HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/14/2004 Hearing
1
~
L
. 3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
1G
17
1,Q
1 SI
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
TCMN OF SOUTHOLO
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ZONING BOÞ.RO OF þ,PPEÞ.LS
STATE OF NEI^I YORK
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - x.
T 0 I^I 1'1
SOUTHC)LD
o F
Z 0 N I N G
o F
Þ.PPEP,LS
BOA R D
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
Southold Town Hall
53095 r'lain Road
Southold, New York
September 14, 2004
St:30 a.m.
Board Members Present :
RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
JAMES OINIZIO, Board Member
KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
LINDA KOI^IALSKI, Board Secretary
Absent: LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member
, ORIGINAL
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE i 631'i 878·-8047
.
e
.
2
1
2
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to call the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals of September 14th to order. I need a
resolution declaring the following applications as
T,'pe 2 actions.
B,C'l,RD MEf1BER GOEHRINGER: I'll secGld, if
'-'GU make the resGlution.
CHA.IRI^IOMAN ,C,LIVA.: 1'11 make the
res,:::,luticI1.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
(See minutes for resolution. I
~
4
::,
6
7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
''?
CHI-\.IRI^I0!1M,¡ OLIVA: Our first hearing lS
f,~r James Gemmill on Smith Road in Peconic. He
wants to make a small addition to his house.
Mr. Fitzgerald, I think that's yours.
f'IR. FITZGERALD: Yes, }c,od mornlng, I'm
,Jim Fitz-::¡erald for [VIr. Gemmill.
As you say, it is a small addition. He
would like to expand the existing footprint of the
house by about 100 square feet, and of that 100
square feet, about 10 square feet will be closer
to the architectural side property line, which is
technically a front ~'ard because of the existence
of a pedestrian right of way. Only 10 feet will
t,e closer to the propert~· line than the existing
nonconforming setback. And it will be about one
f,,,::,ct closer.
I have a larger photograph of the area
which you ha~le a smaller one {handing I .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. So it would onl,'
c,~me out this far.
9
11~1
11
12
1<
14
15
lh
17
18
HR. FITZGERALD:
This stake marks the
,:::'crner.
1 SI
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLI\~~:
Is that gOlng one
20
st,'::)l"Y or two?
¡·1R. FITZGERA.LO: One story.
BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Just extendin-::¡ ehe
21
porch.
..., ~,
LL
MR. FITZGERALD: Ie's an extension of the
porch, but it will not be a porch. It will be
enclosed and will be a mud room.
BDARD !1EMBER ORLANDO: Þ.nd the porch sta::s
23
àS lS:'
24
MR. FITZGERALD: Essentially.
':::¡L~IRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Jerr,', did \':',1.1 see
the
- c
¿~
picture?
BDARD f~EMBER GOEHRINGEP.:
I saw thE'
September 1~, 2004
3
1
.
3
picture, and I was at the property last week. I
wanted to Bta)" because it was a magnificent
afternoon and evening, truly, Mr. Fitzgerald, a
magnificent piece of property, and we can see
because the sagging of the decks and all the rest
of the house, it has some significant fllnctional
,.:,bs(:Jlesr.:::ence I and I can see why the present
property owners want to do what they want to do.
CHAIRWOfJIAN OLIVA: "\lincent I do ycyu h3.ve
~n~' other questions?
BC,ARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further
':::ruestions.
CHAIRW0I'1AN OLIVA: Jim.
BOÞ.RD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was lo,oking at
the notice of disapproval from July 6th; it says
~'()U f re nDt going to increase thé; setbacY:. mere than
12.1 feet; is that correct?
~IP.. FITZGERALD: It's not going to be
increased. It's going to be decreased by a foot.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZF): You're n,::,t going
an~r closer to the prGpert~· line?
MR. FITZGERALD: One foot closer.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're }oin-:.=¡ to
be at 11.1 feet?
1'1R. FITZGERALD: No, it's goin} to be at
12; the existing is at 13.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The notice of
,iisappro'tal says existing single-famil,' dwellimJ
has a front yard setback of 12.1; is that LL}ht?
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think so.
B'OÞ.RD MEMBER [,INIZIO: I'm looking at what
he disapproved. I assume he saw that somewhere
alld he wrote that down. If that's the caSE then I
don't know why --
[VIR. FITZGERALD: It's going to r:,e here
,indicating'! .
CHAIRvlOMAN OLIVÞ.: I see 12.1.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the porch
that's there right now.
MR. FITZGERALD: It goes to this porch.
BOARD IVIEf1BER DINIZIO: That is how far
2
4
c
~
I:)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
]1::;
17
18
19
20
21
22
away?
23
["IR. FITZGERALD: This is 14. This ie 12.
\'l~ think we're going to say it f s 13.
BOARD MEr1BER DINIZIO: That would be ::,c,ur
'.tJorst '::ase right now. ûkay. I don't haT.''::; an"/
further questions.
CHAIRI^I':)~1AN DLIVÞ.: Tlnnk you, ,Jim. Is
24
.
25
September 14, 2004
4
1
·
3
there allyone else in the audience that wishes to
speak to this application? If not, I'll make a
motic,n to close the hearing and reserving de,:ision
until later.
\See minutes for resolution.)
2
'I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: next application lS
for Gordon and Diane Tyrer 011 Oriole Dri'le in
Southold. That is for a garage that is supposed
to be in the rear yard but is now in the side
...'ard. Is there someone that wishes to speak t,=,
this application?
BOARD MEI'1BER ORLANDO: I had sp)ken to the
homeowner, and I think Craig was coming to
represent them.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEP.: I'll make the
motion to adjourn the hearing until 11:15.
(See minutes for resolution.)
5
6
7
8
10
11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
24
CHAIRI^IOJ1AN OLIVA: Next hearing is Ke,'in
Hiller on l^Iunneweta Road in Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
on behalf of this application?
¡'1r. f1cCarth'.(, would ,'au 1 ike to speak to
this application?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes.
BOARD MEr~BEp. '::;OEHRINGER: Mr. M=Carth,/,
IJ~fore you speak, I need to mentioIl something to
the Board and to the Chairperson. This is a \rery
nice piece of property, but it unfortunatel~' needs
,~280A. Unfortunately, I tried to come up it from
the Broadwaters CO~Te side, thank God I nixed that
the-ught. So I came back the following time and
went down from tIle extension of Wunneweta. It
needs a 2,80A.
CHÞ.IRl^lm~AN OLIV./\.: It "JaS badl:; gutted.
I wouldn't take the car. I walked dowD te- wher~ I
thou-::¡ht the ,garage miqht be. The road '"as in
terrible, terrible shape.
r·IR. r;ICCARTHY: I was there this tTLorning, I
a}ree with you from the southernly side.
MR. FLEMING: May I ask what a 280A is?
CHÞ~IEWOMAN OL IV A : Þ.~n access to ~/c.ur
pre-perty. You have to have some sort cf road and
there haT/e tc) be specific qualifications that haT\,re
tr~ be met to make it a 280A access.
BOARD SECt. KO\'iALSKI: I have t:o ask that
anyone who speaks to please state your name fcr
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
is
1'::1
2D
21
22
2?
·
25
September 14, 2004
0,
1
8
the re,:oord.
f~R. FLEMING: ['1y name is Xavier Fleming.
¡.1R. t1Cc."RTHY: I did bring SDm'o photDs
that I would like to submit for the record
! handing i. As you can tell by looking at the
s11rve~' and looking at the site, the reason wh~r
we're here is there's some practice difficulty lD
building on the site. The owner, Mr. Kevin
r~iller, has asked us to come here tGda~' and
~epresent him. I'd like to go Gver some facts on
the topography of the site.
The t.opographJ', if l",:JU look at the sur~.·"'ey
in the northwest corner is an ele\'ation ':0D. It
increases to elevation 130 to 132 in the cellter of
the house. It's 40 feet difference in elevation.
I^Ihat Mr. Miller is proposing is to put his gara-::¡e
ct1>proximately two-thirds of the l¡.Jay ba,=k from his
house to the street and kind of split the
difference there, and it's really because of the
difficulty of topo-::¡raphy and elevation.
The issue of where the -::¡arage could be
s,~l~Jed if the house was moved closer to thE
street. It's not the location of the garage
t~latfs the problem, it's perhaps the location of
the house. So if we leap frog the house VJer the
garage the garage could stay exactly th~ way it is
be¡:ause it would be code compliant. We're about
450 percent of the setback of the hOUSE of what is
reall~r code required. We're setback qUlte a wa~rs
fram Wunneweta Road and the purpose of putting the
house where it is is to reall~· get on top of the
hill to get the most flat topogl'aphy So the ,'ard
EUl-rounding the house as usable. I f we WEre to
bring the house closer to the street we'd ha~Te a
tremendous problem with gradin-::¡, with water coming
int~ thE back side of the house.
CHAIRI'IOI1Þ.N OLIVA: The next door nei-::¡hbor
had the same problem he built on top of the --
¡·1R. t1CCARTHY: Exactl". And there are
~r~rlOUS similar situations throughout ~Jassau
~oinc, which I believe we have submitted pictures
for the record so that the application would not
be somethin-::¡ that would stand cut in the
neighborhood. It was ver~' similar to other
applications and other properties alF2ady existing
within Nassau Point. I think that the location of
chs house on the top of che hill is gcing tc" be
less of an impact to any of the neighbors than
"
L
·
3
4
5
iJ
9
1C)
11
12
13
·
u
15
16
17
18
L,
20
21
22
2j
24
·
25
September 14, 200..
6
1
s
perhaps bringing it forward into another compliant
position and leaving the garage where it is.
So the request for relief is because it's
E,al difficulty in building the lot, that's wh,'
Wi?:' re in front of you tClday. I I d be happy to
answer any questions.
CHAIR~¡OI"l¡m OLIVÞ.: Jerr:,'.
BOARD !"lEI"lBER GOEHRINGER: The nature of
these applications, Mr. McCarchy, for these
}arages in the front yard really need some
slgnificant screening. So in the past, alld the
1íLC,st recent one we did on Broadwaters I we did a
significant screening request as a condition, and
I chink we should leave it up to the option of you
at this time as being the agent for the applicant
to come up with some screening for this garage and
w~'ll either enhance it or de-enhance it based
upon on whate'ler you come up with?
¡'1R. I1CCARTHY: l^Ie' d be happy to do that
and at the same time, it's not the applicant's
position to clear cut the entire hill. They're
going to leave a lot of the native vegetation and
~'tS :'ou look at the dri ~.reway lit I s kind Dt an II S II
design; it's not straight at the }arage. It will
be meandering through woods that will remain. If
'j'ou're standing on Wunneweta Road, you '.'.Jonl t ha.T/e
dlrect view directly up the dri'.'ewa)' to the
gara-::¡e. It will meander around and a lot of that
natural buffer will stay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The concern
11sually is the propert)' owner that is most
exposed, and that is going to be the property
:JWl1er while standing in front of the propert~r will
be on the left-hand side or southeast side, and he
or she may be here, we're not sure, it appears he
is here. lmd so was the case Wl th the Broadwaters
Co~!e situation, which we recently did.
So, please gi'Je us a landscape f,lan on
chat and tell us how high the -::¡arage is and all
that.
2
.
o
o
4
5,
f~
7
9
10
11
1-,
L
13
.
14
15
1 i;
17
LS
1 '~1
20
21
.
25
['''IE. r';¡CCARTHY; \fer1' good.
CHÞ.IRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD I"lEI'IBER ORLANDO: I 'Nouldn' t sa..' it's
c,'pical in Nassau Point this scenario, but I \.¡ould
say it's common in this area. putting the }arage
further down the slope just makes it a hazard for
the person walking up to the house, and. I wGuldn't
wallt to do that. I did drive up the neighbor's
22
23
24
September 14, 2004
7
1
.
3
dri'!ewa~r to access this instead of hikirlg through
the woods, made it a lot easier. I see the
1ifficulty. I don't have a problem witll it as
long as che screening comes and also che 280A. I
had a Jeep, and I almost got stuck in chat one
LunafE.
L
4
5
HR. MCCARTHY:
I underscand.
vle'll deal
9
',lith that.
CHÞ.IRI^IOr1þJ' OLIVA: I think this happened
in the past. l^Ie had another applicant jusc the
llsY.:t house down I but the road \ÞJas in bet tel'
condition. I -::¡uess all the rains that we've had
it just completel:,' eroded out. I was able to -::¡et
down to the other one but not this time.
MR. MCCARTHY: I'm sure Mr. Miller lS
-::¡oin-::¡ to want something that's safe for he and his
famil:,'.
6
~
,
8
10
CHAIPJ'¡OJ'1AN C,L IVA:
He's gOln-::¡ to have co.
11
LJirn:'
2-1
BOARD MEMBER DItJIZIO: I don't ha'!e any
,=,bj eet ion. I think whate\rer r,:::;ad or pathwa'{ or
whatever }oes to it is fine. The landscaping
ching, I just I don't see it. This place is goin-::¡
ro be a good 200 percent beyond the principal
setback ,:,f any buildable lot and to for,:e this
~pplicant into any kind of major screellillg I think
'.'Ie should probably temper thac a little bit. The
f =tet that it is a wooded lot f ma'/be if 'd~ ask them
t.::. l1Dt t~ke down toc mani' trees I that shDuld be
the extent of it. Certainly that's onl:," m:,"
opinion, but again he being tear down his house
~nd build it a good 75 feet closer to thE road
right now and he could have two story, -15 foot
hi}h building there; of course, I wouldn't like to
see it, and I'm sure the neighbors wouldn't like
tc see it. I think some consideration as far as
lanjscaping, I would hope that the Board would not
}J¿ too stringent on tllat requiring expenSl~.re
landscaping due co the fact that the lot exiscs,
and there is a house there already, and the
IJuilding he's going to put there is not ill all~r wa','
ill a nonconforming location other than the fact
t.hat th.=.::re' s not. a house there. So I just a.:3}: the
¡"l.::::mbers of the Board to take that in c,::,nsiderati,:,n
with this landscape plan, and perhaps, Tom, you
could also hopefully take some comfort in the fact
t.hat som.<:::one's up h.<:::re not requiring you to h3-T.re
'~1,Ü(IÜ trees.
12
13
e
u
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
L.L.
23
.
25
September 14, 2004
8
1
2
·
4
"
,)
"
,
.~
~I
10
11
1 -.
L
1"1
· 14
15
16
17
1°
u
19
2D
21
¿¿
7""
~-
2-l
· 25
BC,ARD r1EHBER GOEHRINGER:
more thin}?
CH.ZUR~10!1AN OLIVA: Ye",.
BOARD f1EHBER GOEHRINGER:
will the garage include, just the
e.lectric?
[·'JR. MCCARTHY:
ax this point.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Can I
sa','
c,ne
¡,hat utility
utilit,' of
He ma'/ ha'..,e water in there
You ha"e t,:) let
us know.
[,'!P.. r~CCAp.THY: Is there a diffçrçnce,'
BOARD r~EMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, th,= garage
is for an accessory use. I hate to keep mirrorlng
~he application on Broadwaters Cove, but we said
we ha~e no problem with an outside water spigot¡
but we would like to know why a person 11Eeds to
add water to their garage internally. Is there
going to be a potting shed?
MR. MCCARTHY: With all due resPçct, i"'n't
that a building code question for the building
illspector, what's going to be in there?
CHL~IPJ^lOMAN OLIVA: No, it's ours.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Accesscr:,
building.
CHAIR\^IOMAN OLIVA: vie can set the
conditions for what should be in there ~nd not.
[1R. ~ICCARTHY: I will supplement thç
~pplication with a letter as to what's to bç
there.
BOARD MEMBER r;C'EHRINGER: And in no wa.y am
I personall~r going, am I as one Board member
']OlIlg, to put aD)' extensive screelling on this
~,i~ce because of the nature of where it's going
Gack, but I do have neighbors concerned based upon
thesç buildings that are bein-::¡ built forward of
the house. So in anSí:Jer to f'-1ember Dinizi,:),
nothing to the extent that the ather application
\'/as.
MR. MCCARTHY: Your concern with water
would be what, if there was water withill the
Luilding'"
CHÞ.IR\^I0!1AN OLIVA: ,Just for a hose?
BOA.RD f·1Er"IBER <30EHRI'NGER: The cr.)ncern, t,:)
~llswer your question is, that people haole been
using these buildings for habitablç purposçs.
vJçekend habitable bunk house." and that i.s a
sitl1ation that I myself do not condone. That 18
an accesse·ry building used cust·=,maril:,' and
Septçmber 14, 2004
9
1
,
incidental to the main dwelling.
r1p.. MCCARTHY: I a-::¡ree. So whatever he's
allowed, if he happened to have a sink in there,
if it was a potting shed, or if he was werking on
tlle ~T8hicles to get cleaned up G':er the summer
BOARD MEMBER GDEHRIN':;EP.: That's the
'~luestion, tell us what it is, vle'11 supplement the
application with a letter. Clearly it's not his
intention to make it a second house on ttle
pre-perty.
CHÞ~IRWOr.jJ:¡'\j'J C)LIVÞ+: Is there an~,rbGdy elsE::
in the audience that would like to speak an this
application?
I"IR. FLEMING: Xa':ier Flemming, I own a
hr::nlse at 555 ~^lunneweta Road. I'd like tCi hand 1"OU
a expanded site plan here, plot plan ¡handing'.
0n that map I just handed you, my house is
located on Lot 201, which is hi-::¡h on the hill on
the right -hand side as ,'ou go do'"m \'lunnevJeta P.oad
from Vans ton Road, directl)' across from the
applicant's lot, Number 297. I'd like to speak to
::;.=;u and represent myself as owner or ine'.:itable
c,wner of the three lots owned in red. r-],' late
brother and I jointly owned Lot 200, which is
slngle anJ separate and not built on. My late
IJrother GWI1S Lot 202, which contains a
sin-::¡le-family dwellin-::¡ down further on the dirt
l"~)3.d closer to Broadwaters Cove. Some ,:::la'/ LGt 200
ma...· be de,..reloped, I ha'le a ri'::Jht to put a lv=:·use 0n
it if I chose to, it's a singl~ and separate
liJt. I'm concerned of the view of seeing a garage
aut of a potential buildin-::¡ on Lot 200. I think
ic will have a negative affect aestheticall~T, and
it will depreciate 01,' property 'lalue there. 1"1,/
Lot 201, which contains my house now, has a small
d~ck in front. I don't know if you carl see It
from the road or not and that's the beauty of m,'
11QUSe, it's rather hidden, it's the tan Cape Cod
up on the hill, and I ha',re a ba-:.,- windo',¡Il lI1 1Tl':.;
living room, which looks directly out an Lot 297;
anj an out building such as a garage, again, I
believe will have a negative effect on tile
a~sthetiC' appeal ,:;.f m~r ~,riew and cGnsequentl'}', d
ne,;:rati'.-e ':alue on my propert~/.
Lot 202, which contains my late brother's
hause, has a full width elevated porch, that is
alsiJ going to look dOflln on this garage, that is
relatively close to the road. The applicants
2
·
3
4
5
6
8
j
10
11
12
13
·
LIe
15
1';
17
18
19
20
21
22
~.,
LJ
24,
·
25
Sept~nlber 14, 2004
10
1
c,
represented that the erection of a garage in the
trGnt of the property is commonplace, and I take
issue with him with one exception on Nassau ~Gint,
and. the Gl1e exception would be '",¡aterfront hc,mes
where the:,' really dc,n't ha':e a front yard. The
water is their front 'lard and tIle garages arE in
their street side, if iTOU will.
The other homes on ~\funneweta Road built to
~ccommodate the terrain, this is not the onl)'
llouse that's on a hill there, Mr. Asciutto, the
applicants's next door neighbor, his home contains
a garage under the house on the side. Joe Dec]cer,
who is one house farther to tIlE south, 1138 a
garage under the house. ['1:,- brother Joe's he,use on
2 <:1 1 buil t a garage under the house. A.nd m,' point
is tl12se other homes recognize the topography
problems, and they built houses that conformed
with the code that didn't require the erection of
out buildings down hill from cheir properties.
It's my position that ~~ and tell me if
I'm wrong -- when you come before a 20111ng Board
meet ing, :,'ou' re supposed to display a hardship to
ha'.'e :,'our application considered?
CHAIRI'iOMAN OLIVÞ.: '{es.
MR. FLEMING: My position is that the
applicant has created his own hardship by putting
a house plan that would be greac for a more level
lot, on a lot that WOI1't accepc che sCrllcCure chat
he vJ3-nts to put up, and by doing so, I beliec.re
that he's putting a llardship on me, his Ileighbor,
Clnd I su-::¡-::¡est that the Board recommend thaC he
~mend his plans to be consistent with the
buildings on che road, and I encourage ~rou to
reject this application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIíJÞ~: Thank yc,u, S lr.
NR. FLEJVIING: Thank you.
'-::HAIRl^lmLl'J'J OLIVA: Sir?
J.1R. ASCIUTTO: f1y name is Basil Þ.sciutto,
~-S-C-I-U-T-T-O, I live at 620 Wunneweta. I'nt the
n~ighbor directly adjacent to this piece of
property and on the left side. Since there is not
a house on the right side, I'm at lot 2~S on ~r,~ur
map. This house is m~l primayJc residenc~. I spend
more than half the ~7ear here alld I plan on
~~tiring next year and be here full time.
As Mr. Fleming said, all the hOllses on
~'Junneweta are built with the same topogra.ph,:/ ·::lnd
mest of them ha\re the garage und8rnea.th the
2
·
3
4
5
6
~
9
10
11
1~
L
L'
·
14
15
1f)
17
18
19
2ú
21
L¿
23
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
11
1
8
building. The owner of this property, Mr. Miller,
is a builder, so he knows full well exactly the
topo-::¡raphy and what can be built and what can't be
built. vJhen I look out my sliding doors in my
liT,ring room, 2û feet away from rny property line
will be the back of this -::¡arage. I don't see a
h3l'dship on the part of the new buyers r,f this
piece of property because the)' can put the garage
ill the rear. There's no problem, it/s a new
~QIlstruction. These are ver~7 narrow pieces of
prc,perty; the,·'re 100 feet wide b1' 350 feet deep.
We're all kind of built along the same path, so we
(ie,nlt really see each other's house. Wll~re h~
plans to put the house way up in the back, I dGI1't
think conforms to the other houses that are there,
,~f course he has the right to do so, but if h~fS
3skin) for an exception for the garage fer the
front, I would have a problem with that.
So I would ask you to reject their
~pplication for a variance. I think there is a
T.cr3xiance rtSquired because therel s a reason \\,'h1' ;..,rou
want the garage in the rear. There's ne·t an
ezistin-::¡ structure where he can't build the garage
in the rear if that's what he chooses.
BOARD rv1EMBER ORLANDCI; Cine quick: question?
CHAIR¡'10I1AN OLIVA: Yes.
EOARD MEr1EER ORLMJDO: Tint's ',¡hy ~lember
1::;<Y~_hringer and ITlj"self kind of r;-::commendcd some
landscaping with screening, would that help if
the~7 camouflaged the garage with dense
l='tndscaping?
1'1R. .,^SCIUTTG: I don't understand why --
would it help? It would help a little I guess,
but I have natural woods there right now. In the
,,..Tinter time you're not going tc, screen anything
unless 'loU put in 50 foot pine trees in therE:,
then I won't see it. Other t1lan that I don't see
the ¡::.urpc,se of putting the -::¡arac¡e in the front,
H¿ can put the garage under the house, 112 c~n put
the }arage in the rear. He's a builder. He knows
','fhat h,,=: h"Jught. I don't see why he ne,=:,js tc. do
tilis, personally.
BOARD fJIEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask '{OU
another question, please?
CHAIRWDr1MJ OLIVA: Go
EOARD MEMEER DINIZIO:
ahead, Jim.
I t sounds t'J me
¿
·
3
4
5
o
7
-
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
1-
~
17
18
1 ~I
20
21
22
23
24
·
~c
~~
like it's more aesthetics than an)rthiIlg else.
dOI1't want to look at this thing?
T{i:'U
September 14, 2004
12
1
':,
r~R. .I'..SCIUTTO: I'm like e'ler,' other
peraciD. '(ou get spoiled, you ha......e beautiful
surroundings I and th~ guy next door buy"s the [Jle.::::e
iJf propert)', and he wants to build a house on it;
we all ha~e a right to do that. But if there is a
,~·..:>,je which basically says the garage sh.:Juld be in
the rear and someone is asking f,~r an exceptioTI
because there's a hardship, there's no topography
hardship that he couldn't put the garage under the
house so 'I'es, would it bother ms? Absolutel,-/.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If he put the house
tllere it would be much worse.
HR. ASCIUTTO: I'd rather see the house.
J'.1P.. FLE~lING: Just a comment to the
gentleman on the end here, aesthetics is clearly a
pl-imar'!' concern, but I think that ha"l"Jin0 a garage
close to the street within full view as I
;iescribed the houses has a property vallie
,~Gnsideration too that has to be considered.
Thank '/DU.
2
e
3
4
5
l:
:
s
11')
11
1 ;ì
CHAIR1t]Or....1AN OL I'iA:
Beard Hembers?
BOARD r~Ef1BER GOEHRIH-::;ER: Yes, I want tc
add one thing to the record. I think we're
failin-::¡ to look here that there is practical
jifficulty. The practical difficulty is that
exists here is if he puts the garage u~jer the
house, he's either going to significantly alter
that ?er:,' nice plateau area that r1r" Orlando '''as
L~ferring to to cut tile drivewa~' down ellough to
get up that hill, and I happen to live on a hill
and I ha~:e to tell ~TOU it's not a fun tIling itl the
Wiltter, I realize there's a great deal Gf tIlat
t,:::,pograph'/ in this immediate area, so there is
some degree of practical difficulty in this
,~pplicati0n. And I'm just throwing that {Jut.
D~~snft nlean I'm in favor of it or not in fa'!or of
it, as you know we vote as a Board, Mad3ffi
~'hairman .
Than}:: you.
Any c1ther
12
13
e
14
15
10
1:
12.
20
21
e
2::-
'::HA.IRvIOMMI OLIVA: Does an:,'body else wish
t·':, speak on this application? TGm, did '/f~)U ha':e
anything more to say?
HR. ["'ICCARTHY: I just Vlould like to
reiterate the fact of the difficulty that's
created of coming in and out of the winter time
would be quite difficult, and the further you push
the other building back, the longer the driveway
1)2comes and it becomes more costly as well. And I
~')
L~
23
24:
September 14, 2004
13
1
8
l'espect both these gentlemen's opinion, if he
brou-::¡ht his house close to the street, h~ could,
in fact, leave the garage exactly where it 15. So
this gentleman who lives next door would be
looking at the same thing if Mr. Miller decided to
hopscotch the house over the garage, the gara-::¡e
w()uld remain in the same location, and it could be
conforming if he chose to bring his house closer
t,~ tIle street. Although I can understand exactl~'
wllat he's saying he doesn't want to loo]{ at it,
perhaps if the house were closer to the street,
the garage would be in the rear yard, it would
still have the same effect on this gentleman and
his view. I just wanted to add that to the
ree'Jrd.
2
·
3
4
5
6
~
,
9
23
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to go over
that, that's what I wrote down when I first saw
this thing. The setback you're asking for is 118
feet and required on that lot is 40 feet.
I'1R. r1CCÞ.RTHY: The front ~'ard i", 40 feet
and to the house is 194 feet
BDARD MEr1BER DINIZIO: The house, lea'te
that out. You could take the house and build it
withln that 70, 80 feet of space, build it ri-::¡ht
l_lP to 40 feet and not even ask us for a T,rariance.
