Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/23/2003 HEAR 1 ~ j~ 2 ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 3 5 TOWN 0 P S O UT H O L D 6 7 Z O N I NG BOARD O F A P P E A L S 8 Seutheld Tewn Hall 10 53095 Hain Road Seutheld, New York 11 Octeber 23, 2003 12 9:30 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present : 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 GEORGE HORNING, Beard Hember 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVIC~ (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 VICE CHAIRPERSON ORLANDO: My name is Vincent Orlando, and I'll be acting as vice 3 chair today since the newly appointed chairperson, Mrs. Oliva, is net here today. 4 Also, we are missing several ether people on the Board today. Member Tortera is out ill 5 today, and also our secretary Linda is out sick today. Se it's just the three ef us here 6 today. We do have a quorum so we will be able to held this meeting. 7 Before we get te our first hearing, I'd like te stand for the Pledge of 8 Allegiance. (Whereupon, all present steed for 9 the Pledge of Allegiance.) VICECI~J~IRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. 10 In our first meeting on the agenda is Application 5308, Trippe and I have some 11 paperwork here that they are looking for an adjournment te December 18th at 9:30 a.m. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'll make a motion te adjourn it. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in 1% favor. (Whereupon, all Beard Members 15 present responded in favor.) 17 VICE CHAIRNL~N ORLANDO: Next on the agenda is Application 5334, Debra 18 Victoroff. We have te wait two minutes for you until 9:%0. We're a little bit early. 19 The time is Now 9:~0, so the floor is yours. 20 HR. FITZGERALD: Geed morning, I'm Jim Fitzgerald representing Mrs. Victereff. 21 When last we met, the issue ef wetlands was the major topic, and I'd like te 22 address those questions first. The neighboring property owners 23 apparently have only lately become concerned with the presence of wetlands in their 24 community; however, we note that Colette Pelitis got a permit to build a deck addition 25 in 1998, and Corinne Chick get a permit te build a new dwelling in 2000. These are both October 23, 2003 3 1 2 adjoining pr0pe~ties, with wetlands in the area both projects would require at least a 3 Trustees permit. If these permits had been obtained, it would have necessitated % delineating the wetlands and we would net be talking about hiring someone te do it new. 5 The neighbors have pictures ef the alleged wetlands and we have asked far copies 6 te review, along with ±nformatien as te when the pictures were taken and the details of the 1 camera placement, the direction of view in each case. I have briefly examined the 8 pictures at the Trustees office and found that they don't look like any part of our property 9 that I have seen° We have a current report fram En 10 Consultants concerning the wetlands, net alleged anymore. Hr. Hermann says according 11 te the definition ef Chapter 97 ef the Town cede, there are wetlands en er near the 12 property. He says, among ether things, the ecological value ef the wetland is limited; 13 tNe wetlands area is small and lacking in diversity. It is comprised almost entirely ef 1% fragmites and normative and invasive plants. It is completely surrounded by development. 15 It is extremely limited in its ability te provide habitat er corridor far wildlife. 16 It's current primary function appears te be as a catch basin far runoff from the surrounding 17 properties, and it appears that its boundaries have been artificially altered by surrounding 18 development probably because of fill placed te raise the adjoining properties. 19 Se, that in addition to the construction project I mentioned, it appears 20 that the adjoining property owners at eno time placed fill directly in the wetlands, which 21 placement ef fill wes causing or contributing far the need far our property he serve as a 22 catch basin. Having said all that, I must new 23 point out that it has been the practice ef this Board t© review and act upon applications 24 far area variances without consideration ef the presence or absence ef wetlands on or near 25 the property in question. The Board knows that if wetland permits are required far a October 23, 2003 4 1 2 given project the Building Department will not issue a building permit without evidence that 3 such permits have been obtained, the same applies te permits issued by the health 4 department for the installation of sanitary systems. 5 I suggest that the Beard should act upon the present variance, without regard 6 te wetland situation, with the knowledge that that aspect ef the project will be reviewed by 7 the Trustees, and they de indeed knew about this project. If our application te the 8 Trustees result in the need to reconfigure the project plan, we will, of course, return to 9 the Board for further review and approval. Getting to the specific project, 10 the Building Department disapproval, as you know, has been amended several times so that 11 it reflects our current proposal. The project plan has been revised dated 9/12/03, and 12 copies have been provided te the Board. The deck surrounding the pool has been reduced in 13 size, as has the deck on the north side ef the house se that the total coverage is less than 14 20 percent. The porch shown in the original plan has been deleted from the drawing since 15 the Town code exempts it from including it in computing the setback. 16 The revised project plan dated 9/12/03 reflects our attempt to minimize the 17 relief requested. The side yard setbacks meet the regulatory requirement. The overall depth 18 ef the property varies from 77 feet to 86 feet. In passing, we should note that these 19 depths are the same respectively on the properties en either side of ours. With the 20 required 35 foot front and rear yard setbacks, the house would be only seven to 16 feet deep. 21 The proposed house is only 24 feet deep and the rear deck which adds eight feet te the 22 overall depth, is a minimal amenity. The proposed front and rear yard setbacks are not 23 inconsistent with other properties in the neighborhood. 24 At the last meeting Miss Rosenblum, the attorney, said they had a 25 question about the single and separate search, and we've, asked for specifics on that but October 23, 2003 5 1 2 haven't heard anything yet. I have a chart which depicts the ownership against time of 3 all the properties in the neighborhood, if you would like te see that. Thank you. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRING~R: Are you going te give us a copy? 5 MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon me? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 6 going to give us a copy? HR. FITZGEP~ILD If you'd like. 7 AS a matter of fact, I'll give you seven copies. The numbers across the top of the 8 chart are the let numbers on the tax map. VICE CHAIRM~ ORLANDO: Any 9 questions from the Board Members? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. 10 Fitzgerald, on the Notice ef disapproval that was amended October 16th, is that the last one 11 amd the eno that we would be considering? MR~ FITZGERALD: Yes, yes, I would 12 hope it's the last eno. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 13 Fitzgerald, I know you very well and I know you de a very geed job, but I have some 14 problems with what you were saying. The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Trustees 15 have overlapping jurisdiction, okay, and I'll tell you where that overlapping jurisdiction 16 is: We have laws within the zoning code which allow minimum setbacks from tidal water. 17 MR. FITZGERALD: When you say ~'we," you mean -- 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Town Trustees under their section and the zoning 19 Board ef Appeals under their section; they're under a different section, we're under this 20 section, okay. In situations where there are 21 wetlands, the Town Trustees require minimum setbacks. We are not an environmental 22 organization. We will at all times acquiesce or agree to what their minimum setbacks are 23 regarding a wetlands review on their part, okay. So, this is just my opinion, I am net 24 speaking for the Board, okay. If there is some detection of 25 wetlands, and there is some protection of these wetlands, okay - se I don't know who October 23, 2003 6 1 2 this is -- and this is net a sarcastic statement, I don't knew who this Mr. Howard 3 you are referring to? MR. FITZGERALD: Hermann. % BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: I don't knew who he is; is he an environmental 5 consultant? MR. FITZGERALD: He's the north 6 fork guy of En Consultants. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: Of En 7 Consultants, okay. We don't have a copy ef that or I didn't receive a copy of that. 8 MR. PITZGEP~ALD: We just get it yesterday. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: So you'll give us a copy ef that report? 10 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So at 11 the very least, the Trustees should look at what the situation is, and if they make 12 recommendations as te what Mrs. Victereff has te de regarding the construction ef this 13 house, we would want te know that prior to the decision being granted by this Beard. I'm 14 just telling you that. They may require something as minimal as downspouts en the 15 roof. MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, they 16 routinely de. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That may 17 be the situation, but it's very important that we know that at this point so we can embody 18 that within a decision. MR. FITZGERALD. One of the things 19 that was on the end of that speech that I read was an example of a recent situation in which 20 I stood here and talked about a project that was bounded on one side by a dredged canal, 21 with a bulkhead. I looked at the minutes of that hearing, and the word "wetlands~' doesn't 22 come up. The word wetlands does not appear in the minutes. There's no discussion of 23 wetlands, the Trustees, or anything of that sort, and that has always been the case in my 24 dealings with the Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHNINGER: Can I 25 continue? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Sure, October 23, 2003 7 1 2 please. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 3 reason why is because there was a bulkhead, right, and we will always ge to the Trustees 4 when there is not a bulkhead but when the bulkhead exists, that's the line between the 5 water and the land. Se you will not necessarily hear the word wetlands, unless ef 6 course, there are wetlands adjacent to er contiguous te the bulkhead. Which has either 7 net been backfilled or has been preserved in some manner or form so as it's in its Natural 8 state. HR. FITZGERALD: There were not in 9 this case. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. i0 MR. PITZGENALD: However, a Trustees permit is still required. Because 11 they don't look upon the bulkhead as a line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we 12 do but they don't. MR. FITZGERALD: I understand. 13 But the participation of the Trustees in the overall scheme of things is the same in either 14 case, and the -- I can assure you that the Trustees will require a permit in this case. 15 And as I said here, and I discussed with the then chairman, we would be -- if it turns out 16 that you should, for instance, approve this application for a variance, and we go te the 17 Trustees and they say, ne, you can't build a house here, you've get to have it there, and 18 this is in conflict with what you approved, we'll be back here again. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then you have to reopen the hearing. You'll have te 20 start a new hearing. MR. FITZGERALD: It's a question 21 of which came first. I have a sense you're leading up te saying that we're going to have 22 te de this again after the Trustees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why do 23 that when all you have te de is adjourn this hearing until you get a Trustees 24 determination? HR. FITZGERALD: That's what I'm 25 saying. The last time we were here the Board said that you expected to resolve this issue October 23, 2003 8 1 2 at this hearing. Now, if something has changed other than the fact that I said that I 3 didn't think that was your concern, the wetlands, then I'd like te know what it was. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no bulkhead, we're concerned. That's my 5 opinion; that's not the Board's opinion, that's my opinion. 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: One comment first, Mr. Fitzgerald. I think what 7 we need to do here is have this professionally flagged and then resurveyed. I think that 8 solves all the guesstimation on where the wetlands are. I'm sure you know there are 9 surveys that say wetland and have it resurveyed. We have a letter here from the 10 Trustees saying there are wetlands, I guess at first glance without having it flagged and it 11 needs to be a 140 foot setback from those wetlands, the property's only 80 feet deep. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: With all due respect that's not necessarily se. 13 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'm just quoting off the letter from the Trustees. 14 MR. FITZGERALD: The Trustees have jurisdiction within 100 feet. They don't 15 require 100 foot setback. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think it 16 would be hard pressed for the zoning Board to make a decision en where the house should ge 17 if we're not familiar with where the wetlands are on that project. And I se I agree with 18 Mr. Geehringer, we should have a professionally flagged survey and then we can 19 make a decision if the house is located properly. 20 MR. FITZGERALD: The property has been professionally flagged by Mr. Hermann of 21 En Consultants. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don't see 22 a copy in the file. MR. FITZGERALD: Ne. We don't 23 have the survey yet because it was net done. The thing I don't understand is are you saying 24 that in every case where there's net a bulkhead you require a Trustees permit before 25 you will consider a variance in a wetlands situation? October 23, 2003 1 2 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That was your comment, you can fellow up with that. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Most certainly yes, if there are wetlands within a 4 hundred feet ef the construction, yes. MR. FITZGERALD: And has that 5 always been the case en every - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. 6 MR. FITZGERALD: If I were te be able te show you, say, ten applications in 7 which that was not the case, would you be willing -- 8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLRNDO: Are these zoning Board applications er just the Building 9 Department? MR. FITZGERALD: Zoning Board 10 applications. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have 11 had eno very smart person in Orient, sir, that erased the wetlands off the map and then 12 resubmitted the map. MR. FITZGERALD: That person is 13 not standing in front of you today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is 14 net the person standing in front ef me today -- us. So what I'm saying, I understand 15 your frustration, but there are a couple situations that have most recently occurred, 16 eno ef which is it on Westphalia Road, a couple had wanted to put an addition which is 17 a small bathroom on the back ef their house which came before us. That became a Trustees 18 issue, and we closed the hearing. We were unable then, and we were barred from putting 19 any further information into the hearing based upon that, and we did not know that it was 20 within about 75 feet of tidal water. We thought it was mere than that, well landward, 21 but they did require to get a Trustees determination. I don't know if they get a 22 Trustees permit but they did get a Trustees determination. As you know the Trustees in 23 the past have granted waivers. For the past few years there were no waivers granted, 24 everything is done at a meeting now and that was based upon Counsel's determination. So 25 that's where we are at this point. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Let's hear October 23, 2003 10 1 2 from -- MR. FITZGERALD: So the answer to 3 the question is yes. My question is that if there are wetlands involved and everybody % would agree that that was so, you require that there be an approved Trustee permit before you 5 will finally consider the application for variance? 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Or a letter of nonjurisdictien? 7 MR. FITZGERALD: An approved Trustee finding eno way er the ether. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I have to tell you, Hr. Fitzgerald, and I'll 9 leave it at this point, that is the only way you're going te get a building permit anyway. 10 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 11 the only way you're going te get a building permit anyway. