Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/25/2003 HEAR 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CO~,~TY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 3 5 TOWN 0 F S OUTHO LD 6 7 ZONING BOARD OF AP P EAL S 8 Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 September 25, 2003 12 9:30 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present : 15 LYDIA A. TORTORA, Chairwoman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 GEORGE HORNING, Board Member 18 RUTH OLIVA, Board Member 19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 2O 21 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TONTORA: The first appeal on the agenda is number 5388 on behalf 3 ef Locke McLean. I would like to knew if there's anyone here who would like te speak in 4 favor or against the application. HR. LOCKE: Richard Locke, Hain 5 Road. Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant. Sarah HcLean, the ce-owner of the property is 6 also here. I understand she's had a discourse - with some ef the members of the Board concernmng the application. Just te put 8 everything in reference before she speaks, the Board is familiar with this property, having 9 granted the relocation of the residence under appeal Number 4764. And it's one of the 10 unique properties in the entire town in that it's gee three front yards and very little 11 rear yard on which it's has been designated because of the three front yards. 12 The proposal before you was created by her designer, BD Design, because 13 the HcLeans sought mere storage space in their house for their premises there, and what they 14 proposed was the garage, I won't speak to the application per se because you've all reviewed 15 it and spoke to the applicant, and it's a verified petition and you're well aware of 16 what's mn it. The existing garage that's being 17 utilized, as we speak today, is going to be converted te storage. New, the problem that 18 we have here is that this is in an PS0 zone, and Ee the existing house today is right at 19 161 feet as shown by the site plan from the gleaming. So anything that's done in that 20 area becanse it is a designated front yard, would require a variance, and I understand 21 that Mrs. HcLean has been talking about the Beard, Board members concerning it. 22 What concerns me is in the thinking here this morning at this hearing is 23 what the Beard would allow as a permissive front yard variance, considering the fact that 24 the existing garage on the gloaming is 21 feet au its closest point. So with that point I'll 25 uurn it ever to Mrs. McLean. I won't belabor the application because you've all discussed COURT REPORTING AND TRIkNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 3 1 2 it. Sarah~ HRS. MCLEAN: Good morning. Would 3 you like me to speak, or I don't knew quite how to proceed on this? . 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Well, let's review a little history for the record. 5 MRS. MCLEAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Beard 6 members did inspect this site at our annual meeting in August. 7 MRS. MCLEAN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And the owner 8 was at the site at the time, and the Beard members did clearly express concern that at a 9 15 foot setback from the read that cars would be backing out into the read, and the Beard 10 members were very concerned and asked Mrs. McLean at that time to give serious 11 consideration, since it is new construction, to consider moving it further back, se that we 12 would not have what amounts tea traffic hazard on that read. 13 You knew, I recognize that it is not a major thoroughfare; on the ether hand, 14 we also have te think down the road in the future and certainly not te try te create a 15 situation that would be a potential hazard te people who are using the read. And having 16 said that, please give us your thoughts? HRS. MCLEAN: I think that's a 17 very fair point that you've raised, and in considering all that, my husband and I have 18 had unfortunately just preliminary conversations with our builder and architect, 19 but in order to move the building back, which we understand why it's necessary te do and 20 we'd be happy te de, we're really getting into an issue ef it getting se close te the house, 21 and thinking we therefore have te attach it te the house. And as I understand it, that 22 changes the whole situation in terms of what it actually is what we're asking for a 23 variance for. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, if 24 you're thinking ef incorporating this as part of the house, it would ne longer be an 25 accessory, it would be a detached accessory building. COURT REPORTING AiqD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 HRS. MCLEAN: What I need is a little 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would become part ef the principal building. 4 MRS. MCLE}~: I guess I need a little guidance as te how firmly attached does 5 it have te be, and hew far back does it have to be. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have to consider using nails. 7 (Laughter.) HRS. MCLEAN: No. You know what 8 I mean. Can it be an open breezeway or does it have te be an enclosed building? 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're getting into an area where -- hew te say 10 this -- this is going to depend on hew the building department reviews your plan. 11 MRS. MCLEAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In this 12 matter, we are appellate. Our jurisdiction is appellate. 13 HRS. MCLEAN: Pair enough. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The building 14 department will review your plans, and in all honesty, they will try to help you. These are 15 the kinds of issues you can discuss with them; if I do this what will happen; if I do that 16 what will happen. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 17 just break in here? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're here today and your attorney is with you; you 19 could zip over to the building department, and we could recess this hearing for a little 20 while and possibly if that's the way you want to go, come back and talk to us. 21 MRS. MCLEAN: Really, that would be very helpful. Actually, George had 22 recommended that. Can you at least give me some guidance as to hew far back from the 23 street we would have te be? The house is just barely within the 60 foot setback, se 2% obviously -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At the closest 25 point the house is now 61 feet. 61 feet versus 15 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 MRS. MCLEAN: Significantly different. 3 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: As far back % as you can have it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's put it 5 this way, if the width ef the garage is 24 feet -- 6 MRS. MCLEAN: Yes. I mean the whole building may change in design in terms 7 of our new thinking, but obviously we're not going te get 60 feet back from the side street 8 there. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George's comments are quite accurate. The Board would 10 like to see the maximum possible. Remember, this is a 64,000 square feet let, and there 11 are a let of options, and I think the beard member on Fisher's Island has correctly stated 12 the Beard's feeling. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It is a 13 hilly area, however I will say I am inclined towards the applicant revising their plan and 14 attaching it to the house and working with the b~ilding department, and we'll see what they 15 come up with, and they would be better suited for our decision at that point I think. Where 16 the greenhouse is, in my mind, is inappropriately placed to me. 17 MRS. MCLEAN: George pointed o~t -- horticulturist that I am -- that it 18 should be facing a different direction, and therefore, it might be used as the connector 19 building. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. I 20 understand it's facing north. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 21 raise one more issue? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Excuse me? 22 BOAP~D HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Can I raise one more issue? 23 CHAIRWOH~N TORTOPsl: Yes. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 24 not privy to the conversation because I was basically standing higher up, looking down at 25 it at the time you were discussing it with the Board. But we have totally ruled out the fact COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 1 2 that you don't want to enter this garage from an angle coming in adjacent to the other 3 garage? MRS. MCLEAN: No, that is another 4 possibility. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because 5 you have that topography there and you could make use of that in the plan, and then yen 6 could buffer it around it, and I don't think you'd have te change the position of it, as 7 long as the cars came in where it says proposed 18 by 24 feet greenhouse, and 8 actually enter the building from that side? MRS. MCLEAN: I think the real 9 issue is this building was being built for storage purposes. The problem is we have a 10 garage as it new stands, but it's se filled with stuff, garden furniture, whatever, that 11 we can't store our cars in it. So we're looking for a place to stere cars. We're new 12 beginning to think the ether way, that maybe what we should be building is an addition we 13 can use for storage and ge back to putting the cars in the garage. 1% C~AIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. McLean. Save us all time here. I think what we're 15 hearing is you'd like te consider other options and the Beard is perfectly open te 16 that. Why don't we allow you some time te discuss this with the building department. 17 Counsel, will yen be available at some time? 18 MR. LOCKE: Since her architect and builder are away, I would request then 19 with the dialogue that's taken place this morning is that we recess it for a month er so 20 and then come back to it with an alternative situation, knowing that we're going to need a 21 front yard variance here ef some sort. So the application doesn't change. What I was 22 looking for -- she was looking for some guidance. We have 21 feet there now. As long 23 as we don't encroach on that and come back to that, they're going to utilize the new 24 structure as a garage, as the old structure the ingress and egress is off the road. So 25 you're not coming off the road. So with that in mind, if we have that parameter, then I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 think her architect and the building department could get something organized for 3 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOni: I'm net clear 4 what you just said. MRS. MCLEAN: I'm not sure I am 5 either. I think what he's saying is, if we go back to using the old garage as the garage 6 instead of just storage, then access to the read is irrelevant. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that what you said? 8 MR. LOCKE: Partially. Because the existing garage they don't use te back out 9 on the road. They de not have to. She's unable te use it because of the storage 10 problem se that would convert that back te the garage and then add an accessory, part ef the 11 dwelling if you would with this addition, which would primarily be for storage, although 12 it's considered part ef the living area of the house because it's attached in same fashion, I 13 understand that. BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Let me 14 leave you with this last thought is that, Mrs. HcLean, you intend te attach it to the house, 15 put on a glass roof, and put the greenhouse right up to the house. 16 MRS. MCLEAN: That's what we're thinking about, exactly, having the attachment 17 be the greenhouse. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think the 18 Board is more inclined te entertain a variance far that sort of thing rather than have to twa 19 detached structures on the front yard. MR. LOCKE: What I'm trying te 20 get, should we use the 21 feet? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ne, Gerry, 21 we have a difference ef opinion en this, se please don't state the Beard's opinion. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm stating my opinion. Never, never, never, de I 23 state the Beard's opinion. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do not 24 want te see a minimum ef 21, that used as a parameter. This is a blank slate. It doesn't 25 exist right new. MR. LOCKE: Twa months, can we COURT REPORTING AND TRi~NSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 8 1 2 adjourn it fei two m~nths? I'm just trying to be realistic, to get the plans and come back 3 with something concrete. CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: To get 4 correct exposure for your greenhouse, which is questionable at this point. 5 MRS. HCLEAN: Anyway, doesn't matter. But thank you for your guidance. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Do you want to set a date for this? 7 MRS. MCLEAN: We have te be turned down by the building department, first, don't 8 we? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You may have 9 te de a renetificatien on this. So we will - MR. LOCKE: Will December be 10 better then? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What is more 11 convenient for you? MRS. MCLEAN: Do you knew your 12 meeting dates in November and December? MS. KOWALSKI: On December it's 13 the 18th at approximately 9:30 in the morning. 14 MRS. MCLEAN: What is November? MR. LOCKE: That was November. 15 MS. KOWALSKI: That was December. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Probably safer off with December. 17 MRS. MCLEAN: I would be happier with December. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: December season. 19 HR. LOCKE: It gives us more time. Thank you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~: We may have te do a new notice. 21 I will make a motion to recess this until December 18th. 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in 23 favor. (Whereupon, all Members ef the 24 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Next appeal 25 is on behalf of John Casillo. Is there someone here who would like to speak en behalf COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 9 1 2 of that application? MS. SPECHT: Hi. My name is 3 Gretchen Specht. I'm with Spectacular Pools. I'm representing the homeowner, who is also ~ present as well. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We cannot 5 hear. MS. KOWALSKI: I didn't get your 6 last name. MS. SPECHT: Sure, my name is 7 Gretchen Specht, S-P-E-C-H-T, and I'm with Spectacular Pools, we're the builder 8 representing the homeowner, and the homeowner is also present. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would you like te tell us? 10 MS. SPECHT: Sure. What we're requesting is a side yard variance for an 11 ingreund swimming pool. This property is waterfront property. At this point we've 12 received approval from the DEC and also the Board ef Trustees for the placement ef this 13 pool in this location. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There's one 14 thing I'd like to confirm, the setback on the east side, you're 53 feet from Wiggins Lane, 15 correct? MS. SPECHT: Off the front of the 16 house, you mean, off the street of the house? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. Se the 17 pool would not be any closer than 53 feet? MS. SPECHT: Ne. The pool would 18 be placed behind the front line of the house. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So it would net be any closer than 53 feet? 20 MS. SPECHT: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: The other 21 question I had was the setback to the other side yard, that's 26 feet; is that correct? 22 MS. SPECHT: Which side yard, where the pool is located or the opposite? 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The other side yard. 24 MS. SPECHT: I don't have my ruler with me. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It shews it en the survey, but it does net show it en the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 10 1 2 landscaping plan. It's not on the land plan. 3 HS. SPECHT: The survey is the same as the landscaping plan. I den't see it 4 on the landscaping plan. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, it isn't. 5 It's en the survey. The setback te the side yard is actually on the survey. 6 MS. SPECHT: I have quite a large file after a year ef working on this. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. If you leek at the survey, the 1991 survey, there's 8 an indication of 26 1. MS. SPECHT: That's what I'm 9 seeing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPJ%: Se 10 essentially that's geing te leave us with a setback on the peel side of about 12 feet at 11 the closest paint; is that correct? MS. SPECHT: That is correct. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The landscaping plan, I did review it, it leeks 13 very nice. MS~ SPECHT: Thank you. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Let's see if the Beard members have any questiens. 15 MS. SPECHT: If I ceuld just make ene ether paint toe, because I feel it's 16 related. There is anether lecation in the yard in the back ef the house, but I want te 17 make you aware that due to the slepe of the yard and there's large caliber trees in that 18 locatien, that it weuld not make it feasible to place the peel there. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Talking about the canal side? 20 MS. SPECHT: Yes, that's correct. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We weuld get into preblems with the trustees as well as the 22 DEC. MS. SPECHT: ~kbsolutely. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's fairly clear the DEC wanted te see this as far 24 landward of the canal as passible. MS. SPECHT: That's cerrect. 25 CHAIRWONLA~ TORTOPJ~: Any questions? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If yeu did it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 11 1 2 on the other side of the house, there's all those trees there. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Member Goehringer. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a liner pool? 5 MS. SPECHT: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't 6 see any indication of what actually is going to go around the peel; is it a ground level 7 patio; is it a raised patio? I know the topography there; I've been te the site. 8 MS. SPECHT: At this point, whatever is placed around that area would be 9 at ground level, would not be raised. ~e're hoping to put brick, but right now we're in 10 conversations with the DEC o~ that. We're looking te work together with them en some 11 pervious material that would be placed at the same height as the peel and no higher. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: I didn't hear the Chairperson in reference to -- I'm 13 going to refer te this wall that you go en to the beach area as a secondary bulkhead, so te 14 speak, what is the distance between there and that wall; do yen knew? 15 MS. SPBCHT: The distance between that bulkhead and that wall? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: Yes. MS. SPECHT: Let me see, I'm going 17 te be g~esstimating, and I'm going te say it's about -- it's approximately 12 to 15 feet. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's from the peel er from the proposed patio? 19 MS. SPECHT: Oh, from the proposed patio. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a particular reason why the applicant chose to 21 put the peel adjacent te the corner ef the house or within line ef the corner ef the 22 house and not within line of the deck, which is the farthest most, in ether words, taking 23 it and bringing it back a little farther from this~ which I'll refer te the secondary 24 bulkhead? MS. SPECHT: Correct me if I'm 25 misunderstanding your question - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Twelve COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 12 1 2 feet is relatively close to that wall. I'm just wondering why -- 3 MS. SPECHT: Perhaps, I'm misquoting you -- er misquoting myself, 4 actually er misstating -- is what we tried to de is bring the pool as far away from the 5 water as we could. CHAIRWOMAi{ TORTONA: That's what 6 the DEC wanted you to de. MS. SPECHT: Right, just in 7 conversations with them. First we met with the DEC, and that point then they basically 8 gave us through back and forth, gave us what their requirements were and at that point with 9 the Board ef Trustees as well, the placement of the pool was their desire te be here. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You didn't try to push it any closer te the front 11 yard, meaning to the street side? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's pretty 12 close, Gerry. MS. SPECHT: Yeah, it's like right 13 up against the front line ef the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I 14 said, I was there, I slid off the steps right into the grass because there was a down spout 15 there. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is a 16 compromise between the DEC and not allowing it into the front yard. 17 MS. SPECHT: This process is over a year, just involvement. 18 CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: Are you through Mr. Goehringer? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Mr. Horning? 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 21 anyone in the audience who would like te speak in favor or against the application? Seeing 22 no hands, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 23 MS. SPECHT: And just so -- I've never gone for a variance in the Town of 24 Southeld, is it normally I guess at the next hearing you make your decision; it's presented 25 at that point? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Generally, COURT REPORTING AND TNIkNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 13 1 2 yes. MS. SPECHT: Okay. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would someone like to second? 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? 5 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor.) 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 7 The nexf hearing is on behalf of Kenneth and Dorothy -- is it Woychuk? 8 MR. WOYCHUK: Woychuk. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I lucked out. 9 Good morning, Mr, Woychuk. Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of that 10 application? We can't hear you, so please use 11 the microphone. MR. WOYCHUK: It's just putting -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just state your name for the record, please? 13 MR. WOYCHUK: Ken Woychuk. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good morning. 14 MR. WOYCHUK: Good morning. The shed was placed on the side yard prior to 15 construction, and it's actually in the neighbor's te the north's rear yard, se it's 16 net like I'm placing it in their side yard er in view ef their backyard, and when we put it 17 there, it was kind of the most convenient place because it was open, and we didn't want 18 to take any trees down at the time and we used it for storing stuff while we were building 19 the house, and that's where it was. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm familiar 20 with the site. I did visit the property, and in many respects that it almost appears it's 21 in the rear yard because it is facing the rear yard of your neighbor's property. Let's see 22 if the Beard members have any questions. Mr. Herning. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'll pass for the moment. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Mr. Geehringer. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any utility in the building, sir? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1% 1 2 MR~ wOYCHUK: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you 3 plan to plant any shrubs or anything around it? ~ MR. WOYCHUK: I have hibiscus around it new. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did see that, bnt anything taller than that? 6 MR. WOYCHUK: I'm waiting te see what my neighbor does, what he's going to put 7 up, and when he finishes construction, we figure on maybe putting some evergreens along 8 that line if he doesn't do something. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In light 9 ef the new construction? MR. WOYCHUK: Yeah. They took 10 every hree down on their let. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know 11 they did. MR. WOYCHUK: Se I didn't know 12 what they were going to de. So we were holding off en that. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You do have sufficient area if you did want te do 1% something. MR. WOYCHUK: I didn't knew if iS they wanted to get together and plant evergreens er something, you know, there's 16 still going along the way and what we kind of wanted to do is put evergreens along there. 17 I'm in the process ef trying te check into that right now. Actually, we didn't get it 18 done in the spring se hopefully ... BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have a 19 question. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, George. 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Briefly tell us hew it got to be placed where it is. 21 MR. WOYCHUK: When we purchased the let, somebody had given me the shed, and 22 at the time I didn't realize that you couldn't have anything en the side yard. Ail it was 23 small cherry trees and things there, and we were able te drive the truck into the area, 24 and I just off-loaded the shed there. I knew it had te be a distance from the property 25 line, but I didn't realize at the time there was ne side yard thing. And when we built the COURT REPORTING AND TNi~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 15 1 2 house we kind of pushed the house back a little more and turned it. It's still on the 3 side yard. The property, if you see it, it's a wide piece, and there's a little extra piece 4 that jogs in. I envisioned putting my garden there at eno time, and we were going to use 5 the shed for the garden in the back. And that's the original construction. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you put the shed in the back with the garden? 7 MR. WOYCHUK: I can, but I'd have to clear out some mere trees in the back te do 8 that. I didn't want to have to do that if I didn't have to. 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I was there. 11 There was some buffer there but I think your idea of putting evergreens there is even 12 better. Is that shed anchored down? MR. WOYCHUK: It's en railroad 13 ties} bolted onto that, nailed te that. It's not like ena foundation. 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: They still have some construction and strapped down into 15 the ground a couple ef feet. MR. WOYCHUK: New construction is 16 strapped down. No, at that time it was just put on railroad ties. 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Maybe you don't get the winds down there we get in 18 Orient. In Orient you better tie everything down. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience that would like 20 to speak in favor er against this application; do the board members have any f~rther 21 questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still 22 would like to see some additional screening around the roadside, meaning his right of way 23 coming in or adjacent te his neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have 24 any objections to that? MR. WOYCHUK: Ne. New my wife is 25 really going te get en my case. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 16 2 about that. CHAIRWOYLAN TORTOP~A: What we 3 usually would do is ask you for some type of evergreen screen. 4 MR. WOYCHUK: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that okay $ with everyone else? MS. OLIVA: Yes. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 7 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 9 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor.) 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 11 The next hearing is on behalf of Kyle and Lisa McCaskie. Is there someone here 12 who would like to speak on behalf of that application? 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Hi. MR. MCCASKIE: Good morning. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Please state your name for the record. 15 MR. MCCASKIE: Ryle McCaskie. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Pardon me? 16 MR. MCCASKIE: Kyle McCaskie. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What can you 17 tell us, Mr. HcCaskie, you want te put a six foot high fence up? 18 MR. MCCASKIE: Yes. On the corner, I live on the corner lot. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: A couple ef questions. I have a copy of the Josephine 20 Garro survey that essentially shews it's blacked out where you want te put the fence 21 there. It doesn't state, eno, how far off Pierce Read the fence wonld be te your 22 property line. Se I'll give you all my questions: What the exact length ef the fence 23 is along Pierce Read, as well as en the property line. We don't have that information 24 in front of us. MR. MCCASKIE: I can't give you 25 exact measurements, but I could give you a rough estimate. It's about 40 feet from the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 17 1 2 house te Pierce. I believe it was 115 from -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Along Pierce 3 Read? HR. MCCASKIE: Yeah, along Pierce, 4 then it was like 35, somewhere around there. C~AIRWOMAN TORTORA: 35 feet long? 5 MR. MCCASKIE: Along the neighbor's property. 