¡'¡R. rVICCARTHY: That's right, and I feel
that would have a bigger impact ,:on the neighbors
,~lld across the street and what have ~rou because
tile house would be directly on the road and would
tl~~.re a big impact on Wunneweta.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How
gara}e being set off from the side
MR. MCCARTHY: 20 feet.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's n:ot
~ccesscr~' setback, it's principal.
/iIR. I1CCARTHY: Princ ipal.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How high lS the
';r,3.rage g':Jing to be, lS iL single sLory, 15 f~~L,
=ü feeL?
I"¡R. MCCARTHY: I bel ie\'e the ce,de maximum
lS 18 feet, so within that.
BOARD MEr1BER DHJIZIO: Two car -::¡arage?
IvJR. f1CCARTHY: Two car gara}e.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the doors are
far is
yard?
the
10
11
12
13
·
l-±
15
1~
o
17
18
19
20
21
~,~
LL
24
,:']C,enin-::¡
·
~c
L~
MR. MCCARTHY: The doors are opening Co
ehe north, away from this gentleman's house.
BC·ARD ~1EJ'.1BER DINIZIC': From the street
September 14, 2004
14
1
,
~ou're going to see the side of the gar~ge.
['¡IE. MCCARTHY: Yeu' re gc,ing to S~~ the
side of the -::¡arage.
BOARD r1Er~BER DINIZIO: Þ.nd you'll dri'.'e in
and ha\.re a turn.
r/lR. rJ1CCA_RTHY: From the: street it may e\~2n
look like the two are connected because that'8
what you're going to see in the foreground is the
",ide of the garage and the house behind it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the
distance between the house arId tlle garage?
[',1R. f1CCARTHY: I \IIGuld sa,' at this point
it's approximately 50 to 60 feet between the front
steps and the back side of the -::¡arage.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you, Torn.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Are there all,' c,ther
fUl'ther comments?
MR. ASCIUTTO:
Yes.
I think the
question
aparcment
·
3
4
c;
G
7
8
9
lCi
17
was there's not going to be an accessor~'
al:>'J\re this?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not allowed.
r::HAIRWOf1AN OLIVA: Onl,' eleccri,= and may
be just water for a potting shed.
MR. ASCIUTTO: As far as aesthetics are
,:ol1cerned, all the houses are in a row, I would be
much more comfortable having a house pret t1' mu,,:'h
placed where all the other houses are, and looking
at a bacJcyard without an oversized house sitting
150 feet to my view in the rear. So as far as
a¿sthetics are concerned, it de,es make a
difference to me.
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
·
25
CHAIRI^IDMMJ OLIVA.: No one else~' Then
I'll mak~ a motion to close the hearing and
reser'le decision until later.
BOARD f1E[VIBER GOEHRIN,::;ER: Before" I say
second, we are going to receive this inf,~rmation
from r"1r. f\1cCarthy. And r-1r. rJ1cCarth~/ is gOlng to
~ddress in that letter the 28CiA aspect?
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Right. The 280A,
landscaping, the height of the garage, electric,
".JJateL, if an~l.
BD.,^RD ~IE['~BER '.::;OEHRIIJGEE: And the
rehabilitation of the road in front.
BDAED MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on chen, maybe
we could discuss that right new on the record.
Tom, the 280.?¿ I assume you're gl.:;.ing t·')
113ve to go into the Building Department again; 18
that what your understanding is?
18
1 SI
20
21
LL.
23
24
September l~, :004
15
1
2
· :3,
4
5
"
8
SI
10
11
12
13
· 14
1::,
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
L.L
2:?
24
· 25
MR. MCCARTHY: The 2801'. is a surprise to
me because we enjoy a building permit for the
tlGUSe already_ That's been issued by tlle Building
Department without the need for a 280A.
BDARD I'1E~1BER GDEHRINGER: Well, I will not
-:¡rant anything and I will suggest to this Board
t.hat not.hing be granted, Tom, unless tha.t driT.r,<:;:wa,!'
is done because an emplo~ree on that house could
~fst hurt and I assure '/c'lt 'i'ou ','iill never iJet ..::in
~mbulance into that property.
¡'¡R. f1CCARTHY: I don't di sagree 'Ñi t h ';ou.
I'm stating for the record the fact that the 280A
is ~ surprise to me at this point because tIle
Building Department did grant a building permit
that the applicant currently enjoys on that road
for the h,=,use.
CHAIRWOMM" OLIVA:
,~ertain conditions.
The ZBA can make
BO./\RD SECY. KO\'iALSKI:
lS the garage.
I·m. r~CCARTHY:
Ce, address the issue.
safet~r iSSUE, we will
sãtisfaction of --
For the
housE',
this
For the house. l^Ie're happy
I recognize there is a
deal with that tc the
CHAIRI'¡Or1AN OLIVA:
there, Tc,rn.
MR. MCCARTHY: I understand.
BOARD MEf1BER CORLA.NDO: It's not ,',=ur
fault, Tom. The Building Department I don't
l,~lie'le goes out and (ioes a visllal inspectioll on
~T.r~r~· permit before the~' issue, they see a survey,
they see a dedicated road.
I·m. r1CC1'.RTHY: I belie__e it's improved up
t,~ this gentleman's property, then it becomes ~
~ut just be~'ond it in front of c,urs.
B,C,ARc- 11EMBER GOEHRINGER: 'de don't ",'-'en
A car cannot get dc,wn
kn~w if that meets standards to be honest with
~..(:;u .
MR. MCCARTHY: It looks like this
g~ntleman or his predecessor improved it ill order
t,=, get access to their propert~r. It's incumbent
up,:,n us tc, do the same and we í...¡ill do tl1~ same.
CH."IRv¡O~1AN OLIVA: Thank you, T)!11.
BOARD ¡'lEt-1BER DINIZID: I'm not going to
let that go. The 2801'. is a requirement that has
to corne tG us through the building inspector, and
this Board, alth'Jugh we can en;=:umber an applicant
,,'.rich certain restrictions, I d.::,n't think: we can
Septemb~r 1~, 2004
16
1
e
-
require him to have a 2BOA.
B']ARD MEMBER '.:;OEHRINGER:
can, 150 percent, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
l^Ie certainl,'
L
I don't. belieT.'e
"'
that that. is our purview.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
That lS our rnaln
,
pur\riew.
BOARD r1EMBEp. DINIZIO: If the buildin3'
1Dspect.or finds during the course of t.he
inspection that this Ileeds a 280A, then lle's going
tG tell us; then the proper course of a~tion will
happen, which is, the applicant will be required
t ~ submit the paperwork to file for a 230A aIld
¡neet those requirements. If that hasn't. been done
for past applicants, that's a sin that this
applicant is probably going to h~ve to pay for.
Slit I mean, to make our ruling contingent on a
;'.SOA, I'm sorry, don't see us haTJing tc de. that.
_~~nd if the bui Iding inspector, the persc,n whc,' s in
:harge, the person who makes decisions based on
the code requires a 280A, then weill be more than
!lapp,' to require that of the applicant. Be,'ond
that. I I don't. understand any reasoning behind this
Board'g decision not to grant him sometlling
because he hasn't been disapproved for it yet.
BOARD ~ŒMBER GOEHRINGEP.: ~¡e didn't sa,'
5
')
3
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
that.
24
BOARD f1EMBER DINIZIO: I heard ,'ou say
that. You said ~rou're not gOillg to grant this man
a variance unless he has a 280A.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIN:;EP.: I said unless
his road is brought up to standards. I said
nothing about him having to lla\r~ the 280A at tlllS
nloment. At the moment that the house is
;:ompleted, since he has a building perm1t, and
whate,'er the traumatices we go through and the
decision that's rendered by this Board, and before
a CO is granted on that gara-::¡e, regardless if it's
in the house, out of the house, in front cf the
hc,use, below the hill I it doesn't make any
difference, he's got to have a 280A. In other
wards, the road in front of the house has got to
!TI~st 280;'~ specifications. Þ~nd ths..t is what I'm
rë:ferring to.
[,~1R. r~1CCARTHY: ~·\le' re sa-:,/ing it has te, me¿t
specifications wit.hout gOlng for an official 2S0A
~equest. from this Board?
BOARD ME~1BER GOEHRINGER: As lang as the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.
25
September 14, 2004
17
1
L
e 3
4
5
"
Euildin-::¡ Department's happy with that, ~nd that's
basically the issue. And that is the only concern
that I ha~e. Because I tell ~'GU one thing,
c;omebod," s going to get killed ':¡c,ing dcvm that
~oad at night. I tried to do it, and I want to
tell ::ou that is just earth shatterin-::¡. I am
presently not driving my car today for that
~é:ason. [',11' car is in the shop because ·.=-,f that
rc)ad.
~I
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is the
Jray area you're creating, Jerr~·. I want the
~f'plicant to be clear as to what his course of
~ctlon 18. So he's not three months from now
still tr~ring to get a variance f·~r the ga~age in
the front ~'ard, which is what tiley came to us
criginall~r for. I can give hint some directioll,
l~t's tell him he's got to go back, write a letter
tc the building inspector, whate'ler has to be .J.cne
S0 this applicant doesn't have to guess what his
llext course of action is.
CHAIR~¡OMMJ OLIVA: I would like tc make a
motion adjourning this llearing until we receive
~ll the information we have requested until
:=,C'tr-=.,ber 21st.
r~1R. fv1CCARTHY: ~^lhat you are requestin'} is
ttlat the road in front of this parcel cGntinuing
past this gentleman's parcel is brought up tc the
standard that you're lookin-::¡ for,
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A reasonable statE of
.S
1D
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
L·epalr.
1"7
EOARD SECY. KO¡'iALSKI: It's usuall,' 15
foot wide, filling pot holes and puttin-::¡ some bank
rlll1 or gravel, it depends 011 what's there and wllat
~]u would like to offer first.
¡·m. f'ICCARTHY: We will offer tc, ,'=,u in a
letter that we will do those improvements to-::¡ether
wlth the type of screening, we'll give ~rou the
height of the gara-::¡e and offer to you what the
utilities will be within the building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that's
18
1 SI
2Ü
21
22
r;-::asonable.
BOARD MEf~BER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it is.
HR. r·1CCARTHY: I'll offer that ln a
l~tter, and if you want to make that a /:ondition.
CHAIR\'iOMAN OLIVA: I wculd prefer t,e,
adjourn the hearing until we receive all the
information until October 21st at 9:30.
EOARD [VIE~1BEP. GOEHRINGER: Second.
23
24
.
~. c:::
¿~
September 14, 2004
13
1
·
3
CHAIRW0I1)\.N OLIVA: .,,11 in fa'lor~
BOARD ME!1BER GOEHRINGER: A,/'ò .
BOA.RD I'1El"IBER ORL)\.NDO: F,,'e .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Aye.
80."RD MEMBER DINIZIO: ['Ja.y.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIV.": Thank you.
2
4
~
~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9
CHAIRI'JOI'1AN OLIVA: next heariwJ is fe,r
Alec Smith for a lot line change on Maill Road in
('utchogue.
[';JR. SMITH: I'Iy name is Randy Smith, I'm
Diane's husband, and \."Ie lNould like to change the
property line on the lot in question. l^Ie'd like
to square it off with the [';Jain Road and all the
surrounding properties. We would like t!J
basically eliminate the flag pare of the lot that
runs behind the lot that our home is en.
We'd like to do this for a couple reasons.
I guess the main reason being if we ever find it
necessar~' to have to sell this property, that flag
0n that property is reall~r not large en,~ugll to do
much with other than possibly unsightl'./ storage en:
s()mething along those lines. Alld we'd 1i]ce to run
the property line along the crest of th'ò hill
which is really the natural break in that
property. It looks like that's where that
propert~· line should be, and in the meantime,
~ight now, we don't find it necessary to 11a':e tn
sell this property, and what we would lik'ò to do
is 11a'fe a horse fence and turn it into 3 horse
p3sture and have a permanent fence put 3round it
wieh:JUt having to jog the fenc'ò all the way d,:)wn
tG the pond and around. Basically that's it.
CHAIRI'JOl"IAN OLIVÞ.: You want to put thE
horse tence --
MR. SMITH: On that lot.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIV.": Lot 1 or Lot 2?
["!P. SrVIITH: [Joe on the lc,e that the
residence is on, the ~acant one.
'.::-
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
I,S
17
18
19
¿I)
21
CH."IRI~Ol"lJ'."N C,LIVA:
Okay, to the east.
~~
L~
"Jlncent?
23
BDARD 11Ef1BER ORLÞ.NDO: County eax map
.5ho'''''8 onÇ lot, but you're sayinq it's two lots
n::)\-I;-
2.,1
MR. SMITH: It's bEen subdivided.
r'Js. KCM)\,LSKI: The,' had prior ','arian,=es
~nd the~' haven't finalized wit}l the Plal111ing Board
~'et and are now back to change the variance to
·
25
September 1~, 2004
19
1
J
alter the lot line again before they finalize the
planning; is that correct?
r"1R. SI'HTH: I believe s,:,.
CHAIRvIOMA_N OLIVA: Jim?
BO!\.RD ME!1BER DINIZI,C,: It looks like j'OU
got two 80,000, 88,000 square foot lots. Tlle~"re
.cdd shaped?
MR. SMITH: Aesthetically it doesn't ~~ke
à lot of sense.
2
·
-3
4
5
-:'
B':)Þ.RD MEMBER DINIZIO:
wouldn't either.
MR. SMITH: Right. Because there is a
crest ri}ht there alon-::¡ that property line. The
land falls away quite a bit dO\vn to the pond, and
it's kind of silly.
BOARD r1EJVlBER DINIZID: I'm not much f,c,r
placing conditions, but I ullderstand your
'\rgument, and I think it wouldn't hurt the town
just to divide it the way it is. But ~~u will be
creating a much larger lot on that other side
106,000 square feet instead of 88,000, 311d I was
",¡::mdering how you would feel - - '¡,au would be
allowed to fill up 20 percent of that lot now,
PO,üDü square feet, I don't know what that comes
t>~'f .:1,000 square feet, something like that. I
tla',re to write this decision, and I was chillkillg
that if we didn't allow you to go any more thaIl
the 20 percent of 80,000 square feet in filling ln
that lar}er lot of building space, would that be
acceptable to you?
CHAIR\^IOMMJ OLIV!\.: There are a lc,t of
buildings on that.
BOARD f1Er1BER c-INIZIO: There lS, I
agree. It doesn't look to me that it gGes \~\rer 20
percent now, doesn/t come close really, ~nd It's
Jc,ing to get lar-::¡er. I was just hoping that ,'ou
would agree to at least not being able to increase
It an~' mere than what you would be allowed tG
increase it now without corning b~ck for a
Land-wise it
~
,
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-.cariance.
~. ~
LL
1'1R. srv[ITH:
'{ou're putt in,} me in kind of
c;
·
2 =.
BOARD [v[Er-ŒER c-INIZID: Do you ha'.'e plans,
tell me, if you have plans. If you have plans --
r'1R. SMITH: I ha\'e no plans for it.
BDARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just hate to see
,~ huge horse barn on that.
~ c
LO
24
HR. SMITH:
We're not gOiIlg to put a horse
September 14, 2004
20
1
·
3
b~rn. We were going to make it a pasture. w~
lla','e stables on our other property, we were going
tG use the current stables. It would be nice some
day, if we could turn the barn -- my wife's a
professional artist. She would eventuall~' like to
turn that into a studio, and she didn't want to
look back and see the back of the barn, look aut
onto where this potential junk yard might be.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with all of
t_hat. ¡-'1y point is that by incr~asing the siz~ of
that lot, )'OU increase the size of the amount ,~f
buildin-::¡s that can go on there also, fc~ lot
'~"-=¡"',"'erage .
MR. SMITH: You're talking about the lot
with the buildings on it?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The lar-::¡er lot,
it's going to be a lot larger.
HP.. SMITH: vie certainly would ne'fer put
r~n'.:thing there. There's no wa'./ we would put
?tn,:,thing on there. I mean, if we had t·::" if I had
t,-=:, cGmpre,mise with ye,u, I would do it because I
d\~ll't like the wa~' it's set up IlGW, I would ~ln\ost
r~ther stipulate on the deed that nothing be built
back there, if that could be done.
BOARD r1EI~BEP. DHnZIC,: 110 further
buildings back there?
MR. SMITH: No further buildings back
there, cause tllat's [lot --
B(::'ARD r1EMBEp. DINIZIO: I, ,':) , I don't want
·:o,u to -::¡o that far. ¡,hat I don't want to find
that ~',~u made this lot larger -- this is not ~'OUI
11m not accusing you of anything --
HR. SMITH: I know property chan-::¡es hands.
BC,ARD ~Œr1BER OHnZIO: ¡'Ihat I d,:,n't w~nt
is to find later on I drive by ,"JU made this lot
lar}er and you made the other one smaller so that
you could do something that required a larger lot.
That was my thought, and again, this Beard will
tell you, it's not normal I)' my way of thinking,
but I am coming to the conclusion that sometimes,
f,·.rhen 'IoU look at a piece of paper, thin'3s aren't
~lwa~Ts what thE~' seem to be, and 20 percellt ,~f
SO,OOO square feet, wllatever that iSI tllat would
l.:-:,~ the allowable lot cO',Tera':Je t.h3.t yeu '.'.'c,uld be
able co have at 1061000 square feet and that is
d.u¿ to the fact that ,¡'ou got a ':ariance, actuall·::l
a Ilumber of variances 011 this prGperty. Would
that be something that you could consider?
2
4
5
",
7
8
'J
10
11
1~·
¿
13
·
14
1::,
1 ,~
17
1:3
19
20
21
~ "
~-
23
24
·
25
Sept~mber 14, 2004
21
1
.
,
MR. SMITH: Yes, I guess so.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could still
come back to this Board for a T:ariance, say ~·ou
were going to go 21 percent Dr 25 percent of the
lot co~rerage at 80,000 square feet, you could come
back to this Board and get a variance for that.
I'm not guaranteeing you a ~ariance, but that's
part of that process. But as a condition to this,
nri preference would be that some way f '/'=-'u f re gOlng
to have two two acre lots that the amount of
IJuilding that goes on there, still be consistent
with two two acre lots. I'm just throwing that
,~ut there. If you didn/t agree with itl it
\/\I'Guldn f t change ill"¡" mind ,::)ne way ()y the ,-:::;.ther.
¡'!P.. SMITH: It's a little fo-::¡g::. I'm nc,t
sure that I got what ~rGu/re sa~~ing. Ars ~/':)u
saying thac the property line would still -- che
side loc would still be flagged?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The propert,' Ilne
l/v'(juld be what you want it, which is that nice
straight line back on the lot to, whac, the east?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The smaller lot.
Then that lot's going to be reduced to 60,000
square feet. And the other lot, which is a~ather
,~,8fÜOO square feet, whate"ver it is, is IlOW gOlng
to ¡lave a nice little square off there ill the }Jack
where the barn iSI and that lalld is going to
belong to you now, you Ii \re on that, and you can
sell the other lot or whatever; and what I would
like to see is that the amount of lot c0':erage
that is required there or ~rou are allow~d to have
tllere remain the same as if you had the two lots,
and they '''ere two equal lots. So if ,'ou had --
itls 80,000 square feet and 10 percent of that is
S,OOO -- so 161000 square feet of lot c\~':erag~,
~'0u're allowed to hal:e that right now, and at the
e~j of chis you'll scill be allowed to have che
1~,000 instead of 20,000.
¡,w. SMITH: That would be fine. \'Je're not
JOl11g to be building, in fact, WElre going to be
takin'J.
BC'."P.D f'1E[vIBER DINIZIO: I don't Chink ""au
i::',:,uld, he,nestly, I tried to figure it Gut. '~{,-=-,u
~~e well underl I believe about 10 percent lot
cCTrera'3e, maybe a little more than that.
MR. SMITH: We're actuall}' considering
taking down some of those old buildings.
.2
4
s
6
7
8
s'
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
E
17
12.
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
September 14, 2004
22
1
5
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I wouldn't make
tllat a condition of this. Just my thought was I
didn't want you to be able to haTfE lot :~o~.rerage
fer 1001000 square feet.
MR. SMITH: That's perfectly oka~'.
BOA_RD r1EMBEp. DINIZIO: Then I'm '::ioing tc,
put that in as a condition.
CHþ..IRWOr~'[þ_.N OLIVA: Did Jerry ha~-l~
anything? Is there anybody in the audiEnce that
wishes to speak to this application? H~aring
Done, then I make a motion to (:l,~se the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
ISee minutes for resolution.)
2
e
3
4
.,
7
8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Eugene
3nd Georgene Bozzo down on Camp Mineola Road in
[.]attituck.
f'/IR. BDZZO: r'I~.: wife Georgene an,:::l I are
here this morning to ask this Eoard to review alld
11nderstand our request for adding decks to the
rear of cur prOp2rt~r. We live in a private
c:'c,mmunity that reall"J' was founded about 60 ~"¿3.rs
èt':::..jc, as really a summer communi ti", has eT.r''Jl T.r~d C',rer
th~ years into half the families li'.'ing there ,'ear
l'.:)und. And my lot i8 a "';}ery narrow, lcng let, as
most of the lots are in there. While we enjoy
li~ring on the water and living an a waterfront
piece of propert}r, there are some disadT:antages,
Cilthough some might not think so, but thETe are
some disadvantages to living on the water and
there are some hardships that we really
encountered in the last number of years since we
have both retired. A.nd I'd 1 ike to re\'iew them
for the Board this morning.
One is that we have a direct adjacency to
a beach right next to our home that is used by 12
f~milies in the communit)r, those famili~s that are
net directly en the water have access t(J tIlis
bèètch, and since more and more people are mOT,ring
there permanentl~', it gets quite crowded on tIlis
beach. The other is the difficulty with the size
\Jf our lot. It is long, narrow and reall~' it lIas
an angular shape. The other one is that
waterfront exposure while great, we ha~'e a direct
southern exposure, which we get a lot of wind in
ch¿ afternoon and direct sun, which makes it ver~"
difficult out there to enjoy sitting out and
ç::lting, and it also does not glT/e us an...: prlT/3-c,/
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.,~
~L
23
24
.
~. ~
Lo
September 14, 2004
23
1
5
because the beach is right next to us. The other
tiling is that since 1988 when we initiall~'
rellGVated the house and did this, our total lot
area has been reduced to the high water by about
235 square feet, therefore increasing a lot.
We are not asking to expand our home. ¡'Ie
will lea':e our home alone. w~ are just asking to
put a deck on the back which is 360 square feet,
and we would hope that the Board would consider
that this morning.
CHAIRv-JOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. ~.Jincent,
dc· you have any questions?
BC,ARD MEMBER ':)RLANDû: ,L,::cording to this
notice of disapproval in 1986 ~'ou were gl\'en a
-.'.3Tiance not to exceed 2-:l percent of lot c'o~:erage.
MR. BOZZO: That is correct.
BOARD f'1E~1BER ORLANDO: .'\pparent 1 '" now you
have 28.5 percent lot co~erage.
MR. BOZZO: Rart of that, Mr. Orlando, is
that one, as I mentioned, we lost total property
to the high water mark. When the sur,.TeiT was done
in 1988 we had approximately 7,900 feet. New the
2urve~' that was done recently shows us to be
7,G55, so that accounts for a difference in t~rms
r.::,f a percentage.
BOARD MEMBER DRLANDO: No expansion, jllst
less of propert~'?
f'!P.. BOZZO:
to the property at
Creek there.
There has been nothin3 changed
all. We're right near James
2
e
3
4
I)
'7
.s
0'
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
there.
CHAIRI^IOMMJ OLIVÞ_: Yc,u",'e had bad erosion
I did some work with Mr. l^Iombach.
MR. BOZZO: It just flows right into the
and they ha\re to dredge the creek e'..ery so
17
18
19
"-.::'reek,
·)ften.
20
CHAIR\lIOr' AN OLIVA: But the,' ha':en' t put
tile spoil back on your side at all.
J·W. BOZZO: The,' did this ,'ear. The'; put
tile spoils up front, but this sur\'ey was done in
Crscember, and the spoils were l1Dt done 3.t that
time.
21
"~
LL
LC
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was down at
clle p~operty, sir, I find this an extrEmel~r tight
[HeCe of property. Þ.nd I just have a pL·c,blem wi th
~ncrGaching more into that area between the frame
garage and the house, the existing hous~ as it's
})een t.uilt for man~r, nlany years. I apologizE¡ but
I just think it's tee tight, I really, re311,' de.
24
.
~. C
L~
September 14, 2004
24
1
~
MR. BOZZO: Every piece of property down
there really is tight. If you were down there and
looked at it, and I have pictures of it if you
would like, what we/re asking f'Jr I think is
l'easonable, it's onl}·' 12 feet cc,min'J fr,.:::;,m th~
house. And while j'OU maj' think it is tl-'jht, it lS
~ llardshlP for us because we can't enjG~' sitcing
,Jut front and after 2:00, forget it, you can't
~nj,:)·,./ any meal out there, you ':::,a.n' t sit C)ut there,
Ch2 Willd just comes up. And we reall}' llave no
pl·l~Iac:.·, 3.nd to us it's an issue. And ',·.'hilE:: it
may - - I can't chan-'je the pie"e of my pr'OpelTj', I
can't adjust that, I wish I ,~',~uld but I 'Can't, a.nd
I've asked for what I think is a reasonable deck,
vlloich is only 12 feet, and I would hope that j'OU
would COl1sider that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHR UlGER: I'll '}O back and
l'elook at it, I'll do another ph/sical inspeotion.
=In~ of the areas, as being past captain of the
rescue squad in Mattituck Fire Departm211t, is that
~=trea I we can 't ev-en turn an ambulance L=tround down
there, that's how tight it is, and of course this
cleck is not going to impaot that in any waj~.
MR. BOZZO: No, not at all.
BOARD r1EMBER GOEHRINGER: Howe\'é'r, I have
to tell you that the percentages of lot coverage
far exceed n~ estimations of what they ShOllld be,
ü,='·t ,=,nl'../ cn your piec~ of propel't'/, again, whi(:h
is a 'fer'i nice piece, b,,/ the \!Ja~' and a ..Ter~T
]:,eautiful lot, but on manj' of them down thé're. I
have expressed that to many people down there,
in,~lLlding the gentleman at thé' end who just
rebuilt Marcie Allen's house, Mr. Tufar10, and
that's just m~r opinion.
MR. BOZZO: I^Ihile I recognize that the lot
(=overage is high and it's more than is allowed, I
think you have to recognize that it's a piece of
~ropert~T that has existed that way, and it's 3
Ilome that's been built over 70 ~rears ag'~. We are
llot changing the character of tll>:> home. ~"¡e ha"l.'e
n,:.·,t ,=han,ged that even when \ve renov"ate it VIe
didn't, and when we renovated back in 1086, we
moved the house back from the bulkhead and bought
the house and raisé'd it up to mc,,-'e that. ,'Ie
,iidn't touch the garage except for changing thE
2ntrance on one side. We have tried to comply
with everything. While, yes, there is ijifficulty
-·-=:.ming down the street, that has nothill'.j to do
:2
tit
l
4
s
~
r,
.~
9
10
11
12
13
tit
14
15
16
17
1.8
1 S'
2ù
21
')"
L..':'
2 ~~
24
.
--;.c:
¿~
September 14, 2004
25
1
9
with the deck. The deck is going to be off the
back of the house. I don't see it as an issue and
if it is, and you would like us to conslder
possibly reducing it slightly, I would agree to
that, if that would help in helping you agree with
us in that we have a hardship.
