HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/20/2005 HEAR
1
2
e 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
r¡t¡rr-iI\AJ L~
~ID"
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STATE OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
TOW N
o F
SOU THO L D
Z 0 N I N G
BOA R D
o F
A P PEA L S
--------------------------------------------x
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
January 20, 2005
9:30 a.m.
Board Members Present
RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
(Arrival time: 1: 00 p. m.)
MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
rORIGINAL
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-8047
2
1
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Welcome to our
meeting, it is Thursday, January 20, 2005, and I'd
like a resolution saying that the Type II actions
and no SEQRA review is needed.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is
Constance Beebe, and they want a lot line change,
lS there somebody in the audience that would like
to speak to this?
MS. BEEBE: My name is Constance Beebe,
and I'd like to have a property line change to
move my line east, and then I own property behind
my son and -- actually, what I want to do is make
a straight line.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just want to even
out what you have?
MR. BEEBE: Tom Beebe. We're both
commercially zoned and I'm under the way it is
now, and she's over.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you zoned now,
H or H B?
MR. BEEBE: I think it's small business.
So she's coming under the desired amount, and I'm
over now. We just want to straighten that line
out.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
16
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They're R80 also,
residential. It looks like it's all R80
residential.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You might just have a
home business, homè occupation. What business do
you have, by the way?
MR. BEEBE: Small construction, actually
they're both small buildings.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Actually it looks
like it's on residential, just so you know.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to clarify,
you have three existing nonconforming lots, you're
creating two larger non-conforming, but they're
more conforming than the other three, right? No
questions, makes logical sense.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
the audience wish to speak on this application?
If not, I'll make a motion closing the hearing
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
3
1
2
reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for details.)
e
3
-------------------------------------------------
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Jon and Kathleen Marino on Sandview Avenue. They
want to put a proposed porch and second-story
addition at less than 35 feet from the front lot
line. Is there someone here who wishes to speak
on this?
MR. MARINO: Good morning, I'm Jon Marino.
MRS. MARINO: I'm Kathy Marino.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're the ones who
have the picture of the house that you want to
make it look like?
MR. MARINO: Yes, The proposed addition
is what we feel is necessary to accommodate our
family and enhance the neighborhood. It will be a
beautiful job when it's done. As far as
detriment, it isn't. There's like 10 feet of
missing property along the way. From our
property, which is 20 feet, it's 19'3" to our
property line from the road, so, after the
proposed porch it will be 42 feet to the road, so
there are six houses within that thousand foot
area of mine that are closer to the road even
after the proposed porch. So it's not like it's
out of the ordinary.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sawall the pictures
that you took.
MR. MARINO: Redundant, I'm sure.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We've gone
chrough many, many times Mr. and Mrs. Marino, and
I, in fact, just looked at one chat we dealt with
in Laughing Waters, I think on Nikomis Avenue.
The Board at that particular time -- and I'm not
speaking for the Board -- asked for a front yard,
and I think the front yard at this time would be
23'1" so we asked that the porch on the part
facing the road be reduced to five feet. And I
looked at that porch co see if that had great
'.'alidity because there were some questions during
the hearing regarding that validity, and although
the house is not built front to back the way yours
is presently -- it's not sarcastic statement; it's
not meant to be any other than constructive -- I
would rather see a 25 foot setback, which is a
fi..'e foot porch, I don't care what you do on chat
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
4
1
9
one side -- I don't mean that sarcastically.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you would like the
five foot in the front then you can continue the
eight foot on the side?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. You
still have the same aesthetic look.
MR. MARINO: Right. My question to that,
because originally I thought I would like to do
eight or nine foot but I thought I'm stretching it
as it is, I had taken out a lounge chair and
twisted it and it kind of like seemed -- seven
foot seemed like the minimum I could get away
with. Five, I guess we'd have to work it a little
differently.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with
Mr. Goehringer, your drawing here has a great curb
appeal. Technically you only have a 23 yard
setback. Actually to the road, it's not your
property, but visually it's closer to the 50. I
was there and stood where your porch is going to
be and I looked left and right to your extension.
You'd be out a little further than anybody else
when you look to the left and right. So I agree
with Mr. Goehringer, I like the curb appeal, but
25 foot is where we'd rather be.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure if the
house that is shown in these pictures that we just
received is the same house I was looking at a few
days ago.
MR. MARINO: No. Those pictures are
neighborhood pictures of houses that are closer to
ours.
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
house sideways to the road?
faces to the side?
MR. MARINO:
BOARD MEMBER
to the road than the
right, all right?
MR. MARINO: The house to the left lS at
che same back set, the house to the right is five
feet further back.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
this porch is going to be
want to have?
Okay, then is your
The front door way
20
21
Correct.
SIMON: Your house lS
house on either side,
closer
left or
22
23
24
And you're proposing
how many feet did you
·
25
CHAIRWOMAN OL IVA: 23' 1" .
January 20, 2005
5
1
8
MR. MARINO: Twenty-three feet off the
property line, 42 feet off the road.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many feet closer
to the road is it going to be; how wide is your
porch going to be?
