx~mmely 1.600 sq. fl. ofliving space? Approximme~y? MEMBER GOEHRNGBR: C~ we see ~he p{ctures? M~MBER ORLANDO: ls the deck continuous? The rear deck con{nuous rc ~he deck ~ound the pool? MR. FITZGE~LD: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: S~e level? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's con*im~ous. DEB~ V~CTOROFF: Fm Debra Vic{oroSll And those eicrmms are plc~ures of a house buih by the builder ihs* drew my plans. And Fm no~ going ~-o have a garage in mme. MEMBER ORLANDO: So ~t's a cape like that? Page 20 07125 21 Jane 19, 2003 · Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. VICTOROFF: Yes, that's what I'd like. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, well we will continue, it's a very small lot. The lot is only, what 8900', and this is a lot of building for a little lot. MR. FITZGERALD: This is 2, 2 lots. CHAIRWOMAN: It's still only 8900 sq. ft. MR. FITZGERALD: I know. But the point is, it was not a matter of, she bought what was available in the area. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. We are going to see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against the application. TOM ROSAKIS: My name is Tom Roasakis. I'm the adjoining owner. I seat the letter, that, probably, is in ~ront of you, asking for an adjournment. Bat I decided to come just to hear the applicant. But I would tike an adjourm'aent. Thank you. I have not had more than 5 days to get a, retain council. I'm presently interviewing. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? When do we have a time to adjourn this to? MEMBER ORLANDO: Can I ask another question in the meantime? Would your client be opposed to a patio around the pool as opposed to a continuous deck, which would reduce the rear yard setback? And it would reduce the... MR. FITZGERALD: You mean a brick patio? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. A brick patio as opposed to a raised deck around it. MEMBER OLIVA: Yeah. At grade. MEMBER ORLANDO: You know, brick around it instead ora raised deck around it. It's continuous. So that increases your lot coverage. MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, it could be brick or flagstone. I think it would be okay. CHAIRWOMAN: Vinny, before we do that I think we need to go back to the BD and say that the ZBA had noticed that the pool was in the side yard. What's going to happen is, they'll catch it later, and then you're going to be back here again. MEMBER ORLANDO: It needs to be in the rear yard. Page 21 of I25 22 Southold Town Board of Appea~s Regular Meeting PnbJl[e Hearing MR. FITZGERALD: And you can't ah on it unless they've disapproved CHAIRWOMAN: We can't act on it unless it's been adve~ised and unless they've disapproved it. So I would strongly urge you to go back tc the BD, get an amended NOD, and ro reaE y think about minimizing what you are trying tc put on an 8900 sq lot. It's a lot of building. A~d that's why the degree of the variances tlnot you are requesting are very substantial. And youre going to be into a £ront yard wMance_ a rear yard variance, and a variance for the location of the pool as well. So _~ think we need to give you sufficient time to get an amended NOD_ and then we're going to have to re- adveiise t~har, and give legal notice that. [hat will also be included in the hearing procedure. So I'm not... MS. VICTOROFF: Can I ask a ouestion? i have a couple of quesfions. One is that think that Jim submitted the plans with. to the BD with {he ~$ooI on there. So I'm not s-~re why we're resubmitting it. MEMBER ORLANDO: They may have. obviously, overlooked it. Tbey'iI just catch it next time when you go fbr yom' building permit CHAIRWOMAN: When you go for your building permit, they wi~! catch it. MS. VfCTOROFF: But I mear~, meaning that you can tell somehow by looking at that. that they did not see that? MEMBER ORLANDO: The code requires that the pool be located in the rear yard. MEMBER OL1VA: And it's not in the NOD that we have here in front of us. So it means you'll have m go back. We'rejust trying ro save you a couple of steps. MS. VICTOROFF: No_ i understand. ~ just didn't lmow xxO~y they were saying they overlooked it. CHARWOMAN: It's probdaly an oversight on their par;. But if it's not cmaght now. it's going to mean that this application could be delayed another 6 months. MS. VICTOROFF: Then I have another question. If you're nor allowed to par a pool in the side yard: iii move it the back of the F~ouse. thou the variance that we'll request is going to be greater. CHAIRWOMAN: That's xvhy we need to go back and. to the BD. so that we can even consider this pool where it is. Right now we can't consider it. MS. VICTOROFF: Does that recuire a new smwey or a new-... 23 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No, it requires Mr. Fitzgerald, he knows what to do. He will take very good care of yon. I'm just concerned about the timing, when we want to adjourn this to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have to wait for the amended NOD. And we have to advertise it. So it's a decision. Do we want to advertise for the amended relief, July 24th regular meeting or August 21st? CHAIRWOMAN: It's got to be the 21st. Is that the regular meeting? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We don't want to carry this over to the special meeting? MEMBER ORLANDO: You can eliminate the pool for this application, redraw it, rest, bruit, and... MS. VICTOROFF: Along those lines, can I ask Mr. Rosakis, at this point, what his objections are so that I know them before I redraw plans. Is that fair of me to ask? MEMBER ORLANDO: [ think that's a fair request, if he's willing. MS. V~CTOROFF: If he's still in attendance. MR. ROSAKIS: I'm still in attendance. You can ask, but without council, I will not answer. CHAIRWOMAN: We're looking for a date to give you sufficient time so that you can get the amended NOD and then we can readvertise. It will be either August, I think it would have to be August 21 or September 11th. Do you have a preference? MR FITZGERALD: The earlier date. CHAIRWOMAN: Why am I surprised? Okay it would be 9:40am on August 21st. So we will adjourn it, the hearing. I'1I make a motion. 10:52 a.m. LAUREN ZAMBRELL[ #5322. Request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244, based on the Building Department's February 21, 2003 Notice of Disapproval Applicant proposes additions to the existing dwelling in a nonconforming footprint, resulting in setbacks at less than 10 feet on a single side and less ~han 25 feet total sides. Location of ?roperD~: 4910 Pequash Avenue, ]?age 23 af ~[25 24 ,June i9~ 2003 Santitold Tow= Board of Appea~s Regular Meeting P~:hlic 2~2earing Cure,ague: CTM C~AhRWOMAN: Is someone here wko would like ro speak on behai~ohthe applican*7 LAUREN ZAMBRELL~: Good ~oming. I'~ Lauren ZambrelIL The reason requesting the second story on my home is becanse r had a baby. MEMBBR ORLANDO: Coa~atula;ions. MS. ZAMBRELLI: %&ak yon. A girl We have 3 ckildren_ o~e wko's in college. one who's in elemental, and then on a sailing trip in Newport. we brought back souvenir. CHAIRWOMAN: ~iat wasn't 2ne b~oy was MS. ZAMBRELLi: Yes, ~xat was Cassidy~ Onr honse ca~enlly 2as 2 bedrooms A~d it's abou~ 900 sq. R~ We love ozir nei~borhood and don'1 want .o 2ove~ So we are proposing a 2nd sroU addnxon o~ o~ existing home. Tko ho~se. ,n '~-'s o~ginal fo~ was built beyond ~he setback limhts. Therefore. we are propos52g s:mply zo go up. approximately 4' back o5~ oie shale oft¢ie CHAIRWOMAN: I ~derst~d your siPaation completely, r?s kind o7 an existiig nonconfo~ing setback, and you're not gmng to change the existing footp~nt wkalsoever. So r realiy don't have any questions. Let's see. Mrs. Ohva. MEMBER OLIVA: No. ! was down there and looked at iL And r tkip& you really kava to go up. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orl~qdo. MEMBER ORLANDO: r was there. ~t's a veu ~odest honse. M~ only conce~ rese~athon 5s on the no~h side oTthe house, you have like a 1 ~A' setback~ [Fyou 1ook the plm7s with *he overimqg, L t2ere's no meas~emem on it. but you're dose Io inches of setback if you include lb_e overhang. MS. ZAMBRELLI: Tkere's no overh~g on the noih side. MEMBER ORLANDO: According to your plans, you know tee MS. ZAMBRELL~: Oh. the soffets. MEMBER ORLANDO: rf you include the soffets. ~ mean ifs no~ 5ust. there's measurement on it. bul it wonld bring you close to aimosl inches or zero 2o~ line on side. Page 24 of !25 25 June 19, 2003 Southoid Town Board of AppeaIs Regutar Meeting Public Hearing MS. ZAMBRELLI: We've had, our neighbors... MEMBER ORLANDO: You have very large, substantial trees around there. I guess you'll have to remove some of those as well. MS. ZAMBRELLI: Actually we can cut them back. We love the trees. We don't want to take them out. But I did have coffee with Eileen and, when she got the notice, she wanted just to understated what was happening, the owner Eilleu McCarroI1, who is a neighbor and friend of ours. She has, her house, that she owns, is very far from her property line. So it's really, it's not like they are on top of each other at all. It's probably like 30' to her house. So it's not like they'll be boxed up. So there is plenty of space there. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm still trying to find out how that portion, that Mr. Orlando is referring to, is integrated into the plan. Is there a possibility of leaving that as 1-story.9 In that portion, no? MS. ZAMBRELLI: We would have, that wouldn't... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you figure out how it's integrated into the plan? I can't figure it out. Unless ?m, you know, I've seen the house, and I'm familiar with it. MEMBER ORLANDO: This is the overhang, that's the part. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: If you look at the orig/nal footprint, V/nee, so, in other words, what you are say/ng is the overhang is going to be on zero lot line. MEMBER ORLANDO: Well, close, no, think it's a foot? MEMBER OLIVA: It's so close now. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's her neighbor, she had coffee with. MS. ZAMBRELLI: She's wonderful. I also have my other neighbor on the other side here. MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us a distance on the north side to the neighbor's house, the closest? Page 25 of 125 26 June 19. 2003 Southoifi Town Board of Appeals Regular N~eeli=g Pub~,ic He=ring MS. ZAMBRELL1 k's about 30'. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Well, the one major problem, number one is you're going to have ~o put definitely some so~ of dr~ells in for any wa~er n~nofi~ That's numbe,' one. Okay, number two. you're going m have to give us an idea c fwha that overhang is going to ad,ess in reference ~o footage. And that has ~o be cutback as close, as close to tl~e ~ouse as possible. Okay? Instead ora 16" overhang, it's going to have *o be at least or sometBing a little less than that. It's dra~ at a foot ~t now. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: It's drawn ar a foot ~ght now. so. which would leave us 6" becanse ifs a foot and a kMf Cm you b~sg it back to 8"? I could do that, yes CHAIRWOMAN: Je~, we warn- ar~ 8" overhang maximum... MEMBER GOEHR~GER: NoYa~ side. CHARWOMAN: On the noah side. M~MBER GOEHR~GER: And warer directed in dry wells from roof mr_off d~elts You have to do hint as~ay. Because you donk want to. you really don't v '~r ~o impose ar~y water on your neighbors propei~y. MS ZAMBRELLI: She's got Deauti~aI. large ~Meas, and geraniums_ axd they are about ~6'. !7' hi~, so they'd love tie water. But, yes, that's not a probletm. MEMBER GOEKR~GER: Not the amo,~t ofwaler that we ~ook already this year. MS. ZAMBRELLt: Actually, tkey were beautiful this year They are M! up and down *he propemy line. and we enjoy ~hem. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Homir. g. MEMBER HORN~G: Nc question. CHAIRWOMAN: Is t~ere anyone m t}~e audience who would like ~o speak for or against the applicant? ETHEL JESSUP: My name is Ethel ~essu[ And Fm on the south side. And I kave no objectio~ at all. None. 27 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ublic Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. If there are no further questions by the board, as we've discussed, we've discussed that you would be required to put in drywells for the roof runoff. And that the roof overhang would be Iimited to a maximum of 8" on the north side. So, if there's no further questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:60 a,m. FREDERI[CK and JOAN FROHNE #5317. Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's February 3, 2093 Notice of Disapproval Applicant proposes additions and alterations to dwelling in a location at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 4700 Paradise Point Road~ Southotd; CTM #1090-81-3-4. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Yes. Good morning, Garrett Strang, architect, representing the Frohnes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a question? I understand. MR. STRANG: My clients bought the house about a year or so ago, and obviously our intention was to modify it so it suited their needs for their use, and improve upon it so it's more in keeping with the neighborhood as opposed to, they don't feel the present look is one that's compatible with the neighborhood. It's an existing one-story 3 be&oom home, single family dwelling, obviously. The proposed use is exactly the same. One story, 3 bedroom home. The appeal here is for, part of the program is to add a 16x28' addition off the water side of the house, which is going to be in front of the living/dining area. It's going to be roofed over, but unenclosed. The intention is primarily to provide protection from the sun when seated outdoors. This is a bayfront piece and exposure is quite open. It will also allow them to have some outdoor seating for both dining and relaxation. In the event of inclement weather, they can be seated under a covered area out of the weather. The positioning of this particular addition is really the only one that is practical inasmuch as it's in front of the living/dining part of the house. And that's the intended use. It's an extension of the living/dining part of the house. Albeit open and unenclosed, it still is roofed over. It's my belief that what we are proposing has a minimal impact since there's already an existing stone terrace there that exists. So I'd be going partially over that. It's a low profile addition since it's a one-story addition with a hipped roof, which minimizes the massing. It's a gable end. It's a hipped roof that slopes back. CHAIRWOMAN: Would it be screened in? MR. STRANG: No. ?age 27 of 125 28 Seuthoicf~ Town Beard ef Appeals Reg~iar Meeting ?ubik Hearir, g CHAIRWOMAN: So it'sjusL., MEMBER OLIVA: Open, MR. STRANG: It's an open colonnade. MEMBER OLIVA: Just with a room MR. STRANG: Just with a roo£ There's not an intention to screen st irt. or enclose it a~ this time. or anytime in the f-ature. CHAIRWOMAN: Question, Mr, SWang. You're proposing a 48' setback from the bulkhead, fight? MR. STRANG: TS~at's con:ect. Z~AIRWOMAN: The addition you're proposing could be ?nt flush with thai L-shaned par~ in ~he house. Because if that's tI~e living area. living/dining area. fl would have access opening to it fight ~ere. which would increase your setbad~: tc 64' from the bulkhead. MR. STP, ANG: We appreciate that. And that was a consideration althoug~ it then puts it in fron~ of the bedrooms. And they are going to have Gelr children and their grandchi!dren~ obviously, visiting them and it would be in front of the grandchildren's bedroom. And we believe that use. if you will, congregation of adults, conversation, the like. in front of the c~fldren~s bedroom is not the best location. CHAIRWOMAN: You're proposing a m~ace there anyway. MR. STRANG: Yes_ the ia'race is open. and mos~ likely, people will be congregating in tlne area for the roofed-over addition, i'd like to also call to tine boards attention thai the setback you make reference ~o is actually less than the setback of the neighbor re our east's deck. which is about 44' back from the bulkhead. So we feel like it's not onx of character with an established setbsck. CHAIRWOMAN: And what's the setback on the nmgbbor to the west? MR. STRANG: Setback on the neighbor to tlne west is a new home. And his home was built under the present zoning criteria. So his setback is approximately 75'. CHA.FRWOMAN: That's what I found when I was down there. MEMBER HORN17NG: To the deck? Page 28 of 125 29 June 195 2003 Sour[told Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. It is 75' to the deck. And that's why I'm personally not in favor of this because I think, you have a lot of options here. And the living area is where you described it, and if it's, it can be, you know, fit in that niche. If it requires creativity and architecture and design, so be it. I don't, I really think you have alternatives that could substantially reduce this variance. And we're not in favor of going any further forward toward the bulkhead on this. MR. STRANG: It's not the fact that the neighboring house is close to the bulkhead enter the picture? CHAIRWOMAN: That's a very, very, old house. MR. STRANG: Yes it is, it's about the same age as my clients house. CHAIRWOMAN: You do have options here. MR. STRANG: Not practically. Maybe in theory, yes, but, to put a living area in front of a child's bedroom is really not the best solution. Keeping the uses from a practical point of view, from a design point of you, from my professional opinion, keeping the uses as presented, where you've got a living/dirdng area that's part of the house and an outdoor living/dining area in front of that is the best use. To put it in front of a bedroom, really, is, it makes the bedroom unusable for the point of time that area will be used. Given the fact that it's a summer home, it's meant to be used in the summer. Take advantage of the bay front that they have, and to have that use moved around in front ora bedroom where it's going to cause a disturbance to young children trying to sleep in the evening. I don't think is the best solution either. I do have, just for the record, I do have an approval from the, wet1, t shouldn't say approval, I have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC as well as a permit from the Trustees for this work. And I'd like to submit that at this time. I'd also like to submit for the board's information, and for the file, a cop3, of the, actually, I've made several, numerous copies of the exterior views of the house so that you can see exactly what we're proposing here, since that hasn't been done. Again, I call to the board's attention, the fact that it does already exist, a terrace, a stone terrace, a grade, in this area. And that this roofed over enclosure is over the terrace. MEMBER OLIVA: Garrett, where are the children s bedrooms. MR STRANG: What I may do, if the board pleases... MEMBER OLIVA: Becanse i'm confused. MR. STRANG: I have a copy of the floor plan, actually. Let me submit that to you as well. I only have one copy with me in the file. I believe I have it in the file. It will show you the layout of the house. The bedroom wing of the house is not substantially Page 29 ofi25 30 $ou~zhold Town Board of Appeals changing. Ifs being left as it is. This is the livin~flinin~kit&en area of!be house as presently ex/sis. This is the outdoor_ roofed over re, ace. PATRICIA MOORE. ESO: May I see aisc, I represe~:t Ge neighbor. Cooper, and fail, er than. in the back. CHAIRWOMAN: Ii's too f~ aw~y for ali of us to see at this point. MR. STRANG: We have the Evin~dinin~itc~en here as presently exists at!hough we m-e doing some ~s~p~-ading ~o i~ inten~alty. The footprint of the house with the exc% of this ele:nent, mad the g~age which doesn't is bei~zg added. But the focus o~ application is. basically is. trois roofed over area here CHAIRWOMAN-: This is not showing up on our site pl~. This little ps~. this little that's ~utting out. If you. ~5is is this te~ace2 MEMBER ORLANDO: ~es. that's the te~ace. MR. ST~NG: ~is is the te~ace here, this is where tie living m-ca rs. This is where the con~egation, this area would probarly be used duffng da~ri~e hours, it is kind off sheltered, it's outdoors, the roof CHAIRWOMAN: This is where the proposed addition MEMBER OL~A: You're compts, ir~ing about the kid's bedroom, s. but you're ir_ front the 2 bedrooms MR ST~NG: His bedroom is here. !fwe move tlnis, as you're suggesting, to here. it's in front of the bedrooms. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because you wan~ to get out of the sun. you'd be there du~ng the da~ime hours, nor the nig~ttime hOUrS. MR. ST~NG: We'd be here in the da~izme if it's inclement weather or evening, you w~nr to sit outdoors, b'ut you don't necessarily... MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. So you wo~aldn't be dist,urbi:~g the children becsnse it's during the day. At night, you can go over there. MR. ST~NG: [fit's drizzly, the ~ay weatlner we've had recen~iy, you may want ~c sit out here and have dinner. The kids may have already had their dinner and gone to bed. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang, this is going to be renovated_ ~bis bedroom~ 3~ June 19, 2t){)3 Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: No, it's there. CHAIRWOMAN: It says "altered bedroom"? MR. STRANG: Yes, because we are moving closets around. MEMBER ORLANDO: Now it's the master bedroom. MR. STRANG: The master bedroom is down at the end of the house. The existing floor plan is bedroom, baths, bedroom, master bedroom. They are staying, doing minor alterations by reconfiguhng closets, redoing bathrooms, but the configuration of the house is exactly as it is with the exception of adding a master bath here, or adding a two- car garage here... CHAIRWOMAN: And you're shifting the closets and baths... MR. STRANG: We're mo'Ang the closet. The closet now is on this wall. This bedroom doesn't even have a closet presently. So... MEMBER HORN1NG: I'm sorry, I mean, we are talking about a family here, so Fm having a hard time buying into the argument of something outside the kid's bedroom because, you know, we're family. And if they can't have their appropriate conversations anywhere in the house, then the family is dysfunctional or something. MR. STRANG: Adult conversation over dinner and the like in front of a child's bedroom. MEMBER HORNING: We don't consider those types of issues, though. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's, Mr. Goehringer, do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRENGER: I can see architecturally, Garrett, apart from the use situation why you would want to put something like that on because particularly the way the pillars are drawn, you know. I can see it. ~ would not object to anything that would still allow yon to do that architecturally, but would be somewhat meaningless in reference to depth. I think this could be treated in a different vein. I think you could use a roll up awning, an automatic roll up awning, which ~ don't think' needs a variance. It's a temporary thing. It's not supported in any other way. But I would, I would entertain an architectural cut of a certain amount of feet, you know, to give yon that effect. Okay, then the use of an awning for sun prevention. MR. STRANG: I'm sure my client is receptive. In fact, we've had some discussions with a neighbor, who has voiced his objection. And we have offered to cut it, scale it back somewhat, but he was adamant that he didn't want it all. And we felt that was kind of Page 3I of 125 June 19, 2003 Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals Regn~ar Meeting Pub~k Hearing unfair since Be has his. Iffs like weg ~ have mine, you're not getting yours. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: But Fm jus~ saying ~ha~ t ~kink I can see i( ~om ardnitec~ura~pointofview. And how it would lend itselfto ~he kousu Again, wehaven't discussed ~he footage, the depth of ~ke fooiage. Again. ~ still ~h~nk it could be done an awmng Foin~ of view. and t~en relracled at night. MR. STRANG: ~ could be done ~om an awning point ofv~ew, k's not as aesthetically pleasing on a house, you know we're talking ~oout houses in that area in the muttimillion dollar r~ge along ~"he bay. So ~o hang an awning off the house re~ily is nor that attractive a solution, MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Fm refe~ng to an automatic one thai goes out and comes fight back ~d withdraws, md you know. is water sensitive, wiihd~raws automaticaliy, ar_d so on and so foNh. MR. STRANG: Yes. Fm f~iliar wi~h those. Ifs just a little lean to 1ha~ rolls out. MEMBER ORLANDO: I would thi~ is a major conshmction, though. ME~ER GOEHR~GER: The recons'waciion of the house ~s a major.. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because the roofline looks nothing like tibia. MR. ST~NG: We're doing $ m~or alteration to the house. But within the footofinl of the house with lhe exception of t~e lwo elements that I mentioned thai come toward ihs road_ and. of course, the ~ orcln. So. again, as [ mentioned, they are ~rymg to e~ance appe~a~ce of the house so its in keeping with the nei~nborhood and the value of neighborhood. And not have what my clients refer to in their joking way as tine Jetson's motel. MEMBER ORLANDO: ti does look like tho& yes. it does. MR. STRANG: And they don't want thaL They feel it's a detriment to ~e commmmity, and they want to improve upon that. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mrs. O!iva. MEMBER OLWA: I was jusl thinking if you could cur back that re~ace, you know. Nght in here_ instead of sweeping it al! fine way around here~ yeu could just fit k fight into here. CHAIRWOMAN: ~a/' s wkat we had said offginaiiy. Page 32 of~25 33 June 19, 2003 Southo/d Town Board of Appeals ReguLar Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: You're suggesting that the roofed over area go in front of the bedrooms. And that's, from a practical point of view, is what I believe, what my clients believe, is not the best solution. CHAIRWOMAN: We've gone down that road, and, so, if you're not willing to go there, then, the board will have to take action in that direction, ls there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Cooper, who is the neighbor directly to the east. What I have is, Mr. Cooper couldn't be here, and he had originally gotten Bruce Anderson to prepare a report, a written report, which is very comprehensive, on the character of the area. And I'll submit that to the board. It's his report. As I said, it's very well done, and / would ask you to read it and refer to it as you'd like. I'd like to address certain specific points as we go. So I will,/fit's alright, I'I1 submit this. Do we have enough copies? Bruce goes through the whole description of the premises and ail the criteria, which you are very familiar with and would address. But more specifically, I'd like to deal with certain issues that are ldnd of, bring it out to the forefront of the, why Mr. Cooper has an objection to really just the backend, which you've identified. He has no objection to the renovations that are being proposed, the garage in the front. His whole focus and they, or, he tried to Convince Mr. Frotme to come up with a different alternative, which is in line with what you've been recommending. Putting in, or putting the addition, or the sunscreen that goes along, it can go along the entire length of the back of the house, provide adequate protection. One, certainly, design feature, which I noticed is that he has his master bedroom on the other side. Since there is so much renovation being done to this house, you could make the master bedroom be the one that is in front of what he wants as the dining area. Extend the dining, outdoor dining area. And because there's a bathroom that goes right out of that bedroom, the chiIdren's bedroom, as they describe it, they could change the interior layout and make the master bedroom away from what is the activity of the evening or daylight activity with adults be on the opposite end of where the overhang would be. Or the roofed over open patio would be. So there are design alternatives. I 'know Garrett's a very talented architect. And he can come up with a, it's really up to the client to accept his alternatives. I have the elevation of the house. And when you see the east elevation, it pretty much focus's why the objection by Mr. Cooper. The existing building right now is 63.5' in length. What he's proposing to extend to is 107' in length, when you include both the garage on the front of the house, and the overhang on the back of the house. And it's not just a little, you know, little covered over porch. It's an extension of the roofline. And it is a significant structure in the back. And that's, if you look the east elevation / submitted, you can see that, that is the side that Mr. Cooper is going to be facing. And it is going to take~ for the most part, the entire length of the common property fine. And that's intrusive to a neighbor. What we also have is, from Douglas Bamard, who was the let's see, he was active in the affairs of the Paradise Point Association (PPA) and he was the past chairman of the building committee. I don't know if this project has been approved by the building committee of the PPA. But he can recall, fn all the time that he's been involved in the Page 33 of 125 Sour-ho~d Town Board ef Appe~]s bufidin~ comm~tiee~ Cha~ the PPA. ~hey~ve controlled ~he extension of houses towards water because of ire goal ¢o keep evezfone a~ s common ~¢ar ym-d setback. So ~ have a letter, an original leiCe~ ~om Douglas Bernard and then ~f you would also look a~ a photo~aph. [ have a ve~ nice aerial pholo~aph ~om M~. Am~agm And wha¢ ] did is took a 1]ne~ jus¢ a paper, and put a sirai~h~ line of what ~s the ccmmon rea~ p~opmzy prope~y ~ne between Scalia. is the newes~ home. he's ¢o the south. Fro hne ~s the cemer property, the subtec~ of this application, then to ~he no~h is Cooper. And you can see ali the homes here have. are consistently ~n line in the rem' of the prope~zy. Wifn respec,~ to you have yours ~d ~ can't have mine. 