BC,ARD ME[vIBER GDEHRINGER: The 01111' thing I
r:all see you do is making a ground level deck 0n
the back of the hcJUs,~ wi th an avming o':e1' the top
~f it, and not all extensive second stor~' deck Gver
the first story of the deck. ¡'Ihen I sa,' ground
le'fel, I realize it's going to })e raised a little
bit above the ground, but it's going to be
s'~mething ver}r close to the ground for ~'0U to
utilize and the ability to keep the shade off
would be one of those retractable awnings, tll~t
type situation that's the only thin-::¡ that I could
possiblj' see.
MR. BOZZO: The issue I would have with
that, and I tllank you for considering tl1at, is
that the design we have used and the plans all
show the deck upstairs and show everything. I
would ha'.'e to change my complete plan f,C)r what I
want to do, and I think that's a hardshlP havln-::¡
spent a considerable amount of mone)' to develop
the plan and everything. I do have a building
permit, as you know, to add the room upstairs alld
j.-:, some modifications. [vIy purpose here today is
to ask for relief and get decks that I need ln the
bacJe.
,
L
e
3
4
5
'::.
7
3
10
11
12
13
.
H
15
16
17
BOÞ.RD MEMBER DRLANDO:
fle,or deck.
MR. BOZZO: That's correct.
BOARD MEr,mER ORLANDD: And for the record,
wh~t is Gur maximum lot coverage we ha~¿ -- iS11't
it 28. S, maximum Zoning Boar'd has apprc'.'ed.
BOARD SECY. KOWÞ.LSKI: E'.'ery nelghborhood
15 a little different.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sig5bee Rcad
First an:i second
1.3
19
2ù
21
22
.:lppl~oximately
BC,ARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
í',PPloximate11' 28
23
percent.
BCARD MEr'1BER GOEHRINGER: 28.5.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BCJ¡\RD MElv[BER DINIZIO: [think It' 5 a
little high too myself, the lot coverag~. Ycu
knGw, you c'ould get a',vay with a patio out frc:,nt,
some awnings or sometlling. I'm looking at tIle
24
.
~h
LJ
September 14, 2004
26
1
9
front of the house now, if j'GU feel likè '{OU ha~.re
tc sit you out there I that I s c2rtainlJ¡~ a wa-.,' to
'Jet around that, and it wouldn I t cost y":',u an,!' more
to redo the plans than it does now because you
just wouldn't have to build what you require. If
~"~:>u could find some way of cut t ing it back a
lu:tle bit --
MR. BOZZO: Cut back the plans to mo~e the
dec:k ill, both of them you mean;'
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I honestly don't
coee aD',' rea.son fc,r it. Þ.gain, if you feel ~'cu
wa11t it, tllaC'S fine, but the clling is it's prett~r
l1igh lot coverage, and you know you could de other
things; you have other avenues to pursue, and Glle
of them is just to put cement blocks down on the
ground, whatever, cement pad, and cover it up in
the summer when you have that sun glaring on it.
MR. BOZZO: If you don't agree with nle on
it, and ~'GU don't agree with me reducing it ba2k,
and I did go ahead and put let's say a deck down
below, that would have to be even with the ground;
i2 that \·¡hat :,'ou're referring, it would have to be
flush?
¿
e
3
4
5
'0
7
8
10
11
12
13
19
BOARD ~IEMBER DIlUZIO: If you put che deck
and didn't have the second story orl it, I probably
wouldn't have a problem with it whatsoe~rer, if
that looked like a porch.
MR. BOZZO: If you did thac and on the top
I put just a balcony, in ocher words, I did an
alternate plan just in case I would ha1;e an issue
I did aD alternate plan just showing a balcony up
the deck, would I be allowed to do that' That
should not hinder anything becau2e that does not
change the footprint of the house.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not going to
Ie
14
15
16
17
18
.
25
~o~rer tIle second stor~r deck?
MR. BOZZO: I would just have
c'oming out from the second stor·~·.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Llke a
HR. BOZZO: I could show you,
te, see it.
BDARD r1E~1BER DINIZIC): C'ka~'.
MR. BOZZO: In other words, you would just
ha':e up here on the top and there would be no
change in the bottom. That way I wouldn't have to
chaIlge thE architecture and the way I designed the
'l.Jindo\\ls and the wal' I designed that. It \·,rc,uld not
~hange the footprint at all.
a balc'c,n~~
20
21
l'ailin-::¡.
if ~"ou \,..rant
22
23
24
Septemb~r 1~, 2004
e
Ie
.
27
1
L
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Change the
3
footprint of the house.
MR. BOZZO: Then I could do
mentioned, I could go ahead and put
'}l·c,und le'.'el in there.
BLIA.RD MENBER ,::;OEHRINGER: Keep those
windows high enough that you could put an awnln-::¡
"=,~,:er I if you need to put an awning over.
BOARD MENBER DINIZIO: That would be
better than what you're askin} f,~,r.
MR. BOZZO: I would like to.
BOARD r1Er1BER GOEHRINGER: Depending upon
the size of the deck.
BC'.'\RD f1ENBER ORLANDo]:
that deck?
HR.
']0 the full
17.
what Jerr::
somEthing
4
=,
!)
'7
J
What is the Slze of
'9
10
BOZZO:
length
Four by 17,
of the other
because it doesn't
.-:::;ne.
It's
fi'.'e bv
11
DGes this overhang
12
B().Z\RD MENBER DIIJIZIO:
Lhe area?
J"1R. BOZZO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DIlJIZIO: B,' how much?
MR. BOZZO: B~' fi\re feet and in the frent
,:::,f my house I ha\re a small, similar little deck
like that overhanging over the front deck I have.
It looks like when there's a deck below it, but
13
14
15
'./·::::,u know.
MS. BOZZO: In due respect to what Jerry
says, with the awning, that would be a
possibilit~r, but for me personally, cosmeticall~r,
I Just don't think that would look cosmetically as
dorng the charm of the house, the look of the
llOUSE, the aesthetics of the house, I think we
have an awning in the front and to put 3Hother
quite large awning in the back aesthetically would
nc,t look - - and the other thin'} I would like ,',:u
to take into consideration in the front because
tll~ beach adjacent to us has grown, families llave
'Jrowl1, people are li,.ring there all year long,
"!irtuall~' no privacy in front, the wind factor is
".r.-?J_"':/, ~le.r'/ large, and we could not put any dense
landscaping there, because we' érf; tried that, it
would ne~rer last to give some pri~'ac~' itl tlle past.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: YCM're talking
about che water side of the house.
MS. BOZZO: l^Ie'd like to entertain --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand what
~'ou're saying, but you're also asking fc,r a SeCGlld
16
17
18
19
2ù
21
22
¿..:',
24
~"
¿J
September l~, 2004
28
1
~,!
sc,=,r,' to that. We're denying people de:::ks just
c·ut of hand decks because of that, and ~~.:)U' rc
asking for a lot higher, I'm looking to perhaps
,]i'.T<2 you what you need, I,...¡hich is '{aU want seme
p~otection from the weather, which would be that
.~wnlng, and a place to sit in the front, which you
could do with patio blocks, and it could be raised
..=t foot or so, if yc,u want- to put the aÍo^]lling ':Jut-,
it would look okay. I think that plan is a nic2
plan and you obviousl~' pilt some thought llltO it.
MR. BOZZO: I would like what I o~iginally
asked for, but I also realize that the lot
,::e"lerage is high, and I wanted to ha'.'e an
alterllative to tr~' to accommodate what we would
like to have. This doesn't completely do it
~xcept I put a patio on the bottom, and I could
put one down on the bottom. We have to run all
~wlling under this coming out.
MS. BOZZO: See the upper deck does also
\~ive you screening from the sun.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If it' s ~ 12 f·.~ot
j~,::k, the awnings's going to gi ,:.re you seven feet,
which is not something this Bc,ard
disapproves honestly. That's all
B'JARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
will you submit that plan to us,
MR. BOZZO: If you would like it I'll
appro"es or
I ha\'2.
The question
IvIr. Bozzo?
is,
2
e
j
4
5
"
'7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
1~
submit it todaj'.
BC,ARD SECY. KOHALSKI: I note that it is
plan 8 '6 amended 11,'7.'03 b)' architect's llame lS
[¡aT.rid Berz.
MR. BOZZO: If you want me to submit this
tcday, I will.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please.
CHAIRI^IOI~AN OLIVA: Thank you 'lery much.
Is there anyone else in the audience that wislles
tc, speak to this appl icat ion;' I f not, I'll m'!ke a
mc;tion c:lGsing the hearing res.::~r'.,"'ing decisi'':)I1
until later.
(See minutes for resolution.
16
17
IS
:: û
~: 1
~.
LL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~, --
~~
Hr=·C..'anc~
porch.
CHAIR~"lOMÞ.N OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
on Fishers Island on Cottage Place for tl1e
We did see chat when we went over there.
24
BDARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEF.: Fox A.'/enue has
IJecome a very popular area for our applications.
'~:HAIR\'IOMMJ OLIVA: !1r. Lark.
row. LÞ.RK: Richard Lark, Main R'cad,
.
25
September 14, 2004
29
1
8
,=utchogue, New 'íork, for the applicant. So' the
Eoard has seen the properc::?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yee. ¡^Ie measured it
all off, ~nd saw there were porches on the other
pieces of property on that etreet too. They just
wallted to re-do what was there originall~·.
MR. LARK: I think the application that
':'''::::'U ha'/e before you is pretty self-explanatc'Yi'. I
submitted the architectural drawings showin-::¡ the
increases, what's being proposed as well as the
s11rveyor situation. Basicall~7 to refresh ':'OU,
they're just really extending the kitchen and
laundry room area.
~r..~s shown on the survey the laundry room
footprint is 34.7 feet westerly from the legal
right of wa)', whereas the proposed extensiorl to
tile closest point is where the exteIlsion its~lf 15
going to be it will be 59.8 feet from the ri-::¡ht of
W3','. The building inspector determines that the
Light of W3.',/ f not. the pr,::;pert....' 1 ine, is vlhere ~rou
1lave to measure it from. This is a paper 50 feot
requirement because, as ~·ou see, if you llave IJeen
t·~ the property, most of the right of way that's
,~n the applicant's property is a parking area for
the applicant, whereas the dri~eway itself is only
Dine to 10 feet wide as it meanders on the
~asterl~' side to get access to one lot tG the
lk,rth. Þ.s ~'ou see on the photo-::¡raphs, what
th~~"re proposing will have absolutel)' no impact
.Jll the right of wa~' area or muc}l less the
ne ighbors . As 'J'cu see in the sur"';;rey, the closeE't
as it exists today is 111.1 feet from the property
line. So the impact is reall:: rninirnus. How.::'!el-,
zoning does require the 70 foot rear yard, and he
h3.8 interpreted you ha..'"e to measure it from the
,~: IG8est point on ths right of vJay, but as I sa~/,
the pictures clearly demonstrate that this
addition will be seamless.
The sur'feyor shows the nevi footprint r,,\lill
\).:: 88 square feet increase; the architect shows it
~t 81.22 on the first floor and 92.79 c,n the
secolld floor for a total increase of 17~.Ol, and
llSillg the existing house of 38-11, according to
tile surveyor, you get .04 and 3.¡:cording to th.::
~rchitect if you do a calculation, you get .045
lI1CreaSe in the living area. So it is YI,inimal. I
tllink the pictures shaw )'DU rllat the second stor~r
impact will ha~,re virtuall~/ nothing, althe,ugh the
..c
e
3
4
"
j
,
"
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
Ie
17
1,:'<
-'
19
21J
21
~-,
¿¿
~ -,
L.._'
24
.
2 ~~
September 1~, 2004
30
1
5
work is being done in the area of the 75 feet, so
it does require the variance. The roof line, by
pushin-::¡ the dormer out, the roof line wlll
basicall~r sta}' the same arId I think that one
photO';jraph that was taken from the dri ....reway vJhere
the existing house is with the existing laundry
roam and kitchen and what the proposed is, ~~u can
Bee that the change is basicall,' seamless. So I
respectfull)' move for the reasons in the
application, that the \rariance be granted to
increase this footprint by 80 some-odd square
f~et.
L
·
3
4
r
,:,:"
...,
9
If there are any questions, I'll be glad
to answer. Otherwise I'll just b2 belaboring it.
CHAIRI^IGr1AN ()LIVA: I don't have an',
(1Uestions, vincent?
BC'.Z\RD MEMBER
Nc, questions.
BOÞ.RD f1EMBER
~3lte.
ORLÞ.NDO : ~^Ie all saw the
DINIZIO: It has a beautiful
s
10
11
T.rlew.
16
MR. LARK: Yes, it does.
BOARD r1Er~BER DINIZIO: They ha\'e a bee
f,roblem too. I have no questiollS.
CHAIR~¡OMAN OLIVA: Jerr,''?
BOARD r·1EMBER GOEHRINGER: I ha':e no
abjection. This is one of those modest
applications that we see when yC)U' re tr~rin'J t,-:,
ta.ke something that was more summer)' and make it
part of the house. It's a magnificent piece of
property and probably in addition it's -::¡oing to
~nhance the property immensely.
MR. LARK: Make it more efficient.
CHAIR\~OMAN OLIV.Z\: Is there an,'body ln
the room that would like to speak on this
~pplication? If not, I'll make a motion to close
tile hearing and reserve decision until later.
¡See minutes for resolution.)
1-·
L
13
·
14
15
17
18
1 'J
20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
23
CHAIR~¡OMM;¡ OLIVA: Next hearing is for
John and Marion Brand,,'old, which is on Ba~" Shore
Read in Greenport.
J·'IS. KRAMER: Hi, I'm ~leryl Kramer, I'm the
architect for the homeowner.
Basically this is a beach bun-::¡alow that
the owner wants to reno\'3.te and make additions to.
The existing construction is very substandard. In
order to bring the building up to code, ensr}y
(~·~de, structural cedes, we made a decisioll to
21
~, ~,
LL
24
·
25
September 1-1, 2004
31
1
c
rebuild the entire house. The owner is trying to
stay within the existing setback 'Jiolations, ',vhich
is 13.5 and nine feet, so we're just t~~ping to
Bcrai}hten ouc and -::¡o parallel to the property
lines to maximize the square footage. So the deck
·=:tnd the t\'IO side yards we're nc,t encroa.:hing an'/
farther than the property already is as it stands
now.
~
e
3
4
o
~\Je ha\re designed the house so tha.t th~
second floor consists of dormers so as to minimize
th,,=: height on the side 'lard so we ha"l"le a nine foot
plate height on this first floor, then the roof
slopes up and the second floor spaces are just
dormers sitting on that, so ~·ou don't h~ve a full
twc.-story wall anywhere along the side.
CHAIRI^IOMMJ OLIVA: 'íou' re not demolishing
the house?
1'1S. KRAMER: \^le're keeping the foundation
as much as possible, but anything that can be
sa~ed will, but a lot of times the contractor
will, b~' the time the~"re finished takillg down
what's not needed, 'd'cu might as well sta.rt u"pF-r
3-gain.
t::.
...,
R
10
11
1~'
L
13
.
14
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerr,'?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been to
the site, I understand what ~'ou're doing, I really
Jon't know how to evaluate this cne. I llave to
tell you again, this is not a sarcastic statement,
but I think again, we're gOil1g to have to requirE
l.-¿nde1.'ings of these paper rnache models because we
31.'e just unable to visualize, Meryl, tIle impact of
what these houses are gcing to do on these lots,
particularly these smaller lots. Either that or
some sort of physical ','iew, either done b:.: camera
::omputer, because it is very, very difficult to
imagine what this house looks like; I know what it
looks like now, but in its future sense. I do
c"-pplaud the fact that ,'ou're nct changin-::¡ the
f"=,.:=:.tprint of the house in any WElT/, but the impact,
~nd I do appreciate the dormer aspect ratller than
raising the roof to a full tWG and a half stories,
~CI to spe~k, but the impact is '/er~' difficult tc
"pisualiz~ .
¡,IS. KRA11ER:
posing a problem in
,~llmensi,::)ns?
Is it the hip roofs
terms of visualizing
that are
15
1,;
17
18
19
20
21
¿¿
23
24
in three
.
25
BC'ARD t1Er1BER GOEHRINGEP.:
ability tG see what the hei}ht on
I think it's
the exi2tin'9
the
Septccrnber 14, 2004
32
1
7
structure is going to look like, and how it may
impact not only the two neighbors on either side
but '.'isual impact from the road. This appears to
J::a a relatively modest plan that you're doing from
the outset, but I'm certainly going to go back
-3..£ ter YDU I "T<2 done it, and ....'eu I '..FE; done many of
tllese plans, and we kid around with )'OU calling
~·cu the Bay Shore Road Gal, well, architect,
l~'er..::.'ause you are the Bay Shore R,-.::-,ad gal, ther~ I s no
question about it, but in general, it's difficult
t~, show the impact. It reall:: is.
["IS. KRAf1ER: Okay.
B'JARD 11Er·1BER ,:;OEHRINGER: That's not a
criticism of you or ~rour work.
HS. KRAMER: I understand it's complicated
with the idea of the hip roof and then addin-::¡
dormers to that in order to minimize the impact.
BOARD ME!1BER GOEHRINGER: E'len a roof line
cut down would be interesting to see because then
we would be able to notice that.
2
e
-
'"
5
6
8
::'
10
11
12
1'JS. KRAMER:
seetie-TIs?
BOARD f1EMBER GOEHRINGEP.:
Do you mean buildin'3
13
No.
From a
e
14
cardboard rendering?
HS. KRAr'1ER: r"Je can do either a modEl or
rna~~e a little 3-D. I don't know how to do a 3-D
l-endering I but the woman who works with me does.
So I'll talk to her and see if we can get that, so
one or the other.
CHAIRWOI1AN OLIVA:
difficult to imagine what
like.
I dc, agree it's
it's going to look
15
16
17
18
19
BOARD ME11BER GOEHRINGER: vie sit here ln a
rc,om a.nd super implant in our mind what we had
seen, and it's a ver~' nice piece of propert)r.
It's not a terribly large piece of propert~r, but
ttl~t's the nature of that area, there's no
¡~'Jestion about it, but it's just very difficult.
!'IS. KRAMER: Okay. I think we can do
tllat. And maybe what I could also do is look
around at some other similar roof configurations
ill the areas because it is a basic hip witll some
iGrmers on top, so I'll take some pictur~s so that
mi'3ht help you too to visualizE that from the
r~Ja.d .
20
21
22
23
24
.
2=
B'C'ARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: ¡'Ie had a
tremendous problem with a similar application
2zcept the roof line appeared to be much higher on
Sept~mber 14, 2004
33
1
9
Euc.'h Lane, and we had some great, great !.Jpposition
(=,n that one, and it was unfortunate, we llad
nffered an alternate plan and the people actually
l~ecame so upset with the neighbors' con,:erns tll~t
they withdrew the application and that is not the
intent, my intent.
!'IS. KRAf1ER: ¡'Ie still ha'.'e a letter from
,~rle of the adjacent prGpert~r owners in fa~ror of
the project.
EOARD !"iEMEER GOEHRINGER: That's ne'.'er
been my intent to do that, to discourage. It's
c,rll~' been to add or possibly lessen the impact.
But in this particular case, it's difficult to
'."isualize it. Again, it's no reflection on Y01_1Y
',-iclrk because you do \r,<:;:ry, TJer'/ nice things. It's
just the inability to perceive it on how it's
30in9 to look.
r'IS. KRAMER: Okay.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
B(jARD r1Er1EER ORLANDO: This construction
full basement, half basement, crawl space~
i"IS. KRA!'IER: Full basement I belie/e.
~JR. ERANDVOLD: I have a full basement
down and the elevation's sufficient to keep tile
basement.
!'IS. KRAMER: We're at 11 feet.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a full demo.
¡-1S. KRAMER: ¡ve're lea'.'ing the existing
IJasement, then where there's new foundation, we'll
jllst put ill a crawl space where we're gOlng to
adjust the an-::¡les of the footprint.
EOARD MEI1BER ORLANDO: It's a block
f,,::::,undation now?
MS. KRAMER: Yes.
BOARD MEI'1BER ORLMJDO: ¡,¡hat is the hei-::¡ht
to the ridge, approximately 28 feet? It doesn't
seem tllat high, 28, 27?
f'IS. KRAMER: I believe that's what it is
to the ridge, 28.
BOÞ.RD MEHBER ORL.'',.NDO: The house adj acent
tc y~u, that's quite tall?
J'·1S. KRM1ER: You're ver,' tall.
BDARD r·1EMBER IJRL~zu.JDO: They're t he ones
that -::¡ave the letter it's okay, right?
['-13. KRAMER: e,f course.
'-::HÞ.IRI1or'IAN OLIVA: Jim,'
EOARD i"IEMBER DINIZIO: How wide is this
I have 27.9?
he,use?
~
¿
e
.'
4
5
I)
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
1t:'
17
18
19
20
.21
~~
LL
23
24
.
" C
L~
Sept~mber 14, 2004
34
1
2
· ,
4
5
I';
8
f.1S. KRAMER: Let me grab the SLtl":ey tc,
make sure. Yes, 27.9.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have like a
striped area, it looks like a deck?
r-I:3. KRAMER: The striped area lS the area
to be added onto the existing footprint, 80 the
Jashed lille is the existing footprint of the
h'2,use, then the solid line is the new and the
dashed area is the area that's proposed to be 10
addition to the old footprint.
BOARD I1EMBER DINIZIO: It says proposed
,:ieck, stairs and additions.
MS. KRAMER: Proposed deck and stairs
addition, yes, because that area is not part of
the hc,use, if '-"OU will. It I S not a structure I
it's the deck, I was trying to distinguish between
the deck and the house.
BOARD r1E~!BER DHJIZIO: On what side we,uld
9
10
11
that be?
14
MS. KRM1ER: The water
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
there's a distance that looks
deck is g':Jing to be new?
MS. KRAÞIER: Yes.
BOARD I1EMBER DINIZIO:
h~ larger than a porch, right?
HS. KRAf1ER: '{es. It's basicall,· an
side, north.
On the side 'l'ard
like a deck, that
12
13
·
l'~nd it's 'Joing to
15
1';
entrance to the house.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not covered?
r'1S. KRM1ER: It's not cO':ered by the
second floor, we just have a shed roof to project
17
~'(~)U .
13
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the
(jlfference between that and the lot line?
HS. KRAHER: It's 9.5, that sid"" and that
15 the 9.5 that we're maintaining where the
existing deck is. vIe' re not going be'/ond.
BGARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're lK:tO)'e,ing
l=-,~,":rc,nd that?
1-'
20
21
HS. KRAMER:
~"¡e' re not going be'."rc·nd the
24
9.5 that's already existing.
CHAIR\~Of1Af'¡ OLIVA: You're just makin) the
hC',use a 1 i t t le larger though?
HS. KRM~ER: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record,
I j ust. ~J.lant. t.a mention that, cf course, I kn()I:¡
that. it's 3.n existing footprint from the F,oint of
~, .,
L~
..:..~
·
.25
September 14, 2004
35
1
L
"clew of side to side and you I rÇ squarin3 the h,=,use
:,f f '
.
~
[',IS. KRAMER: But vie are expanding tc.',¡ard
the r'Jad.
BOARD MEr-ŒER GOEHRINGER: Toward the road,
right. So in effect, it reall~' is not the same
footprint because you're filling in where th~t
an,~le effect is?
['~1S. KRAMER: ~'Je I re not maintaining the
same footprint. We/re just maintaining the side
,'ard setbacks.
BOARD MEJVJBER GOEHRINGER: Thank ,,'OU.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVi',: Is there an,'bod',( else
who would like to speak on this application?
¡'1R. BRANDVOLD: I would. I'm John
Brand'lc,ld, and Meryl has worked with me very much,
and I just thought since I came to see you, having
SE:r"'l,"ed ten years on a zoning appeals beard in my
village in Manhasset, Plandome Manor, I appreciate
,,11 the work you people do, and I know these
11earings take longer than you thought. I am
ahlaYs appalled at how much time it dc,E's take to
-::¡o through and how diligent you all are.
I just wanted to comment. You commented
about how the house might look, and I'll have
I'Jler'll d,::) a small model of Lhe house, and ':3eorge
Braun, my next door neighbor who wrote the letter,
llis house, he received a variance I think about
four ~'ears ago and if you '.risited the lot that
','er)r, very tall house, and I don't know who
approved that, but that's kind of strange, but
I,ve' re ~,'ery, "l"lery close friends, I'm ·::lose friends
"'lith all the nei-::¡hbors. I tried tc minimize the
plan working with Mer,'l, and Vie' rE' lool:in-:¡ f~,r a
cottage design. We're hoping to eventually move
'~,ut here permanent l}' and we wanted to ha'.'E' E'nGugh
spdce so the grandchildren can come out. It's
been a hardship. I looked at trying to build onto
the existing structure, and I'm in construction.
The construction that was used ill the '40s, all of
the timber is undersized. The floor joists are
undersized; there's nothing in the hous-s that
'=·~uld support any addition going up the second
f lcor; that was what brought mE' back. I had
originall~' wanted 30 feet across and realized
after speaking to the Building DeòpartmE'nt, I sald
the easiest way is to just lea~e the setbacks the
wa\' che)r are, which was only asking for ~ foot and
4
5
"
e.
~I
lC)
11
12
13
e
14
15
1;;
17
18
19
20
21
22
c· -::¡
LJ
24
.
"":' ¡::;;
L~
September 14, 2004
36
1
.
3
a l1alf on the south side and one foot on the north
side. So I I m tr~ring to comply as much as I can tc
¡nake this an eas)' situation for ~rou to hopefull~'
appro~e, but I'll ha~e Meryl do the little box
plan. But I was going to mention that there is a
house on Ba~r Shore Road that just sold llot teo
long ago. It's 1385 Bay Shore PJJad. If J'ou dri~,"e
:j'~wn Ea~' Shore Road and look at 1385, it is nearl~r
the identical plan that we chose. We didn't chose
it -- I happened to notice after we did our work
that this house is almost identical. So that
house is very representative of having a garage on
th~ left and dormers on the south and the nc,rth
slde, and the width of the house is the same as
mlne would be with the exception that the -::¡ara}e
lS offset. So it gives the appearance of a
slightly wider house. But it -::¡ives the same
~ppearance in terms of the hip roof, th~re is a
little hip dormer facing the road, and there is a
small dormer on both sides north and south. .".nd I
thought I'd mention, if you drl\'e down that's a
brick house, I'm not goin-::¡ to build brick. It's
~lmost identical in the design, and it's a house
that you can see angular, you can see it from both
sides. So ~rou can kind of see how those dormers
':¡,:;uld lc"c,k.
CHAIR\10MAN OLIVÞ.: Is there an,"one else
that ,,,ould like to speak?
Iv1S. PECORARO: rvry name is Louise PeC'Oral"c.
I ',,¡as just curious, is there a height requirement
chat is allowable?
CHÞ.IR\^lor~AN OLIVA: Yes, maximum height is
35 to the ridge when it meets code.
BOA.P.D f1Ef1BER ,C,RLANDO: f·laximum h'òi-::¡ht is
t:::> the ffisan.
2
4
c
~
b
~
:3
~
1D
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
1 '~I
~ 0
L~
B,C,A.RD ME~1BER DINIZIO: It's 35 teet tD the
mean hei-::¡ht of the rid-::¡e. So ic could be 40 feet
high if the peak --
BOl'.P.D SECY. KO\^/ALSKI:
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
way going to be that.
CH.".IRI^IOMAIJ OLIVA:
make a motion to close the
0scision until later, with
~ecei~re the model.
'See minutes more resolution.!
This is
This 13
net
35.
2 C¡
21
net
In
any
¿¿
This is about 28.
hearing reser'ling
the condition that
I
we
24
.