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that, and that, the way the system has worked 13 up until new is we do all this stuff, then we go te the Trustees er the other way around if 1% it works out that way, and the two agencies operate independently because they have 15 independent aseas ef concern. And then we go to the Building Department and they say you 16 got a variance, yes. You get a Trustee permit? Yes; you have a DEC permit? Yes. 17 You have a Health Department permit? Yes. And if all these agencies, including your own, 18 start te say we need te see all the ether permits first, then it becomes impossible. 19 And what about Health Department permits, do you require a Health Department permit first? 20 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: In some cases. It's always subject tea Health 21 Department permit but in some cases. MR. FITZGERALD: Of course the 22 Building Department will.net issue, as you knew, a building permit without all the other 23 necessary permits. So, what finally I will say this 8nd then shut up and sit down, the 24 Trustees area of expertise is wetlands, your area ef expertise -- 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And tidal water. October 23, 2003 11 1 2 MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon me? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And 3 tidal water, and tidal water. It's net limited te wetlands - and tidal water. % MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. The Trustees area of expertise is freshwater 5 wetlands, tidal wetlands, tidal water, low marsh, high marsh, all those good things, 6 that's their business. And up until today, I thought that your business was, in a case like 7 this, area variances, setbacks, let coverage, and items of that sort, amd I don't 8 understand, still, how you're doing anything ether than noting the presence ef the wetlands 9 and saying, hey, you need a Trustee permit. You understand that? 10 VICE CItAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Fitzgerald, it affects our opinion and our 11 decision where we feel the house and/or pool should be located with these wetlands nearby. 12 So you're asking us te make a decision blindly without knowing where they're located. That's 13 not fair to us er anybody else. MR. FITZGERALD: Let me ask you 14 this: If you knew where the wetland line was, if you had the survey in front ef you -- 15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It would help us make a determination. 16 MR. FITZGERALD: Wetlands flagged, what standards would you apply te the location 17 ef the house on the property; hew would you determine what the setback should be from the 18 wetlands line? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think 19 that's why Mr. Goehringer was asking to go te the Trustees. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to take their recommendation, that's 21 what we're going to do, Mr. Fitzgerald. MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to take the Trustees' recommendation. 23 Now, if you would allow me, Mr. Chairman, te finish this up. 24 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Real quick. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. We are dealing with setback situations. They October 23, 2003 12 1 2 are Type 2 actions under SEQRA, and that is our threshold; we cannot go any farther than 3 that. The minute you're talking wetlands, you're talking an unlisted action er the 4 possibility of a long environmental assessment form, which could end up with a Scoping 5 session, which could end up with an Environmental Impact Statement, okay, for a 6 single lot. And that happened, sir, right around the corner from this piece ef property, 7 and that situaEien went on for three years, and we can direct you te that piece of 8 property because exactly the same situation happened, except -- 9 MR. FITZGERALD: You mean the people didn't go to the Trustees first, and as 10 a result of that -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly. 11 And I will directly you personally to that piece of property. The name escapes me at 12 this point, but it went on for three years. What we're trying to do, and we'll leave it at 13 this point, is to say, we want you to get all your approvals, and we just want to knew where 14 the situation fits in, that's what I'm saying. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay. 15 MR. FITZGERALD: After we come back with the Trustee permit, will you then 16 require a Health Department permit? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's 17 subject to, everything is always subject to -- MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Subject to the Health Department approval. 19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else who would like te speak for or 20 against this application? MS. ROSENBLUH: Yes, thank you. 21 Helen Rosenblum, 1287 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York, here on behalf ef the 22 Resakis and other neighbors of this property. First I wanted, if I can approach, 23 I have one original ef our land use survey, I'm getting other originals. I have copies. 24 They're not all that clear. One has been furnished to Mr. Fitzgerald this morning and 25 I'm going to get him an original also. Thank you. If you want copies you can have copies October 23, 2003 13 1 2 but otherwise I'll get you some originals so that everybody has some. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Copies will be fine. 4 MS. ROSENBLUM: Okay, good. The reason I offered the originals is because the 5 aerial is very hard to read. But on the original you can kind of make it up, what he 6 was compelled to do, naturally, was not to go on the property. 7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's dense property, I've been there. 8 MS. ROSENBLUM: First I want to start off by saying that I think personal 9 attacks on my clients with respect to permits that they lawfully obtained from the Town are 10 really inflammatory, and I think they're also irrelevant. I don't know when the permits 11 were issued, but regardless of that, they were obtained and they were issued. Perhaps the 12 Town regulations were different at that time, but whatever it is they met Town code, they 13 get what they needed in the way of permits. They're net linked, se I object te the 14 characterization that they are lately concerned with wetlands. It's absolutely 15 unfair. Mr. Fitzgerald doesn't know my clients. He doesn't know what their thinking 16 is, and it's something that's net proper as far as a method for addressing the Zoning 17 Beard. There are some housekeeping issues 18 that we feel should be addressed. The legal notice that is for this hearing now was based 19 on the original notice of disapproval. It's been amended four times since then, er it's 20 been amended three times since then. That notice ef disapproval referred to property 21 that was in excess ef 13,000 square feet. It had a lot coverage of 11 percent; the let 22 coverage changed. That original eno is what's referenced in the legal notice. I think there 23 have been so many changes in the whole configuration, particularly with respect te 24 the fact that the lot is mew substantially smaller than what was in that original notice 25 ef disapproval. Haybe another legal notice would be appropriate so that the neighbors, October 23, 2003 1 2 additional neighbors are told by the Town that there have been amended notices of disapproval 3 and they have what the current one is. Similarly, I knew Mr. Fitzgerald because he kindly did provide a copy te me ef the drawings o~ the most recent iteration ef 5 this project. They were basically what seems to me net surveys; they were hand drawings ef 6 the revisions to the contours ef the house, which were very unclear. For example, I had 7 thought that the porch was removed, and I didn't knew how you were going te get into the 8 house. In fact, as he just mentioned, the perch was removed because apparently it 9 doesn't count in the building area er in the setback area. I think that people are 10 entitled to have an accurate survey with proper setback, net just something that's 11 drawn in. Regarding the Zoning Beard 12 application, at the time it was originally submitted with the original notice of 13 disapproval ne reierences were made te wetlands. I think that would have te be 14 changed. I think that's become a dominant issue here. I'm sure based upon his 15 information he did what he felt was his best in preparing the application, but I think 16 there is a change new and that should be reflected in the application, which would lead 17 again, I believe, to a more accurate legal notice. 18 Also in the survey, the original survey, the existing flood zone, which I 19 believe there is a flood -- it's in a flood zone, is net mentioned, the elevations are net 20 drawn te the specifications ef the Town code. Ail these things should be in an updated 21 survey. With respect to the wetlands application, I did call the Trustees 22 yesterday, they indicate they received nothing from Mr. Fitzgerald. They de have a copy of 23 ours and have had it for the better part of a month, and we received a notice from them, 24 which you referred to, that there are wetlands. I couldn't express mere - you 25 knew, I defer to what the two of you have basically said, which is the wetlands issue is October 23, 2003 15 1 2 so -- if ~ can paraphrase what you said -- the wetlands issue is se important that I really 3 don't knew hew you can proceed. If yen look at what we submitted, you'll see that the % wetlands take up almost the entire amount ef the property in eno form er another. Either 5 they're trees, and I understand tha~ some ef them are fragmites and I recognize the value 6 ef the fragmites er the lesser value ef the fragmites to the trees, but there axe bands of 7 wetlands that extend almost te the entire amount ef the property. And I don't think you 8 can just disregard it. I don't even know where there would be space en this property te 9 put anything, quite frankly, given what land use has come up with. 10 I think that that is really basically it. I would like to ask, not that 11 it just be adjourned but that really that the process be restarted with a proper legal 12 notice that doesn't reflect a notice of disapproval which has been amended, which is 13 new in its fourth iteration and that a proper survey be submitted with proper elevations and 1% proper information. I think then we'll all know where we're going and what we're dealing 15 with. Thank you very much. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Do you 16 want te comment en that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hr. 17 Fitzgerald has not submitted his report from Mr. Hermann who is agai~ the north fork 18 gentleman who has the expertise from En Consultants. I do knew both En Consultants 19 and I knew Hr. Bowman, and I think what you're going to see is an integration ef the two ef 20 them in reference to their opinion ef where things are. The Trustees are going te be the 21 judges ef that, okay. I could net concur with yen mere that we have to have, and I think 22 that discussion with Mr~ Fitzgerald is that we should direct him to ge to the Trustees at 23 this point, which I think he's going te de, and I think it will be up to the Trustees to 24 direct whatever surveys they may need at this particular point. Okay, thank you. 25 MS. ROSENBLLTM: Thank you. HR. FITZGERALD: It's important, October 23, 2003 16 1 2 HS. Rosenhltm indicated that I was -- implied that I was being nasty by mentioning the 3 previous application, the dates, which were given in my speech for the building permits ~ that were issued te adjacent property owners was such that they were certainly within the 5 time frame when permits for freshwater wetlands were required by the Trustees. My 6 point in mentioning them, as indicated by the comments that I excerpted from the En 7 CoNsultants report, is that it's his opinion that in performing these other operations en 8 adjacent properties, is one of the reasons that these wetlands exist en our property now, 9 and continue to exist, because the property is serving,, in his words, as a catch basin for 10 runoff from all the adjacent properties. And I think the discussion ef previous activities 11 en adjacent properties is Net a mean and nasty thing te put before this Board. 12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes. MS. ROSENBLUH: I just wanted to 13 say one thing here, which is, my clients are geed citizens and i don't think it's relevant 14 why something exists en the subject premises and I'm net accepting his interpretation as te 15 why there are wetlands; what really is relevaut before you is what is. 16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail right, thank you. Open this up te suggestion, but I 17 think we'll leave this open. Adjourn it with no date. 18 HR. FITZGERALD: ' I'm sorry? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: We're 19 going te leave this application open and adjourn it with no date, which means you need 20 to de certain actions with public notices, but I believe you don't have te pay any mere 21 money. You can avoid new payments but since you deu't knew when you're going te get on the 22 ballet with the Trustees, we'll leave it open with ne date. 23 HR. FITZGERALD: I de knew when we get en the agenda with the Trustees. It will 24 be at their November meeting. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Aren't 25 they in a moratorium; how can they make a decision, accept the application? October 23, 2003 17 1 2 MR. FITZGERALD: We will have a decision from the Trustees at their November 3 meeting. So, and I say that only because if you're already filling up the December agenda 4 for the Zoning Board, I would like to be able to get on that, and I have some understanding 5 of how the Trustees work, and the application will be in te them in time for it to be on the 6 November agenda. VICE CN~IIRMAN ORLANDO: So you're 7 comfortable with a December date then? MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just don't know if we have room for you on the 9 December calendar, and that's the problem. So I'm going to suggest to the Chair that we held 10 this ever for a date until the November 6th meeting, and we'll give you a date at the 11 November 6th meeting. MR. FITZGERALD: I would t~ink 12 that we had some sort of BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Priority. 13 MR. FITZGERALD: Preemptive power in getting on your December agenda. 14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Well, unfortunately_we're light with staff, and our 15 secretary who knows all the magical answers has called in sick today. Se we're kind ef 16 behind the eight ball with answers te that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you 17 knew, she's very rarely sick and she makes every meeting. So we're just asking you, 18 we'll call you with a date er you can call us on the 7th. 19 MR. FITZGERALD: Linda won't be back until then? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need te make a motion, Hr. Fitzgerald, and the only 21 time we're going te have another tribumal is en the 6th ef November. 22 MR. FITZGERALD: You have to put things en the agenda on the basis efa 23 tribunal? VICE CHAIRNLA~ ORLANDO: Correct. 2% BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can't call, in a hurricane we can call, but thank 25 God this hasn't happened this year. VICE CHAIRMA~ ORLANDO: Se how do October 23, 2003 18 1 2 you want te adjourn this? BOARD HEHB~R GOEHRINGER: Adjourn 3 this te November 6tn at the request of the agent for the applicant, James Fitzgerald. 4 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I make a motion to adjourn this te November 6th, 5 special meeting. BOARD M~MBER GOE~RINGER: Second. 6 VIC~ CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in favor? 7 (~hereupon, all Board Members present responded in favor.) VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next 10 Application 5221, Denn, Daniel Denn, anyone? Se make a motion te adjourn this 11 with ne date. Hake a motion te adjourn Application 5221 at this time with ne date. 12 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 13 favor? {Whereupon, all Board Members 14 present responded in favor.) 16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next Application 5375, Pasbach. Is there anyone 17 here representing? Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main 18 Road, Cutchegue, New York for the applicant. On this adjourned hearing we're 19 here for two purposes today, one to approve the proposed revised bedroom plan which has 20 been submitted to you by the architect, Meryl Kramer, and the issue there is on the 21 variance, applicants variance for lot coverage. The second issue that we have here 22 today is to obtain approval of the existing deck on the rear of the premises so that the 23 building department will be in a position to issue what they claim is a CO necessary for 24 same. Okay, now on the first issue Meryl 25 Kramer, who's here today if you have any questions of her, submitted a revised plan October 23, 2003 19 1 2 which has two major changes on it from the original plan that I had. The proposed 3 bedroom now as proposed is 151.8 square feet; the original one was for 197, so yon have a 4 reduction of 45.2 square feet with the elimination of the four foot side yard which 5 was in the original one. This is now strictly on the front, that's the major thing there. 