'd~a'~ is hOC the case ~n fact bo~h houses_ or ahI ibxee houses, have extensions. ~qd it's just a question of how f~ you want to go. They a!I have patios and unenc]osed patios have nevm' been ~ objeclion. ~ey aim 2re- ex~s/ing. The objections are always the roof CHAIRWOMAN: Mrs. Moore. on our exhibit, there is no m~k. MS, MOORE: Nc. I have it on mine. CHAIRWOMAN: -¢&ic5 means, in other words, fi doesn't mere anything to us. MS. MOORE: Ri~t. Fm going ~o ~ve you this one Before ~ h~d it ova. ~ wm~i to describe it. You can see. 5 jus'c took this. that's a photocopy of 2his aeria1 photogaph. And you see it take offjust a straight piece ofpapgr, and you c~ identi~ who the owners ~e. ~nd you car see ~haI ~2~ey are al! extended, they both. here's ti~e ietter 1Tom You cmn see tha~- tlhey are ail in line. It doesn't t~e a gear de~ of sophistication, 2ust that s~ai~t lined paper to see thaL how the character of the community has been expanded. With respect to ~he apprcvals, the Town T~o~stees (TT). Mr. Cooper did appear before ~he TT. It was his ooinion that he TT. generaHy, when there is a once there's been dis~bmnce, 5ne TT do not. for the most prom ~ve s hm~d time a;oour expanding on top of already mhd existing disturbed area. So he fel~ it was. those issues mi~2 be enviroln~en~-M issues. ~nd this is more in keeping with ~his board's consideration, which is the chancier of the area. So [ thimk if ~ had Lnown him at the time. ~ would have toid him. advised him. he should have made an objection because sometimes the TT do rpy ,~o retain the existing setbacks as a policy even *hough ifs hOC one of ¢_eir desi~ated criteria for the standards ofa TT pe~it. Those are the poin*s ~ want to bring up to the board, l'm so~, ~ have c ne more letter. Mr. ScaIia. Mr. Cooper gave me a [etter with respect ro speaking with Mr. Scaiia. Mr. Sca!ia doesn't rake a position one way or another because hc sold the house to Mr. Frohnc. ~ ~hh~ ~t would be awkwm~d as the broker to oppose any renovatim:s that Frohne woud have. But ~ have that !e~ter here sc you ~ow. as far as Scaiia goes. he's not taking any posir~on. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would Hke to spemk for against the applicant? MR. ST~NG: Yes. ill may, ?d like to address some of the poims !hat were brought up Page 34 of 125 35 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing by Ms. Moore, and again, she's representing her client, Mr, Cooper, who is immediately a neighbor to the east. And I've had some conversations with Mr. Cooper as my client. Just quickly to review some of the points that were brought up on behalf of Mr. Cooper by Ms. Moore. I haven't seen the information that was presented to you by Mr. Anderson. So I have no idea what he may be, so if I could get a copy of that, tha~ would be, I think, helpful Secondly, with respect to the association, the association has been given the plans that you see in front of you for their review and comment, which is part of the covenants and rest~hctions (C&R's). They have not convened yet, their final meeting to vote. However, according to the association president, he indicates that the board has been polled, and some of the neighbors have been polled. And even Mr. Cooper has agreed that eveuChing that we're proposing is not in any violation of any o7 the C&R's of the association. And that he association, in general, CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang... MR. STRANG: May I finish? CHAIRWOMAN: I'm just going to save you some time. I should have said the same thing when Pat Moore was giving her presentation. The ZBA does not enforce (C&R's). MR. STRANG: I understand that. But since it was raised, I just wanted let you know what the PPA's position is. There is no objections at this point and time to what's been presented. And they've seen everything that you've seen. So we're expecting a blanket approval from them once they meet. But, again, that's not in your area to enforce or not enforce. But it's a point of information. To redesign the house the way Mr. Cooper has suggested, I guess would be nice if Mr. Cooper was going to live there, and it was his house, and he'd lay it out as he so chooses. But my client is going to live in the house. And he'd like it designed to meet his needs, and his families needs without doing major changes with respect to yes, I'll concur that they were making major changes with changing the roof design. But the basic layout of the house, the placement of the bedrooms, the placement of the living areas, is exactly the way it is now with some enhav_ced tweaks intemally. So, with respect to the length of the east elevation, yes it's correct, the existing house is 60 some feet in length and it will be 107 in length if everything were added as we've made our application. But just for the record, Mr. Cooper's house is 92' in length on his east elevation. And he's closer, again, he's closer to the bulkhead then we are. So that objection, although it has some merit, I thit~k we're, our house, I could do a quick rundown if you'd like, but the Frohne house is basically in keeping in size, in scale, with everbOhing else. Mr. Cooper's house is about 4600 sq. ft. ofbnilding area. CHAIRWOMAN: It's the setbacks we're concerned about. MR. STRANG: Okay, well Mr. Cooper is 44. We are 48 at this point. If this board asks us to cut this porch back somewhat, that's certainly an option that can be considered. Page 35 of 125 So~htkotd Town Board of AppeaLs Reg~zlar Meeting P~blle Hearing One of the other snbmktals Fd i~ke to make ~s. as much as an aerial is attractive. n~ce_ wha ?d l~ke ro present to the board ~s an acluaI overlay, The three that shows the actual locatian. And yes, keeping a house ~n ~ne ~s And we address ~hat. Th~s is Mr. Cooper s propeny~ okay? Tk~s ~s my cI~ent's the Fro~ne's. TkJs ~s Mr. Scaiia. As X mentioned eari~er. Mr. Scal~a had to be 75' back because ke had a new house. If you ~ake the l~ne of Mr. Cooper's deck a~d shoo~ across. Ws ~n front of our I6' addk~on. Tk~s whole house ~s ~n ffonI ofo~ ho~se as There's vegetation on each side here, which may or may no~ enter the picture, but one these photo~aphs shows the fact tlnat Mr. Cooper's house, presently, ~s ~n ~ont MEMBER ORLANDO: But the new ko.se_ you say. ~s 75' back. So your new addk~on should be 75' back as well. MR. ST~NG: Well o~ house isn't 75' hack. because here's the 75' setback tine. our ex~st~ng ho~se doesn't compty. ~EMBER ORLANDO: Bu~ yo,ar ne[~bor... CHAIRWOMAN: I thh~ we've k~nd of hca 27~s point ~o MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Can ~ see that one m~nute~ MR. ST~NG: ~ understand ~5e bo~d has ~t's concerns. An 5 we ~e w211~ng to address those ~d work with them. I tld~& Mr. Cooper~s conce~s have seine val~dky, b~.t they ~e more persona} in na~e ther~ ~iney ~e having to do wi~d~ what this board has te deal with And I would cenainly be w~lling to disc'ass w~th this board a2d my cliex: as wha aitemaives we have. i don't, again. I donk believe ~a putting ~n~s ,aorch of tine bedroom element of the house is ~he coxecl placement'of ~t. k doesn't necessarily say we are not willing ~o scale back. We have akeady made t}:a ovem~re to Mr. Coo'oer. but he was not receptive to ente~aimng that. So... MEMBER ORLANDO: Bm the one thing tka no one has brought up yet. but we ail ~ow about is tine bl~.ff ~s ve~ s~eep the;e. CHAIRWOMAN: It's ve~ steep, and you're veu close. MEMBER ORLANDO: Eve~ house there that h~s steps to the beach has a because it's so aeep, you ca~ot do a continuous. So any ~2~ker building close, even though iffs quite vegetaed, it's a severely s~eep drop-oft( So any constpxct~on dose is no~ good ~or it. MR. ST~NG: Again. our constp4ctiop, is [imkcd to the placement of several columns around the perimeter We're not excavaing and reaNng eve~hing up. Page 36 37 June 19, 2003 $outhold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Well you'd probably have to put some sort of footing in there. MR. STRANG: Ail we need to do is a hole to set a column in. It's minimal disturbance. My client doesn't want his house to wash into the bay either. So he wants to be aware of doing the least amount of disturbance as far as construction goes, in that area, as possible. This was a concern, which was also voiced by the TT, and 'they concurred that it really wasn't going to pose an issue. The bluffis relatively, heavily, vegetated and stabilized. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Goehringer, Mr. Homing, we really have to get moving. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are you going to do? Are you going to close it? CHAIRWOMAN: Couple of things. Mrs. Moore, please give Mr. Strang, provide Mr. Strang a copy of all your submissions. Likewise anything you have submitted. Does the board wish to hold this hearing open? ZONiNG BOARD: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: t want to go back and look at it again. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the purpose of holding it open? MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: I would like Garrett to go back to his client and find out if there's any way that an architectural cut can be put in. But at the same time, not request what he's requesting at this point. And possibly we could work out something on that basis. CHAIRWOMAN: In terms of what are we talking? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a small overhang to make it, you knoxv, architecturally aesthetic to the reconstruction of the house. But at the same time, you knmv, appease the neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN: And also appease the board. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about because I don't want to misguide Mr. Strang. So that he's going back and creating a plan that would not fly with the rest of the board. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think Mr. Goehringer was more in favor of a retractable awning. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From an architectural point of view, as I first mentioned, not to be redundant, and again, I'm being redundant. But to say' if he was willing to take say a 6' overhang at that point to create those pillars that exist in the original plan, just to create a walkway there, which I, it appears, the board, yon know... Page 37 of 125 38 Sou~bsld Tow~ Board of Appeals Reg.,far Meeting Public 5/2e~ring CHAIRWOMAN: Wha~ are we talking about, a 6' patio? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I was thinking. MR. STRANG: I can take that ro my client. I'm no{ sure if. practically, ~hat addresses {he need for outdoor seaing and outdoor dining, which was the whele ~nleniion of ~bis. MEMBER ORLANDO: It wouldn't be to scale. 6' with the huge pill,s. MR. STRANG: We did. so this board is aware, we made an ove~re to Mr. Cooper that we could cut it back 'co 12'. instead of the 16. and still feel that k was practically usable tha point. CHAIRWOMAN: I thi~ W~at you're hea4ng ~om ail of us is puc it in the no'cch. mean we can waste a lot of time. We can continue this till doomsday But if you're not willing to do that if you're not willing to redesi~ it, then the boa-d there's no reason to adjo~m ~is. %e boad will vote on it. MR. ST~NG: WMi i can't say that until Vve had an oppo~nity to speak to my c!iem. So ~ would sugges~ lhat possibly we do as Mr. Goe~nger suggeste& Eoid it open. If yoz: would consider ihat so ~ ca~ confe~ with my client x see wP_at options he may be receptive CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, we will do it on tLe basis that you will go back to your and ask him is he's willing :o put it in tbe notch. When do we want to a0~o'~c this BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSK[: [ wanted m ask if we could have ~-ihe amended plans, is tlhat what you're consideitng7 MR. ST~NG: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKE At least lhe F:Jday before the meeting. MR. STRANO: Ce~ainly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Several se~s. please. Augasi 7t~ is our special meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: fs tbat too soou for yo~? MR. ST~NG: No. that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Sometimes it isn't f%ge 38 of ~25 39 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: No, I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: YVha* time? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: In the evening. The first hear/ag would start at 6:00. CHAIRWOMAN: I'I1 make a motion to adjourn the beating rmtil Aug. 7th at 6:45. 11:35 a.m. JOHN HURTADO, 3R. #5319 - Request for Variances under Sections 100-30A.4, 100-33C and 100-239.4A(1)~ based on the Building Department*s January 27, 2003 Notice of Disapprovai. Applicant proposes an accessory swimming pool and deck addition to the dwelling, both at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff along the Long Island Sound. The swimming pool also is proposed in a side yard location instead of a code required rear yard. Location of Property: 2670 Grandview Drive, Orient; CTM 1[000-14-2-3.6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? CATHRINE MESIANO: Good morning, I'm Catherine Mesiano. And I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Hurtado. Mr. Hurtado is requesting a variance from a relief of the required setback from the bluff as well as the required, requirement that a pool not be in a side yard. The property we are dealing with is located at 2670 Grandview Drive in Orient. This is approximately 52K sq. f~. lot in a R40 zone. Mr. Hur~ado has under construction a single family dwelling. And he's coming to the board for relief for the proposed deck and pool. This is a sound front parcel of land. The se*backs that we are proposing for the proposed deck is 89'. The setback to the pool is at 75', and we are maintaining a 15' sideyard for tbe proposed pool. The purpose for the variance for the pool location is because the pool is offset to tbe west thereby encroaching on the required sideyard. Does the board have any questions? CHAIRWOMAN: Well I just would like to note that the report of the soil and water, as well as our own inspections, said there was ~onsiderable erosion going'on right now as a result of the current construction. You have a copy of the report, Ms. Mesi~ano? MS. MESIANO: Yes, let me just... CHAIRWOMAN: The lot slopes to Grandview Drive, right to the top oflhe bluff. And if the soil is being eroded from the lot during the construction activities, soils are also Page 39 of 125 J2ne ~9.2003 Regular Meeting Public ~le~r~ng being &agged out onto Cx-andview D~ve by veh~culs traffic s~nce there' s no stabilizafion. As a construction inieresi ar ih~s time. the house is incomplele And downspou:s and graters are no~ on fi~e srmc'rure, lhe p]sm does not show any plan d~eEs Ii is recommended that d~eI~s be ins~e~led ~o comam any roof runoff'on *he house. The p]~ also does nor show proposed finaI ~ade for the ysd. wh~d would be veU important Gr ihe pool I{ appears that the deck w~]l be raised due ro stairs shown coming off the deck. soils below the proposed deck should be pro}nc:ed fi-om eroslen. If the deck w~ll be elevated over the ~eund surfaces. ~d ifihere's wa~er from the pool. i~ should be diveSed :%om going over the top of the bluffi and down the b~uff area. ~t m~res a nmmber of suggestions. I{ says fi:e roe ofihe bluff is no{ stable, ere But r'd wondered ~fyeu~d had a chrome {o *h~nk about that repo~x and to address some of{he points ihat have been raised in fi~at report. MS. MESIANO: Yes. 5 d~d~s have been instated. 5 oversized d~ells eaclc consisting of 2 nngs and a dome wifn capacity in excess of thai. which the calculations show would be necessau ~o coni~n ~he 2" an hour in over 24 hour period. The s~face runoff ~d the roof r~noff will be contained in ~ese &~elIs since the d~elis ~_ave ~ates on the top ~d fine final ~ade will ensnxe that ~ny runoff is pitched towards the d~eIls and not towards the nei~%boing prope~ties~ the bluff or the road. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Can I ask thai gentleman to close the door? Tine noise back there_ I apologize. Think you sir. MS. MESIANO: I thisi I've addressed the issue with respect to d~ells and mno~ As far as hhe m-ea under the deck_ we would have no problem putffng a contair~ent system weather it be ~aveI or some other t~e of s~mciural containment to ensure that no tw2ofJ' were to occm', nc erosion were to occur in the gna under the deck. And with respect to the cu~ent conditions in li~xt or,he rain that we've had. and the volume ~d the duxalion of the rain, it would be impossible to construct a construction activity without some mnoff'{nto the road. ~d ali of that material, ali of that situation, of course will be addressed in fine final gading and the finishing of the prope~y. CHAIRWOMAN: Couple of other questions, where you have the pool. is there no way that you could inco¢orate the pool ~nto the deck? The deck that you're adding omo that house, proposing that onto the house is 16' wide. It's a huge deck [n fact_ 16x80' long. It's humungous. Fm t~ng to understand why you could not inco¢orate the pool into the existing deck that you are propos{ng. MS. MESIANO: Within the ores c fthe deck that's seaward cf the house? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MS. MESIANO: Well they are t~hng to maintain as the prior applican*, t~ing [o maintain au area for outdoor dining ~nd outdoor en e~aming without having the pool JUne i9, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Reguiar Meeting Public Hearing directly outside of the door. That's going to be off of the main living and dining area. The deck is off of the main dining and living area of the house. And the pool is adjunct to thai. CHAIRWOMAN: I know, but the deck offthe house is 80' Iong. It's... MEMBER ORLANDO: It's elevated deck, you couldn't put the pool witl~ that deck. MS. MESIANO: You couIdn't put the pool in the deck, no, because of the elevation. MEMBER ORLANDO: That deck is probably 8-10' high. MS. MESIANO: The deck, John, is that... JOHN HURTADO: The deck is going to be about 7' offthe ground, offthe final grade. MS. MESIANO: And the pool is proposed at grade. Thm~k you for pointing that out. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can I have Mr. Hurtado's name, just for the record? MS. MESIANO: John Hurtado, Jr. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're not done yet. CHAIRWOMAN: I was just trying to figure out a way to minimize... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can figure it out for you very easily. Move the pool ctoser to the house. Move it just a little bit closer to the center of the house, and extend the walkway as a balcony over the top of the pool. MR. HURTADO: Just MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Okay, move the pool a little closer to the center of the house, giving us a greater side yard. Some of the pool is still going to be in the side yard. Move the house, the pool, a little closer to the house, going in depth, giving us a greater setback from the bluff; okay? And taking that stairway and making it a balcony over the top of a portion of the pool. MR. HURTADO: So you want part of the pool underneath the deck? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's just under the stairwell. MR. HURTADO: I'm just not sure practically how I'm going to put stairway over a Page 41 of I25 42 J=ne i9~ 2003 pool, MEMBER GOEH~GER: ~t's s balcony, it's no bf~ deal. MS. MESfANO: Fd like to add one point iii may before we get too far into this. This board ganted rdiefto the ne~6hbor to the eas~ a couple of year's ago. And a 70' setback was ~anted to the neighbor for a much more subst~tfai structure than what we are proposing. We are not proposin~ the copious amounts of fi]! that were used ~n the neighboring prope~y. And mucl~ of what's driving th~ need ~d the desi~ of this is the imposing nature of the neighboring proper~y. Because it is up so veW uncomfo~able to be ~i~er to the east and have that hi~ slope overhanging this area. So that. the conditions that exist on tlne easterly prope~y is a lot of what has driven us to the point where we are now with this situation. We ~e not asking for any more, As a matter of fact we ae asking for less than what was g~ted to the nei~:bor to the west. As far as distance is concerned, and in ma~itude, I thff&< our's is a much less substantia- request th~ was ~anted on the property to the west. That pool is totally within the sideyad and there is a ve~' bJ~ stone wall that goes go~d the prope~y. There's rezaimng walls there. We ~e no: proposing ~o elevate the MEMBER GOEHR~GER: The pupose of that. Ms. Mesi~o. was the fact that {n dealing with the elevation of that house~ upon construction_ they found out major problem And that was the main reason for the granting of that vaNa~nce. Although the most_ the majority of that v~i~ce_ ':o my uaderstanding, because I did view that when I went ouz to look at fnis prope~ was the sole pu~ose of creatin~ an entire area. a fiat area. So as to preserve the existing foundation ~om:d the house. The majority of thai pool is in the side yard area. There's no question about it MS. MESJANO: Yes. The whole thing is in the side yard. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: That was the puqoose of it. to create that~ I mean ~ consider i~ a reverse mote basically. MS. MESIANO: Ground around water. My point is that the board gat:ted a -0' setback. We're asking for 75. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: The actual setback is different To the house_ is much geater than thai. MS. MESIANO: No. The sefoack ~o our house is 105L The selback to their house ~s substantially less than that. MEMBER GOEHR~rGER: Do you know what it is? MS. MESIANO: It was ~ted at 80'. There were tL~ee va(ances ~anted on that. You Page 42 of 225 43 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ubl~c Hearing initialIy granted a variance for an 80' setback to the house. And then as an "as-built" condition you granted a 70' setback to the retaining wall patio and sideyard pool. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Yes, except they are a little close to the point. MS. MESIANO: We didn't as build it and then come for relief. And another thing I'd like to point out. This was not handled prior to the commencement of ali the construction. Because, as you are well aware, there was a building code change that went into effect at the end of the year and the design of this house was such that it was suhstantial. It would have been substantial if the developer had to go back and redesign the house, and implement all of the new code issues. Particularly pertaining to windows and so on. So it was important to get the building permit for the house. Because they were ready to start building at that time, and then deal with this. You can see that the application was submitted the end of January. So this is not something that, you know, just came up suddenly. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Last question. CHAIRWOMAN: We have got to move. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. Last question, gunite, or liner pool? MS. MESIANO: We don't have a specific plan for the pool because it's Mr. Hurtado's intention to market the house to one having the ability to construct a pool if one wishes. And it did not make sense to come in for a deck or a pool. We came in for everything so the board would not have to revisit this issue again in the future. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool really could be a lala pool too. MS. MESIANO: ft could be a lap pool. It could be 6'x40'. MEMBER ORLANDO: Since this is a spec house, I personally don't have a problem doing a deck, bm why don't we just hold oil' on the pool. We don't know, the buyer may want a pool, may be allergic to chlorine, you know, it's a sensitive area. You know, we can not even address it... MS. MESIANO: Except that it's more marketable because most buyers, in this market, as you well know, are going to come in. and want to kmow that they can have a pool in their backyard. And then you get into a contract subject to, and then coming back before the board in an extended delay because it takes, you know, 4-6 months to... MEMBER ORLANDO: But this house won't be done by the summer anyway, so it's a mute point for this summer anyway. So if they sold it by September, they could apply for a variance t;or a pool later on. And they have the biggest pool in the yard, in the sound Page 43 of 125 44 right behind them. If ii was custom bnilt_ ~d the person loved pools or something, we don't know who's bu~ng the house. ~ memn there's ai~erg~es our {here~ They could be allerg~c to salt and chlorine. Fd be in favor of Ge deck. maybe holdk~g often the poo~ unt~i there was a buyer. MEMBER HORN~G rhafs what the case ~s ail abo~xt MEMBER OLIVA: I caWt go w~th the pool. The ho'age ~tselfis I2K sq. fX. It's you heavy. Those blu~s out there, becanse I live ~n Orient. ~e veu uns{ahIe And I just can't put some. mnother weight on ~otl~er piece of property. This house ~s so hea~ so eno~_ous. And knowing the w~y the bluffs are~ even speaking re somebody ou~ there when they w~e doing the stairs, they have this ve~ s~ty~ clayish subst~ce in the b~uffs_ ~d you have the ~i~t wave action, and tine ~p~t w~nd~ you are losing ha~f of your bluff. I just cm~'~ go for ~t wi(h another weight on it. I s~mp~y cm~'t. It's against eve~hing. MR. HURTADO: The house ~s just under 7K sq. ~.. it's not I2K sq. ~. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: C~ we have your name please? JO}~- HURTADO: Jolm Hu~ado. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSK~: ~at was the o~her gep2ieman's name? TATHAIS MOE: I'm T~th~s Moo and Fm here to speak for th~s app1~ca{ion. happen to be heIp~ng our. voln:ztee~ng. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yo'a spoke ear12er, we need your name. [~'s ~mpon&nt. T5s~ you ve~ much, Mr. Hmeado. MR. HURTADO: A1so t5e 5~ufft2at's beFmd th~s house, wk21e we d~d ge'r a pe~it to put st~rs down. they are about haI~way completed ~nt now. 2's an extremely hea~iy vegetated bktff, and we just &eared ~ total of 4' for the stairs. ~d 2' on either side, accommodate {he construction of the stairs. But the balance ofm~ bluffin back of my is extremely heav~1y vegetated. Matter of feel yo~ really csn't even see si~ or d~S: or an~hing. It's ail covered with v~nes and dead leaves, or whatever. From a ia~ns poh~r of view_ which ~s what ~ consider myself, as far as th~s paSiculzr th~rg would go, dete~ning 1he condition ora bluff, ifs ~n very strong'5hape There's no erosion v~s~b!e, there's no ray,nos tha} have been created by anf~N2ng ~'ve done or nature So thi~ it's_ from the bluffs I've seen ~round th~s area. ~ }hi2 ~t's extremely stab!e. MEMBER HORNNG: Wait a mhm~e. [ was there ti?is morning. Not onIy was ~t exceptionally muddy, but the swa~h you had cur down on the b!uP~' was ext'emely eroded. MR. I{URTADO: We cleared Nght to the ground. 45 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ublic Hearh~g MEMBER HORNING: You made a statement, nothing you did caused erosion. I take exception to that, clearing that swath for that stairway down even though it was 4 or 6' swath, very noticeable erosion with these last rains. Maybe unforeseen, but... MR. HURTADO: Well certainly, but, again, we do have hay bails there, and we will, once we are done with the stairs, we've been concentrating on putting the siding on the house. I have the same crew doing the siding that are building the stairs down to the beach. I've been concentrating on the siding so I can get a framing inspection so I can start moving on the inside of the house a little bit quicker, but they are going on that stairs in the next few days and fix it up. But certainly whatever needs to be remedied there as far as, before they had mentioned some grass being planted. MEMBER HORN1NG: Well it is a reminder of what happens when you defoliate a steep bluff like that. And if it does rain, there will be erosion as there is. MR. HURTADO: Understandable, and again, I know a couple of residents had some concerns with the mud and things rmming down into the cul-de-sac from the lot. And as Cathy had stated, I've had a lophead in there a few times scraping the mud off the cul-de- sac. You know, and what we plan to do over the next week and half, two weeks, is get the gravel down in the driveway, and get this a little bit more presentable so when the trucks go in and out, they are driving on gravel and the water doesn't have a chance to take the dirt that's on top of the surface and bring it into the cul-de-sac. But Vincent was mentioning before about not giving a permit for the pool. And I just feel that, for the price range this house is in, for what the land costs out there, it's something that's extremely desirable having sold a bunch of homes out there in this area over the past couple o f years. CHAIRWOMAN: It's desirable, then as you said, it's a very, very, expensive home. You're spending a lot of money on the home, there are a lot of very fine architects out there that can design a pool, and a deck in that space area. If you're not willing to do it... MR. HURTADO: I'm certainly willing to do whatever the board's requiring. CHAIRWOMAN: Then the board will certainly act on that. MR. HURTADO: The only thing I want to get across is the deck is elevated off the ground. And, again, I'm not sure, practically, how you design a deck that's elevated 7 or 8' off the ground. CHAIRWOMAN: You either re-design the deck, redesign the pool, or redesign both. But for the type of money that you're putting into this house, please don't try to say to us that you can't design something that's going to work. Because there are creative architects all over the country that could do this. So the elevation questior~ is really Page 45 of Y~25 Southald Town Beard of AppeaIs in'elevant at this point. Is there anyone in the audience who would [ke to spee& for or against the applicant? FHESAIS MONE: Yes. My name ~s Thesa~s Moue. ~nd ~ live tn the property immediately to the west, I built my house ~n I984. And ~ had. for a!most 2( years. nobody out there in ~e wonderful cul-de-sac. Bob Hungerford was there. We never saw him. We've got pro~*ess, we have houses. MEMBER OL~A: It's a swimming hole. A swimming smd fishing hole. MR MONE: Yes. we do. And I'm happy to sha:'e the fishing with eye,one ss i did for years with eveuone using that spot. My concern is if Mr. Kuhado were lhe homeowner. m~d were here. I'd be here supposing h~m. ldo has been ~emendc,asly accommoda6ng and ve~ professiona! with dealing with the m,~d. It's a problem, we can live wkk th_at. There's rain. ~nere~s mud. his men are ve~ accommodating, they are not noisy~ my problem is this pool is going m be bulk sometime ~n the ~tuxe. And i may have a d~sageesble neighbor. Then ~ don't have ~y protection in te~s ofpffw, cy and noise. Noise and privacy ~e things that i moved ont of Nassau County ro get away from. And. it's for that reason that i do o~ect, but I woutd with&aw my objection if the pool were conditioned, if the gant for the vafi~ce for the pool were conditioned on res~fing tl~at the. whoever pu~s the pooi in, when t~ey put it in. not instaE tony outdoor som~d syszems, or noise systems. You c~'t stop someone fxom brining a radio our. but this may be new ro people out here. it's just wlnat I had in Nassau. Someone put a pool in the backy~d, 2 big ~ant spes&~s. Eve~ nigh~ i'd have to cai1 up, pIease Cam the speakers down. N~ssau county, where I l~ved, had a noise ordh~ance. We don't have a noise ord~nL~ce in Southold. [ don't ~ow whether you've ever had a request like this before, but it se~ms to me. I know you've had requests for noise ordinances, but Mr. Huhado is here asking for pe~iss~on for his eventual buyer m put a pool in. My hope and prayer is his eventual buyer is as accommodaling as Mr. Hu~ado is. [ won't have a problem. !fi ge: some disa~eeable person. I would ar least like to have the bo~zd have said "if you ~e going ~o g~.1 him pe~ission ro put a pool in. he~s got m not ro put any noise in there. My other request is that we maintain the tree iine as it c~ently exists on the east side. the west side of the property, no,In of the house. If you look on ihe map, you'll see thai we're, it's called a property fence, which runs ~t along the edge of the house. If~he tree line no~h of that confinues. [ w~ll have some privacy. Jobm has Mready said he's going to have to remove some of the trees on the south side in order to permit ca~s ,0 swing lnro the driveway. We've a~eed to share the cost of putting u7 some kind of protective ba~er_ some new pI~tings, we've a~eed with that. When the new owner comes m. i don't have any negotiating power with him_ or on,king else. if the bo~d were in a position ~o ~anr pe~ssion ro put a pool in to someone I don't ~now and haven't met. ! would ask that the board condk~on the pool on maintenance of the tree I~ne as it exists, mud maintaining adequate screening between the prope~hes. [ have no objection to the deck. I understand the need. the size and whatever it is. ~s none of my concern. It is your concern. [ understand the need to have the deck in order to maintain Page 46 of 125 47 June 19~ 2003 $outhold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the view. I understand the need to have the swimming pool. Even though Mr. Orlando, what you said, I was a competitive swimmer for 4 years. I have a pool. The reason I have a pool is because very often that water out there is fall of jellyfish. You can't swim. I'm sympathetic to that. But, you know, my privacy and tranquility is something that I would like to try and preserve. And ask the board to help preserve for ~ne. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. MONE: I spoke to Mr. Hurtado about my request. And it is fair to say that he had no objection if the pool permit were granted to have those restrictions on it. CHAIRWOMAN: The screening, and noise. MR. MONE: It's outdoor sound systems, or speaker systems. MEMBER HORNING: How about enclosing the mechanical aspects of the filtering system, pumps, stuff like *hat? MR. MONE: I would hope that someone who moves into a $3M house would do that. MEMBER HORNING: Soundproof that, I mean... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It should go under the deck area, and should be soundproof. MR. MONE: I don't have a feel for thaL Mr. Goehr/nger, it's just... MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: To answer your question before, sir, we've had sound engineers in reference to distance of sound and how they travel. And Fm not speaking for the board. MR. MONE: I've never been to one of these hearings, and I have a concern about the ground rnnoffbecause of the way the property slopes. It slopes not only down to Grandview Drive, it slopes down to my property. I've gone througJa a lot of effort to maintain a barrier on the northeast. My house is down in hollow. So northeasterly winds go over the top of my house. Wood, I'm afl.aid will come down. John assures me that he won't get a CO unless that's all graded. So I don't have that problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to rely on the building inspector before the CO is granted to make sure that is the situation. CHAIRWOMAN: We're going to wrap this up now. Is there anything farther? MS. MESIANO: Yes. I would just like to say that our request is not anything, xve're not Page 47 of 125 48 June 19~ 2003 requesting ~hing that the nei~befin$ prope~ies don't already enjoy. We're requesting a vmqa~nce as substantial as was ~anted on the ne]gbJborin~ prope~y. These so,backs_ we're ~n ]~ne with ~he setbacks of the nei~ofing prope~es. Th~s_ and ~ have ~o s~mss that th~s ~n conformity with the neighborhood. The houses on each s~de have swimming po©Is. ~ don't ihl~ this is ~ excessive request, or an unreasonable request. And Fd also like to add that if it woMd ~ve the board and Mr. Mono any sense Of confidence w{~_ respect ~o the drainage s~mafion. Fm suye Mr. Hu~ado wouldn'~ have a problem ~n providing s ~'ating and drainage pian w2~ the proper cal~Is~ions ~e demonstrate that. that will not be a problem. BuL but I woM4 ~eM!y ~{ke ~o stress tl~at the ~anfing ©fa v~ance for the pool is no'~ ~nappmp~a~e ~ ~his time because we can ad&'ess the major concern ©fMc. Mone's concerns mhd problems. And we can ~ ~ven ~y ~ture problem with respem to t1~ai. Because we cmn kandle those ~ssues now before mushing is const~c~ed ~d desi~ed, rafne7 th~ ~ater after it's a problem. You c~ be ~yoac~ve rather than reactive. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Ca~hy, would you ~ow the sta~s of~he ~een c~ds? MS. MESON©: ~es, yes. ~. MONE: ~ own t~e prope~y ~mmed~atdy to the west. ~md tee prope~y a:ross tke s;ree~. An6 1 5~ve concerns. MEM~R GOEHR~GER: Thank yo=. MS. MES rAN©: Although Mr. LarVae d~d not p~ck up ~z~s not, ce. he had ca~ed me asked if~ would fax him the notice, which I did do. Because be cold me he wasn'~ going to the Post O~ce ro pick that ceY, i~ed mail up. So f Lnow he's been se~ed_ infonmaliy, even though he choose not ro pick up the ce~i~ed CHASRWOMAN: I'm going to make a molion to close the hea~ng ~.d resole decision mntii later. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION 52:05 a.m. BLUEP©I[NTS CO,. INC. #5335. Request far: (al an l~r~terpretat~on garage building with [[ke-~nd re~abfi[tat[on: and (b} ~f =ecessary~ 1OO-7}C.i ~ Variance under Section ~0O-7tCA. based on the Building Department's Jaxuzry 2L 2003 Not,ce of D~sapprovaL amended Marek [0. 2803~ App2~can~ propcses a demo[~fio~ and reco~strucfion of an accessory garage '~as 5u~}t' a~ ~e~s ~-kan five feet from *~e rear ~0¢ line. at ~240 Love Lane~ N2attitack: ~TM ~000-~40-2-23.L Page 48 cf 525 49 June 19~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LEE SNEAD, ESQ: Good afternoon. My name is Lee Snead. I'm an attorney from Bellpor~, NY. I represent the Bluepoints Co. in this application. At this time, i'd like to .present an afildavit of posting, the green cards on the mailing, and a couple of copies of pictures taken of the posting taken yesterday by myself. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. SNEAD: As a housekeeping matter, I would note that, somewhat embarrassingiy, there were two minor mistypings in my presentation. On page 4 of the addendum narrative to the application, paragraph 14, the third line from the bottom, it is typed as the garage did constitute, and there should be a not. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. I figured that one out. MR. SNEAD: And even more embarrassingly, in the following page, paragraph 18, I quoted the village law, which obviously doesn't apply here. And it's rather the town law section. CHAIRWOMAN: Village law and town law are the same. They are identical. MR. SNEAD: I'm here in regard to a garage, which is pre-ex/sting non-conforming. It has a CO, which has been provided to you. The garage, as it originally existed, was made of a concrete foundation slab with 3' concrete block knee wall and then wooden framing. The applicant, in late 2000, and completing it in 2003, replaced the existing wood structure with cinderblock, put a new roof on it and rehung garage doors. The garage in question has not been changed in either length or width dimension, nor in height. So we are here as a request to this board for an interpretation that 242A of your zoning code applies, and that the reconstruction of this garage was authorized. In addition, in the event that interpretation should be in the negative, we also ask here for a use variance, excuse me, an area variance under the standards. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's go to the interpretation issue. The interpretation issue, you're requesting a, as you just said, that section 100-242A applies, which is an increase in the degree of non-conformity. However, you will note the Notice of Disapprovai (NOD) does not sif~ that provision in the code. That you have not been cited with~the provision under 100-31C 1-7, which is, goes directly to the issue of an accessory use and the specific setback for the use for both schedules. Yes we can go down the route of the interpretation, which would be a very lengthy route, but I'm kind of giving you a straight out, time saving... MR. SNEAD: I would prefer to take the variance ifI could get it. Page 49 of ]125 June i_% 2003 So~ho[d Town Board of Appeais Regular Meeting P~hEc Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I wou~d say~ without pre-judging an~bh~g, i~ m~5~ be more bene~cia~ ~c you~ ~nd you client, to ~ake the sho~er route. Because the 242. m my opinion, and this is so]e}y my opinion, aUer reviewing rewewmg ~his par:~cular case So let's go ~ the variance issue, which is... MR. SNEAD: Fine. your ~onor~ Madam C~an~oman. some p~crures or,he site. and some su~ounding prope~es to s~ow fl~at b~sica~y t~is s~mcmre, and l'm going re s~ep up to *he mike~ Here is ~e s~ccture as it's presently existing. 5t's a 2-c~ g~rage basica~!y, but what's s~ored ~n fl~ere are ~ac~ors and some ~ersonal items CHAIRWOMAN: ~'m go~ng :o jus~ pass it down ~nd ~e~ eye,body t~ke MR. SNEAD: Just a general descxhp~ion ofw~a~ you are }ooking e~ w~Ia a~so a direction on there so you can k~nd ofge~ an idea of the s~te p~an {hat you are looking ~x. Here fne white build~ng is in fact the gsrage m question. You cmn see that there is a. it's a ccncre':e s~xcmre it's decent boking. CHAIRWOMAN: We MR. STEAD: I wilI show you. There ~e a couple of nei~Voorhood shots, this one is the shot of the person behind showing that hame sheds, or sheds, co:Tnnon that they are.., MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that the old one? O2. thal's the new one. CHAIRWOMAN: This is ~ust a concrete... h IR. STEAD: ~e white one is ours... CHAIRWOMAN: It's fi~t down at the base of, next to the park it's a property. MEMBER ORLANDO: But there was an o~d one, there was a wooden one. MR. SNEAD: It was wcoden ~om 3' up. it was concrete and concrete block fouz~datior~ with So what has been produced 2ere is exactly was there bcfore. It's ~us[ a much more sturdy st~ac'mre. Also when it's been painted, it wi~i probably look more decent than the other one. MEMBER HORN~G: How did it get to be "as-buil~"? MR. SNEAD: It ~s my understmnding that. in the past. reconst~sctions of this type.. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you wsnr re leave these? Pzge 50 of 225 51 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SNEAD: I have a copy, I'm leaving those with the board. What those are designed to show is other sheds and garages in the immediate neighborhood are hard up in the lines and within the setbacks. So this particular garage is consistent with other structures in the neighborhood. As I said before, it was pre-existing, so there is no change in the neighborhood, there's no detriment to the neighborhood, and in fact, having redone it, it is a better looking garage than existed there before, and would be maintained in an easier fashion, so we think that's a benefit to the community. MEMBER ORLANDO: What initiated the NOD? Yon went for the CO, you were... MR. SNEAD: He found out that he needed to have a building permit after the Pact. I was getting to that when I was standing up there. It tamas out that a few years back, there was a change in the code, which said you now have to have a building permit to do a rehabilitation of a structure. He then went back to the building department after the fact. And then there was a denial. The initial denial cited an incorrect zoning classification, t brought that to the attention of the BD, they modified the denial, and that's why the denial is dated in March. CHAIRWOMAN: The other thing is the old CO on this, which is the '85 CO, for the entire proper~y was when it was AR zoned. And in 1989, the property was re-zoned MIll. So even if yon wanted to update your CO... MR. SNEAD: You'd probably have to come back here, at any rate. CHAIRWOMAN: So you can probably clean up everything in one shot. I have no problems with this application for a variance. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: One of the letters came back. Do you know which parcel it's for? MR. SNEAD: It's the Herbert-Swanson Trust. And I believe it's for the parcel, i'm not certain. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There may be a tax bill address that's available as an alternative. We can t~elp you with that if yon want to give us a cai1 tomorro;v. Call the tax office, and see if they have an address. Because they do have to pay taxes. And it's usually a different address on the assessment, if you could just send notice to them to see if they have any objection, or anything. Just send them a letter, you know? MR. SNEAD: Am I hearing that this matter is going to be held open? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, just pending. It's going to be awhile before a decision is made. So in that 2-week period, you should have an answer, or something, Page 51 of I25 52 June 19o 2003 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals ~hing. TMs way we could s~y you auempted i~ a second time. MR. SNEAD: Just so you know. that address was taken ou~ of rko counw rML so. h's only address ~ey 5ad. Bu~ I will check w~t~ tko assessor here. and see :f~ can obtain BOARD SECX~TAKY KOWALSKk ISwe knew earlier_ we would have asked you do that ~vay CHAIRWOMAN: FH make a motion closing the hea~ng rese~mg decision until Ia~er MR. SNEAD: ~t's been a pleas-~e to appear before you. lj~st w~ed Io say ~ practice oul in ls!ip ~nd Broo~naven. and if anybody's ev~ practiced ou~ Eqere. or talked whtk ~yooey w~o s pT'aerated out there, you ~ys have a pkenomen~ system kereo Yo~r BD and ZBA folks have been ve~, w~, help~l, it's been realty appreciated. CEAIRWOMAN: Would you like to come ~o lunch with us2 Bythe way, the Supe~isor's o~ce is... MR. SNEAD: J realize in sa~ng that to you i~ migkt look one way, but it is se nice to have som~oody who wants ro help people get MEMBER ORLANDO: We accept ~e~ers. MR. SNEAD: You'lI get one. CHAIRWOMAN: Tka~ you. Mr. Snead. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION Z2:i5 a.m. JOHN AND PATR~[CIIA CLARK #5336. Request for a Varlar~ce under Secdo~ 100-244B, based on ~he Building Depar~menFs January 9~ 2002 No~ce cf Disapproval amended January 2L 2003. Applicants propose additions and Mteradons to the dwelling which results ~n a ~ot coverage exceeding the code l~m~tat~on of 20% for aH bui}d~ng area~ at 800 A~bo DrN% MatriX?ok: ~TM ~2000- 126-3-9. CHAIRWOMAN: ~s someone here who would 5ko te spe~ on behMf of t~e appl~cant2 MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Mr. 71ark. before you speak, can ~ just make a generaI statement to the board? As you Lxow. ~n the past. ~ kayo recused mysel5 Agadn. we have a situation wkere Mr. Clark's whfe ~s a yew distant relative of:my w~fe. And. a! tkis pa~iculg poinL ~ thin it's gotten a little ~diculous ~n reference to my recusaL So ?m 53 June 19~ 2903 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ubl~c ~tearing going to sit on this unless anybody has any objection. Thank you. JOHN CLARK: Good afternoon. Actually I think I'm going to ma~ke your day. I have a very simple, what I think is a very simple request. I'm proposing to extend all of__ onto a side deck to my single family home. CHAIRWOMAN: It's hard to hear you. MR. CLARK: I'm asking to extend a side deck by 6'. CHAIRWOMAN: The side deck meaning the front? MR. CLARK: No. This is the side of the house. There's 2, I'm requesting 2 different building structures. One is a side deck, offthe side of the house. There's an existing deck there already. I'm only asking to extend that by 6' in length. It's not going any further. The width is not going out. It's just going to the end of the house if you see the survey, it will just bhng it to the end of the house. I probably should have done it otiginally, but at the time it just didn't seem that way. Part of the reason to extend that is because family has increased in size. The deck is small to accommodate people now. There's a pool olTthe deck. And for entertaining pm-poses, it actually creates a problem where people are almost forced to straddle the stairway. So by increasing the deck I think I'll also gain some safety feature, and aesthetic value to the side of the house. And minimum intrusion to any neighbors, no one has coruplained. No one has an objection to it. The front is a, I'm putting on a porch on the front, basically a deck also. The front of the house has an overhang. I think there are pictures. I don't have them, but I believe they were filed with the folder. And if you notice, the pictures show there's an extensive overhang on the front of my house. MEMBER ORLANDO: Which will not change, that stays? MR. CLARK: That stays exactly as it is. All I'm doing is putting this porch underneath that overhang. The majority of the porch will not even exceed past the overI~ang. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Tl,~ere's always the possibility you could furnish us with a copy of, you could take a Polaroid picture. MR. CLARK: I was at the appeals office, and they had the folder with the pictures in it. CHAIRWOMAN: You gave the pictures to who? MR. CLARK: Yesterday at the office. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yesterday? Page 53 of 125 June 19, 2003 Reg~:lar Meeting P=biie He~r~ng MR. CLARK: No. The pic~es were submkted when I submitted ail ~bis~ ali of Gis. And yesterday when ~ saw t~e ~le ar the b~iiding, ~he zoning orfice, the pictures were ii2 the ~ie. BOARD SECRETARY ~(OWALS~(~ Did they put lhem in the Back of Ge 5le~ Oh there. ~gh: on too. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Could we see tho -~icture7 CHAIRWOMAN: None o~us were copied o~ it. %e photos BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKb: T~ey were with the o~gi~al s'T~imission. And we probably diciv't have 7 sers~ Do you re~ember ibyoz gave zs 7 setsg MR. CLARK: ~ orobably didnk do 7 sets. BOA~ SECRETARY ~(OWALSK~: Tha~ ~appens sometimes, bul they me always in [qe of~ciaI 5ie. MR. CLARK: When you see tho photo~ yon'i! see tha ~he proposed porc~ ~s goi:~g to be under. Probably 60-70% of{~e house is not even clnan~ng. It falls und~eath the existing overhmg. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just extending the rooline lo cover the ~!i porch. Some of your front porch will be open lo t~e sky. MR. CLARK: lust on {he south side. CHAIRWOMAN: Se this will not be a porch? MR. CLARK: See where *he bushes are? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. CLARi{: The bushes are coming om. There will be a porch. CHAIRWOMAN: T~ere w~lI h~lno too5 open to tlxe sky? Th~s is going ro stay the seine? MR. CLARK: Nothing o:a the roof ch~ges a~- ail. MEMBER HORN~G: So ihe only pot& area will be uudem~eatk {~e exis~[ng overh~ng. The rest is deck? 55 Jnne 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ublic Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is a patio now? CHAIRWOMAN: You are replacing this? This part is being replaced? Here's Albo Drive. Here's the front of the house. MR. CLARK: Fro just going to come right across here, going to do a little zigzag right here, and come back~ So all of this is under the overhang right here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the roofiine stays, but no additional roof[ine. MR. CLARK: Then on the other side, here, we're just coming, this will be one or two feet will be exposed. MEMBER ORLANDO: You're building a deck, no roof?. MR. CLARK: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Because, in your original application, you said you were going to be replacing the front porch. MEMBER ORLANDO: He meant, which is existing now, which is... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He's really filling it in. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's brick now. And the brick column will stay there as well? CHAIRWOMAN: I guess the concern I have is right now, you're at 22% lot coverage? MR. CLARK: 23. CHAIRWOMAN: And you want to be 23.8. And when it comes to the lot coverage, 20% is usually a lot. When you have 20% on a lot, it's a lot of lot coverage. Yes, I know you want to do this for aesthetic reasons, but... MR. CLARK: Also what you can't see here is the stoop that goes to the front door. It's a narrow stoop, when you open the door, young children And I eliminated that problem. CHAIRWOMAN: I guess what I'm say/ng is the board really does not like to grant lot coverage in excess of 20%. Because it really is a lot of building on a lot. And the town is very lenient on maximum lot coverage as it is. But in this case, you are already over the maximum lot coverage of 22%, and you're coming back for more. So ifs... MR. CLARK: I don't have an attorney with me. And it didn't want to go out and hire an Page 55 of 125 Seu¢no~d Town Beard of m~omey because Fve already incused expenses that ~.re necessa~I to do this ~yhow. is my understanding tho* there are plenty of houses with more {nan 2( % ~o{ coverage. xvhich ~s the purpose of the commkree. And I ~ow... CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think so. ~ don't know where, who to~d you {hat But.. MR. CLARK: To~d me wharf CHAIRWOMAN: That there were a iot of houses that had more tha~ 20% !o~ coverage. MR. CLARK: I don't know statistics, but I ~ow people come before the beard bec~use they i~ke to increase Obviously, tlney are here because they have tc increase over 20%. lTFm at 22. ~d I'm asking ~or ~ add~fio~al ~%. the reason Fm asking for [s. as I stad:ed to say~ was the emr~ce m my house, which is the stoop, is ve~ restricted. So wlnen i open the door, people se forced 1o walk baUrwm'ds. ~ mean. ~ kxow whzt~s going re happen, people have sPambied. ~ don't want ~o have a problem. By putting this porch on. ~ eliminate that MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. CI~k. would you sett~e just for the variance for ~.e ~oni porch, the 8.4x2~ ~? At [east that vvfi! settle yo~ Habfiny conchs for *he ~oni door? MR. CLARK: What Fm asking for on the side porch ~s ~'. And t!nat agann, crea~es a proNem because my house, my fm~iy has expanded [ have now. actually, my son m~ed.. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~ unders*mnd. Bm the Charwoman is not looklng ~n favor of that. So Fro. t~ng to help you here. and see if you'll settle for *lat. Og[m~Ase... MR. CLARK: [~ somnds like. again. Fd have te address the side porch. The fact that Fm still going to ~nave a problem wlth safety there, expanding family and nor enough room ente~a~n people. I'm still going ro be forcing people ro straddle a sT~*, and stared hatf a fiat deck. or patio, a foot u_~ on the deck to accommodate people. Things ~nange, you 2~ow. my needs have chmnged. And [ jus~ didn't reaIize that this could create as much. maybe Fm just not presenting ~ co~ecfly, ma~e Fm conPdsing people. But 1 ~ ~ increase from 225 to 23%. l just didn't th~nk [ was !ook~ng for a lot ofaroblems. ~ don't mean to cause problems. MEMBER ORLANDO: But you aisc have a ]srge patio around the deck. You can ente~ain on there ~nstead MR. CLARK: Except ~ don't have a barbeque, ;he barbeque ~!I is obviously on the deck. And when Fm feedin~ people. Fm feeding them on the deck They are walk~ng fi'om ~he deck ail ~he way down to the patio. It also. fine way the deck ~s now. h stops before_ ~fyou notice the section of the house, it stops before there. Sc aesthetm Page 56 of [25 57 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing value is going to increase. Not only my own personal aesthetic value, but the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. And the neighbors on the one side of me especially who look at this. It's almost like, why did you stop where you stopped? Why didn't you just finish the continuity of it? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? MR. CLARK: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Possibly, Mr. Clark, what you might consider doing is including that deck underneath tha* porch area that you are referring to. And then taking that portion, which you're asking for deck on the front of the house, and maybe reducing that to a brick patio. Which would be on the ground, which would exclude tlnis. Thereby keeping in the variance application, would be the porch, or filling in underneath the porch. And that 6.6', which you are referring to on the side. The point I think I'm trying to raise here is that we need 3 votes. So you need 3 people to agree. And that's basically how the situation is. MEMBER ORLANDO: And how that works, Mr. Goehring~, is you make that a patio. It reduces his lot coverage, correct? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. That's what I'm saying. MR. CLARK: But, now you're saying make the patio under the large living room window? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, make that a brick patio. Or some sort of flagstone or something that's relatively even with the ground. Ground level. MEMBER ORLANDO: Continuous to the rest of the patio. CHAIRWOMAN: This is for the front porch? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. The front porch that's not filled in underneath the, it's for the front deck. MR. CLARK: The problem is, and I mean, I appreciate your suggestion... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could do it in wood too, you could do it in CCA. MR. CLARK: I don't think that's going to, I'm the one that has to live there. And I appreciate anybody's help, but we spent a lot of time. We actually started this thing 2 years ago. And come to find out the different things I had to keep doing. It kind of got sidelined. We finally got things together and started the movement. And I really have to Page 57 of ~25 Soutb~o[d Town Board ef Appeals ~eE you, ~'m not b~k~ng to W~ the town upside down. ~t's a 1t r ~nerease. aes~het~cM~y going to Chh&nco ~he neighborhood mqd the 5ouse. 7~'s g¢~ng ~o deve~¢p better entrance and exit on tie fron~ o~the house. It's go~ng to be a sa~e~y fe~J:nre ~hat ~s gmng re be beneiciaL n¢~ on~y ro me. bu~ te ~ests vmd t¢ famiy me~bers. Grandchildren_ ~andparents. ~ ~st. ~ k~nd ¢f~ike fed ~ha~ ~ w~ul~ l~ke t~ play ~he that ?ye given here~ Fm no~ looking fo; confrontation. Bu~ I don't see by reducing the 6' on the side ofthe house is going ro help ~hing. [t's going to t~<e away from the ~ouse. And charting the front. ~his is something that's going to make the house look meet 2's no~ going ~o encroach on anyone at al!, neighbor wise. ~t's going ro increase values. It's got a safety feaze as the bottom line ~o i~'. I just would ask the board to... MEMBER ORLANDO: The las~ va~5~ce you got, I had a copy, but ~ can't End was gor the su~oom in the back. And that was ob%ons]y for ~o[ coverage as well MR. CLARK: ~ really don't remember. ~ never c&me ~o a 5eairg. ~ can tel! you think that it might have been that it was too close to the back proper:y !inc. Ii,hat sounds CHARWOMAN: Okay. ~y don'; we ~e e2~ o~yo'~ Gou~hts m~d concerns into consideration here. Is ~ere ~yone in the audience who wo,o2d iike to spe~ Gr or against the app]ican~7 MR. CLARK: I can onty te]i you it's he,say, bo~owing mn oId pimase, but my nei~bor across the stree~ was impressed wi~h the idea tha~ we were ha~ng ~he porch as opposed what it is now. Yhat was her comments. CHAIRWOMAN: Th~k you ve~ much. ~r. Cl&Or. MR. CLARK: Tha~ you ~or your time. CHAIRWOMAN: ['lI make a motion to c!ose Ge homing ~d reserve tie decision PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION E2:gO a.~. DONNA AND LEONA~ SCHLEGEL ~5527. Reiuest 7er a ~f Disapproval Applicant proposes ;o cor~str[c~ z fence exceeding ~he code limitation of four fee~ w~en ~ocated in the fron~ yard. Locate[on of Proper~y: CHAIRWOMAN: ~s someone here who would Eke to speak on behalf of the applicant? DO~A SCHLEGEL: HL Fm Donna Sch!egeI. And Fm apply~ng for ~ variance for Page 58 of ~25 59 June 19, 2003 Souttiold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing estate gate. And it's hig~hest length, height, is 6' with 2 sets ofpillars. The pillars will be 6 ½' of natural stone, and 2 that are 4 ½'. It will be setback off the road 30'. And 2t' off the property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the fence is the size is MS. SCHLEGEL: The fence right, I'm going to put a fence across the whole front, a picket fence 4'. That's conforming. MEMBER ORLANDO: And 4' going to the internal pillar? The will be 6'? MS. SCHLEGEL: 'You got it. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the pillars will be 6.5? MS. SCHLEGEL: 'Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: My big million-dollar question is, the nice slxrubbery in the front, ~lowers, that's outside the fence? MS. SCHLEGEL: Yes. It's going to go back on an angle. CHAIRWOMAN: My big question was on the 2 pillars that are on the road. That maximum height on that is 4.5'? This is so easy. I think we've all got it. MS. SCHLEGEL: It should look verynice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? What is the gate going to he made of? Is it wrought iron? MS. SCHLEGEL: I'm having a custom wrought iron fence made, 14' wide. MEMBER ORLANDO: Matching fence, more wrought iron? MS. SCHLEGEL: Yes. I'm putting the little lxl pickets across the front. And then the 4 ½' pillar, it will go 4 ½', and then it will step up to the 6 ½', where the other, larger pillars. MEMBER ORLANDO: Made of what? MS. SCHLEGEL: The larger, plastic fencing. And it will be a wrought iron gate. CHAIRWOMAN: I saw the design. It looks very nice. Page 59 of 125 8outho~d Town Beard e£ ~ppea~s MBM~R ORLANDO: ~ec~fic. manual2 MS. SCHL~G~L: i'm SeinS ~e m~e i{ electric. Fm res{ofi~S ~his b~S old heuse. cemh~S a~on~. CHAIRWOMAN: ~ don't have ~y questions or problems with this at ali Any questions, board members? Is there anyone in the audience who would Iike to speak for or against the applicmnff Seeing no hands. [qI make a motion closing ~he berating resew~ng ~he decision until tater. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION t:06 p.m. V~RGINIA an~ C~R~STOPHER COYNE ~5323. Request for Variances 2rider Sections 100-3iA a~4 100-33~ based on the Bnfld~g Depar*men~s Febrnary 1L 2003 Not,ce of D~sapproval~ for approval of: (a} ~N~g space in ~ no~-habi~ab!e accessory bu~ding~ whh a Froposed addhion; (b) proposed addi~ions/alierations ~o a ~on-kabi~ab~e accessory bufid~hg, a~d (c) "as bnih' aecesso~ shed located in area other than ~he code require4 rear yard. Locatio2 of ProperS: 8310 Soundv[ew Aven2e~ S~utk~ld; CTM CHAIRWOMAN: ~s there anyone in tke ~ud~ence wko would like to sped< for or against the applicant? PATRIChA MOORE. ESQ: Pa~dc~a Moore. on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Co~e. M:s. Co~e is actually here. She made ~t desprte caving m sar21~¢ systems. ~oodings the road. and eve~h~ng else !ka~ goes a!ong with ownership our here. The way lh~s began is. ~ represented Mrs. Co~e when ske brougbA the propeF~. And S~ore. Schur. Mr. Schur was the seller. We actuaEy sta2ed !he process for a pre-CO on tlne cottage. And Mr. Schur didn't w~r tony hassles with the Bufid2ng Depammenr (BD k d~dn't want to help us. didn't wmnt m cooperate, so k kind of left it up zo us ~o do ali tke backgound search on how ~his. when this co,rage was m place. ~d when ~t was created, and the Nstou of it h~ze~ We ~ed to submit all f~at to Gau F~sh. And Grow said. "no. go ~o zoning board and prove it there". And so ~Bat's why we came ro this board ~a! submitted to you alreadv ~n your packe( is that th~s s~bdiwMon was crea~ed back in the 7O's as oversized subdivision. Let me ge': you tke da~e. CHA~R~VOMAN: 1976. MS. MOORE: t97~. Thank you. it's a!1 cut off on my ¢5m. ~n '7& t2is cottage was there. And what when Gey did t~e prope~xy line. r2ey ~nciuded INs p~ece, and Gan ~hey later on. bu2t t2e house thaFs *here presently. But the ~ots ~e. could be. they could sustain 2 houses with vi~ue of zoning. The problem is tha~ the Pinning Board ~mDosed a no ~¢her coven~t a no P4mher subdivision covenant. So we can'* so]va problem by splitting ~his cottage away f:-om the kouse. So we are obhgated lc be kere l%ge 6( of 225 61 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of AppeaLs Regular Meeting ?ublic Hearing give it a pre-existing, non-conforming status. What we also did is went back to figure out when this cottage was placed on this preperty. And this property was originally owned by the Charnews family. It was part of the big fam~ Charnews owned, as you know, from the sound all the way to Soundview and parts of, to Main Road. This piece was one of the last remaining pieces. And it ultimately got purchased by Bales and subdivided by Bales. And that's the 70's subdivision that you have. You see from both the, did you get inside the building when you went to inspect? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN: We just peered in the windows. MS. MOORE: Okay. I took pictures. The house, pretty much, looks the same way it has for many years. It still has a tiny kitchen in it, a small bathroom and you can see from the exterior, it's really typical pre-existing, 1950's cottage construction that over time, may have been spruced up a little bit with a little, you know replace a board here and there. But not much has been done to it, even when Mr. Schur owned it. Mr. Schur had his son living in the house. In fact, I think, was it his son we had to wait until l~e got out? Or was it somebody else? Like a nephew, or? Yes. MS. MOORE: It was a family member that was in the house occupying it. Before we closed we had to wait until he found alternative living arrangements. So this little dwelling has been occupied consistently. And it looks to be in pretty good shape. What we, the situation we have now is that Mrs. Coyne would like to have the pre-CO for the house to legalize it. And would like to pursuer a small expansion of it because, at the time, when we first applied, this was a long time ago, we've been at this now for about 6 months, 7 months before we are here today. First she was, her mother was living in the house. Her mom is now living in Founders. She's got a unit at Founders Village. And their family situation has changed. The house is on the market for sale because her husband, his job got transferred, so she's got the 3 kids, 4 kids, all under 6, 8. There are a lot of little bodies around. And she's somewhat isolated out here with her husband still working in the city and working partly in the city. So their lifestyle has changed. CHAIRWOMAN: The house is, because in the ori~nal application, the mother was living in the cottage. MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: The mother is no longer living in the cottage. MS. MOORE: The mother isn't living in the cottage now. The mother is now living in Founders Village. She's bought one of the units in Founders Village. One of the condos Page ~1 of 125 June ~9~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals there. Ifs ~ea!ly more comfo~able. She was ~eally cramped in finis house, and couldn't wan much longer. MEMBE~ OREANDO: Now the current owners a~e selling this property. MS. MOORE: The cu~en~ owners have it under contract, don't have ~t under ~omracr_ have it on i~e market. They have somebody who's interested in buying CHAIRWOMAN: ~nis is Mrs. Coyne he~e~ MS. MOORE: Yes, CHAIRWOMAN: So Mrs. Co~e now is selling &e 5ouse? MS. MOORE: Well we want a pre-CO because regszdless, we need to have the pre-CO of the cottage It desexes to have a pre-CO md tI~e BD should have ~anted it, but they want you to do that. So we w~t to m~e sure it has a pre-CO or a recognition that it's a pre-existing stmc~e. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: ~en was the cottage built? CHAIRWOMAN: They don~t ~ow. MS. MOORE: In the 50's. early 50's. Because what we had from Chamews famii'< er from a neigxbor there that this use. it sta~ed o,~: as a little social club. They used to drink i~.eir potato liquor out of this place and this was a hangout. So it's been !here. P~don MEMBER ORLANDO: Its' hearsay. MS, MOORE: It's hearsay. We know it's t~ere. We ~cw ffcm it's censUs, etlon that it's been there for a ve~ long time. And ~om s'~eys that appe~ on record ~om the PB when the subdivision application was made The same little dwe!li~ g the cottage shows. and the fence is showing there as well. ~nd the fence is still there. So fhe structure has remained, when ii left being a drinking hangout, it then go~ occupied as a dwelling. Bu/ was al! consistenl with the zoning because you're pe~itted to have s residence on residential properry. Then when the 2~ house was built on this proper'.y, the BD in the 70's used re took st the acreage of the property. And they didn't havc a problem w~th cottages if you had an oversixed piece. If you had a parcel thai was more ~hmn 2 acres m size or au acre. depending on the zoning, one dwelling per acreage that was requirec. At the time I fihink it was one acre zoning here. in the 70~s. It ~s now. subscquently, 2-acre zoning. But this piece of propexy is over 4. It's ]ust shy of z.. it's 3.9 acres. So legally a created use. But now it's non-confo~ing m that our code says no 2 dwellings on one proper:y regardless of the acreage thst you have Pzge 62 of !25 63 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I had seen a CO that was issued for this. MS. MOORE! For the cottage? CHA~[RWOMAN: For the property. MS. MOORE: Yes. There's a CO for the house. Remember, there's a main house. Did you get over to see the property? Mrs. Tortora? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MS. MOORE: The big house that's towards the back of the property was built in the '80's, 70's, 76, okay. Shortly after the subdivision was created, Mr. Schur purchased the property and buiIt the house. The cottage was already there at the time. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you happen to have a copy of the CO of the house with you? MS. MOORE: I'm sure I do, I'll look for it. I'1I see if I have it in my paperwork here. I'll took. I knoTM I have it in my file. So I'll give it to you at the end of the meeting. I thought I had given it to you guys, but. It's in there somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN: No. Actually I have it in my packet at home. It does not appear to be in the master file for some reason. MS. MOORE: I don't know, I'll look. I know that we closed with a CO for the house. Anyxvay, the situation presently is we need the pre-CO to legalize this so that it doesn't create problems for the next person who buys this property. And the person who's interested, who's shown some interest in this house has a similar situation to what Mrs. Coyne had, which is a family member who's going to live in the cottage. And the house is going to be by someone else. You know, by another family member. What we're prepared to do is covenant that this cottage be accessory to the house so it will be family occupancy. It's not to be a rented dwelling. That's been what she's wanted all along. We want to continue that restriction on the use. We think it preserves the value of the property as well as the integrity of the neighborhood. So we are certainly willing to acce,p..t that as a condition on an expansion of the cottage. CHAIRWOMAN: The cottage is what, 432 sq. ft.? MS. MOORE: Yes, something like that. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very tiny. It's not even... MS. MOORE: Well it has a full bath, bedroom, and living, dining area, and kitchen. Page 63 of I25 Sou~2o~d Town Board of Appeals You should have gone inside, Or ~oo bad you didn'~ go inside CHAIRWOMAN: I did peek in the window. It's v~ cure. and 5~'s ve~ old. And [ can see ~hat you. there is also a plan ~hat you wanted ~o put on a major additic a to the co~mge. The m~}or addition would be ~o make it almost double the siz:. MS. MOORE: No_ ~i wasn'~ ~hat bhg. There was a. com~ on u? here so you're on the record. MRS. CO~E: What we had planned. ~ ~i~ink. was expa=ding tl~e widlh or,he house, the 24'_ whic~ is ~he living ~e~. CHAIRWOMAN: Yo=r mo~er no longer ihves ~l~ere. And by no dehnhrio= wo~id i~ even come close to being a dwelling u2iL ~f. as you ~ow. 850 s~. f~, minSmum. MS. MOORE: It's pre-existing. CHAIRWOMAN: That i~asn't been established. MS. MOORE: That's what I bdieve. That it's estabiished ~ou~ the histo~ of~is prope~. CHARWOMAN: Not as a residence though. MS. MOORE: Sure. ifs shown... C~AIRWOMAN: When the. according to Mr. DoroskL it used to be used as ~ socia~ club and a bar. MS. MOORE: That was in the 50's. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. But there is no evidence tb~at it has been used pNor to zonhng for a residence. MS. MOORE: Nc. no. 1, was the dwellhng on this property unthl the ~70's. CHAIRWOMAN: Do yo,a hzve a CO that says that7 BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's none submitted to the record. MS. MOORE: Okay, we'll look for a, just thig< aborn ~he histou here. You have a subdivision tbal creates the prope~y, the lot. in the ~70's. [I h~s the building on that property ar that throe, if ~ was a. iI would have been a dweilhng ar 1her time because it was res~eenLa] use on a 3.9 acre property. When 2~e 2nd house_ the pMma~ house, the Page 64 of i25 65 June 19~ 2003 Southold Town Bnard of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing main house was built, that cottage still remained. Because the property, again, if zoning only required 1 acre per dwelling, it was conforming at that time. It only became non- conforming when it was put on the same property, m~d arguably, well, it's non- conforming when the upzoning occurred to 2 acres because technically, you would have · required 4 acres to have 2 dwellings. So only at that time did it become nonconforming. Until that time, it was conforming. It's a pre-ex/sting, non-conforming structure. The structure was built prior to zoning. But the use became, was illegal. Was acC_mliy legal until the '70's when the 2nd house was constructed. And then it became accessory to the main residence. And it hasn't changed. CHAIRWOMAN: Either that, or it became the principal residence. And the new house became accessory. MS. MOORE: Unlikely from the way it's designed. ~[t's always been accessory to the main house. MEMBER ORLANDO: Couldn't the PB do a set-off? MS. MOORE: No. I would have loved that. That was our initial solution here. But the PB put a covenant, no further subdivision on this property. So as a covenant against further subdivision, yon can't come in and ask to subdivide the property. Whether that's a legal subdivision or not, the lower courts have said it's illegal, the upper courts have not yet made a final ruling on that. We got over, that issue I presented to the... MEMBER ORLANDO: Weren't you in Brookly~ Supreme Court at one time? MS. MOORE: Yes, and what happened is that the appellate division tm-ned over the PB's denial of our being able to come in to farther subdivide based on the fact that it wasn't a recorded covenant. Here ~ thir/k it was a recorded covenant as I recall. It was recorded. So when we acquired, we found in our title report, the condition of no further subdivision, we knew that, okay, that solution is om because the PB has Eled a covenant. The appellate division didn't sustain the lower courts ruling. They kept that silent. They did not address the issue. They said no PB, you have to consider this application because it was not a recorded covenant, a condition that would have put Iano is the case, would have put Iano on notice. So it's still, the lower courts, we have an Easthampton case and our case in Southold are both lower court case that say that the PB doesn't have author/ty to put that kind of restriction on it, but the appellate division hasn't yet ruled over that issue. So it leaves it in somewhat of a gray area. So, you know, the Coyne's don't want another, you know, they don't need to bring another case that brings the point back on to the appellate division. That's just not, not a reasonable process. CHAIRWOMAN: There was a note in the property tax cards that 2 buildings were moved onto the property. Page 65 of I25 66 ~S ~OO~E: ~aL we d~d ~o~ ~md any evidence of ~baL ~ha~ o~e was de~n~e]y he.say, i~ could have bee~ ~he shed because ~ha~ shed was pu~ on ffqeye, i don'~ knaw~ 7ha~ looks ~ke a ;e~afive~y new shed. Tha~ d~dn'~ make sense because ail evidence ~ha~ we had from the subdivision applicatiom and the Schur su~ey keep showing that the dwelling that we are asking for a pre-CO on as always being lhere. So as fmc as we can tell. has never been moved. Whether or no~ it may have been lifted and the foundation puc under it and put back on. that's possible. ~ don't ~now the ~o~ of construction_ how it was sitting on the, what kind of foundation it ~ad. UHAIRWOMAN: ~e building, I, I understand t~at the building itselfwas pre-existing, non-confonning, ~d to the use. ~ really don't think tha?s been estdolished thsX it's been a residential use used conti~aallv, em. There's nothing. MS. MOORE: But the obligation is for us to show from the time that it was a residence. it becmme, you const:~ctefi the second x'es~dence. ?hafts whop. ~t became the second dwelling. You understmnd t~e difference because you are not going back ~o '57. Evez though you could. It was a Iega4 it was not a non-eonfo~ing use until the 2nd ~ouse was constructed. CHAIRWOMAN: As I say you could also t~e the argament that if you're going to take t~e ~g~en~ that it was not a non-confo~ing use unffl the 2nd ~o~se w~s cons~cted then you could also ~e that this was the principal use. mad the second house is the seoo~d use. MS. MOOR~. we have s h~mer way, CO on the 2nd house. And 5'H produce that because I ~ow we have it. We wouldn't have been able to close with the bank iff you ~ow_ we didn't have a CO for the house. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the_ we don't have that in our file. MS. MOORE: I ~ow I have the whole file with me. so I'll puli it out mhd ~ve it to you. CEiA~WOMAN: Let's see what happens. Mr. Homing. MS. MOORE: We still have the shed issue. It went on the front yard because thaffs where most of the propexy is. The house is all the way pushed to the back end. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORN~G: ~at is the applicant proposing to have inside of the accessory building, or second house? MS. MOORE: The same th~ng we have now. It was jus~ the living room was. the kitchen, it's kind of a ~ear room_ ~r star:s, the little kitchen is on the ~ar end. and it's a 67 June t9, 2{~03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing small little seating area and the sofa/TV. The one L side of the house. Do you have in your packet the interior layout? It looks like this. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're looking to seek from us a CO? MS. MOORE: Right. We need the CO for the cottage, and then permission to expand it, a small amount, just to make the living space a little more conforming. We have like an efficiency kitchen in there rather than a, there we go, thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How far is the expansion? MS. MOORE: I'1I get the dimensions for you. MS. COYNE: We've proposed about, the shed itselfis about 24' deep. What we wanted to do is go like 20' I think, or 18'. About half, there's a fenced in area fight behind it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're talking the... MS. COYNE: No, I'm not expanding the shed. MS. MOORE: What was the distance here, this way? 10', I think it was. MS. COY'NE: No, I think I was looldng for 18'. MS. MOORE: Where the fenced in area is now, and you have a photograph of that, pushing it out about half way in that fenced in area, where the propane tank is presently on that side, just pushing it out a little bit. MEMBER HORNING: How much was that? MS. MOORE: The request was 18'. The length of the building is 24' from one end to the other. So pop it out i8. And that's negotiable. I mean... MS. COYNE: That's just to make the living room bigger. MEMBER HORNING: And who would live there? MS. MOORE: It would have to be a family member. The person who's interested in the house now has a, the parents are going to own the big house. And the adult daughter is going to be in the small cottage. MS. COYNE: Almost the same situation ~ve had. Page 67 of I25 June 59. 2093 Sout~koId Town Bonrd of Appeals Reg~lzr Meeting P~bI~c Hearing MS. MOORE: Reverse than what tlTey had They had the husband and wife with the four kids in the main house m~d mom in the cottage. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer, any questions? MEMBER GOEHRNGER: No. they are going to give us a copy of the CO. MS. MOORE: The CO is dated November 27th. 1978. pNvate one-fmily dwelling. And it was constructed by Robe~ ~d Shelia Soho, who are our se~lers when we. we bou~t ~om the Schur f~ily. CHAIRWOMAN: You have nothing, you have nolhing, there's nothing mentioned the CO about the cottage? MS. MOORE: Nothing prohibS~ing, 2otking removing ~t or. we ~ave a~ as-built deck CHAIRWOMAN: Tkere's no mention whatsoever oft~e cottage? MS. MOORE: In tke on,nM su~eys there CHAIRWOMAN: ~ me~ in the CO's. MS. MOORE: No. Tl~e ~rst time tsar... M~MBER ORLANDO: Tko deed. MS. MOORE: No_ it's tkere. CHAIRWOMAN: -W~en you purchased t~e propen-y. MS. MOORE: No when we purchased ~he prope~, we applied *o the BD for a CO_ pre-CO for ~he cottage. A~ t~at time. G~ F~s~n said "well Fm goi~:g ;o cM~ ~ an accesso~ structure, bu~ I won't give you a pre-CO. You'H ~ave to go to fne ZBA." And fnat's_ we gave h~m as much information as we had. but he smd bring it here instead. So we ~ad ro dose with an accessm~y CO~ an accesso~ structure CG rather t~mn a~ appeal Okay, because we appealed hght away. CHAIRWOMAN: So what you do have is you have a CO... MS. MOORE: For the mMn house, the big house. CHAIRWOMAN: And you ~ve a CO f( r ~ ~ccessou structure? 69 June 19, 2003 Sonthold Town Board of Appea~s Regular Meeting Pub~& Hearing MS. MOORE: A pre-ex/sting CO for an accessory structure. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you have the numbers of those? MS. MOORE: Yeah, sure, I'll give you a copy. The number is 29279. CHAIRWOMAN: Can I have a copy of that? MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll give you... CHAIRWOMAN: No... MS. MOORE: I thought you got a copy. This was all attached to the building permit application, so it should have, the pre-CO... CHAIRWOMAN: The pre-CO for the cottage is called? MS. MOORE: Is an accessory building, an accessory structure. They recognize that the accessory structure was constructed prior to '57, but he wouldn't give us a pre-CO for dwelling, for a cottage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is there a pre-CO number on that? MS. MOORE: Yes. That was the number I gave you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So it's all in one document? MS. MOORE: It's a pre-CO Z number 29279. That's called a pre-existing CO. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: ~ltmt includes the new house? MS. MOORE: No. That was the cottage. We have a CO for the house, which is dated 1978. And that number is 29315, or no I'm sorry, Z9315, that's a Z. CHAIRWOMAN: And the pre-CO for the accessory structure is dated? MS. MOORE: There was none from '78. CHAIRWOMAN: The one that you have. MS. MOORE: Oh, the one we have currently is dated February 20, 2003. That's when we, it was at our request, or application. Fortunately the bank didn't give us a hard time because there was enough value in the house. Page 69 of~25 70 June 19~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals ]Regular Meeth~g Public knleari~g CHAIRWOMAN: Essentia]lv when you bought the house, when you bought this house_ you did not have a CO on this. or a pre-CO for... MS. MOORE: No_ we h~d a pre-CO for an accesso~ st~cmre bec~ase that's all tlne BD would give us. And we needed ~o have some fo~ of... CHAIRWOMAN: Wa~t. Youjust sa~d that the date of the pre-CO... MS. MOORE: Let me repeat. CHAIRWOMAN: Was 2-20-03. MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: Now, you bonsai the house before then. MS.MOORE: No, it was, yes, ii was about the sine t~me. The proce&ge you have to go throu~ when you go to a closing is you have to produce CO's for ail strac~ures. CHAIRWOMAN: When did ~rs. Co~e buy tlne honse? MS. MOORE: When did you close? MS. CO~E: Au~si 2002. BOA~ SECRETARY KOWALS~: A~raaHy it's September 3(. 2002. MS. CO~E: I went to con,act in August. closed in September. Ci~AIRWOMAN: ~nen you closed... MS. MOORE: We closed whfnout any CO's on this accesso~ srmcr~e. CHAIRWOMAN: Now you want to sell it.. MS. MOORE: We want to ha{;e ~t leaaI, reflecting ,ha~ it s a leg=. stracture. CHAIRWOMAN: You wahl to have ~t pe~itted for 2 dwelling units on Ge prope~y. Is that ~e bottom line? MS. MOORE: Bottom line_ yes CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. I don'~ have rosy other 6uesfions. Does ~vone. let's see {f anyone else {n the audience has any questions. [s there anvone m the audience who Page 70 cf 125 71 June ~9, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of AppeaJls Regutar Meeting ?ub][~c Hearing would like to speak for or against the applicant7 Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. PATRt~CIA MOORE, ESQ: Before I get into this one (Theoharis, see page 104), Coyne, since you have to get from me the CO's from the previous application, I'd like to have an opportunity to submit a written submission so if you would just, it can continue to he closed subject to my written submission. So we don't carry it over to another meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: It's already been closed. MS. MOORE: Then I would ask that you re-open it for my written submission, then c~ose it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Then I'd have to re-advertise it. MS. MOORE: No. There was nobodyhere except for my client with respect to that application. If you recall there was nobody else here in favor or opposed. ][just want to put in writing and outline the points. The board may have some questions about the affidavit. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just the letter or a new document? MS. MOORE: The attachment. They are CO documents. But I do want to, there seemed to be some loss of communication. I want to get, ifI can, affidavits from any neighbors that were around in the '70's when the house was built, the main house was built to establish when this cottage became a cottage to the house, rather than, i think, the documents the town gave, that the town had in it's presence, adequately describe all that. But I don't know that any, the sense I got from the board was that you didn't believe me, or you just didn't... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia, why don't you... CHAIRWOMAN: We did hear you say that it was there in the '70's. I don't think we questioned that, okay? MEMBER GOEHRINOER: Why don't you re-advertise to just open it to accept those? And then close it on July ! 0~h. MS. MOORE: I don't even think you have to re-advertise. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSK][: There's no information being added to t}~e file. MS. MOORE: It's up to you, how you want to do it. Page 7I of I25 Regular Meeting Public ~!earing MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: That's what I would do. for the specie2 meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: We can rescind the motion to close and reserve decision_ and recess it to the next meeting. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. lo July 10 . MS, MOORE: At which time i have to give you extra paperwork, or you close the hem-lng. CHAIRWOMAN: One way or another_ we'd like tee paperwork. MS. MOORE: FI1 start on it tomo~ow. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to close and reserve Coyne, and to recess fi,~e heating until July MS. MOORE: Okay. Thamk you. Later resolutio~ to afi~cnrn ~earing ~mtit 7-10-03 at 7:30p~o 1:34 pom~ DAVID PAGE AND SHINN VINEYA?dD #5539. Request for a Variance nnder Section 100-3IA{2-e~. based ou the Building Department's Febr~a~ 28. 2003 an accesso~ building and to construct a~_ accessory equipment storage building ar less ~Imn 20 feet from ~-he side line. Lec=~z[on of Proper'w: 2000 Oregsn Rca& CHAIRWOMAN: ls someone here who would like to spemk on behalf ofthe applicant7 BILL KELLY: Bill Kdly from Moion B~ildings. and I'm representing David Page and Barbara S~inn. who are here wiff~ me ~o~ay. I have tie cards 5n receipt of ce22E, ed ma~ling. And [ also kave an additionai sumey stamped by a professional soD'eyor. professional Imqd sumeyor. CHAXRWOMAN: Is *Eisa new survey7 MR. KELLY: Yes. CNA~RWOMAN: Tka~ we ~aven't seen7 Page72of125 5une 19, 2003 $onthold T~wn Board of Appeals Reg~lae ~ee~ng Public He~r~ng MR. KELLY: It's the same as the one that you do have. But they requested it to be stamped by a licensed surveyor. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Is there any change? MR. KELLY: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: Can I have a copy of that? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. There's 6. Much cIeaner and crisper. MR. KELLY: Yes. The only thing that doesn't show is the fact that Shinn vineyards, David Page and Barbara Shinn are the owners of, separated that parcel out because they sold offthe development rights for the larger parcel. When you look at that you don't see that. Then the one I originally submitted shows that. The situation is they have an existing structure that's on the property line. It's on the east property line. And what they would like to do is remove that structure, it's an older structure that's not in good enough shape to suffice their use. And replace it with a structure of similar size. Their structure is a little bit larger. And move that structure over to 12' because it's going to be used as part of the vineyard, or the vineyard production end of their operation, i guess by code it would be required to be 20' off the property line. And we are requesting that it only be 12' off the property line. And the reason for that is that they access their vineyard barns from the south end of that property. And that would put, we have the door access to that building that we are proposing on the south end of the building. Soif it was to move over any more, then they would not be able to access that door. CHAIRWOMAN: They are going to access it from the 24? MR. KELLY: That's correct. Yes, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Because last time we were at the property, I think we had looked at the middle building. MR. KELLY: That one was pre-existing. It's rq~ally, it's, that's being accessed, I think from what would be the west side. And they really have it set up, you could tell if you were there, you could tell from the operation that everything is set up for access from the south side of the property, so that's what we are trying to keep consistent. A~ad if the building was to move over any farther, then we wouldn't be able to access it from that end. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, let's see what happens. Mr. Homing. Page 73 of 125 74 J~=e ~9~ 20¢3 MEMBER HORN~G: ~s 5t totally ~mpmcbcal m make ~ exp~smn o~¢e o~her framed bu~d~ng thafs noted on the su~ey 5~ste~d of aa addk~ona~ building. Somehow m~k~=g l~ger... MR. KELLY: If we were to m~e ~ eas~/wesr expans~on ¢n any o~ the b~ld~ngs, we would be in the s~me skuafiev~. ~s f~ as. yon know. we'6 be ~ere re yo~ again. 3ecause ~ we ~c an east/west exp~sia~ on any of ~he other bn~ngs, then we are m c~ose proximity, we ae within the setback lines And a no~h expansion wouldn't be practbcal because that's mowng away ~om the vineyard end. a:d pushing it up ~owards dweHing. MEMBER HORN~C: i'm looking at ~e flamed bnild~ng ihat's l~sted as 24' from the propemy line. So ~kat's already all okay. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: [4e's talking about the existing barn. MR. KELLY: There's 3 ~amed b~ms ther% okay? The framed barn on the... MEMBER HORN~G: ~e one th~;~'s called framed buildng. MR. KELLY: Frmed bn~ding, okay. MEMBER HORN~G: !s ~here some way you can incomorare your exp~s~on into bn~]d~ng on!y? Is what Fm asking. Is thai practical or MR. KELLY: ~t wo~idn't be practical for their operat~on~ Because what they ~e r~ng re do is put a new expansion oa that. You can see ~f we d~d a westward expansmm we would cul h~to the d~veway, the d~ve ~ound area. If we do an eastward, exoansion~ we woul&n't be able re access that build~ng f~om the south s~de~ So we~d have to go ground re e~ther the east end or ~he ~!o~ s~de of that buHdk~g m access k And ~nat mey are really rx~ng m do is have ali their equipment or an~hing that would be going in znd out of that building, going am toward the v~neyard. The v~neyard m'ea is ail sou~x of this prope~y. And this property was cur out Because. ~. was aH one p~cek ~d it was cut because they sold the vmeygd pa~t off as develooment ~ghts. sold off development 5ghts on that vineyard pan. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Goehr!nger. MR. KELLY: Just one o,her issue on that. According to the owners_ the frame building is a histohc Southold building. So i ~on'~ know what implications that bas. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the bui!d{ng where the big wine~' ce~Hng ~s gokxg? remember the building. No. I r~r. ember the building. Page 7~, of !25 75 June 19,2003 SoutholdTown Board of Appeals RegularMeeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have is, how tall is this structure going to be? Is it a typical Morton building? MR. KELLY: It's not a tail typicaI Morton building. It's 10' on the side wail. So it's more on a residential scale than it is on a large, commercial barn scale. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is your epinion in reference to ridge? MR. KELLY: I can give yon exactly what it is. Peak height on it is approximately 16'. That's peak height. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what other kind of utility will it have in it other than electricity? MR. KELLY: None. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm trying to figure out if I was at the right house for the inspection. I think I was. MR. KELLY: There was a sign there. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you this little 3.1 lot right there? MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: I don't know why you'd say that. It was only I 1,062'. MEMBER ORLANDO: That one right there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From Mill Road. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's not the little shed on this side. It's on that side. CHAIRWOMAN: From Oregon Rd. you mean. MEMBER ORLANDO: At least it was the right house. Alright Fm at the right house. MR. KELLY: Yes everything is so~th of Oregon Road. And all 0fthe vineyard part of the operation is south of that building lot. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the lot adjacent on the east side has not sold the development rights, just on the west side? MR. KELLY: Right. Correct. And the owner of the lot in question here, and the large Page 75 of !25 76 June ~9, 2003 Sou~ho~d Town Board of Appea~s Regular F[eeting Public Hearing parcel, the vine} ard that you saw there, sro one in the same. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the neighbors won't comp!ain then MR. KELLY: The neighbor. I hope MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. ©lira. MEMBER OLWA: No questions. SHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience ~20 would like to speak for or against the appticmzt7 ~ tMnk you're home ~ee. Seeing ~o h~mds. N1 make a mo'don closing the hea~ng rese~ing the deciMon until PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION Sect~e2 1¢0-244B~ b~sed on the B=Hd~tg DepartmenPs February 28~ 20~3 Notre© sfSe yard ~t less than t5 feet ~r 480 Seundv~ew Aven~e West Pecon~c: CTM ~i~ 74-2-7. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to spe~K on behJfcflhe appHcam? GARY STROUD: Good aR©moon. Fm G~ Stroud. ~is ~s my wife Deb©fa. We jns~ moved out here on Decembe~ 6TM. ~e ~USt big snowfalI we had oui here ~xd we love the communhy. We are both teachers in Po2 Jefferson Station. We have about a 45 m~nute re mn hour commute. We used re have a 5 mlnu!e commute. And we ex© ask{ha for variance re get a 2-car garage put on the house. The house is 3 ye~s old. We love area. We love the communky. We warn m be ~ active p~: of the community. We are asking ~br a modest exiens{on for the garage because h goes more th~ 10' of Zhe variance of our nei~&ors. Paula Daniels and Tim . I believe you have a !©tier them. You sent us a copy, 1hat they are nor in any objedon to k. We had a really harsh wm~er. We m-e having a really honible spring. And having a gm~age would really ~mprove the quality of our lives_ Irack~ng ~n dkt and mud and prbvides some more storage space. Certainly ~n the wm're~Mme I won't have re get o=r there an ex=a half hour re shovel the snow off the cmos and dean them up, and get the ice ©ri We are jus: asking *hat you can ~anr ii for us and make our Hfe s ~e{sure here. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple ofth{ngs. This is a 2-car g~age? Page 76 of 125 77 June 19, 2093 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STROUD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Obviously the door is going to be in the front. I noticed, you know, in looking at most of setbacks in the neighborhood, the house is what 2 years old? MR. STROUD: I think it's going to be 4. It's going to be 4 this summer. CHAIRWOMAN: The house is not an old house. And when it was built, it conformed to all the setbacks, including the sideyard. Now here we are, 4 years later, and we want to reduce it to a 5' setback on that side. The neighbor may not have any objection because the neighbor may or may not want to do the same thing. But the board generally is not, and I'm telling you this because you indicated that you just moved here. This is really, in terms of our purposes, it's a brand new lot. This is a brand new house. And we really don't look too favorably on granting this degree of a variance on this size lot. You know, what amounts to practically a brand new house. So I'm going to ask you what you could do. Could you put the garage somewhere else? MR. STROUD: Well, if you put the garage some,~ere else, we want an attached garage. It would sort of, I mean we'd have to go outside, and get wet, and track mud back into the house. If we only had a one-car garage, we'd have to fight over who gets to put his or her car in the garage. And we might end up in family court. And I certainly wouldn't want that to happen. We bought the house as it was. We hadn't built the house. We would have buiIt the house with a garage. We were looking for about 11 months to buy a house. We saw' many houses. We had a number of houses we put money down on and somebody else paid more and scarfed it away from us. It was a long, and detailed, and arduous process just to move into this village. And would really be a personal favor or boom for us if we could have a 2-car garage. It would allow me to get to work early or on time. I was hoping I would be able to get to this meeting on time. I just came from the NYS English regents, which [ administered this morning. And I was able to have my principal arrange the starting date a little earlier so I could make this heating. And it would really help us tremendously. We tried to look at other options, as you said. Perhaps putting it further back, but then it wouldn't be attached. We couldn't put it on any other side. The front yard or the side, on the other side, because it would still be at a variance, if we put it on the right side of the house, and certainly there's no place to put it in the back or the front. MEMBER HORN~G: What kind of driveway do you have right now? MR. STROUD: Currently, right now, we have a partially gravel, partially dirt driveway. MEMBER HORNING: And where is it in relation to the survey? MR. STROUD: It's right in the front of the... Page 77 of 78 So,u~l,~Id Town Board of Appea~s MRS. STkOUD: And i% goes fight up m where the garage woMd M~MBER HORN~G: So it's on the... MRS, STROUD: ~t's on the left side oftNe ~ouse. MEMBER HORN~G: Wha{ the western bound~al line? MR. STROUD: Yes. MEMBER HORN~G: And you:re saying you could nm exte=d the driveway ro ~e backyard ~ea7 MR. STROUD: Well we coMd extend the dhveway to ~5e backy~d~ bu~ we could?l extend the house to connect_ the gm'age to copmecr to the l~ouse ~o the back area. We liked, we moved here. we kad a house in Mr. Sinai. It 5ad an attached g~age. We really would like ro add an attached g~age m ti~e house. ~t would really, rremendousiy, increase our being able to live in this area. MEMBER HORN~G: You could attach it to the back y~d area. The rear of the house. ~qd as the ChaiEoerson points out. it is an extreme reduction i:z an existing sidey~d setback Fha~- is confonning fi~t now. And it would, be total and nonconfo~ing when yo'~. ~e ail finished. MR. STROUD: Well we are asking you to consider in the backyard. ~d coomecr it tc the ~ouse. Unless removing the deck that's the:e, and also removing the bilco doors that ~e there. MEMBER HORN~G: ~ere m'e they'? Okay, they are listed_ ~ere? MRS. STROUD: %ere's a deck on the backside of that side of the house, ls tha~ on [here? MEMBER P[ORN~G: Yes it MR. STROUD: And just to the right of the deck there's bilco doors, which go down to [he basement. MEMBER HORN~G: And is that just east of the deck. then? fs that how you would desc~be it? CHAIRWOMAN: Maphe an architect could help you design something. Let's see. Mr. Goeh~nger. 79 June 19~ 2993 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ~?ubl~c Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well the only thing yon could do is you could decrease the size ~fthe garage in width, whic~ I know is really fi~t now al 22.6'. MR. STROUD: Well we have 2 ve~ small c~s, and we thed to put the smallest thing there. You notice that there's not a second floor on i~. There's not ~y... MRS. STROUD: You do have the arch]tect~al plans, fight? MR. STROUD: And it's a ve~ modest roofline. It only goes 4'. The ~chitect and the builder w~ted to put a second addition on R. We said we don't need the extra space. All we ~e looking for is a d~ place for our cars. i own a conve~ible, ~d be that as ~t may_. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALS~: I ~ink there w~e architec~ral plus amended... MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Are they in the file? MEMBER HORN~G: We don't have them. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I looked at them. MR. STROUD: We d~d send in 5 copies of ~chitectural plans. MRS. STROUD: I don't have them with me. BOA~ SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Maybe you gave them ~o the Building Dept. (BD). MR. STROUD: No, no. We gave them to the ZBA. BOARD SECRETARY KOWA[~: W~th a cover leKer? MR. STROUD: With a cover letter. With 5 sets of pictures of the ho~se. BOARD S~CR~TARY rOWASSrI: There they are fight in the back. M~BER ~O~HR~BR: Let me see tha~. ~R. STROUD: We are really t~ng to put the smallest thing there to t~ to be the least ~ntmsive to the neighborhood. It is a dead end street. There's only t~ee houses on the street. There's LIPA prope~y on ~e other side. We ~e going tQ keep it as low as is physically possible. And we thed, we thed to sit down with an architect to ~re out eve~ single way we could do it to keep i~ within the valance. And so far the only thing we could have would be to put the g~age out ~n the middle of the back yard and then Dage 79 of 225 June 19~ 2{}{}3 Sou~toId Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting P~btie Hearing walk to it. Which would be. you know. the only thing we'd be protecting would be Pe c~s. but not us going back and fo~h t( it CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: ~e only other questk n... CHAIRWOMAN: Fm sony George MEMBER HORN~G: You just called my name ~ay. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: He warns another shot. MEMBER HORN~G: Alternative locations here. I confess i have not seen the site. Frmmed deck in Front You do have room in ffonty~d MR. STROUD: We also have extensive gardens ip~ 'the front that would, the person who owned the house is a iandscaper. He be~ati~aHy I~dscaped the hous~ He di&nk ha~e the need for a garage because he had a bunch off trucks thru he didmk care ve~ re:ach ~sout. Co, airily we could take ail the beauti~al landscaping out mhd jusi Fat a g~age there. I don't ~ow how that would make the neighborhood more a~:ractive~ but cemain!y wouM confo~n to '~e zoning board. ~at we are toting to do is something practical and aesthetic at the same time ts fit into the community ~d m~ke it a beaut~ai smacmre as well as j~st a post for a garage MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I would probably go for. and ~ ~ew it*s no~ my mm. but Fm going to say it an~ay, i wouId go for a 20' wide stmcrare w~th a single door. A i6' door. Thereby leaving you -' or whatever on that sideyard. Sing!e or,head garage door witlnout the center post in i{ I ~ow ~ tend to be a Nttle more tradkionaL i undersend. But I jusi built exactly i-he same th~g. And what you do is you end up wk~ 2 small walls o= both sides and a t6' door, That's my proposal ~o the board. MR. STROUD: And you're able to it 2 cars ~ there? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: No problem. MEMBER OLIVA: Come again? MEMBER GOEHR~GER A 20' wide gm'age with a 15' door with no. they aze proposing 2 doors with a center ~ost inbetween them, MR. STROUD: lnstead of 22'. 20'._. MEMBER GOEHRNGER: 20' wide. 81 june ~% 2003 Somthold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ubl[c Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what Mr. Orlando has. MEMBER ORLANDO: I heard your opening remarks in regards to keeping the car snow free, wet free, etc. I mean yon comeback for not having it attached was just muddy feet. But i guess if you paved the driveway yon wouldn't have muddy feet at all. So your detached garage, I believe can stay 3' off the property line? Is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN: On this sized lot it would have to be 5. MEMBER ORLANDO: 5' off the property line. So you could keep it close to the edge, just move it back, you know, maybe a foot off. Comer to comer, maybe a foot off the property. So you'd have a 3-step to get into the garage. MRS. STROUD: And that would be closer, further away from the property line? MEMBER ORLANDO: According to tI~e code, it's detached, because it's not actually attached to the house. But you can have them relatively close together and you could keep it 5' off the property line. MRS. STROUD: It is 5' off the property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's attached. CHAIRWOMAN: A different part of the code. The purpose is here that it would be, it would have to be behind the framed deck if you did that, and it was attached. But the purpose here, the real issue is here, it's a brand new lot. Brand new house. Here we are a couple of years later, and we are asking for a variance on a 27K sq. ft. lot put a garage up 5' from the property line. MR. STROUD: By brand new owners who had no... CHAIRWOMAN: It doean't matter, the ownership doesn't matter. The issue is the board does not look favorably on these, this degree of a variance. You require 35' total sideyards. What is going to happen is, from a visual prospective, you are going to come down Sound road and see wall to wall houses on that side. It places you too close to the property line. MR. STROUD: Actually on the property line, our neighbors house is set ve~ far back on his property. There are huge, beautiful, magnolia and spruce trees adjacent on the other side of the property. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what we noticed. We did our inspections. We noticed that there are, that most of the houses have conforming sideyard setbacks. And that's what Page 8t of 125 Ju~ e i9~ 20{}3 SottdtoId Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearin2 we're Lying ro say to you. One of file reasons we're not in favor of ~his. we're no~ favor of ~ling you a valance on this because the neighbors do not have wha you're asking for. tt is a brand new house_ brand new.., MR. STROUD: We do nor have wail ro wall houses next to each other. We do not have that. And we won't have that with this garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Sir. I'm $ust giving you... MR. STROUD: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: The way the board has treated these in the hast. we've given you some suggestions. If you want to t~e the suggestions, fine. if you don't, thsX's okay MEMBER GOEHR~-GER: Madam Chairman, after you ask eveubody, ?d like to move a motion on this and see ifi can get a vote el3 votes ~or a 20~ garage. CHAIRWOMAN: TU i~. BOA~ SECRETARY I(OWALSKi: W~at were the alternative setbacks? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: The akemative setbacks were 7.6L I'll offer r. resolution ~anting a 20' wide garage. 7.6' from the prope~y line on the west side of the house these people are proposing. Exactly the same except reducing it by 2.~'. CHAIRWOMAN: Ali in favor? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN: All opposed. MEMBER GOEHR~GER I tried. CHAIRWOMAN: Motion failed. MR. STROUD: Tha~x you. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: You're welcome. BOARD SECRETARY ~OWALSK!: So we don't have any a!temative, excenL.. MR. STROUD: Maybe we should move. Find a house thai already has a. maybe we should buy a piece of propewy, stand new. put up a brand new house, rather than buy a pre-ex, sting house, and increase the housing. ?~at we tried to do when we moved here Page 82 cf [25 83 Jnne 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meetir~g ?ubl~c Hearing was not to buy property and put a new house in. 'We tded to buy a pre-existing house. So we wouldn't be adding to the fluent houses in the town. But if this is what you're telling us this is what we need to do to get an attached garage, and perhaps we might want to look into that. MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Stroud, I don't mean to be rude, but I was down there. You have a huge backyard. And you know, we all can't have exactly what we want sometimes. MR. STROUD: We noticed that in year and a half to get us to this point now. MEMBER OLIVA: I understand that. But, to me, you could put that garage, maybe your driveway a little bit longer and angle it, and you could have a garage back there. And also have a very nice backyard. We really do not look favorably on these wall to wall houses. MR. STROUD: Ifyou were at the property... MEMBER OLIVA: I was there. MR. STROUD: You would have noticed that my neighbor's house is nowhere near. MEMBER OLIVA: I was not, I'm only talking about your property. Your neighbor is something else, Fm talking about your property. And then sometime when you go to sell it, and how the looks of it, if your neighbor starts building, you don't know what's going to happen in the next 20 years. MR. STROUD: No you don't. MEMBER OLIVA: But you do have, and may I ask, why is your backyard so wet? MR. STROUD: We are trying to figure that out o~rselves. One of the other problems we have. It's been raining incessantly. MEMBER OLIVA: I have a feeling that whole area down there, but be that as it may, I still say, Fm sorry. MR. STROUD: Probably the other reason we don't want to put the garage back there is because there is so much water back there. MEMBER OLD/A: But you can't tell, it's so rainy right r/ow anyxvay, but... MR. STROUD: Thanks for your help. Page 83 of ~25 June 19. 2003 Southo~d Town Board of AppeMs Regular Meeting P~blic Hearing MEMBER HORN!UNG: Sir. one othm question, or idea to think about. ~ don~t know if the framed deck in the back could be moved eastward. And your proposed g~zage put where the frame deck is so you could have the garage and then the flamed deck. l don't know what's in the house there.. MR. STROUD: That would be the kitchen ~ea. ME5 [BER HORN~G: The deck fi~ht now xs right off the kitchen. ~ere. what would be e~i~cted if it was east of tlhere. MR. STROUD: We would lose om' entire view of the backyard. MEMBER HORN~G: You would? By moving the deck? MR. STROUD: Yes. That's the reason: we have a sNdfng glass door window, ~ai's the only big w~ndow, and it looks ou~ on tlne only view that we 2ave of the in, et there. One of the reasons we bought the house was because we had z NI!e fi:ay wow of Goldsmiths in!et. ~nd that' s only ~ou~ that window. MEMBER HORN~G: T~ough ahai one window. MR. STROUD: Were we to put the garage there, we'd lose that view. Ce:airily, mafse. that's not imposer in te~s of quality of life. to have a beaui~:.l view. Of course, you can't have eve~hing in life. MEMBER HORN~G: We're not here to prorecz people's views. MR. STROUD: ~ lanow, that's wF~ you don't w~t wa!! to wall h~ases. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see ff ~yone else has any questions in the audience, rs fn~e anyone fn the audience who would ]~ke to spemk for or agmnsx the applic~t? Well consider eve~hing. MR STROUD: Thenks reD, much. CHAIRWOMAN: f'il make a motion closing the hearing rese~mg derision until later. PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTfON 2:00 p.m. N4~LLEN~UN[ Ei©MES AND JOSEPH JOHNS. Leeatfon of PFopen!f: 970 ~nd ~02~ Seven{h $~reet Gree~per'{, ~5333 - Requese for a Wsk~er of MergeF under Sea{~on 10e-26~ based on tko Page g4 of !25 85 June 19, 2993 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Building Department's January 12, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended February 27, 2093, for the reasons that (a) #1990-48-2-19 and #1909-48-2-40 are merged as one tot, and (b) that each lot is developed with a single-family dwelling having a Boor area of less than 850 sq. ft.. Applicant proposes to unmerge 1000-48-2-19 (part of Greenport Driving Park #57), from 1900-48- 2-49 (Greenport Driving Park #56), and to enlarge the existing dwelling containing less than 850 sq. ft. #5332 - Request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100~244B, based on the Building Departmant~s February 27, 2003 Notice of Disapproval Applicant proposes an addition to the existing nonconforming dwelling with a s]lngte side yard of ]less than 19 feet and total slide yards of less than 25 feet, and rear yard of ]less than 35 feet. Ref. CTM #1000-48-2-~19 (and CHAIRWOMAN: The ~ext hearing, the applicants sent us a letter requesting the application be withdrawn. So I'm going to offer a resolution to accept their letter of withdrawal. 2:82 porn. TOWBEE, LLC #5355 - Request for a Var]lance under Section 109-142, based on the Building Department's February 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended Apri~ 10, 2003. Appl]leant proposes two new bu]lldings in th]is LI[ lrndnstrinl Znne D]lstriet w]lth: (a) sin#lie slide yard setback at less than 29 feet, (b) rear yard setback at less than 70 feet, and (c) building linear frontage greater than 60 feet for Building #1l, having a front setback at a average of 90 feet. Location of Property: 709 Hummel Avenue, Southold; CTM #~000-63-2~39A. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: They pronounce is Towbee. And that's their logo if you notice on their trucks. It's a little bee that tows things. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: IfI could ask Gail something. The ladies in the office said someone had dropped offmaps. And you were going to pick them up and submit them at the hearing today. Do you have it? MS. W][CKHAM: I have everything. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have it, okay. I just wanted to be sure. MS. WICKHAM: Are you ready? Okay. Good afternoon. Page 85 of I25 CHAIRWOMAN: ~ust a second. ~s ~he~e ~ amended Noffce of D~sapprovM ~nis? MS. WIC~AM: The applicaffon to you was made based on an amended NOD. it was amended twice last in April. Yesterday we spoke to Damon s~ fine Building Dep~tmen~ (BD). Mhd I understand he was going to be issuing you another NOD. whicln i haven't received yet on the question of fire 3~ floor. Have you received that yet? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually we Mways require thst the applicam or the agent submit that to the board. MS. WIC~AM: Okay. I don't have it yet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was issued. ~ bdieve they did it late yesterday afemoon. MS. WIC~AM: I don't have it yet. I i~e it you don't have it. ! j~st wanted the bom-d to be aware that it was coming in. And we're going ro hs~e to address that. But it wasn't pax of what was advedised or discussed today. ~ ass~% Wen the narco of this that you may need additional info~affon in any ever. CHARWOMAN: Because h wilt keenly relate to MI of the other variances that are bdng requested on the property. MS. WIC~AM: Althou~h the extepJ of iL i be1~eve~ is not as ~eat as you m~ht If s only pa~ially 3~'a stou. And ~ing to clsff~ that w~th the BD now. And it woula s~orage facility. BOA~ SECRETARY KOWALSKI: ~gould you tike ~o check. Gall. wi*h the BD. Or... CHARWOMAN: ~y don't we just ask if L~nda coMd go quickly. MS. WIC~AM Captain Joe is going to check. CHAIRWOMAN: Fm son~ to inte~apt you, it just was brou~at to my altention late mght. MS. WIC~tAM: I wrote you that letter so it woMdn*t be in without you knowing what ii was Mi about. ~ just wanted the board to be aware. CHARWOMAN: i just wanted to see if'we have it here and ~nat lhe specific wording of their denim was. 87 Southold Town Board of Appealls Regular Meeting Publlic Hearing MS. WIC~AM: Would you like me to sta~ with just the rest, because I have a lot of general info~ation to cover. I think you've all seen the prope~y, you're all f~ilim with the propehy. It was probably located in the LI zone ye~s ago when zoning came in. Because it's historical use as a lumbew~d and a l~ber treatment facility. It's obviously located in a mixed use neighborhood. The predominant zoning on the block is hamlet business. The use proposed is actually more like what one would expect in a business zone and o~ce building. Rather th~ the traditional LI uses. The proposal is for an attractive, modem, self-contained, single user facility by a local business employing local people. The pfimaw use is office with accessow warehouse ~eas for equipment and materials. Attempts have been made to ha~onize the appeaance with a residential area opposite Hummel Ave., which until now, has had to endure some rather ~attractive propeay. 1 would like to briefly mn tkou~ the t~es of uses, which mi~t be cons~ctive on this propehy as a coneast to the proposal for ~ at,active co~orate headqu~ers for the Seatow operations. LI zones p~it, ~d I'm going to mn tkou~ &em yew quickly, building materials, storage, public wmehouses, contractor ymds, cold storage pl~ts, food processing and packaging pl~ts, auto r~air shops, machine and equipment workshops, publishin~pfinting pl~ts, boat building storage ~d se~ice, la~dw ~d dw clewing pl~ts, conference faciIities, public utilities, track ~d bus te~inals to name most ofth~. We have asked East End Drafting to give you a rendition of what the front east elevation of the building would be like. This is the elevation facing H~el Avenue. This is a more elongated wrsion of the Hu~el Ave. side of~e propeay, which shows building No. 1. The renovated, existing building No. 2, the waehouse, and the proposed building No. 3, which is a storage fac hty. I don know if you c~ see them all ~om there. And ob~ously we've got a lot of work to do with the Architec~lral Review Committee and the Pl~ing Bo~d (PB) on the actual site. It will be screened. It will be fenced. It will be a self-contained single user facility. I just want to tell you, vew b~efly, a li~1~ bit about Seatow. Because I was under a misconception myself. They do sea rescue and salvage operations, clean up ofoil spilIs ~d such as that. They do not dispatch their equipment ~om this site. This is ~ office facility. It is a facility where they wilI haw some boats but, that need to be outfitted, that's the reason for building No. 3, so ~at c~ be done indoors. Building No. 2 will contain equipment ~d mate~al as we]I. But they have a large communications facility that's veW impo~ant in coordination with the Coast Guard. They have a franchise a~eement with many operators. And the actual dispatch of the rescue and the salvage ~d cle~up facilities are from shore front locations. Not onIy on the north fork ~d Long Isled, but actually t~oughout the countw most of whom me by independent operators. So without any disrespect, I thi~ we could possibly liken them somewhat to AAA, more than you local fire depaffment where they are m~ing out from the facility with a rescue. So the actual usage on-site will be office usage ~d a quiet usage. It will be a facility because of the communications that will be m~ned 24 hours a day But we will have a staggered shi~ operation. Most of the employees ~e there during the day. We've given the PB that information. The maximum employees projected on-site during the da~ime are 41 people. And they wiI1 ~ve at different times during the day so that there will not be a traffic impact. During the evening and night shi~s, there will only be 2-3 and Page 87 of 125 88 Ju~e I9, 2003 Southold Tswn Board of Appeals occasionally maybe ]-2 people on the site. And it will be a locked i~cility so there will not be a lot of traffic rumning in ~d out that is not invited. There are no reta!i sales on the prope~y. It's service m~d o~hce use Fm sure you have offaer ~uestions. Ca~y and Joe Frol~hoefer is here today, ~d Jim Foley with S eatow, i'd just like to go on now could and address the specific variance hems. Fm going to address ~nem in order of magnitude of the vari~ce requested. That would mean of course, tlnat ~ mms~ stax the rear and sideymrd setbacks. On building No. 2. which is the existing w~ehouse md they have the newest map. That's the existing warUnouse that's up against the track which wi~I be t'efmffbished. Thal remains at a setback of 9.10'. The building on Hummel. which is at 0 setback, will be removed. Building No. 3. which is a new w~ehouse. ~d buildin~ No. i. the office buiMing, will be proposed at a 5' setback from the railroad. which is fenced. ~ realize t~mt 70' is the required setback on a comer lot. A ~.on comer lot would require 20'. We ask that you review this project more in te~s ora sidey~c them a fi'onty~d, a rea~ard, given the fact that it is a comer 1or mud the total ioi width ar that point in the prope~y, the eastern section of the prope2y acmatiy being t[~e w~der, if only 140'. And a reduced yard would be appropriate. The alternatives would be to first reduce hhe size of the btfilding. And we would like to avoid that because that would provide inadequate work space for the business that they do plan to conduct here. And would also involve moving those buildings fresher tow~ds Hummel Ave. to create a bigger setback against fire railroad tracks. That would resuh in loss ofp~king, because you'd be moving into that p~mg ~ea. And also the lmndscaping area. And ii would only se~e -m give the railroad ROW more of a setback. And there' s really not a whole lot out ~here that we feel is going ro be adversely impacted by l'2at proposed setback. Until recently that railroad, well recently since they acquired the prope~y, that railroad setback ! understand was kind of a mess And Cathy and Joe did wox~K closely wi~n the railroad to get them ro clean it up and get fid ora io! ofju~& and over~owth in there. And it is much more accessible now. But we submit thai the proximity to the railroad tracks does distin~is5, this property. And suggest that we do a reduced yard vmdance on that side. which would not create ~ offense to that neighbon Fd Eke ~o g~ve you a map which shows_ as [ understand it what the al~owable building envelope would be on th~s property if all the setbacks were employed. And it's kind of odd because whe~ you lock at section ~00-~43. which requires 100' and 70', you end up, the actual size of the L1 prope~y only has to be 100x150'. So how they resoNe that as f~ as setbacks. I don~t know_ CHAIRXVOMAN: It's a non-confo~ing io~. MS. W~C~AM. No. m your L1 zone, l-~e minimum w~dth is 100'. The minimum is 15 7. And yet you have m have a i00~ setback from the ffonL and 70 from fine rear. doesn't add up h~ re~,s of what they were thh~ing s&out when ihey wrote the code. But nonethelcss we are here today to deal wifin what we have. MEMBER ORLANDO: And you have a 95' setback offofBoisseau7 P~ge 88 of~25 89 June 19~ 200:3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: We've got a lot of setbacks, let me get out my chart. Let me take them one at a time. And at first, I'd like to mention that one provision of section 100-143 mentions the fact that you look at the average setback of adjoining buildings. The setback of the warehouse facility on the adjoining property is at -2'. It encroaches into Hummel Avenue. I don't think the BD took that into consideration. I'm not sure that we should. But that is what the code says. CHAIRWOMAN: I read that. And I also see that they are saying the average setback, oh, what is the average setback, is 90' on Hmmmels. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. That's correct. That's the average setback whereas the requirement is 100. CHAIRWOMAN: And you are asking for, on Hummels? MS. W][CKHAM: 90, as an average. CHAIRWOMAN: But your plan is showing 95, that's... (inaudible) CHAIRWOMAN: We're talking about Boissean. From Boissean MS. WICKHAM: I think the average is 90. You won't see 90 on the map. The average I think is 90. CHAIRWOMAN: He just brought in new maps that we do not, we are not distributing to the board. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are they the maps, Gall, that they said that you're supposed to pick up today? They misunderstood you. MS. WICKHAM: I think they were submitted yesterday. The maps that you have and the maps that are going to be submitted have not changed the building location. What has changed is the usage. We had some storage areas that are actually warehouse and the pa~king computations. But the actual location of the building has not changed. And you will not find 90' on the map. You'll find that is the average if you add up and divide all the setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: I just don't see what he's making reference to. I don't have any copies of that showing that anFwvhere. Page 89 of 125 ~. WiC~HAM: Oh. you didn't b~ng ~hat Oh~ I misunderstood. I'm so~'y You were ~ng about different mass ffmn I was. ~he location ~d se~ack to t~e building have ~chan~ed. ss the NOD wouId not ~e e~fected What's changed is iht parking and ~e of the landscaping. And t~ose revisions were based on conversations we've had ~ the PB. ~ARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The message was that Gai~ was goin~ ~o pick ~ up today and amend ~hem a: the hea(ng. That:s wh3 ~he ladies did not distffbute ~. We a~ways get the maps the F~day before the meeting, otherwise... ~MBER HORNING: We need one more do~ here. i have the old one. ~IRWOMAN: Now we can follow the setbacks you ~e talking about. Okay, so ~. 89 woulfi be t}_e closest on Boisseau. And (ne closest setback from Hummel is 58 ~ co,cci? It's where, i{'s in the area the bui!din8 ts going to be remove& !s ~¢ct? The 5 y~d setback, f-~ere~s no change therel ~. WIC~AM: Thaffs co,ocr. ~AIRWOMAN: And o~ No. I, &nd No. 3. ~. WiC~AM: Now on Boisseau. iht 89' is at the southeast comer. You can see ~sseau Ave. angles the non. beast conner we're a{ t !7.92 So the average selba& ~}tsseau ~s ~ 04' as i compute it~ wh{c5 is in excess o{ 100' minimum. So that to me. ~ the most sisnific~t issue here, And !jus~ wanted to pein{ that out. May I continue ~w that weWe at~ got the fight maps? Thspi you. The setbacks, again~ are not out of e=siderable character ~om the neighborhood pa~iculaffy ~ven the size of tNt ~$nffoned the tong building on the other end of{he block, which is 2' into iht hi~way~ ~nfi ihaffs a vexl tong building, it's actually 340~ long. And on this propeNy, ihere~s an e}fisting building E. You will see nothing is happening w~ff% that building. F5at is ~ated at 15.8. That's Mr. B oFm's buiiding Sot contractor warehouse. P d iike to mn a ~ff{Ie bit, ifI may~ ~ound the nei~bor~ood. Because iPs amazin~ now re&ny times you p by screening, and until yoTre invol ~ed in somethin~ ~ike ~his, you really don~ see ~ore 8ui!dings are iocated. The Asway building across Youngs Ave. is iocated ab out 20' from Youngs Ave.. if you don'l coun~ the overhang, which is a son of awning smscture. The Sou~hold Savin~s Bank building is about 35~ from the Youngs Ave. as the Sestow 8uiIding wh~cN used to be Southold L~m~ber Yard's offffce on me corner of ~u~meI and Youngs Ave. !~'you go arc und re the other side of}~e ~ock to Boisseau Suf~bIk Comnty }Vater AuthoSty (SCWA has a build{ng, which is shout i0' groin the sifts yard against the fsi!road tracks. And while t realize that more than what we're asking, st tha? point, iht railroad ROW is only 30' w~de. You can see that t~om the ~%ap. Whereas opposite our proper~y, f{ is 60' wide. And even w~der ~ 10L i thhfi{, as you ~o ~her west. Iffyou continue down 8o~sseau. me Colonial Viitage has a a residential building, which is 35~ from Boisseau Ave. And ~hey have a 4~cs~ garage 3nne ]9~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing that backs up against the north RR tracks, which has a 4' setback from the RR. And another 1-car garage with a greel~ouse of 4'. Further back into the center of ColoniaI Village, which is, again, directly across the RR, they have a 7-car garage and a shed, which appears to be 4' from the line. And a 6-car garage a~d shed, which is 4' from the rear line, or side yard line. And as you go down, further down Boisseau towards the Main Road, those small, older buildings are only 7 or 8' offthe Boisseau Ave. Now they are all pre-existing, they are tiny. But Ijust thought he board ought to be aware of that character. Also the Southold Slayings Bank (SSB), which used to be SSB, has a 3-car garage in the rear comer, which is 5' from the side yard. Some of those buildings are 1- story, but they are not screened. And this is going to be screened and architecturally reviewed, and t think that will make a consideration in terms of attractiveness of/he buildings. We briefly touched on 100-143A, the i00' setback, 60' from Hummel is the setback on the main building. Again, if this was not a comer lot, 60' would be well in excess of what was required. Also the building on Hummel will be removed in approximately that same location. So you're going from a zero setback with an ugly concrete black building to 60' with the main building. And I've already discussed the 104 average setback from Boisseau. As to the building length, I'd like to address that next, if][ may. 2~nat's 100-143C. And the board has previously interpreted this section as pertaining only to one of two sides on a comer lot. The BD decided that, tl~at should be addressed to the longest side, which would be the Hummel Ave. side. Although we have 3 separate buildings, they will have com~ectors. So they determine the aggregate length is 220'. However, the length of the 3 buildings themselves, are 60' for the office building No. 1, 70' for the existing warehouse building No. 2, and 70' for the proposed storage building No. 3. So building No. 1 complies, and No. 2 is pre-existing. So we're really only talking, I think, about the 70' on warehouse building No. 3. Now I'd like to explain the connectors. Those are single story hallways, which are being provided to facilitate employee travel between the buildings. Each building that will be constructed will be safe contained. I may need help here, but I understand they will each have separate firewalls that they will qualify as independent buildings. And that the single-story connectors are included merely for convenience so the employees do not have to go out, or bring their material that they will be moving from building to building outside. We certainly would covenant that those connectors would never exceed 1-story, but the design was done in order to provide the appearance of 3 separate buildings. And the construction acmally accomplishes that. If you look at the schematic that we provided before, typically when you get screening and fencing in the front of the building, it really does appear to be 3 separate buildings. Again, I know we have a number of questions that you may want to explore. There are maps here that show the elevations of the buildings that apparently also did not get printed out. But we can leave them for you if you want to distribute them and look at them at your convenience. And they show also the internal layout of the building. Now, let me just mention one other thing. We have met with the PB a couple of times. I know you've received a letter from them. We have discussed with them at length, the question of parking. That's why they have requested a building usage summary. When we last met with them, they indicated that they would certainly be looking at it again, but they seemed to be, to my opinion, or from my Page 9t of 125 92 June le~. 2093 Seutheld Town Beard of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing reading, somewha~ okay with the parking. And. we also discussed with them the feasibility mud the possibility that there may be aitemale or additional pa~xing available should it become necessa~ and should they deem that appropriate. So we are going to cominue to work with them on thai. CHAIRWOMAN: We can't address the question of the 3~d StO~ today. MS. WIC~AM: ! know. it hasn'~ been adve~ised. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple o~things. One of the things I was a little conffased about is the BD had. in one of the NeD's had omitted that. the width of the buiidi~:g was ~oncompHan~ on both Hummel and Boisse~u based on a prior interrelation. But the p~or ime~retation, i'm sm'e. said that i~ required a width of on or_e s~em. ~d in tbfs case. bo~ s~ree~s are non-comol~ng. Is that co,eot? MS. W!C~iAM: I ~ink they were re%~ng or they were lookiug at the CHAIRWOMAn: But in that case, one off,he sireets was compliant, in ibbs instmnce both o~them are non-compiimn~. Both or,em exceed, one is 222'_ ~he other is 80. MS. WrCI~A~: In that case. they had 2 bn~td~ngs. CHAIRWOMAN: Lieb did. one compbed. One did MS. WIC~AM: They had 2 buildings and they were too long or~ the Cox Lane side. i don't honestly recall if they were bo*h complying on the CR 48 side~ but i ~now the* between the 2 of them. they were ce~ain}y in excess. But they were s~arate& CHAIRWOMAN: Fm a lisle coursed about that because this is not the same thing. And i~ is different. And i do recall the intmTrem'fion said that the code no,es a stogie street. The presumption, of course, lies on one and is non-complying on both. WhiCh b~ngs me to the next question because i* is 220~ long. So that's the one tha~ you've been sized on MS. WiC~AM: If you add ail 3 buildings, including the connectors, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The 3-stou building, why did you choose a width of 80~? As opposed to ~ng to have a 60' wide bM[ding in tba~ area. MS. WIC~qAM: Because when they evaluated the nee~ for their office facilities mud they have an awPal lot of equipment, tgchnical equipment, which is included in cabine:s and desk space, ihat was ~nat the~ were reqmfing in ~e~s of t]he layout. The number employees, they have a telecommunications sys'rem. They warn to provide a cafeteria on si*e m order for employees ~o be able re Oe there sz~d not have to leave. There's s radio Page 92 of 125 93 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing room that takes up a certain amount of area. There's a number of handicap bathrooms they need. They just, when they added up all of the facilities they needed, that was the size of the building that they thought was appropriate. The other problem was by the time you get done with bathrooms that you have to have on the roofline, you can only get _ and then the elevators. When you put the elevator in, that takes up a lot of space as well. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just need to ask your name for the record, for the lady who transcribes. CAPTAIN JOE FROh'NHOEFER: Captain Joe. MS. WICKHAM: Joe Frohnhoefer. CHAIRWOMAN: Then maybe I'll just ask Mr. Frohnhoefer another question. I note, on the plans, the plans say the building is 80x60, which would be a footprint of 4800 sq. ft. But on Mr. Sandback's note, he says the building No. I would be 5220 sq. ft. Do you know where the discrepancy is? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I can explain that. MR. FROHNHOEFER: Is that sidewalks? MS. WICKHAM: No. IfI could just answer the rest of your question, again, this is not before us today, but this is what we're talking about a 3ra floor elevation. And as you can see, while this is the 60x80 building, the actual area will be within here, but as you can see a roof that slopes. CHAIRWOMAN: What the actual footprint will be. MS. WICKHAM: 7Ttat includes that connector. CHAIRWOMAN: For the addition, okay. MS. WICKHAM: And possibly, there's a little entry on Boisseau Ave. that might also be factored in. CHAIRWOMAN: That is a big, big structure. It looks like SSB. MS. WICKHAM: Oh, it's much more attractive. CHAIRWOMAN: I always thought SSB was somewhat attractive. The old one, not the new one. Page 93 of 125 94 Ssnthold Town Boazd of Appeals MS. WICi~HAM: Pa~ of the area requirements are based on how many square feet they need for people who are on the telecommunications deploy:nero, which is ar;swer~ng phone. And they need to have a certain square footage, ce~ain number ofpeople doing that. ~.d tha's where tha cae up. Again. we'll leave the ~oor plans with you. but encourage them to pair it down as much as oossible. CHAIRWOMAN: The v~ances are all subsian*ia] MS. -WIC~AM: They ae substaniiaI variances. There is no question. We ae asking you to cousider the amenabilhy of... CHAIRWOMAN: Zero building envelope. MS. WtC~IAM: The amenability of use to tlne nd~orhood ~ven the zone. reduced setbacks ihs many of(he o~her prope~ies do have. and the fact ~lza we will deal with the PB on whaever (hey fee! is tlne adequae pgkh~g cons~ain/s. CHAIRWOMAN: The t~dscaping a~d so on. hiS. WIC~AM: Ail CHAIRWOMAN: LeCs see wha. if you're t~ough, le?s see wha questions some of ~he bo~d members have. Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: With regards ~o ~he proposed parking and the 58 spaces required. are 'there 58 on here? And how does a 3'c floor go in<co effect? MS. WIC~AM: We've akeady considered fha. MEMBER HORN~G: Wha~ youke calling an atic fi~t now. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me. could you please speak up? I'm no~ picking up the answers, could you please use tlne microphone% Thank you. BRETT KEHL. ARCH: So~. 'Brett Keh] On ~he comp~ta!ious for the amount of p~king space, we did add up ail the adc soace fha was going ro be used as szorage, g~d k*s one parking spot for 500 sq. 2- MEMBER HORN~G: To g ~ over tlnis a lilile bit cause you have ~he buildinl delineaed requinng 4. building 3, requi~ing 3. ?he other thing all refers to bu~ld{ng I. does ii not? The basemen! warehouse, isr goof or, ce. 2'~a floor ofi}ce, and ~ke at~ic. which maybe a 3~d 5oor. 95 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. KEHL: Storage. MS. WICK/frAM: That's all building 1. So ifI could clarify that for you, the 58 parking spaces that were determined, we are asking the PB to accept a 48 spaces based on the building usage figures that we've given them. We've submitted them an alternate plan that would provide 3 or 4 additional spaces, which we are asking them to hold back on unless it becomes necessary because of traffic flow within, we obviously want to avoid. MEMBER HORN1NG: So the calculated requirements for approximately 58, you are proposing approximately 48, maybe 2 or 3 more, 48-50, possibly? Is that right? MS. WICKHAM: And we are actually one over on building E, and we tl~a'ew that in for information, even though that part of the project is not changing. MEMBER OLIVA: Gail, did you say that they'd be on staggered schedules? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. The day shift will be coming and going hourly so that probably by the middle of the... MEMBER OLIVA: That great shift of 40-50 cars coming out. MS. WlCICHAM: That's correct. Let me g/ve you that. But I only have one copy. I could provide more. I think I have it. We spent a fair amount of time in the PB w/th this. I'm sure we'll be spending more. Do you have any other questions while Fro... CHAIRWOMAN: The only other thing is, I just noted it. We do have a copy of a NOD that was amended June 19th nOW ~ jUSt see it was amended June 18th. MS. WICKHAM: One was today, and one was yesterday, fight? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We didn't get yesterday's yet. MS. WICKHAM: I didn't get either one of them. I don't know, maybe he made a mistake the first time. I can't answer that question. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Gall, would you be able to send a letter mnending your application to include the relief for the two amended disapprovals? MS. WICKHAM: Well once I get straight with the BD what the amendment is with respect to the 3rd story, that is what I intend to do. And that's what my letter yesterday indicated that we would have to do. CHAIRWOMAN: So what we'll do is we'll recess, we'll leave this heating open. And then when you have an opportunity to advertise for the new issues that have been raised Page 95 of 1~25 96 ,June 19o 2¢©3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public bv the BD. then we can t~e that as well as t~s smme time. MS. WIC~HAM: Fll get that ~ 1Ms week ifI have the approval today, FI1 ~n tomo~ow, d~sapprovaL CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see ~f there are ether quesfim~s. Mr. Or!m~do. MEMBER OREANDO: I know Joe person~liy, Joe and i have shm~Iar !fvel[5oods. Sm c~ teli you in fact that you can never have enou~q storage when you're doing your emergency response year round, when emergencies do not lenow holidays or wea*fner or sro~s or snow. Thls wfnler, digging our equipment ~n the middle or,he night is net ~n. So I can understsmd Joe's concern for storage. Fm sure the building I logistics 5s the major m~agemem of brach offices and sate!lhes as well as we do. So h's a quiet thing~ more titan mn active thing. But w~ehouse No. 3 looks like ~t's for boars, m~n!y for d~vable equipment, boats poss~Ny, Mhd MR. FROHNHO2FER: Mainly for minor ma[nmnance om if they ~e ready for ~anchHsh~g.. MS. WIC~AM: MEMBER ORLANDO: And Bu~idh~g 2 is for other spill suppNes, or whatever? MR. FRO~HOEFER: Co=ocr. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~ personslly Nke the way you've pulled eve~h~ng towards the RR. I don'~ th~ they'll complaha about no~se. MS. WIC~AM: ~ also forgot ro mention that most of the ~mcks ~har come ~n ~.d ou~ of here ~e UPS_ FedEx ~e deliveries, once or twice s day, We ~e not tatkff~ about ~ractor karat deliveries wM~ any, any k~nd of ~equency a~ ail If that was one of your questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: Like [ was saying, I Hke the way ~t was pulled back k glve Hummel as mud space as they can. and the RR. they mmke enough nmse. That's fine. It's m~Hed offofBo~sseau, preny much. ~ney cont~bute ro ~he towm i always see them sponsoring something. So./frs mca ro have hhn around. MR. FROHNHOEFER: One thing you mentioned sbout the sound, the building will acrually buffer some of the sound, and cut out the noise fi-om the RR t ~ the townspeople. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you becm~e a sound barrier to them Prge 96 cf 125 97 June 19, 2t)03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: If you're going to be repairing boats and what is it? Building No. ... MR. FROHNHOEFER: We're not going to be repairing boats. MEMBER OLIVA: No, because I was going to say, you'll going to need a real tall bull ding. MR. FROHNHOEFER: No, we just prep them. I think it's 14' high doors. And the highest point is 21 '. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: The only thing that really concerns me is how do you fight a fire when you put all the buildings back in that location? That's what concerns me. MS. WICKHAM: t told you he'd ask that question. I'm ready for that. MR. FROHNHOEFER: We have to have the entrance on both sides, Hummel and Boisseau, to get fire tracks in. We'll also have gained an access from the bypass on the ROW from the LIRR. So we have access on both sides of the bnilding. The ma/n building is going to be fireproof. That is poured concrete reinforced, ICF formed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sprinklers7 MR. FROHNHOEFER: Unnecessary, it has a longer fire rating than anything we have in town. The middle building is ali concrete block now, and it will be fireproof. The steel building is of course, fireproof. That was one of my major concerns. There are also extra wells that were put in by Suffolk County, test wells on the property. And we have access to fire hydrants all along the block. So we are pretty well protected, and definitely in the response zone, only a couple of minutes. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, did you say the LIRR will grant you an emergency easement7 MR. FROHNHOEFER: They have. We just responded, recently, to a car accident when the train hit the car on Boisseau. MEMBER HORNING: Can we ge~ that in writing? MS. WICKHAM: He's referring now to the fire department.. The fire department has that access. MEMBER MORNING: Oh, the fire department. Page 97 of 125 98 Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals MR. FROHNHOEFER: We can get it for access, either way. MEMBER HORNLNG: It would probably be beneficial if you have something directly from tlze RR regarding this site. If you say you can get that. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: That's the only question ~ have a~ this point. It is_ it's a veU interesting plan. There's no question ~sout it. CHAIRWOMAN: The only other question ~ have is ~just in the pl~ns that you have. you have plans for a lighted si~, extemal? MS. WIC~AM: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: That's ohs. y, ~ just didn't.. MS. WtCKglAM: That'll go ¢~ough it's own review. MR. FRO~HOEFER: If ~ may explain, this wffl be a secmfty area. The gates will be closed most of the time. The building w:H be sec~-~ed all tize time. T~e entrance to the building will always be under secmfty. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in tlne audience who would like ro spe~ in favor or against this application. BRr~N HANSEN: I'm not in favor or against. I'm definitely nor against 5is business ~d what he's doing on this plan. My name is Brian blansen. ~nd I live at 4.35 Hummel Ave. And ~ have some concerns, obviously, ~d it has nothing ro do with what this plax. is in his building there. And I'm definitely nor opposed to his business. My concern is :o excess traffic on the street. And also there*s an extra:ce and exit s~sout !O' west ro m~ house. And that concerns me mo. because I have 3 young children. The ~affic on that street is intense as it is. And ~ m wo~ed ~sout the safety factors as well as envkonmental 5actors with that. So I'd like the board to consider that when I~ you lmow. whether you set limits or whatever you're going to do with this. But I need ~o be up here md I need to express my concerns. And I don't want to waste a ~es: deal of your time. But... CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see. MR. HANSEN: ~ live on the west side of HummeI Ave CHAIRWOMAN: So you're in the middle of this site? MR. HANSEN. I'm a little west of the site, you know. i'm west. Page 98 of 125 99 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Down toward the pre-existing site. MEMBER OLIVA: Near Agway. MR. HANSEN: Yes. There's a fence there now that Mr. Frohnhoefer just put, and I spoke to them too, and theyjust put up a fence. And there's a driveway there, you know, an exit, whatever you want to call it. And that concerns me as well because, you know, this traffic is busy. I'm a little leery of it anyway down there. Another problem is obviously people speeding down the street. But the other thing that concerns me is there's an entrance, exit right there where my house is. I have 3 young children. And that worries me. CHAIRWOMAN: Are we talking about the, Mr. Frohnhoefer, are we talking about the 30' wide privacy gate on Hummel, or are we talking about 3 16'... MR. FROHNHOEFER: Actually what Mr. Hansen is talking about is an opening down by the barn, pre-existing, Southold Lumber barn, where the walI was falling down, we took the wall out and put a privacy fence all along there and cleaned up and planted that white fence all along there, which we hope is going to grow up nice. It will get covered up eventually. But we have to have an entrance. And what we did was move the entrance from in front of the houses down to, unfortunately, down by his house. But before it was an empty lot. There's a tree line. We have to have at least one entrance on that side off of Hummels for the fire trucks. Jerry is concerned, I mean, ~ have to have one. Unfortanately it wound up down by his place. However, that is going to be a privacy gate, and it is going to be secured. That is not open to public traffic. The main reason we have it there is strictly for fire access. MR. HANSEN: And I've talked to them about that. And they definitely have good intentions. And they've definitely improved the quality of the neighborhood with the fence and stufflike that. It looks a lot better. But I, you know, I have to go on record with my concerns about this because I think it's important and they are definitely valid as far as i'm concerned with the safely issues. And that street in general is a little wild because everybody cuts across. And I am worried about trucks corning in and out of there. You know, I have to say that. That's why I'm here. I have nothing against them personally or their business or anything like that. That's basically all I have to say. Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. We'll take that into consideration. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against the application? MEMBER ORLANDO: To respond to that, how much more traffic will there be? MR. FROHNHOEFER: As far as we're concerned, there won't be any more. The Page 99 of 125 problem now is ~hat eveubody in town is using it as a b~ass to get to tb_e post of~ce. And ~et me tell you~ it ~s a bad lot. 2's got ro gev slowed dawn. And I have a couple of ideas, Fl! talk tc you about getting it taken care oi MEMBER ORLANDO: But your plans don't have a lot more ~mxe traf~c 1hat you're going m imp~emem on it? MR. FROHN~iOEFER: I wouId say it wouldn't be ]ess. It would be the same vihua]ly none. I mean. we don't r~ up and down Ge streets. MEMBER ORLANDO: Most of your trafhc wii1 be offBoisseau coming MR. FROHNHOEFER: Co~ect. ~S. W~C~A~: And once you're in. yon're in. They don't go ix2 and ouL Exce~ot the end of the CHAIRWOMAN: What would be the next calendar date tha<a would give st:fhci~ct time for us !o adve~ise for the postings ~nd the wi~ole 9 yards again. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Auks1 7, special meeting. ~2en would you be able to submit a!! the pape~ork? MR. FROHNHOEFER: ~f5 may, if we can make i~ sooner. There ~ze some specific re~ons as to why. CiHAJRWOMAN: Our next regular meeting is on the 24zh_ and ~fo~anate~ '. it's overbooked. ~e next meeting a~er ~hat would be the is( If the ~e~gnt tI~mg 2adh come up~ we'd be ~ne. But i just don't ~now how we could possibly move k up, MS. WiCKHAM: Could you look at ~he 24th again ~d see? CHARWOMAN: 21 public he~ngs we have. We ~e jammed, i simply can't an~hing else a~ this poinL You have tony other suggestions? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We don't have any canceliatim:s. CHAIRWOMAN: 7pm, Angst 7th. ~S tha~ okay? [ 11 make a motion to adjoun~ heahng un*il August 7~ a'r 7pm. I'll also m~e ~ motion to advertise for ~he height and other added vahances on/his. 2:53 p.m~ EDGEWATER H. LLC #5330. Reqnes~ for a Variance 101 Anne i9~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1{)0-32, based on the Building Departmenfs March 3, 2003 Notice ef Disapproval amended March 11, 2003. Applicant proposes a new dwelling with a third story, instead of the code limitation of 2-1/2 stories with 35 ft. maximum height. Location of Property: 63735 C.R. 48, Greenport; CTM #1000-40-1-20.2. CHALRWOMAN: The next hearing is on behalf of Edgewater II. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? PATRICtA MOORE, ESQ: I have Ira Haspel, the architect here. And Mrs. Coher~ is here as well. The reason we are before the board is because of some design changes that were required for the house, and you had granted relief for a third floor, but the changes to the design necessitated us to return. So Ira can go over the specifics of the design, and I'll defer to him. IRA HASPEL, ARCH: Good afternoon. Ira Haspel, architect. We were actually granted a building permit, No. 27980, previously on a prior application. I guess after the owner spent some time on the property, they wish to change the design of the house. And most major thing was to move the master bedroom from the east side to the west side, creating a new footprint and therefore that's the main reason we are in front of you. Also the design changes included reducing the square footage of the house overall, and a number of interior changes. We can show you some of the sketches of the house if you like. MS. MOORE: Just a reminder, this is the center, the middle piece of three lots that are owned by the family. They have houses. One has a CO, the other is under construction, on either side. MR. HASPEL: Similar type of construction. Basically the master bedroom is switched. And that's the basic reason we are here before again, the square footage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Question, Lydia? CHAIRWOMAN: Go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Haspel, when you were before us the last time, there was the direct question to Mrs. Collins. The time to sprinkler the entire house. That situation has not cha~ged. Is that correct? MR. HASPEL: No. The house is heavy timber construction and fully spri~klered, top to bottom. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: The 3rd floor has changed in what respect, other than the switched? CHAIRWOMAN: The whole house is changed. Page 101 of 125 I~2 June 19~ 200g Southo~d Town Board o£ Appezb ~MBER GOEHRiNGER: I mean squa'e footagewtse, i could care less about tb_e HASPEL: ~ae basic design.. ~MBER GOEHR~_~GER: [ don't care about the design, i cm~e about tine difference ~zare footage on t~e ? struT. 5~. HASPEL: Okay. Previously the 3Yd ~oorbedroom suite was 990 ss. ff. Now Yj38 square feet Previously the 2''~ floor was 24t 5. it's been reduced to 204 ~ sq. ~. ~d the ? floor has been reduced as well. ~. MOORE: Ground floor is 4357. ~. HASPEL: That's what it used to be. It's been reduced to 3458 sq. ~-.. cu~enr ~AIRWOMAN: So ~he sq. footage on the 3r~ ~oor has been increased. ~t's kh2d of ~mstrat~ng because we reviewed tMs applicafon aImosl 2 years ago. ~ fac~ a ti~e less. ene month tess than 2 years ago. And at the time we took a Jo1 of time wi~ the ~plication. we~t ¢hrough it ve~ clearly. And came to a concIusion. ~ad based on that ~nclusion, ~an~ed a pe~it. And here we ~e 2 yem~s later, some p!~s 12ave ch~ged ~nd we are simply back for a variance for a 3~'~ 5oor based on pitons that have been &anged. MS. MOORE: ~ can appreciate your ~stration because there's a Iot off,me 2nvolved r~c5 vmdance appiJcation that's made. ~n those 2 years, the 2 houses have been constructed on either s~de. Tk~s is the last remaining. Tk2s is go~ng rc be their home ~e other 2 are fmmily. Their families ~e occupying. They are tmking an aw2d 1or of ~me as well to redesi~ bece:ase this ~s kind of tt~eir b. st chmxce to desi~x tlxe center ~omes with ~he design changes they've developed over time. ka's spent ~bousands of hours as we~l with modifications. The problem is that the safbty concerns ~re always, have been addressed. The design elements are what bring us back here. Yes we ~e ~Mk~ng about a d~ff~rence between 99 and 1138. wMc5 is the difference ofaYaout 20( 2. more or less fkom the. on the 3~s floor. Eve,~hing else has sin%tX down. So in overai1 des~ ~, the project is smaller. The 3''~ ~oor. g~e 200 sq. P. d~ff~reace ~s relat2ve!y a minor, nom~nM one_ but because of it's relocation to the opposke side of the kouse, the BD reit t~at rather tl~an the generic approva1 ~ha1 you had given, you were much more speci~c with the design standards, the desi~[ elements oft~e house. So that's why we ~e back here. G~qAIRWOMAN: The otk~er factor is t}~e onginM approvai was based on ~!~e fact S(mthold Town Board of Appeals Regular Mee~h~g Public Hearing the 3~'~ floor onIy occupied 25% of the house that now occupies 1/3. So in hinds~t what are we doing? Are we go~ng back ~d re-doing another decision that we've already made a decision on? MS. MOORE: Well, it's a completely different design. You were yew specific in your approval with respect to the, you ~ow, ~e original application. If they had t~en the same sq. footage, but a completely different desi~, we'd still, based on the BD's intearetation, we'd still be back here. So designs change. And ce~ainly over a 2 years span on a water~ont multimillfon doll~ piece of prope~y, ~ey've come back and w~t it to look a little bit different. You had a generic footprint last time. When we had boxes instead of desi~, we may have been able to work around it. But since we really did change ft in confi~ation, ~d layout, we are back here. We apologize. Mrs. Cohen doesn't wmnt to be here an~ore th~ any of you want to see this a 2~ time. But eider way, we were looking to come back to you iL because of the specificity of your original decision. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORN~G: I don't have any questions right now. I saw ~e site today. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goe~nger. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I voiced my, not my concern, but the basic issue of what the size is. And I appreciate that/nfo~ation. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orl~do. MEMBER ORLANDO: This a new application for me since I wasn't here for the other one. So this is the 4~ bite of the apple? 4th bite? MS. MOORE: No, no 2. MEMBER ORLANDO: There were 3 v~ances already. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. We have 2 other houses. We have, it's Edgewater I, II, and IlL There was te~is cou~ on one. MEMBER ORLANDO: Te~is co~s and lights, right. MS. MOORE: Te~is coups and lights for the other one, adjacent piece. Each of them stands alone as a separate owner. Hera we have the owner of this piece. As far as effecting the character of the nei~borhood or effecting the neighbors, we ~e the neighbors. Page 1(}3 of 125 204 June 19. Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Pub~e Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: So what caused the extra 20( sq MR. HASPEL: When the master bedroom suite was moved from ti~te east side to ~he wes~ side inter, or changes to t~e a little better advantage of the sun and view. The ewner requested thai it be increased tc the size that i~ is now. MEMBER ORLANDO: Stun and view is more windows, not more space, co~Tect? MR, HASPEL: Layout of*he ~mimre. ~ey got ve~ specific about 1he des~. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~2a! is the toial square footage of the 1~onse? MS. MOORE: Ground floor? MEMBER ORLANDO: Total 1hying space. MS. MOORE: ~ don't know. MR. HASPEL: 6775 s% ~. MS, MOORE: We're I:ot touching the iot coverage. We are confo~hng ~n eveu oiker resoec~. Side y~ds. re~ yards. We are i~ow many feet f'om the read? MR. HASPEL: 500. MS. MOORE: 500' i'om the nohh road And 100' back f'om thebluff. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~ iook a fide back there. 5t was kind MS. MOORE: It's a beanti~al piece ofprope~y. MEMBER ORLANDO: There's a littie shed there now. MS. MOORE: it's ve~-isolated. They've kept the naiural fea~res oft he propehy, as you can tell from both other ~ouses. They've been respectPal of the charac*er_ ofike n-ecs and eve~hing. They've kept ever~king the way ii is. with minimum cleating. MR. PfASPEL: A poin* of in*eresh. The Eg5ts have not been put up on the tennis co~-. CHAIRWOMAN: Good. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions, CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. 105 June 19, 2{)03 Southold Town Board of Appen]ls Regu]lar Meet]lng Pub]l]lc Hear]lng MEMBER OLIVA: I've just never been very happy about 3 floors. And especially about enlarging lit, because it is so huge as it is. How many feet back from the bluff?. MS. MOORE: 100. MEMBER OLIVA: Over 100. MR. HASPEL: The house is well over 100. 100 is to the steps of the deck on the bluff side. And then there's about a i6' deck. And then the house starts. MEMBER OLIVA: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience that has any questions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? I really don't have any other questions. And if the board members don't, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. All in favor. PLEASE SEE MiNUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:{)9 p.m. HELEN TFiEOHARI[S #5331. Request for a Wa]lver of Merger nnder Section 10{)-26, based on the Bn]lld~ng Department's February 18, 20{)3 Not]ice of D~sapprova]l. App]l]lcant proposes to unmerge CTM #1000-22-4-10 (Stars Manor #12) from CTM #1{)00-22-4-11 (Stars Manor #11), vacant ]land. Location of Property: 1625 and 1745 Stars Road, East Mar]ion. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Pat Moore spoke briefly about Coyne (see page 71) CHAIRWOMAN: Now can we go back to this heating? MS. MOORE: Sorry, this will be much quicker. Alright, Theohafis, Steve and Helen Theoharis bought from Costa Stars, from the original developer of the Costa Star subdivision, in 1965, 2 lots, lot 11 and lot 12. At that time, there was no belief that they had to checkerboard it. They owned 2 separate pieces of property. They bought 2 because they had 2 sons, and they wanted to pass it on their sons. The attorney that drafted the wills stated that, in the wills, the properties were deeded over, were to be conveyed to the sons upon their death. However, Mr. Steve Theoharis passed away from an illness in May of 2002, and Mrs. Theoharis finds herself in need. As a widower, she has to sell the property to continue to live off of her assets. And there was a contract prepared with a 3~'a party. And at the time they went to contract thereafter they did a single and separate search and they discovered that this property had merged by way of, nnder our code. That's why we made the application to this hoard. The properties have Page 105 of 125 So~thold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Pu~c received separate ~s~ bills. They have always been intended ~o be sepgate!y owned and separately conveyed. And these two prope~ies aze identical to all the oiher lots on Star's Rd. subdivision And Fve have numerous appiications to this bo~d with respect m waivers ~d applications for homes that are along Star's Rd. This will be consistent wilh al1 the other homes in the neighborhood aud it would be a signi~cant ~nmncia} hardsh~ to Mrs. Theoha~s tha~ the lot is under contract for $ ~ 30K. And it would be a s~ihcant decrease to combine the lo*s if earn lot is worth S!30K. The comToined lots 5on't equate lo much more than ~hat. So il~ would be a si~55cant reduction in ~he value of the property, ~d a hardship to the owners. Mr. & Mrs. TheohaAs were geUr ~nmigan~s They were nor sophisticated with resoecr re prese~ation of these prope¢ies as single and s~are propeN~es And this neighborhood, which is pNma~!y owned by many of the ~eek ~m.:mi~anrs, What you End ~s people, ua~owingiy, have these mergers of lots occur. ~nd thgx ~s what we have here. A sim~afion, not unlike ma~y o!her ap~ licafions ~nat you've seen along this. Flnat's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN: Do the board m~bers have any questions? MEMBER HORN~G: I have one. Perhaps Mrs. Moore could submit to us an area s~ey similar re this w~th a m~king of what ones of these parcels are developed with buildings and what ones ~e yacht? MS. MOORE: ! can do *i)at I haven't yet. But if you'd like. I cm provide that MEMBER HORN~G: k would be help~l. MS. MOORE: You've had so many applications along axis road. ! thought maybe house you already have that done. But that's fne, I will submit ~y own. CHAIRWOMAN: Does anyone in the audience have any questions? Yes? lANE GOEOREL: My name is Jane Gohore!. &nd I have already written of my opposition this waiver of merger. And I suBm~ :ted ~t re you on the basis that I do not see any reason for undoirg something Cat's Been done for 20 years re bring tlnese lots into compli~ce. And the 5act that the lady who owns this, i'm veu so~ her tmsband died live ve~ close to th~s lot. The fact that they have been merged. I don't believe would make them tess valuable as one lot than if they would have been as 2 little lots that are nor ~n compliance. And I kayo another question. 'What aboul ~ine, if2 houses go on these lots_ what about the cesspool_ the distance betv een cesspool and well for 2 different houses righi next re each other. To me, lhe lot doesn't look to be tha big as it is now. So ~here are o~her houses just behind this lot. Really huge. new houses faat have been built_ ove~powenng in ~Ine neighborhood actualIy, i thh~k these. I mean it's jus~ out of propox~ion w2h gushing else. And ! would hate to see something similar go up on these even on one lot ~tseli m. uch less 2 lots, So I ~ess my question is. why uudo something thai was an imorovemenr in planning aRer 20 years and make it possible to add even P~ge !06 of 125 107 June 19~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appea]{s Regular Meeting Public Hearing more houses to a neighborhood that's been greatly under stress for tbe past few years because of ali the building activity. And the other thing is if indeed there are some other lots that are not in compliance, and if you allow this, then how can you say no to any of the others who come to ask for similar unmerging? That's it. That's what I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else in the audience? NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ: Good afternoon, board. I'm Nancy Sawastynowicz. And I've lived there for 9 years. And we're not, all the people down there aren't greek. 1 have a real, serious, problem with that area. Within one year, there had been over a dozen homes brought in on flat beds and huge, huge, homes like Mrs. Gohorel just mentioned on the backside of this property. They are so oversize, t don't know. I would like this town to do something about the oversized homes that are being built. It's beyond my belief why somebody would need that much room. So for me to feel sorry for somebody who has two tots, when I know just down the street, at 100 yards, a small sized lot went for 190K with nothing on it. I can't feel sorry for anybody. I can't afford to live in this area. I rent. And I'm like, happy, that I can afford the rent. But for somebody whose husband just died, obviously she's not young. To not be happy with the amount of money she's going to get is ludicrous. I find that not a hardship. And I just feel that we have to stand our ground. There's not even an acre. We're talking now, ir~ last week's paper, the town just spent $200K for this draft genetic envirorunental impact statement. It's the current state of development and the pretense for limiting that growth. So we're trying to deal with this and to, and there's so many undersized lots already on Stars Road. And it's like behind me, there was 11 acres clear-cut 2 years ago for this house that looks like a motel. It's disgusting. The animals are in the street. I go out in broad daylight. The deer are standing there looking at me. The fox are looking at me. I'm going to myself, where is the planning on this poor, it used to be all wooded. Where is the plauning on this wonderful area? Living there for 9 years I felt like I was in heaven. And now like I'm saying, it's like getting deluged with these houses. So please don't g/ve this request approval. I just feel like little lots with big houses because that's, you know, ~at's going to happen. It's disgusting, and it's not in character of the area. And I'm really adamaut about it. So I hope you take it into consideration. I know the board is a very good board, and they think everythil~g out. And I would just like to say thank you for listening to me. I'm a little emotional because I live there. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: That's okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or agmnst the applicant? CINDY MYSLIBORSKI: Hi. My name is Cindy Mysliborski. I'm a new owner on Stars Road. I've been there for about a year and a half. And this is all new to me. But since I've been there, I thought I was moving to a nice, quiet, neighborhood to enjoy. And it's been nothing but construction, and vehicles, and debris. And it's just outrageous. I woke up the other morning to find 3 little baby foxes bom m~ming down Page 107 of~25 2O8 my d~veway, ~d one oflhem dead i2 my pond. Theyjnst have nowhere to go. And do a~ee with Mrs. Gohorel ~d Nancy that the value cf land there as one lot ceUainly w{]l be wo~h as much as if it was two. And I am opposed against that. And would like you to take that into consideration with Mrs. Gohore! and Nancy's request too~ that enough ~s enough in that neighborhood. And oversized housing is dehnitely ouirageous in there. CHA[RWOMAN: Is 1here anyone in the audience who would I[ke to speak for or against the applicant? ~S. MOORE: Just some qu~ck responses. Eaclx io~ 2ex-e as a single md se*orate lot. each 1o~. rather than combined has a ~'eater assurance of buitd[ng a house that ~s in confo~ity wUth the nei~borhood th~ m merge two parcels ~d kayo an oversized pacel 4nat then allows a person to build much more ihan at 20~A of tlzat Mzed tot than retain the character of the area under the oAginaI subdivision confi~ration that dl of these people who have come here and objected to the recuesr MI Eve on the same size p~cel as whai we a~'e proposing to ream the parcel to ii~s original size. The master thai we've just spent a foaune on. actua1Iy talks about housing diversity. Arid the diversity is a!so reco~izing that existing subdivisions like these, which ae now mndersUzed because the minimum zoning ~s one acre, still retair, value for the. to retain the cha'acter of the ~ea, and to provide diversity of housing stock in the to~: of Scuff_old. The merger !aw actually breaks down ~d forces, or combines, parcel in sUua!~ons like t~s where you have pre-existing half-acre lots. Because it takes the parcels and m~es them less afford~ale for people A: 130_ which is the contracl ~ai is presently, excnse me 132. is the contract p~dce. Jean and Betel[ua Ketly, who are tke prospective purchasers_ they can buy this !o~ and build a modest sized home on m And have a no~al home, just like everyone else. ~e a' temative is that hhe seller. Mrs. Theoh~s. has to sell th~s double sized parcel, which is a much more expensive parcel ro someone else. And ~he person who buys it w21I b~ forced, because of the value of !lxe land itse;f, to build a much more ~and[ose house, which is more tike the s~bd~v~sio2 that is ~n the re~_ and the lots that are lager. So we are no, ally hying to keep witinin the character of/he existing Stars Road community by retaining the existing pre-ex[st~ng lot sizes, rather than combining [t under our zoning code. co~mnes two lots tkat are in common name. And inadveUently brings the ~wo propeUies together. CHAIRWOMAN: Last question. MS. MOORE: To me? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. ~ wen~- *buough the titie search on this property. And ~n al the title search, co~ec~- me [f l'm wrong, bm when they bougbt the two prope~1ies, they bought them in the same name. ~he husband and wife name. MS. MOORE: Riah~. But they bought them in 1965. 109 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: In 19657 They never separated the ownership. They never checker boarded. They never made any effort whatsoever to keep the properties in single and separate ownership, which has always been noted. MS. MOORE: If you and I were the owners of the property, we would have known to do that. These are, to the extent, they were unsophisticated, and did not inquire about, you know, the changes in the zoning code. CHAIRWOMAN: Well there were so many opportunities. This is virtually 37 years ago. It's not 20 years ago when they wm~t to 1-acre zoning in 1972, this lot became nonconforming. When, all through the '70's... MS. MOORE: However they continued, the one way they would have been alerted, for somebody who is unknowing, would be through the tax bill. If their tax bill had been combined, and the town, the assessor, actually notifies you that it's been merged, it would have triggered some knowledge by unknowing people. The tax bills continue to come as they always come in... CHAIRWOMAN: That's tree throughout the town in dozens, and dozens, and dozens of parcels. MS. MOORE: There are sophisticated buyers. And the merger law protects those that are sophisticated buyers. It does not protect against unsophisticated buyers. That's what your role is. That's what many times, goverrunent's role is, to protect against people who would otherwise not know. They bought 2 lots, always intended it to be 2 lots. Their wills, which were done in the '90's, reflected each lot going to each son. If you want, ][ can get a copy of the will for you. CHAIRWOMAN: I noticed, in your presentation, you said that because she needs the money, that she, ofig/nally the lots were to go to each son, but because she is now apparently in a nursing home, or... MS. MOORE: No, no, no, she's, I don't think she's in nursing home. She's just now a widow with timited fonds. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Now that she has limited fonds, she's no longer going to keep both lots. She's wants to sell one and the other son is going to keep the other lot. It's her assets, it's her future. It's also her responsibility. But there's no rea! economic hardship here. MS. MOORE: Well the economic hardship is not only to them to combine. CHAIRWOMAN: Profit is not necessarily hardship in this case. This is a very- unusual Page 109 of 125 one because this lot has been one let for so many years. Iff s not even a question of a w~ver of mer~er ~ore. MS. MOORE: Let~s put it this way. ~e hardship will italy be for the buyer, thc Kelly's, who were under the impression they were buying a lot {o build fiheir house. ~d now the contract would be nullified because they are no~ getting wha1 they expected. which is their lot. The whole deal would fail through. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sure ~hat their purchase is subject MS. MOORE: Oh sure they'I1 get their money back. of course, bul people buy a tot wilh ~eat expec!ations of building their house. ~d the expense of a su~ey ~d the title, and the !a~ers. They have invested a ce;~ain amount of money ~o get to this point when t2ey discovered ~at it had merged, So [ feel bad for my purchaser who undeVcakes Gis. Because now. when they go out to took for a parcel_ they can't find mnoiher ha!f-acre pscel for I30. maybe they find. they ~e few do tha~ the pressure is now. mud in s~icular for these.. CHAERWOMAN: Bu~/haft s not justification to go back mud subdivide tots ~d ha!f- acre tots. MS. MOORE: Th~s was a subdivision, this is a subdivision that was approved by the PB, We ~e nor talking about like. Captain Kidd Estates where it's mn 8tP' cf~ acre. CHAIRWOMAN: This was done in 1965. MS. MOORE: And fney were large lots. at the ihs s. in I965. Personally, i live on a half-acre parcel. And quite fi~y, that's a nice sized, would i Hke a iot mere, sure. But my ranch fits vml comfoflably on a half-acre ps::cet, it is consistent whh aH the rest of the nei~borhood. I will supply to Mr. Homing showing how mmny lots have actually been developed, and what remains vacant. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Is there any other questions? FII m~e a motion to close the heating ~d reserve *he decision until later, PLEASE SEE M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:27 p.m. TARIO N'2AHMOD BAIG. and Requests for: ~a~ Variances under Secfio~ 100-244. b~sed fi-ant yard setback of less }hen 30 feet, znd p~vo-famJly dwelling. Location of Proper~/: 6125 ~age [ LO of 111 June 19, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? TARIQ MAHMOD BAIG: Good afternoon ZBA members and all of the ladies and gentlemen. This is my first appearance before the board regarding the lot. It is my wife's, actually, formy son who has juvenile arthritis, a chronic disease. Instead of putting the money he inherited from his maternal mother, we're looking forward that this lot will be useful for providing him shelter. And I'm a heart patient who has 5 by-pass. To look at this with uncertainty, the possible investment was to buy this piece of land instead of putting the money in the bank accomnt. The reason for coming to the zoning board is that the size of this lot is small as it had been a quarter of an acre. When Rt. 48, where this lot is located, near Wickham Ave. in Mattituck. This lot was when 48 was widened, and extended, and constructed. Because of that, the lot size has been decreased from the old building allocation of a ¼ of an acre to .22 of an acre, a little less than that. But I have certain examples in Mattituck where the houses are a/lowed to construct in old allocation like on Rogers Place where house is constrncted on 1/8th of an acre. So this is a lot located on three sides around the neighboring houses. And the front is Rt. 48. Before bnying this house, I applied to the Health Department (HD). That whether it is suitable for making a house or not, HD, according to this map approved this date initially applied for 3 bedroom, 2-story residence, but HD approved it a maximum of 4 bedrooms, 2-story house can be built on this lot. I have provided this map, and the proposed other variance maps to all the neighbors as i was to the zoning board and to the members of the ZBA. CHAIRWOMAN: Which map did you give to the neighbors7 MR. BAIG: A copy of the HD map and the letter. One I have for the variance that I want that this house should be 3 bedrooms, 2-story residence with a 3 bedroom accessory apartment on the 2nd floor. Variance is needed for 3 things. First thaf 15' of this lot has been used, accm'ding to the new construction law. IfI leave behind front and behind 15', it will be a very small house. So ifI be allowed to leave instead of 35' from the front and 35' from the back, I should be allowed for 30' and 30' so I'll be able to gain at least 10', instead of 15' I have lost, by the construction of Rt. 48. Nmnber 3, as I had described, if it becomes a 2-family dwelling, ifa/lowed, it will be a source of income for the son who has juvenile artluStis himself. And I'm a 55-year-old person with a heart condition. He will not have any other source of income to live off Except that at this state, being the parents of the children, we ail together, should think about the future of this baby, who is 9 years old, goes to east Cutchogue elementary school. Certainly my empl~.asis is that we should come together and think about this. This is a very concern matter to his health and to my health, and the future of this baby. This place is very near to school at a walking distance. And this illness is so chronic that he's desperately, always, in need of some help to go to school and come back. So my emphasis is only 3 things. And t hope this board will consider my request that if the law makes me to leave 30' from the front and 30' from the back, it will be a spacious home for living. Number 2 that this lot is not Page lll of 125 Reg~x[ar Meeting PuB~[c He,ring ve~ small, bu~ there are some houses, which are on the smaller lots Hke this. And ~here ~e many douNe slory houses ali around Malikuck and in Southdd. lfboard ~kes. ~ have the pictures of those houses, which m~e in fl~e neighborhood as weN~ On Wickhmm Ave. ~here's s veu Ng house. 2-stat bmuse. And seen fimm oulsMe_ ~ should not have ro invade the privacy of anybody, bu~ just re g~ve ~ example, fha house must nel be ~ess than 5 bedrooms. There is ~o~her way ro do this ih~ng thai the HD has approved. ~ can make 4 bedrooms. ~d without ~elIing, and lying to this board, k is not -fair on my pan with my fai~ and eveubody's honor m~d respect tha I should say, okay, I will make rooms and Iwo bedrooms, making it 6 bedrooms indkecl]y telling lha~ these are two s{udy roans. Fs not fak. I should ~ell you. what is lhe need of my son. is a source of income. if we would bo~ow some money ~om ~ke b~k, nearly S300K, certainly iha money has ~o be returned if something happened to me. Stae of NY w~lt be again there to do we can do io live. And this ma~er is before the ZBA. So I have suflcientiy emphasized. on my 3 demands. First by extending the Rt. 48 th~s lot became more small, but no'~ as much which ca~ot be redressed. 7wo, that this lot is still sufficient to build a 2-srou house. It has been approved by the HD. Another ihing~ which is needed, to be menhoned here. f2mt public water is available from the Rt 48 side ofth~s lot. Se i-he cesspool k~ard or any other th~ng ro the nei~ors will not be as ma~oe they feel it. but they had oppo~uni~y and ! had to find this {~mg Gat this lot ~d the nei~orhood is am area where r~g water w~}I be available to eve~oody and wet! water~ if/hey like it [ thi~< I have said much more than what is requk'ed if you have any questions of that CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Baig, a coupte of things Becanse ~ read through all of your literature, and ~ read ~zough ali Zke documentation. The HD_ you are here. the property is smml. k's an 8900 sq. fi. parcel, figh~ on Rt. 48. And you are here requesting a spec~ai exception for a 2-fatuity house. You want 3 bedrooms downstaSrs. Mtchen. ba+t. e~c. You want 2 bedrooms upstaks with a one... MR. BAIG: A sludy room. CHAIRWOMAN: Another unit. rental unit. So ifps a tota~ of 3 rental '~ks in one house? MR. BAIG: 2 CHAIRWOMAN: 2 npstairs... MR. BA[G: No. 1 upstairs. 1 downsLaks. 