2=
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is fcr
September 14, 2004
37
1
~,
Ellen McNeilly on Vincent Street in Orient.
r1S. ¡-1CNEILLY: Good morning, I'm quite
flwnmoxed. I don't have a building plan wlth me.
I'm quite surprised, I had no idea that I
needed -- I don/t have it. Ie n\ay be with the
8uilding Department a.pplication that YCJLl ha~vre
C>='pV28 of.
B,C,ARD 11EMEEF. ORLMJDO: \~e do ha.":e copies.
CHAIRI^IO~IAN OLIVA: Would you like to cell
us what 2TOU want to do?
¡'IS . MCNEILLY: Yes. A.galn, being one of
the people who seems to delightfully spend much
mere time out here than I have in the f,a.st ha'o"'ing
retired as well, but also being ?ery occupied out
here. The house f while it was 'lery amenable for a
weekend house essentially is not as accommodating
f,~r more full-time use, and my partner is doing
considerably more work out llere than had been done
previously; and we find that the upsta.irs second
bedroom has turned into a draftin::¡ studi::J, the
downstairs living room has turned into a computer
3r~a, and we don't ha'.re the room to exiEt. The
jownstairs of the house is 954 square feet, which
is smaller than man':, of the houses eTJen in the
nei}hborhood per se. So we wanted to put an
addition onto it that would be a slightly larger
li"Jing room and a dining room and something that
functioned almost as a screened in porctl but, 111
fact, was a dining area with man~r windows on it
chat allowed us to catch the light and the breeze,
::ì.Ed th~n turned the existin'3 li,.ring room into an
~ffecti~'e den and work space because we are both
Trer~' acti~'e and need the space to do that and not
to have the dining room table turned inco meetings
and plans and conferences and things like that,
20 that is what we intended to do, but ',.;e didn't
want to encroach on the garden to make it not
niable. \~e didn't want to turn the entire
propert,' into any kind of building spacêo. So m:.'
partner's brother who is an architect had set it
kind of -- the existing house goes this way, the
addition would -::¡o this way, but part of it is
coc}~ed so that it doesn't impinge tOG mi~ch on the
setlJack; there's only a corner of it matches the
ezisting setback, which turns out to be 5.8 feet
~f the rest of the house. So tllat was our illtent
was to minimize the existing grape arbOl" ther~
chat we would be hopin-::¡ to save part of. I think
2
e
~
-±
5
I;
7
3
1û
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
LL
23
2..J:
.
25
SeptEmber 14, 2004
38
1
9
~rDU, r~1r. Ch-lando, were looking a.t that to see we
may be able to take some sprigs and brin'j it
ar':::Yllnd to the cocked area, so that it nests in
there. It's a hundred years old and I really
don't want to demolish that if I can a~oid that.
But the addition would basically replace the
footprillt of the existing arboy, ~nd tlleD come
into the side yard toward the existing 'jara}e,
about at the 1e'1e1 of the existing deck en the
front of the house. So it wouldn't exceed the
overall coverage in the property, it barely skims
under at 19 and a half percent.
I would prefer to answer questions if I
could rather than --
CHAIRI^I0I1Þ.N OLIV.!".: I think ,'ou explained
it. I think we have all been tllere, and I
ullderstand it's going to take place in the arbor,
but you want to save part of that grape arbor if
'..:c::-·u can, but your extension VJill be in that aLea.
MS. MCNEILLY: Yes, it will be replacing
it. It's a 443 foot or slightly larger than that
3dditioTI, and the existing arbor is about 200
square feet. So it would be doubling that by
,~:'c,ming into the yard between the garage and the
h·:)use sli'3ht1y more than the arbor does, but it
wouldn't substantiall~' increase the going into the
backyard much further than the arbor itself
c'urrent 1-:/ does.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD JVJEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was just
wondering since you have a significant degree of
nonconformity on the one side, why you didn't
really want to pull that addition back 3 little
farther from that?
MS. MCNEILLY: Because it would limlt its
livabilit~T and where basically ~rou have a earlIer
0nly of the addition that we're propos in-::¡ , that
hits that existing setback because it actually
~ces at an angle so that there is like a
basically 70 square feet of the addition itself
would be at that setback point and the balance of
it goes further back.
BOARD ]\ Er1BER GOEHRINGER: I was jus t
wondering is that an open porcll which is in
Letween that that you're filling in there'?, It
looks to me it's an enclosed porch.
MS. MCNEILLY: Where are ~·ou referring?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to
2
e
3
4
5
IS
7
.s
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
13
19
2ù
21
22
23
2-1
.
~, c
¿~
September 14, 2004
39
1
,
the part in the rear of the house that's being
filled in basically between there and the neVi
"ddi t i,::m.
J·1S. f'1CNEILLY: The addition would be
buttin} up against to the existing house and
replacing an arbor that is currently --
BOARD !1EMBER GOEHRINGER: But that lrttle
jog there, what is that?
J',1S. f'1CNEILLY: That will be a .-k,Grwa~'
goin} out to the wood pile. So it would have a
little platform to bring it level with the floor
I~f the addition and the existing house and to step
dGwn two steps to be able to get down to the
ground level, and to enable us to have light -::¡oin}
In that bathroom window, which is on the east side
of the house.
Bc.ARD r1Ef1BER GOEHRUJGER: In effect, that
'~(Jrner that we're referring to, which lS
significantly nonconforming, could be clipped.
Yeu could give us more relief on that side -- this
lS not a sarcastic statement, it was meant to be
t:-,ragmatic. You could clip that corner, Sln,~e ..,'(JU
haT/~ some rather unique design 'In this already f to
give us a little more footage between there and
th~ propert~r line.
CHAIRI'iOMMJ OLIVA: She's got f::,ur fc,ot to
the existing an~~ay, 5.8.
Bc.Þ.RD f1EMBER GOEHRINGER: It's st i 11 too
2
·
3
4
"
')
o
~I
10
11
12
I"
-'
·
14
15
liS
c:l,,,:,se.
17
CHAIRWc.¡·1A1J OLIVÞ.: I kn,c,w.
BOARD ~1Ef'IBER GOEHRUJGER: It's a big
h·:,use.
13
[',IS. MCNEILLY: Bi,} house?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a tall
19
house?
21
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: It's not bi-::¡ Dr tall.
f'1S. ~1CNEILLY: Tall house?
BOARD !1EMBER GOEHRINGER: The wa'! I' rn
looking at it, it looked tall to me. I was there
Ss..turday.
20
22
r,1S. ¡'1CNEILLY:
It's a story and a half
húuse.
2-l
EC,Þ.RD J'·1EHBER ,:;c.EHRINGEF.: But it's f'All'
fe8t from the property line.
MS. MCNEILLY: No, it's not, it's 5.8,
BOARD f1EMBER GOEHRINGER: Fb'e f'Got is the
greatest and four foot on the back of the house.
I'm just trying not to increase the degree of
23
·
25
September 14, 2004
40
1
9
llOl1c::onformi ty.
MS. MCNEILLY: I brou-::¡ht the 5'2" is
~xactly at the end of the existing house.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIN3ER: That's correct.
MS. MCNEILLY: And I mean at back end of
the existing house, nc,t the frollt end, the back
~lld, may I point that out to ~'ou?
BOARD MEf1BER '3GEHRIN,3ER: No, I am aware
of that. I appreciate it, thank you.
MS. MCNEILLY: So, if we did that, it
would chan-::¡e the shape of that room
terrifically. Right now it 's two rectangles, one
/:,f which have been offset. This is the corner,
only that one corner that basically I think it
comes back seven feet because we did drop it IJack
31ready in order to nc,t get it to be too close.
That is where a fireplace would be; that is where
lt would significantly alter how we use that --
BOA.RD f1Ef1BEE GOEHRINGER: I waSl1' t
referrin-::¡ to the fireplace wall in toto. I was
referring to that particular point where those two
pieces go together. That could be clipped, that
cc,uld be a diagonal between t}10se corners so ~s to
create a greater distance between there and the
p"·opert" line.
CHAIEI^IOf1!'1' OLIVA: In other we,:eds, a
diagonal instead of a square.
[·JS. J"iCNEILLY: But that diagonal would
ha~e to be right into the fireplace.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Absolutely
not. Three feet on both sides with a diagonal in
between.
2
.
3
4
5
2
~
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
22
MS. MCNEILLY: I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER ':;OEHEINGER: Come up here.
I'm referring to this little diagonal here could
be clipped right across here, ',,¡hich would gi'.'e ,'eM
:=i ;Jreat.::::r distancÇ: in the back. You could eTJ-.sn
put a \JJindcw in there to make it look me-,re
d~sthetic, either a floor to ceiling window, that
would gi~e you a greater distance to the prGpert~r
1 i ne .
18
1'9
20
21
24
¡"IS. I1CNEILLY: Yes, this is the 5' 8" right
here now I and this has been bre,ught back to be
lTIatching that particular corner or exceeding it.
So I wouldn't be increasing the nonconformances.
B.:J.r"RD MEr,mER GOEHRINGER: You aLe now,
ber:::3use 1TOU' re addin;r onto it at the sam.::::
,::li.3tan,::e. If you clipped this a.nd ga'Ie us th~
23
.
25
September 14, 2004
41
1
.
-
difference of what this would be, whatever the
r]:c~ater amount would be you also ha'.'e more room to
Jet in, but the same token the degree at
nonconformance would not be increased to the point
of what the existing house would be, it would be
lessened to that effect.
2
4
e.
I"1S. I1CNEILLY:
BOARD I1EI'IBEP.
lipping out there?
Bc.A.RD MElVIBER
~2ction right here.
dlstance and give you
said, this nice lady,
th<2re.
It's pcssible.
ORLÞ.~NDO: ~"Jhat ar~ you
5
t)
7
GOEHRINGER: This little
Which would then add to this
a littl,,=: more roc,rn. ;~s I
you could put a window ill
9
MS. MCNEILLY: l^Ie're referring to that as
che cozy end, and this other end is the li}ht
end. I guess to me it's a difference between if
':v2' re not taking it all the way back tc, the
setback, we're talking about 70 square feet, which
is the 36 square feet of the porch and about
another 35 square feet of the room itself, alId we
IB.,j hoped that b1 ha':ing that particulal' ,=o:cner be
the only point of impact on the existing property
lil12, that it wouldn't be a sufficient 111CreaSe in
110nconformance to be problematic. Whetl1~r or not
chat is the case is something you all will have to
:l"='termine, I can't, but that was the re3-soning v.,r~
,,11 had when we did that was to make an absolute
lnlnimum impa,::t on the degree of nonconf::.rmance
~elative to setback, whether that is satisfactor~r
is another issue. Whether we can accommodate that
Hl"=::W, it's hard for me to imagine qUitE what that
would look like at this point without referring
back to the architect to see ~ow he would deal
with that. I can understand where you're going
'-'lith it, I can see it's a pcssil:.ilitjr. C>b"flic¡usly
we would prefer not to do it if it isn't a
l"o':Juirement, but if it becomes somethin-::¡ that is
oontin-::¡ent upon that, I suppose we could fi-::¡ure it
r-=--·ut in some way that is meaningful. But we
attempted, as I said, just to keep an aLsclute
f'Qll1t of nonconformance rather tllan a mass of
llc.TIconformance.
BQ.Z'RD MEf1BER C:OEHRINGER: \'Ie apprec ia ce
chat. I just wanted to tell ,'ou that if I didn't
ha':e that thought, it would be unkind of me llOt to
Inentiol1 it to you because if it came out ll1 a
jç·.,::'isic·n --
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
September 14, 2004
42
1
L
¡'Œ. ~jCNEILLY:
I understand what vou're
e
saYlng.
9
CHÞ.IRI^IC'lv[AN OLIVÞ.: Jim,'
BOA.RD r~EMBER DINIZIO: The c¡arage, did you
11a'le a variance for tllat?
MS. MCNEILLY: In terms of what, it havi~c¡
L,2eI1 built?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIG: It's -::¡oinc¡ to be In
a side yard?
[viS. 1'1CNEILLY: No, it v¡asn't requested.
It was a pre-existing condition when I bought the
house in 1987. I didn't know that I would have to
ge, for -- are you --
BCiARD [V]EI"lBER ORLAND,C,: The additi::m ',vould
put the garage in a side yard.
BOARD ME[vIBER DINIZIG: Just inquirinc¡,
chat's all. Just I foresee that that nla~' be a
problem for you when you '30 to ':Jet your CO.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: If so then ,'ou'll ha'.'e
to come back for another variance.
BOARD SECY. KDWÞ.LSKI: It's up to the
Buildinc¡ Department also.
MS. MCNEILLY: Right. And the Buildinc¡
Department, we asked about that at the Buildin-::¡
Department and the)" said because the arbor was
there, that the arber was considered by them c,n
s,=,me 1e\"¿1 to be a structure and that there vIas
already the nonconformance with the hundred 'i"ear
old arbor and the 40 year old }arage, it was
already placed that way. So since we/~e Dot
~hangin} that, I think that they left it, because
we did raise the issue with Damen at tIle Building
[,epartment and there was no request to -::¡o an,'
further with that.
BOARD JVIElI'lBER DUJIZIC,: Thank YOLl.
3.
4
5
6
~
v
10
11
1~
L
13
e
14
15
16
17
13
1 Sr
21
CHAI RI^IOHÞ.N OL I VA. : Is
In the audience that wishes to
.~ppl icat ion?
BOARD MEI"lBER ':)RLl'J'JDC,:
there anybod~/ els~
speak on this
21)
Is there a dwellinc¡
2.,1
above the garage?
[,'IS. ~1CNEILLY: No. There's a w,~'rking
studio that has a bathroom, but it's nGt a
d~pJ¿lling per se. ~t>J;:: haT.re used it for guests, and
then the)T schlep across to eat, but it's not a
dwelling per se. It's quite comfortable, but it's
nct a dwellinc¡.
CHAIRI^I0I1AIJ OLIVÞ.: r'lake a moti,~n tCe) cl'Jse
the hearing and reser~e decision until later.
~ ~.
¿¿
23
.
25
Sept~mber 14, 2004
43
1
·
3
(See minutes for resolucion.)
Il^Ihereupon, the public hearing was
adjourned for 20 minutes. See minutes for
res,)lution. )
L
4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is E'.'an
hkselrad at 1355 Shore Drive in Greenport.
¡-1:3. r1ESIANO: Katherine 1'1esiane, on behalf
i~,f the applicant. Good marnin,} I I am y'?:presenting
ETran Akselrad, who is a COlltr-act vendee in the
purchase of the property located 1355 Shore Dri~e
in Greenport.
MS. KOI^IALSKI: You had submitted some
éleTJation maps?
i"IS. [V[ES IANO: Yes. I submi t ted e leva t ions
and a survey depicting the project as proposed.
The subject site is a .3 acre waterfront lot
located at the south side of Shore Drive in
Greenport. The property is zoned R40. Itls a
vacant waterfront parcel, bulkheaded, upon which
the applicant proposes to construct a 30 by 62
t',.¡o-st:ory, single-famil,' dwelling and attached
-::¡arage, an approximately 504 foot square deck,
perVlOUS driveway and on-site sewage disposal
s,'stem. The proposed setback fr,C)m the existing
bulkhead at its nearest point is 48 feet. The
septic s~'stem is setback 100 f~et from th~
bulkhead, which is also the hi-::¡h water mark. The
proposed structure is placed in such a wa)" that it
,~onforms to all other parameters except the
bulkhead setback. The septic fleld requires the
,;3-rea and the front yard that is proposed. I \'Jould
add though, we plan to put the septic s~·stem in
the opposite corner because the only trees on the
propert~r are in the area where the sur~eyor
proposed the septic s~"stem. We're attempting to
save those trees, so the septic s~rstem will be
equidistant from the bulkhead, however, in the
left, the northeast corner of the property. But I
den't think that has any bearing on our
proposal. The proposed structure would be in line
with the existing dwellings on either side. I
h~'fe a couple of statistics that I can give }-()u.
Sllore Road is comprised of 19 lots, 17 of which
'Ire improved with single-family dwellings, all of
the lots have approximately 100 foot frontage.
There are nine waterfront lots on Shar"=:: Road,
S¿T.ren are improved. One appears tc be ,::::,wned 1::',,/ an
5
~
7
:J
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
If)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
44
1
5
adjoining lot owner. And the approved waterfront
lets appear to have similar setbacks to the
bltlkhead as is our proposal. I have onl~' one
copy, I'm afraid, of an aerial photograph that
shows a section of Shore Road with all of the
imprc"';....ements, and 'l0u can seE that the setbacks
are similar to that which we propose.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: This house lS a mits
bigger than most of the other ones thou-::¡h, I would
¿
·
3
4
I:
say.
9
r'~2. r1ESIANO: It lS somewhat. It takes on
th~ appearance because of it's configuration.
However, there will be no basement in tile heuse,
tl1erefore having yourlg children, Mr. Akselrad is
jesigning the house in such a wa~r that he has
~d¿quatE recreation area for the children above
ground. We're not exceeding the lot cG~!erage.
The house is inclusive of the -::¡arage, so while the
mass may appear to be lar-::¡e, kesp in mind that
thers is an attached garage within the
confi-::¡uration of the houss. The house is only 30
feet deep, that is not an exceptionally oversized
lot for the property. A houss much shallower than
ttl~t really becomes a functional problem.
Mr. Akselrad is here. Mr. Akselrad is an
architect. He can speak bettsr to the desi-::¡n than
I. The house has been designed for the lot.
¡'Ie're maintaining the appropriate side ~'ard
setback, as well as the technical information I",'e
gl~ren ~·OU. I ha'le letters from the nei'3hbors,
who, Linda, I think they were in that envelope. I
have a letter from each adjoinin-::¡ neighbor.
BC,ARD SECY. KCMALSKI: There's only
certified receipts in the envelope and affidavits.
MS. MESIA1,0: Then I will read these
letters. The first letter is from Barbara B. Dye
at 1465 Shore Drive, I believe tllis would be the
house to the right of the subject property.
"I"Ii husband Joseph Dye and I are the
nei}hbors of the property of 1355 Shore Drive.
'_'ut" pl'operty adj Gins the propert'"/ under appea.l c,n
the west side, and we are full~' aware of
Mr. Akselrad's application in front of the Zoning
Beard. We support Mr. Akselrad's application and
llrqe the Beard to appro~.re it as applied for. !I
And the neighbor to th~ left, JGhn Schatt,
III a letter dated September 9th, writes, !fTc, the
E'c)?trd cf Þ~ppeals: [\'1'{ wife [Vlary and I ::ire adj acent
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
1=
lé
l'
18
19
20
21
-, .-.,
L.L.
23
24
·
25
Ssptsmber l~, 2004
45
1
9
neighbors of the property designated as 1355 Shore
Dr17e. Our property is contiguous with arId
~irectly to the east of the property under appeal.
We are fully aware of Mr. Akselrad/s application
before the Zoning Board. l^Ie support
Mr. Akselrad's application as a fittin-::¡ use of the
property and urge the Board to approve
,~pplication.!' Signed John G. Schatt.
So I think the people who might be most
affected by a house that one mi-::¡ht think is
oversized, don't have a problem with this. They
~re fully aware of the application. Mr. Akselrad
has met with them, shown them his house plans,
He's holdin} his side yard setback appropriately,
~nd he's designed a house for the site.
If you have queseions regarding ehe siee,
the siting of the house, the design, I would
\:ereainly defer to Mr. Akselrad. Are ehere other
~uestiGns from the Board?
CHAIRWOUIAN OLI'iIA: 'Vincent?
BC,ARD MEMBER DRL.2'J'JDD: He, particular
'~luestions, just comments. Yes, I belie"le you can
only build a small cottage if ~'ou applied to the
75 foot setback and the septic. So I mean, I
think he's pushed it back as far as he could
toward Shore Road.
L
·
3
4
5
,-
7
8
10
11
1.2
13
·
14
15
r·IS. f.1ESIANO:
Even if we built a small
1 Sf
,'::'ot tage.
B,C,ARD r"lE~IBER ORLANDO: I also c::;ncur that
witllout a basement you lose a lot of storage, I
h?:tT"re a let of storage in my basement, f,,:::,,r
children, my wife. The only thing I will ask for
a little bit, though, it looks like the back deck
is about 12 feet; can we put that at 10 feet and
--±5.77
1·;
17
18
22
['·jS. f1ESIANO: Yes.
BC,ARD MEMBER ORLMJDO: Otherwise, I think
it's a }ood job. I was there where these trees
w~re. I parked right in there. Those are nice,
mature trees. I don / t blame you for tr1'ing t_c,
"33.\re them.
HS. f'v1ESIÞl,JO: t'lhen we saw the sur\re'./or' S
placement, I immediately called him and said, DO,
we call'e do chat. That's the only place we ha",e a
cree.
2D
21
23
24
·
~c
L~
BOA.RD r1EI'IBER ORLANDO: And the bulkhead
looks in great shape.
[·1S. r1ESIÞl-!O: Yes. The bulkhead is in
September 14, 2004
46
1
.
3
-::¡ood condition. The adjoining pr'::>perti'::>wners,
è~.~eryone there is ver~' close, thei' use the
property to visit back and forth. Mr. Akselrad lS
-::¡oing to put a walking path so that they can
r~-",~-=.;ntinue to do that in the back yard. It's a nlce
situation, and he's looking to meld inta the
nei-::¡hborhood.
BOARD MEI·1BER C)RLANDD: Ho
~IS. MESIANO: But \'es, we
willing to reduce the size of the
will make a difference.
BO,Z\,RD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
other questicns.
certalnl,:' are
deck, if that
L
4
5
"
7
So that will
'::1
lDcrease the setback to 45'71'?
BOARD MEr·1BER uRLANDO: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Deck is to
l'~main open to the sk::?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DRL.ZiliDO: ND, it's co'cered.
HS. !,1ESLZiliO: It's an open porch.
BOARD MEMBER '::WL.ZiliDO: NDt to be enclosed?
¡,m. AKSELRAD: Just on the right side
where it says proposed deck, that's 10 feet by 16
feet, and that's a screen porch, but the rear part
that's open, but it does ha\'e an D~vrerhan'3.
r·IS. MESIANO: The elevations that I
provided you will demonstrate that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The part that's
facing the bay is -::¡Ding to have a roof over it?
~1R. AKSELRAD: That's correct. It will
haT/e an o\'erhang which will come out te., the edge
of the deck, so if the deck was cut back to 10
feet, then the o\'erhang will come back as well.
BOARD f-\EMBER GOEHRINGER: The deck on the
west side is going to be an open deck?
['·m. AKSELRAD: Tha t 's a screen porch.
BOA.RD MEMBER GOEHRIN'3EP.: But that's
':Gnforming so we're not interested in that, I
mean, we're interested but it's IlOt part of tile
application?
HS. f'1ESIANO: Ccrrect. Yes. The rear
elE~/ation indicates that that porch on the side lS
screened, and if you study the rear eleT!ation,
'l~u'll see that the deck does have a roof
iY/~erhang .
CHÞ.IRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Jim,'
BOARD !1EMBER DINIZIO: No questiDns.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Jerr,', an1'Chin-::¡ else?
BOA.RD f1EMBER GOEHRUJGER: No,
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
1,3
19
20
21
=2
, .
24
.
~, C
L~
September 14, 2004
47
1
e
3
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there an,'body else
in the audience that would like to comment on this
application? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
ISee minutes for resolution. ¡
~.
L
4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'.
CHAIRI^IGMÞJJ OLIVA: Next hearing is Mr.
Tapp and t'1r. Ellis on West Road in Cutchogue f,:,r
two principal dwellin-::¡s on one piece of property.
t·jS. ¡V¡OORE: Good afte:cn,-e,::m. I ha'.'e
Mr, Tapp, Bob Tapp here with me, I also have Tom
Samuels, and I would actuall~' defer mainl~' to Tom
Samuels because most of the reason for the
~pplication the way its been submitted is because
(Jf the condition of the house as it presentl~-
~zists. You have in your file the CO c,r the pre
·:X, for the house. It was issued in Jul,' of 1~'78
probably during one of the transfers of title, but
the house itself was built in 1902. So -::¡iven the
condition of the structure, it's lasted a -::¡ood
long time, but it is in need of significant repair
'Jr replacement. It seemed whell we were reviewing
the application that to repair this house in its
present condition ma~' not be the wisest of
alternatives. We would certainly need a varlance
from this Board if we went larger, even if we kept
it to the same, I don't know what the Building
[repartment would ha~~"-e done. Certainly V]E would
have needed to repair it.
The location of the house to the bluff is
only at best a foot off the top of the bank. The
property is bulkheaded and it's very stable. As
you can tell from the vegetation on the bank,
there is no erosion. It's been here for a ~er~'
1,:)ng tim~ and in T,'er~r good condition. ThE- ownErs
ha~e carefully maintained the property, vegetated
the property, really do a very }ood job with the
pl'opert1', and that reflects in the letter ,'Oll ha\'e
lTI your file from Mr. Frost, who is the neighbor
tG the west. He gave a little blt of a histor,' as
well in his letter because his family had been the
,~rigina1 owners of this property, the T~pp
l=,r:::,perty, and he recalled, and he's a ll13..ture
illdividual now, probabl~r in his 50s, 60s and
recalls the existence of this house and the fact
tl1at there have been two houses on this propert~·,
maintained two houses on this property witll
T.·~rio11s tenants and various occupants.
5
f:
7
8
1D
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
21]
21
22
23
24
.
~. "
LJ
September 14, 2004
48
1
"
What I'd like to do ie get right to the
stru,::::tu:cal because I I m sure you ha"\}e questions
about that. I'm sure ~·ou have questiollS, I'~r~
Ji "'(.~en ':'ou a lot of written material alr~ady. I I d
like to have Tom Samuels come to the dals.
0riginally we had put in writin-::¡ the need far the
recommendation to have a new basement c,r
foundation put on this propert...·. Ma~rbe ~rou could¡
3enerall~' the condition of the house as it is arId
wtlat would need to be done, then what Gur proposal
15, as far as the square footage goes, just tlle
Blight difference in the square footage, which le
based on state building code standards and the
need for appropriate space.
['1R. SAMUELS: The condi t ion of the house
as ~/ou saw, it's 100 'I'ears old. It's a cottage.
It was always a little cottage. It's sittin-::¡ on
plers. It probably could be renovated, but it
would be almost a reconstruction given what it is,
~,}hi,.:::h would probably require the T~·arian.:.'e an'{v/ay.
Ic'e in pretty tough shape, and also I Chink our
clients were looking for a certain amount of
additional square footage as well, and we wanted
t,~, mO',:e it back from the bluff 3. little bit, 15
feet to decrease that nonconformity and alse·
because it seemed better to be b3.ck a little bit,
~nd unless there's specific questions about the
tlouse, it's in tough shape, you saw that. It lIas
110 foundation to speak of, ther~'s open stud work
lDside, and there's water infiltration and illsect
issues.
.
3.
4
5
¡)
7
;j
"
10
11
1~'
~
13
tit
u
15
16
17
~, J
CHAIRI^IOMM, OLIVA: Bird issues.
["JR. SAMUELS: Yes, all kinds of lSSLles.
MS. MOORE: We pointed aut that there's
some electrical code issues, the water heater is
not ventilated properl~r, and these were things
that we noticed right away and we're not experts,
buc you would notice just by looking at it. The
water heater is right there as ~'ou come in and
chere are wires and exposed elements that just
;:reates a condition that what the client wants to
10 is improve upon that and make it safe. The
'::;~~luare footage, it's sli'3htly larger. It's a
(jifference of 194 square feet b~tween the existing
h.:::-"use and the proposed. house i ,:'an you c: lar if:/ \.lI/h.....
thE need for this slightly larger square footage?
roIR. SAMUELS: Basicall,' usC lockinc¡ fGr a
cll~ee bedroom house. We tried f rst off to build,
IS
1 ,:)
20
21
~ ~.