6 The other change on her revised is the size ef the existing deck. It's proposed 7 to eliminate that rather elaborate landing/stair complex that was originally 8 built there and replace it with a simple set ef stairs for access, which reduces the square 9 foot of the deck by 81 square feet, you'll see that in the calculations. 10 The confusion that existed at the last hearing between what the architect had 11 proposed and percentage of let coverage with what was the Building Department I believe now 12 has been rectified. Miss Kramer spent a let of time with the Building Department, and they 13 have issued an amended eno, I think the one that is October 16th is the one before you 14 that has all ef the correct percentages. And they have been agreed by beth the architect 15 and the Building Department. Basically, one of the discussions at the last hearing was the 16 size of the let. They have new all agreed that it's 50 by 175. The 175 is not as to the 17 deed, but they cut it elf at the bulkhead because that's the de facto water line, the 18 high water mark. Se we have now a definitive size ef the let, it's 8,750 square feet. 19 As I understand it, the improvement en the property is presently 20 located as everything that is situated there today is 26.7~ that's preexisting, it's there; 21 and with the proposed changes that I just reiterated te you or explained te you it will 22 be 27.58 er a .78 percent increase, and that's what the application boils down te as te the 23 issue ef let coverage. Okay, en let coverage? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only 24 thing I think yen made a mistake en yen are still measuring te the high water mark. 25 MR. LARK: No. MS. KRAHER: Yes. October 23, 2003 20 1 2 MR. LARK: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have 3 to be because it would be more than that if you didn't. 4 MR. LARK: It would be more square footage? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Correct. MS. KRAMER: Excuse me, we are at 6 the high water mark. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They're 7 one and the same? MR. LARK: Ne, ne, there's ne 8 confusion. They're one and the same, the bulkhead is the high water mark, and that has 9 been -- also we checked with the assessors as to how they assessed and the square footage of 10 all the lots down there and that's what they're using. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But does the property line protrude past the bulkhead 12 into -- MR. LARK: In theory yes, in 13 practicalities no, Mr. Goehringer. BO~D MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At one 14 time it did, and I'll explain that when we get to the next issue en the deck. 15 BOARD HBMBER GOEHRINGER: It's very interesting te us because that's been an 16 issue that's been brought up for ions. MR. LARK: And I can assure you, 17 with Mr. Fasbach I personally checked it after he did it with the assessors, and the de facto 18 high water mark as we exist today along that whole set of properties is the bulkhead as it 19 turns out. The one time it was net, but it is today. As you knew, it can come and ge. 20 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why they use the word '~mean.~' 21 MR. LARK: True enough. On the second issne I brought with 22 me today Linda Spangle. Her name was used en the prier hearing because she's a real estate 23 broker and the person who represented the applicant when they purchased the property in 24 19 -- December of 1997. And when the issue of the deck and the bulkhead and all of that came 25 up, it was Mrs. Spangle who obtained the grandfathered permit from the Board of October 23, 2003 21 1 2 Trustees. And the main reason for that was to clari~y the issues ©n the bulkhead and also 3 the replacement deck which was placed there by the prier owner, Hr. Larry Hitchell and as I 4 told you before that had previously been destroyed in that storm, the late '78, '?9 5 storm, and he replaced it with the deck that's existing tNere today. When the issue came up 6 back in '9? when the title closed te the present applicant, Hrs. Spangle had pictures I that she obtained from the prior owner that what was there before the storm and what was 8 there after. When she went te the Building Department, she's here te give you experience, 9 she was told at the time because the question came ~p~ where is the CO for the property, and 10 they produced a preexisting CO, and the building inspector, as I understand it, went 11 to the property and inspected it and said you must get a Trustees permit. Because 12 apparently what had happened in the storm, Mr. Mitchell, as well as the adjacent owners, 13 when they replaced the bulkhead, things get destroyed there, and when they replaced it, 14 they raised it. That explains te me today why the high water mark is where it is. The mean 15 ~igh water mark is where it is today at the edge ef the bulkhead. When they raised 16 everything because before, previously, the mean Nigh water mark was a little out; in 17 other words, there was a little beach there at eno time which is net there today. At that 18 time he had the person who repaired the bulkhead raising it also put the deck in, 19 that's why you see the spiels there that are there, they use the same material te build it 20 se that it would stand the test of time which apparently -- 21 After she obtained the Trustees permit, she get a grandfathered Trustees 22 permit, she went back to the Building Department and the building inspector at the 23 time - she'll tell you her experience - told her that she didn't need anything. It was a 24 replacement deck, she had the Trustees grandfather permit, that was enough. The 25 preexisting CO covered everything, and he, in fact, inspected it, and se that's the reason October 23, 2003 22 1 2 that the title closed on the preexisting CO as it was. 3 Linda, I think they need to know exactly what happened, se if yen would tell 4 them. MS. SPANGLE: My name is Linda Lee 5 Spangle, and I reside at 1500 Brekneck Road in Greenport. 6 At the time ef the purchase I was associated with Harm Realty as an associate 7 broker. I represented the seller; I was the seller's broker, which was Mr. Lawrence 8 Mitchell. In researching it and getting the 9 sale prepared, I did find there was net among Mr. Mitchell's papers that we could find any 10 CO or any documentation ether than pictures, which did show the deck before and after the 11 storm. The pictures were very detailed in that, in these days en the back ef the 12 picture, the film developer actually digitally embossed the date. So I was very confident 13 with that. Then I proceeded with the pictures to come here to the Building Department, and 14 they subsequently made an inspection. Mr. Lark has -- and I'm sure you do have - a 15 copy of the grandfathered CO. Then I was told te proceed to the Trustees, which I did, and 16 Jill Thorp, new Dougherty, was very instrumental in helping me with all ef this, 17 and subsequently they obtained for me with all the documentation I prepared, the permit that 18 Mr. Lark has. Then nextly I was advised by the 19 Trustees to go back to the Building Department. The Building Department then made 20 another inspection, and said, under this scenario, no further documentation would be 21 required, conveyance of title in their opinion could proceed, which it did. Any questions? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who was the building inspector at that time; do you 23 remember? MS. SPANGLE: Ail of this 24 naturally is to the best of my recollection because it did occur prior to the closing in 25 1997, I believe it was John Boufis. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank October 23, 2003 23 1 2 you. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank 3 you. MR. LARK: I hope that clarifies 4 all the questions that the Board had. I think you have everything necessary to make your 5 decision, and, of course, I respectfully request that you grant approval ef the 6 variances as amended as applied for because I de believe they meet the balancing factors as 7 required by the statute, and we discussed all ef these the last time. I have the architect 8 here and Mrs. Fasbach is here, who appeared before you last time. So if the Board has any 9 questions, that's fine. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any 10 questions, Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: Of whom? 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Lark. Again, en this as-built deck, did you say it 12 was rebuilt in 19797 MR. LARK: Yes. 13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: After the storm? 14 MR. LARK: After the storm. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And it's 15 been there ever since? MR. LARK: Yes. As you see it 16 today is how it was constructed at that point during that '79, '80, that time frame. 17 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: HOW about the existing brick patio, that's not 18 considered existing let coverage? MR. LARK: Ne. 19 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: O~ this diagram here, is the existing as-built deck 20 within 20 feet ef the bulkhead; is that right as stated in the notice of disapproval? 21 MR. LARK: Yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What are 22 the dimensions en the existing brick patio? HR. LARK: The one that's on the 23 land? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Just in 2% front of the bulkhead. MR. LARK: Right, I don't know. 25 Heryl, do you know? MS. KRAMER: I don't have the October 23, 2003 24 1 2 dimensions on the drawing. MR. LARK: The building inspector 3 told her specifically te leave them off. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that 4 right? MR. LARK: Yeah, because that's 5 what led to some of the confusion before. It's right en the surface there. 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Geehringer? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: Mr. Lark, regardless of where the property lines ge and 8 so on a~d so forth, if the Board is so inclined te grant this application, you are 9 telling me that it is 7.58 percent ever the 20 percent let coverage with these modifications 10 of the 81 square feet, and the change of the back ef your property; is that correct se we 11 are at 27.58? MR. LARK: As proposed. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As proposed at this time with the modifications 13 of 81 square feet and the change ef moving the addition te the rear ef the property that you 14 so clearly state? MR. LARK: Yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's geed, which is a let better than the 30 16 something? MR. LARK: Right. With all that 17 confusion, we got it all straightened out. So when it all boiled down to it, that's what it 18 came back as. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what 19 you're saying is that this meeting was extremely fruitful to all of us because 20 somehow seven percent has been gene away with, extinguished? 21 MR. LARK: Right. That's why I said, Miss Kramer, to her credit, went ever, 22 detailed everything and then went ever details with the Building Department, just so that 23 everybody would be en the same page because that was the problem. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Kudos for her. October 23, 2003 25 1 2 Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for er 3 against this application? I'll make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. % BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. VICE CNAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 5 favor? {Whereupon, all Board Hembers 6 present responded in favor.) VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, 7 have a great day. 8 VICE CHAIRMAi{ ORLANDO: Next application, William and Mary DeBruin, is 10 5%0%, DeBruins, 2570 Pine Tree Road. Yes, sir, please continue. 11 MR. DEBRUIN: My name is Bill DeBruin, I'm the applicant. I have my wife 12 Maryanne here who is the coapplicant. Hy address is 34 willis Avenue, Mineela, 11501. 13 We're appealing from a determination of the Building Department 1% rejecting an application to build two dormers in the front of the house, two small gable 15 dormers, and extend the shed dormer in the rear of the house. Rejection was based upon 16 the fact that e~r southerly side yard house is less than 15 feet. The property was 17 originally acquired by my father in August of 1971. There's a survey, an eld survey around i8 the same date, which shows the property as it existed then and exists new. 19 The house was constructed sometime around 19%0 in its present position. The 20 upstairs, where we're going to build the dormer, is one and a half story consists of 21 three existing bedrooms and a bathroom. The dormers are going to provide light, air and 22 additional floor area to those bedrooms. The dormers will not extend beyond the present 23 height ef the dwelling, nor will it extend beyond the present side yard of the dwelling, 24 in fact, it will be setback somewhat. The development, the improvement 25 is residential in character. The house is used by myself and my wife and family and our October 23, 2003 26 1 2 children and grandchildren. The purpose of the construction is te afford mere comfort and 3 area for our children and grandchildren. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: One quick % question I just want to clarify. You're saying your additions will not increase your 5 nonconforming side yard and will net be any higher than your existing ridge new? 6 MR. DEBRUIN: That's correct. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is that 7 correct? Ne further questions. Mr. Goehringer. 8 BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, I met with your wife and grandchild that 9 day and I don't have any questions. I k~ow exactly what's going on, and I don't have any 10 questions. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. 11 Homing? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you 12 tell us the actual recessed dimension ef the dormers from the footprint? 13 MR. DE,RUIN: The rear dormer is going te be about one te eno and a half feet 14 inward from the side line en the southerly side. On the plot plan the normal extension 15 of the rear dormer is shown to extend to the side yard, but the architect has convinced 16 us to pull it back te the same eno to eno and a half feet, he says to give the cottage leek 17 te the dormer. The front dormers will be probably about three feet in from the 18 sidelines on both sides. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay, thank 19 you. VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: Let's see 20 if there's anybody else here who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing 21 no hands, I'll close this case and reserve decision. 22 MR. DEBRUIN: Thank you. I have some receipts te file. 23 VICE CHAIRNUkN ORLANDO: Yes, please. 24 MR. DEBRUIN: Should I take them to the office? 25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You can bring them up. October 23, 2003 2I 1 2 MR. DEBRUIN: And an affidavit ef postage and a stamped envelope. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do I have a second? 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 5 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 6 present responded in favor.) ~ .................................................... 8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next Application 5413, Metres and Callaghan. 9 MS. STEELMAN: Good Job. ~i, my name is Nancy Steelman, an architect 10 representing my clients, Patrick and Lisa. I think you have a pretty geed 11 sense of what we're doing here. They have just recently in the last six months bought 12 this property known as Johnny's Car Hop, and have been trying to get this up and running. 13 They're basically going te be using it as a restaurant, but as part ef what they want to 14 do with a restaurant they needed to add two things, three things actually. They needed a 15 cooler area adjacent te the kitchen for refrigeration. The space is really small and 16 the only way you accomplish the space would be able te de something en the exterior. The 17 ether thing that we have done is there was an original Bilce deer down into the basement and 18 because we're using it for storage we're required te put in a basement stair, and the 19 Health Department has also required us te have a covered roof structure over that stair. So 20 that is eno ef their requirements, but it also affects where we are in terms of the setbacks 21 in that area. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: I noticed 22 really quick you're net extending beyond the original footprint, correct? 23 HS. STEELMAN: Only with the cooler and the basement stair, yes, we 24 actually are. If you leek en the blueprint. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Those 25 MS. STEELMAN: Right. Then there's a basement stair adjacent and there's October 23, 2003 28 1 2 a reef structure above that which is encroaching into that setback. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You can put the dumpster in there. 4 MS. STEELMAN: Yes. So, that's basically what we're doing. I think that the 5 issue here is that we really have two front yards, and the Building Department has 6 interpreted this being the side yard because the building is backed far from the street and 7 that's their interpretation. And, as a result, they have a 20 feet setback off that 8 property line, and you know, this was with a space that we needed -- I mean, in our mind 9 that's the rear of the building and to put any coolers er anything else in any other area 10 either on Hortons or en the North Road, didn't make any sense. 11 So we're really looking for relief te put it in that back section and not have it 12 on the read. VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: That's 13 Jakanewitz, isn't that Lucas Ford right behind you? 14 MS. STEELMAN: That's Lucas Ford right behind me. Now the adjacent property is 15 zoned business or limited business and then Ford's also business. Se it's not a 16 residential area. That property's not residential that's adjacent te us. 17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any questions from Board members, Mr. Homing? 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. 19 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 20 question I have is has the Planning Board looked at this at all? 21 MS. STEELMAN: Yes. Actually they have submitted a letter to you. Do you have 22 that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. Is 23 there any reason that the walk-in cooler has to be placed to such closeness to the property 24 line, can't it be somehow -- MS. STEELMAN: We tried to but the 25 basement stair is requiring a certain run down the area, you can see the length of that October 23, 2003 29 1 2 stair, and then there's access into the kitchen. There's a small steep, and it's the 3 only stoop that we can fit, it's really the remaining portion, it's also directly off the 4 kitchen. There's a door off that cooler from the kitchen. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The ether question I have is what kind ef drone 6 comes from the fan of that? MS. STEELMAN: I think Patrick and 7 Lisa, they have a brochure to give you an idea of what it will look like. 8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's net Johnny's anymore? 9 MS. STEELMAN: No, it's not Johnny's, North Perk Food, actually. 10 MR. METTES: It's a pretty traditional galvanized walk-in cooler. I 11 don't know what the DB output ef that fan is, but it will generate -- it's not a diesel 12 meter, it's net going te generate that much noise, but there will, in fact, be some sound 13 coming off that electric meter that drives the compressor. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHNINGER: I think we need your name for the record. 15 MR. METTES: Patrick Mattes, and I reside at 4505 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse 17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you 18 contact the manufacturer and ask him or her hew noisy that unit is? There is a house next 19 door, and regardless it's not conforming, there is a house next deer, and that's one of 20 the concerns that we have. And I know they have updated these things to such a point that 21 it's nothing really te worry about but we've gone up to LIPA plants in Hicksviile te listen 22 te drones ef certain things. MR. METTES: I do knew this is 23 information via my engineer that they blimp these motors with insulation te de just that, 24 to try to cut down en sound 'cause they knew often these things are in residential areas er 25 in places where, in New York City let's say, where apartment buildings are going te hear October 23, 2003 3O 1 2 them. I know they construct them to try to keep that sound down as much as possible. I 3 can ask my engineer, possibly that information is in this brochure. I don't know though. % BOARD ~EMBER GOERRING~R: You can also ask them if they have supplied anybody on 5 the Island with those, that ~as been very successful. 6 I don't have any objection to anything else ether than that concern, again, 7 for the non-conforming ~ouse. The dumpster has to be placed in that location? 8 MS. ST~EL~AN: We're trying keep the dumpster away from the street, away from 9 the public, the parking area's right there, and we're just trying te get it i~to the back, 10 most accessible to the kitchen and into the work space off that doer that goes into the 11 back section there HR. HETTES: The previous owner 12 did have it actually out in the parking lot new, and when you would drive by there's the 13 dumpster. We're trying te aesthetically - BOARD HEM~ER GOE~RING~R: ~ow big 1% is that dumpster, is it like a six? HR. METTES: It will be small, 15 fundamentally what was there before. ~OARD HEM~ER GOE~RING~R: Okay, we 16 wish you good luck. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: The 17 walk-in cooler, obviously that's for long term supplies and obviously ~ehnny's didn't need 18 something to that effect? HR. METTES: It's not long term. 19 It's daily use. Johnny's kitchen is pretty small. 20 VICE CHAIRF~N ORLANDO: It was a fast-food type hamburger joint? 21 MR. HETTES: Exactly. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And you're 22 doing mere efa sit down -- HR. METTES: A little bit finer 23 food, and the Building Department is requiring that we have two full-sized handicapped 2~ rest~oems, and given the footprint of the building, it's pretty stingy with what real 25 estate is left te de business, if you will, and in order te satisfy the Health Department October 23, 2003 31 1 2 and just te be smart about safe food handling and such, this seems te be the best solution. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: This is the smallest walk-in cooler that will satisfy 4 your needs? HR. METTES: It is. Of course, I 5 would like the smallest possible because the bigger they are the more expensive they are te 6 run. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank yen, 7 ne other questions. MS. STEELMAN: Would you like this 8 brochure? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 9 And if you could furnish us with that information by the end ef next week, because, 10 as you know, we run in sequence, and the special meeting is en November 6th, we'd like 1! to have that information. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Will you 12 have te walk outside te access this cooler? MR. METTES: The doer will swing 13 into the cooler from the kitchen. MS. STEELMAN: But it's direct 14 access. We really wanted te maintain it. That's why it's located where it's at. 15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else that would like te speak for er 16 against this application? I see ne hands. We'll close this hearing and reserve decision. 17 Thank you. Second. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in favor. 19 (Whereupon, all Beard Members present responded in favor.) 2O 21 VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: Next 22 Application 5410, A. and S. Waggoner? MR. WAGGONEN: Yes. 23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLAi{DO: It is Waggoner? 2% MR. WAGGONER: I've been called Wagoneer, worse things. 25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What would you like to tell ns today? October 23, 2003 32 1 2 MR~ DRINKWINE: We would like te put a dormer en tap efa garage 3 Hr. Waggoner's property. The existing setback is 4%.6 feet, and I guess under the new cede 4 they want a 40 foot setback. We were not leaking te ge past into what he already has 5 into the rear yard, which is a setback ef 36.5 feet~ we're just going on top, above. And the 6 difference ef three foot, three feet seven inches. We received a denial far the building 7 permit. We did get a proper DEC jurisdiction. There was nonjurisdiction there and the Town 8 of Trustees approval, so this would be the only stumbling black we have. 9 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: If yen could do me a favor and give me a little 10 history en this property. There's twa dwellings on this property. 11 HR. WAGGONER: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: One's 12 vacant and it's net a liveable condition that I saw; no one lives there Now? 13 HR. WAGGONER: Ne. That's basically, I use that far storage. That, 14 believe was the original house on the property. Hy wife inherited the house in I 15 believe '87 er the twa houses, from her grandparents, and that was the original house 16 en the property. Her grandfather, I think in 1954 built the 1,695; the ether one had been 17 rented years age, then the foundation and everything went bad, se I put a new foundation 18 under it, new main beam, then had a heart attack, and it's been gutted and just sitting 19 now. I mean it's used as a shed. There's ne heat, ne water, no anything right now. I 20 mean, my plans for the future te make it leek nice and use it as a shed er if I get the 21 money, knock it down. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: The 22 primary dwelling you have a started foundation? 23 MR. WAGGONER: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is that 24 part ef your drawing here to be built MR. DRINKWINE: Correct, we just 25 wanted to go above where that eld garage is. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I didn'~ October 23, 2003 33 1 2 see it~ oh} the garage that was torn down. MR. DRINKWINE: That's a little 3 bit of a hazard situation, I guess that was the foundation but it bowed and swayed and 4 bent out so the garage we didn't feel was stable te de any type ef project on that. So 5 we tore that down and want te build again over the same footprint. So we're net looking to 6 expand rear er side from what was existing. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: This is 7 going te be a two story? MR. DRINKWINE: Over the garage 8 and eno above it. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the 9 rest of the existing house is going te stay? MR. DRINKWINE: Correct. That's 10 going to stay as is. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: When you 11 say dormer, is that one ef those small little dog house dormers you're going te put up 12 there? MR. DRINKWINE: Well, the 13 illustration here, there's the existing house now, which is the garage, we're going up 14 above. MR. WAGGONER: De you want iS BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we have a copy ef that? I didn't see it. Thank 16 you very much. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Se you're 17 going to move some ef that foundation or is that foundation now at grade te drive in for 18 the garage? MR. DRINKWINE: Correct. 19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So a portion ef that will be garage and a portion 20 will be living space, and up above you're going te have three bedrooms and a bath and a 21 laundry cove. Let's see if there's any questions 22 from the rest of the Beard Members, Mr. Herning. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Where's the stairwell that's proposed te be up te the 24 second fleer? MR. DRINKWINE: The stairwell will 25 be on the south side; do you have an illustration there? October 23, 2003 34 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wu'il 3 take it back. MR. WAGGONER: (Handing). % VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: De you want Mr. Geehringer to ge? 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any other questions. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going with Optien 2 that Mr. Waggoner just 7 gave me? MR. DRINKWINE: Yes. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the reasons for the two front doors? 9 MR. DRINKWINE: The one that's existing, obviously that's the one that's 10 utilized now. The other one is going into the heated living room space, on the first floor, 11 like a family room. So you can enter that way as well. Then the staircase going up, whSch 12 will then lead to three bedrooms, bath and laundry cove, which they are in desperate need 13 of the space for the family. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: This wen't 14 be a two-family dwelling then? MR. DRINKWINE: Ne, definitely 15 net. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Se, 16 upstairs is living, dewnstairs is the family den? 17 MR. DRINKWINE: If yeu leek at the seuth side here, that will be a family reom 18 heated, that will be a garage he can utilize. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And to 19 reiterate, we're not geing beyond the eriginal foetprint of that heuse? 20 MR. DRINKWINE: Correct. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any 21 questiens? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ne. 22 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I live in Mattituck se I knew the heuse. I've seen 23 the house fur years. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Anybedy 24 else in the audience like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands, 25 we'll close this hearing and reserve decision. Second. Octeber 23, 2003 35 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. VICE CHAIRNAA~ ORLANDO: All in 3 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Hembers 4 responded in favor.) 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next hearing Application 5403, Parker Wickham. 7 HS. HARRELL: Good morning, Diane Harrell for Parker Wickham. This is a 8 property that's at the end of Marituck Point. It's second te the last from the end. Some of 9 these Beard Members are pretty familiar with that area because I've been before this Beard 10 before. Right new the house is below the 11 required PE~A regulations, and it's on a questionable foundation. Mr. wickham would 12 like te move the house off the existing foundation, replace the piles and return the 13 house te the exact same location. I'm assuming that the Building 14 Department denied my request because we asked if necessary we would rebuild the existing 15 deck te the exact same size that they are new. We will be complying. We'll be using the 16 existing sanitary system, and I do have a Board of Trustees permit for this project. 17 VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Is that in your file? Did you submit that with your 18 application? MS. PL~RRELL: I might not have. I 19 can make a copy; I do have it with me, or if you'd like to see it. 20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'm sorry, we have it right here. Permit number 5707? 21 MS. HARRELL: Yes, 5707. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay, we 22 have that. I was over there, nice location. 23 I spent some time en the beach walking around. 2% MS. HARRELL: Beautiful, isn't it? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think 26 it's a gallant effort, risky effort because you're moving the house closer to the water. October 23, 2003 36 1 2 MS. HARRELL: We're not moving it. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Well, temporarily. 4 MS. HARRELL: Temporarily. Actually, if the weather is bad we'll be 5 moving it to the west. We just discussed it with the building mover, who also happens to 6 be my husband, and he said if there are storms they won't be moving it south. They're moving 7 it slightly west. VICE CPL~IRHAN ORLANDO: When does 8 this plan on -- MS. HARRELL: As soon as you give 9 me a building permit. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Se you're 10 going to risk it? MS. HARRELL: We'd like to de it i1 out ef season. If you've been down there when it's seasonal, there are a lot of kids there, 12 a let of people around. The Parkers asked us te de it in the off season. 13 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You may get away with it. The north wind's coming 14 around instead ef the south wind. MS. HARRELL: I don't think it 15 will be a problem. We'll take our time. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: I saw the 16 plans for the footings -- MS. HARRELL: The pilings. 17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The pilings, your husband is going te be pulling 18 out the eld ones or just putting in the New ones? 19 MS. ~ARRELL: Definitely take out the old ones. There's nothing there. Rambe 20 will be doing the pilings. We've already contracted with them. 21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And everything's going exactly the way it was. 22 MS. HARRELL: Yes, everything should be the way it is now. 23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So that next year when we ge back -- 24 HS. HARRELL: The decks might be 25 VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: New CCA pilings? October 23, 2003 37 1 2 HS. HARRELL: And the building will be higher. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hew much higher? 4 MS. HARRELL: About two feet. It's comparable te all the ether houses I've 5 done down there. Giacene is at their elevation, Powers, they're not that high above 6 the ground. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO About the 7 height ef Colic? MS. HARRELL: Celic's that's 8 higher. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Utilities ~ will be where? MS. HARRELL: They will stay 10 exactly the way they are. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: On the 11 first fleer? MS. HARRELL: There's only one 12 floor. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the 13 reason why you're here is because you're moving it and putting it back the way it was. 14 MS. HARRELL: I'm here because I got a denial. 15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's still nonconforming. 16 MS. HARRELL: It will always be nonconforming, everything down there is 17 nonconforming. I've been before this Beard for probably four other projects for that 18 area. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I guess if 19 we requested te move it closer to the water it would be detrimental to the survival of the 20 beach -- HS. HARRELL: This Board has 21 never given me permission; they've always made me move it farther away from te the water. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Either one of the right of way down below it? 23 MS. HARRELL: I was thinking Powers. Powers was in the water~ and we 24 worked it out with all of the Beards that we would bring it hack same distance from the 26 road. Basically, this house will be the same distance from the read as all the other October 23, 2003 38 1 2 houses, in fact, some of them are closer. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's not a 3 very populated, traveled road, I'm sure. HS. NARRELL: Ne. And I don't 4 think it stays in exactly the same spot. So I can't say exactly hew many feet I need. 5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Member Herning, any questions? 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How many adjacent property owners besides this one have 7 access te the traveled read? MS. HARREhL: Oh, the read, well, 8 there are a number of houses on the road, but Celic's is the only one passing this house. 9 VICE CHAIRMtkN ORLANDO: Mr. Geehringer. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHNINGER: I knew Parker Wickham very well, I've been te the 11 house several times, and I, of course again, inspecting it and the colics very well. I 12 have no objection te it. I think it's a positive step in the permanent procurement of 13 this structure. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Preventive 14 maintenance. MS. HARRELL: Exactly what it is. 15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail right, we'll see if there's anyone in the audience 16 for er against this application. Leaking at the only person, he's not raising his hand, 17 we'll close this hearing and reserve decision. 18 MS. HARRELL: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second. 19 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. VICE CHAIRNL~N ORLANDO: Ail in 20 favor? (Whereupon, all the Board Hembers 21 responded in favor.) VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, 22 have a nice day. That concludes our morning agenda. 23 I'll make a motion to adjourn recenvening at 1:00 p.m. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. ViCE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 25 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members October 23, 2003 39 1 2 responded in favor, and a lunch recess was taken.) 3 4 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'd like 5 te make a motion te recenvene the public hearing? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOE~RING~R: So moved. 7 VICE C~AIRMAN ORLANDO: Second. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'll 8 second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 9 favor? (~hereupen, all Members ef the 10 Board responded in favor.) 12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Application 5357, Omnipoint has faxed us a letter 13 requested an adjournment te December 18th. don't knew if there's people here for that 14 hearing, but they asked for an adjournment to December 18th at 1:00 p.m. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Should we grant them that? 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I'm in favor of that. 17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Se I'll make a motion to adjourn that. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Ail in 19 favor. AUDIENCE MEMBER: ~¥heu it comes to 20 that date, do we have a right to make an adjournment also? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If yen have a compelling reason. 22 MR. BUFARD: And if I have reason I can have an adjournment also? 23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You can request an adjournment, yes, you can, sir. Is 24 Pignate and Regina in the audience yet? MR. BUPARD: What was the date 25 again? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: December October 23, 2003 40 1 2 18th. HR. BUPARD: December lSth? 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes. Next hearing Application 5%15, 4 Pignato and Regina. Is there someone here who would like to speak? 5 MS. MOORE: Helle. It's a men's club here today. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're lucky we're here. 7 VICE CRAIRMAN ORLANDO: To bring you up to speed, you weren't here in the 8 morning session. Linda called in and the newly appointed chairperson is not here 9 today. MS. MOORE: That's a good start. 10 We have a quorum. VICE C~AIRMAN ORLANDO: Se i,m 11 acting as vice chairperson. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: However, 12 we have a big agenda here today. MS. MOORE: De you? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, we do. 14 MS. MOORE: Want me to move along? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. 15 MS. MOORE: Enough of the niceties. 16 This was a piece of property that was developed some time ago, and it had a 17 common driveway for this parcel as well as the back parcel and two ethers, one to the right 18 and eno behind it. At one point in time Ms. Pignate and - the two owners had te 19 expand the house for one of the family members who is elderly. Se they used what was the 20 garage space as expanded living quarters for the ill family member, and they left 21 themselves without a garage. Se what they have proposed is a 22 garage which conforms with a rear yard setback of ten feet, but because this is a common 23 driveway it's being allocated a front yard setback from the right ef way. 24 We had proposed a 50 foot setback from the originally proposed driveway, and I 25 would like te point out that the neighbors, we've welcomed their comments, we've asked for October 23, 2003 1 2 their commeRts, and actually it was a cooperative venture between all of the 3 neighbors to relocate this driveway from its original position, kind ef centered in the % property to its now centered position on the east side ef the property. 5 What the neighbor in the back did, and I'm going to give you a survey, which is 6 actually hot ef the press and we don't even have a measurement because John Metzgar went 7 out and got it to me today. BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Just one, 8 missing eno copy. MS. MOORE: Nell, right now we're 9 going to need measurements, and I didn't knew what the ultimate decision of the Board would 10 be. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Actually 11 when I was out there yesterday~ they were surveying. 12 MS. HOORE: Yeah, well, we had it surveyed. Well, obviously t~e position ef the 13 garage is the same. The new survey was based en where it shows Plot 1, that property owner 14 in the corner. The property owner in the corner asked that the access te the property 15 that on this survey says May Watson, which is net actually the owner now, it's someone else 16 who sent the letter, they wanted - if I could approach, it will just be easier. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. MOORE: The original survey 18 has a straight line going out with an overlap en Plot 1. Plot 1 asked that this overlap net 19 occur, that this property owner get access via through the Pignato property rather than 20 encumbering his. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: He didn't 21 want it on his? MS. MOORE: He didn't want the 22 other neighbor getting access on his property, which is understandable. 23 BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Right new they ge in the center of that one lot? 24 MS. MOORE: No, actually. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This right 25 here (indicating). MS. MOORE: No, look at the other October 23, 2003 1 2 map. That eno actually has ended. This map was the original read that at the time the 3 surveyor went out there, the read was still there. In that time the driveway has been 4 relocated. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Has been, 5 not proposed? MS. MOORE: No, physically, the 6 actual driveway has been physically moved to the east side of the property, and that's why 7 that survey there is more helpful because it shows where the actual improvements have 8 fallen. What they did is they moved the 9 driveway, since everyone was in agreement, and they relocated it over to the east side of the 10 property. Now you see that it actually comes outside of the property line and that's 11 because there are some mature tulip trees, very beautiful trees that they wanted to 12 preserve. So the contractor suggested a more aesthetically pleasing driveway, for a title 13 company, we'll have to deal with those issues later, but Nonetheless everyone was in 14 agreement on -- all the neighbors were in agreement ef the placement of the new 15 driveway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does 16 that then put the driveway closer than the 50 feet? 17 MS. MOORE: That's one ef the issues -- no, let me start, the right ef the 18 way originally had -- the driveway itself was opened up te give access directly. Then I 19 asked the surveyor, please draw it as it should be, which is giving this property owner 20 exclusive use ef the access into his property, and giving the westerly property owner, the 21 rear property owner access directly from the right of way. 22 So, yes, the line changed now, at the request of eno ef the neighbors. Se after 23 the application was submitted te this Beard, get a call from the neighbor who said, listen, 24 I don't have a problem with this, but I wan~ you to change the right of way se it gives 25 access to the neighbor in the rear without going ever my property. Okay, we try te October 23, 2003 %3 1 2 accommodate for cooperation, we made the change. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You need te change the application then? 4 MS. MOORE: No, because once it's here, we can amend -- well, you can make the 5 distance whatever you think is appropriate. We can push it back se it's 50 feet, but 6 ultimately we're talking about -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why 7 don't you give us the measurement? MS. MOORE: Because John Metzgar 8 couldn't get it te me en time. I can call it in or I can have a final version, but this 9 came in today, as I said. So I did not have a chance -- we can call it in er give you a 10 measurement. Actually, I can have John write it on the seven prints that would be helpful 11 te this Beard. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This little 12 insert here, is that - MS. MOORE: That's an existing 13 driveway, bluestone. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will that 1% remain that way; is that going to be this driveway for this proposed garage? 15 MS. MOORE: I don't knew where the driveway's ultimately going te end up. Right 16 now it's a temporary driveway next to the house, there is a driveway like a bluestone or 17 some rocks, that are used to give access to where the cars parked over by the house. So 18 it's temporary right now, that area is going to be disturbed when the garage is built. Se 19 I don't knew where the actual entranceway is for the actual garage. 20 BOARD HEHBER HORNiNG: Does it have to be a 50 yard setback? 21 MS. MOORE: Well, we could, if we pushed this garage back somewhat, but my 22 concern is if we push it back, which, I think this measurement might be another 15 feet, the 23 difference between the old measurement and the new measurement may be in the range ef 15 24 feet, we may be pushing it under some LIPA wires, and that could be a dangerous 25 condition. Se I had some physical limitations of pushing the garage too far back. October 23, 2003 44 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Did it go through the old driveway area? 3 MS. MOORE: Yeah. The wires and the poles were at their eld location, there's 4 a gas line underground, which I presume would have gone under the eld read as well. They're 5 not shown here because the surveyor has no knowledge. 6 VICE C~AIRMAN ORLANDO: The notice of disapproval says you're located in the 7 front yard. I don't knew if they can get out of the front yard with this right ef way 8 surrounding the house. MS. MOORE: No. They call the 9 right of way a front yard. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That's 10 what I'm saying, you cannot relocate this garage; 90 percent of this property is 11 surrounded by front yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Three 12 front yards. MS. MOORE: Right. If you look at 13 the right of way behind us, you have three and a half. So we are physically constrained by 14 roadways, everything is a front yard here. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's not 15 number-wise, yon're restricted -- MS. MOORE: Exactly, it's 16 location. So now we had, there was a letter 17 from this neighbor ever here which objected to the ten feet. New, what happened was they 18 didn't realize that their driveway was encroaching. We just found out when I asked 19 the surveyor, please pnt the driveways where they are. I didn't make sense. We were out 20 there with the stakes. We looked like clowns because the three women, one steed here with a 21 ten feet ruler and said, held here while we move te the ten feet, then hold here. We were 22 trying to place where things were and nothing made sense because the driveway and the 23 improvements didn't match the property lines. So this would be our choice for 24 the garage. We could move it away ~rom the Watson property line by maybe five feet to 25 give that, since they have an encroaching driveway, we don't want to hurt them. We have October 23, 2003 1 2 to make them aWare of it and we have to get something in writing saying they make no claim 3 of rights so title issues won't be an issue, but another five feet doesn't really make a 4 difference. If it will make our neighbor in the rear a little happier, I anticipated that 5 request. So I had spoken te the clients about it. In her letter she asked for 25 feet and 6 that can't be -- that's just too far. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you 7 knew the history en that property at all? MS. MOORE: Yeah, I do. 8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: My question is that gray house in front of the 9 shed, is that a dwelling; is that garage? I walked around as much as I could without 10 getting shot er attacked er - MS. MOORE: You mean where it says 11 "Watson'~ on the survey? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Straight 12 back there's a gray -- MS. MOORE: There was a conversion 13 of what used te be an out building. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That's not 14 a separate building, it's all one? MS. MOORE: No. It's all one. 15 I'm not going to testify te what it was. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I wasn't 16 sure what it was, even though it shewed one lot. Was it houses? 17 MS. MOORE: Ne. Watson property is one lot behind them and where it says let 18 ere is a brand new house under construction, that is a separate lot. 19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you're not interfering with any view of someone that 20 would live there? MS. MOORE: Ne. This is our 21 yard; there's not a view of anything in particular. 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Were you saying that Mary Watson submitted a letter 23 requesting a 25 feet - MS. MOORE: Yes. There was a 24 letter that was submitted yesterday, I think it was. It didn't get te you? 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It's in 'the mail. October 23, 2003 1 2 MS. MOORE: Yeah, it's probably in the mail. I don't want to be surprised with 3 an alternative relief that really would not be acceptable to the client. Se I prefer te 4 raise it here, discuss it, and if you suggest alternative relief, we could certainly try te 5 accommodate. Ten feet is a legal setback, so that does net necessitate a variance. Our 6 only variance is from the right e£ way, and, quite frankly, I'm not even sure based en 7 prier interpretation ef the codes whether or not it would constitute front yard setback, 8 but rather than delving into the interpretation aspect, we're just going 9 straight for a variance. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It's that a 10 private right ef way? MS. MOORE: Yes. It's a right of 11 way that gives access te Watson and Plot 1. It is net -- it's a common access -- the 12 Planning Board, when they approved this subdivision wanted to limit the number of 13 driveways en Main Read in Orient. So they actually directed that this house get their 14 access via the westerly -- the easterly side, pardon me, the easterly side of the property. 15 Se they came up with the common access point. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Does 16 someone own that right of way? MS. MOORE: Well, my client owns 17 the other title, yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think 18 before you were en the Board, the Board made an interpretation en the front yard in 19 relation to private right of ways, et cetera. MS. MOORE: Yeah, it was my case 20 actually. I think Koch was the opponent. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And I 21 believe, if I'm net mistaken, we determined a private right ef way did net constitute a 22 street~ therefore it was not a front yard. MS. MOORE: Correct. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Therefore the building department in a way made an error 24 and determined that - MS. MOORE: You can come to the 25 conclusion that we don't need a variance, and that's okay, I'm certainly amenable to that. October 23, 2003 47 1 2 But not knowing how the Board would based on the new constituting Beard or -- 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Regime. MS. MOORE: Regime. 4 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Would your client be opposed te 15 feet off that line and 5 some screening behind it? MS. MOORE: An additional 15 feet? 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Total 15. MS. MOORE: Total 15, not a 7 problem. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And some 8 natural screening? MS. MOORE: Yeah, we could suggest 9 a fence or some screening. They have a nice white lattice fence that would work or 10 screening, it doesn't matter. Either way we could provide privacy for the property owner 11 on the other side. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think 12 natural screening would be preferred for that nice little spot. 13 MS. MOORE: Any problem with that? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Beard 14 Member Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'm just 15 wondering whether our previous interpretation has any bearing on this. 16 VICE CHAIRM~q ORLANDO: Mr. Geehringer, comments on this? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's so rare that we see a garage that's going te be 18 used as a garage. MS. MOORE: That's very true. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to raise that issue. 20 HS. MOORE: I think I submitted the plans. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm looking at the plans right now, it's a 22 garage. Se that's very refreshing, and that's not said in a sarcastic manner. 23 MS. MOORE: No. I knew you hear a let ef these. 2% BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: And it will contain -- only utility is electric; is 25 that correct? MS. MOORE: Electric, ne bathrooms October 23, 2003 48 1 2 or anything, ne water, no heat, definitely no heat. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's all I'm interested in. On the maximum 4 height -- MS. MOORE: I think 18 as an 5 accessory structure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 6 MS. MOORE: Okay, de you want me te give you a measurement from John Metzgar? 7 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Please, VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Let's see 8 if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this issue? Not 9 seeing anyone, I'll make a motion to close this hearing, reserve decision 10 BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 11 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 12 present responded in favor.) 14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next Application 5402, Paul Sonnet. 15 MR. SENNET: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: He's been 16 waiting such a long time. Mr. Sennet, please enlighten us. 17 MR. SENNET: What I have here is a cottage that's been in my family for -- since 18 1947, approximately. Basically after my parents passed away it was left to myself. 19 I've been working for a federal government as an agent and now work as a 20 detective down in the state ef Florida. But I intend on retiring probably next year se I had 21 to spend a lot ef time here in Seuthold where I grew up basically. 22 The house is -- it's on an existing nonconforming piece ef property, and 23 the perch is basically falling off. I just want to make it a little bit larger and 24 submitted the plans. I had it drawn up by Penny Lumber, and basically, you know, 25 got a letter from nonjurisdiction from the Trustees, 'cause we set far enough back from October 23, 2003 1 2 the water, and I think the actual dimensions of the perch are new going to be 12 by 18, and 3 one that's on there is 7 by 14, something like that. And actually the way the property line 4 on the right side facing the water, it's the porch. It's a narrow piece ef property, but 5 actually as the porch is being a little bit longer, it actually is further away irom the 6 property line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is 7 a new survey. What is the date on that? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: October 8 10th. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I get eno 9 August of 2000. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Quick 10 question, Mr. Sunnet. MR. SENNET: Yes. 11 VICE CNAIRMAN ORLANDO: I see the perch that's there as it sits new is pitched, 12 I believe that's because it was an open porch at one time. It wasn't always enclosed, I 13 believe. HR. SENNET: Ne. In fact, I put 14 in a -- VICE CHAIRMA2~ ORLANDO: Typically 15 they pitch a perch like that when it's open se it runs elf quite well? 16 MR. SENNET: I put in some used storm windows just te close it in fur the 17 winter. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: When I 18 walked around your property just yesterday, it was a nasty day, but I enjoyed the property 19 anyway, and I see following the contour ef the back property line. But my million.dollar 20 question te you is, I couldn't figure out where do you park when you go te this 21 MR. SENNET: Right by the maple tree in the back yard. 22 VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: Se you pull on -- 23 MR. SEN~ET: Pull off the private road, our road, and right off in there's a 24 brick patio, right back in te that. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: 'Cause I 25 was looking. I didn't know where this gentleman parks his car. October 23, 2003 1 2 MR. SENNET: Yes, unfortunately it's just for eno car. 3 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: De you park en the brick patio? 4 MR. SENNET: No, I don't. BOAJ~D MEMBER HORNING: Just 5 adjacent to it? MR. SENNET: Adjacent to it. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's now 12 by iS? 7 MR. SENNET: Ne. The new one will be 12 by 18. 8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's net going to be enclosed; it's going te be a 9 covered porch like the original? MR. SENNET: I have the plans, can 10 I show you the plans? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't 11 think we have the plans. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They are 12 tucked away. It is an enclosed porch here. Thank you. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that going to be heated? 14 MR. SENNET: No. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'm sorry, 15 it sounded like you said you're not going to heat. 16 MR. SENNET: It's not going to be heated. We're going to have electric, and 17 that's it. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any 18 questions, Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. 19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Hr. Geehringer? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MR. SENNET: I'm net sure hew it 21 works. I'm up here from down south, and I won't be coming back until early in the 22 spring, and I would like te find out while I'm here before I ge back on Sunday te talk to 23 builders, if it's acceptable with the Beard, se I can start the process rolling. So I 24 could get this thing rolling, if this is acceptable er net. 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Hight take a few weeks. We're short-handed today. We October 23, 2003 51 1 2 don't have a full Board. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: 3 Normally, we make the decision at the next special meeting, which is November 6th. 4 MR. SENNET: So I can call up the Zoning Beard and find out? 5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes. MR. SENNBT: You send a letter? 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: With that decision you can apply back to the Building 7 Department, get your building permit. MR. SENNET: Thank you. 8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like 9 te speak for er against this application? I see no ether hands, I'd like te close this 10 hearing and reserve decision. Second? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in favor? 12 (Whereupon, all Board Members present responded in favor.) 13 14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next 15 hearing Application 5400, Meinke. MR. MEINKE: Howard Meinke, yes. 16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Would that be you, sir? 17 HR. MEINKE: Yes. Okay, can I -- VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: De you 18 have representation? MS. MOORE: Yes, Pat Moore. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And, Howard, she promises te be quick today. 20 MS. MOORE: Put you guys in charge more often. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did this 21 years there was ne problem. 22 MS. MOORE: I can attest te 15 of these years, yes. 23 We have here a situation and the decking probably is older than most ef us 24 here, well, some of us standing. Mr. Meinke's father actually built the house and the 25 decking, and later on when Mr. Heinke acquired the property from his father, from the estate October 23, 2003 52 1 2 I would -- from the estate, he made the renovation. He spruced ~p the heuse~ made 3 renovations to the house and added the Net tub, not realizing that it would create an 4 issue with respect to Crabber's Road, which, in fact, is an unimproved, unopened road that 5 shows up on the Nassau Point or the - yeah, the Nassau Point map from way back when. You 6 have a let ef those and you've seen them often on cases up here. You have those spur roads 7 that have been created on the map still shewing the tax maps, and they're actually 8 unimproved, unopened. A~d in this instance, there's a fence blocking it because it's 9 wetland, and natural features that would net allow access under today's environmental 10 regulations, and it's questionable whether you can cut through and give~ access there. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Who owns that access? 12 MS. MOORE: I'm net sure the title is clear because these roads shew up on a 13 title map of the original developers of it. I've seen title reports, not en this 14 property but in other instances, where the property owner en either side owns te the 15 halfway point, but if a map has been filed that predates with the deed or there's some 16 recognition, it's ~nclear. I'm not sure that a title company could give clear title to that 17 read te anyone because ef the way it was created. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is the fence blocking? 19 MS. MOORE: Yeah. The fence is blocking that access to the water, because, as 20 I said, the ten feet centaur line as you can see on the survey cuts about halfway into the 21 property, or halfway into Crabbers Read and then north -- south of that is a fence. So 22 it's no access. So for all intents and purposes practically my client owns beth sides 23 of that road, beth properties te either side ef that side of that road and se we have full 24 dominion and control ef that read, and he has had it, and his family has had it for at least 25 50 years. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are those October 23, 2003 1 2 lots merged er they're separate lets? MS. MOORE: No, it's actually 3 separated lets because the road deer have that benefit, which is the fact that it's cut by 4 that read, segregated, isolated lets. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That, in 5 fact, is his driveway anyway? ' MS. MOORE: Yeah, actually he deer 6 get access through that roadway fur his garage which under today's code would not be allowed 7 te be an accessory couldn't be built on a separate lot, but in the '50s, nobody cared. 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Pat, when was the as-built deck built? 9 MR. MEINKE: Earlier there was a deck and probably 20 years ago I did some 10 renovation and essentially ripped out the old deck and did a new deck. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Without a building permit? 12 MR. MEINKE: Yeah, I convinced myself that it was old, and also as a 13 weekender, it's always a little bit harder to deal with the different bureaus. Then much 14 mere recently did come up with a hot tub, it's hut tub season, and I added the little more 15 where the hot tub goes, and -- VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And 16 convinced yourself once again. MS. MOORE: Well, he did get a 17 building permit fur the hut tub, it's just unfortunately, the deck that the hut tub was 18 sitting in was a violation. So essentially he had te come here to legalize everything that 19 was there. But if you recall some time ago, it wasn't that lung ago, maybe ten, 15 years 20 age, that you could do renovations to existing structures without a building permit. It's 21 only in recent time that our Town has gotten a little mere strict because ef abuses that now 22 you come in for everything. Even things under the State building cede are net structural 23 alterations. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Hew did 24 this parcel amongst probably many around the Township get involved iN the notice ef 25 disapproval? MS. MOORE: He did a refinance, so October 23, 2003 54 1 2 when he Needed to gather up his permits for a refinance, it suddenly became obvious that 3 there were structures that needed permits, BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is he 4 seeking a C of 0 on these? MS. MOORE: Yes. Everything will 5 be conforming when we're done with this process. 6 VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: Are we selling t~is property? 7 MR. MEINKE: Ne. There was a interim need for some money, and the best way 8 to get it was a home equity loan. I had to clean up these tag ends. 9 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay. Any more questions, Mr. Homing? 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Mr. 11 Geehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne, I 12 was up there, beautiful piece ef property. HR. MEINKE: Thank you, we love 13 it out there. Never sell it. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: See if 14 there's anyone else in the audience that has any comments either for er against this 15 application? Seeing no hands, I make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 17 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 18 present responded in favor.) MR. MEINKE: Decision will be 19 when? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: November 20 6th at the special meeting. 22 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next Application 5404. 23 MS. SCHEIDER: Pamela Scheider, I'm Priscilla Reilly's sister. 24 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What a good sister. 25 MS. SCHEIDER: Well, she's a good sister. October 23, 2003 1 2 VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: All right. What would you like to tell us today? 3 MS. SCHEIDER: It's an eld house that has a garage on the side which is 4 composed of several sheds, apparently when that was an onion field there were sheds all 5 over the place, but the house used to sit up where Hullen Hoters is, and it was moved and 6 various modifications were made, and one ef them was the garage. And the inside ef the 7 garage has several roof lines, and when we were looking at it te think what we could de 8 in there, she wants te make a guest room and bath, we were told that because of the 9 construction it has to be removed and replaced. It wouldn't be up to cede. So we 10 get an engineer in to do plans and submitted it, and the house apparently is toe close te 11 the side yard; it's less than ten feet from the side yard. 12 Se the proposed change has to de with using the same footprint and basically 13 the same roof height, just changing the roof line a bit and turning it into habitable 14 space. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Se you're 15 doing a one and a half story addition? MS. SCHEIDER: Yes. It's 16 basically the same shape and size of what's there except for the roof line. 17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Upstairs is going to be a little reading room almost? 