6 C~AIRWOHtkN ~ORTORA: ~hy do you want the fence along the property line to the 7 east? I'm net clear on that. MR. MCCASKIE: Privacy, a~d 8 eventually we plan e~ hopefully some day putting in a pool. 9 C~AIRWOHAN TORTORA: In the front yard? 10 MR. HCCASKIE: in the backyard. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: One, I think 11 the Beard would like to make -- I mean, we generally like to, when we're dealing with a 12 six feet high fence in the front yard, we generally don't want to see it right on the 13 property line. Se we would like it set back en the property line. It's not only a safety 14 issue, it's also an issue ef when cars are traveling by you simply don't want a fence 15 right on the front property line. MRS. MCCASKIE: It's mostly on the 16 side of the property. It's net even going the full length of the house, it's set back a very 17 long way, actually te the back ef the house, alongside of the read but not anywhere close 18 te the corner of the read. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You see the 19 read has -- how far the read has been widened is net an indication of hew far the Town has a 20 right to widen the read. That would net be a reliable gear. What I'm saying is, from your 21 property line in the past the Beard has not -- does net want to see that six inches from your 22 front property line. So the first question I'd ask you is how far you're willing te put 23 it into your property line? MR. MCCASKIE: From the edge ef 24 the street -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTOt%A: Prom your 25 property line? Remember from the edge of your street, the Town can alwsys come along and say COIIRT REPORTING AND Tt~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 18 2 our property, we're going to widen it. MR. MCCASKIE: Oh, no. I was 3 going te run -- I don't knew if you can see the pest and rail -- I was going te on the 4 corner even with him, along the property en Pierce. I can move it back, if I need to, a 5 feet. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yeah, because 6 it looks like he's get it right on his property line. 7 MR. MCCASKIE: I have ne problem moving it back six inches er a foot if I need 8 to. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would be 9 more than six inches. Let's see some ef the comments 10 from the ether Beard members. These are my personal comments. Member Oliva. 11 BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: I had a concern too with a six foot fence on a corner 12 lot. There's a line ef site is going to be impeded by such a high fence, unless you get 13 it back from -- the read is one thing but your property line is probably further in than just 14 the road. There's a certain right-el-way, you have a 50 foot right-of way in the read. We 15 want te see if it's granted from this in five, ten feet into your property because a corner 16 is very difficult. You know, I've seen them when they just have hedges that are allowed te 17 grew say six feet and you just can't see, and it's dangerous. Of course right now you're 18 not that built up in that area, but the way building is going, it probably will be. So 19 would you be agreeable te move it back five, ten feet within your property line, net from 20 the street but within your property line? MR. MCCASKIE: I'd have te take 21 the measurements. I'd have te get the surveyor in and tell me exactly where the 22 property line iso BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: I think that 23 would be advisable. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Even if you 24 leek at your pictures of where the area is flagged where you want the fence -- 25 MR. MCCASKIE: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It becomes COURT REPORTING AND TNlkNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 19 1 2 very clear that it could become a problem with - 3 HR. MCCASKIE: It's really net disrupting the corner where the step sign is. 4 Prom the step sign is to where I plan on putting tNe fence, tNere is I'd say a good 50 5 ~eet there, easily from the step sign. BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: You mean into 6 your property 50 from that stop sign? HR. HCCASKIE: Yeah~ I would say 7 easily. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hr. ~erni~g. 8 BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Se the proposed fence you're saying would not ge down 9 t© the intersection o~ Harbor Lane and Pierce Road; it would be at least 50 feet wp from the 10 intersection; is that correct? MR. MCCASKI~: Yeah. It's 11 basically running even with the back ef the house. 12 BOARD HEHBER HORNING: As shown on our little diagram that's submitted? 13 MR. MCCASKIE: Right. BOARD HEH~ER HORNING: What 14 material would this be made out ©f? MR. MCCASKIE: We're planning en 15 the tongue and groove. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Basket 16 weave? HR. HCCASKIE: Ne. 17 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Solid fence, horizontal? 18 MR. HCCASKIE: Yeah, solid. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: ~ith 19 horizontal beards? MRS. ~CCASKI~: ~p top it has 20 hearts cut out of it. C~AIR~OMAN TORTOPJ~: I'm going te 21 pass some photos down. We'll just take a few minutes and let the Board members take a look 22 at some ef the photos. MR. HCCASKIE: Would you like to 23 see this? C~AIR~OMAN TORTORA: Certainly. 24 It's a six foot ~igh solid cedar fencing. 25 MS. KOWALSKI: Ask the lady in the office te make a copy of that in t~e file and COUNT REPORTING AND TP~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2O 1 2 then give it tO me later on. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: One further 3 question, sir, why de you need a six foot high fence? 4 MR. MCCASKIE: The privacy because as the incline of the property, the road is 5 kind of high to where the property is. S. O four foot really wouldn't take care of the 6 problem. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you 7 somehow physically demonstrate to us that this would not obscure the intersection at all? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Have you seen the photos? 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. I mean it appears as though it wouldn't. 10 MRS. MCCASKIE: The neighbors say really they don't understand why -- 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There's also some evergreens that would be mere of an 12 imDediment. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The only 13 thing is to make sure that it's not en the -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Property 14 line. CHAIRWOHAN TORTOni: Okay, 15 Mr. Geehringer. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Looking 16 at these pictures, Mr. McCaskie, where you have these stakes actually running through 17 that stone planter is actually the position where the fence will ge? 18 MR. MCCASKIE: Yeah, about three feet in from those recks. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that approximately your property line? 20 MR. MCCASKIE: The recks is pretty much the property line. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in reality, you have shown the offset, and -- 22 MR. MCCASKIE: Pretty much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you 23 estimate these te be how far from the actual paved road, in your opinion? 24 MR. MCCASKIE: The rocks from the paved read I would say is a good ten feet. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR. MCCASKIE: Then I plan en COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 21 1 2 going in another three, three, four. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Three from 3 this? MR. MCCASKIE: Yes. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to tell you that -- excuse me, Ruth, ge 5 ahead. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just want 6 te clarify from the picture I have, it would be another three feet from where those flags 7 are? MR. MCCASKIE: No, from where the 8 rocks are. The flags I would say would be the fence. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted te say that the Town really does have 10 an easement with around six feet in from the edge of your property line. So just be aware 11 of the fact that whatever this Board does, the Town could, as I believe eno of the Beard 12 members said, we intend te put sidewalks in and we intend te de this or that, because this 13 is a very expensive fence you're putting in, and I'm sure you would want it te stay there 14 for a period of time. MR. MCCASKIE: Oh, yeah. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you have any objection if we say the fence must be 16 set back a minimum ef five feet from the property line? 17 MS. KOWALSKI: Ge back farther not closer than five. 18 MR. MCCASKIE: Five foot back from the property line? 19' CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think that would kind of resolve all the questions. Is 20 that agreeable? MR. MCCASKIE: Yes. 21 CHAIRWOMtkN TORTORA: Do the Board members any questions? I think that will work 22 for everyone. I'm going to make a motion to 23 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 25 {Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor.) COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 22 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much for coming in. 3 We have a request here te withdraw an application, i'm going te make that 4 motion; it's on the agenda, the ~hristiansens. I'll make the motion. 5 BOARD HEHBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in 6 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 7 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Next 8 application is on behalf of Laurence and Betty Rubinow. Is there anyone here to speak en 9 behalf of the applicant? MR. HA~H: Steven Hamm, 45 Hampton 10 Road, Southampton, for the applicant. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good morning, 11 Hr. Hamm, how are yen today? HR. HAMH: Good. I have the 12 original of the affidavit of posting (handing). 13 This is a relatively straightforward proposal, I hope. I 14 understand yen did visit the site when you were there in August. 15 Basically the Rubinew's plan te put an addition on a preexisting dwelling en 16 their property en Munnatawket Read. The dwelling currently has a front yard setback of 17 7.2 feet going te about eight feet; they would preserve that eight foot setback for a small 18 portion ef the addition, then it would generally ge back into the main part, the 19 widest part of this fairly long and narrow property. And we feel what this design is 20 the -- would have the least impact en the neighborhood. This is a very small 21 neighborhood. Munnatawket Read, apparently the pavement ends right around their house, 22 and it's really used only for about three properties en that branch ef Munnatawket 23 Road. The neighbor who is the closest, 24 Jenson, we feel this would have the least impact on that property because rather than 25 going straight back toward her property, which we could de te some extent, we're trying to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8041 23 1 2 utilize the main portion of the property. Further, the entire southerly half 3 of that property will remain undisturbed, and the structure will only be 18 feet, seven 4 inches in height. So, again, the impact on the neighborhood is minimized. 5 I have today, I've asked Oliver Cope, the Rubinew's architect, te be here in 6 case there are any questions concerning design. In the meantime, if you have any 7 questions for me I'll try to answer them. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Couple of 8 questions. The existing house, what is the square footage on that? 9 MR. HA}dM: 470 is what I commuted from what Hr. Cope had given me, then there's 10 an additional deck on that which I don't have here. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: De yen have a CO en that house? 12 HR. HAMM: Yes, we de. Would you like te see it? 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: I'd like it submitted in the record, yes, I would. 14 HR. HA~H: When Hr. Cope comes up I'll pull it out of my file. i5 CHAIRWOlV~IN TORTORA: There's a CO on a single family dwelling? 16 MR. HAMM: Yes. Preexisting. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, 17 that's the major question I had because I saw it, and I said this is tiny and I know you're 18 trying to preserve that existing eight feet front yard. Couple ef real questions I have 19 on here, the existing 470 square foot, are you going to maintain that structure? 20 HR. HAHM: Well, that will be incorporated -- yes. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's net going to be demolished? 22 MR. HAHM: Ne. Mr. Cope can answer that for you. No, it will be 23 incorporated into the building. Apparently, in speaking te Mrs. Rubinew and someone, and 24 George may be able to back this up, a well-known cottage on the island, they call it 25 the Christmas Roost or something, so they did want to preserve it. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: A little history there? 3 MR. H~i~M: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before you 4 step down, I just would like to turn this over at this point to Hr. Herning, who is S intimately mere familiar with it because he lives there. 6 MR. HAHN: Sure. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don't buy 7 into the preservation stuff because people tear down what they want te tear down, and 8 this thing is twice the size of the existing cottage, and it will look completely 9 different. I am concerned of the possibility ef wetlands and the proximity ef the wetlands. 10 We asked Hrs. Rubinow when my colleagues were there te either come up with a letter of 11 nonjurisdictien from the Board ef Trustees or some statement. 12 MR. HAMM: She did net mention -- she did mention the issue of wetlands te me, 13 but not that we had te come up with something formal. I did speak te the surveyor and the 14 environmental permit person whom I use. There are no designated wetlands on the DEC map. If 15 you would like, I can try to get you something more formal on that. Apparently there's a 16 area, and I mention it en my memorandum, that may collect rainfall, but if the wetlands are 17 not designated en the map they don't exist as far as the state. 18 BOARD HEHBER HORNING: There was a huge wetlands just south ef that property 19 across from the Main Read -- MR. H~MM: I asked the surveyor 20 who has the map and he said no. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That does 21 feed into that major area and, in fact, anyone going there would quite frequently notice 22 running water alongside ef the road. MR. HAHM: What part of the 23 property, Mr. Homing? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Fox Avenue. 24 MR. HAH~: The Rubinow's property, unequivocally I can state that entire 25 southernly portion is going te remain undisturbed. COURT REPORTING AND TPJINSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8041 25 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I understand. I~m just concerned with the 3 proximity tea wetlands, We had an open question there -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Did you check with the Town Trustees? Because while it may 5 net be a wetlands as designated by the state, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's out ef 6 our local jurisdiction here. As you know, there are many wetlands area that the DEC will 7 send a letter ef nonjurisdiction and will reqnire local approval. So the two agencies 8 have different areas of jurisdiction, and I think the issue here is there is possible 9 wetlands that may net be charted by the state but may be under our local control. 10 MR. HAMM: As I say, if that's what you would like me to pursue -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George would that be something -- 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think it's a tributary, so te speak, to a 13 neighboring wetlands right across the street on Fox Avenue and probably en the designated 14 map as such. MR. HAMM: It's not on the state 15 map, that was confirmed to me by the surveyor. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This 16 property you're saying? MR. HAMM: Right. There are no 17 designated, state designated wetlands en this property that I've been se advised by people 18 who have seen the map. Se it would just be at the local level you would like me to come up 19 with some. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'm going 20 under a theory, Hr. Hamm, that if you had a major wetlands, which was designated as such, 21 which I don't knew if there is designation en this major eno across the street on Fox 22 Aven~e, but if you had that such thing, and then you had -- I will call them tributaries, 23 smaller wetlands streams whatever en adjacent peripheral properties, and you stopped the 24 flow from all those areas impacted it, then it would impact the larger wetlands. Se that's 25 my concern that there net be much disturbance on this unofficial wetlands. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTIOH SERVICE (631) 878-8047 26 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the issue needs te be clarified here as te address 3 Hr. Horning's concern. Are there wetlands on the property that fall within the Town's 4 jurisdiction? And that is something that you can answer for us and certify for us et 5 cetera? MR. HAMM: Sure. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So I think that's where we need to go as far as the 7 setback; is there the proximity, the eight foot, you're aware ef the Beard's feelings. 8 Yes, you de have constraints en the lot. The requirement's eight - the requirement is 40 9 feet. MR. HAi~M: That's right. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're proposing eight? 11 HR. HA=MM: Right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What's wrong 12 with that picture? HR. HAMH: I address the 13 substantial nature ef the variance in my memorandum, and I think the context is we are 14 gradually become -- we're using that eight feet for maybe less than ten more linear feet 15 then coming back into the widest part ef the property. That will have less impact en the 16 Jenson property, which is the nearby property, than we would if we came straight back and 17 then came down, which would be the ether option. 18 I mean, Hr. Cope had discussed the proposals with the building department, and it 19 was determined that if they want te do anything en this property I guess short of 20 demolishing this structure and trying te fit it into a rather constraining envelope, they 21 would need a variance. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The issue is 22 that you don't need a variance; the issue is te grant the minimum variance necessary. 23 HR. HAMM: Taking into account effects en the neighborhood and ether things, 24 and this while there may be some alternative to ge straight back toward the Jenson property 25 and then come down into the allowable building envelope, that would have mere negative impact COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 27 1 2 on the neighborhood, in our view, than the current proposal and that I think you should 3 weigh in your determination. In other words, there may be other 4 alternatives and substantial nature of the variance and se forth is certainly eno, but I 5 think you should in this case, focus en some ef the other factors under the town law which 6 allow you te grant variance, and the ~eighborhoed I think is an important eno here. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Having the luxury of visiting this, Hr. Hamm, as you 8 know, sometimes we don't identify a particular problem. However, if the Beard does have an 9 objection te the eight feet ef the new structure, okay, could we step that back te 10 ten, you knew or something ef that nature? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just 11 saying at this particular point, it's a read which does lead te somewhere, but it's really 12 not, it's ne mere than what we refer te as a traveled read. 13 MR. HAMH: And Hrs. Rubinow told me also that she spoke to locals en Fisher's 14 Island that don't even knew it goes all the way through. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying, I don't have any specific objections 16 te the eight feet, but if the Beard does have an objection, you know, then -- 17 MR. HAHM: I will let you ask Mr. Cope, since he's here. If there are 18 design questions or comments that you may have, we'll take advantage ef having him 19 present. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need te 20 move things along. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I will say 21 again, there are DEC involvement in wetlands in the immediate adjacent properties. 22 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: We agree that issue has to be cleared up, George. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Pierce Rubinstein, where we had a variance, right 24 down the read from there. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: We need te 25 clear that up and the applicant will have to provide that to us. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 28 1 2 Yes, sir. MR. COPE: Good morning. 3 CHAIRWOMtm~ TORTOPA: Good morning. 4 MR. COPE: I'm Oliver Cope, address is 151 West 26th Street, New York 5 City, 10001. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 6 you like te tell us? MR. COPE: I'm here te answer any 7 questions you had. I can tell you about the sort of genesis of this particular approach, 8 if you like. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the 9 question, aside from the wetlands, the question has been raised, and the question is: 10 What ether alternative could you ge te get that off of the eight foot? 11 MR. COPE: Well, we did a couple ef alternative schemes, which we discussed 12 with the Rubinows and with the building department, and my first approach actually 13 with them was let's take a look at what happens if we simply added a second fleer. 14 It's a small cottage. They really - I understand were making a substantial addition, 15 but I don't think we're up mere than around 1,500 square feet right now. It's still a one 16 bedroom house with a second bedroom in a lower level. The issue with the building department 17 is, unlike many jurisdictions in which we practice, Seutheld takes a very strict 18 approach to the expansion ef an existing nonconformity. In this case, any expansion 19 whatsoever of a nonconforming structure is deemed as being as an expansion ef the 20 nonconformity. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Expansion on 21 an nonconforming area? MR. COPE: Ne. I understand it 22 from talking te the building department, even if we put a second floor en it, it remains in 23 the same footprint they would consider an expansion ef nonconformity. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, air does count. 25 MR. COPE: Se we agree then any expansion of this nonconforming building COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 29 1 2 requires a variance. As it sits, I think there is no direction except perhaps to sort 3 of uphill side of it where we might have six or seven feet where we can expand. There is 4 no direction. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The object 5 here -- Mr. Hamm touched on this before, I want to get this very clear -- you do not feel 6 you could go back any further because you would be imposing en the neighbor; is that 7 correct? MR. COPE: I think there's always 8 a balance on to who you're imposing upon. But as you get closer to a neighbor you not only 9 are feeling their proximity more, but they are feeling yours more. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: How close would you be if you moved it back? You're 11 talking too close to the neighbor, how close is it that you would be? 12 MR. COPE: We could go to 15 feet, that's considered a side yard on that easterly 13 portion, since we have two front yards, so 15 feet. They have a shed right outside -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So you could go 15 where, Hr. Hamm? 15 MR. HAMM: We could ge 15 feet from the easterly property line. De you 16 want -- we, in anticipating this might be a issue, I had Oliver de some real building 17 envelope for you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why don't we 18 take a couple of minutes to take a look at them. 19 HR. COPE: This shows the building department's review and suggestion that we 20 designate the rear as this. The side here, front and front (indicating). 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right, okay. MS. KOWALSKI: How long, how big 22 is the property? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is 23 a one and a half story new addition. There's a story in the ground and you're going to keep 24 a similar type of ridge line te the existing house 25 MR. COPE: We actually are ever building that reef and increasing the ridge COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 30 1 2 height slightly. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOR~: We need te 3 talk eno at a time and slow down a minute. I'd like te make a couple of notes 4 ~ere. On this you're showing a building area with a 15 foot en the rear yard? 5 HR. COPE: That's the side. That's considered the side. This is a product 6 ef discussions, again, with the building department. 7 MR. HAMH: Just the law, this is considered a corner let. With a corner let $ you need two fre~t yards. ~owever, the code allows you to elect what eno, what would 9 otherwise be a rear yard as a side yard, that is why we only need eno variance for this 10 application for the front yard. We conformed te the required 15 foot setback in what would 11 otherwise be a rear yard, but I argued that even though it's designated a side yard, for 12 all intents and purposes, it's a rear yard. Se we're trying to stay off ef that line as 13 much as possible. That's why we don't want te build up te 15 feet. Because even though we 1% are entitled to, as a practical matter, it's a rear yard and Jensens have a house en that 15 property, they have a shed right near there, if yew can see. 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: A shed, yes. But the house is a geed hundred feet 17 away. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thoughts en 18 that? BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Yeah. My 19 thoughts would be te push it into the building envelope as much as possible. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To get it back a little bit. 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Which is conceivably doable. 22 C~AIRWOHAN TORTORA: I think there are a couple of things we have gone through 23 today. We need a clear letter o£ nenjurisdictie~ from the Town Trustees. I 24 think our Beard member from Fisher's Island, as well as myself and Mrs. Oliva would like te 25 try to see the plans fall within the prescribed building envelope. We do respect COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 31 1 2 and understand the 15 feet buffer, on the ether hand, there is a substantial area in 3 here where you could develop this without further encroaching. I mean, right new 4 becanse it's at an angle, it is 30 feet to the closest -- te that property line, but however, 5 with a little different architectural designs, perhaps we could get it mere into the building 6 envelope, se that it would be off further back from the ten feet. 7 Se I think all we're asking fur is give us a few alternatives here. Is that 8 accurate, George? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Gerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm 10 still trying to figure out what the ridge is. Could you just give me an idea, is it 16 11 inches higher than the original ridge? MR. H~M: I have te check the 12 drawings. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Get that 13 information fur us. Is there any ether information before we recess this hearing that 14 we have te address? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That 27 15 and 30 feet seven inches that I'm looking at off the edge ef the stairs, is that 27 feet 16 more te the end of the building envelope? MR. COPE: I'm sorry, which? 27, 17 that's a contour line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could 18 you just tell us en whatever else you de, what the distance is from the edge of these stairs 19 or the edge of the deck or te the end ef the contour line -- I mean to the end of the 20 building envelope, se we knew what that aspect of moving that whole structure would be? 21 MR. COPE: I de want to make one point before you adjourn. When you were 22 looking in the drawings, your perception ef this plan was that this 15 feet was, in fact, 23 the rear, and you were confused about that dimension here. And I think what you're 24 asking us to do is do precisely what we tried to avoid doing, which is take the house from 25 what is perceived to be the front and side yard situation now, and push it into much COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 32 1 2 closer proximity to what is, fur all intents and purposes, the rear ef the property. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don't think se. I could draw this on here myself, but I 4 mean, I think -- I think what we're beth seeing is this. Here's your existing house. 5 Per all intents and purposes you could de this and you would not -- you would be lessening 6 the distance te here. You're saying you want te de this (indicating). Per all intents and 7 purposes you could take the same square, turn it around se it would be parallel to eno 8 another, and you would actually increase what we are terming the side yard te the adjoining 9 properties and you'd also increase your setback to the road. These are options 10 that -- MR. HAMH: I think what you're 11 saying, again, I've got some constraints here given this situation, but say we did this 12 {indicating}. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Correct. That leeks to be you just doubled the setback 14 to your property, and you have just increased the setback to the read from eight feet te 40 15 feet. Se I think, yeah. BOA~RD MEMBER HORNING: Our job is 16 to consider the minimum relief necessary. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George, come 17 ever here and you can physically see what we're talking about here. We're talking about 18 this. We have just token a 15 feet side yard setback and increased it te at least 35. We 19 have just taken an eight foot front yard setback and increased tea minimum of 40. 20 What we're all saying -- HR. COPE: The reality though, is 21 it is perceived te be the rear. So this is far more constrained here. And, yes, you've 22 kept us from building in this area, but it's already developed. 23 BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: Just that eno little piece. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: But you'd have a far more conforming -- 25 MR. HAHM: It's conforming, but please, don't be literal en that. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631} 878 804I 33 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we're not. 3 HR. HAHM: And take the neighborhood into consideration. So it's net 4 the encroachment on the front yard in this circumstance should be taken in light of ether 5 factors, that's all I ask. HR. COPE: This is defined as a 6 corner, but this is Munnatawket, and so is this. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We understand. $ MR. COPE: In many ways that's a bend. You have a long narrow -- 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is the bend, you flew into it. 10 MR. COPE: I understand there's one house here which isn't that a fact they 11 own fifty percent of it? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: JeRsen's 12 right in here because they have a rather long drive. 13 MS. KOWALSKI: Is there a stop sign? 14 BOARD HEMBER HORNING: The road doesn't go like that. It becomes a private 15 right-of-way. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We understand 16 your constraints, and, however, we de see that you have a lot ef options here. At least eno 17 clear option that we have demonstrated here that would make the setbacks far mere 18 conforming than what you are proposing, there's alternatives; alternatives that make 19 sense. You maintain that the plan that you presented was because you wanted te maintain 20 the privacy ef the distance to your neighbor's property line. I respect that, however, we 21 have just developed or shown yen a plan that yon can double their privacy and also double 22 the setback te the main read. So these are considerations that we'd like you te take into 23 account. We would like you to come back and give us a letter of non-jurisdiction er a 2% letter ef jurisdiction for concern ef the wetlands in that area. 25 Se we're running a little late. I think we're all on beard as te whet the Beard COURT REPORTING AND TN~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 3% 1 2 wants, and th~n to find out from Mr. Hamm what would be a reasonable time. 3 MR. HAMM: I'll defer. HR. COPE: I think we're into a 4 new design because we're substantially changing the nature ef the approach. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before we say that, it may not be. Let's -- I wouldn't want 6 to -- you may come back and it may be that you .still need the identical variance in terms ef 7 this yard. MR. HAMM: Because anything we're 8 going to attach to this is still going te be within 40 feet. 9 MS. KOWALSKI: It's going te be within 40 feet, submit that te the building 10 department and submit it to the Beard with seven prints. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the best thing we can de right now, before we say, 12 yes, we're going te have to de that, let's adjourn it and keep it o~ the docket. 13 MR. ~AMM: You want two months or one? 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think two. Let's adjourn this te December 18th. 15 MR. COPE: That's three. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm sorry. 16 MS. KOWALSKI: November 20th. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: You know 17 something, Mr. Hamm, I didn't have a second cup ef coffee. 18 MR. HAMM: I didn't have one yet. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's adjourn te November. 20 MS. KOWALSKI: To November 20th. CHAIRWOM~ TORTO~: Make a motion 21 te adjourn this te November 20th. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 23 Beard responded in favor.) CHAIRWOHAN TORTONA: Take a five 24 minute recess. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion 25 to take a five minute recess. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 35 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in £avor. (Whereupon, all Members ef 3 the Beard responded in favor, and a brief recess was taken.) 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to make a motion te reconvene. Ail in favor. 5 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor.) 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is on behalf ef Ellen Zimmerman. Is 7 there someone here who would like te speak on behalf of this application? 8 MS. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. I'm Ellen Zimmerman. 9 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: What can you tell us? 10 MS. ZIMMERMAN: Hy understanding is that what we want to do is we've done 11 substantial renovations to my house, and as it turned out, there was never a C ef 0 on the 12 garage and the breezeway. Why that was so, I don't knew. I bought the house in 1996. The 13 house was built in 1967. What we want te de new is fix up 14 the garage, reshingle it, change the roof line so it will conform with the house 'cause now 15 it's a little askew and just leave the breezeway and the footprint ef the garage the 16 way they exist. But my understanding is that the breezeway dimensions don't conform to 17 current zoning regulations. I have a letter here from my 18 neighbor Edith Minnigan stating that they have owned their property since 1964 and that te 19 their knowledge the garage and the breezeway have existed as long as the house, and she has 20 no objection te my doing whatever I want to de. Se I'll give that te you (handing). 21 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. Couple of questions. 22 MS. ZIMHERHAN: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I confess, 23 I'm a little confused en the notice of disapproval en this. I read it. I visited 24 the site, and I also studied the file quite extensively and apparently I understand that 25 the breezeway does not meet the definition of a breezeway because instead of being a maximum COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 36 1 2 of 80 square feet, er eight by ten; it's te~ by ten, that much I understand, but the notice 3 of disapproval also says that the existing accessory garage is noted as being in the 4 front yard. It's a waterfront lot; is it not? MS. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it is. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your property directly abuts Gardiner's Bay or is Lot Number 6 10 in separate ownership? MS. ZIMHERMAN: The beach and the 7 right-of-way next to my house are owned by the homeowner's association. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's the question. Then your property dues net -- 9 MS. ZIMMERHAN: My property technically dues not abut the bay. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I see. So that is where we come into the issue that it 11 is ne longer a waterfront let. MS. ZIHHERHAN: That's correct. 12 Although there would be ne ether place te put a garage. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I u~derstand that. We're talking about a situation that's 14 existing. That clarifies that because it is net directly abutting Gardiner's Bay and I see 15 Hr. Notare shaking his head. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Somehow we 16 new have the accessory garage as being in the front yard. Over the breezeway, is it 17 enclosed? MS. ZIMHERMAN: It is enclosed. 18 Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There's a 19 roof en it? BOARD MEMBER 0LIVA: There's a 20 roof and no sides. There's ne sides. It doesn't connect. You don't have a door. Ne 21 windows because I was there. MS, ZIMMERNLAN: That's right. And 22 my ~eighber, Mrs. Hinnigan, has basically the same situation with her garage in her front 23 yard, and she also does not own - the beach in front ef her house is also owned by the 24 neighborhood association. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So the beach 25 in front ef the house is owned by the association? COURT REPORTING AND TRAlqSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 HS. ZIMMERHAN: The neighborhood association, the homeowner's association. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. really don't have any questions; that was my 4 one question on this. Let's see what develops here. Mr. Homing. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Ma'am, you made statements this morning that 6 you're doing major renovations to your house and garage; is that correct? 7 MS. ZIMMERM~: Major renovations te the house have been completed. We had the 8 proper approvals for that, and now that the house is done, the garage leeks a little on 9 the shabby side. But it also has -- the roof line is a little askew, and we want to even 10 that out. BOARD MEMBER HORN!NG: will it 11 remain a garage? HS. ZIMHERMAN: It will remain a 12 garage. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Se while 13 you're doing this reef work, could you not tear down the breezeway and make a conforming 14 size breezeway? MSo ZIMMERNLAN: I suppose we 15 could, but I don't really want to make any mere changes te the footprint ef the garage 16 than I need to. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That would 17 net change the footprint ef the garage. MS. ZIMMERMAN: Well, the only way 18 to make it fit the right dimensions would be to make the garage - move the garage to the 19 house. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: She would 20 have to shorten it, I believe. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I thought it 21 was ten feet wide and ten feet from the garage te the house. 22 MS. ZIMMERNiAi{: My understanding is that that makes it tee -- 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: wide. HS. ZIMMERMAN: Ne. The distance 24 between the house and the garage is toe large. The distance between the house and the garage 25 is apparently the dimension that is nonconforming, and I don't really want to COURT REPORTING AND TP~INSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 38 1 2 change the location of the garage. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Understood. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPA: Mr. Goehringer. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Zimmerman, hew old is the garage; do you knew? 5 MS. ZIMMERMAN: To my knowledge it's as eld as the house, and the house was 6 built in 1967. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se what 7 we're saying is at least zoning as changed or modified that interpretation since then? 8 MS. ZIMHERHAN: I believe se. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And yen 9 suspect that the breezeway is ef similar vintage? 10 MS. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, yes. And my neighbors say as long as they have lived there 11 that's the way it's been; it's always been like that. And there's a homeowner's 12 association rule, er I guess part of the covenants, that there can be no building in 13 the subdivision that is net attached te the main building, which is why there's a 14 breezeway to begin with. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 15 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva. 16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I looked at it. I have no problem. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anyone in the audience that would like te 18 speak in favor er against this application? MS. ZIHMERM~q: There's my 19 architect here in case you have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: De the Beard 20 Members have any questions ef the architect? MS. KOWALSKI: I just need the 21 architect's name for the record, please? MS. ZIMMERMA~: Frank Netare. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Seeing no hands, I'm going te make a motion to close the 23 hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 25 (Whereupon, all Members of the Beard responded in favor.) COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 39 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: The next application is on behalf of Andrew and Lois 3 McGewan. Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? 4 MS. MARTIN: Yes. Amy Martin of Fairweather Brew~, representing Andrew and 5 Leis McGowan. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What can you 6 tell us? MS. MARTIN: Well, the McGewans 7 have made the house that used to be their summer home into their year round home er at 8 least their primary residence. They, in t~rn, wanted to gain some mere space from the 9 interior of the house and wanted to make the existing attached garage into part ef their 10 living space. They have a pre-existing detached garage that is very close in 11 proximity to the right-of-way that the neighboring property has. 12 From what I understand, the building department has ruled that this 13 right-of-way that the neighbor has is a road. CHAIRWOHAN TORTO~: De you 14 have -- let's talk about the right-of-way. It has a name, Lois Lane? 15 MS. MARTIN: That's something that the family I think gave her the sign for 16 because that's her name, and it's more efa family thing. It's net an official road. It 17 is a right-of-way deeded te the neighboring property as their only access to their summer 18 home. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who uses the 19 right-of-way? MS. MARTIN: The McGowans to get 20 to their own property is not the right-of-way, and then from their little garage on is the 21 right-of-way. The deeded right-of-way actually goes from the road to the property 22 next door, just that one property next door. It's really an exaggerated driveway. It's a 23 gravel path that's pervious due to its proximity to the wetlands. And actually, the 24 driveway itself can no longer be where it's deeded because it's half under water. 2S CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The question t have is: Hew de you obtain access? De you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 %0 1 2 obtain access te your property fram Pacific Avenue or through the private right-of-way? 3 MSo MAITIN: According te the survey, it's from the private right-el-way. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: So your access is fram -- I'm going to call it Leis 5 Lane. MS. MARTIN: Ail right. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Because that's what the sign says. Se, yes, it's a 7 private right-of-way, but you de maintain access to your house fram Leis Lane? 8 MS. MARTIN: Well, actually except far the fact that the deeded right-of-way as 9 you'll see the dotted line that goes across the edge of the wetlands is really under water 10 and the read that is used is actually mostly en the McGewan's property. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The traveled read? 12 MS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: The traveled 13 road is Leis Lane? MS. MA~RTIN: Lois Lane, yes, I 14 guess, yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The 1S measurements being used by the building department are fram the traveled road, 16 correct? MS. MARTIN: Yes, they are. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~: Okay, I think we're all en board on what's before us. 18 MS. M~ARTIN: I've been to beth the DEC and the Trustees en this issue, and what 19 the McGewans have dena -- actually, there is only, I think a 5'6'~ problem ef net being set 20 back 50 feet from this traveled roadway, 5'6~' ef the proposed new garage is tee close to 21 that. And what we have dane with beth the DEC and the wetlands, the Trustees, is they are 22 tearing down mhe accessory structure, the garage that exists, in lie~ ef the new 23 structure. And, in that way, taking tNe structure and the existing stone surface that 24 gees to that structure out, and, therefore, mitigating the closeness te the wetlands. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would be about, se the variance request would be COURT REPORTING AND TP~INSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 41 1 2 about -- MS. MARTIN: 5'6". 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~: Yes, 5'6" MS. MARTIN: Yes. The other thing 4 that's happening is the driveway te their own home and turnaround is coming interior from 5 the wetlands, and the traveled roadway to the neighbor's property will become narrower, and 6 therefore, also the run off because this house is in a flood plane, is going to be less of a 7 problem te the wetlands. And both the DEC and the Trustees were very happy with the 8 repositioning and the changing of all this. Although, everything that exists was approved 9 by them in the past. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Well 10 let's see what happens. Mr. Homing, questions. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No, ma'am, no questions. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Geehringer. 13 BO~RD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't really have a problem with the new conforming 14 location attached to the house. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Mrs. 15 Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just want 16 te confirm, you're talking taking down the existing garage? 17 MS. MARTIN: The existing detached garage. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They have two garages at present. 19 BOARD MEMBER 0LIVA: That's what I'm saying. You're going te enlarge that 20 garage you said? MS. MARTIN: The existing attached 21 garage is going to become part ef the living space, and they're adding en 26 feet to make a 22 two car garage heading the ether way. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if there is anyone in the audience who would like 24 to speak in favor or against this application. I think this is fairly straightforward. We 25 are looking at a variance request essentially 5'6"? COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 ~2 1 2 MS~ MARTIN: Right. And actually, I was told that the building department could 3 have said that that was net a read, and did net require as much of a setback, but they 4 chose to take the hardest route. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 5 very much. I'm going to make a motion te close this hearing and reserve decision until 6 later. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor? (Whereupon, all Members ef the 8 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 9 carried. Let's go back one on the agenda, 10 that is the application of Mr. Daniel Denn. MS. KOWALSKI: I want to mention 11 that we got a message that Mrs. Dorm's car broke down this morning. There's a note on 12 the file and she'd like to know if the Board could open it, and then adjourn it with a 13 date. And she also needs to submit certified mailings. It's for a proposed swimming pool, 14 the applicant's asking for an October date, if possible, but I explained to her that it may 15 net be until November. We have a full calendar. I left it up te the Board. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: I don't know if the calendar's quite full, Mrs. Kewalski. 17 MS. KOWALSKI: We could fit one more adjournment. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This application has been before us, as you can see 19 by the number, it's quite eld. My personal feeling is let's try to get to it, because it 20 has been hanging around for quite some time. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 21 fine with me. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Is that 22 agreeable with anyone, to try te get en the October's hearing calendar? 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I guess it's the applicant's mistake. They did net 24 get the proper documentation. MS. KOWALSKI: It's inadequate for 25 a hearing today. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Right, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 43 1 2 ~ndersteed~ MS. KOWALSKI: And the new date 3 will be October 23rd. CHAIRHONLAN TORTORA: Is that all 4 right, Hrs. Oliva? BOARD MEMBER O~IVA: Yes. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I make a motion to grant the applicant's request for an 6 adjournment te October 23rd at 9:30 a.m. BOARD HEMBBR O~IVA: Second. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPd~: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Hembers of the 8 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se moved. 9 All right, we're in pretty good shape. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How 10 about _Kelly? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don't have 11 anything on my agenda. MS. KOWALSKI: I wanted to ask -- 12 it's my typographical error on that. Could we add it te the agenda, it should have been 13 added on Page 2? CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Would the 14 Board like to do that? It's fine with me. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was Net 15 here at the special meeting when you decided te held that over. You should have a copy of 16 my erig±nal draft. As of the original draft I spoke to the Beard secretary, and there was an 17 opinion that I should reenhance Number 5 of the decision. Now I did not bring -- 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don't have a copy of that. 19 MS. KOWALSKI: I have a copy of the new draft that was distributed. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have a copy of the old one, though? 21 MS. KOWALSKI: The eld one that the Board read, and there were areas that we 22 were waiting te be confirmed by Bruce Andersen since then. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPA: Off the record. 24 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'd like te offer a motion to reconvene. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 44 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 3 {Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor.) 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 5 The first hearing on the afternoon agenda is Jason Taggar%; is there someone here 6 who would like to speak on that appeal? MS. KOWALSKI: Mr. Taggart. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Taggart, I'm sorry, Mr. Penney. 8 HR. PENNEY: Douglas Penney, appearing en the behalf ef the applicant, 9 Jason Taggart. Do you need to read any public notice into the record? 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we don't. 11 MR. PENNEY: A waiver ef merger 100-26 te permit the issuance of a building 12 permit for a single family dwelling ena vacant parcel, Wabasse Read in Seutheld, 13 District 1000, Section 78, Block 3, Let 29. As shown on the single and separate 14 abstract, which is already contained in each ef your mails and known as 1145 Nichemas Read. 15 This parcel is identified en the tax map as 1000-78-3-28. This lot is improved with a 16 dwelling, which was built in 1963, and it is benfitted by a certificate ef occupancy. 17 Although these properties have been held in common ownership since the vacant 18 let was purchased, beth lets were conveyed by separate deeds, at separate points in time and 19 have always benfitted from separate assessment and separate property taxes and stated its use 20 as a residential vacant lot, and the certificate of occupancy issued for the 21 improved parcel only references Tax Let 28. Although these may not be the most 22 legally significant factors in this application, they help te explain why the 23 applicant never checkerbearded the lots, and had always told Jason that he could build a 24 house on it. Mr. Koslik resided on the east end and was relatively unsophisticated about 25 zoning, planning and ether land use issues and bought the properties at different times, had COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 45 1 2 two separate d~eds, was always assessed separately and believed that he, in fact, had 3 two separate parcels. After Jason's grandfather passed away, he purchased the 4 house and the lot under the same assumption. I believe it's important to 5 remember that these lots were purchased in 1963 and 1970, long before your date of 6 codification in 1983. This is not a situation where a property owner comes into the town 7 owning a parcel ef property and buys an abutting piece, when here's a situation where 8 a person through his own inactivity would have had te de something affirmative to 9 checkerboard his properties back in 1983. He obviously wasn't aware ef it and allowed that 10 time to pass. Your Town Beard specifically 11 enacted legislation and created a procedure by which the Zoning Board ef Appeals is allowed 12 te waive and make four separate and specific findings ef fact, and if these four findings 13 are made, the waiver should be granted. The first as I'm sure you all know 14 that the waiver must not result in a significant increase in density, and second 15 the lot must be consistent in size with the ether lets in the immediate neighborhood. 16 The third, there must be some economic hardship te be avoided by the merger, and 17 fourth and contours of the lot should not be significantly changed and there should not be 18 a significant amount ef fill being added to the property se as te cause any harm to it 19 environmentally er flood sensitive areas in the vicinity. 20 I have submitted te you, and I have the original still with me which I will 21 hand up later to be marked, a copy ef Section 78 of the County Tax Hap showing the vacant 22 and improved parcels, along Hiawatha's Path en the north and east and along Nichemas Read en 23 the south and west. A review ef this exhibit will shew 24 that absolutely every lot in this area is nonconforming as te both the let area and lot 26 requirements in this AC district. Of the 32 lots that are identified COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 as being within a relatively significant radius ef the property, 2% are improved with 3 single family dwellings only eight, er 25 percent remain vacant. 4 Of the 24 improved lots 18, again 75 percent, are comparable in size and let 5 area and 125 are of lot width contained in the subject parcel. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Could I just stop you there for a point of clarification? 7 HR. PENNEY: Sure. CHAIRWONt~N TORTORA: When you're 8 speaking ef the area that you conducted the study in, could you clearly delineate what 9 area that is? HR. PENNEY: I said Hiawatha's 10 Path on the north and east and along Nichomas Road en the serth and west. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is Nichomas Road extending up to Bay Avenue or 12 Old Hiawathas Path? HR. PENNEY: Only the Hiawathas 13 Path I felt was the immediate neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se the 14 boundary would be Hiawsthas Path and Nichemas Read, and just the areas, the lets that are 15 contained in the diagram that you submitted te us? 16 HR. PENNEY: Yes. Courts have generally up held character -- 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the cede refers te the neighborhood or district. 18 HR. PENNEY: Yes. For you te determine what is the neighborhood I could 19 have gone farther, and I don't think it would have changed. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I wanted to clarify what the data is based eh. 21 HR. PENNEY: Shews the particular area that I went to the assessor's office and 22 checked the records un. As I said, 75 and seven remaining vacant lots in this area; 23 three of them are also comparable on the tax map that I submitted te you. There have been 24 waivers or other divisions ef property in this immediate area ever the past. 25 By reviewing the decimalized lot numbers that you'll find and records, you will COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 47 1 2 find that at least five larger lets have been divided te allow construction of houses on 3 lots of similar size to that proposed by this application. These are Lets 30.1 and 30.2, 4 and 42 and %2.3, 23.1 and Lots 28, 9, 65. BOARD HEHBER HORNING: Question on 5 that then: Do you knew if these lets were unmerged by this Beard? 