¿¿
24
.
25
September 14, 2004
49
1
Sf
fulfill their programmatic requirements within
that footprint, and it just meant rooms that were
impossibly small. It simply needed to be big,ger
III order to be the minimum that they were looking
fer, and like I say, we were trying to k,,=ep it as
ti-::¡ht as we could.
MS. MOORE: I think the stairway
['·m. SAMUELS: Yes, well, it doesn't meet
current code an:./way. The e\'es ·-:ome down \'er~' low.
It's just altogether insufficient as a stand alone
~esidence. l^Ie tried to make it ~s small as
possible. That difference in square foota}e lS
the best we could do under the circumstances.
CHAIRI^IOMÞ~ OLIVA: Mr. Tapp and Mr. Ellis
,ga'.'e me a tour of both the buildings, ~nd I do
a~ree that that building is near the edge, it's a
,~harming lit.tle cottage and \,hat ha,-'e ,',:u, but I
think a big wind will blow it down. The main
;~oncern of this Board is that there/s two
principal dwellin-::¡s on one lot. I will ask if my
friends here ha\'e some questions first.
MS. MOORE: I want to clarify, with
~espect to the house that's alon-::¡ the front, there
'.'ias a garage placed on it, howe'ler the lE)use
itself was not changing in its size, it's a one
IJedroom, three room cottage. So practicall~', it's
~Eally an opposite. You ha~!e the frent house
being a \'ery small one bedroom house, and ,'ou' 11
have the rear house, which is presently three
IJedreoms, continue to be three bedrooms and clle
l"eallocation of space. Yes, you ha"TJe tí,\lO
dwellings on one property, they are legal in that
t.hey are pre-existing and there al:e COs for those
structures. We want to preser~e what is therE.
CHAIRI^IO~JMJ OLIVA: Vincent? Beaut iful
spot I mi}ht add.
BOARD ['1EMEER DRLANDO: I '.'isited the site
,:'tS T,.¡ell, there was no ()ne home at the tIme. I
h~ve to say the cotta}e is absolutely adorable.
pictured myself sitting on the back deck having
c0ttee, But that's the only good thing I had to
sa','. It's pre-existing, nonconforming and ence
~'ou remove the building, we all know now, it's
nonconferming anymore. You are bu.ilding it larger
than it is. Yes, it is a contractor's nighcmare.
There's prDbably not one leìrel piece of I".¡c!od in
that h,,,:,use. I haT,'e no other questions, buc t.he
:'ode was put there for a reason. It scops cwo
2
·
3
"'
".
'0
8
10
11
1~
L
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.:±
·
~c
L~
SeptEmber 14, 2004
50
1
S'
famil~' dwellings on one lot, and it's supposed to
eliminate them as they come about.
MS. MOORE: I understand. But the reason
f,:¡r a ~,Tariance before ye,u demolish is to preser~le
that non-conformity. l^Ie're not demolishin-::¡ --
BOARD MEMBER ()RL.I\NDC': I commend ,'c,u f::or
that. Most people would ask for permission later.
["~IS. MOORE: vie don't want to dc, that. l^Ie
~ant to preserve it. The reality 1S, you ~çç the
kind of the wink and the nod that goes on with
takin-::¡ one wall at a time, that's kind of a
ridiculous way of proceeding through zoning.
B'JARD [1EMBER ORL.I\NDO: That's why I
"=:~mmend ~'()u and your applicant for coming
f.:;rward.
2
·
3
4
:;,
6
...,
8
24
f·18. MOORE: vie are also reducinq the
nûnconformity in the sense that '..rou do ha?e
llon-conformity as to the use but the location of
the structure, it made sense that if we're gGing
t,~ do the renovations here, push the new building
back, and we're imprc\ring on a nonconformit....·.
BOARD MEMBER ORLA~DO: Took one and gave
~nother, )'ou made it larger but moved it back.
J"IS. rV[OORE: Larger by 1 ~'4 square feet.
Tllat's less than --
BOARD r1EMBER iJRLMm,c,: Larger lS larger,
smaller is smaller, it's either right or wrong.
lTo other questions.
r'IR. TAPP: Ma,' I say sc,mething" r-1:,' name
lS Eob Tapp. I'm a homeowner here. We haile 1 i "'.red
there for six years. We used to live across the
street and swapped properties ~ctuall)' with the
()Wller then. We were the ones who took this
property out of a two-family circulation. There
had been tenants in the one bedroom cottage, which
is the one b)r the road for 20 plus years, then
they rented the house that we're proposing to
,:ll~nge for summer after summer, and there were at
man~' times that was a famil~r of four cn the water,
~nd it was a famil)r of three in the one bedrGom
,::ot tage by the road with two large dogs. Sc, we
ha'le really reduced the population on that
particular parcel, and we have [10 plans to rent
t.hé cottage by the road. The ,:)nl1' garage en the
propert~· is attached to that cottage. We would
IV)t want to give up that gara.ge. ~'Je w,.=,uld use it
as a guest cottage and an office perhaps, but the
f,opulation, because of us, on tllat piece of
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
1 ~1
20
21
22
¿j
·
25
September 14, 2004
51
1
L
prGpert~· is now much lower.
B,C'ARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
So if the Board was
e
3
lTI fa\"or of tllis, you wouldll't mind a cGndition
11C,t to be rented?
4
I1R. TAPP:
If it were worded in suell a
:)
wa~', bllt I wouldn't want to gi\"2 up future riglltB.
~lE ma~r rent it to an ill parent or something.
MS. MOORE: We can make it as an acceSSGr~r
to the main house.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because ,'ou weren't
"::-r',Jlng to rent it I now 'leu might rent it.
MR. TAPP: l^Ie have no plans to rent it.
MS. MOORE: He volunteered that without
talkin-::¡ to counsel. Two dwellings on the propercy
is his legal right, you would be exchan-::¡ing
sDmething that really was not -- he would be
givin-::¡ up something that he's really ru~t legally
chligated to do. He stated for the record that he
h~s reduced the interlsity of tlle use.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DUnZIO: No questions.
CHAIRWO¡VJAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD IVJEMBER GOEHRINGER: No quesci-ons.
CHAIRI^IO¡VJAN OLIVA: Is thel-e an,'bod,' ln
t.he audience that wishes to CGmment on this
application? Yes, ma'am?
r·IS. BURNS: 'Jood aftern'Jol1, my name lS
E'/elyn Burns. I Ii v"e on Pequash Avenue. I would
like to say that Bob and Nick, the owners of this
~,roperty, are an asset to tllis communit~·. Using
their landscaping talents, chey have voluntarily
beautified the Peconic Beach and the pequash Beach
and the Pec-onic Bay surroundin} the bluff. Their
t~lents in landscaping the nortll fork golf courSE
on Route 25 and the Cutchogue Presbyterian Cllurch,
()f which Bob is a trustee, are also noteworth~·.
They are always there to help their neighbors and
I sincerely hope that this Board will -::¡rant cheir
application. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does aw/bod,' else ,,¡ish
to speak on behalf of this application?
HS. WICKHAM: Go-od afternoon, Tn,' name lS
Abigail Wickham, and I'm here representing the
Pequash Recreation Club, which owns the property
tG the east. Walter Krupski, Junior, who is one
)f the ~'ounger members by far Gf the club was
here, he had to leave, I don't know if he'll be
back, so I hope to make the statements that he had
5
6
7
"
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
SeptembEL 14, 2D04
52
1
9
intended. pequash Club is a very modest
2lubhouse. It's been there since 1890, which 13
Wr211 o'/er a hundred j'ears, and we just ,...rant to
[n~ke a few comments about the project. Original 1)'
the CO for the propert)' in question was a cottage
.~Dd a seasonal one and a half star)' cottage with
no heat, and that I don't think the increased
,jensit,!, 11'::::)W will be for tv.¡o ,!'ear round houses and
that was not at all reflected to the notice to the
~djoining owners. Nonetheless, we really think
that wllat you decide we're going to leave that
~ntirel~' to ~rour determinatioll ~nd not take a
pcsition ,::m it.
The reason the club asked me to come today
is that their only concern is that this new and
increased usage not impact on the contirluation of
the clubhouse or the 'Cxpense the clubhc,use has to
JJear in order to operate because it is (Jl1 a \'ery
[ninimal budget. So we ask that ~'our decision in
this matter reflect and sp'Ccify just a few factual
simple circumstances.
First, that this is a pri\'ate recreation
:lub adjcining this property, and that there are
pa~ties and recreational activities regularl:.'
c'cnducted at the club by the members indi':iduall,'
3S well as club events. BecausE: when :"\)U increase
your densit'.1' and usage, we don't want that co
become a factor for future complaints of future
owners. These gentlemen are ~TEr~' familiar with
ttle club, and they know what the activities are,
but I.,lJe want to make SULe that down the road when
':'ou h2,....e two families there tha.t that hlGuld be
something that owners would be aware of.
Second of all, it is a signific311t relief
th'Cy're requestin), and we would ask that if the
club should ever upgrade that they be given the
same considerations and that any relief 112re be
caosid'Cr'Cd a precedent as far as what the club
migllt want to do later on.
Thirdly, ther'C are sam'C Health Department
·~·Gncerns we ha'le, and obT.'iousl~./ ha~le to be worked
']13t with their Health Department appro~'21.
Fourthly, and I believe l^Ialter Krupski has
iiscussed this with the owners, there is a large
tree between the two properties in tIle 3rea wllere
the house would be, and we would just like tc make
sure that that is protected, and we think that
they vFJuld do th3-t, but we'd like that to be a
¿
e
3
4
5
G
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
13
1 ~j
20
21
¿¿
."
¿~
24
.
25
S'Cptember 14, 2004
c.,
~~
1
9
pa~t of your decision.
r~R. TAPP: May I say somsthing'?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yss.
r"IR. TAPP: From our perspective, our
l'slationship with pequash Club has alwa,'s teen
','sc/, '"'er,' nsighborly.
¡'1S. \^lICKHAM: That's true.
r·1R. TAPP: ~ve know seme úf the rn~mbers
personall)', I/ve been to the meetings, Borne of the
tnsmbers store their kayaks on the beach in front
(jf our house, which is fine with us, they asked
before, and indeed, we feel it's ill the neighborly
8pirit in which we both live.
CHAIRVlOMAN OLIVA: Thank ,'ou. An:,'one
else wish to comment on this application? If not,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
¡See minutes for details. i
2
.
:;,
4
5
"
8
10
11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19
CHAIR\^lOMAN OLIVA: Next applicatiGn is
for Michael Pisacano on Cox Neck Road in
Mattituc](. Pat, tllere's some information that I
think we have requested and not received?
NS. r·100RE: "¡hy don't j'OU tell me what
that is.
BOARD SECY. r:OI^lALSKI: I called ,'our
,=,ffice and asked if you could please c,=,mplete the
file by confirming what the nature of ,TIur appeal
lS I and we ha"l".le not received "'./Dur papervlork t,,:,
cc'rnplete the file. Right now it's still
incomplete.
{'ITS. MDûRE: The request was whethel- or not
we amended our application to reflect the notice
~f disapproval, if I understood the request
correctly. Our appeal was based on 277 af the
Town Law which is an application to cre~te an
undersized lot, which is a direct appeal. What we
CQuld not get was a notice of disappro~ral f~om t1le
Building Department. The final ve~siGn tllat was
~orrect today, which you got today as well, is the
one where it says a proposed construction is llot
permitted pursuant to --
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI: l^Ie haven't re,:e i'led
that from you, though, tC) confirm that that's ít,¡hat
,',:,u're appealing.
MS. MOORE: I 11ave it based on ,~ne lS the
~77 which is the area variance on a lot creation
from the Planning Board.
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
September 14, 2004
54
1
L
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI:
That's the only one
·
3
\ûe. ha'le right now.
MS. MOORE: I can't appeal something that
I don't know what the notice of disapproval is
"bout. The notice of disappro\'al says that the
required lot size, it's an area ~.rariance for the
lot size, which is what the 277 is about, it's
,:reating a lot that is undersized, and that's the
~rea ~.rariance.
CHA.IRI^IOMAN OLIVÞ.: The question is, I'Ü-s.
~¡Gore, is it a lot?
MS. MOORE: I believe it's a lot.
Þ.SST. TOI^IN ATTY. CORCORÞ,!, : I think we need
tG be clear that while you did take appeal under
277 I think it's probably the best move to take
the appeal from the notice of disapproval as well,
because I think there is a question as to whether
277 actually grants the Zoning Board jurisdiction
h07re inasmuch as this is not technicall',/ from a
subdivision. So I think it would be safer to be
sure that the ZBA had jurisdictlon to at least
state for the record and include in your
~pplication the notice of disapproval. In sum and
substance it's the same thing, '.;ou're seeking an
area 'Jariance based on lot size, for us all tG be
:~onfident that the ZBA has jurisdiction, 'lOll act
,~n the notice of disapproval as well.
t:IS. f,¡IODRE: That's fine. vIe wi 11 amend
,~ur application to reflect that area variance as
well. The notice, the appeal process is
identical; both of them are based on an area
'.'arlance. If the Planning Board takes the
[,osition that their action does not result in a
lot, I would strongly disagr'ee with that position.
You llave the variance as of toda~r, the notice of
disapproval that reflects it's all area 'Tariance
far the parcel that is in existence that is
undersized.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you could
clarif~' that in writing for us e~en aft~r the
hearing, something for the file.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll follow-up
witll it in writing.
EOÞJ~D SECY. KOWALSKI: hlsG, there ",¡ere
cwo disapprovals, we need to know which ~'ou are
appealing or if you are appealin-::¡ both of them?
r·1S. r-100RE: :No, I only have one
jisappro~al, which is the notice of disappro\ral
4
=,
6
7
8
9
1(1
11
1-·
L
13
·
14
lS
16
17
13
1 S'
.20
=1
¿¿
23
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
55
1
·
3
last amended September 14th, today.
BD.l\.RD SECY. KOWALSKI: '{au ma'.! want to
~heck with the Building Department.
MS. MOORE: I spoke with them t0day.
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI: There's two dates
')n that, right?
MS. MOORE: They ori-::¡inally had September
2l1d that raised two other issues, which we ha~re
clarified. One of the issues was whether or llot
we had access over the northerl~' right of way
that goes along Hilliker to the north. l^Ie gave
them a letter which says the northerly right of
wa~- 1S not ours, we don't have access G~!er th¿
n·:=,)rth. Let me give ì"GU Inì" pac'ket of papers.
BDARD SECY. KOWALSKI: T.1."OU' re familiar
with the first Oll~, ì'ou're not familiar with the
.3c,=ond one;,
"
L
"
5
6
'7
8
Sr
10
11
¡'is. MOORE:
September 14th, the
:,f.
It's the amended Olle, the
final verS1·~n that I'm aware
12
13
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There was a questiDn
before we get started, Linda noticed on the CCUllty
tax map that you do not own the right of way or
from the road to the rear of that property.
MS. MOORE: That's incorrect. We own fee
title from Cox Neck Road, the 50 foot flag is our
fee title. It goes from there to the balance of
the 125 by 200-some parcel. ¡-Ie a,=tuall:: own, m':
~lient is the owner of that.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: You ha'.'e the deed to
·
14
15
16
17
that "
18
MS. MOORE: Yes. It actually is
reflecti","'e in my tax map bo,:=.k, I have the current
book that shows it not as a dashed line but as
part of the other. But for the record, we are
t r1.11:.' the owner. Let me get these pap~rs
distributed first.
BDARD I'1EMBER GOEHRINGER: r·1ay I make m,'
statement now?
19
20
21
22
CHÞ.IRI^IOMMJ OLIVA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the past for
the people that are aware, I did recuse myself on
tile prior application that was IJefore us in this
gelltleman's name. And the purpose of th~t was
~hat I have held a broker's license in the state
,=,f n,=w York since 1975, and in and about 1986 I
T!01untarily took it upon myself not to s~ll
propert)" in Southold town for the sole purpose of
23
2{
·
~, C
L~
September 14, 2004
56
1
9
~D~~ conflicts that might exist with my pcsiti,~n on
the Zonin-::¡ Board, which I have held since
L'80. It was the office that was holdinq m:;
license, I still contend that I do not sell real
estate in Southold town as either bein-::¡ a
salesperson or a broker; I am not a sal~sperson, I
am a brcker. Since then, I ha~le switched cf f ices.
I am no longer licensed b~' that office as an
associate broker, and discussing this with the
tc.wn attorney yesterday, not tll.::: assistant tc:,\¡Jn
~ttcrney sitting next to me but the town attorney,
Olll~' because you weren't in.
ASST. TO\^JN ATTY. CORCORÞ.N: I'm awaLe of
the Eituation.
BOÞ.RD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't honestly
belieTre that there is an)' conflict anymore. I did
mention to the town attorney that I would very
simpl~' lay it out to e~'er)'one present and sa~' that
If an1,Tbody thinks that there is a confli:~t c,r if
t tlere' s a.ny reason why I should not sit ()n this
particular hearing, please ?oice your opinion now,
~nj I will recuse myself at this particular point.
S,:, I'm throwing it out to an,'bod,' on tiE' Board,
anybody in the audience, and I am presently
licensed by Suzanne Hahn. Tile broker's license
h~s not come back to date. It was sent ()I1 August
=Oth to the state, as an~' broker's lic211se renewal
is up on August 31, 2004. And that's where It
r,resentl~' sits. We have not recei'Jed it back
a.'3ain, however, [vírs. Hahn's n,="w corporation, clf
which she is a part of / is ment ioned en rflY 1 icense
.nd not the prior license that was held by a
gentleman and a good friend of mine in Mattituck,
for many, many years, Mr. Robert Celic.
2
e
3
4
5
'J
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
IS
1G
17
18
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Does the Board ha~e
.
2. 5
:=tny problem?
BOARD f'1Ef1BER ORLANDe,: I ha'Je no problem
wlth Jerry participating in it.
CHAIRWOM~B OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CH;'~IR1¡.70MhN OLI\lA: AnJ'one in the audi.:::nce?
I ';Jue82 not.
]"~SST. TOWN ,L.~TTY. CORCORh.N: So ,"-:ell
clarify, ~'ou have no relationship with any part~'
~r entity that has a financial lnterest in the
outcome of this appeal?
BOARD [v[EJ'1BER GOEHRINGER: No. lIe'fer did
,~nd never will. It was just t112 same office at
20
21
22
","":,--:¡
~~
24
SeptembeL 14, 200-1
~~
- I
1
8
that time.
CHAIR\iIOMAN OLIVA: Go ¿¡head, [',1rs. ¡·1oore.
~1S. r1GORE: Thank you. I'Ihat I ,c:lid was I
started off with the tax map to put an overall --
I know you're very familiar with this property, so
to the extent that some of it will be repetitive,
I apolûgize. So now we're addressing the ar~a
~ariance. I'Ihat I started off with the tax map is
to show )"OU the overall development of the area
which I have included as part of the packet just
some of the property cards for the parcels that
are in tax map areas 113 block 10, that shows the
s~ze. It's actuall)r parcels that to some extent,
se·me are still remaining single and separate,
'Jcllers have merged b\lt the parcel size is there;
we're about 50 feet in width and -- well, they
-:3r~r but 200 to 50 feet in widtll. That is
dlrectly across the street from the subject
property. Then to the south you have parcels that
are approximately an acre ill size. ThE~r are down
r~"":::·x Neck to the south, and to the north you ha~,Te
additional parcels that appear to have been
:reated approximately the same time that the
adjoinin,g parcels to the pisacano piece ma~r h3..'..-e
been created and these lcts tend to be about a
quarte~ acre in size approximately 100 f~et in
width b~' 150 feet in depth. So ~·ou can see that
the development of this area to the extent that
the,' were lots created through later date or
~arlier, preexisting lots, as well as lots tllat
ll~·.re been probably created ill the '80s, down to
the south, one acre lots, those are certainl~'
smaller than the proposed lot that Mr. pisacano
"
L
e
3
4
5
6
~
,
St
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
.yûns.
=3
I also want to put on the record that
:~~eation of this lot, becausE agaln, there is a
!Üstor,· '.,¡ith respect to the size cf this parcel,
::lnd an understanding that we ha~:e a piece - - and
this is where I differ with the Planning Board's
position -- Chudiak, the prior owner, Chudiak
~wnedl and what I did I took one of the sur·.reys
'i.nd I hi,}hlighted what Chudiak owned pri,or to the
l~t line changes that occurred ill '85.
Mr. Chudiak at one peint in tim~ set afE,
all properly with the Planning Board's
In·,·ol?ement, the r~1iloski propert~{, whic:h is along
tile southwest, it's the adjacent prGpert~' to ths
southwest and along the fla} portion. That
1 ~1
:2 r~1
21
LL
24
.
25
September 14, 2004
58
1
7
Mileski propert~· ended up needing a variance from
tllis Board with respect to 280A area access,
because they used the southerl~' portion of the
flag as their access, and this Board granted the
280A for that piece. That piece Chudiak developed
a two acre piece of property. He left behind from
that set off a parcel that was approximatel~'
120,000 square feet in size. The wa~' I came to
that conclusion is by taking the existin-::¡ property
and adding to it the square footage that was
granted in the lot line change to l^Iells, which lS
about 15,000 square feet that was added to the
~djacent piece and about 32,000 square feet added
to the Wanat piece. I^Ihen I look at what the
Planning Board -- had Chudiak at the time, this is
obviousl~' before Pisacano, because none of thlS is
a record of covenant, so Mr. Pisacano bought the
property, Chudiak sold the property; tlv:::re were no
=:o\renants en this property that put any limitation
en this property that is before '''ou toda,' on the
development of this property. But we are going
back in time and treatin-::¡ this property as if, had
Chudiak presented himself to the Plannin-::¡ Beard in
1985 ~nd said, Wanat and Wells are the only ones
that
are participating, which is what ultimately
happened, had l^Ianat and l^Iells came before the
Planning Board at the time would the Planning
P...)ard ha..'e found that reducin-::¡ the size ,::,f the
Cl111diak piece, that was two and-a-half acres in
Slze, would be appropriate to reduce the sizE of
the Chudiak piece in order to make the l^Ianat and
¡'Jells piece more conforming. I think the answer
to that would have been yes, and we don't know the
thou}hts and the Planning Board keeps raisin-::¡ the
intent. The intent in a sense is irrel-2vant
because unfortunately properties transfEr title.
L:;~}ain, there is no document on record tCj disclc.se
to a good faith purchaser of what the illtent was,
Jf the intent to sterilize this propert~'. BeC3use
essentially what the Planning Board keeps sending
as far as memos go is that the intentic,n was to
srerilize b}' creating lot line changes ~nd made
the adjacent propErties larger. I^Ihile that
intent, while well-intentioned as it was,
l~ltimatel~' didn't take place. So if we were to
CGm2 toda~r, pretend tllat '85 never happened alld
Wells and Wanat came before the Board alld said we
2
·
3
4
=,
')
8
'j
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
1G
17
18
1 Si
2D
21
22
¿j
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
59
1
s!
h3.~,T~ 3. quarter acre piece of pr0perty, a piece
100 b~f 200, our piece is very small, we would like
to take some of the two and a half acres that
C'hudiak owns and sell it to us and lot line
chan}es, I think that all of us would a}ree that
gi'len what we see as far as lot line changes
}listoricall~f in this town, it would mak~ sense to
make those two developed properties along Cox Neck
a little more conforming, both for Health
D~partment reasons because Health Department
requires the size of a property at least an
acre -- just made all the general policies of this
to.::',\·Jn would ha~,re been met, again, if we 'vvere to
,~ome today and autllorize what is toda)' before this
Board. So that's 1985 or today had none of this
,..:.,C'curred.
The size of this property coday is
COllsistent even with the subdivision precesses
that occurred in '85 and then back in Foster's
subdi~!ision in '97. This is interesting. I put
It on the record because one, the Planning BC.-,3.rd
In '85 approved properties of similar size to the
piece before )"ou. The piece to the north, arId
I'll -::¡o back to the Cax map because it's a little
odd in its shape. The parcel that was originally
tIle Simchik's piece included 19.17, 19.15 and
r-","=,mbination of 19.27, 19.28 and 19.29 as well 3-S
the Hilliker piece adJacent to ours of 19.10, so
~',-=-,u can see it's a ~!ery odd shaped parcel. ¡',-.:::rain,
it's 19.10, the combination of the total of 10.27,
19.28 and 19.29 and then 19.15 and 19.17, all of
ellese parcels ha~!e a 50 foot flag, or right of
\,.'a-:/, that runs, I'll show you, we have êi. right c,f
wa}' that runs as the access for all these parcels
all the W3}' to Cox Neck. What GCCllrred during the
Simchi]( subdivision, and I ha~le, even thougll it
'v'Jas in ~four original two ~rear age. file I I put the
2ubdi~.rision in your file so ~fOU would have It. In
1985 the Planning Board approved a four lDt
division of this property and put a condition that
co~.renants and restrictions would be recorded that
rF~' further subdivision of this propert~; ~'·Jas t,::,
take place. I want you to remember that because
it's important. I don't know whether a co~enant
was filed or it wasn't, but in 1997, m0st of tIle
l~()ard members were still there, Mr. Foster, comes
in to the Planning Board and asks co take those
,'=:ombined parcels 19.2:, 19.23 and 19.2::', he e,..)mes
2
·
3
4
5
G
~
3
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
1(:'
17
18
IS'
2 i]
21
~~
LL
~ "
.::....)
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
60
1
~
L
· 3
4
5
i::,
8
S'
10
11
12
13
· 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
¿
23
24
· 25
before the Planning Board and asks to subdivide
that property to essentially two lots and the
piece along Cox Neck to be dedic'ated te the T':,wn
3-S a drainage area. Again, the lots were
undersized or the resulting lots that F'.:oster would
¡:reate would be undersized -- it's not a flag lot
like ours, remember we own th~ fee titl~ to Cox
] ec·k. They had the prc'perty that had the rlght ,:,f
way that bisects the property and what results is
tll~t one of the parcels, the center onE, lIas to
=0m~ before this Board for a ~.r3riance for a
substandard lot depth and width accordin-::¡ to the
Planning Board resolution and Ullfortunatel~' the
.='Gmputers were down, so I couldn't pull
.'1pplication of your records Appeal 4423 on (J,::tober
17, 1996. That appeal, so the Board at that time
in 1996, for a subdivision approved in '97,
~pproved an undersized lot very similarly d~signed
to the Pisacano piece to what's left of the
Chudiak piece, and here the Planning Board sa~rs,
Willk and a nod, despite the co~'enants, wtlether
they're recorded or not., we kn.::)ItJ of som~thing that
is not of record is not binding on a purchaser.
\'.)2 know that from the Ianu case that w~nt tc the
Appellate Division that the Planning Beard now
recognizes or should recognize as binding
law, certainly that the)' should be operating under
th~t law, and that case is actually cited ill
zoning p~riodicals that we get and it's gocd law.
It has not been overturned, certainly.