1 for my!iving... CHAIRWOMAN: Who is going to Nye in the house? There are 3 owners, who 5s going m live in lhe house? MR. BANG: No. There are 2 owners in the house. Because So,my is 9 years old. And isis house, this lot wil[ not be bough:~ in his name. So Minhas ~s the mother, and Assad is thc maternal uncle of Sonny. And bccause of my heakh, i~ was suggested that Page t12 cf 113 June ]9~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing should not be the owner if something happened again, Sourly or his mother has to go through of ownership. So to be on the safe side, right from the beginning, I being the father, is also the representative of these 2 people who own this lot, because Sonny is 9 years oId. CHAIRWOMAN: So who... MR. BAIG: Sonny will live with his mother and me, the father in 1-story, the ground floor. Axed the 2nd story, which will be 3-bedroom house complete with a kitchen and living area with all necessities of life. Second floor, that will be rented. CHAIRWOMAN: I really have to tell you that the code, our town code for a 2-family unit, our town code requires an area of SOK sq. ft. And going from 80K sq. ft. to 8K sq. ft, is a very big drop. That's No. I. Even with the parking that you're showing, you're showing parking on Rt. 48. There's no way to even get out onto 48 without backing out into Rt. 48. Eight years that I've been on the board, the board has never approved a 2- family dwelling on an 8K sq. 15. lot, or even for that matter, a 20K sq. ft. lot. But the larger issue is that in February the Department of Health gave you approval for a single- family residence. That means one family. It's, nad the approval, I have the map here that you're talking about, and the approval for the house that they gave you is substantially smaller than, in fact the house that they gave yon approval, you met the setbacks, the 35' setback in the front, and the 35' setback in the rear. And the driveway was on the side. Now the map that you're asking us to approve, shows a much larger house. So it shows the driveway in the front coining back, right out into Rt. 48. It shows the setbacks don't comply. And I don't think the HD is going to give you approval for a 2-family house on arx 8K sq. ft. lot. MR. BA][G: There is only one little variance in this regard. As you have said that the map approved was having 35' setback. And the one I have proposed is 30' setback from the back. And from the front, that's what I'm demanding a variance. Next I have requested that from the, instead of east side, I will leave 10' from the west side, m~d t5' from the eastern side, making more room, space available for driveway as well as for parking. CHAIRWOMAN: But the map that you submitted to the HD that was approved shows all the parking on the east side. They are totally different maps. They are totally different plans. MR. BAIG: No the driveway also is in the same map. Only the difference is that the setback has been increased, and that has been switched over from 10 to 15 from west to east. MEMBER ORLANDO: But you're putting another family in there too. Page ~[213 cf ~25 Son~ho~d Taw;~ Board of Appeals CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly. You're t~ng to put ano{her family {n ~here. We don't have any desz ~oor plans Mth ~h~s. So we really don't have any way ro see wlna the sq. foo;age of the house... MR. BAIG: The floor p~sn. I think I subm~;ted.. CIqA~RWO~AN: There's no sq. ~oo~age on th~s at all So Ws impossSble. Aud ~he floor plan that you gave us does no~ match either one of the. ~he o~at!ines of either one of the pimps tha you gave us. So we have no way of calcula[ng wha the size of the foot~dnt of the ls~ floor or the 2'~ floor. We have no me~hod to even gauge tha~. MR. BAIG: Yes, my proposed plan the or_e approved by the HD has ~ven this specifica[on and the HD ~om the Rt. 48 side. the house w[li be 50" wide_ ~om !he easL 14 ~d the angle for the 8* and ~'om the west side. 22' CI4AIRWOMAN: Then this su~ey fha yon showed us here... MR. BAIG: ~d the one I gave you with ~e approved setback of 30'~ the size of the house wilt increase ~om i4 to 18'. CI~A~WOMAN: ?m ve~ confased 5~aa because the ~_ap flta you submkted to us says proposed 3 bedroom 2-stox9~ residence with a 3-bedroom apar:men~ on Is tha the map dna you wa~r us ~o consider? Tha's not one tha the lqD has reviewed. It's totally different. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: No. It's the naure of the one. the applicant has before us loday. Tha's the na~e of the disapproval. MR. BAIG: for the d[sapprova! CHAIRWOMAN: Je~, do you have ~y questions? MEMBER GOEP!R~GER: %e poix~t ir~ queslion, the Notice of Disapproval (NOD reads. [ mean the 9ne tha[-s before us, yo~ could still the gerxtlemexx has to go back to the CHAIRWOMAN: He has applied to us for a Special Exception. MEMBER GOHHR~GER: Fm aware of fha. but he also ao~olied for a vaNance. MR, BAIG: i applied for a variance and lhe HD already sent back lo the zoning board tlnat they shoul&?t g > through ~he variance a~er the va-lance is down by [he zoning hoard. If the ZBA agreed thru they allow for the setback of 30' ~om the ~ont and back. cedainly HD w[il c( nsider. O~:ly thir. g (hat arises ~s the cesspools adj~.svmenr. Cesspools 115 June 19, 2003 Sonthold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing will be moved from the back to the front because miming water is available. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern we have is the parking. And that is that you really cannot back out on that road. Somehow you have to work some kind of parking plan. MR. BAIG: There's 123 front of this house and 30' wide. And the person who I have requested to Mr. Stanley it had already, clearly mentioned here the proposed parking of 9' and 19' wide, long and wide. And those are there too. Entrance of 100' driveway from the Rt. 48, MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see the parking in the front of the house that you have proposed. I think we should go on to the remaining people that have concerns regarding this and then come hack to the hearing and let you speak again. I tkink that's what we should do. And that's what I propose to the chairperson. CHAIRWOMAN: ~s there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MARYLOU FOLTS, ESQ: Madame Chairwoman and members of the board, Fm Maylou Folts of Lark and Folts. And I'm speaking to you on behalf of Halsey Goldsmith, one of the neighbors of the property. He's a life tenant at 240 Freeman Rd., which is just north of the applicant's property. So it backs up to their backyard. I also represent Teresa Buelawitz Thompsen who owns the parcel on the comer of Wickham Ave., 1400 Wicldlam Ave. and CR 48. And also here is Valerie Meyer who owns the parcel immediately to the north of the Thompson/Buelawitz. So her lot also backs up to the Minhas property. Obviously I'm here because these adjacent neighbors oppose the main Lkrnst of this application, which is to construct this 2-family house on the applicant's parcel at 6125 CR 48. I want to discuss 1st the special exception portion of the application. In making the determination, as you know, you have to follow the general standards of section 100-263 of the zoning code and give consideration to those specific factors enumerated in 100-264. I wish to discuss these factors at the outset. And that should take care of most of my comments if you'll bear with me. I will, I would like to address each and every one of these factors to lay it out for you. It's a hearing, and I'd like to address each one of them. A, the character of their existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for such district for the locaIion of any such permitted uses. It's a mouthful, but as the board's aware, the existing neighborhood consists of single family residences. The fact that the houses are 1 or 2 story is irrelevant. I think that's part of Mr. Baig's confusion. They are all single-family residences. The point is that the use ora residence is defined, not by the number of floors. And the residences in this neighborhood are single family, and have been for probably over 50 years. And considering the size of this applicant's property, it's not suitable for a 2-family residence. As to factor B, the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land, as the board's aware, }>age t15 of 125 1t6 Southold Town Board of Appeals we'~'e in Southold Town. This is onlv 8982 sq. D. !ess than 2/I0's of~ acre. And i~'s not NYC. or Queens. or ~he Bronx. or Brooklyn. We don't have that kind of density. to factor C. the efikcts of the location, the proposed use and the location that emrances ~d exits may have upon the creation of undue 2nfluence of vehicu!ar ~raf~lc congestions on public streets, highways, or sidewaIks ro assure the public safety. At the outset. 1here's no sidewalks. The entrance is on a rum lane ac~ually. Off of CR 48~ there's a 1rune that stares about midway of this prope~. So the 2-famiiy ~ouse on this undersized tot is going re oreo'ce additional traf~c. The p~king is shown as bring provided in the front yard. And as Mrs. Charwoman pointed out. it involves backhng ou~~ onto this bad hi,way wh~'e there's a bad intersection at Wickham Ave~ and CR 48 I th~nk ~t was even desi~ated as one of the black spots where there's so 22~2y acc{dents that happen there. I know within tlne past ye~. there was ~ accident just to the east of this Minhas property where a chi]d was killed. It's a busy hi,way, and ~ can't ima~ne backing out onto as being mq allowed use. 2e only relief i would see ~s if you let him create a single- family house and have a semicircle d~veway that cam_e across the yard. At ]eas1 in that way he could &dye across the front y~d~ point in and point out ortho CR 48. but to create a 2-family use which, ro me. more thmn doubles the use of ~rafklc ar this po~nt ~s jus~ creating a hazed that ~ don't think this board w~hts to inc~. ~ think it's a presc~ption for disaster. As to factor D_ the availa:o~Hty of adequate ~_d proper public or pAvare water supply and ~&e facilithes for trea~ent removal or disch~ge of sewage repose or other _~ or other !iquid~ solid, gaseous, or oth~ise ~7: may be caused or created by: or as a result of the use. Again. the ofaestion here {s for the bo~d to consider that this is a 2-famJly residence. It should have ooJ~lic water. Now ~ underst~d, and i didn't see tlne HD map before the approval, but. _~nd ] was under the i:mpression that public wmer ran down Wic~,.mm Ave. I wasn't under the impression that it rmn along Rt 48. but again, that would be for the FTD to make that dete~nat~on. ~ c~m~t im_e~hne the HD approving a 2-family use without public water. And what's been presented to them. obviously ~sn't the ma:9 that's before ns_ or wheat was sent to the adjoining neighbors. didn't see any application for a 4-bedroom house that was sent to eye,body, it's 2- family houses, they m*e identical leve!s ~om what I looked in your 5Ia. They are 3 bedrooms on each ~oor. 1Ning, din~ng~ bathrooms, emT~ces, kitchens, eve~hing duplicate, one on ~op of the other. The nex~ factor_ factor E. whether the use of the mate~a!s, indden/M there too or produced thereby, may give off obnoxious gases, odors. smoke or soot. You~11 be happy to know ! have no comment on that. Factor 4. whelher the use wi!l cause disturbing emissions of elect~cal discharges, dust. light, vibralion er noise. This is probably not relevant because ~ don't ~ow what they propose in the way of l{~ting. That would be the only commem I would have to ~hat it they were gohng do something obnoxious with iight~ng on side yards or re~ yards that would effect the Thompson. Meyer, or Goidsmith propeTy. Factor G. whelher the operation in pursuance of the use w{11 cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or recreational faci!~t~es either ex~sting or proposed by the town_ or by other competent govenm~ental agenmes. AgMn~ it's not relevant zo th~s application. Factor the necessity for luminous surface space for pu¢oses of off street parking ofveh~cies inddentat to the use mud whether such spaces reason~oly ~dequare and appropriate 117 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Pub~ic Hearing can be furnished by the owner of this lot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shal] be located. Again, he's proposing, the applicants are proposing parking slots on the front lawn and the driveway. And whether black top or asphalt, it appears they are going to have, over half the front yard is paved over with something. And just putting it all in the front yard just ~till is not feasible for safety purposes. That's basically all'I have to say on that factor. The other factor, whether it's a hazard to life, limb, or property because of fire, flood, erosion, or panic may be created by a reason or result of the use or by the structures to be used therefore or by the inaccessibility of the property or structures they are on for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus, or by the undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon the plot. Now fire and emergency vehicles gaining access to the property is not a problem. Obviously it's on this highway. And I know you're not building inspectors, but if you look at the house and the various entrances on what you show on the floor plans that you have, there's only an ingress and egress to the upstairs through the east or, I think, the northeast coruer of tl,ie floor plan so the upstairs can only be gotten to from that one end of the house by, and that's, again, passing into the first floor of the house. I don't know. Fm not a building inspector, either are yon. But it's another factor that I'd want to consider. The other factor, J, whether the use of the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or nndue concentration of population. Clearly by the location of the proposed 2-family residents on CR 48 on this 8900 sq. ft. plot on a busy intersection, and 2-families, obviousIy creates double the people, double the crowding, doubIe the traffic. I think that covers that. Factor K, whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof. Again, it's a 2-family house on 2/10's of an acre property. It's, common sense says it shouldn't have been brought. You've got 10 pounds and you're trying to cram it into a 5-pound bag. That's the best way I can say it. The other factor, L, whether the use is to be operated as unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area, or other place of public assembly doesn't seem to be relevant to this case. Factor M, whether the site of the proposed use is a particularly suitable for such use. And again, for the reasons I've gone over, no, it's not suited. It's 8900 sq. ft. As to factor N, whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use. If you look at the lot today, it's densely wooded, but when you look where the proposed plan is for the house, the parking, the driveway, cesspools, if he does have them. It's obvious the property is going to be stripped of everything. And there would be no buffers if, 1 don't kuow how much property they could possibly be left for buffers after building, over-building what he wants to do here. Factor O, whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of storm water runoff sewage, refuse, and other liquid, solid, or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate. From what I can tell, it's a level piece of property. And basically when they build the house, the grading will determine any kind of a runoff problem. But it doesn't seem to be at this point. Factor P, whether the natural characteristics of the site or such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue distm-bance or disruption of important natural features, systems, or processes. And without risk ofpoliution to ground Page 117 of 125 June ~9~ 2003 go~thold Town Beard of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ubHc wa~er and surface waters on m~d off,he ske. And ~gam. on thai. ! have no commenL C~AIRWOMAN: Could you, jus~ Because of the time_ we do have to be 0u~ of~ere~ Do yon have a copy of *his~ tko you could ~rovide us wkh? MS. YOLTS: I'd like to get ~t on t~e record ~fI could. A~d it won'~ be too m~ch longer. Fm fnro~gh reading ~he code to you [ don't meax to give a lraixing lesson. I just want re prese~e ~he record ~d give you ~ke ~ounds. BOARD SEC~ETAR~ KOWALSKh If you gve ~s a copy, ifs automaica!ly in the record. MS. FELTS: I'd jua like ~o con*hnue. ~fyou doth mind. As ~ said, !he fac!ors wen; through, al! ofi~em ~ae A-P ~e ~he maters you have re consider whe~ you make yo~r 6 ~ndings andde~e~inalio~s as required by ~ke !00-263. g~c again, backin those faaors, the ~se oflke prope~y for a 2-fami!y house wili prevent the orderly reasonable use of adjacent progenies because they are ail single-family houses. And this ~s a proposal for a 2-fatuity house, if the applic~t's lot is located h fats iegahy established single-fmily residential neigkborhood, and I can'/~?hasize thai enough. TEe health ~d safe~ issue is obvious because of the trafhc and ~ just canq ima~ne backing ou~ onto Rt. 48. Grating the speciai exception ce~ai~ly doesn't promo;e ka~ony in ~he general proposes of the code. To ~t the application raises ~e question of why have zoaing a all when ifs not compaibie with this neighborhood. ~nd again, factor F thai the proposed structure be readily accessible, again. ~ don't know un~ii we ~.ow which plans ~iney are dealing with. ~ jusl don't know what the he,se pl~s are. Applicant's theo~ that this application is jnst for this lot and witlain this. it's bounda~ ~d area. Again. it's conrrau. ~f eveubody went in ~d said_ it's jusl for mine. don't wo~ aboa~ i~ it' s just my lot, it' s nor. Once you give it ~o him. somebody else comes ix. It's special exception a~er special exception. Turning now, ~uiekly ill can t-o tko valance issue, and ~ won't ~dXe up too muck more of yo,~ time. The v~4a~ce is again, is lot tee 2-family house. And -~der town law. section 267B. the chte~a can'~ be met CHAIRWOMAN: It's for special exception. MS. FELTS: For the ~ea and for the 3 v~ances. CHAIRWOMAN: Tko 2 sefaacks, front, rear. and the lot ~ea. And then there's speciat excepnon. So we are looking at 3 valances and a speciai exce¢tion. The s ~ecial excep:~on, wkic5 he has applied for. is what you just addressed, which is the 2-fmiiy dwelling. ~S. FELTS: The. basically t~e aea vaNance ties inlo a !et of the same factors, wkat you are looking a, tee size of the property, the benoit that's sought by :he ap~ [~cant ?asr can't be had on this prope~y. But it doesn'~ mean he's dep~hved of:ko ~se of his otc pe~y. 119 June 19, 2003 Sonthnld Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing He's still got the option of coming to you for a single-family residence. And from what you said, there's a map in your file that shows that he wouldn't even have to apply for variances for setbacks if he went with a smaller, single-family house, which to me, seems reasonable. Now I know he says he'd only request, for this particular variance, he wants a 5' in a rear, and a 5' back rear yard and front yard setback adjustment. But that becomes substantial when you consider the size of the parcel. So I submit to you it's txvo-family, it's going to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Now the issue, when you are looking at the variance, an area variance is weather his hardship is self created. And I know that's not a commanding factor, it doesn't have to be the only factor that you look at. But he bought it, I believe, in February of 2003. At that point, it was already an 8982 sq. ft. lot. It hasn't changed. He bought it knowing what it was. The county taking 15' or however many feet they took was years ago. And they took it and compensated the owner at that time. When he bought in 2003, he bought what was [here. So he hasn't been deprived of anything at that point. And basically, the house size seems to be based on his idea that he needs the money to support the child in his health and other people's health, and that. But, again, I feel sorry for him, my clients feel sorry for him. And we sympathize. But it's not, they've created their own hardship by buying this small lot and trying to do too much with too little. So basically, scale it back and I'm sure the neighbors wouldn't have an objection to a single-family residence without backing out onto CR 48. And with a single-family residence, and half the traffic, and less parking area, I think that can be worked out. In conclusion, the problem you are going to have, is that the applicant's mere purchase does not warrant this 2-family, the variance for the 2-family house. And if you deny the special exception, then I would think you'd have to legally deny the variance and I guess that they reapply. You can't convert this, I think to a single family because you need to have them reapply, give plans for the house that they plan to build. And basically, I don't know what the confusion is with them with the, whether it's 4 bedrooms, 6 bedrooms, or what. But what we are looking at is a 2- family house. And if he presented you the same plans and said, gee, I want a single family house. I think you'd look at it and say hey, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a 2-family house whether he came back with the same plans. I think if you approve a single-family residence with this kind of plans, you're just kind of saying yeah, yeah, you're going to have something illegal, accessory, happen there. So again, when he comes back, you'll give further consideration as to what he's trying to do. I feel badly that he can't do what he wants to do with his property. But, again, it's not for yon, the board, to grant var/ances or special exceptions based on self-created hardship or the fact that you just won, t something that the neighborhood doesn't allow. Basically, I'm just asking you, at tl~iS point, to deny the special exception, and deny the 3 variances. And I thank you for your time. Enough said. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. BAIG: Can I give you, these are the pictures of 3-story houses built in area. Page 1t9 of i20 Southotd Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ublk Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Baig, we have to be out of Town [Call at a ce~ain time. and we really have to wrap this up. And the other 2-stotv houses in the ndghborlnood. They sro single family. That's one f~ily. Sc k does nor ma~er that they are 2 stones. MR. BAIG: Only one thing ] mm men/toning here. They have rented those houses and are e~ng money. I don't know how ~ ~t is fi~t. but these ~e the documents I had been submkt~ng ail those nei~borhoods. Next a traf~c hazard_ entr~ce and exk of'~hCs lot ]s ~om the Rt. 48. not ~om fhe nel~of~ood. And there ~s a curb ~vai]able for the eh=once and exli. If you have to go and see, personally, because no proper map ]s available from the Southold Town 5or this regarding how the road map has been planned on this for the ~afEc. k's a ve~ convenient entrance and exit available becw~se ~here is a traflc li~t there. And ii is safe that the enviromnent~ hazard_ yes I was aware of the extent ~aa~ ~his kind ofthirg c~ co~e. Taere~s water av~!ab!e ~fthey don't want. they w~t a lot ofwaer to i~gate ~heir lawns ~d ~asses ~d other things~ ce~ainly they would mot allowed to use that water. But for d~nking waer. as ma~y f~iEes need waer_ more is available. And nobody can be denied ~om getting water ro use for i~eir personal use insIead of ~igating their lawns. And t~ is has been in the newspaper that people should be suggested *~at tlney should not misuse thfs water ~or i~ga~ing their lawns. And next, it is ve~7 wise ro allow muki-f~ily living in this ~eato save the a~cul~a! l~d has been doing. To save the l~d for the be~e~ext ~roe~enral ~nd o~her things that are going on ~fyou'lt not allow the people ro make mult~-slou buildi~gs, ~hen how can you save the lead? Pud&er houses will be 5'aik in tho instead of extending ~he size of the tot. Tais lot.. CHAIRWOMAN: ?m going ~o have to cur you sho~ because we've devoted over an hour to this kealng. And there are people who've been waiting here since 2:00. And we simple ca~ol devote an~ore t~me. It's no~ ~air ~o them. MR. BAIG: Thar~ you veu much. CHAIRWOMAN: We will take alt of your comments into consideration. And thank yon for your presentation. Fll m~e a motion to close the hea~ng and resole dedsiom PLEASE SBT M~UTES FOR RESOLUTION 4:08 p.m. E~EST SCHNEIDER ~5343~ Request for a Var}anco under Sootier Disapproval Appiicant proposes a lot with an area of ~ess than 4,~ ,OOO sq. fro a~d wid~k of less lhan I50 fL ~2 th~s R-4O Residential Zoae Dis~rieL Loea~%x of Property: 1015 and 915 Lakeside DrNe. Soutko~d: CTM %4-5- and 6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalfofthe appi~cant? GAlL WrCKHAM. ESQ: Two ~ssues I'd like ro go over F~rsl of al1 the fronl yard Page 12( e7i25 12t June I9, 2003 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting lf'ub[ic Hearing width, as you can see, we are merely moving 9~ from one lot to another. The lot that is being reduced by 9' has an existing dwelling. It has plantings and a driveway that are not in the effected area. The total lot width of both parcels together will not change. The object of a lot line change was to make what was an existing legal vacant lot a little bit bigger because of it's proximity to the wet]ands. On the second point area, I just spoke to Damon at the BD because I think he and ~ both misread the map. And the 40K sq. ft. that he thought we were under, he was referr/ng, and he had circled on his map, on tax lot 6 proposed adjacent area, 27K sq. ft. If you go up and look at the map, itself, on the upper lot, it says 1.9 acres proposed. So it is, in fact, over 40K sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the one thing, because our maps came in 2 different pieces. If t could just, if we could just get to the real, it's like 5~11 in the blanks. Lot 5 is the size now, is lot 5 is the wetland tot. MS. WICKHAM: .825 acres. CHAIRWOMAN: Excuse me? MS. WICKHAM: .825 acres. CHA~RWOMAN: Do we have any sq. footage on that? MS. WICKHAM: 35K, 36K CHAIRWOMAN: 36K, is that even? MS. WICKHAM: 35,933.80. I'm sorry, I was rushing, because I know you are so far behind. CHAIRWOMAN: The size of lot 5 now. And after the change, it's going to be? MS. W~CKHAM: 49,590 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, lot 6? MS. WICKHAM: Lot 6 is now 57,613. CHAIRWOMAN: And it will be? MS. WICKHAM: It will be 43,956. i hope if we subtract, it may come out right. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll make them come out right. That was the question actually of, that was the only question I have for this whole thing. I know that you've been to the Planning Board on it, and I know that you've been granted a waiver £rom the Town Page [21 of I25 t22 Sou~:ho]d Town Boated of Appea~s Reg~[ar ~deeting P~bic Hea~ing Board on k And I have absolmely no objections MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Nor do L CHAIRWOMAN: And board me~oers have any ~uestions? MEMBER HORN[~G: A~aim dsffficaffon, proposed a~acent area for ~ is soy. 27K7 MS. WICi~AM: That's a demarcation lhat th~ environmental agencies, the DEC rsqubes zt to be shown on the map And [ continued that wi~h the su~eycr that tkafs what [ha~ refers ~o. is wha~ the ~EC needs ~o show is sn adjacenz m~ea. adjacem ':o wetlands. And it has to do witla elevations ~d what not BO~KD SECRETARY KOW~ LSKi Both lo~s over 40K ss. fi_ co~ec+? MS. W!CKHAM: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALS~: I jus'~ wonted m m~<e sure ! have fee fi~at numbers. CHAIRWOMAN: They v41l be after the chan~e. MEMBER ORLANDO: Quick question The proposed house will be sold tc s~ran~er~ ~elafives. f~ends? MS. WICKHAM: It will be built by and occupied by Mr. Schneider. He~s sellin~ (ce existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: Con~atals~ions. MS. W[Ci~AM: H&s living in a bailer fi~z now. CHAIRWOMAN: f make a motion to dose the hesrin~ ~d rese~e decision to Iater. PLEASE SEE MINUTES EaR RESOLUTION- P~sapp~ova.. AnnHcant proposes re eemoksi~ an exlstin~ accessory shed and to Private Road ~2. PETER BOGER: My name is Peter Baser. Fm ~he owner of the Page 7.22 cf 125 123 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing which I'm seeking a variance. My family has owned this property for 55 years. The property is presently improved with a 950 sq. ft. approximate seasonal bungalow and metal shed. I am seeking to demolish the existing deteriorating metal shed, and reptace it with a wooded shed. The shed has been in this location for over 40 years. It needs to be in this particular location as I mentioned in my application because the shed houses, among other things, the well pump and the tank for domestic water for the house. The well needs to be in that location because of proximity to the wetlands and adjacent cesspools. So there really is no other practical spot in the yard which to place the shed. The initial application was denied because the Building Department (BD) deemed the shed to be in the front yard, but as a practical matter looking at the sm:vey and looking at the land, layout of the house, it is really, in effect, the backyard. So what I'm seeking to do is replace this with a nice, more attractive, wooden shed. I've spoken with 3 out of the 4 neighbors in question. None of those 3 have any objection to the proposed construction. CHAIRWOMAN: The application is actually very simple. You want to be 22' from the so-called ROW. I understand. I have no questions/comments/objections to this whatsoever. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree it will look much nicer than the existing shed. MR. BOGER: You've seen it, I guess. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I was down there and I couldn't agree with you more. It will look much nicer. MEMBER HORNING: I'm pleased with the application. I looks very straightforward. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Seeing no hands, I'I1 make a motion closing the bearing reserving the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 4:16 p.m. ROBERT SAMOLEWSKI #5338. Request for a Variance under Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's March t4, 200003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes an accessory garage in an area other than the code required rear yard, at 7800 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; CTM #1(}00-101-1-19o3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf o.~'the applicant? You want to put a new garage... Page ~23 of ~25 Reguia~r l~eet~ng P~biie ~OBE~T SAMOLEWSKI: Ves. on lhe come~ o~48 and Alvah's Lane. We are a new house and we wan-~ ~o su~ a detached garage. And because h~s cn the comer. says we have 2 front yat'ds, but it's reaiiy the s:de yard because where the driveway is and all. l have mn existing n~ee line that ! p?: up. It's setback 55' off of the Main Road. And then the garage ~s going 90' from the ~[ain Road. So {frs plemy far awn) from tlne Main ~oad. I aIso have pictm~es here i~you need ro see as far as the way it's set MEMBER GOEHR~GER: You mean Middle Road_ you don't mean Main Road. MX. SAMOLEWSKt Oh yes. Middle Road. 48. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~nen are you going to get the ct'rune there to put that together7 MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Right CHAIRWOMAN: i don't have ~y questions. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: The hsuse wiF contain utility: ff wha*? Psxdon me. garage, t~e utility of MR. SAMOUEWSKi: Just for storage. Electric will be in there. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: No -water? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: No water. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Thank you. MEMBER OZIVA: No questions, good luck. MEMBER ORLANDO: i'i[ PoIIow up wilh Ie~. Just storage9 MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Just storage. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: One sto~, or 2~s~ou? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: it's a 2-sto~, 2-cra~ ga~'age. MEMBER ORLANDO: No baexoom, or an~hing like that7 MR. SAMOLEWSKi: MEMBER ORLANDO: I'd be tough w(th no wa~er. 125 June 199 21)03 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public HearLng MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Yes it would be. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions, good tuck. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that g(~ing to be stick built or modular? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Stick built. CHAIRWOMAN: Good luck. And I'm going to make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUT:[ON Public hearing concluded 4:20pm Page 125 of ~125