18 HS. SCHEI~ER: Yes. Actually, we're putting bookshelves in. We have a let 19 of books. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Open to 20 the first fleer, kind of a balcony. MS. SCHEI~ER: Right, very 21 bright. New there is a loft which we use for_ storage, but there's no light in it, se it 22 would be sort of a balcony sort of thing. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Se the 23 peak ridge would net be any higher than the main house ridge? 24 MS. SCHEIDER: No. VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: That's how 25 it shows in the plan? MS. SCHEIDER: Yeah. That's October 23, 2003 56 1 2 basically what the roof looks like now except the line in the back is a little different, 3 and he wants the -- we're going to change the line that's there. It's still not exactly hew 4 we want it. The plans don't really -- VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Kind of 5 has that 45 degree -- I saw that. MS. SCHEIDER: It's ugly. I'll 6 get an architect for the next step. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: Any 7 questions, Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se in 8 other wards, you're taking the eld, existing structure off and you're replacing it with 9 something that also has a left, has a loft new but yen're making that left a habitable space? 10 MS. SCHEIDER: The loft would be mere ef a, net a living space but a storage 11 space. It's not going te have the height that yen need te make it two stories. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se that's where yen get the story and a half? 13 MS. SCHEIDER: I guess. I didn't understand what the woman was saying 14 yesterday, and she kept asking me and asking me why I couldn't shew en the survey. I don't 15 know how you can shew height ena survey. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yeah, it's 16 not a full twa story, it's like a one and a half. It's half - 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right. 18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And down below is going te be? 19 MS. SCHEIDER: Bathroom, full bath and it's inconvenient and sharing a bath, 20 so full bath and just sort efa den area, sort efa library, I think they call it a library 21 because that sounds a little pretentious. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the 22 upstairs. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why is the 23 Building Department call it a two story addition? 24 MS. SCHEIDER: I don~t know. I just thought if it wasn't a one story they 25 called it a two. But apparently yesterday, I guess they wait only until the day before to October 23, 2003 57 1 2 read through, so yesterday they called me at neon and there was a big te de, and it wasn't 3 fun. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: She 4 tries to correct things that may be a problem. 5 MS. SCHEIDER: Because I think if I had gotten the phone call at 7:00, I think I 6 would have been -- but I still didn't understand, se I had the plans made so that 7 maybe that would help. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 8 plans are pretty extensive. It's wonderful. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No 9 proposing ef any changes in the existing setback; is that correct? 10 MS. SCHEIDER: Feetprint's the same, they're going to use the existing 11 foundation, perhaps move it a little bit in terms ef the concrete, et cetera. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Was the garage originally built with the house? 13 MS. SCHEIDER: I think it might have cema with the house, but it's attached, 14 there's several different roof lines in there. It's certainly from the '40s or somewhere 15 around there. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Do you date 16 the house to the same time period? MS. SCHEIDER: It's hard to tell, 17 the house is several parts. The original part of the house, if you look at the construction 18 underneath, is different from the right side. If you have the picture, there's an addition 19 that might have been in the '40s. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What about the part on the plan that says existing 21 garage te remain? MS. SCHEIDER: I don't know what 22 that means, that's not going to happen. BOARD MEMBER GOEHNINGER: So we 23 can cress that out? MS. SCHEIDER: Yeah, maybe he 24 means the foundation. It's such a small garage you can't even open the car door 25 anyway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: That's October 23, 2003 1 2 what had me going there for a minute~ MS. SCHEIDER: Sorry. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's okay. 4 MS. SCHEIDER: There's plenty of reem in the driveway te perk your car. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: T~e only issue here is the side yard setback? 6 MS. SCHEIDER: Yes. As far as I can see. 7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ne ether questions? 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 9 MS. SCHEIDER: It has a plastic garage deer anyway. Everybody in the area 10 seems to have eno. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Cause 11 you can see through it. I used to have one, and new I have a steel one and I can't see 12 there through it. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Anyone in 13 the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Since I see no 14 hands, I'll make a motion te close this hearing and reserve decision. lB BOARD MEMBER GOEHNINGER: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 16 favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Hembers 17 present responded in favor.) 19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next Application 5401. Paul Stetz; did I pronounce 20 that right? MR. STETZ: Yes. 21 VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: We run a tight ship here, se we're right en schedule. 22 MR. STETZ: I'm amazed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se are 23 we. How are you today? What would you 24 like te tell us today? HR. STETZ: I wasn't sure of the 25 procedure. I just have te state what I want? I don't have a back deer in the house at all. October 23, 2003 1 2 Every time we come in the house we ge in the front deer up the front steps and whatever. 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There's only eno door? 4 MR. STBTZ: There's a basement door down one level. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ne side doors? 6 MR. STETZ: The basement doer is en the side. 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Does it ge into the basement? 8 MR. STETZ: Yeah. Se we wanted te put a door and there's a window right there 9 new, we wanted to switch that into a deer into the kitchen, se it's directly into the 10 kitchen, and a set ef back steps coming into the backyard and whatever perch was necessary. 11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The next page, George, describes exactly what he was 12 doing right there? MR. STETZ: And we're about, I 13 guess, we're 35 feet, and this is going te cut it down te 31 feet. It's very small, it's 14 only about 60 square feet and about 60 inches high at the perch height and then steps going 15 down, railing would be another three feet. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: You said 16 60 square feet, right? MR. STETZ: Roughly. It's four by 17 seven, six, and then the step run would probably be about the same. And that's 18 basically it, really. It's really accessed directly into the kitchen with groceries and 19 stuff like that in bad weather. It's a basic thing. 20 VICE CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: I was there yesterday and your wife had shown me the 21 layout, and she wasn't very pleased. MR. STETZ: I didn't think we 22 needed a variance when I realized the setback. When I went te the Building 23 Department they said, yeah, you need that four feet, and it doesn't really ge across the back 24 of the property at all. It's minimal amount for a doorway to get in and out of the house 25 in bad weather with groceries and whatever and not going te the front, and we're still under October 23, 2003 6O 1 2 the lot coverage too. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any 3 questions, Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOENRINGER: No. I 4 was over on a much nicer day. Remember that one Saturday I was ever? We were all in shirt 5 sleeves and we were admiring your pool, which is beautiful. 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That wasn't yesterday. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That certainly wasn't yesterday, and you explained 8 the entire thing te me. That perch is all going to be open. There's not going to be any 9 roof over it or anything? MR. STETZ: No. 10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Homing? 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ne questions. 12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Anyone in the audience that would like to speak for er 13 against this application? I see ne one else. And I make a motion to close this hearing and 14 reserve decision for another date. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in favor? 16 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor.) 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We hope to have a decision for you shortly. 18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: November 6th. 19 MR. STETZ: Thank you. 20 ................................................... 21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next Application 5431, Diffley. 22 MR. DIFFLEY: Good afternoon. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes. 23 MR. DIPPLEY: I am the homeowner. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, what 24 would you like te tell us today? MR. DIFFLEY: We are proposing a 25 second floor addition, actually the extension out ever the existing, we are net changing the October 23, 2003 61 1 2 footprint of the current property, and the reason why we're applying for a variance is 3 that the current setback en this nonconforming lot is 31 feet, and it's required to be 35 % feet. It's a preexisting condition. The footprint doesn't change at all. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Tell us about the renovations. 6 MR. DIFFLEY: Ail interior renovations, and then just, again, the 7 extension of the second fleer out over the current garage, again, net changing any ef the 8 existing footprint. Upstairs will just extend two bedrooms, we don't propose te add any 9 additional bedrooms er any additional bathrooms. It will still remain as four 10 bedrooms and two and a half baths. BOARD HEHBER HORNING: The garage 11 will remain a garage? MR. DIFPLEY: The garage, the 12 orientation ef it will slightly change; instead of it being a two car garage, it will 13 be a one and a half car garage as described by the architect. 14 BO~D MEMBER HORNING: So that you have a stairway going up te the second fleer? 15 MR. DIFFLEY: Currently we do and we will remain having a second floor 16 stairwell. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Hew would 17 one access the second fleer over the garage then? 18 MR. DIFFLEY: Same as we de new, the interior stairwell. So that's where all 18 the bedrooms are; that doesn't change from existing. 20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any further questions, Mr. Herning? 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. 22 Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From my 23 understanding, Mr. Diffley, this leeks like a total renovation. It's my understanding that 2% you're leaving the actual house? MR. DIFFLEY: We are. We will be 25 vacant from the house for about four months. Se we don't have to face any of the interior October 23, 2003 62 1 2 renovations. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 3 there for the second time, I just brought Mr. Homing over a little while age during the 4 lunch hour. Se we are completely cognizant of what you are doing and wish you the best. 5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll assume that's ne further questions. As of 6 right now, 15 percent ef the your house is already a second story building, correct? 7 MR. DIFFLEY: Correct. VICE CHAIRNL~ ORLANDO: And you'll 8 be increasing your living space by how much? MR. DIFPLEY: Eight hundred 9 square feet. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That 10 would give you a total of what? MR. DIFFLEY: Roughly 2,600, 11 2,100 square feet. I'm sorry I ~on't have those exact numbers. 12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the notice for disapproval was for a front yard 13 variance, you have a setback ef 31 as supposed to 35? 14 MR. DIPFLEY: 35 is required, 31 is current. 15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you need to upgrade your septic system te this? 16 MR. DIPFLEY: No. We're not adding any bedrooms er we're not adding any 17 bathrooms. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What is 18 the addition before the garage space? MR. DIFFLEY: Ne. Just really 19 extending our master bedroom because it's fairly small closet space and then extending 20 eno ef the children's bedrooms slightly. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: At least 21 we're sharing then. It's not all about you? MR. DIPFLEY: Yeah, we're 22 sharing. Even though she's going to college, she has the biggest bedroom, we're still 23 sharing. Some people are princesses. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have no 24 further questions, but we'll see if there's anyone in the audience. I see ne one jumping 25 to the podium, se I'll make a motion te close this hearing and reserve decision. October 23, 2003 63 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail ~E 3 favor? {Whereupon, all Members ef the 4 Board responded in favor.) VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll offer resolution granting that application as 6 applied for with a 31 foot setback, again, net changing the footprint in any way. 7 The purpose ef my escalating the resolution is that these people are in ~eed ef 8 additional housing during the period of time, and they would like to get the house 9 renovated, and that's why they're asking that request. 10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second. Ail in favor? 11 (whereupon, all Beard Members present responded in favor.) 12 13 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next 14 Application 5414, Jones, is there someone here who would like to speak? Yes, sir. 15 HR. STOUTENBERG: Hy name's Peter Stoutenberg, I'm here te answer any questions 16 you might have en behalf ef Mrs. Jones. She had requested a variance a 17 year ago for the same side yard setback maintaining what exists on the house. Of 18 course, I knew the big backlog it was spring before we get the approvals. At that time she 19 wanted te use the house for the summer and ever the summer the kids came out and said 20 gee, mom, let's make it a little bigger. We are net encroaching any further en the side 21 yard, but we are extending it another four er five feet. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a full enclosure though? 23 HR. STOUTENBERG: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only 24 e~croachment is te the read? MR. STOUTENBERG: Yes. It's net 25 a new setback, we're extending it further out. We're asking for another setback reduction. October 23, 2003 64 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's ne front yard problem. It's just the side 3 yard. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any ether 4 questions, Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne. 5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Herning? 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions. 7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have questions. On the addition right now it has 8 ne basement er crawl space well, it has a crawl space. Will it be a full basement 9 addition or just a crawl space? HR. STOUTENBERG: No. It will be 10 a crawl space, but it will be a contained crawl space. 11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Right now it's an open crawl space? 12 HR. STOUTENBERG: Right. But it will be contained, se that if there's duct 13 work or heating er anything in the future they'll have a place te put it, but it's net 14 going te be a stand up basement. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There will 15 be some excavation en the site? HR. STOUTENEERG: There will be 16 'cause we've got te be three feet in the ground for the footings, yeah, but it's going 17 te be miner. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Se the 18 whole crawl space will be three feet below grade? 19 MR. STOUTENBERG: It will be whatever we go down to for our footings, yeah. 20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the addition is what, for the house, bedrooms? 