That the interesting -- again, on the
F,~ster subdivision is that wilEn I chec]':ed, because
what concerned me is that I didn't see 19.29 as
Hi~ntified as owned by the tcwn, and when I
':llecked with the assessor's office, the assessor's
effic~ said Foster seld the prcp~rty, including
'>'Ihat \V3S tG be dedicated to the town on Cox Heck
fcr a drainage area, this was raised last time
this Board saw the application or saw the owner
tllere were concerns about drainage. Well let me
tell ~'ou that the concerns about drainage C0l1ld
easil~' be satisfied if the tOWIl took the draitlage
~r~a that they acquired or the~r Ilegotiaced as
COIlsideration for creation of the second lot Oil a
lc)t that was never to be subdi T,Tided. 'so we're
being tr~ated in such a way that the Planning
Soard is saying Gur intent, Gur intent, Gur intent
ô11nF)st blaming the owner, the 3-r....plicant, 2T,Te1''.>,rbod-:l
September 14, 2004
61
1
9
~xcept themselves for why we are here toda~'f the
creation of a lot that is undersized, based on
what they claim they ne~:er knew ~bout c,r would
llever have approved it.
I find that to be offensive, and I know
I''le been very passionate about this all
througllout because it seems ver~r unfair gi;ren the
llistary of the development in tllis area.
I asked the assessors for a cop~r of the
property card because when we didn't find the tax
[nap number in their assessment r~cords, the~9 had
to research a little further, ~nd they found that
Fobert and Denise Na~arra are the current owners
of the parcel that is 19.29. It does s~y split
for minor subdivision of '97, atld says includes
.48 acres, 19.29, to be deeded to the t0wn. But
that ne"T,rer took place. I just want you to ha~J'e
that in your file.
BC'ARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 19 . 29 is a
jeTfeloped lot, is wllat you/re S3)ring?
CHAIRlvOMAN OLIVA: It is a de'_'elopable
lot, but it hasn't been developed.
I"'1S. MOORE: Here f s another one '.'¡here ':,¡~' 1-e
going Co have, I hope chat che owners took the
tlme to go looking at the Planning Board files
because that certainl~r that's not an obligation,
that's not part of a title search, nobody thinks
to go looking at the Planning Board files because
,'ou presume that the l,::>t you're buying is what the
recDrds show.
¿
·
3
4
5
6
~
,
:3
10
11
12
13
·
H
15
1r)
22
BOARD SECY. Y:C-I^IALSKI:
tlere it says 19.28 is the lot
19.29; is that the same lot?
MS. MOORE: The assessors records 11a'¡e two
separate tax map numbers, 19.28 and 19.29. The
owner of both of those --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: This one sa~'s 2.8.
MS. MOORE: They don't have a card for
19.29. The only have that card that reflects
19.29 to be dedicated to the town. So again, this
lS our town records that are creatin9 3. histor..:
that down the line, I hope that that individual
knows enough that to not sell off that prcpercy
and think it's a buildin} lot because the
3ssessor's records seem co impl)" that that ShCllld
be ~ property that could be developed.
CHAIRWO~IAN OLIVA: This propert,' card is
really fcr 19.28, but with the conditioll in there
Excuse me, Pat,
number an,j j~C'U said
17
1"
'J
19
20
21
23
LA
·
25
September 14, 2004
62
1
9
that 19.29 is to be deeded to the Town.
MS. MOORE: Ri-::¡ht. But minor subdivislons
~re IICt filed with the count~r center. I donlt
kllOW how this 19.29 is identified as something
that vv'Guld put somebody en notice that they'r-=
'Joing to be putting a house in a drainage are,~, I
llope that's not the case, but it gives ~·ou an idea
'~-=',f how ,:;u~- record keeping is in this tC'...¡l1 and he,w,
,~gain, the consideration on ALtie Foster getting
the subdi"{,~ision was the dedication of th3-t piece
tc the TCMn. It nevel' happened.
Second point whicll I wish to stLess is the
Planning Board in their recommendation to this
Eoard talked about drainage well, that's a-::¡ain a
false issue because the Town planned fer taking
,:ar2 of the drainage problems in this area b~r
19.29. It's there, it could be developed, there's
n,:::, ceason to make my client 's propert:,' a na.tural
,jrainage swale for the communit:./ when the property
tc the north was developed just for that
purpose. So I am in a sense responding to some of
the issues that I know you haven't dealt with but
c:.:)m~s by wa~r of recommendations through Planning.
_l..SST. TO~"¡N ATTY. CORC(::'RAN: Just to
clarif)', the lot recognition issue will not be
deal t b:,' this Board. vie' re here today for the
,:'<Te3. ;Iariance issue. I understand you'Le
L2sponding to the memo of the Planning Board and
8C' it is in some sense rele\rant and ~'OU feel tIle
tl~~d to discuss it, but what we really need to
spend the time on today are the issues for the
i:riteria for area variance.
MS. MOORE: I understand. I have given
,TIU the tax map that shows the development of the
3rea, the character of tIle area. You knew tllat
fr·::,m '.:our inspection, the houses that arC'; designed
~round this are relatively modest homes. TIle
proposed house is a modest home. The houses along
Cox Neck Road and the property is essentiall:,'
facing their backyards. I',,"'e ':JiT.:en you the
Simchik subdivision that has a lot that is
similarly developed with an area varian~e or
Trariances from this BC1ard to grant relief fe,r the
creation of an undersized lot, and the Board is
,:ertainly aware of the communit~r. The~- kllOW that
I personally live on a propert~r that's .~ half acre
in Slze. I'~lost of you, if you c'ol1sider the siz·.'::' of
the properties that '{C'U live c,n may be ~nY\AJher.=
2
e
~
4
5
6
..,
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
1::
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2·±
e
25
September 1~, 2004
63
1
7
from an acre but certainly under cwo acres ill
size. This piece of property, if you include the
fee title to the fla} is just about two ~cres,
jl~st llnder two acres.
Þ.SST. TOHN ATTY. CORCORl\.N: Can you t:Ük
any specific acreage? How big is it if ~'ou
include the right of way, exactly?
HS. f~OORE: if ,'ou include the right of
',ß,', it is 1. 7.
ASST. TOI^IN ATTY. CORCC:-Rl\.N: I f ~'ou dolCe' t
include the right of way?
MS. HOORE: If you don't include the right
]f wa~r, it/s 125 by 300, and we have a proposed
building envelope that meets zoning.
."-SST. TOI^IN ATTY. CORCORÞ.N: ."-bout 3 6,
]7,000 square feet.
MS. MOORE: 37,000 square feet. l^Ie also
have a proposed building envelope that needs no
variances, and we have a Health Department
approval for this property that's been }ranted.
ASST. TO¡'iN ."-TTY. CORCORMJ: l^Ias this
parcel the exact same size when Mr. Pisacano
purchased it?
¡'¡S. ~100RE: Yes.
ASST. TOI^IN ATTY. Ce'RCORAN: So it was
substandard in size when he bought it?
MS. MOORE: It was the size that it lS.
But again, we're going back to tile creation of
this lot. It's a pre-existing lot. It was llOt
.:::reated b~/ Mr. Pisacano. It was created by,
~gain, the Planning Board's lot line change.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CC:'ROJR1ÜJ: ~'Je' re here
t.oda1' because you need a ~Iarian,=e. Sc, m~/ question
is was a ~rariance required wheIl this was
purchased? And I think the answer is yes.
MS. MOORE: It was not raised as an lssue.
Þ.SST. TQ\'iN ATTY. CORCe'RA.N: Nothing has
changed in the size of this lot since it was
pUI-chased.
HS. MOORE: Right. The questic'" is
whetller or not an area variance was neted.
Eemember, two years ago an area ':arlanc;-:: was n=,t
the direction that the Buildillg Departn\ent sent us
In. So keep in mind it's up to the Building
Department and the Building Department (jetermilled
whether or not an area variance was requiyed and
that was Dot even an issue after --
¿
e
3
..
5
12,
.s
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
1,:)
17
1,g
19
20
21
22
¿j
2..
.
":'L-:
~J
Þ.SST. TOI^IN Þ.TTY. CORCDRAN:
l^Iell, the
SeptEmber 14, 2004
64
1
~I
,-:-:c)urt said you need an area '/ariance at the very
léast, S0 we're here.
MS. MOORE: So we're here. But I don't
'.'lant it to be used against my client fer bu~.-in'3 a
property with an area variance that was required
wIlen, in fact, he wasn't aware that an area
Trariance would have been required.
ASST. TOlvN ATTY. CORCC'Rl'>!'!: That's his
law'/er's job.
¡~IS. r~OORE: That's ric¡ht. I would ask to
refer back to the other file that had his title
report OIl it, which had no co~:enants, no
ccnditions on this property, so you know for the
record that there were no limitations, no
conditions on this lot when he purchased. So as
far as whether an area variance was reqllired for
the creation of this lot, giverl the fact that
nc,bod"'/ expected this lot to ever ha1.re b;::en
challen-::¡ed in its creation, I think that
Mr. pisacano -- he was represented by
Mr. Caminiti, Mr. Caminiti reviewed thE record alId
there was no indication that this was g0ing t,~
lleed an area variance.
I~SST. TOI'IN Þ.TTY. CORCORAN: The issue of
lot recognition and lot size are somewllat
segregable. Ie's clear that it was less than
S(],OOO square feet when he bougllt it and in Grder
te, build on a lot less than 80,000 square feet,
~-Cl.l need an area \rariance.
f'vIS. fvIOORE: Ne·. ~{ou need a single and
separate search, a single and separate search was
::bne and it was found that the propert:.: was single
and separate, so to chat extent he had everything
from the record to reflect that he should be able
to get a building permit. And, in fact, until he
:losed, the Building Department, just after
closing is when the Health Department and the
E11ilding Department started raising issues because
of comments thac were made from staff people from
~~"ther departments, phone calls that wer~ made.
Otherwise, the owner, Mr. Pisacano, cert3.inl~· the
sellers had no idea that other agencies were -::¡oing
tc accept the positicrl of the pl~nner. And thE
planner was the onl~r one to my knowledge at the
tlme who was making an issue of the lot and tllat,
f,~~ the record, the planner attacres a memo that
was sent to, I believe it was sent to tll~ Building
Departmerlt and to the Town attGrne~r at the
¿
·
~
"'
'õ
f;
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
12
19
2ù
21
22
~. ...,
..:.,.)
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
65
1
9
time. The planrler knew that Mr. Pisacano was
represented b~r an attorney certainl~' th~ planner
kn.:::\¡¡ that rvlr. Chudiak was represented b~' an
attGrne~'; no one received a cop~p of the -- I'm
s,:)rry, August 13, 2001, there was a memo by
Valerie Scopaz that went to the Buildin-::¡
Department, Planning Department and Town
attorney's office, none of which forwarded that
l1lemO to anyone who had interest in that propert~',
~ither as contract vendee or as seller. So the
issues that were raised were kept in-house and
only came to light after Mr. Pisacano had already
closed on the title. So, again that goes to the
good faich purchaser.
We'll try to answer any questions. It's a
shame that it has to go before this Board, and my
position's always been that the Planning Board
should have cleaned this up long ago, but it keeps
~oming back to this Board. I hope that this time
we lla\re submitted an applicatioll that ~-ou will
find in our favor.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSI<':I: Excuse me, we
need the written application as to what
appealing so we can include it in the
still
2
·
3
4
"
~
o
7
8
10
11
1-
L
13
·
\,Iye'l-e
14
tile.
¡'¡S. MOORE:
Can ~pou explain to me what
·
25
~:<actl-:/ yc,u want?
B':)Þ.RD SECY. KOHALSKI: He don't have an
3.pplication for your area "pariance based upon your
n:x ice of disapprO'.'al bj' the building inspect,c,r.
MS. ~¡OORE: I ha'le to look at my
application and see. I know it was under 277
because that was a direct appeal.
BOARD SEC'!. K()WALSYI: That's nct the
application we're talking about. You'~~ asking
for an area variance based on disappro~~l, and
that we don't have.
H2. MOORE: I'm asking under two theories.
BOARD SECY. Km~ALSKI: Right, but we don't
ha'/e the second. ,Just letting you kn,:)\'/ '.,¡e need
se~len setback of that, please, then thE original
will be made part of the record.
MS. MOORE: Given that the application is
identical it's just an amendlnent to the
application already before the Board.
BDARú SECY. K,:'WALSKI: That's l'lght. It's
just something that we need in writin-::¡.
MS. MOORE: I don't want to crêate paper
15
16
17
18-
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sept~mber 14, 2004
66
1
~
L
that's unnecessary.
ASST. TCMN ATTY. CORCORAN:
She's saying
.
~
it's ne,::essary.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's necessary.
MS. MOORE: You're telling me that a whole
11ew application as if none had been submitted --
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI: Right nc,\V we ha\"e
~n application only on the first theory. l^Ie do
not ha\rE: :/our second application. You don't h3-'Ie
tc pa~r a new fee, get a new file number, all we're
3.skin'J you to do is supplement ~/our file so that
we can close it and seal it and make a decisiGll.
l-lithout :¡our paperwork, hDw is the B-::>ard -::¡oin-=¡ to
render a decision?
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
BC'ARD SECY. I~OWALSKI: Easy e110LHjh.
MS. MOORE: I don't know whether it's by
wa~ of a letter or a full application form.
BOARD SECY. KQ\vALSKI: You're all at v,rne,".
MS. MOORE: So you'll accept whatever I
3
4
5
"
8
o
10
11
12
submit.
.
25
BOARD MEf1BER ORLANDO: Quick little
question for- ~1iss Moore.
f'·1S. ~100RE: Fee tit le, \·¡hen ,'au ,~,"m a
piece of property, you own propert}' in fee, fee
title is ~/ou own the underlying propert~'. ~L"':)U can
have rights over someone else's propert~r as a
1"i'3ht Df wa'/, that means you dr")n't own the
underlying title. So you can ha"f.re righc ,::)f
p?tssage and '{OU can ha\re both right of [:·assag-s
a,=tuall~/ they merge, when you ol.,'/n the underlying
title and you have ri-::¡ht of passage, they merge as
,::.'·ne, so Chat's why I saj", wr:: own as if the
property were road frontage, pretend that the
propert~r faces the road, we actuall~r own co Cox
N~ck. And \Ve own by \Vay of a fla-::¡. It's a fla-::¡
lot. l^Ie do flag lots in this town all the tlme,
wllich, racher than through a right of wa~', whicll
cr~ates all kinds of separate issues, ~rc,u actuall~'
GW~ a strip to a larger piece.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: ¡'Iouldn't the'~ther
lots in the back have the same fee citle?
['IS, ~100RE: No. The only one chat has d
right of \Vay is the ,-
BDÞ.RD 11Ef1BER ORLANDD: 19 . 10 and 1". 12, ,
wouldn'c the}' have fee titles?
."-.SST. TOIcJN ATTY. CGP.CDRÞ.N: Not
11e~essarily, they might have a rigllt tc use ic or
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2'--:!:
September 14, 2004
67
1
~
¿
r ig'ht to access it but tlvòf d,::m' t necessar i l~' owtl
It.
.
!
r~1S. rJIOORE: The only on~ to my kn':)í.\rledge
that has a right to use it, that's the Mileski
property, that's 19.18, which you have granted a
.2.30A. The reason \\111....' {vIiloski needed a 280A lS
Lecause the)' own to a road. They relied on a'~cess
through a right of way. Then lt looks like
there's a little aptlY that gOES to 19.23, I can't
tell if that's a right of way or not because it
has road frontage, so whether or llot on the SOUtll
end, it shows a little -- our deed doesn't reflect
the piece to the south, but it doesn't seem
llecessar~r or because it's a 37 acre piece tllac
fronts Cox Neck. To our knowledge the only one
that has is Miloski. Remember Hilliker got
jeveloped through the Simcllik subdivision to the
DGrell. That right of way, Hilliker right of way,
lS strictl~' Hilliker, Simchik, those set of
properties that were the northerl'I development I
kind of an odd-shaped piece.
BO.~.P.D r1Er1BER GOEHP.HV::ER: f;!rs. ["J,:::ore, I
hate to differ with you but I belie'.'e tlut 1~ .18
C\nd 19.1S< bc,th have ri-::¡ht of wac' over this ri-::¡ht
of way, and the reason I know that is because I
re\riewed that, actually, when I was sitting
outside at the last hearing.
MS. MOORE: After drivitl-::¡ it, I'm sure
,,',::u're right.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He is right.
MS. MOORE: If you researched it, the
i-cason I didn f t think so is because thE"'./ ha'/s road
frontage but the back yards of those properties
CGuld essentially use that passage.
Be'Ap.D MEMBER OP.LÞJ'JDO: :';,C, they ha'.-e rÜ¡ht
of way but not fee title.
B.:JARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
uIlderstanding that three people,
and l^Iells all have rights of way
It was my
Mi loski, ¡vanat
O~,rer that right
3
4
5
'0
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
1,5
17
18
19
2C)
21
:"f wa,'.
22 I"IS. ~100RE: That may be the case, ",'es.
EOAP.D ME~1BER DINIZIO: v,lho granted the
23
ri9ht of way?
¡'IS. MOORE:
Chudiak would ha\re l)een the
24
r=--'ül'Jr one.
Be,ARD MEHBEP. DINIZIO: Give me the tax
number ,:of the property owner that granted that
riqht of \vay.
.
25
September 14, 2004
68
1
9
[',IS. MOORE: Remember Ch\ldiak owned
~~rerything at one time. So if 19.18 -- I nlean the
lot line changes that were done, they w\Juldn't
have had a ri}ht of way until that lot line chan-::¡e
~ccurred, so I didn't see in their lot line
chan}es a right of way to the back, and I could
r,ull those deeds, I have it in here, I'll double
check, but when Chudiak split off the portion of
land from his piece to the adj oining pieces, I'll
have to check and see if that also granted them a
r-i'Jht of way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask it this
wa~r: 8~~' Mr. pisacano wants to put a fence arGund
11is property, the property he owns, a chain link
fence with no -::¡ate, does he interfere with these
r-e'~ple' s ri:Jht of way?
MS. MOORE: GIlly if the~' ha1Te 3 right f)f
~,
~
·
3
4
5
')
7
2-
10
'.'la,!' .
13
BOARD r~EMBER DINIZIO:
l"lght of way?
HS. MOORE: I'm trying to answer it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it
Hr. Pisacano's property that supplies that right
I^Iho granted that
11
12
·
,~-=',f way;'
15
J'IS. IVJOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
he .:Jwns it, he doesn't need a
his.
It's
right
his property,
of 'v'vay it's
14
24
MS. MOORE: That's what I said. It's as
if you had this property right on Cox Neck.
Imagine instead of the flag, the full width of the
property being to Coy. Neck.
B'='ARD r,mNBER DINIZIO:
property is such that it's 1.9
whether this was shaped like a
it's shaped like it is now.
MS. MOORE: You could have a Mlckey House
shaped face and 'lOll would still own the whole
Fleee. In addition, I think v·,rhat the .l<..ssistant
Town Attorney is trying to point out is what is
the balance exclusive of the fl~:J is still large
~nough to develop, and that's the point I was
trying to make before, which is, even if we
exclude the flag, that the parcel still has in
some areas 175 in width, but to the north 125 in
width at its smallest point and 300 in depth. So
tllat area has been, because that was sometlling
Mr. pisacano when he bought was concerlled abcut
Sc, the shape cf
acres of lõmd
teddy be~r or if
the
16
17
18
1 Sf
20
21
22
23
·
- h
LJ
September 14, 2004
;:;9
1
"
"'
and he did put a building envelc,pe, and he got
health departmen~, and he wanted to be sure th~t
he ,,¡asn't creating a l,~,t that he wouldn't be able
tc }Juild on. You can ha\'e overlapping front )7ard,
rear ,'ard, side yard, :,.'ou get them all the time
wllere ~rou end up with a propert~r that gi~res yeu no
l'oom to put a house wit.hout a \~ariancei that's why
the notice of disapproval took so long to -::¡et tD a
final version because the Building Department kept
raising e\rerything, what are our potential
problems llere. It was our job to answer back Wh~7
it wouldn't apply, and our final answer was who
has these right of wa:,'s and ,,¡here is tiE lot width
and depth and so on.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm asking that
question because it seems to me that there's some
concern chat this is an undersized lot chat's
gi:·ing to h3\'e a house on it eventuall)' if
¿ver~·thing goes well. Yet 200 feet to the north,
the people who have ri-erhts of way on their
property, they own that property yet they have to
-errant ri-erht of way to the next lot, that ri-::¡ht of
way was included in their lot size.
r'IS. NOORE: E\'en thou}h it's excluded.
It's actually more encumbering than ours. Whether
r~r not a ~ariance for the construction of a
,jwelling on that -- I don't knDw the Building
Department at that time didn't think it was
IH=-,~essary .
BOARD MENBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you
this, the lot itself is just slightly undersized
for the zone; am I correct? It's two acre zonES,
It's 1.79 acres, whatever square footage that is,
:~rtainl~' if it was a square piece of propert~' 011
'-:0,:-:: Neck Lane, this would not be befDre us, it
I,\,,-=,',uld not need a variance, because you c·,::;.uld
Pllrchase a lot one acre in a two acre zone and
build a house on it if you meet the setback. Is
there anything in the record an:..,TI¡,¡here that sa-::'s
this is nDt a buildable lot?
HS. r·jOORE: No. The onl,' issue, the
planner r81ies on a memo that is an interllal memG
tllac nOile of us could ha~!e kll0wn about.
.'
·
~
't
5
,
')
~
,
:)
10
11
12
13
·
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
240
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
record today?
NS. MOORE: They attached i~ to their
recommendation, that's the onl~r reason I raise it
and respond to it because in Chè memorandum that
Is that part of the
·
:25
September 14, 2004
70
1
s
::'ime to this Board from Jerry ¡'Joodhouse, the,., go
chrough the background and intent, and again that
intent well-intentioned as it ma~r be is not of
record as far as a title record here. Then they
'~-'::::" on and c,n and on. But they attach a memo and
they refer back to it August 13, 2001. And that's
thE:: onl,/ memo -- and again, it's not of record
IJe,:ause an internal memo ma~' not be sut,ject to
FOIL. III particularly where it goes to the town
3ttorney.
BOÞ,RD MEr1BER DINIZIO: ['·1y concern is that
if it's done in an orderly fashion, when a person
goes to purchase that piece of propert~·, the~r
stlould be able to go to the COUllty or where~rer and
\~et all the information that pertains to that
piece of property.
MS. MOORE: That's precisely what the
Ll;.ppellate Di~,Tision said on the (:ase tvhere a
CG~enant was filed by the Planning Board to llr~
further subdivision, where we presented that tllere
(..,ras clear title, no issue of it and the Þ~ppellate
Givision recited what is kind of real property
law, which is unless a document or restriction
appears in a chain of title, it's not binding on a
good faith purchaser. Th'it's the point here today
is the same point. There was ne,thing DE rt:::cc,rd
arld, in fact, there was a single and separate
8earch. Everything led e~.rerYGne to belie~.~e that
it was buildable. Ever~~ne had lawyers, l^Ie all
looked at it, and went, it's a 1.7 acre piece,
what do you mean it's noC a lot? That's why I
Vhsnt back, and I hate to repeat myself, but I wEnt
b'ick to Chudiak, what he owned when the lot line
:_:"h?tnge was made. He owned tltlG and a half acri?S,
ür:;, doubt met zoning, and not doubt that he was
-::¡ain-::¡ to put one house on that property. The fact
that neighbors benefited from lot line changes
shculdn't -- everybod:'T won. If the applicêttic,n
were done today, it would still be a win-win.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So get this back
and forth about two applications and the Article
~77 which deals more with Plannin-::¡ Board, ri-::¡ht?
CHAIRvl,C,MAN OLIVA: RighC.
MS. MOORE: Right, we -::¡o back to pretend
ttllS doesn't exist. How on do we make lt exist?
It has to be by looking at what Chudiak awned
before a lot line change was done, and tlle)' told
1~8 that was a suggestion on how to proceed with
2
.
2
4
5
'5
7
9
10
11
12
12
.
14
15
1\';
17
18
1 '='
20
21
22
23
24
.
25·
Sepcember 14, 2004
71
1
2
. 3
4
S
I::
this.
We paid $250 application fee tG 2ssentiall~r
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
1;;
17
18
19
2D
21
~. ~
LL
-, J
LJ
240
. ~"
¿--"
approve two out of the four lot line changes
!)ecause the other two ne~ler got done and now nr....
client owns the property. So we're resubdividing,
and Valerie makes a point it was resubdi'lided,
well, ~'eahf it was resubdi~ided in '85 ~nd tllis is
'Jhat's left.
B.:JÞ.RL- MEMBER DINIZIO: That's one.
MS. MOORE: ArId an area 'lariance for us to
build on the lot that's undersized.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know wh:J
answers this question, but can we consider an area
',rariance on this lot; do we ha~Je to consider the
¿77?
¡,IS. MOORE:
I'll defer to )'our Town
attorney.
"'.SST. TOI^IN ATTY. COP.CORAN: ['1:,
~ecommendation would be to deal with it directl~'
with a notice of disapproval. I think it's tl1e
.~leanest way and the most protectable wa~·. So
that's m-:l recommendation, you know. Ob~.Tiousl...·,
you know and the applicant knows that they still
need to get Planning Board approval for the lot
L~cognition issue.
MS. MOORE: I guess that's where I'm
'>2,nfused.
Þ..SS.T. TO\^JN ATTY. CORC.:JRAN: Why are you
~onfused if you made an application Co che
Flanning Board?
MS.. MOORE: I made an applicatiDn to the
I?lanning Board. The Planning Bc)ard says we can' C
COllsider chis application because ic's all
undersized loco I'm here for tile area ~rariance
for the undersized lot. I go back to the Plannin-::¡
Pe,ard and say, Planning Board, now the lot is
le-::¡al in size, approve it.
Þ.SST. TO\^JN ATTY. COF.COF.Þl'J: P.ight and they
will make their decision.
fvIS. rvrooRE: ~"¡hat you're asking me t.r:) dc, is
,~ppeal in che notice of disappr0val. Tlle rlGcice
of disapproval says, regardless of what the
f'lanning Board says, that this loc can be builc
~D. Should the Building Departnlent, if that's --
th~ only nocice of disapproval the~r've givEn me is
thac if you grant this area variance, does it mean
that the Building Department will give me a
l:,uildin9 permit?
_~SST. TOl,-JN ATTY. CDRCORAN: No, they will
September 14, 2004
72
1
2
nc,L.
Because I as they did t\vC years age, whic:h
9
resulted in litigation, the)' said itls not a
L2cognized lot, as you well know. So until that
decisioIl is overturned
MS. MOORE: So I guess that's why I was
'-:'onfused ,:m why am I appeal in,} a notice of
,J.isappro\'al
.;;SST. TmlN ATTY. CORCe,RAN: It's the
necessary step because the court said the Planning
Board cannot create a lot that's undersized, so
,'GU need this.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But we can.
['.'IS. MOORE: ~{GU can?
BC,ARD MEI1BER DINIZIO: Yes. Sa> we're
}oing with this one that's amended September 14th.
That's the one that we'll write the decision --
MS. MOORE: No, please refer to both.
CHlo.IRI^IOf1AN OLIVA: Under the =77, I
really have a problem that we jurisdiction under
that because that applies to a subdivision and a
plat. l^Ie do not have a plat in this application.
It is not a recognized plat as far as the Planning
Board is concerned.
MS. MOORE: That's where I disagree. You
have Chudiak, Miloski got subdivided from what
Chudiak 'Jwned.
CHAIRI^I0I1AN OLIVA: I know.
MS. MOORE: Chudiak owned all of this. So
what they're saying, if the lot line ch3.nge and
our codes says a lot line change is a lesser tilan
a subdivision, but fine we'll call it a
subdivision because the Health Department and
.-:':'ler,¡,"bod'/ these days calls it a subdivision. l,.¡hs..t
the Planning Board did is split off land from a
larger tract, larger plot. Isn't that a
subdivision or resubdivision?
CHAIRI'¡OMAN OLIVA: There's that ·:)ne plece
l~ft over that was not included.