6 MR. PENNEY: I think eno of them may have been. The assess©r's records were 7 net clear en that, and I tried te ge through your computerized records and - if you ge 8 back, you'll find some ef them were dane by subdivision; some ef them were just dane and 9 somehow allowed building permits were just issued en them, hew this was allowed te 10 happen, but I snspect as you get mere and mere sophisticated and development gets to be mere 1i of a formal procedure to go through and these things don't slip through the cracks, but 12 there's ne doubt that those five were larger lets merged and have been divided. The point 13 I make is that the character of the area is being allowed to be developed along lets 14 original sises, and I think it was out ef Wickham back in probably the '50s er '60s when 15 he just carved them up. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: These 16 are described parcels. HR. PENNEY: They are described 17 parcels; they're not on the map. A surrounding neighborhood is that 18 all ef these improved parcels have been noted by the yellow marks en that tax map, the 19 houses have similar setback to frentf side and rear. As proposed by this application some of 20 them were relatively new and benefitted fram the special relaxed provisions that you have 21 in your cede far single and separate, but the character ef the neighborhood and the size 22 house and the setback of the houses is very well established along these roads, and it's 23 very much in keeping with what is proposed by this applicant. 24 I would urge you to make a finding that that map and your physical inspection of 25 the area shows that the character of the neighborhood and nonconforming lots are COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8042 48 1 2 comparable in density and size and construction of a single family dwelling on 3 this eno let is not going te significantly increase the density and ef this area. In 4 fact, there's a row of arborvitae all long the read. This house will probably not even be 5 noticed by neighbors; it's se well screened already and previsions for a waiver have been 6 met. The third necessary finding 7 involves an economic harm te the applicant if you were to deny his appeal. I've submitted 8 to you two independent real estate appraisals by local brokers who have been practicing in 9 this area for an extraordinarily long period ef time. Each opinion provides you with three 10 values and separate building lets. The value ef the improved parcel, if it is separated 11 from the vacant let, and the value of the parcels if they are required to remain, 12 according te Maryanne Faval ef Century 21 Agawam Realty if denied this harm will be 13 $149,000. According te John Jay Nichols ef Lewis and Nichols, this harm would be 14 $145,000; although the actual values that are contained in these two appraisals differ te 15 some degree, the economics differ by more than three percent. 16 It is clear that a denial of this application will cost this applicant 17 significantly, and I also submit to yen he meets the third criteria for the waiver ef 18 merger. The fourth and final requirement 19 concerns the alteration of existing topography and a possible need for fill. To meet this 20 test I have submitted te you two additional pieces of information. One I did net repeat 21 because it's already contained in your file, that's the survey and approval ef the Suffolk 22 County Department of Health Services noted thereon. This approval is evidence that the 23 soils are receptive and that the depth to groundwater is sufficient and safe from any 24 kind ef environmental harm without the need for any fill or alteration of existing 25 grade° The second piece of documentary COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 49 1 2 evidence that I've submitted te you is a professional opinion from Suffolk 3 Environmental Consulting. Hr. Bruce Andersen personally visited the site. His curriculum 4 vitae is attached to a letter to you -- actually it's a letter te me but I'll submit 5 it te you. He rendered his written report concluding their approval of and survey will 6 not significantly impact on the contours of the lot. We would submit to that these two 7 submissions show that the final condition of a waiver has a also been met. 8 In conclusion, I submitted two additional exhibits for your file. Immediate 9 neighbors who are supportive of the application and have no objection to the 10 construction of the a house on Tax Lot 29. I would note for the record also that one of the 11 signatories on that petition is Kenneth and Lisa Burns. When we sent out our public 12 notices of this hearing to the abutting properties, one came back undeliverable and 13 that was Mr. and Mrs. Burns because they're taxpayers in accordance with your code but the 14 notice came back. They are obviously aware of the application, and, in fact, support it, so 15 I don't think there's any notice questions regarding the notice of the publication for 16 this hearing. The second and last exhibit that I 17 handed up to you are three Second Department cases which stand for the preposition when you 18 have lots that are subject to what is commonly referred te in zoning as a back te back lot 19 slip, they separate out ef municipal harm or a public interest. If you can establish the 20 following facts: First that the lots have separate road frontages on separate streets, 21 that the lets have similar depths te surrounding lots and conjunction with 22 another; that they are merged only by virtue of construction no additional burden on public 23 services because there is already an improved Town road and all utilities existing and in 2~ place sll of these facts are present in this application for you. Variance it's more along 25 the lines of a special exception request, where we need to prove very specific things, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 5O 1 2 and if we prove them, you need to approve the application. With the application are all of 3 the deeds, certificates of occupancy, tax bills, health department approvals and the ~ exhibits that I've handed up to you today, the originals which I'll give you today and merger 5 should be granted se that one of your native sons can construct a house where he always 6 intended to and where his grandfather wanted him to. 7 If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Couple of questions. Vacant parcel, improved lets. 8 Under the vacant parcels, vacant lots, are these lots, do you know for a fact that these 10 lots are not merged with any adjoining parcels? I obviously didn't do -- variance 11 ownerships are now separate, whether they were separate since prier te 1983. I do net knew. 12 I would have needed a variance search en every single lot. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOt~A: I just wanted te get all the facts right. The vacant lets 14 shown en your section of the tax map de net necessarily mean that they are vacant; they 15 could, in fact, be merged with any of the adjoining properties; is that accurate? 16 MR. PENNEY: They could be but I doubt that they are. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At this time? MR. PENNEY: If this is a very 18 critical determining factor for you, I would be asking te spend approximately $2,400 te 19 obtain a separate variance search for each property because I think they would probably 20 bear that out, but I can't represent te you that they are without having a title company 21 do that work. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The second 22 question: These were deeded parcels because the Laughing Waters, it was not part ef the 23 Laughing Waters subdivision? MR. PENNEY: I don't know that 24 there's a map of Laughing Waters. The fact that there are no let numbers in parens on 25 the -- not shown on a subdivision map, and I suspect that all ef Laughing Waters -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 CHAIRWOHAN TORTOR~: I'll shed some light en that - 3 MR. PENNEY: It was referred to the Laughing Waters subdivision, and it was 4 dune. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: When the lets 5 were created in '63 and '71 respectfully, my review of the title search, it doesn't 6 appear that they were ever held in single and separate ownership? 7 ~R. PENNEY: Ne. They never were. Hr. Keslik, he bought the lot from 8 Hr. Wickham first in approximately 1963. I knew he bought the house in '63. He 9 subsequently bought the let te the rear in 1970, did net place it in a separate name at 10 any point in time conforming parcel, I don't knew what the zoning was back in 1970 en that 11 street. But for simple ef lack ef perhaps putting his wife's name on it er someone else 12 with him, we're before you today. But again, that's what I wanted to 13 stress, when the code was right there saying if you de this, you're merged. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Penney, there was a cede provision in 19787 15 MR. PENNEY: But net in 1970. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, but 16 prier te this merger provision in 1978 there was a clear code. 17 MR. PENNEY: They were merged as seen as he teek that deed from Mr. Wickham 18 they were in common ownership. They aren't merged. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So, these are the two questions I have, and I'm going to see 20 if the Beard members have any other questions. Hr. Horning. 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure. was looking at your environmental consultant 22 report. HR. PENNEY: Yes. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You did mention net having to import fill te build a 24 house, the septic system is that way also, correct? 25 MR. PENNEY: Correct. BOARD HEHBER HORNING: There's no COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 52 1 2 fill in to build up the grade, the water table's -- 3 HR. PENNEY~ 13, if you leek at the health department approved survey. % BOARD MEMBER HORNING: 6.5 feet below grade. 5 MR. PENNEY: Where is that from? BOARD HEHBER HORNING: Suffolk 6 Environmental Consulting. MR. PENNEY: There's a survey 7 probe, had a test on that. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The 8 groundwater's to be 6.5 feet below grade? MR. PENNEY: That's certainly 9 adequate for a shallow peel system. BOARD HEHBER HORNING: Se again, 10 ne fill necessary to build up the grade? MR. PENNEY: Absolutely not. And 11 from the test toll and pale brown fine course sand se it's not the actual water. There's ne 12 fill required. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Also the 13 chairperson was getting into this a little bit leaking at the map you did submit, ef the 14 survey ef lets, it would appear that the lets right on the corner of Hiawatha and Wabasse, 15 it is quite a bit larger tha~ the lots that you're proposing te unmerge. The let directly 16 across the street appears te be quite a bit larger than the lets that you're proposing te 17 unmerge. MR. PENNEY: There's ne question 18 there's a let down the street that's a double let as well. There's ne question. As I said, 19 of the remaining vacant lets three of the seven, I think it was, were comparable in 20 size, and from my experience and obviously I don't know what your experience is, it is net 21 only the immediate abutting properties that determine character of a neighborhood, if you 22 take your car a~d drive Nichemas, you're ~ot iE the same neighborhood, and through these 23 parallel reads, in the Laughing Waters subdivision, that's the true neighborhood. 24 The fact that there's a piece immediately abutting us that's bigger is not necessarily 25 fatal te the application because that's not what the Town Board said when it dictated the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 53 1 2 legislative requirements fur the waiver. It said you're net going te significantly change 3 the density ef the neighb©rheed. You're the people that are going te determine what the 4 neighborhood is, but I would certainly submit to you that it's net simply the abutting 5 property but the entire neighborhood. BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Quite true 6 but adjacent parcels are part ef the neighborhood. 7 HR. PENNEY: Quite true. Net comparable and vacant. As I mentioned before, 8 these questions come up te the courts quite often and character ef the neighborhood to my 9 knowledge is never determined by only the immediately abutting properties. Generally 10 it's a 500 feet radius, but I think if I went that far, my case wouldn't have gotten any 11 weaker. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: It's okay, 12 it's understood. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: 13 Geehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 14 Penney, regarding the proposed house, if the Board was se inclined te grant this waiver why 15 is it se skewed te the -- HR. PENNEY: Jason is here, but 16 it's probably there se that they had plenty of room fur the sceptic field, and it was put en 17 their proposed coordinates with the setback required Nad this property been a single and 18 separate let. I don't think there is any specific importance te that particular 19 location. If we were to move it as long as we were te fit the 12 feet, there's plenty of 20 room that you can see. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not 21 necessarily germane this te application. HR. TAGGART: I just did it that 22 way se you have mere property te enjoy if you put it in the middle. 23 C~AIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's never geed, and se it's probably like he said he 24 left himself. Member Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I believe the 25 other three members would have asked the questions I would have asked. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 54 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Would the applicant's side yard setback be to 15 feet 3 rather than 127 HR. PENNEY: I can't see any 4 reason why he would not. I don't see how that would impact en his health department approval 5 at all. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We de 6 consider fire access as such and drive through the sceptic field to combat a fire 7 MR. PENNEY: And fire ef 15 feet is most ef your Town cedes, yes. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If that's all, I'd like to see if anyone in the audience 9 has any comments en this application, either for or against the application. De the Beard 10 members have any further questions or comments for the applicant? Seeing no hands, I'm going 11 to make a motion to reserve the -- MR. PENNEY: Could I ask you eno 12 question? I knew you're missing eno member, would that member familiarize himself with the 13 procedure and vote? CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: If the member 14 has read the written transcript and you have no objections. I'll repeat the motion, do I lB have a second? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 17 Board responded in favor.). CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 18 hearing is appeal 5380 it's en behalf ef Aldo Blaskevic. I believe we saw you earlier. 19 HR. LISO: I'm for representing Alde Blasevic, he wants te put an addition on 20 his house, a garage to the second floor and renovate the house and update it te the new 21 ways. So it would be a more valuable house and have more room inside and out for himself. 22 What we're looking for is relief en the left-hand ef the property, which is a six feet 23 four is what we're looking for. Now, when I look back on this 24 original house and what I see en your variance thing it says 15 feet. That must be something 25 new, because when this house was built with the eld map being in existing house it was COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 55 1 2 built with ten foot one side, 17 on the other; why are we following a 15 foot setback? 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because -- and there has been ne change in the cede what 4 obviously happened is your lot is 20,825 square feet. It's a nonconforming let, like 5 90 percent ef the town. HR. BLASKOVIC: So it was changed? 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ne, actually it wasn't. 7 HR. LISO: How did he build this house with only ten feet? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I can assure you it hasn't changed. 9 HR. LISO: Garage with a second story on it, I don't see where it causes a 10 problem with any ef the neighbors. The neighbor te the west behind Alde's house -- 11 CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: The neighbor to the west is -- 12 MR. LISO: It says Christiansen but evidently there's a new owner. I think 13 he's here today. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I have a 14 couple ef questions for you. According te the survey as we ge through this, it's a 20,825 15 square foot let, you have 63 feet ef side yard on the east side ef the property, and the 16 property, your unit's very wide, it's at least 120 feet of width; se the obvious question and 17 one of the questions we're charged with examining, is why not find an area that 18 doesn't require a variance, and the obvious question here is why net put the addition en 19 the east side, where you would net require any variance and you certainly wouldn't encroach 20 on your neighbor's property line, which you're showing an existing setback of, I believe the 21 existing setback is at least 20 feet and you're proposing te reduce that te about six 22 feet. Se that's my question. HR. LISO: Basically en that 23 cer~er ef the house we put one addition on it already. That already came just about made 24 it. If we were te ge at an angle, if we cema. Second ef all, the configuration ef the house 25 and the addition, there's no way -- and the reef line -- there's no way we could put an COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 addition and attach it there. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the east 3 side there's ne way? MR. LISO: Ne. If you look at the 4 house and the drawings, plus if you go straight out closer to the front yard line and 5 same problem again. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: The purpose 6 ef the addition is - refresh us again? MR. LISO: Update his house and 7 he bring everything up te date with new floors and Row bathrooms and the whole thing. He 8 needs a garage and he wants to put a new master bedroom upstairs. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if the Board Members, some ef the questions they 10 may have. Mrs. Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: My question i1 again is why he couldn't ge to the east side er even to the rear because he's get plenty ef 12 room in the rear yard, which he wouldn't need a variance because here you're going to 13 consider taking a substantial side yard setback ef just over four feet. 14 MR. LISO: First of all, on this side it's all Iow lands. It's all wetlands 15 and you got association property here. It's probably the reason this house was put te this 16 side in the first place. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: According te 17 your survey the low area is more te the northeast. 18 MR. LISO: Right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going te 19 cut this just for one minute, two ef the Board members are -- the survey is missing from 20 their file, and we definitely want them te have the advantage of being able to review 21 what you're saying. So if you would give us a few moments, I would like te give this te the 22 Beard members out there. Mrs. Oliva. 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The lower area directly east, there isn't -- I realize 24 going out the back it would entail a sense ef bearing down on what you've got. We really 25 don't leek favorably on giving just a 6.4 area variance. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 57 1 2 MR. LISO: It's a hardship. The only way to de this project is to knock the 3 house down and start all over. The contract dollar value would be unbelievable. 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I realize that. It's a beautiful deck and nice sun 5 room. But could you do something to the east? MR. LISO: That's a dining room 6 there. That's o~e story cathedral, there's no way te connect it, and that's the reason we 7 wanted to de it over the garage, the two staircases could walk into the bedrooms 8 upstairs. ~s you could see on the second floor plan when it comes through the existing ~ second fleer. Do it the ether way it's almost unfeasible. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Homing, have you had a chance te take a look at this? 1! BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes, ma'am. And the question does become why the addition 12 has to be en the west side of the house when, in fact, you have mere than enough room on the 13 east side of the house or the rear ef the house. You could, in fact, probably take out 14 a portion, if not all ef that wood deck, put your addition back in there someplace, and 15 have plenty of room for a wood deck. So to compromise a side yard setback, what's the 16 compelling reason? MR. LISO: Compelling reason is 17 because the bedrooms and everything is right adjacent to where I want te put the addition. 18 The ether way we'd have to knock off everything off the back ef the house, then try 19 and get a garage and drive around somehow, and just like I said before, it would be 20 unfeasible. A lot ef money, just as well to knock the house down. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Liso, you could, if the Board was se 22 inclined -- I'm not suggesting that we are -- you could push the entire addition back 23 farther, which would give you a greater side yard, could you net? 24 HR. LISO: I don't knew if it would make 15 feet, though. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It wouldn't make 15 feet but maybe closer te COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 58 2 10'7~ HR. LISO: The way it's laid out 3 for the stairs to go up to ~hat New addition, it wouldn't work out if we pushed it back too 4 far. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just 5 thinking ef options that's all. BOARD HEHBER OLIVA: Why couldn't 6 you push it back, I'm sorry? HR. LISO: Because o£ access to the new addition. I don't have the survey in front of me, but what's the side yard in the 8 back e£ the new addition? BOARD HEHB~R GO~HRINGER: 10'7II. 9 HR. LISO: It's ten. It's still net 15. !0 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Chimney is going to be raised. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Let's see what happens. Is there anyone in the 12 audience who would like to speak in favor or against this application? 13 MR. ROSS: Geed afternoon, Dan Ross representing the neighbors to the west, 1% Den and Ann Alberto, who acquired their residential lets and residence en September 3, 15 2003, just a couple weeks age. I'd like te hand up te the Board a survey of the Alberto 16 property and a copy of their deed. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Certainly. 17 MR. ROSS: While Hr. and Mrs. Alberto can appreciate a neighbor upgrading 18 their residence, they nonetheless oppose this application and think it's somewhat out ef 19 line as the Alberto survey indicates the Alberto house is ten er 11 feet from the 20 Alberte/Blasovic boundary line. That would put, if this variance was granted, the two 21 houses very close together. Presently the Blasevic residence 22 is 20 te 2% feet from the boundary line and they're seeking to reduce this to 6.4 and 23 10.7, which is 50 percent and sometimes below 50 percent relief. 2% In addition, the Elasovic proposed addition is a two story residence, while the 2S Alberto residence and construction close to that boundary line is one story. It would COURT REPORTING AND TPd~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 59 1 2 have a towering effect ever the Alberto property. 3 And, as I don't need te point out, there's 63 feet on the east and there's ream % in the rear for expansion. Just reviewing the criteria, I suggest that, in fact, the 5 granting ef this variance would be te the detriment of nearby properties; second, it 6 could be achieved by some other method; third, this is a substantial request, substantial 7 variance is being requested, and it would have an adverse impact en the character of the 8 neighborhood and it's self-created. And for these reasons I ask the 9 Beard te reject the variance request. Thank yea. 10 MR. ALBERTO: Geed morning, my name is Den Alberto, my wife and I just 11 purchased the house a few weeks ago. We're most impacted. We're to the west ef the 12 proposed addition at 15 Blue Harl±n. We'd been here in Southeld leaking for a house, and 13 we fell in love with this area, this association, we found a small house that we 1% could afford, but we most appreciated the open space in this Neighborhood between buildings, 15 and before even going to contract saw the 15 foot side yard is required. Se I felt anyway 16 we were pretty safe with preserving that open space that we were leaking for. There is a 17 slight water view that we believe this would encroach upon, and as you know, real estate in 18 this town if there's a water view suddenly the price jumps tremendously, and se we'd hate to 19 lose that. We nave our life savings in this house and it doesn't make sense te us why the 20 Tew~ should give relief leave up te 6.4, feet whe~ there's 63 feet en the other side. 21 I'm an architect, i certainly could figure several ways te reconfigure a~d 22 redesign and make something happen that extensive, te build en the ether side, 23 renovate the interior hallway to the bedroom. It sounds like the owners are recenfiguring 24 the house. My understanding ef variances, they're given when there's no ether option or 25 basically very little option, a~d I believe there are many other alternatives that would COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6O 1 2 be done to achieve the space they're trying to create. 3 I believe the negative impact on my property far outweighs the benefit 4 precedent it may set in that neighborhood where all the houses if 6.4 is a number that 5 is allowed, another neighbor may come and also ask for the same, and once there's a 6 precedent, it could be the deterioration of the area. 7 8o I'm asking to preserve, if it's a two story addition, a 15 feet side yard. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TONTORA: Mr. Liso -- MR. LISO: Yes. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think you've heard the Beard Members' concerns and 10 you've certainly heard the neighbor's concerns and looking at the survey submitted by the 11 neighbors, it would appear that they just purchased this house, but it would appear that 12 if the Beard granted the variance, that you're requesting we wouldn't even have 20 feet 13 between houses. On lets that -- ~MR. LISO:. His house sets back 14 much further. It's net like it's right along side of each other. If you put the two 15 surveys together, he's like 67 feet back. We're 30. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, at that point, you're 39 feet back. Nonetheless, 17 I think we have heard some concerns here. Is it possible that you could ge back and think 18 of, come up with some ether designs that would lessen this impact on the variance and en the 19 neighborhood, in listening te the neighbors' concerns and the Board be members' concerns? 20 MR. LISO: I guess I don't have a choice, right? 21 CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: We'd like to work together with you and we'd like to work 22 together with the neighbors because Mr. Ross is quite right, the test is there another 23 alternative here? MR. LISO: One way is te knock the 24 house down and build a new one, which he can't afford te de. The ether one is to build an 25 addition on the other side, which is going te be much more costly, and it probably won't COURT R~PONTING AND TNIkNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 61 1 2 h'appen 'cause this man has se much money, he just wanted to update it and try to make it 3 liveable ~er himself. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP=A: The Beard, 4 George, Gerry, Ruth - I think we need to just try te leek at some ether alternatives; is 5 that agreeable? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don't think we can explain the idea of decreasing 7 the side yard setback very much. CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: You have kind 8 ef heard the consensus of the Beard. But, yes, I don't think it would result in anything ~ as draconian as destroying the house, and if it does, there's something wrong with the 10 appraisal. But try to come back with something that is not going te result in some 11 kind of encroachment en the neighbor. ANd we will adjourn it, and at the next hearing we 12 will be able to reconsider your plan. And what we would like to ask you if you submit 13 new plans make sure that you de se in advance of the hearing so that possibly you can work 14 with your neighbor, working out, you have to live together. 15 MR. LISO: Exactly, you Nave te live together. Okay, thank you very much. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going te see when our calendar would allow this te be 17 adjourned to. I'm going te make a motion to adjourn this to November 20th. 18 BOARD HEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in 19 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 20 Beard responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 21 carried. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 22 hearing is on behalf ef Stanley Halen is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf 23 that of that application? MS. MOORE: We have -- Pat Moore. 24 Aild I have Harold Gephart, who is the architect on this project, and there are two 25 primary issues here. One is the limitation en the number of permitted uses er tenancies COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 62 2 acsording mo the building depsremenu's no,ice of disapproval with respecn £0 the number ef 3 uses per acreage. And I have lu in written ~erm se 4 that you will have it I saw from your outline that yen prefer ~e ~en lm in wrining so that 5 we can kind of gc through l~ and gem mo the ~uesmlens s£age. But when you are looking 6 through the 2ode the language of ~ Zeno does nam have any limitation ~n ~he size er the number of uses, as lens as they are permluted uses. There is a list of permitted uses in 8 the 2ode. Unlike mc other code provisions 9 and Marine 2 or Residential Dffice. there are other sections in the ~ode that are specific 10 about hew many uses yen can have per acre. I would submit mc this Beard that when the cede 11 does neu dictate how many uses are per the code. that the general -- thau it's really 12 based en sloe plan, parking and Dther limitations that you might have with respecu 13 mc the uses and ~he Dccupancy sf the 14 ~o the code itself, sn the business zoning does nee pun a limit~elen en 15 wha~ uses that can occupy this bnildina. Primarily, you were lookin~ if you 16 were eo look au the comparable buildina ne~u door, their office complex, professional 17 office architect, engineer's sign that's there, they hay{ chiropracmer and 18 physietheraplse_ The~ also have deczer's office. They hav~ a retail, and the~ have the 19 beauty shop. When they wane in for site plan approval, all they showed was generic space 20 and the parking for that generfc space was calculated ae let's say 47 spaces. Fhat's 21 whaa the Planning Beard approved ae the alma. We ~re similarly applying the same 22 cede and saying, well we have the space, and we don't know precisely who the uenanus are 23 going Eo be. We might have office, aside from the resnaurann which ms th~ one use we are 24 ~ree£y confident that we knDw will be occupied there, dhe sther space lan function as either 28 an office space or ~ retail space a~d for purposes ef kind af hedging the bet the COURT REPCRTING AND tRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631 878 8047 63 2 architect pu~ a couple Df the units as retail and a couple Df the uNles as office. But the 3 reality ~s. that until the building is built and you s~are leaking fur tenanss, you really % don't knew what kind Df tenants you're going ~e have. You know from the code what the uses 5 are that are permitted. And as long as you abide by the type ef uses, the permitted uses 6 under that zoning category, you're safe and the Town allows you ~o have the tenants occupy the buildings. So. as ~ mat~er ef statutory language and construction, there is ne 8 limitation en the occupancy, the number ef uses. 9 Secondly, if. in fact, we took the Building Department's interpretation, the~ at 10 the time that this lneerpreta~ion came into effect, the building next door would net be 11 able to occupy with the tenants that they have. They would have te iecide among the 12 many ~enan~s that they have. are they going te have a retail use are they going te have a 13 doctor's office, a professional office; it's called, and I refer you to the photographs 1% because I took a ~hetograph of the sign, they have primarily they call it medical center, 1S but we have retail cancer there, you also have the hair studio. So you have ~ mix ef uses, 16 which actually complements the business, hamlet business intentIon in the cede. If you 17 look at the purposes section of the business zoning, it's precisely these uses and how the 18 facility ~ex~ door ~s operating, we're going ~o operaze precisely the same way, and it 19 leads ~o ~he services that the hamlet and the surrounding residences desire and want. 20 Se zz's -- I was kind ef baffled by the Building Department's lneerpretatien, 21 knew about the 60 feet rule, but this · n~erpreza~len about the number of uses in the 22 buildings was qulee a surpr:se te me that they would lnterprez that way particularly with the 23 way that zhe occupancy next doer is opera~ing. If that's, in fact, the case then 24 Kaelin's cou]dn'~ occupy the ~enancy that he has. You've get the contractor's yard along 2~ Cox Neck. you have ~hree szruczures and one I can't really identify, I'm no~ sure what he's COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 get going en inside. You've get the Kaelin equipment and storage, and sale ef equipment 3 and repair; then you als© have the contractor's yard with materials. These 4 combination of uses, given the size of his property, which I believe is a property only 5 80 feet in width, long, I believe it's 200 feet in length, but even se, acreage wise it 6 wouldn't comply with the code. He'd be preexisting as te one use, but that's all he 7 would be able te fit. Se the interpretation makes ne 8 sense in this instance, and I would say that maybe the Building Department needs some 9 guidance from this ~oard that if it doesn't say it in the code, you're net to make it up. 10 Se with respect te the cede provision en the number ef uses, I 11 respectively disagree with their interpretation and would ask this Beard te 12 interpret the code accordingly, which is that there is no such limitation. 13 Then we reach the issue of the 60 foot rule, and you all knew from prior 14 applications and hearing many cases before your beard, the 60 foot rule was adopted at 15 the time where zoning was still up on Route 48 for commercial complexes. The Town Board was 16 concerned about strip shopping centers going up on the North Road, and the idea of hew to 17 zone er limit - I think Hrs. Oliva you may have been en the Beard at the time. 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I was. MS. MOORE: The idea ef 19 limiting the width ef the building would take away the ability to create the strip shopping 20 centers. Unfortunately, our code still hasn't been cleaned up with respect to that, and most 21 applications, commercial applications, ~nless you're dealing with a very small piece of 22 property, ends up having te come before this Board for a variance. You've numerous 23 applications for variances with that rule. It seems like any commercial development that 24 wants te come in either through a renovation like Harts Hardware er a new construction, 25 ends up having to come before this Board for this type ef variance. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 65 1 2 Again, when we started it, Mr. Gephart and I first met -- two years ago 3 when we started this process? -- two years age, the first thing that we did is we went te 4 Town Board, we met with planning briefly, but most importantly, we pnlled out the adjacent 5 development. We pulled out the site plan from the medical center, and we said, okay, the 6 medical center is a lovely building, Gary Olsen's office, lovely building, let's de a 7 design. And we had clients who wanted te make a beautiful building. This is where they're 8 going te be on the property; the office space above the mezzanine is going to be their 9 occupancy. So they are en site managers, and they want te be proud of what they built. 10 We went, pulled out the file and looked at the building and said, okay, 11 architectnral style, design style, we want to make it leek similar te the ether newer 12 buildings they built since the '80s right next deer. 13 The design that Hr. Gephart has prepared is before you, a rendering ef it, 14 what you have are - and he looked at the 60 feet rule and his interpretation of the 15 language was a little different than my interpretation ef the language, but he reek 16 two structures that certainly could sit independently of each ether, 38 feet in width, 17 by the length that I don't recall the length, 106, the 30 linear feet being the relevant 18 portion. It didn't make sense to have those two buildings standing apart, particularly 19 when looking at the character, looking at the design ef the adjacent buildings, the 20 colonial, I would say, the colonial design, the colonial feel with design with symmetrical 21 shapes the mezzanine just fit and it made sense. It also made sense with the way that 22 the owner wants te be present on the site, the manager's office being up top, maintaining and 23 controlling and making sure that the facility is run well. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me just ask -- 25 MS. MOORB: Do you want me to close your door, because if the air COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 66 1 2 conditionS~ g6es Cn -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The question 3 I just want te clarify? MS. MOORE: Sure, ge ahead. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The photo, the architectural rendering that you're 5 showing here is the total of 89 linear feet? MS. MOORE: 38, 38 and 16 is the 6 mezzanine, I did the numbers, held eh. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is the linear 7 feet facing -- MS. HOORE: Yes. The linear feet 8 facing is Hain Road is 90 feet. I had used 16 because that's wall to wall. There's an 9 overlap, see the opening it says 16. HR. GEPHART: That's grade, 90 10 feet. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se it's a 11 total ef 90? MS. MOORE: Total ef 90. You have 12 two 38 foot buildings not contiguous. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: 38, 38 plus 13 the mezzanine? MS. MOORE: Right, plus the 14 mezzanine. The problem, the reason that we get kicked into the 60 feet rule is that 15 mezzanine that connects the structures - the mezzanine does two functions it provides some 16 office space above for the owners, but it also provides the portico that the roof for the 17 entrances to those units. So it keeps them dry, similarly to the property next doer. 18 They similarly have - I reek a leek at their design, they have 24 feet width plus an eight 19 foot alley, then a 30 foot width and another eight foot alley and then a final 24 foot 20 width with a total ef 94. Se the adjacent medical center is actually 94 feet in width 21 taking all ef these measurements combined of linear feet, 22 Gary Olsen's office appears to be, and I don't have the site plan, I could net 23 get the site plan in time, but that appears te be 80 feet in width. They have the accountant 24 en the eno side and the attorneys on the ether and above. 25 And I refer you also to the photographs because that helps you kind ef COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 67 1 2 recall all the buildings within the area, the character ef the area. If I walk yen through 3 the photographs. The first set ef photographs the top is of the sign, the lower photograph 4 is the alleyway of the adjacent property. The alleyway there is a narrower alleyway, it's an 5 eight foot alleyway, ours is 14, ours I believe just works better in design as well as 6 safety access. It's more of a plaza than an alleyway. Sorry, I've been corrected, it's a 7 plaza. The third set of photographs is 8 the back of the medical center; so you can see that the parking gees all the way, appears te 9 go to the property line with a couple of trees, probably small trees when this was 10 built, they've now matured. The adjacent property is Mr. Glover's property and is zoned 11 LB, just to keep that in mind. The fourth set of photographs, 12 Page 4, I've taken photographs of all the Kaolin buildings, the front Kaolin building, I 13 believe is in the process of being renovated for, I believe, a retail use, I don't know for 14 sure what the end result is going to be, but my understanding is that Planning has spoken 15 with someone who's interested in renovating that and making it some kind of retail. The 16 rest of the Kaolin property, which runs along Cox Neck is 4C, the photograph that I've 17 labeled as 4C, is the building but I can't quite tell what's going on inside. It may be 18 part of the work space for the repairs, and then adjacent to that is a building that they 19 used for sales and service of the equipment, and then just further to the north of that is 20 the contractor's yard. So you can see that there's a lot 21 of activity going on in the Kaelin's property; that's fine; that's appropriate. The Kaelin's 22 property been there a long time. The setbacks predate the zoning, but, again, I repeat 23 myself, that the Building Department does not enforce the number of uses per acreage to 24 anyone else in this area. The fifth set of photographs I 25 have is Gary Olsen's office se you can see architecturally as well as size-wise we are in COURT REPORTING AND TFL~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 68 1 2 Conformity With ~hat structure as well. The sixth set of photographs is 3 Mr. Glever's property. The photographs -- I apologize, I had to do it from the road, I didn't want to trespass on Mr. Glover's property to take close photographs - but if 5 you see that along the property line, Mr. Glover uses that area as somewhat of a 6 storage area. There are racks, I guess, what he uses te transport some ef the merchandise, 7 some of the agricultural products that he grows. So that things are piled up and, you 8 know, it's a working property, and that's fine. We certainly have no objection to that. So you can see that it's a pretty actively used and intensely used limited business zoned 10 property. The seventh set ef photographs is 11 Kester Funeral Home, that's probably one ef the -- that's eno ef the earlier buildings 12 that have been built, er later -- excuse me -- it's been built after Gary Olsen and after the 13 wine boutiques was constructed. This, I believe, it appears te be, 14 again, mere than 60 feet in length. Maybe the portion that is the funeral home may be 60 15 feet, but it has the portico to its side which adds another 20 feet or se te the building. 16 So you're looking at an 80 feet length %e the building. And, again, the property is quite 17 small. If you look at the tax map, which I attached here also as an exhibit to my written 18 materials, the tax map parcels, you'll see that in relation, the 60 foot rule Never made 19 any sense because you had no relationship whatsoever to the size of the property. 20 One ef my earlier applications was Riverhead Building Supply where the 60 21 feet rule was applied tea 350 feet read frontage. You would be crazy to put a 60 feet 22 wide building where you have that size property, as well as many other reasons the 23 lumberyard could net operate with that limited space. But as far as the design element, 24 you're taking away from the ability of architects, good architects and site building 25 to de a building that matches the size and the scale ef the surrounding properties. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 69 1 2 So i woUld urge this Board to push the Town Board to clean up the code with 3 respect to the 60 foot rule. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Miss Moore. 4 MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Question in 5 your research of any of the neighborhood properties, do you know if there's any of 6 these that were subject to a Zoning Board of Appeals decision at any time regarding the 60 7 foot width and/or the use? MS. MOORE: The 60 foot width, 8 no, I'm not aware of any variance applications. 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Or do these all predate code? 10 MS. MOORE: I think Koster may have been the only one that may have been 11 close to the 60 foot rule, they may have gotten it just before. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To the best of my knowledge every property that you are 13 referring to was in place prior to the 60 foot rule. 14 MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We are going 15 to have to step this up see if the Board has questions. 16 MS. MOORE: Okay. That's fine. You have the photographs. It's obvious, you 17 also live in the community, it's obvious what the community looks like. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's just clarify everything for the record. Your first 19 question is a matter of the interpretation; you're asking us to interpret the code, te 20 reverse the Building Department; that is the first question? 21 MS. MOORE: That is. CHAIRWONLAN TORTONA: In the 22 absence of that, are you also applying for an area variance? 23 MS. MOORE: Obviously we'd have te have an area variance, if that - 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's not on your application. 25 MS. MOORE: Well, put it this way: If you were net to override the Building COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 ?0 1 2 Department's interpretation, we'd be in cenrt because there is no reason why -- it's 3 inappropriate te interpret -- te apply language tea cede that doesn't exist. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Bearing that threat in mind, I don't think we're going to 5 go any further in this process. There would be no need te because we need to make the 6 interpretation, and then if the interpretation is not favorable, you have just said you're 7 going to sue ns. So what's the point of discussing the neighborhood er anything else? 8 MS. MOORE: Well, no, what I'm saying, it seems se black and white that this 9 Board, if they were to interpret that the application ef the uses applies here, when you 10 have the specific language in ether provisions, you have the specifics that 11 overrides the general. If the Town Beard wanted to place that restriction en business 12 zoning, they would have had the ability te de se by virtue of leaking at M2 er 0, any ef the 13 ether zoning districts that actually had that language in it. There are no business 14 zoning - there are several other limited business, other zoning districts that don't 15 have that language nor have ever had that application. The Building Department for the 16 first time, I think, Hike Verity, the first time ever that I've had any application 17 dealing with a commercial structure has ever told me that there was this provision in the 18 code. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have 19 submitted a lot ef evidence in support ef your contention, and the Beard certainly will weigh 20 that, however, we really cannot move forward en this application as far as even the 21 variance application ef the other variance application until we determine the first 22 request. MS. MOORE: With all due respect, 23 yen can -- the notice has gone out for the two issues. We can finish. If you want me te 24 amend my application to ask for a variance when the Beard -- you knew, if you want te 25 just take my client's money for that purpose, we'll make that application. It's net even COURT REPORTING ~kND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 71 1 2 appropriate whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: I'm 3 suggesting that usually we call these a shotgun appeal, and usually what happens is 4 the applicant asks for a Board to reverse the Building Department's determination based on 5 an interpretation of the code in their favor, obviously. And then alternatively the Board 6 does not reverse the Building Department and you ask for a variance. You've not done 7 this. If you don't want to -- MS. MOORE: This is going te be 8 more than one hearing, I'm sure, because there will be questions you have and things we have 9 to return with more information, I'm sure. I can amend our application te 10 include an alternative relief ef an area variance on the number ef uses, but, again, if 11 you were to come te that conclusion, medical center would have te shut down; they'd have to 12 throw out half their tenants; Kaelin would have to threw out eno ef their tenants. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We haven't deliberated eN this, so I'm not making 14 presumption. MS. MOORE: It seems so ludicrous 15 to me. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Clearly 16 what's before us -- a couple things, I did go down to the site, not once but several times, 17 and there was a lot ef flooding en the site. MS. MOORE: Where, in the back? 18 C~AIRWOHAN TORTOP~A: Yes. MS. MOORE: We can talk about the 19 drainage. We have addressed the drainage issues with respect te any ef onsite water, 20 and the town engineer actually his recommendatio~ is adding some drainage rings 21 at the Main Road, toward the Main Read te capture any rain water that comes off ef the 22 Main Read. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I saw his 23 recommendations, couple ef things, he needs te see more details we de tee. The other thing 24 is we have a letter from the Planning Beard saying they're not reviewing the same site 25 plan that we are. MS. MOORE: Bruno - I did submit COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8041 72 1 2 it. Let me explain a little bit ef the history here. The design of the -- the site 3 plan that we submitted er±ginally te you and to the Planning Beard went to the 4 Architectural Review Beard. At the Architectural Review Beard meeting, the 5 Architectural Review Board came back with some recommendations, which included - I'm sorry 6 before the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Beard came te some recommendations 7 about moving some of the parking, land banking in the back and creating a greater green 8 space -- help me out - mere landscaping in the fre~t, we reduced the brick patio entrance 9 in the front se that we could push the parking towards the building. The location ef the 10 building remained exactly the same. We did tweaking ef the parking at the Planning 11 Board's request. We then went to the Architectural Review Beard a~d talked te them 12 ab©ut the elevations, and the elevations they suggested, reducing the height er bringing 13 down the height ef the mezzanine down se that this yew wouldN't knew from the, maybe from 1% the elevations, but it's brought down somewhat. They also recommended the trellis 15 in the front to soften the look because of the brick facade. 16 Se those, we have been working fur the past two years on design elements before 11 we even came to this Beard. So now we're at a point where most ef the site plan work has 18 been done. We may need te do some additional drainage calculations or drainage design 19 because Hr. Gephart has pointed out apparently one of his drafting people had put a wrung - 20 the elevation he had shown it as 15 feet when it was actually 13 feet, so that the Planning 21 Department has the corrected version. When I had delivered the final version, the plan that 22 you have in your file, I hand-delivered also te the Building Department fur an updated 23 notice of disapproval, which they said was not needed because the building was the same! also 24 to the Planning Board, but Bruno was en vacation fur I thi~k a week er se, so during 25 that time I don't know that when he wrote the letter he had this or didn't. So they now COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8?8-8047 73 1 2 have the same document that you have. CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: It's dated 3 September 2%th. MS. MOORE: Bruno called me % yesterday and had not yet -- or on Monday and had net seen some correspondence o~ another 5 project so it's very possible that things had net been processed in their office on time. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need to make sure that their concerns are addressed. 7 MS. MOORE: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And that they 8 also have the same plans that we do. MS. MOORE: They de. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The notice ef disapproval said nine feet, you have corrected 10 that for the records te 90 feet. MS. MOORE: The width? 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. MS. MOORE: Yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. 13 MS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George. 1% BOARD MEMBER ~ORNING: Going back te the Building Department, you're maintaining lB in your request for an interpretation that somehow the Building Department is 16 misinterpreting Town code er misapplying town code? 17 MS, MOORE: What happens is that they're reading the general language ef the 18 bulk schedule. They're saying because our bulk schedule dictates -- when you're doing a 19 subdivision in the business zoning, your let is going to be 30,000 square feet; that's the 20 bulk schedule that's applicable. When it comes to the number of uses, you leek at the 21 specifics under the cede, and what I'm saying is if the Town Board had wanted only two or 22 three or five uses, whatever the number is, eno use per square footage, logically, the way 23 the Building Department's interpreting it, eno use per 30,000 square feet; that is so -- it 2% just doesn't make any sense. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That's not 25 what current code; is that what you're saying? MS. MOORE: That's not what the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 74 1 2 code says. That's what I'm saying is the code does not say that. 3 BOARD MEMBER ~ORNING: Did you read the Planning Board's memo? 4 MS. MOORE: Yeah, the Planning board memo, yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They talk about the proposed multiuse building has many 6 uses. MS. MOORE: Yeah. 7 HR. GEPHART: Like any shopping center. 8 MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING Apparently 9 does not meet the town requirements. MS. MOORE: He's referring te the 10 September 24, 2003 memo that came from the Planning Beard. 11 BOARD MEMBER ~ORNING: They're net specifically saying there are too many uses 12 here, but they're implying that. MS. MOORE: Yeah. Well, one 13 thing I'd like to point e~t is a restaurant their occupancy is mostly dinner hours, five 14 to nine. If you have uses that are retail or office, mostly retail and office er personnel 15 service, if we took the same identical uses as next door, they would be nine te five. So 16 there is an overlap of parking needs that unfortunately nebedy's thinking about it. And 17 Bruno's very good, wonderful but he looks at purely the square footage ef the structure, 18 and because we said retail and office, he takes retail and does the calculation for 19 retail and the office calculation - he's lo©king at the code in the worst case 20 scenario. We look next deer and say, they have get doctors, which require five spaces 21 per doctor, I believe. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Parking 22 spaces. MS. MOORE: Five parking spaces 23 per doctor. BOARD MEMBER HORNING How many 24 uses are in this project? MS. MOORE: Our project? 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING Correct. MS. MOORE: Restaurant. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 75 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Give us a number total uses. 3 MS. MOORE: We think it's going to be three. We know restaurant. The retail 4 and office could end up being personal service, because a beauty shop, another beauty 5 shop wants to open up er maybe a nail salon wants te open up. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why would the Building Department say, although 7 permitted uses, there are up to eight different? 8 MS. MOORE: Oh, they take every single unit and say each is a different use. 9 Again, that's not what we've shown. We've actually shown a maximum of three. 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Three uses. Thanks. I know we have to move this on. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Goehringer. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have received some telephone calls from neighbors 13 regarding water runoff problems, concerns from neighbors which may er may want, they may 14 speak today, but, these things have te be resolved. 15 MR. GEPHART: Right new, if you ge to the site, as we speak, the elevation at the 16 beginning ef the site along the Hain Read is elevation 12W. It goes up and slightly off te 17 the side towards the center and that reaches elevation 16; and then it goes back down 18 toward the rear of the site te elevation I think nine. We're setting the building up at 19 elevation 15, that kind ef levels the site elf, and I've designed the drainage se that it 20 drains te dry wells consistently as we ge around the side of the building and toward the 21 back of the building. There's ne major change in grade, and there's no need for any type of 22 retaining walls. So all the drainage, as we speak, is as per my calculations is contained 23 ensite; however, I de have te modify some runoff calculations for the Planning Board, 24 which we have no problem doing. We'll do that, and we'll submit the site plans to all 25 boards. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 76 1 2 I'm going to reserve my comments until either they speak, or, whatever, we see the 3 changes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Just one 4 question. Se you're saying the Planning Beard does have the same site plans that we have 5 before us and the letters that they sent us yesterday is in error? 