21 MR. STOUTENBERG: Basically it's - they have get sort of a living room, 22 kitchen combination, and this is going te be an extension so they really have a living room 23 that's separate from the kitchen/dining area. They're not changing the bedrooms, bath. 24 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Here they're calling it a new family room or 25 sitting room. MR. STOUTENBERG: Yeah, it's a October 23, 2003 65 1 2 extension of the living ream. The living room's kind of small. And like everybody 3 else, they're using the house a bigger part ef the year, spring and fall and the weather's 4 net always conducive te sitting out en the deck when the family relatives get together. 5 VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: I saw the deck when I walked around. I don't knew who 6 got scared, I don't know who got scared more, the deer or myself. I didn't knew they 7 started like that when you scare them. I have ne further questions. See 8 if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? 9 I see no one, so I'll close this hearing and reserve decision. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. VICE CHAIRM~ ORL}~DO: Ail in 11 favor? (Whereupon, all Members of the 12 Board responded in favor.) 14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application -- the time is 2:30 -- 5412, 15 Sutherland. MS. D. SUTHERLAND: I'm Derrie 16 Sutherland. I'm eno of the owners of the house, my husband deserted me today. 17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Just for today, I hope? 18 MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Just for today. He sent Warren in his place. We're 19 applying for a handicap ramp for wheelchair access and a small deck addition, so that the 20 person in the wheelchair can get up onto our back deck from the ramp; and the small deck 21 addition on the ether side se that when you have mere than two wheelchairs, people aren't 22 smashing into each other like bumper cars. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay, that 23 was short and sweet. Mr. Geehringer, any questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in ether words, you're squaring off the deck? 25 MS. D. SUTHBRLAND: That's correct. October 23, 2003 66 1 2 B©ARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be the entire rear of the house toward the water? 3 MS. D. SUTHERLAN~: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Including 4 the new ramp. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 5 stoop is going to be removed and the ramp will be on the easterly side ef the house? 6 MS. D. SUTHERLAND: South side, that's where the deer is~ the front deer. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where the brick steep is new, okay. And the ramp is 8 how wide, three feet even~ right? Okay. What's going te happen where the steep is, 9 where the deer is; hew are you going to get in there? 10 MS. D. SUTHERL}~D: Hew are we going te get into the deer? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. MS. D. SUTHERLAND: It's such a 12 gradual incline but it will level off for the wheelchair. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because the house is built fairly low te the ground, 14 the biggest part is the part that's facing the read, right? 15 HS. D. SUTHERLAND: Right. It's going te level elf where the deer is, and then 16 continue up a little bit, te reach the ramp and the deck in the back. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very nice job on the house, by the way. 18 MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Thank yen, you're invited ever. I'm proud of it. I 19 painted it myself. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any ether 20 questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 21 VICE CHAIRM~kN ORLANDO: Mr. Horning? 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is to take care of an immediate family need? 23 MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Yes. We have family members who are in wheelchairs and 24 someday maybe we're going to retire there, we might need it. 25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Hopefully you won't. October 23, 2003 ~7 1 2 MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Hopefully we won't. 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You want to make this a permanent addition? ~ MS. D. SUTRERLAND: Oh, yes. ~e want it te look nice too. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You have an immediate family need and in addition you're 6 going to do an excellent job. MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Yeah. It will 7 look like a Japanese tea house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 8 want te say, we just want you to be on notice that we really don't want side yards closed 9 up, and since you have a really small side yard en the other side, this would be the max 10 that could be done in case you have to get to the water side. That's a philosophy that's 11 been carried by the Board for many years. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Going to 12 the Notice of Disapproval, I'm noticing that the existing setback is five feet on eno side, 13 then it will become 5.5 feet according te the Notice ef Disapproval; hew would you explain 14 that? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I guess 15 the property's not true perpendicular en that one point. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The way it's shown, George, is they're going te end up 17 with 12 feet en the one side, 17.1 minus 5. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The fives 18 are over here. BOARD'MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I knew 19 the fives are over here, but they're not shewing it's going te be reduced en this side. 20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's giving them perpendicular, net perfect se the 21 property, the house is tweaked a little. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I see. 22 It's depends upon which end you're measuring it from. 23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 2~ the reason why the issue is not mentioned on the side yard setback on the ether side is 25 because I have a feeling that the wheelchair ramp is exempt. And we've carried that October 23, 2003 68 1 2 exemption through pretty much on all of these things, but the deck isn't, so that's the 3 reason why it picks it up at the deck, okay? VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have one 4 for more question, the deck that you're building and is existing will stay open to the 5 sky? MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Yes. 6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's not being closed? 7 MS. D. SUTHERLAND: Ne. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there 8 anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? 9 MS. H. SUTHERLAND: Absolutely. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, 10 ma'am, state your name, please? MS. M. SUTHERLAND: My name is 11 Maureen Sutherland. I live in Jamesport now. I moved to the beautiful north fork two years 12 ago. One ef the reasons I moved out here was se I would have an opportunity to visit with 13 my brother and sister-in-law weekends when they're away from their jobs. One ef the 14 things Derrie failed to mention so far was the fact that they already built in their 15 renovations, they have made their bathroom wheelchair accessible. So now it's just a 16 matter ef being able te get into the house. I have become more and more 17 disabled over the past several years. I anticipate that within a matter of time I will 18 probably be using a wheelchair also, and I will not be able to get into their house 19 unless there is a ramp. So, as of right now, I can still make it. It's a tough step for 20 that one step that they have getting up there for me, but I can de it, but my anticipation 21 is that since I'm becoming mere and more disabled that I would need a ramp. 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will you be able te walk up the ramp easier? 23 HS. M. SUTHERLAND: Absolutely. I cannot de steps very well at all. 24 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: My mother had the same situation. 25 MS. M. SUTHERLAND: One of them usually stands close by me as I go in. October 23, 2003 69 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak for or 4 against this application? MS. ROBERTS: I don't need that. 5 My name is June Roberts, and I also live in Jamesport. When Dorrie mentioned more than 6 one wheelchair, I am involved in the wonderful world ef disabilities where we live in 7 wheelchairs very well, but my butt's getting worn out going up en the butt to ge visit and 8 that's the only way I can get into the house. There's nobody in this world that can lift 9 this wheelchair. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How are 10 they getting you in the house now? MS. ROBERTS: I go up on my butt, 11 and they put a manual chair in the house. I leek forward te the day when every community 12 has a disability law where all people can ge visit each other and net just because you have 13 a family member, 'cause you have friends too, and as Maureen said, as she's getting elder, 14 she's going to need a wheelchair, trust me, you may tee, and we're the only minority 15 anybody can join. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I knew. 16 MS. ROBERTS: It only takes a step off a curb. It will be - what I have 17 seen and what they have talked about and what they envision is a nonintrusive attachment to 18 the house. As you mentioned, they have dena a beautiful job at the house. I have seen many 19 of the houses they have moved te and in some way upgraded, and they have always done a 20 beautiful job and I think they will de one here tee. Thank you. 21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. 22 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else that would like te speak for er 23 against this application? Seeing no hands, I would like te make a motion te close this 24 application and reserve decision. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in favor? October 23, 2003 70 1 2 (Whereupon, all Board Members present responded in favor.) 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'd like to make a motion te approve the application as 4 applied for. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 5 VICE CHAIRM~ ORLANDO: Deck will stay open to the sky as well as the ramp. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. VICE CNSXIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in 7 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 8 present responded in favor.) 10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Time is 2:55, Application 5417, Cirrito, correct? 11 MR. CIRRITO: Yes, that's right. Good afternoon, my name is Michael Cirrito. 12 I'm one of the homeowners, and this is a request for a variance to build a second story 13 at a home we own at 7625 Nassau Point Read. If yen can see from the plans, the 14 intention is to build a second story within the actual footprint of the home new. We're 15 net building out. The reason why we need this variance is it's a preexisting, nonconforming 16 use on the south side, with respect to the side yard setback. 17 I have discussed this matter with neighbors te beth sides, they have no 18 objections to our proposal, and I think it will be within the quality of the neighborhood 19 and mere impact on the neighborhood at all and I ask that you grant this application. 20 Mr. Brown is here today, he's our architect. If yen have any specific questions 21 with respect te the plans of Mr. Brown, I'll turn it over te him. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ask a question. 23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll ask the question. It teak me a second to figure 24 it out, the addition is above I guess it's in the garage or storage? 25 HR. CIRRITO: It's storage. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And that's October 23, 2003 71 1 2 going to stay there? MR. CIRRITO: As is. 3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And that's the portion that's the second story? 4 MR. CIRRITO: Of the half to the right as yen're looking at the house 5 street-side will remain eno story, the reef line will change a little just to make it 6 aesthetically. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The south 7 side of the house will stay as a second story? MR. CIRRITO: Correct. 8 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: You're also filling in on the north side? 9 MR. BROWN: There's also filling in on the entry perch but we're net extending 10 any farther te the north than the existing structure. 11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There's kind a notch there now? 12 MR. BROWN: TNat's exactly right. We're just cleaning it up a little bit, and 13 the second story extends from that north face back ever the living room in the center ef the 14 house. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What will 15 be the total height te the ridge en the new extension? 16 HR. BROWN: Bear with me one second. The height te the ridge, from average 17 grade will be approximately 29 and a half feet, that's to the ridge. 18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay. BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: If you 19 have it, Hr. Brown, because I have te write this decision, what would you say that the 20 increase in square footage would be, any idea? HR. BROWN: I wasn't expecting a 21 quiz. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You 22 don't have te give that to me today. VICE CHAIRHAN ORLANDO: You always 23 have te study. MR. BROWN: But I never know what 24 to study. I can give you in round numbers it's approximately 800 square feet, 850 square 25 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of the October 23, 2003 72 1 2 850 -- that's good. Okay. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What 3 safeguards are you making toward little Pecenic Bay during the construction period? 4 What impact will there be between the house and the bulkhead? 5 MR. CIRRITO: We agreed with the Town Board that the hail bays -- 6 MR. BROWN: -- the Trustees. MR. CIRRITO: The Trustees, excuse 7 me, we're going to put hail bays around the perimeter on the Peconic side, and we always 8 agreed to put dry wells in at the end ef construction. 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Do you have a Beard ef Trustees letter ef approval 10 then in the file? MR. CIRRITO: We have the approval 11 letter. MR. BROP~: We don't have it with 12 us. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We're 13 asking all the applicants te de that if there's any Board ef Trustees issues. 14 MR. BROWN: We'll get that for you. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, I have gone to the site, as you have 16 heard the other Board Members. I looked at the bluff, which is a well vegetated bluff, 17 and - MR. BROWN: It's actually double 18 bulkheaded. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- double 19 bulkheaded. And I was there en the day when it was extremely windy, and everything was 20 staying in place, and I don't foresee any particular problems with this construction. 21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is this house a primary residence or is it a summer 22 residence? MR. CIRRITO: It's a summer 23 residence hopefully soon to be primary residence. 24 MR. BROWN: I'm sure you have been getting a let ef these. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, particularly in a beautiful area. October 23, 2003 73 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And the frame ef the house should be able te support 3 the addition? MR. BROWN: And there are some % things that we're doing to accommodate some unusual loads because ef the second floor. 5 It's all being accommodated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ail up 6 to you, bess. VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: A~yene in 7 the audience that would like to speak for er against the application? I see ne one. Any 8 Board Members feel there's any reason why we shouldn't close this hearing? I make a motion 9 te close this hearing and reserve decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 10 moved. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail in favor? 12 (Whereupon, all Beard Members present responded in favor.) 13 MR. BROWN: Can you let us knew when we'll be -- 14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: November 6th. Thank you. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. 16 HR. CIRRITO: Thank you for your time. 17 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Make a motion to adjourn. 18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second. Ail in favor? 19 (Whereupon, all Members ef the Board responded in favor.) 2O (Time ended: 3:00 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 October 23, 2003 74 1 2 C E R T I F I CAT I O N 3 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 5 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true 7 record of the testimony given. 8 I further certify that I am net related by 9 blood er marriage, te any of the parties te 10 this action; and 11 THAT I am in ne way interested in the 12 outcome of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand this 23rd day of October, 2003. 15 16 17 18 Florence V. Wiles 19 20 21 22 23 25 October 23, 2003