MS. MOORE: I^Ihat piece?
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: The one we're talking
·
~,
4
5
6
7
e.
lCI
11
12
13
·
14
15
1';
17
18
19
20
21
22
about.
23
A.SST. TOI^IN
talking about.
~JS. I"100RE:
ATTY. CORCORAN:
The one we're
You have to own sorn,=,thing tG
·
2=.
gi'!e it awa~r, don't ~rou?
CHAIRI^IDMAN OLIVJ..: It existed but not in
th;:; way the Planning Board
[·,JS. r~OORE: No. You ha".'e land, it's the
24
September 14, 2004
73
1
2
intent.
=1
CHAIRI^IO!1AN OLIVA: I know.
ASST. TO\~N ATTY. CORCORAJ,: I dc,n' t think
WE need to get into today. Ma~' I clarif~r?
r~s. MOORE: Yes.
.r",SST. TO\~N Þ.TTY. CORCOPÞ1'J: I think it's
,:ertainl~· arguable and you ha'Je made tile argument
chat that 1985 decision could be construed as a
subdivision, a resubdivision, what have ~·ou. The
f,rcblem is what is ~'our application before the
Plannin-::¡ Board today? It's for an approval. It's
not really subdividing and or changing anything.
So, to be clear and correct with the ZEA's
jurisdiction, I think it's most prudent that they
act according to the notice of disapproval. The~'
c,~n consider ~rour application under 277, but I
think the ZBA would be most comfortable, unless I
l~ear otherwise, that they base their jurisdiction
on the notice of disapproval. Quite frankl~'t I
thillk that's the safest course for the ~pplicallt
àS well.
e
~
4
5
"
7
8
10
11
12
17
HS. !100RE: I ha..'e no problem with that.
¡'¡hat Jimmy just asked me is we're onl,' apprc"iing
it under the one notice of disapproval, and I said
110, please don/t do that, under both scenarios
because if the Planning Board says no, I'm going
to be in an Article 78 on both issues because
'.'1;::::' re starting with a property that somebody owned
?end then resubdivided, and the pl3-nner s.:tys so in
her memo she says it was resubdivided. I^Ihether
it's resubdivided in four lot changes C~ twe lot
line changes, what's left behind is owned by
somebody.
ASST. TOI^IN
from this Board is
ATTY. CORCORÞ.N:
to consider ~/our
vJhat "'/GU need
13
e
14
15
16
18
19
relief
for
the
;3lze.
20
HS. r100RE: Consider m,' relief f=,r the
size of the property that is less than two
21
.::teres.
24
CHAIR1¡IJOl'v1AN OLIVA: JeLL""', d,:::) l"''JU ha'lç
3.nything?
BOARD !1EHBER GOEHP.INGER: No. I'm =Join=¡
to reserve at tile elld here. But we do need to get
this proper application going from Mrs. Hoore
re-::¡arding this notice of disapproval.
MS. MOORE: I'll go back this afternoon.
BOARD !1EHBER GOEHRINGEP.: I VJould su}gest
,.'it thie time to adjourn this, :;'tnd let her come
22
23
.
25
September 14, 2004
74
1
9
back with the application so we have it, and let's
~lear the rest of the two other persons that are
11ere, then we/II reconvene in all hour or so.
Let's -::¡et it done ri-::¡ht.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Mr. and Mrs. l^Iells are
here, I'm sure they have comments. fJIr. ~'\lells.
~1R. I^IELLS: ['1',' wi fe is going to present
this to you. This goes to the Chairperson. This
goes in the file, which is all our deeds with the
right of ways in there from Chudiak.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MRS. WELLS: On December 16, 1985 the
Planning Board approved four separate applications
by l^Iilliam Chudiak for lot line changes to in
effect subdivide a 2.39 acre parcel so that the
majority of the parcel would be merged into and
become part of a four exist in} lots and the
remaining portion would be a deeded right of
way. The applicant was to sell 8,800 square feet
tc:. the Wannats, 12,500 square feet to us, 12,=.00
square feet to the Beckers and 25/000 Zibicki, now
]':nown as Siderakis, leaving a right of wa)p
,:()ntaining 35,474 square feet. A condition of the
lot line approvals was that the existing lots with
houses WGuld merge with the new propert~r to be
added by the lot line change, and that only one
residence would be permitted on the newl~r created
merged lots. Therefore, Chudiak sold 8,800 square
feet to my mom and dad, 12,500 to us, but as I
understand it, he refused to sell the 12,500
square feet to Becker and the 25,000 square fee to
Zibicki, also now would be siderakis. Althou-::¡h
b~"th Becker and Zibicki I,Siderakis wer.=:: rea.dy to
buy the land and complete the lot 1 ine ,~han-::¡e on
."-.ugust 27, 2002, Chudiak sold this land to the
applicant for $81,000. I believe both Chudiak's
completion of the lot line chan}es with the l^Ianats
alld us, combined wittl his failure to cGmplete the
lot line changes with Becker and Zibicki, lS an
illegal subdivision of land, that the entire
parcel that applicant now owns is an illegally
created lot. I also believe the effect of the
~lanning Board approl:als fer Zoning purposes was
to create four new lots. So e':en though Chudiak
did not sell to Becker or Zibicki, for zoning
purposes, the land owned by Becker and Zibicki
merged with the land owned b,' Chudiak.
For Zoning purposes I believe the Town
~
L
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
LL
23
2-l
·
25
September 14, 2004
~h
I ~
1
~J
should only recognize as buildin-::¡ lots the
~xisting parcel owned by Becker together with the
12,500 square feet owned by the applicant that was
to be sold to Becker and the existing parcel cWlled
b~r Zibicki (Siderakis) together with the 25,000
square feet owned by the applicant that ',vas to be
sold to Zibicki and Siderakis. The remainin-::¡ part
of the ~pplicant's land is a d~eded right of way
th~t cannot be bui 1 t on. To m,' knowledc¡e, Chudiak
n~ver applied to the Planning Board to unmer-::¡e the
newl~ created lots or to annul the prior appro~rals
therefore I believe the propert~· owned b~' the
applicant is not a lot recogniz~d by th~ Town auj
c~nnot be built on, period. The Buildiu3
Department was correct in refusing to issue a
buildin} permit. The applicant needs the Planning
Board to create a legal lot ~nd he should be
before them and not you.
Now, as I understand it, this Board
reacred the same conclusion in ttle prior
application by the applicant. When he sued, the
Supreme Court agreed with this Board dismisslng
his lawsuit. So I'm actually wondering how or why
the applicant is back here seeking a variance for
a lot that is not recognized by the Town. I just
don't think the Zoniu3 Board can grant the
-.-ariance requested.
The Zoning Board cannot legaliz¿ this lot
L-.'.: granting an area ;.Tariance. However, assuming
for argument's sake that the applicant did have a
lot recognized by the Town and this Board could
-::¡rant a variance, the applicant is not ~ntitl~d to
a variance an}~ay. I have reviewed the
application submitted by the applicant. He
indicated that the Town law requires th~ Zonin-::¡
Board to consider certain factors in reviewing
this application. I will re',iew these factors
\J;rith ,¡,()u.
The Board must consider whether the r~lief
L"e'1uested is substantial. ThE; applicant says no
claiming that the so-called lot has 72,974 square
f~et and therefore the applicant only needs a
-,cariance of 7,026 square feet, or about 10 percent
relief. However, of the 72,974 square feet,
j5,474 square feet compromises ä 50 foot wide
deeded right of way which appears cn tllE tax map.
Tlle town code defines lot area ~s that
area of a lot less an~r portion within a public or
~
L
·
3
4
"
~
"
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
-, "
L _'
Sept~mber 14, 2004
76
1
2
· .,
4
5
,-
8
9
10
11
12
13
· 14
15
1;
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
· ~. C
L~
private right of way. Therefore, the applicant lS
~ctually seeking a lot variance for a lot with
37/500 square feet, that means the applicant is
s~eking a ~ariance of 42,500 square feet or a
relief c'[ o~\;'"er 50 percent. In nr:/ opini!:,n the
~ctual relief the applicant needs is quite
substantial.
The Board must also consider whether the
~.~3riance will ha"fJe an adverse imimpact ,::,n the
physical or environmental conditions
lnneighborhood or be a detriment to nearb~r
properties. The subject property is well below
the grade of the property it adjoins. In order to
be de-:eloped it would require that a kettle hole
be filled and the right of way leading to the
propert~r be raised. Currentl~r, the natural
·:ontours of the land surrounding the subject's
property results in water runoff all leading to
the below grade portions of the subject property.
~;ranting the variance permitting construction on
the substandard lot will result in terrible
flooding for all adjoining property owners.
The Board must also consider wh~ther the
f::enefits sought by the applicant can be achie-/ed
l~~r some feasible method other than a varlance.
The applicant says no, claiming that the property
is left over land from a Planning Board action ill
1985 and that the applicant purchased the
buildable lot, that he paid a lot for it and ~~w
suffering financially because he cannot build on
it. This factor shouldn't be 9i~/en an...: weight by
chis Board. Contrary to the applicant's
misrepresentation, this propert~T is not a l~gal
buildable lot. \^Iould or should this Board gi-:e a
lot area variance to someone WilD purchased an
ille}ally created substandard lot? I think the
answer is no.
The Board must also consider whether the
alleged difficulty is self-created. The applicant
says no, stating that the property was purchased
with clean title and a pending approval for
-:JTIstructioTI. He also falsel~' states that the lot
was created by the Planning Be,ard. He goes on to
state that no one knew or believed that this lot
was not an appro-,-ed lot when we bought it. This
property was not a lot created by the Plannin}
Board, and therefore the propert~· was n0t a legal
lot when the applicant bought it.
SEptEmber l~, 2004
..,~
, I
1
3
Now, as I understand it, the applicant and
his family are land speculators ~nd are
è'xperienced in buying propert,' and then de'.'eloping
them or flipping them. Therefore, I believe he
knew or should ha'~re known that the lot ~/,ras not
buildable. Now I also understand he bought it for
~SI,OOO, half of what the building lots were
sellin} for at the time. Pè'rhaps he was taking a
calculated risk that he could get a building
permit. It is also 01,' understanding that it lS
(~lJstGmary to make vacant land sales CGlltracts
conditional upon the buyer obtaining a buildin)
permit prior to closing. Obviously, he did not
r~btain one. Regardless of whether the applicallt
sambled, was duped or did not do his homework or
had an inexperienced attorne-:{ represent him, he
purchased property he could not build on, and
therefore the hardship was self-created.
The applicant also states that the
':ariancE requested is the minimum variance
practicable because the onl~r way he call request
less relief would be to bu,' additional land to
make the lot bigger, and that my mom and us would
not sell the land back to him. First, the
~pplicant has never asked to buy the land back;
and second, he would need approval from the
~lannin-::¡ Board to undo the original lot line
:~:h::tnge or to do a new lot line change. The
applicant further stated in his application that
~'ou must perform a balancing test, balancing the
benefit to the applicant against the detriment to
the health, safety and welfare of the oommunity.
The relief requested is substantial. The
development will result in floodin-::¡ to adjoining
properties and the hardship was self-created.
I believe that these factors lead to the
conclusion that the detriment to the health,
safet~' and welfare to the community outweighs the
L~nEfit to the applicant. Tile ~~riance should
therefore be denied.
I completed the lot line change process
wi th ¡'Ir. Chudiak because I thouc¡ht I was bu~'in}
both additional land and security of knowing that
110 homes would ever be built on that propert~·. I
relied in good faith that Mr. Chudiak would
fulfill his promise b:,' completing the l,:,t line
change with Becker and Zibicki, now Sid~rakis_
The town should be mindful of this. I l-emind ..../GU
2
e
3
4
5
"
7
9
IC)
11
12
13
e
14
15
1;)
17
18
13
2Ü
21
~ ~,
¿¿
~~
24
.
2~,
Sept~mb.;:;:r 14, 2004
78
1
SI
chat I will remind the Plannin-::¡ Board should the
applicant seek relief there.
III conclusion, tile subject property is not
a le-::¡ally recognized lot by the Town. The
~pplicant, however, is asking this Board to grant
this lot le-::¡al status by granting an area
~arlance. Only the Planning Board can do that and
therefore, the applicant must -::¡o to the Planning
Board for that relief. Then and only then can the
applicant return to this Board to seek a lot area
~ariance. It is then and only then that this
B(Jard can consider tile area ~rariance SOUgllt llere.
I,m. vJELLS: I ha\,e just a comment. Þ.rtie
FGster's name was brought up, and on that
propErt~T, the reason why they let 11im build, what
he did was, with Simchik, he made a deal with
8imchik. When it was broke off to five two acre
lots for a mini subdivision with a private road,
.;rtie Foster made a deal that ~...]hate~ler properties
were left, he would take it for the price of
building the road all the way in and around. He
did it. He took two acres on that property, He
bllilt his own house on it. When he got ccmpletel~'
r:1r::¡ne, he decided, well, me let me see if I can <'jO
l,ack and dupe the town. So he promised tile Town
chat hole if they give him a building permit for
another piece of property alon} side the one he
just built, and he built it, and he sold that.
That's how that came about, that little piece down
in there. And that hole is on the other side of
lÎudeck, as far as drainage. It' s completel~' \Va,'
~wa'l from this one. This is wa)' on the other side
of this piece of property. So that's how that
;~ame about. Because I remember Artie F,~ster
,::oming and doing that.
The other last one I wallt to saT,' is wh~n
he broke off the property Chudiak did, when Kevin
Miloski wanted one acre, he come back, the Town
:'3.3-'/8 no, you haTJe two acres, t'\:JG acre z,=..ning,
that's what Chudiak broke it off, two acres, he
llad to create a right of wa~' frrJm Kevin; it was
not only in from Cox Neck Road to his hr:::;.use, but
alsG ran along his propert~' of two acres all th~
t,ack to Hilliker's house, where it 18 now. H~ has
tile right to use that rigllt of wa~' all the wa~r to
Hllliker's house to the end of his property, but
~0 d,:) I and SD does m1' mother-in-law, and yc,u'll
see it in that paperwork because we wi~ld it off.
"
L
e
3
4
5
G
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
1':·
16
17
18
19
20
21
"~
LL
23
24
.
2S
September 14, 2004
79
1
.
3
Chudiak give it to me because he knew I had a
trailer and when I came in the back I'd have to
~ull all the way down and back back-up. I'd have
to use part of that ri-::¡ht of way to get that 36
foot trailer in there. That's the reason that
~ight of wa~' was created for him.
The property then, I was using it, Chudiak
let me use it, and I purchased it, it w~s onl~r a
strip of 125 feet by 500 feet long, that's all
that was left. That's when he went to the
Planning Board and the Planning Board said you
have to do lot line changes. You cannot sell it
f :::,r another house, we don f t want any more houses
tack there, because it's two acre zoning and we
,J':ìl1 f t want them on top of one another. That's how
all that little strip was left, and, of course,
what happened on the end, happened on the end,
that's all. Thank you ver-:/ much.
CH.^,IRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Thank j'OU, i'Ir. l^Ie lls .
Thank you, Mrs. l^Iells.
MS. MOORE: For the record, because a lot
was said in that presentation. To begin with for
the record, I reported Chudiak famil~' CD this
property. I started a process of the permit
process. Then Mr. pisacano came along and he took
,:,::,',rer the permit proc2ss, but nc',^¡here during any c,f
the time that the property was either on the
market before it went to contract with Chudiak Dr
during the time that Mr. pisacano was in contract
till the present have we ever been appr(Jacred })~.
B~cker or zibicki's predecessor in title; no one
has E'ler offered to ':::>:Jmplete Lhe lot lin.:::: changes
that were approved in '85.
In fact, when I first met the Chudiaks we
had an option with proceeding finishing up the lot
line changes and the onl'.-,· way ,!'Oll could do that
'.'Jas b'l doing deeds and confirmation deeds. E,.rer:,'
lot line change application says this lot llne
change is not effecLi':e unLil a deed and a
l~onfirmaLion deed is recorded. That is a final
step in a lot line change. Those thin}s were
llE\'er done because obviousl~' Becker and Zibicki
didn't proceed with the sale. Whether it was
'~~hudiaJ.:: who didn I L sell to Becker and Zibicki or
Z ibicki and Becker, \ve don I t know. To my
J~nowledge, Chudiak never said LC me, I refuse to
~~ll to those people. He just said, arId, in facL1
I think Gne of the past hearings somebc>d~/ admitLed
2
4
5
,-
7
8
':;
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
IS
19
2 I~I
21
22
23
24
e
-, I:::
L J
Sept~mber 14, 2004
80
1
~1
that Becker didn't have the
tc', complete that purchase.
it doesll't occur.
So, for the record, tllere have never been
any offers, and in fact, the Planning BGard
hearsay was that the lot line changes could still
cake place. I would say that none of us have ever
been extended an offer, ffiç to ffij- client ,")r the
client directly. So I want to dissuade the Board
from thinkin-::¡ that that is an option
As far as the price of $81,000, that was
the fair market value in 2001 for a developable
propert~·. This was not bought or sold at a
discount. So, let me assure '..:ou, because prDperty
~r~lues are certainl)' much greater now and you and
I all know that the values of property are
probably significantly increased at this point.
$81,000 was, in fact, the fair market 'Jalue. This
was not bought as a property on speculatiDn in any
W~~', as far as, oh, we'll take our chances, I get
what I get, tllat was not the case.
CHAIRWOMM" OLIVA: Mr. l^Iells?
¡"!P.. \~ELLS: I ha<,,'e a rebuttal. If ,',:::u g:::,
back in ,¿'our record in the other file, you're
90ing to find letters in there in 1988 tllat was
sent Cc, Chudiak and his law,'er to bu,' that
property for lot line changes. It's in there,
}]lack and white because I've seen it. So as far
a8 saying there was nobody wanting to buy it,
p~ople still ask me, the reason why it wasn't sold
because when the time came somebody Cjot iœ,'ol':ed
~"'tnd says we want a lot more money. ~'¡¡hen it was
,~riginall~r purchased it was $10,000 an acre, that
was }oing rate in 1985 for property. He broke it
off and that's what we paid. We paid full price,
\'Ie didn't get an'y' cheaper, but now when sCimeh::Jd'y'
else was handling it, as far as Chudiak was
(~oncerned, the~' wanted a lot more mone~·. It
atarted off that piece of property at $285,000,
chat's what that property went to market f,c,r by
tlle rçal estate when Chudiak was trying tc sell
it, not him, Chudiak.
MS. MOORE: I am the attorne~', tilat was
n~~rer a number that was ever contemplated at the
wherewithal to finish,
So for whatever reason
"
L
e
3
4
5
6
7
s
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
",
¿ -'
24
time.
.
25
["!P.. PISACANO: .".bout the draina'Je pl'c',blem,
I don't plan on changing any contours of the land.
Tile foundation goes in, it's gOlng to get
September 14, 2004
81
1
"
backfilled. The drainage isn't going to go
~nywhere different from where it I s going. I L'S
not goin-::¡ to be a problem as far as that goes.
CHAIRI^IOMÞ,]\ OLIVÞ.: How Cêln it nc,t?
rJIR. FISACA.NO: I don f t know. Thev 're
sal~in::J it goes down to this h':Jl~. I' m not
I]uilding on the hole. So tllE water's g,~ing to go
where~'er it's going it's going to contillue to go.
rIh,' v¡ould there be an,' more draina-::¡e if I built a
house on it?
CHÞ_IRI^IOMAN OLIVA: That's fine, but ,'au
might experience erosion becaus~ I was dOWIl at Mr.
l"Jells I house and e~,ren since the previou:= rain 'lOll
cI:,uld see the gullies coming down from the south
rEall~' or the west, it just runs down. Tile
natural slope of the land is this way.
HR. PISACANO: The Health Department asked
me to get contours done on the land, and I did.
The house is going to be built up on the hi-::¡her
lanj, and I just don't see it being a problem.
The....' said if I were going to take the trees down,
I mean, that can happen any wa,', whether I build
C·Il it or not, the trees not necessaril~' ha7e to
stay there. I don't see that being a problem.
CHAIRI^IOMÞ~ OLIVA: What is the Board's
[)leasure?
B-:jARD I"lEJ>1BER GOEHP.INGER: Only che paint
r~f view to make the application whole, that's it.
HS. MOORE: ~Jhat time do you want tc,
2
e
3
4
5
'0
~
'S
10
11
12
13
e
14
1 ~,
11)
re:c:on~lene ?
17
CHAIR\^IOT'vIA],\T OLIVA: Half an hour. .i;djeurn
lt 2:30. I'll make a motion to adjourn the
h~aring until approximatelj~ 20 minutes to 3: ¡JI].
(See minutes for resolution.)
18
is'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
e
25
I Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.
CHÞ.IRWOf1A.N OLIVÞ.: Next applicat ion, I de.
believe, is Mr. Schultheis.
f.1P.. BRESSLER: Up,::m a review cf the
minutes e¡f the last proceeding f this matter '"Jas
adjourned and kept open for the Board gain-::¡ down
~o the parcel, making observations, re~!lewing our
last submission arId putting questions to the
,~pplicant, to paraphrase the last several li11es of
the minutes. Therefore, we stand read",: tí') address
?tE"/ concerns you ha',re or to answer any questirJn::::
which may ha':e arisen as a result of your
e):aminatiorl of the documents and the prGpert~r.
2(1
21
22
23
24
September 1~, 2004
82
1
~.
L
· 3
4
5
6
C'HAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: ¡·1r. ':;oehrin:¡er?
B(~ARD ~1E[1BER GOEHRINGEP.: I ha"e tG sa",
chat we had a very nice inspection of tile
property. I^Ihat Mr. and Mrs. Schultheis put
together in reference to their conforming location
was initially narrow, I don't mean the~r are
narrow I I mean the location was narrow, the~' were
'/e.r"/ nlce.
8
')
10
11
12
13
· 14
15
16
17
18
19
2ú
21
22
23
24
· ~c
L~
I want to reflect back, I have to tell
,'eu, I could keep this hearing goin-::¡ for the ne>:t
four hours; based on what we did today, I don't
think that is going to happen.
I just want to reflect back on the
ch~racter of the nei-::¡hborhood. l^Ie know that there
lS an old boat yard next to them. l^Ie also know
that there was extensive work done in reference to
tWG-stor~r houses in the immediate area and so Oil
and so forth.
I was actually going te -::¡o back block by
bL~ck, house by house and mark them out on the
~ntire tax map, but I can tell ~·ou from my
knowled}e of New Suffolk, and the peried of tlme
that I had spent, which is from 1971 to present in
real estate in the town, not in reference to
selling real estate from 1986 te present, but that
two-thirds to three-quarters of the houses in New
Suffolk are nonconforming. They were built prier
to zoning. So regardless if the~r are one-story,
tí,'JC1-story, whate'Jer the case mi'3ht be, and why
j0es that have merit, not to be offensi~!e to the
.s,~:'hul theises who, b~.: the wa"1', are very nice
people, it ~:ery simpl~' tells me that their hOUSE
is not nonconforming because it was a bait shop
prior to zoning, and it was actual11r reconstructed
cr constructed after zoning. I still stand that
it is on a peninsula, a ':er)" fragile piece of
property, and I do understand Mr. Schultheis's
~xamination of the bulkhead and the construction
Jf the bulkhead as it exists today, which is
substantial. I am very simply gDing tc say that
had I been more aware of the fact that I think
this Board should hold the application in
abe~rance, and I realize this is another
~eaffirmation application as opposed te. a brand
n~w application, and allow them to go back to tile
Trustees, thereb,' fillin-::¡ in their h-:)Us~ where
their open deck is, and building the necessar)r
~QQms that they need to support fami11r mEmbers,
September 14, 2004
83
1
9
rtnd taking that spoil area in the front, and
reconstructing a new deck with Trustee approval,
arId an)' other variances the)' need, I thirlk tllat's
what the Board should do, and I think that's what
che applicant should do.
I llave no objection to them raising roof
lines. My entire objection to this application
was basicall~' the construction Gf a second stery.
I ha~lE: no offense to them in an'/ way, !1l::tnner en."
form. I construe them to be very, very nice
people, I'll reiterate that a}ain. But chat's my
suggestion, that they should fill in their
~xisting deck area which faces the Pecollic Ba~',
make that house, raise any roof lines that thEY S'J
rh~se to do, so they don't have different
~levations of roof lines, but again, still to make
t.h-=: hc,use a one - star:: home and thereby adding on
to it in that spoil area of the remaining lot that
chey purchased across the front of thelr property,
an -=:xisting deck, a modest existing deck attaclled
to the house with the necessary support pilings
that you have to put in into that spoil area, and
awa~' from that drain area that the~' have, which
was delineated bj Mr. Schultheis. That's what I
think they should do. And I can saj that, as
l,eing a past chairperson of the this B03.rd, that I
1Gn't think they have necessaril~' exhausted their
legal right in that benefit, and I think that's an
rtrea that would have great merit. And their house
w,~uld be almost square or rectangular, whatever
cr=,nformit,/ you would choose it to be, rather than
a little more riLl! shaped, as it is llOW, and tllat
would be my suggestion. That is the maximum I'm
9,-:;··ing tc say today unless there are an...· r=,ther
lssues and we go frc,m there.
C'HAIRWO~J-"'.N OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEr1BEP. DINIZIO: I don't hrt"}e any
'1uestions. I kind of wonder wh...: we're still here,
but I think that it's not unreasonable what the
appl icant' s asking for. I mean, I did not take
part in the first part of this applicatlon, so I
Jidn' C get the whole nuance of the whole thin,},
buc I did -::¡o down there and take a look ~c ic, }o
b....· it on the boat. I don' t think it stands out
~n....· more than any other house in the area, an(j it
won't when it's done, that's my opinion, I'm one
rnember.
::;
e
3
4
5
6
8
1C)
11
1~
L
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
1:1
20
21
22
23
2-:1:
.
25
CHAIRWOMM, OLIVA:
'Jinc~nt ?
Sepcember 1~, 2004
84
1
:;;
BOARD r~Er1BER ORLANDO: Just toclarif,', it
wasn't putting a second story, just two dormers
Jll, correct, two dormers on the existing dwelling?
BOARD ME["IBER GOEHRUIGEP.: It's ¿In
~xtremely shallow roof line.
BOARD r1EMBER ORLANDO: Yes.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Specifically it's ralsi~J
the wall with about a four foot high knee wall
with a new roof on top.
BOARD ME!1BER ORL.1'iliDO: Reduce the pitch.
I don't believe the ridge chan-::¡ed.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: There would be a new roof
put on. It wouldn't be a full ei-::¡ht foot wall for
tIle second floor, just a four foot knee wall with
a new roof and dormers in the front and the rear.
B,C,ARD !1EMBER ORLANDO: That expanded the
2
e
3
4
5
,:;
7
8
10
height?
J'·1P.. SCHULTHEIS:
The h~i-::¡ht of the house
e
25
(pJ,:::;uld increase.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay. .'-.ny response
lJack to Mr. Goehringer's suggestion?
f'lE. BRESSLER: I think I would 1 ike to
address them in the first instance, if that
COllstitutes the substance of tIle members' concern.
We have been through the approval process. W~ are
at the end of the line, I think it probably -::¡oes
without saying but since we're making a record, I
will say it anyway, we don't want to st~rt agaill.
What the suggestion is as a practical matter lS
that we have to go back, we have to reapproacll the
Trustees; we have to reapproach the Department of
En'lironmental Conservation; we ha'le to reapproach
~~,,~eryone and then come back here again \'Ili th
allother plan after, from an ell~iranmental point of
Vlew, these things have been approved. That's the
first problem I see with that particular approach.