6 MR. GEPHART: That letter is dated September 5th. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a letter dated September 2%th. 8 MS. HOORE: We had originally a letter dated September 5th, which came fram 9 when the town engineer -- no Planning Board sent September 8th a letter te us with an 10 attachment of the September 5th letter. Thereafter I guess they responded to the 11 Board's request far comment well, let's see, de they say which date, plans dated 12 September 30, 2003. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They say 13 they're reviewing plans from 4/28/03. HS. MOORE: I don't knew why 14 they would be reviewing those plans when we've I given them at least twa new sets of plans 15 since that time. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Excuse me, 16 I'm going te take a break here. I do see the site planners in the audience -- 17 MS. HOORE: Oh. CHAIRWOM~I[ TORTORA: -- and if he 18 wouldn't mind, Mr. Bruno, would you mind just trying te clear this up far us. 19 MS. MOORE: Yeah. Which one did you review? 20 HR. BRUNO: I'm Erune fram the Planning Board. I am a site plan review 21 person. We received everything on September 22nd. We did not have a work session, so the 22 Planning Beard did not see the new revised site plan. Se the comments are clearly from 23 what we had reviewed in previous sessions. Basically having three days notice is not 24 enough time te review a new site plan and get comments from all the Board members. Next 25 available meeting will be Monday they will review the site plan at that time. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 77 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So you have not had a full opportunity te review this? 3 MR. BRUNO: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. I 4 thank you very much, Mr. Bruno. We're going to really kind of move it along at some point, 5 Mrs. oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ail other 6 questions have te be answered, but I de net look tee favorably on it, 90 foot wide. That 7 lot is net that wide. MS. MOORE: It's 150 feet. 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Again, it's the boxed in look down there. I have te be 9 honest with you, Pat, when they were doing the master plan, I did not like the idea of 10 putting the business zoning all the way down that far either because it just extends the 11 whole hamlet area. So I would like to see smaller. 12 MS. MOORE: We'll take your comments. 13 MR. GEPHART: The way I look at the design ef the building, I don't see that 14 boxed in look, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm saying in 15 relation te all the other things. MR. GEPHART: If you leek at the 16 buildings 38 feet in the front, 14 feet open space, plaza, and 38 feet again, and 28 feet 17 setback, which is the second stage, second level. 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's still linear. 19 MR. GEPHART: It's net a contiguous 90 feet, 38 recessed, 22 on the 20 setback, back out to 38 feet again. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I think 21 before we get to the audience, we do have to resolve the matter of interpretation on this, 22 and we also have to resolve the fact that we don't have a review from the Planning Board, 23 There are definitely issues that there's a serious question in my own mind from my own 24 site inspection, it was a swamp back there when I went back there en Monday. 25 MS. MOORE: After that major storm. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-804I 78 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Major storm or not. The bottom line is 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Only an inch ef rain. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- there's no way that this Board will give any approval en 5 this if it's going to affect the village property. 6 MS. MOORE: That is the code right new, whether it's your Board er the Planning 7 Board, that is what we have to de, there is no doubt about that, and either ef us as 8 professionals in our mind that it has to be contained. In fact, it will be contained when 9 the development occurs rather than now when the condition exists. Right now the problem 10 exists; when the construction occurs and all the drainage is put in, it will limit that 11 problem altogether. Obviously, if there comes a time when there is problems with some kind 12 of drainage, the Town has the authority, through site plan process, te direct us to put 13 additional dry wells. If that's a condition that you would want te put as a condition of 14 your approval, I think that's an appropriate condition, that the owner ef the property is 15 not going te want te have cars sitting in water. It's net attractive. It ruins the 16 cars of the tenants and it's not a good way of operating a facility. Se that is something 17 that obviously has te be taken care ef and will be continued. The problem now is net 18 reflective of what the development will end up -- how the site will be treated and 19 developed. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Okay, let's 20 see we really do have to move this along, and there are so many things that are up in the 21 air with this application at this point. The option is yours; if you want to simultaneously 22 apply for relief under a variance you can, if you don't, that's your option. 23 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this 24 application? Is there any anyone in this audience who would like to speak -- yes, 25 Mr. McCarthy. MR. MCCARTHY: Tom McCarthy, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 79 1 2 Southold. I just want to touch on some points. I think it's your decision in 3 interpretation and number of uses, which is what I'm here to speak about, and net to this 4 particular plan er its merits, but the number ef uses I think that your decision is going te 5 have far reaching effects for every business owner in the town. 6 I think if we look around our planning guidelines, our site plan rules and 7 the Town roads, we have a lot of constraints en the business property. The general 8 business zone, buildings have to be setback 50 feet I'm sorry, 100 feet from the roadway, 9 and new you can't have a building that's any wider than 60 feet. You wind up having a very 10 small envelope in which te de something and that puts a lot ef constraints en every piece 11 of property. Because most properties aren't -- that is are business zoned -- are not 400 12 feet deep, se you can't take it and put the square footage that you need te de te develop 13 a piece of property and have that financial return and make the whole thing work far 14 enough away from the roadway to settle everything 'cause the zones only go back so 15 far off of the Main Road on most of these properties 16 I've been involved in the development while working for others and 17 leaking at other projects around the town. The way that the building inspector is 18 interpreting this, I totally in disagree with. I'm totally in agreement with Pat, and it's 19 something, if you look at the examples ef previous things that have been approved in our 20 town, it has not been interpreted this way. Whether you like the buildings or you den't, 21 if you leek at Cox Lane Industrial Park, without a variance -- the building inspector 22 is saying that this needs a variance -- that building would need 23 acres. There are 23 23 separate units in a LI40 zone, and if he was to interpret it this way you would need 23 24 acres for that building. It's a waste ef land, and that's really what we get down to. 25 If the number of uses is synonymous with the lot size, you can only COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 8O 1 2 have one use per lot. It's a waste of land. I think what we're looking at in the town is 3 let's have more focus in the hamlets, let's not clutter up the open spaces, let's see what 4 we can do on the pieces of property that we have, and I think that this is a very, very 5 key issue for you today. That these uses especially in the downtown hamlet areas -- 6 Love Lane would probably not exist. You would need half an acre for the post office, and a 7 half an acre for the deli, half acre for, you know, any of the shops down there, same thing 8 in Orient. Any one of the hamlet areas that this weuid apply to, you would net be able to 9 have South Fork Pharmacy if it didn't have half an acre ef property or the barber shop, 10 er any ef those things. Se your decision today really has 11 far reaching effects on every business owner in this town. I guess it would harken the 12 question would everywhere else be nonconforming at that point? And hew far de 13 we push this? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail of your 14 points are well taken and that's why initially it is a very important determination by the 15 Beard, and the Board will try te do the right thing, ge back and de the research te find out 16 when what parts of the cede -- as you knew, making an interpretation of the code requires 17 a lot of research and homework, and we will do that. 18 MR. MCCARTHY: I appreciate your listening. There are just a few mere points 19 if you would indulge me just another moment. There are several ether buildings 20 that have been put up in this town where this has not been in effect. I happen te own 21 Seutheld Square, which I purchased when it was barely occupied at all. There are 11 units; 22 that would take 11 times -- it's in the business zone - 11 times 30,000 square feet 23 minimum lot size you would need eight acres te de a building like that. I u~derstand that 24 maybe that's not the best architecture in the world; I didn't design it; I didn't build it. 25 I happen to own it. But any ef these things that you're looking at are going to really COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 81 1 2 wind up using ~ you're going to see more of a rapid build-out of the business properties, 3 and you'.re not going to be able te achieve any economy in space, any economy in build-out at 4 all for the town. In addition te that I think that 5 in the interpretation, and I've asked Ed Forester about this because I've come up 6 against this previous times, and Ed has been code enforcement official, and what is a use, 7 is a use a tenant well, I've asked Ed, well, is retail, retail, and that constitutes the 8 use; or if you have five people doing retail in one building is that five separate uses? 9 And that's something we're going te need further clarification from your Beard in this 10 interpretation as we go forward with other processes with both cede enforcement official 11 and the Building Department te say, what constitutes a use. Is it a tenant er is it 12 what the tenant is doing? And that's something I'm asking to come out of this 13 decision as well. Yeah, I think it puts an unfair 14 burden ena business owner that may leek to put up a building and house his own business 15 and perhaps put in a small rental unit te help him pay the rent, as we see happening in some 16 of these projects, the projects are only possible because of that additional income 17 they might have. Se if you have a small piece of property, you're out ef luck, or you're 18 going back te the Zoning Board for some type ef relief, which I feel isn't necessary. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 20 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 21 someone else who would like te speak in favor ef the application? Is there someone who 22 would like te speak against the application? Ma'am. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Could we limit them? 24 MS. CUSAHATO: Hy name is Vera Cusamate, I live on Harbor Lane. 25 Currently I have to make a right-hand turn to go left when I'm coming out COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 82 1 2 of Harbor Lane. The beauty parlor that is across the street already creates a hazard 3 when we're coming and going with the turning. This complex is going te create even more of a 4 hazard, and I don't see hew they're going te fit that proposed building on that little 5 let. I'm totally against it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Could you 6 turn this around se the audience can see it? MS. CUSAMATO: And I knew there 7 are many other people here to speak, so I just wanted te let everybody knew. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, thank you very much. Yes, sir. 9 MR. CARSAGE: My name is Fred Carsage, I also have a house on Karber Lane, 10 and I want te reenforce what Vera has just said. 11 There are 72 single dwelling units on Harbor Lane the only access those dwelling 12 units have is out through Route 25. Anyone who has been down at that particular corner 13 can see traffic backing up to the light 350 feet away at the traffic light to the east. 14 So that people cannot get out of Harbor Lane except if the traffic new makes a gap. And it 15 becomes a very dangerous situation even te make a right turn, but te make a left turn 16 it's even worse because the vehicles are blocking your view as you're coming out ef 17 that let. Se since I've been here there have 18 been two commercial developments that have been put directly opposite us on Route 25, 19 opposite Harbor Lane; the third will exacerbate a very, very bad traffic situation 20 that now exists. The respondent who was in favor ef the project, the attorney that was in 21 favor of the project said that the restaurant's peak would be between five and 22 eight, I invite the Beard members to ge down to that particular corner between five and 23 eight and look at the traffic and imagine mere cars spilling out into their particular area, 24 that 350 feet between Harbor Lane and the traffic light, thank you. 25 CHAIRWOMY~ TORTO~A: Thank you. Yes, sir. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 83 1 2 MR. CUSAHATO: My name is Hatthew Cusemato, I'm a resident of Cutchogue, which I 3 find very pleasing. Hiss Oliva made a very geed point with regard te there is a 4 concentration ef commercial building there, excessive concentratio~ of commercial 5 building. If you want to create another Patchogue er something like that, then we can 6 go ahead with this. If you want te create an environment that would benefit most ef the 7 citizens, then I think you should be discouraged. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. 9 MR. ALLEN: I'm Haden Allen in Cutchegue. I was raised just in Harbor Lane, 10 between Harbor Lane and Eugene's Road, Windsong Farm. 11 In 1969 I moved away and came back in 1999, and just out of curiosity I was 12 amazed at the traffic. I was -- I couldn't believe it. Se I've j~st made count, just for 13 my curiosity. They aren't scientific er anything, but from the 21st ef March through 14 Hay end of June, there were average ef 30 cars every two minutes, which makes 900 an hour. 15 New, in July, average 33.7 cars per two minutes, which will be 1,011 cars and adding a 16 restaurant er anymore stores across the way is just going to make it impossible. I certainly 17 hope you will deny the application. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, 18 sir. Is there anybody else who would like te -- yes, sir. 19 This is Mr. Glarer, who has just submitted some pictures and a survey for us. 20 Yes, sir, go ahead. HR. GLOVER: I'm Leander Glever, 21 and I'm on the north of that building. I just gave you pictures, and it's all overgrown in 22 briars, and it's way lower than where I am. But natural flew of water comes all the way 23 ever from Sterling Lane and comes through there. I've put drains behind the barn, 24 pre-cast, but it will build up until the cellar deer and a let of the houses in the 25 back and gees ever the driveway and keeps going, and the natural flew always went down COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 84 1 2 tO the Crick; There's a big drain under the Hain Read, under Route 25, and right there in 3 the woods, south of my building is where the water catches. And if you get a hurricane or 4 anything, so far it's cost me two water pumps in my building because the water just can't go 5 anyplace. And that land, if they develop there, is going to put that much lead in there 6 and net only me but eno half ef that building is leased te the Town ef Seutheld by the year, 7 and the furniture is in that b~ilding for the Town Hall; that came from New York City. And 8 if they block that off or add anything mere to it, they're just going te raise the water 9 table 'cause the water table on that surveyor's map says 12 feet in the back. But 10 when you take a shovel and dig, it's 28 inches. 11 BOARD HEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Glever, has there ever been a lot any runoff from Cox 12 Lane and that whole piece ef property along Route 25 on heavy rains? 13 MR. GLOVER: There's some from Cox Lane but net toe much. The Town has put 14 drains down by Kaelins, and they go back over to that drain that goes under 25, but the 15 original drain under 25 just connected with the crick, and it's a big drain, but a lot of 16 the water comes off the farms behind -- or between me and King Kullen and just follows 17 right through. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right. 18 HR. GLOVER: Se that's the only place that the water's been able te ge in the 19 last quite a few years now. Amd they put parking area and things in there, it's just 20 going to flood the rest of us. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The photos 21 that you submitted where it shows the water, this is 28 inches? 22 MR. GLOVER: 28 inches. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sounds like 23 Orient. MR. GLOVER: Just about and 24 Koster's Funeral Home runs a pump all the time, and it can't keep up with the water 25 because the water table goes right in the cellar. COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 85 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much, Hr. Glover. Yes, sir. 3 MR. KAELIN: Good afternoon Sam Kaolin. I own the property on the corner ef 4 Cox Lane and 25. The biggest problem there is the water. I have taker it upon myself en two 5 different occasions to have the Town put in drainage. At the present time, I ne longer 6 have the gas station, which was out in the front. I've been on that corner for 42 years. 7 One thing I'd like te bring te your attention, when I had te put new tanks in 1977 we dug the 8 holes for the tanks, the only way we could hold these tanks in the ground te cover over 9 the top was to fill them with water. I know for a fact the advantage 10 that we de have on Cox's Lane, the one en the northern pertion~ coming south to where my 11 driveway is between my two buildings gees out te the Hain Road, it's a 14 inch pipe. At any 12 given time, when we get any amount of rain, it cannot handle the water going out through 13 these two drains, to the drain right in front of my building, which goes under 25, mainly 14 base ef the bay, she~s right across the street. And at any given time you want te ge 15 ever there, the amount of water coming down through these drains has ne place to ge and 16 fills up. Even though I have my drains, and many of you have gone on Cox's Lane, it cannot 17 handle the water. And I am dead against the application. Thank you 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would like te 19 speak? Couple ef things we talked about, 20 flooding water, traffic, and this Beard is definitely going te ask the Planning Beard, 21 who will probably take lead agency en this, to incorporate all of these concerns in the 22 environmental impact statement so that they will completely address it. 23 MS. HOORE: Environmental assessment. 24 CHAIRWONLAN TORTOPi%: Depending en what, if they take the lead agency, depending 25 on what type ef action. So these issues, some ef these issues that you have raised will be COURT REPORTING AiqD TNIANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 8~ 1 2 addressed in the environmental impact statement, assessment or whatever it is. 3 HS. MOORE: I just want to point out with regard te the traffic, unlike the % adjacent properties, we have one egress/ingress to address the traffic flow 5 issues. This lot, there were three lots, four lots created, one in the back and three lets 6 in the front, all at the same time; Olsen's office, the medical office and this office 7 being the last one. Ail three of them are supposed te have cross-easements between them. 8 Hy client has, in their title, they have a cross-easement so they know they have to 9 provide them. The adjacent medical center is net real keen about providing the 10 cress-easement, even though it is part of their requirement. We can't force them te do 11 it; certainly the Planning Board has the authority to tell them to open it. That also 12 will solve some ef the traffic issues that have been addressed because within the 13 development of Olsen's and the medical center and then our facility, there can be connecting 1% traffic. You can't punish this applicant all the ills that occur off site. What has been 15 pointed out se far is that drainage is coming from ether sources and using our property, 16 because of its Iow point, as the cross through. We have to address - drainage 17 issues are serious issues. We're going te address them. We appreciate the comments that 18 have been made because the architect will return and review what has been submitted se 19 that we make sure that we don't have what King Kullen has every once in a while, which is 20 drainage problems -- or actually, Mattituck is the one with the serious drainage problem. We 21 will address the drainage ensite. We cannot cure the ills of the adjacent properties or 22 the Town road. That's inappropriate. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Ne. I don't 23 think that's the issue. I think since there are concerns about drainage concerns about 24 traffic te have a very clear picture ef what impact the proposed uses you have are going to 25 make on traffic. And if it's going to exacerbate a situation, what the effect is, COURT REPORTING AND TPANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 87 1 2 and that's what -- that's when I mentioned the environmental impact statement or whatever the 3 determination is, usually that is the proper method of taking making the determination. 4 MS. MOORE: WNe~ it comes te individual projects like this, the stand alone 5 project an impact statement is a tool to punish rather than as a legitimate -- 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's not our fault. 7 MS. MOORE: Ne. I understand that if that is the recommendation being made from 8 this Board over there, SEQRA is not to be used -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I didn't say that this Board was going to ask the Planning 10 Board to incorporate that in their environment - we do not make recommendations 11 to the Planning Beard on hew te make its determination as te whether it's Type 1, 2, 5 12 er 12, that's not our place. But we will listen te the residents, who have very serious 13 concerns, and we will ask the Planning Board te address those concerns in an environmental 14 study. MS. MOORE: They are obligated to 15 do SEQRA. But this Board also has -- these are Type 2 actions before this Beard, se I 16 don't want us te be in an endless circle ef delay. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I understand. Okay. Se you are going te cema 18 back te us, and we're going to have another review by the Planning Board, and we're going 19 to address the concerns of drainage; we're going te address the concerns raised by the 20 Town engineer; we are going to it is now 90 feet, we already expressed that. For a point 21 ef clarification, could you give us a layman's list of the proposed uses? 22 MS. MOORE: We don't have tenants yet; that's the problem. We only have what 23 the code provides as permitted use. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In other 24 words, you knew that you're going te have a restaurant there because a family member. 25 MS. MOORE: Because a family wants to open up a restaurant. That's the only -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 88 1 2 and if the family says te us, well, forget the restaurant, I don't want te ge te Southeld, 3 then we'll obviously let you knew that because that's our anchor, the largest space. But the 4 rest of the tenancies are spaces that also have flexibility and design, se that, like 5 Feather Hill, you have some offices that interconnect with ether offices; you have eno 6 tenant, like Town Hall that occupies a whole annex. 7 C~AIRWOHAN TORTORA: I don't know that you want te compare that because look at 8 Feather Hill, right new it's half vacant. MS. HOORE: Well, actually the 9 adjacent property had a hard time filling its occupancy. So there is, the owners want their 10 facility mostly for their own purposes. The other tenants that come in will certainly be 11 secondary, would have to be those that can work with and interact with and be 12 complementary tenancies that the owners themselves want to have. So we have eight 13 spaces, what we have as tenants we really don't know. 14 CNIAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Would the Beard Hembers ask the applicant to request 15 anything further at that time? George, Gerry. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Covered everything. 17 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Okay, we're going to adjourn this hearing until -- when is 18 our next available date? MS. HOORE: November is fine if 19 you're pushing it in that direction. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm just 20 trying to get an idea on the dockets here. MS. MOORE: Well, again you have 21 Type 2 actions here. The width ef the building is crucial to us because we can't 22 design without knowing what the width ef the building is. We've spent a fortune on design. 23 Ne offense te Hr. Gephart, but his work doesn't come cheap, and we've gene quite far 24 with the Planning Board, and to get the type of recommendation that they sent ever is very 25 upsetting when we spent a year and a half in design and expense. We're almost at a final COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 89 1 2 site plan in design. And that's the catch 22 that you always have coming before this Beard 3 for a segment ef the project when the Planning Board needs te review it to a certain extent, 4 and you want to see the elevation. And keep that in mind, that the design is almost -- I 5 mean, when you say the 90 feet is something you're not real happy with, we tried to give 6 you a rendering se you can see it's really going -- maybe you don't like the other 7 buildings, and I'm sorry, but they are quite attractive as buildings ge. And this is the 8 hamlet area. Even the proposed zoning cedes is talking about HALO zones and is expanding 9 the hamlets. When this comes to the Town's development, you can't eliminate growth 10 altogether; most ef it is going to be pushed towards the hamlet, and this is a normal 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I realize it's already there. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. What we will de is we will discuss the status with 13 the Planning Beard ef this so we can coordinate everything with them. 14 MS. HOORE: So yen're going te give me a date or net? 15 CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: Regardless ef whether it's a Type 2 action er net, this 16 Board is going te take into consideration the neighbors' concerns. 17 MS. MOORE: Oh, absolutely. And I think we can address that with this Board 18 because traffic problems are town wide. To the extent that we can address it by curb cuts 19 and the appropriate placement and cross-easements, we've done the best that we 20 can given the constraints of the property. We cannot rebuild the read for the Town or put up 21 a drawbridge te keep the public out. CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: What would be 22 our next available date? MS. KOWALSKI: I would recommend 23 December. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: December 24 18th. Okay, I'm going te make a motion te adjourn this hearing until December 18th. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8?8-8047 1 2 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 3 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 4 carried. MS. MOORE: Given that we've asked S for an interpretation, maybe prior te the 18th continuation, we could get an interpretation 6 since, I think it's crucial a Town-wide issue if that's a possibility. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will discuss that. 8 MS. MOORE: Okay. HR. KAELIN: Can I ask one 9 question? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The topic has 10 come up as far as curb cuts, with this project that's next deer to me, someone had mentioned 11 te me that they were talking about a curb cut en my west property line; if that is approved 12 that means they're going te have to come out en Cox Lane to make a right or left-hand 13 turn. MS. MOORE: I'll address that. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The hearing is closed. 15 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, what? CHAIRWOMY~ TORTORA: The hearing 16 is closed, but a let e~ that has to do with site plan elements se, Mr. Kaolin - 17 MS. MOORE: We'll shew him the site plan. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right new what you're saying is not en the record. 19 MS. HOORE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: I apologize 20 for the delays. We de have a request for a five minute recess. Make a motion te make a 21 five minute recess. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Members ef the 23 Board responded in favor, and a brief recess was taken.) 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~: I'd like to make a motion to reconvene. 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 91 1 2 favor. Whereupon, all Members of the 3 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 4 hearinq is on behalf of~es Beomer~ is there someone here to speak on behalf of that 5 application? MR. BOOMER: Hello, My name is 6 James Boomer. I'm putting in an application for a two and a half foot height variance for 7 a detached garage. The reason I'm going to for a two and a half foot is I'm restoring a 8 couple of Corvettes that I'd like to -- and the garage that I'm building is going to have 9 ten foot main bay so I could put a hydraulic lift, put the cars up. So I need that extra 10 two feet to accommodate that lift. I'm building it on the side of my property that 11 abuts Town sump, which is heavily overgrown. I brought pictures of my property 12 that shows I have 40 foot pine trees surrounding the whole place. I den'~ think 13 that two and a half foot would impact anybody. I don't think anybody would even see it. I'll 14 show you those pictures (handing). CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. 15 MR. BOOMER: I believe some of my neighbors are going to probably speak against 16 it, but the reason I'm here is for the two and a half foot variance, and I believe they're 17 opposed to the garage in general. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: These are 18 your cars? MR. BOOMER: Yeah. I own a '67 19 and '73 Corvette that I've been playing with for the last three years. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why is it that you have proposed a detached garage as 21 opposed te connecting this te your house? MR. BOOMER: I don't believe I 22 could probably de that, but I have an attached garage new under the house that the cars are 23 in, but it's a passageway to the kitchen that everybody walks through and bangs the cars. 24 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Why net just enlarge that? 25 MR. BOOMER: I think structurally, there's an oil tank in the way I'd have to dig COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 92 1 2 out a 550 gallon fuel tank. I mean I wanted to actually place it next to the house but 3 because of Town code I couldn't place it next to the house, they wanted it past the rear of 4 the house. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Unless it 5 was attached. MR. BOOMER: Excuse me? 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Unless it was attached. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If it's attached you could incorporate it right into 8 the house. HS. KOWALSKI: It doesn't need a 9 variance. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You wouldn't 10 need a variance. That's what we're asking you. Because you already have a garage, if 11 you wanted te expand that space, why net just de it in the main house? 12 HR. BOOMER: Because no matter how I extend it, it's still going to be the 13 entranceway te the kitchen, that everybody uses bringing packages to the kitchen, which 14 is where my cars keep getting banged up from. And I'm at the point ef getting one of them 15 painted, and I really don't want to spend a let ef money painting it te have everybody 16 bang it up. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: In other 17 words, you'll spend a let ef money on this garage? 18 MR. BOOMER: Right. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Where are you 19 going te keep these cars once you restore them? 20 MR. BOOMER: Hopefully in the garage that I want te build. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: When I read though your application, you said you wanted 22 the additional height on the building to be able te stand up en the second fleer, correct? 23 MR. BOOMER: I'm going to use the second flour as like an attic storage fur some 2% of the car parts. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why can you 25 not restore the vehicles en the first floor of the proposed garage? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 MR. B©OHER: Because I'm also planning I got twa John Deere tractors and a 3 bunch ef other car stuff. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Where do % yen have these new? MR. BOOHER: Right New they're in 5 a portable plastic shed, that I want to take dawn and. put all this stuff in, yen knew, one 6 of those things you buy at BJ's. BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: You have 7 another shed toward the rear ef your property too, right? 8 MR. BOOMER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The Beard 9 is not very well inclined to give you a variance on your height for a garage. If you 10 would attach it to the house, you could have an increased height. 11 MR. BOOMER: So if I attach it to the house, I could have the same height as the 12 house; is that what you're saying? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Basically, 13 yes, I believe se. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There's a 14 concern en this because if you look at the plans, really, yen're showing what amounts te 15 a full second story en this. And the Board always has concerns when we see this. We have 16 concerns because suppose you decide te sell the property in six months, and we gave yen 17 the height variance, what we're leaking at in reality is almost a 900 square feet twa story 18 building, that is located five feet fram a property line, and there's a great deal ef 19 concern that while it may not be your intention to convert it into illegal housing 20 space, there is a great deal ef concern in that respect in terms ef -- you may net de it, 21 you may have no intentions of doing it, but we certainly don't want te lay the groundwork far 22 such an scenario in the future. And as Beard Member Horning said that is why the Board dues 23 net look favorably in creating oversized accessory structures in residential 24 neighborhoods. Se I'm giving you fram the Town's 25 perspective -- from our perspective -- I'm sure you're well aware of the impact that a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 94 1 2 lot of the ilie~al housing has had on our school districts. We don't want to contribute 3 to that. Se eno ef the things that we're charged with leaking at under the law is de 4 you have an alternative, and the question here is: You have a garage, you have convertibles 5 that you want to restore, why not put that addition right en to your house as opposed to 6 creating this 900, two story square foot strncture? That's the question. 7 MR. BOOMER: If you're allowing me to attach it to my house it's 900 square 8 foot. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's an 9 addition. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's 10 different. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's an 11 addition to the house it would be an addition. Let's see what happens. Board Member 12 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 13 comment, mirroring comments of Mr. Homing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Mrs. Oliva. 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think, again, it's too large for the neighborhood and 15 set a precedent also. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see 16 comments and questions from the audience. Is there anyone who would like te speak in favor 17 ef the application? Is there anyone who would like te speak against the application? Sir. 18 HR. MAZZARESE: Yes. I'm Charles Mazzarese, and I live directly across the 19 street from Mr. Boomer, and, again, what you indicated the concern that you have, we have 20 the same thing. We have a situation right new that we're trying to fight and look into 21 where - first ef all, let me back up. Hr. Boomer and all of us are a member of 22 Mattituck Salt Air Association, which does not permit a second garage. It only permits eno 23 family residence, and eno garage per let either attached or detached. And Mr. Boomer 24 knows that. I mean, the covenants, I knew you're not supposed to enforce it, it's not 25 your duty to enforce our covenants, but I would like you to help us enforce our COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 95 1 2 covenants. We have a situation where another member of our association submitted an 3 application but he didn't need a variance se a permit was issued without us knowing it, and 4 hc put a permit in for a one story two car garage. It turned out te be a two story 5 home -- a garage, with an apartment upstairs and a deck, Anderson windows, heat and 6 everything else. And we're fighting that now. We don't want the same thing to happen here. 7 And not only that, this is a monstrous structure, 32 by 38 by 24, I don't 8 think his original home is the same size right now, and there's no evidence of practical 9 difficulty for him, like you said, te put the garage next te his home. If he puts another 10 extension on te his existing garage, then he's in conformity, he's in compliance with our 11 covenants and there should be no problem, and our concern tee is, we don't want the noise 12 pollution er the paint pollution, or whatever's going to happen with this. This is 13 net a commercial property, this is residential property. I don't know what he's going te do 14 with that later. I don't know if he's going to make it into an apartment later, er someone 15 else purchases the property and make it into an apartment. Se we can request that the 16 Board deny his application. If he makes the garage as an extension, then he's in 17 compliance with our covenants, which, I mean they were written in perpetuity, and he knows 18 about it. I don't knew why he submitted that application. I would submit that the Beard 19 help us out and de the right thing. I'm sure you will. Thank you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like te speak 21 against the application? HR. WAYNE: My name is Michael 22 Wayne, Junior and my parents live next deer to the Boomers. Hy question is what's te step 23 Mr. Boomer from repairing other people's cars? I mean, you're putting up a lift, come on, 24 basically standing under a lift. You're about six feet you get the height of a car, another 25 four and a half feet; he's making it commercialized, and it should be taken into COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 96 1 2 considerati©n that he could be repairing other cars a side business, which everybody likes te 3 de. But this is a residential community. We bought property in the community based on the 4 covenants attached to it. If he wants to attach it te the house, as you recommend, 5 that's fine. Otherwise deny this appeal. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Thank you, 6 sir. MR. HELAGE: My name is Arthur 7 Helage, I've been a resident up there for 30 some-odd years. The only question I have is 8 what constitutes a garage by your Beard? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That the cede 9 defines sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we 10 have that defined? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The code 11 defines it, sir, the code has the definition efa detached garage. There have been 12 questions here that have been raised that are legitimate questions as to whether er net this 13 meets our code definition efa detached garage. I think those points will be taken 14 into consideration. MR. MELAGE: I think you beys are 15 doing a good job, and I guess everybody will abide by the ruling. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Someone else who would like te speak? Yes, sir. 17 MR. WILLS: My name is Jack wills. I live around the corner from Mr. Boomer. He 18 wants te put up a 900 square foot garage with a lift. He said he has a hobby in restoring 19 cars. He's putting out $60,000 probably for this building and this lift; that's a very 20 expensive hobby. Is he understated about what he's going to de in his future, or is this 21 going te be for his own hobby or his own amusement? It leeks very suspicious. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, sir. Is there someone else who would like te 23 speak on this application? Hr. Boomer, if you could just 24 answer a few questions. Hr. Boomer, I think you kind ef heard the sentiments of the Beard 25 and the community. And some ef the points have been very valid. I mean, normally one COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 97 1 2 does not spend $60,000 to work en two cars. MR. BOOMER: Well, that's 3 somebody came up with that number, that's net the number that I'm spending. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Even if you could build this garage fur $30,000, the Board 5 would really question, are you saying that that's all you would ever use this fur? 6 MR. BOOMER: I have two Corvettes, that's all I'm going to do is my 7 two Corvettes. I'm not painting cars. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And you 8 would have no objection te any member ef this Board upon 24 hours notice entering upon your ~ property te insure that's what's going on? MR. BOOMER: Certainly. I'll sign 10 the slip right new. I have two cars. Everybody knows. I have two Corvettes. 11 That's what I play with; that's all I play with. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before we wrap this up, Mr. Homing, any further 13 questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. But I 14 will say I don't go for the increased height. I don't understand the necessity ef it. 15 MR. BOOMER: From what I understand, I could build this same footprint, 16 and everybody's worried hew big it is, if I just drop that down two and a half feet. Then 17 there's no problem with everybody. Ail these arguments don't ge away, I still have the same 18 legal detached garage. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You might 19 have the covenant issues still, but you wouldn't need a variance from us. 20 MR. BOOMER: The association had a veto three days age, and it was voted like 21 32 to 12 not te enforce this covenant. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We don't 22 knew about this. But you're here for the variance en the height only? 23 MR. BOOMER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You're 24 correct. If it was 18 feet high, you would net be here. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, Mr. Goehringer? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I, unfortunately, was a little detained coming in 3 here and you and Mr. Horning were discussing storage upstairs; is that correct? 4 MR. BOOMER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 5 personally think, notwithstanding the covenant issue, which again, this gentleman is 6 absolutely correct, we are net bound by it; we certainly don't like te ge around it, okay, 7 but 18 feet is a high garage, it's a high situation, and, you knew, it's difficult far 8 this Board to deal and stomach with something that exceeds the cede. And that's the story. 9 MR. BOOMER: I believe at 18 feet, because I think this other neighbor that they 10 brought up, built the two story and garage and did do the apartment above it, which I'm not 11 doing. But legally, if I did the 18 feet I could still build the thing and have an 12 apartment above it legally. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's 13 inaccurate. MR. BOOMER: I knew I can't have 14 an apartment. I don't want an apartment. But the whale argument is because I'm going te ge 15 that extra twa feet that I'm going to put the apartment up there. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: That's part ef the argument that we've heard. We've heard 17 a number ef ether arguments. I think the Beard has given you a clear indication en our 18 feelings on this matter, and if there's no ether comments fram the audience. Sir. 19 MR. MAZZARESE: Yeah, I just want to add that the structure that he's talking 20 about 32 by 38 -- MR. BOOMER: 32 by 28. 21 MR. MAZZARESE: Well, it's huge by 21 foot high. Like he said, he could put 22 an apartment up there, but our covenants doesn't allow that. Again, knew I knew you're 23 not supposed to enforce our covenants, but you could at least help us enforce our covenants, 24 and if he puts it attached to his home, fine, he's in compliance with us, and he's in 25 compliance with you. But we're afraid it's going to be another apartment, not maybe by COURT REPORTING A2qD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 him but someone else. Thank you. CRAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Is there 3 anyone else who would like te speak from the audience? Seeing no hands I move te close the % hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD M~MBER OLIVA: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in fever. 6 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.} 7 MS. KOWALSKI: Could I have your name, sir? 8 MR. MAZZARESE: Charles Mazzarese, M-A-Z-Z A-R-E-S-E. i submitted copy efa 9 written - MS. KOWALSKI: Yes, you did. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, thank you very much. 11 The next hearinq is en behalf of Raymond and Agnes Combs. Is there someone 12 ~ere who would like to speak en behalf of that application? If I'm talking fast, I'm meaning 13 te because we're running very late, sir. MR. SCHWARTZ: I'll be short. 14 My name is Hark Schwartz, I'm the architect for the project. 15 The existing square footage ef the house is in the range ef 910 square feet. The 16 owners are looking to expand it to approximately 1860 square feet. Te be cost 17 effective, we would lake te utilize some of the existing foundation as much as possible, 18 reuse some ef the rafters that are there and extend them up tea new ridge es shown on the 19 elevation sketches. Unfortunately, because of the 20 existing width ef the house, we can't make the side yards using this cost effective way, 21 following through with the same wells out. Se, we're looking for the relief en the side 22 yards. C~AIRWONLAN TORTOP~A: I did review 23 the application. It's pretty straightforward te me. I understand there is some concern by 24 the neighbors, se we will definitely hear those and take these into consideration. Do 25 the Board Members have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why five COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 100 1 2 feet te the pr©p~rty line, Mark, on the garage; is it three feet er five feet? 3 HR. SCHWARTZ: Five feet. I believe that's what's allowed by cede. % MS. KOWALSKI: It's a shed, right? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a 5 proposed garage. MR. SCHWARTZ: It's a garage, oh, 6 talking about -- that's an existing frame shed. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Garage is net in the variance? 8 MR. SCHWARTZ: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was 9 taken out? MR. SCHWARTZ: It doesn't need it. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Member Homing, any questions, Mr. Horning? 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva? 12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I was down there. I see no problem with it. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Is there anyone in the audience who would like te speak 14 in favor of the application? Yes, ma'am. Is there anyone? 15 MS. PANTINO: My name is Helen Pantine. I live in Peconic en Indian Neck 16 approximately 36 years or mere. And all along in the woods there in the creek have been 17 smaller homes, probably used mostly for summer homes, and I would have absolutely no 18 objection te having this addition put en their home. At least net a 3,000 er 4,000 square 19 foot building like some people are trying to de. But I have ne objection. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much, ma'am. Is there someone else who 21 would like te speak en this application, yes, ma'am. 22 MS. COMBS: Geed afternoon, my name is Agnes Combs. The property has been in 23 my family since it was built in 1946, '47. Two additions that were put on right when the 24 next two years have been there since we have been there, and i see no reason why we 25 wouldn't have a problem extending back towards the road. It's not affecting the waterfront COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 101 i 2 er anything that's all we're asking. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 3 very much. Is there someone else who would like te speak in favor or against the 4 application? Yes, sir. HR. FIRST: My name is Hike First. 5 I live in Cutchogue. I'm step dad to Hark Lowenheim, who is part owner of the property 6 next door. Neither one ef them could be here. They asked me te give you some remarks, and I 7 could read them in. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you 8 like to or would you like us te read them in? HR. FIRST: Somebody should read 9 them, Would you prefer to read them? CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: It's up te 10 you. HR. FIRST: I'll read them. This 11 is from Mark and Walter. "Looking at questionnaire the 12 architect, Hark Schwartz filled out for the Beard of Appeals we noted that he stated the 13 woods would hide the new house, bnt actually the foliage of the mature oak starts very high 14 and the Combs do net have any shrubs that would block the new house. 15 '~In addition, Mr. Schwartz wrote that the wetlands are shown in the survey, but 16 they're net en the survey supplied to us. ~'Additionally, the architect has 17 not supplied any real plans except for rough sketches. What assurances do we have that the 18 finished house will look like that? .... Now, here's the thing -- '~Last year Raymond Combs 19 told us that when he renovated his home, he would be removing the addition te his house 20 put up many years ago. That addition actually went ever the property line and a deal was 21 worked out with the previous owner te our home giving the Combs the property under the 22 addition. Presently, their home comes within three inches ef the fence. 23 "In conclusion, we're not opposed to the Combs' intended renovation ef their 24 home, but leaving the present setback ef three inches seems unnecessary considering the scope 25 ef the project. We're requesting the removal ef the prier addition te make the easterly COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 102 1 2 side setback at least ten feet. We truly believe this is a fair compromise.~' 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Schwartz. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: When he's done, I need to ask him a question. 5 MR. COMBS: Good afternoon, my name is Raymond Combs, and we're the occupants 6 of the house. I might mention that if our 7 neighbor's concerned they shouldn't have taken so much of the natural foliage down. Our 8 house was hardly visible er theirs was from our house until they literally cleared the 9 land. Natural growth was there all the years before that, and it was a great separation. 10 And still, on their side is approximately 30 feet, I believe between the fence and our 11 property. It's true many, many years age that the survey wasn't that accurate and that 12 Mr. Knells when he was alive, who was the former owner, when he retired observed that 13 indeed our house did encroach two inches en their property, and he was very gracious and 14 he said, if you will pay the legal expense for the preparation efa deed, I will deed the 15 required amount at no charge. I tried to buy another five feet so we had a little bit ef 16 la~d, and Jim passed away and then his wife passed away also. 17 We're not asking for any extension. We wouldn't be that brash, but due 18 to some other constraints, we would like to keep the house line, basement line the way it 19 is. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRWOM}~ TORTOP~%: Mr. 20 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 21 Schwartz, I'd like te ask him a question. Hr. Schwartz, I'm looking at 22 the -- and you may have said this already, we're talking about a first story addition of 23 888 square feet? MR. SCHWARTZ: Total would be 24 approximately 1860 and existing is 910. BOARD MEMBER GOEHPINGER: Existing 25 is 910 and proposed? MR. SCHWARTZ: 1860. COURT REPORTING AND TI~tLNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 103 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 1860 total? 3 MR. SCRWARTZ: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there 4 is no second floor? HR. SCHWARTZ: Well, there is a 5 second floor -- well, it's a Cape style house. BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: Se it would 6 be what, eno and a half stories? MR. SCHWARTZ: Just as it is 7 drawn. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I don't 8 really have any questions. I understand the neighbor's request, however, it is net the 9 existing construction of the house that requires the variance before us. It's the 10 proposed construction, and although the existing house is two er three inches from the 11 property line, that is not properly before us. We don't really have any jurisdiction ever 12 that. HS. KOWALSKI: Mark, maybe you 13 could explain hew you got the amended disapproval there. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is kind of hot off the press. It came in the 24th, se 15 you are going to further encroach on that area that is three inches from the - 16 MR. SCHWARTZ: No. That area is one room right now. It's going to remain one 17 room. The walls and roof will stay intact. The alternation is for the rest ef 18 the first floor that I did not have en the survey originally. 19 MS. KOWALSKI: They don't understand where you're doing the changes on 20 the existing footprint; would you explain that? 21 MR. SCHWARTZ:: Yes. This area, the hatched area, shows the addition, and this 22 is what I submitted yesterday because I wasn't aware and I wanted to make sure it was clear 23 that the rest of the house was going to be altered but not this piece. 24 MS. KOWALSKI: Where is the alteration on the rest of it? 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, this is not included. It's going te be this area here COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 10% 1 2 {indicating). MS. KOWALSKI: Which is also 3 nonconf©rming. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm net % writing a decision until we get the plans. apologize, but it just can't be den©. 5 MS. KOWALSKI: You've got t© get everything ahead ef time. 6 HR. SCHWARTZ: A floor plan you want. I have the elevation settings. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need the floor plan showing what the square footage 8 is existing, what it's going to be. MR. SCHWARTZ: Certainly. ~ CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In other words, what we need te see is just like you 10 thatched out the proposed addition and where you have area of alteration, if you could 11 double that it te clearly indicate what is being, where there's a sec©nd st©ry. 12 MR. SCHWARTZ: Absolutely. I'll draft that up. 13 CHAINHOMAN TORTORA: That will make it a let easier for all ef us and the 1% neighbors too. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you 15 could have that before October 9th. If that would be greatly appreciated. 16 MR. SCHWARTZ: We will. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Beard has 17 to take a leek, there is a new map, there is a new survey, not a new survey but a new map en 18 this that just came in yesterday en this, which shews the sec©nd story on the eld house 19 ever part ef the main house. It does net shew it over the entire house er that small area 20 that is three inches from the property line, but the main house, but we really don't have a 21 clear -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Picture. 22 CHAIRWON~kN TORTORA: It's not clear enough for us en the survey at this 23 point. So we're going te ask the applicant to give us that information end we're going te 24 would the Board like t© leave this hearing open? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should leave it open until we have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) $78-8047 105 I 2 everything we need. CHAIRWOM~tN TORTORA: I think it's 3 best because, Mr. Schwartz, in all fairness te the neighbors, if there are concerns then they 4 can take a look at this map and have a clear understanding ef what's involved. Se we just 5 want to be fair te everybody. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're going te adjourn this te October 9th at 6:30; is 7 that okay? Very good. Thank you very much. Hake a motion to adjourn the 8 hearing until October 9th at 6:30. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 10 (Whereupon, all Members ef the Board responded in favor.) 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. The next hearing is en Gerald 12 Dieffenbach, is there somebody here that would like te speak en behalf of that? 13 MR. WILDE: Gerald Dieffenbach will. My name is Reggie Wilde, Architect and 14 I'm representing Mr. Raia. The house in question has a small 15 footprint ef 800 square feet ena very irregular site that was sort of cut up when 16 the land was subdivided se it's rather irregular. The house has a dormer on the 17 second floor, and this proposal is to remove the dormer and put a new reef on, which will 18 be a little higher se Mr. and Mrs. Diffenbach can stand up in the bedroom. We're not adding 19 anything to the site, any living space. We're just raising the roof. We can't raise the 20 reef without raising the rafters and bringing the whale thing up, increasing the height 21 three feet. The house as it stands is about 20 feet high. It's a very small house. 22 We are replacing the roof in its entirety. So it has mere structural integrity 23 than it has right now with the ridge and the dormer coming off the existing ridge. Se it's 24 far structural soundness, head ream and adding same light and space. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're essentially raising the dormer and putting a COURT REPORTING A2qD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 106 1 2 look out, there's no change in the footprint? MR. WILDE: Ne change in the 3 footprint. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva? ~ BOARD MEMBER OLIVA:: No, I was there I don't have any questions. It's fine. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No 6 questions rights new. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 7 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 8 down there and looked at the site, the property is relatively small, and it's 9 extremely tight. Yen did say that you're not increasing the footprint? 10 MR. WILDE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you 11 say you're going up three feet, are you saying three feet from the existing ridge er the knee 12 walls? MR. WILDE: From the ridge because 13 we're going te set the bottom ef the truss where the ridge is new which would give them 14 eight foot clearance in the upstairs room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 15 Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if 16 anyone in the audience has any comments er questions. Seeing ne hands, I'm going to make 17 a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 19 (Whereupon, all Members ef the Board responded in favor.) 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is Nerah Bischoff and Jane Winsch; is 21 there anyone here who would like te speak on behalf ef the applicants? 22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz. This application is for an addition te the 23 rear ef the house of 168 square feet, eno story, that's the application. 24 CPIAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I reviewed this, it's a very, very small addition 5'6~' te 25 be exact, by 15, small niche in the rear of the house and the existing setback is 13 feet~ COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 107 1 2 and what will happen when you fill in the niche because ef the angle ef the house, it 3 will go te 12, but I really don't have any questions about this application. Hrs. 4 Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have 5 any questions, Mr. Schwartz. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 6 Geehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 7 Schwartz, it's diminimus. MR. SCHWARTZ: Geed. 8 CHAIRWONL~N TORTORA: Mr. Herning. Bey, you're flying here. 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'm agreeing with my colleagues. I did take a 10 / look at this. I believe you could actually have fire fighting apparatus from the Navy 11 Street area to getting access in an emergency is not a real major concern. Small proposal. 12 MR. SCHWARTZ: Great. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 13 anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor over or against the application? 14 Seeing ne hands I would like to make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision 15 until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. {Whereupon, all Members of the 17 Board responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 18 2~e~mri!kg_is on behalf of Frederick and Antenia VenZuben. Is there someone here who would 19 like te speak on behalf of that application? MS. MOORE: Okay. I hope to go as 20 fast as the rest, as the previous ones went. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's up te 21 you, Pat. MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll try. 22 VonZuben is the contractor - well, actually the homeowner was doing extensive landscaping 23 i think if you've seen the property all the landscaping that was done, she wanted te put, 24 the owner wanted to put an arbor en both sides of the garage as part ef the landscape design. 25 They did not realize that an arbor would be considered a structure and requiring a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 108 1 2 building pes~it. The building -- the contractor believed, because he saw other 3 trellises, arbors, that are generally aleng the street at the entrance of the properties, that this would be similarly treated. Then they came te me and I suggested that maybe, 5 you knew, that this is the right procedure te undertake. 6 I want te correct something that I don~t know where it came from, the arbor that 7 is in question is net attached to the garage. It stands alone and is net part of the garage. 8 It stands independently of it, and matches fur purposes of symmetry the arbor to the north, 9 both of them are detached. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Where dues it 10 say it's detached from the garage? MS. MOORE: I don't know it came 11 from you guys. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Probably just 12 typographical error. MS. MOORE: Okay, good. Because I 13 checked the notice ef disapproval in the building permit. I thought that maybe I had 14 in error described it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ne. It's 15 just a type. MS.i MOORE: Good. 16 MS. KOWALSKI: No, it's on one of the plans that I saw. 17 MS. MOORE: In any case, regardless of where it came from, it is 18 detached. I have photographs of it fur your records. I also - the contractor -- 19 MS. KOWALSKI: It's close te the garage. 20 MS MOORE: Yes, it's close. There is landscaping. The trees, the pine 21 trees that are along the street are not very healthy. They're actually warranteed by the 22 landscaper, and they're to be replaced with healthier trees, but I guess they haven't come 23 back to de that. It will be landscaped, and eventually we hope that the shrubbery will 24 take, and it will net be as noticeable from the road. 25 It's an architectural feature. It has really no function ether than aesthetics, COURT REPORTING A2qD TRAiNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 109 1 2 so. If yen have questions, I will try to answer them for you. 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Hew did the applicant cema te build it there? 4 MS. MOORE: Pardon? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why did the 5 applicant build it there? MS. MOORE: They definitely 6 wanted the arbor en the north side because that's where their patio is. They're going to 7 plant some of the -- what are the vines, the purple flower vines? 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Wisteria? MS. HOORE: Wisteria. They wanted 9 to plant that when they leaked at their landscape plan, it looked off balance. Se she 10 wanted to build one, the equivalent structure on the south side of the garage. That's 11 why -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see 12 what happens. Hrs. Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I've been 13 there. I leaked at it. I don't have a problem. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HONNING: Ne, I 15 don't. But then the applicant just decided to build it without a building permit. 16 HS. MOORE: Yes, it's net that they decided to de it knowing that they would 17 be in violation, they -- I submitted photographs -- there are trellises, certainly 18 not ef this scale. There are trellises and fences and architectural landscaping that's 19 all ever town ef different size, and se they believed that since it was really, it wasn't 20 holding anything up, it's net a structural it's not a structural building, that it would 21 be exempt. It would be the equivalent of a fence. They were in error, and that's when 22 they had to cema before this Beard. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~: Mr. 23 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIHGER: I was 24 down there Saturday. I did speak to a neighbor. They were not terribly happy with 25 it. They were more upset about the shrubs not the taking, se te speak, as you just COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 110 1 2 discussed. So, in light of that, I think we have te put a restriction er cenditien en 3 this, if the Beard is se inclined to grant it, that the bushes have te be maintained. 4 MS. MOORE: That's certainly -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What side is 5 that~ Gerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 6 aleng the southeast side. MS. MOORE: Southeast, yes. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They're existing? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, there actually -- 9 MS. MOORE: Actually, there are some spets that need additienal shrubs. Se 10 why den't we screen it to say with apprepriate screening on that southeast side? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are extremely mature shrubs. They're extremely 12 wide and they're high. MS. MOORE: Is that eld vegetation 13 er the new stuff? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The old 14 stuff. We certainly want the old stuff removed and the - 15 MS. MOORE: Removed? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, 16 the stuff is dying. And we want to stagger seme new stuff in between. And we need that 17 continueusly maintained. If it requires a drip system, it requires a drip system; 18 whatever it takes te keep that maintained. Shrubs have to be watered. 19 MS. MOORE: The ones that were planted were mature I think, and maybe the 20 storms we had actually strained them. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 21 anyene in the audience whe would like te speak in favor of this application? Is there anyene 22 in the audience who would like to speak against the applicatien? 23 MS. PHILISTEIN: I'm Josephine Philistein, Southeld. I'm net really against 24 it, but whenever we had building we always had to get permits. If you did anything against 25 this, you were served with a stop werk erder and several of us cemplained as we saw this COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 111 1 2 building, which has been going en for about three years, now we saw these arbor 3 construction going up, and we complained, that was in. June I think and no step work, nothing 4 happened, te continue, and New they're applying for permits, as is, which we find, a 5 few of us in the neighborhood find this unfair because we all had to ge by the deeds, you 6 knew, by the way things are processed, the way yen have te ge about getting permission, and 7 this was followed through completion. So we thi~k it's very unfair. It looks as the 8 garage is the most beautiful garage I ever saw, and these arbors they ge from about four 9 feet from the road, and se it's -- I don't expect it to be anything ether than this arbor 10 what it is, it is awfully close te the road. And they did not fellow the right process; 11 that was our complaint. Se we're net asking for it t© be 12 taken down, certainly, but I wonder why the law is so unfair, that some ef us have te ge 13 through this step by step and this was continued. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, if you build something without a permit, there 15 really is ne penalty. MS. MOORE: There is actually, 16 the application is fee is doubled, d©ubled at the building department when yo~ ge in on an 17 as-built permit. MS. PHILISTEIN: Stop work things 18 in the neighborhood, you had to step until you get it legal. That's what I hove a problem 19 with. Proximity te the read, you have to get a building permit; we have to get variances 20 for things that were 50 feet back. This is four feet, it seems te be, from the read. 21 That's about right. CHAIRWO~AN TORTORA: So 40 feet 22 from the road? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Four 23 feet from the property line, 3.2 at its closest. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are there any ether comments from anyone in the audience? 25 Beard Members? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 112 1 2 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 4 (Whereupon, all Members of the Beard responded in favor.) 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is en behalf of Victor Catalano. Is 6 there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of that application? 7 MR. CATALANO: I'm Victor Catalano. I've asked for a variance te put a 8 garage on a lot adjoining my property on Pecenic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. It's a 9 variance for, I guess, a reduction of the sideline te the westerly property. There's no 10 ether structure en this let. It had an approved building envelope ena prier meeting 11 that I had with the Building Department shewing where our house and a garage could 12 eventually go. I've not decided te pursue any other building ventures, but this garage would 13 serve my house, which is a middle lot on the property, and as it turns out my daughter owns 14 a lot en the water that's part ef this parcel, that has a eno car garage. My home has no 15 garage. We have had this situation since 1980 with the front house having eno car garage the 16 middle house having no garage. There's really no ether area to build a garage on either 17 parcel. I've had beth looked at. I think the survey shews constraints en beth sides ef the 18 house, beth houses. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me just 19 stop you. One ef the things that a couple of Beard members had asked me about this and 20 myself, when you're speaking about the three lets, what we have in our file is eno let. 21 MR. CATALANO: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRWOH}~ TORTOP~t: Se when 22 you're referring to where your principal house is, and your daughter's, that's one ef the 23 problems is that we're trying te review this application. We don't have a view ef the 2% three lots. Ail we have here is a survey of where the proposed garage is, which is, you 25 know, it's called Lot Number 2, I believe it is. COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63i) 878-80%7 113 1 2 MR. CATA~ANO: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And we can't 3 make any assessment as te where your house is, the distance er any of these ether factors 4 because we simply don't have that. What we really need te see is, we need to see, you 5 refer to in your application, you refer to three lets, and the need for this garage. We 6 have some concerns from neighbors but we have nothing, no picture in front ef us of where 7 the three lets are. Ail we have is one isolated lot, and it's very, very, difficult 8 for us. MR. CATALANO: I'm sorry. I 9 had -- I wasn't advised to provide the ether pictures. I can do that; it's net a problem. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the ether two lets de you have a surveys en them se that 11 when you say, here's my lots and here's MR. CATALANO: Yes, ma'am. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would make things se easy for us, because we simply have 13 no way of calculating the neighbors' concerns er anything else without looking at all three 14 together. And one ether thing, I knew that 15 this has been the subject of a number of prier appeals, and maybe you can clarify this for 16 us, in 1985 the three lets were created. Zoning Board ef Appeals approval Let 13-1, Let 17 13-2 and Let 13-3. What happened to 13 1 and how did we get 13.47 18 HR. CATALANO: I think it was 2, 3 and 4. 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ne. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ne. I we~t 20 through, and it was like a mystery. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I did tee. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the old ZBA approvals it refers to Let 13-1, 13 2 and 22 13-3, and every single variance applicatio~ there is no mention efa Let 13-4. Now when 23 we look at the tax map we see a let 13-4, and 13-1 has disappeared. In other words, I'm 24 trying te cress reference what the Zoning Beard approved before and what we have new and 25 somewhere along the line Let 13-1 disappeared and 13 4 showed up. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 114 1 2 MR. CATALANO: Could 13-1 have been the original total parcel? 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We don't know. 4 MR. CATALANO: And the resulting three be 2, 3, and 4. Because I don't ever 5 remember a 13-1. Honestly, I'll ge back in records. It had been a single parcel when I 6 bought it in 1980, I believe, and at that point it then was made into three. 7 HS. KOWALSKI: That's probably 1. Usually when a property is redeeded, and it 8 would have been redeeded sometime after 1979 probably? 9 MR. CATALANO: Yes. MS. KOWALSKI: It gets new 10 numbers. MR. CATALANO: Because, Linda, I 11 don't ever remember a 1. I remember my tax bill 2, 3 and 4. 12 MS. KOWALSKI: I don't have the answer for you. You can find out from one ef 13 the real estate offices, either the assessor's office er the Suffolk County Center Real 14 Estate office. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Real 15 property, second floor. MS. KOWALSKI: Or the assessor's 16 office can tell you. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: SiF. 17 HR. CATALAN0: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The most 18 obvious question here why are you proposing to locate this garage outside ef the building 19 envelope that you could put it in? MR. CATALANO: Strictly 20 aesthetics. BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Nothing 21 else on the parcel. HR. CATALANO: Exactly, te put it 22 to one side. I only have a neighbor, residential neighbor te my east. There's ne 23 structure te my west at this point on the let. Basically, te make it Not as conspicuous in 24 the middle of the property. As I said, I don't plan te do anything more. It's really 25 strictly for garaging vehicles in the winter. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And then COURT REPORTING AND TP~%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 115 1 2 you sell a parcel and someone tries to build a house, and then you have this nonconforming 3 garage. I don't understand the logic of why you cannot put it in the building envelope and 4 conform that way. Your biggest problem is the use is net allowed. A single family dwelling 5 would be allowed. MR. CATALANO: Yes. I was 6 apprised ef that. BOARD MEMBER ~ORNING: Not a 7 garage, but now you're compounding a situation by wanting te push it up te some setback 8 that's going te be nonconforming. MR. CATALANO: This is why I'm 9 here. I'm asking for that consideration. Because either way it's either going to be 10 where I've asked it te be, or it's going to be in the middle of the property. Se either way 11 it's going to be, because we've decided for the two family residences we need a garage. I 12 personally -- we felt it would be aesthetically more pleasing hidden. I believe 13 you went te see the property; it's more treed there. It would be a little mere hidden than 14 stuck in the middle ef the property. But if it's get to ge in the middle ef the property, 15 it will go in the middle ef the property. I think it would be much mere pleasing to the 16 eye to my neighbors. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You're 17 asking for a lot in a way. You're asking for a use that's not conforming and placed in a 18 nonconforming position en the parcel, when in fact, you have ostensibly all kinds of areas 19 where you could place it would be at least conforming. 20 HR. CATALANO: Yes, sir, that's completely correct. There's a building 21 envelope that we could put the building smack in the middle and build it as large as we 22 want, but that was not our desire. We were trying to keep -- 23 MS. KOWALSKI: I think you were talking about planning a house for the 2% future. MR. CATALANO: Right, exactly. 25 That was why the building envelope had been done by the office here, show me what the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 116 1 2 building envelope would be, but at this juncture, I do not have a plan for a house. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the most important thing before we - because 4 Mr. Herning's raised some good points -- I'm sure Mr. Geehringer will, but I really think 5 we need to see what all three properties are. I see on the survey, I see part of the brick 6 patio that's ever the property line, is that your property also? 7 MR. CATALANO: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWONLA~ TORTORA: See, we're 8 net looking at everything. We are just leaking at eno lot, so we have no idea hew it 9 relates te the three houses. MR. CATALANO: I had asked that 10 question, and I was advised that the other two lots had ne impact. In ether words, it 11 really -- the fact that one ef the reasons I'm here, and as far as being a variance, that 12 it's owned by family members CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They would 13 net have impact as far as the Building Department, but they definitely have impact as 14 to whether we're going te grant a variance en this and our Beard, yes, they do. 15 MR. CATALANO: Right, obviously. And obviously because there's really ne space 16 en the ether two lots that a structure like this can go. 17 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: We have to see all that. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: My suggestion te you, sir, would be come up with 19 a plan en that parcel that included a house and the garage, if that's what you need, and 20 then you come back te us with tha~ plan so we would have an idea and with where you would 21 place a house en there, se that we don't end up with a nonconforming thing, that -- eh, 22 well the garage is here new and I can't de MR. CATALANO: If you look at the 23 picture, I believe the survey shows eno of the things they suggested was te make sure the 24 garage stayed within the setback from where a house would have te be. You have te be 35 25 feet from the front; you have to - BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Right. But COURT REPORTING AND TP~tNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 117 1 2 you're not proposing that. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yeah -- 3 that's why. You're right, I'm net proposing that. 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You'd be better ef£ with a plan for a house, just my 5 suggestion. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or merge 6 both properties. MR. CATALAiqO: Excuse me? 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Or merge beth properties to your existing house. Merge 8 this let to your existing house. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: He's saying 9 combine the lots with Four existing house let. 10 MR. CATALANO: And HS. KOWALSKI: Waive your right te 11 a new house. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: That is 12 the only true way that we really can grant an accessory structure en that piece ef property. 13 In reality we don't de it. It's been dena once; it was dena down en Moose Cove, and the 14 gentleman merged the two waterfront parcels, and I can tell you that was in 1986. We just 15 don't de it. We don't create accessory cause it's not accessory to anything. There's 16 no dwelling te make it compatible with. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In ether 17 words, the other factor if Fen really look at this from a legal point ef view, the use is 18 not permitted ena vacant lot. MR. CATALANO: Vacant lets. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPA: Se, Mr. Catalano, the criteria for that in the 20 Tow~ law you wouldn't even want to cema in here with that. 21 MR. CATALANO: Point of clarification, eno last question, I knew it's 22 running late, a request for the house with the garage, still requesting a variance to be 23 over, closer te that let line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIHGER: Over the 24 building envelope? HR. CATALANO: Yeah. If I ask for 25 the house with the garage and the garage being closer to that let line COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 118 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn't create that lot line, the Planning 3 Department created that let line, that building envelope and that's something -- 4 MS. KOWALSKI: The Planning Beard did net create a building envelope. It's the 5 Zoning Board setbacks, and if you can't fit in the zoning setbacks, then you get an amended 6 disapproval from the Building Department, and you could submit a separate variance for that. 7 MR. CATALANO: But it would have te be for a house and garage? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. HR. CATALANO: And technically, I 9 can build in stages, right, if I had that approval for that house and garage, I could 10 start with my garage and as I went in stages then -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Then they would have te determine that. De you want to 12 de this, you kind ef -- de you want te consider some of these alternatives? Because 13 we could keep adjourning this, but I think Mr. Goehringer and Mr. Horning are have really 14 kind ef pointed out the Beard really doesn't grant accesserF uses en unimproved parcels 15 because it's net accessory. And i~ order to get approval you'd have te have a use 16 variance; in order to get a use variance, it's the toughest area in New York State Town Law 17 to get. HR. CATALANO: Okay, so then, 18 basically to come even with a request for the garage within the building envelope strictly 19 as a garage probably wouldn't work either. So it would be the house and the garage. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you have a house on the property, that's fine~ if you 21 want te merge er combine this parcel with your house let it's fine, but a garage by itself, 22 no, no. MR. CATALANO: Ail right. 23 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: We just don't want to waste your time. 24 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no prevision in the law te de it. 25 CHAIRWOH~ TORTORA: We have no way to do it. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 119 1 2 MR. CATALANO: And that would be a whole new application for the house and the 3 garage. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: I think what 4 you need te de is ge over it with the Building Department first and say, if I de this what 5 will happen. MR. CATALANO: Right. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because we can't say how the Building Department's going 7 to respond. We have an idea, but it's really up te them te kind ef guide yen on their end. 8 MS. KOWALSKI: I think there are time limits toe. You have te build the house 9 together with the garage. You can't just build the garage without the house. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They can go through those things and different options you 11 might have with them te get you off in the right direction. 12 MR. CATALANO: Okay, se the Building Department. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Te see if anyone in the audience has any 14 questions er comments or anything. AUDIENCE HEHBER: It's not viable 15 now is it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What I think we'll do is we're going te - de you want te 17 close the hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 18 you should recess it without a date. Then you cema back to us when you figure out. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Exactly. That will leave things open for you after 20 you've kind ef mulled on them, if it does require a new application, you can go that 21 route; if it doesn't, you don't have to go that route. 22 I'm going te make a motion te recess it without a date and look over some 23 options, and I think we've given you some things te think about. 24 MR. CATALANO: Very good, thank you. 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 120 1 2 laver. (Whereupen, all Hembers ef the 3 Beard respended in laver.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Resel~tien to 4 adjeurn. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So meved. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in faver. 6 (Whereupen, all Members ef the Board responded in favor.) 7 (Time ended: 4:13 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 828-8047 121 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 % I, Plerence V. Wiles, Netary Public fer 5 the State ef New Yerk, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true 7 record ef the testimeny given. 8 I further certify that I am net related by 9 bleed or marriage, to any ef the parties to 10 this actien; and 11 THAT I am in no way interested in the 12 eutceme of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand this 25th day ef September, 2003. 15 16 {~/~j/~Florence V. Wi~es 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING /kND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047