SecGndl~r, it was our intention to design
this project in such a manner that it minimize the
slr:.rironrnental impacts. And quite franklT/, I don't
think that the su-::¡-::¡estion of enga-::¡in) in
,:'onstruction, which in some way 13 going to m0;re
us closer to the water and encroach further on tIle
wetlands, is something that is desirable, let
~lGne wllether DEC and whether the Trustees are
~C.·en going to entertain such an application when
3D environmentall~r sounder alternati'TE tlas already
l.)een approved.
Now, with regard to the second floor
11
12
13
e
14
15
IG
17
18
19
2 [I
21
.~. ....,
L¿
~ ~
24
September 14, 2004
85
1
c
itself, I think that there is no dispute
regardless of when the second story dwellings in
the New Suffolk area arose, this is not
illconsistent with the character of the
n'Cighborhood.
I think that if we also were to expand
toward the water on the first floor, we'd be }Jack
to you with further ·variance applications because
of the location of the lot lines. The Board is
~ware there are two separate lots there, and I
tllink chat as between the two alternatives, I
think adding the four foot knee wall, chan}ing the
height in a m:>dest fashion is the sound'Cst ';13.,',
IJllt I leave, obviousl~r members of the B(Jard have
tlleir oWll approach to this, I think whell you
consider all of the factors that are in701ved here
~nd the fact that the applicant's request is
modest overall, I think th~t the method by which
the applicant has chasen to proceed and the
approvals he's gotten to date militate in favor of
this particular application, the way it's
structured. We don't want to go closer to the
wetlands. So I also could be here until 6:00,
Jerry and I could argue until 6:00, but Ileither of
us wants to do rllat, and we could debate this ad
infinitum. I think the issues are fairly clearly
:jrawl1, Board Member Goehringer has made hi8.
position ~rer~r clear about what Ilis objection is,
and I think that we have mentioned the fact that
we can militate and hopefully overcome, in the
minds of at least the remainin-::¡ Board Members.
BOÞ.RD MEMBER GOEHRIIJGER: You certainl,'
~~e much more articulate than I am. How¿\'er, I
just want to say to that 'IoU th~ environmental
lssues, as -:"ou know, from the DEC are I=,ret t....r much
ca]~en care of because ~'ou ha\'e a substalltial
bulkhead, that's Number 1. The situation in
reference to the Health Department are pretty much
taken care of with the DEC and the Health
Department because there is no change in the
cesspool,'septic tank issue because they're bein-::¡
untouched; and Number 3, if the Army Cc,rps c,f
Engineers is in'lolved, we're talking al.:,,':,ut
squarin-::¡ off the house, that's what I'm talking
ar:,c,;ut, taking the HL!I out of the house and maklng
that part of the house.
The onl~' issue is for tl1e Town Trustees
are sinking a couple pilings into that spoil area
=
·
3
4
~
7
8
Sf
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
l'
Q
17
I,Q
lS1
2.0
=1
¿¿
23
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
86
1
c
in tile front, you're absolutel~' correct¡ but for
all intents and purposes, really within the lot
line of the existing house and not proceeding into
that property in the front, which is in a separate
lot areas, which really has no significallce
b~cause it's in the same name. I have to tell l'GU
that I feel so badly about the way I worked and
dlscussed this application with the Schultheises
on the first hearing, that I would be willin-::¡ to
'3c to the Trustees with 'lOll, and go dO'II\t'l1 tCi the
property with them and explain to them after
Mr. and Mrs. Schultheis came up with an a}reeable
plan because I don't normally like to do those
things, however, I was extremely upset b~· Cllat
statement which said that we were discriminating
~gainst either parent that was going to live ill
the house with them, because, again, this Board
'-k,es n,:)t discriminate and I just want ,'ou to be
aware, that I feel badly about that, badly that I
attacked these nice people. And, of course, I
~pologized in doing so.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: You did. We appreciate
"
L
.
3
4
t~1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
it.
11;
BO,Z>,.RD f1EMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'Ñould e·:en '}o
to the Trustees with them and with you to approach
them and say this is what we really need; this is
wllat we will like to have and after mue}1 field
-,-isie and review of tllis application. So Chatls
lust my opinion, and I have to tell you that
cllat's the way I feel about ie.
MR. BRESSLER: l^Ie respect that. But we
ask the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: ['Ie h3.\'e one member
missing, but I think I'd like to close the hearing
and have us discuss it at our October 7th hearing.
MR. BRESSLER: Before ~~u close the
hearing, I think the applicant would llke to make
a statement.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: As far as the su-::¡-::¡estion
to square off the house. It's something that was
lODked at and it creates some ','eri' unwield,'
situations. It's a square with \rer)r little --
with access to light only 011 tile outsid¿. It
makes for not a pleasant living experiellce 1n a
square. And that's based on the layout of the
house now, where the kitchen is, where the ottler
rooms are. The other part of that is that
1ncreaslng the deck out further tGwards the water,
e
14
15
17
1.'3
1 SI
2û
21
2:2
23
2-1
.
25
September 14, 2004
87
1
7
I'm sure Hr. Hartung, who 1 i ves to the north, lS
not -::¡oing to be happy with the view that he is
gOillg to have as he looks to the south now, and
I'm sure Mr. Gonzalez who lives to the south, when
he looks to the north is going to lose his view of
a big part of Cutchogue. I appreciate the
su-::¡}estion. M¡ personal feeling is that it's an
unwieldy situation. There are, in addition, there
are old cesspools under the deck which were never
accounted for in any of the material I gave you,
I can refer to Artie Foster, who put the new
cesspools in, and you can ask him about the
cave-ins that he's experienced in putting them lilt
and we do know that there are other cesspools in
that area which we prefer just to leave alone.
It's a very fragile area under that main portion
under the deck.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: ¡'Ie will t.ake your
comments into consideration.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: I had brought up the fact
that in some of my prev"ious material Lhat one of
the things that we considered doing was basicall¡
looking for some additional living area for -::¡uests
and family when they come visit.
CHAIRI^IOMMJ OLIVA: Understood.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: One of the things that
was considered was basically raising the garage
and making some bedroom area up there but we were
precluded from doing that because when the
Cremminses that owned the house before us, the~r
had to get a variance to build that garage and it
was for storage only. So that was considered as
an alternative, couldn't do that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was the
reason, Mr. Schultheis, why I suggested adding on
to the house to the -::¡arage, that was my first
su-::¡gestion for that particular reason. Because
now it becomes part of the garage, and ,'ou could
ask this Board to waive that particular option.
J\.gain I assuming the garage doesn't become
outlandishl¡ large. That was the main reason for
that.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: One of the options we
~onsidered was taking the existing garage --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can't do
that because it stands alone from the house. It
has to be attached to the hOUSE, that was the
reason I made that suggestion of adding it to the
2
e
3
4
"
~
!o
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
September 14, 2004
88
1
2
house.
7
r'IR. SCHULTHEIS: Attached via
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Via a room, a
heated part of the house.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: l^Iith the closeness to the
',\rater in the rear f one of the things I layed out
where the Trustees have that 75 foot jurisdiction,
one of the things I laid out for you was where all
those 75 foot lines were.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. I
understand that and, of course, you have bulkhead
In that side also, some of which you just
replaced, but having bulkhead and havin} open
beach is a little different when Trustees look at
applications of this nature. There are certainly
houses down there that are extremely close -- as
well as the back of ,'our house - - when I say the
back, the part where you keep your boat -- I
understand, but that was the purpose of m~' saying
to you let/s add a room on from there to the
garage. I don't know how this Board would feel in
reference to the waiver of that condition.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: I go back to the
challenge we had when we had to put the cesspools
ln, and the material was given. l^Ie got feedback
from both the DEC and the Trustees. And the
Trustees basically drew their 75 foot line, and
where the cesspools were put in were beyond the 75
feet from the beach, they were beyond the 75 feet
from School House Creek itself, and their feeling
was it wasn't within 75 feet of that creek but
that was a location that they felt more
crnnfortable with for the cesspools.
BOARD ~1EMBER ,::;OEHRINGEP.: I understand
that, but I want 1'OU to be aware of the fact that
just as there is a new chairperson for the
~lanning Board, so is there a new Trustee
organization from the time you had gotten those
Trustee permits. And whatever you chose to do, I
,:lid not feel the impact of ancther story on top of
~'our existing home was a benefit, when you talk
about -- from my point of view, aka}' -- wllen )'DU
talk about other people not having proper water
"lews, I would counter that by sayin} if they
den' t ha~vre a scenic easement O~ler '/our propertj'~, I
realize you want to be a good nei-::¡hbor but that's
,Jut the window, unless a person has a scenic
easement over your property, that's the wa~' it is.
e
:3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
If)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
-, c
¿~
September 14, 2004
89
1
·
3
Certainly they can come to a meeting and express
their opinion, as other people you've seen toda~',
and I said that a hundred times, unless "lTOU ha\re a
s,':enic easement.
2
7
I don't want to debate
11nderstand your situation, and
2xplaining the property to us.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Just one last comment,
taking that approach, I take a nonconforming
situation now, and basically I make it more
nonconforming.
this anymore.
I do thank you
I
4
for
5
,;
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Yes, -:.;ou' re
9
actually correct.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: I'm trying to minimlze
this, and I feel that the alternative of basically
adding that minimal second floor, reducing the
impact of changing the lot lines, et cetera.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I'll ma.ke
a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
ISee minutes for resolution.)
8
10
11
1~·
L
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -
13
17
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Next hearin-::¡ is Carol
I^Iltschiebein and Janet Larsen.
[··1S. RIVERA: This is the existin,:¡ sucre:/
,~n Larsen.'·Witschiebein, and these are photos of
just some of the homes on Sound Beach Drive
to-::¡ether with the photos I previously -::¡ave you. I
ask that you look at proposal number one, ,,¡hich lS
the six foot setback for the 53 feet; I marked it
',\,i th Roman Number I up in the corner. As 'loU
requested, I gave you se;reral proposals, but I
would really like to concentrate on Proposal
Number 1. I reduced the overall length of the
eztension by 20 feet. The extension now is 53
feet in length, and I drew it back further from
the coastal erosion line. By reducing lt by the
20 feet in length and reducing it by the width,
reducing the overall square footage of 240 by a
third, almost 1,000 square feet overall, and when
I frame this house, I'm going to have to frame it
in two by six. For obvious reasons, by framing
two by six, I put the foam insulation first and
put R13 -::¡iving me R2'; on the walls and on the
water there we really, really do need it,
desperately need it. So by reducing the house ln
che width and the two by six framing, it's giving
me approximate I}' 15 feet of internal space, and
·
14
1::.
16
18
19
20
21
~~
LL
)0
~~
24
·
~c
L~
September 14, 2004
90
1
2
· 3
4
5
'5
:j
9
10
11
12
13
· 14
15
16
17
18
19
2 rJ
21
22
23
24
· 25
then 11m further going to have to elevate this
space to be flood compliant; so I'm goin-::¡ to have
~pproximately four risers going into chs space, so
that's additional three feet I'm going to lose ln
internal space. And even if I split the
difference and put two stairs in the existing
space and two more, it's still reducing the space.
Then I have to add a stairwell in order to go to
the second story, and the stairway's going to have
t~ be approximately three and a half feet in
width. So the reason for the chree and a half
foot width stairway is I have to be able to put a
handicapped chair rail mechanism to get to the
second story because one of the Larsen women is
handicapped. So we lleed to have a stairway that
·:an accommodate this chair lift and not haTJe too
many landings and turns for ob...rious reasons. So I
oan't really reduce the width of this
eztension any more than I'm asking for, the siz
f,~ot setback.
The house is on a waterfront piece of
property, as you well know, and if I were to put
:=in accessory garage or accessor~/ building up
there, I would only be required to have a five
foot setback in the side yard and not be
restricted on the length except to meet a 40 foot
setback and I'm now about 74 feet back with a six
foot setback. So what I'm askin-::¡ for is certainly
not out of character of certainly George Cala'3"eris
to the east because he has an addition almost
ldencical Co what we're doing except his is hi}her
because it's on pi 1 in-::¡s, and checking with the
DEC, I would not have to be on pilings. Also the
internal space is important because I h3-T.re to make
it ADA compliant and also handicap-friendly as far
~s placement of furniture and being able to
maneuver in the space. Sa I really can't reduce
it much more because I'm usin-::¡ three and a half
feet of internal space for a stairway. I'm using
anywhere between 18 inches and three feet for the
¿levation change from the old to the new. So I
l-eally can't reduce it by much more than I'm
askin-::¡ from this Board.
If you look at the existing survey I just
gaìle ~/ou now, 'lOU' 11 see there's a shed there and
a stairway there, which is preexisting, which is
much closer to che property line than the
extension. I'm further back than those structures
September 14, 2004
91
1
o
as they are now.
I also ha','e worked on nine of the 19 homes
on the waterfront property there, and tllere's a
total of 25 homes on Sound Beach Drive, Gut Gf the
those 25 home only fi'le, mine being included, llave
m·::,re of alleywa:,', so to speak, lack of a bet ter
term, between the houses. Right now if you grant
the six foot setback the distance between the
i:alageris' residence and Larsen residence would be
26 feet between the structures. There 3re onl~'
five other homes on the entire block that has a
minimum of 20 feet, all the rest have less than
that. l~.nd you can see h'/ the pictures I gaT,.re 'Irau,
I didn't take pictures of everything but onl~r five
ha\'e more of an alleyway than the 20 feet and
','Ie're asking for a 26 foot alleyway between the
two structures.
I addressed ¡'our issues about perhaps
mOiling some to the other side. Again, that would
be elevating two buildings two set foundations and
there's no transition from the bedroom space tG
the ¡inaudible) space. And I'm trying to be
sensitive to the Cypress people to the west
because I don't want to obstruct their Vlew, and
by doing it to the east, I'm really conforming
witl! the Calageris residence as it stands IlGW.
I think I addressed your concerns. I
didn't put any overhangs. I drew it back and cut
it by a third, and I don't think I can do much
more than that. Any questions:
CHÞ.IRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Jim, any questi,:)ns,'
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIG: Doesn't lc.c,k as
drastic as I thought it was goin-::¡ to look. It's a
little better.
~
L
·
3
4
5
'0
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
20
that's
MS. RIVERA:
BOARD IVJEMBER
acceptable?
J·'1S. RIVERA:
BOARD MEMBER
téllking j.
A third is a lot better, Jim.
DINIZIO: Plan 3 is the one
19
21
No, Plan 1.
ORLANDO: Jim and I were
24
BOARD MEMBER DHnZIG: ¡'¡h,' we didn't '30
through 2 and 3. Plan 3 looks pretty '3oc.d to me.
HS. RIVERA: Giving me an eight foot
setback? And then I ha'Je an internal space of
maybe 10 feet. Then I have to put the stairway in
and then the elevation, I'd have six feet of
li~ing space. I can't possibl~T have six foot of
liT.~ing space.
22
23
·
25
September 1~, 2004
92
1
8
BDARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ¡-¡hy can't :(OU make
it wider towards the house?
MS. RIVERA: Then I will be encroaching on
the entrances both to the beach and to the front.
See where that stoop is, I would literally be
cO'lering the front entrance there, and I can't
build over that structure as perhaps maybe one of
~ou had suggested because that structure was built
in 1950s and it's only on a slab and structurall~'
the engineer was here before, but, of course, he
had to leave, but he said there's no waj," we could
build over that structure, and if I were to build
over that structure, I would literally ha~e to
knock it down and build a new foundation. And
right now there are pipes underneath that slap for
heating and for water for the addition that ',,¡e
were contemplating putting to the east.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The total length of
this building now?
MS. RIVERA: Is 58 feet.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 58 feet.
MS. RIVERA: As opposed to 78.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm lookin-::¡ at the
pictures, and I don't see any buildings that look
like they're 58 feet.
MS. RIVERA: The Calageris residence,
ri}ht next door, which this would be almost
mirror, I built that so I know that it is very
close to that, I mean.
BOARD I"lEMBER DINIZIO: That's 20 feet from
the property line?
I1S. RIVERA: They're 20 feet fr,om the
propert,' line, right. And the o'<'erall side ,'ard
setback that we're asking would be a total of
31.8/ when onl~r 35 is required, so the total side
'lard setback I'm asking for is three feet.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you're asking
f'Jr six feet.
MS. RIVERA: Yes, six feet on one side but
the total side yard setback is 31.8.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the total is
not rele'lant of this, it's not a subject of this
T.r3..riance.
L
e
3
4
5
I:
~
,
9
10
11
1~·
L
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'.
¿~
.
25
¡'1S. RIVERA: I realize that.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: l^Ie're talkin-::¡ about
~rou wanting to add another two-star}' building six
feet away from the property line.
MS. RIVERA: Right. As I said, the
24
September 14, 2004
93
1
5
Calageris' to the west, have a two-story buildi~J
much higher because he has more pilings because of
his garage.
BOÞ.RD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the'/' re Hj feet
(Jr 20 feet away from the property line.
filS. RIVERA: But if I '''ere to -::¡c, on the
,~ther side, which I can't really do bec~use of
cesspools and water main and no access, remember I
have to have access and elevation to go to 13.6,
which I cannot do from that side, I really
can't.
2
e
3
4
b
7
St
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll have to have
the discussion. You're not going to discuss 3,
ri}ht, we don't need to discuss that?
MS. RIVERA: You can't expect internal
space of five, six feet because it will be -- you
can't even put a sofa and cocktail table there.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Plan 3 can onl::
qi~'e you seven, eight feet?
MS. RIVERA: Internal space.
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI: It's 15 feet wlde
altogether, right, the new area?
¡·IS. RIVERA: Right now it's approximately
16 feet wide with a six foot setback,
approximately 16 from foundation to foundation.
So if you want to take another two feet of that,
tll~t's 14; then you take another foot, that's 13
of internal space; then ~rou take three alld a llalf
feet for the stairway, another three feet for the
stairwa~' to get to the elevation, I'm taking six
feet awa)' of internal space, and there's just no
r,,·/a'.." you can maneU~ler a wheelchair with furniture
and e'.'en contemplate getting up to the second
stor~' with maneuvering.
BOPd<,D MEMBER ORLANDO: ¡'lith six feet?
['-1S. RIVERA: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you can do it
with eight feet? There's only a two foot
difference, six foot as opposed to eight foct
internal.
MS. RIVERA: It gives me a lot more spacE,
two feet is two feet as far as setback 15
cOllcerned. If two feet doesn't make a difference
lllternall~', why would it make a difference on the
~xternal side? Look at it both ways.
BC,ARD MEMBER DRLANDO: It's als,::, 250
square feet more, two stories, two feet b~" ,S 0,
¿=t[J!?yoximately.
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
12,
1']
2û
21
22
23
24
e
2 =,
September 14, 2004
94
1
"
L
HS. RIVERA:
But you're maneuvering it by
·
3
~ story at a time.
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI:
staircase inside this?
MS. RIVERA: The staircase has to be in
such a position as t.o not have too many turns. So
we're thinking of putting it on the back wall, so
we can be an easy transition. When I say back
(,..'all, I mean side wall, the Calageris side.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Being on the road
Chris, where is the
4
5
6
~)
sld,,, of it?
f"JS. RIVER.2',.: No. On the easterly side.
Because in 1992 I had to put a stairway in my
house, one of those chairs for m~' mom, and I llad a
tudor, it was straight up, and in those days, it
:ost me $10,000 then, and that was just a straight
l-un, and e"';:(~ry time you turn or the risers change,
it makes a drastic difference in the pricing of
the chair lift. So the easiest way for
maneU'!erability and a,-::cess would probabl~l be con
that easterly wall.
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI: Thank !,ou.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? LL...re you
finished, Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not really
finished.
You have a certain amount of square
footage right now on this lot; how much is that?
I^Ihat is your current lot coverage?
HS. RIVERA: Part of the old space lS
coming dawn, and I'm building right on top of
chat.
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
1-8
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ,'¡hat lS ,'our
current lot coverage right now?
BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: If she can't
answer it now, she can submit it. You could
submit it, Chris, you don't have to do it right
nc,w.
1 ::1
20
22
BOARD SECY. KOI^IALSKI: It be might be on
the disapproval too.
MS. RIVERA: A lot less than the 20
21
23
per,=ent.
BOARD r'IEf~BER DINIZIO:
the tvlO.
I want to compare
2-1
r~s. RIVERA:
Don't forget, Jiml there1s
·
25
this 10 by la, 10 by 11 space
I'm going to incorporate that
BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO:
that's ezistillg now,
111 the new space.
r see that on ~'our
Septembe~ 14, 2004
95
1
~
plan, but when I write the decision, approval or
disapproval, I'm going to want to be able to
justif~r, or whatever I do, the reasons wh~r the
additional space has to go into this nonconfGrming
area. There has to be some reasons for that. I
know the house has this much square footage I ''!'¡hen
we're done we're going to ha\,re t.his much. ~'Jhat is
that going to be?
[,IS. RIVERA: It's goim:¡ to be '" li'Jing and
dining room downstairs.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That I know.
Square footage wise, how much are you g,~ing to
gain that you don't have now? You can give it to
me later but if you want, we could probably vote
on this next week if we have the information.
HS. RIVERA: 16 by 58, that's 928 square
feet of the footprint, lESS about 110 that's
existing now that I'll bE utilizing that, is about
318.
2
.
3
4
5
,~
7
,3
10
11
.
25
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we're }oing to
t- adding 818 additional square feet to the ,-
MS. RIVERA: To the existing footprint.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: -- footprint.
I'1S. RIVERA: You also ha'Je to understand
that because of the fact that this is waterfront
property and I'm restricted b~r the coastal erosion
line to the north, I did pull it back. I'm still
75 feet set back from the road, and I still h",ve
t:J accommodate the flood compliance of the
¿levation to go to 13-6, floor joists, so no
matter how I do it, whether to the east or to the
west, 1/11 still have those restrictions upon me.
So even if I were to go on to the other side, I'm
still nonconforming because it's ri-::¡ht now only
11-2 on that side.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you on
that. Just what I see here on this plan is a
single, an existing one-story r-esidence, well
within limits of zoning, meeting all the setbacks.
Now I ha'le an applicant that sa,'s, I want t,:) build
a two-story, six feet away from my prop~rty line.
Il^Ihereupon, Board Member Orlanda left the
hearin9 room.!
¡'JS. RIVERA: You ha're to understand, being
GD the flood zone we don't have the luxury of
going over the existing space. There's no wa~r you
can go over the existing space in the flood zone.
Tlle~' force you to go outside the existing
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
September 14, 2004
96
1
·
,
parameters of )"our hGme.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't understand.
Is this thing, one-story home jOU couldn't tear
tllat down and put up another house, twe stori~s?
I'1S. RIVERA: No. Then the whole ent ire
structure has to be on pilings. Please, I know I
was the first one that got ilrl()l"'\,~ed in that r..=..\ne.
I actually was the first home to be built because
ori}inally I was just going to put an extension on
ITI~: home. Then they wanted me to con'lert thE: (:Jld
elev~tion to meet the new because it was more than
that SO percent formula. You just cann0t. bUlld
o~er the existing structures in the flcrod zone.
BOARD MEMBEP, DINIZIO: The nev,
,:::cnst.ruction doesn't need to be built on pilings,
L
4
5
ç
7
8
9
(."¡hy?
23
MS. RIVERA: It depends. This has co be
~le?ated but based on my conversations with the
DEC, I have to elevate it with a flow throu-::¡h
foundation. I will not probably have to put it on
pilings because the formula is that the existin-::¡
structure has the kitchen and the bathrooms in it
now, and that's where the so-called money --
BOARD [v[EI1BER DINIZIO: Right, utilicies
,3Te there.
MS. RIVERA: Rigllt. But that comes into
the formula, the 50 percent rule, and it has a
'falue of money or something. So they told me I
would have to elevate the space because it has to
be flood compliant, and I can do that with a
fl,=,w-through foundati,::m. When ,'ou put a garage as
I did in Calageris, the garage has to bE on
pilings. This jusc has to be elevaced to che
1~.~, and when you build over an existillg
structure, that structure has to be thEIl elevated
also. So I have to knock down and then elevate it
~n pilings. But I still have to have the
transition from the old to the new.
EOARD MEI1BER DINIZIO: From grade right
l1'.)V.J, you' T,~e get to go 13 feet?
MS. RIVERA: The first floor elevation as
th~ house exists now is 10-7.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have co -::¡o cwo
a.nd a half?
HS. RIVERA: I have to go 3 0 In,~hes.
BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: QuestioE of a
couple two b)r six's, it's a question of a
f'Jundatiùn?
10
11
1~
L
13
·
14
IS
16
17
18
1 Sf
20
21
22
24
·
25
September 14, 2004
97
1
s
NS. RIVERA:
foundation.
BOARD NEMBER DINIZIO: Then you'll co":er
that up, and from there that's floor le~el?
MS. RIVERA: That's floor level. Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you're gOln-::¡
up two stories, 20 some-odd feet for tlle wall, 22
feet just the wall that someone will be looking
Right.
I ha"Je to put a
2
.
o
4
G
::it.
9
MS. RIVERA: Right. As opposed to
Calageris' where I had to go up higher.
BOARD NEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, I saw it.
MS. RIVERA: I try to be sensitive not
onl~' to tilE area but also to both their neighbors
because right now the Cypresses, he built out on
his side that's to the west; so we have held back
for ob~!ious reasons building on that side because
'Jlle we have a Bilco door to the existillg
foundation¡ septic line there arId the S~wers there
~lld the water's there. So to the east was really
the anI)' feasible Wd}r to do this. It also is
characteristic of the Calageris' right next door,
and I ga',e you pictures of that from before. And
i-oU also ha"l".re the survey with the new fe.otpr int of
the Calageris' on there.
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIN,.JER: I ha\'e no
7
g
11)
11
12
13
e
14
15
:=:úmment.
1(;
¡'1S. RIVERA:
Do we need to wait for th~
17
October 7th meeting?
CHAIRI^IOJVlAN OLIVA: Yes. Make a moti,::m to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
latE:::r.
18
ISee minutes for details.)
19
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
~, C
¿J
CHAIRI^IOMMJ OLIVA: I'd 1 ike to lTIake a
motion to reopen the hearing for Michael Pisacano.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHÞ.IRI^IONAN OLIVA: f1rs. [V[oore.
I'1S. MOORE: ¡,hat I did was I toc,k the
application, amended the application, included ln
the notice of disapproval, included notice of
jisapproval, put a little extra writing to reflect
scm,= '.Jf the things that \'Jere discussed hére t.oda1'.
I g,:rle ~/ou a hand-out today in my hearing,
h~ndwritten but nonetheless all the calculatiGns
and everything. If you could lTIake it also part of
the record, I didn't redo e'.r"::r1Tthing, the other
20
21
22
23
24
September 14, 2004
98
1
5
subdi"f/~isions .
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion closing
the hearing reserving decision until later.
ISee minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRI^IOMAN OLIVA: J·1ake a motic,n to
~djourn the Tyrer hearing until October 21st.
(See resolution for details.)
2
e
j
4
"
7
8
~I
1Ü
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
1,8
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 2",
September 14, 2004
99
1
2
· 3
4
5
"
c
7
8
~I
10
11
12
13
· 14
15
16
17
18
1 Si
2ú
21
22
23
24
· 25
C E R T I F I CAT ION
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
State of New York, do hereb'/ certify:
THAT the within transcript is a trus reccrd of
the testimony given.
I further certify that I am not related by
blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
3-ction; and
THAT I am In no way interested in the outcome
c;f this matter.
IN I^IITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 14th day of September, 2004.
n
I ' l
' '4/ {)w-' (/!rJ!&
/ Flcrence V. \'Ii les
'-
Septsmber 14, 2004