MR. MARINO: Seven foot wide porch, closer
to the road. And both of our neighbors have seen
the plans and both have no problems with it.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would agree with
Mr. Goehringer.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody
In the audience that would like to speak to
application? Do you have anything else you
like to add?
MR. MARINO: No.
thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, thank you.
Then I make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
else
this
would
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
9
I would just like to
10
11
12
-------------------------------------------------
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is T. and
M. Kostoulas on Aquaview Avenue, East
Marion. They need a side yard variance also.
Yes, ma'am?
MS. WEILE: My name is Reggie Weile, I'm
che architect representing the Kostoulas
family. The Kostoulas family would like to put a
porch on the front of the house. Being In that
location, the back, the other side of the house is
only really usable in the summer, the south side
of the house is used all year around. And they
would like to sort of be able to sit in the front
of the house with a porch. The new porch will not
come any closer to the road than the existing
piece, and I brought little models. And in lieu
on each side, on the current photographs it shows
chat they have a little gate, and that would be
moved in, and we would build a stone front porch
and turn it at the house that would match the
stone that's in the front of the house because it
goes up an embankment, and put a pergola over the
top where it turns on either side, east and west.
But we're not going to come any closer to the
yard. It's just a side yard that's a problem with
zoning. There's a shed on one side, on the east
side, that will be coming off, that's a lictle
bicycle shed, so that the house is out on that
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
6
1
9
side already five feet. As you see on the site
survey.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would your side
yard setback be after construction?
MS. WEILE: It will be 8'7" on the ease
side, and actually 3'6" on the west side, but
actually it's 8'9" to the house because the bottom
of the porch is actually built as -- the first
floor porch is built as landscaping. That will be
a stone wall around and that will be open then a
pergola on top as it turns, and they wanted the
house to be symmetrical. They will also be
changing the siding and put cedar on it to make it
look better on that block.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
statement?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We agonized over
this property, I have to tell you, five hours in
1992. It may not read it in the minutes, over the
lot coverage the amount of decks, close to the
SCZM line. It's a beautiful house. It's a
wonderful neighborhood, and the bluff appears to
be moderately stable at this time. And I realize
the construction that your client is anticipating
in a proposed manner adds to the ambiance of the
house and the overall decor of the house. It's a
beautifully done piece on a very small piece of
property. My concern has always been fire rescue
and emergency. The closing up of any side yards
are tantamount to my thoughts, my concerns and I
would be opposed to any turns. I'm not positive
that I'm enthralled with any additional lot
coverage and with the two-story aspect of this
proposal, however I can find that much more
palatable than I can see with these turns, which
encroach further into the side yards. Your client
has encroached with the decks into the side
yards. I realize they are close to ground
level -- and meaning the walkways, I'm not
referring to the decks, excuse me -- and which are
okay, but I think there's a maximum thac I can
vote for, and I think the turns are just
substantial overkill. As I said, I'm still trying
to get the feeling for the second story aspect of
it. If your client had 30 feet more, I don't
think there would be any question in reference of
width of the property from my standpoint. But
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
7
1
8
it's very, very difficult. Again, it just further
exacerbates the ability to get into the rear yard
and that's just my opinion.
MS. WEILE: Which is the problem that's
existing because on one side you have the shed and
the other side you have the gate and the stair
down to the basement. So you really are not
encroaching on anything that was available before.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that but it's construction, and that's the lssue.
There's no question about it. As I said, it's a
beautifully done house, there's no question about
it. Mainly because this Board allowed that to
happen in 1992, based upon working with the
client, and we really thought in 1992 that that
was the end of it, and it appears that --
MS. WEILE: I wasn't here.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- and it
appears that that was not the end of it. That's
just my opinion. We don't have a total lot
coverage issue here, do we?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doesn't say anything.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we need
to look at it from a lot coverage standpoint.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a big piece
MS. WEILE: The lot coverage is not a
problem on the calculations, like all the
properties on that side they own the cliff and the
beach up to the high water mark, so the lot is
;lery long.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that but I don't think the decks were taken into
consideration when the lot coverage was
determined. I think what we need is an analysis
of loc coverage so we know we're under if we're
under.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
r~s. WEILE: That's on the archi cectural
sice plan, there's a table of lot coverage.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a
copy of that? I don't think that takes into
consideration all the decking on the north side.
MS. WEILE: I think it will still be under
21
22
23
the --
24
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board
granted in 1992 a substantial amount of decking
and the majority and the reason for thac decking
was basically aesthetics for your clienc and the
ability to -- what we thought at that particular
e
25
January 20, 2005
8
1
5
time, or what I thought at that particular time
I'm not speaking for the Board -- was erosion
control. And it was probably the first step in
erosion control that we've ever done, but because
of the uniqueness of the area that was the reason
why we dealt with it. I'm just telling you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, it says here
that the existing lot coverage now is 9.97 percent
and the existing plus the proposed porch is 11.5
percent lot coverage.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, I'm not
questioning anything you're saying to me. The
two-tiered deck encompasses the entire rear yard
of this property, and I can tell you that deck was
not taken into consideration with that lot
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
17
coverage.
MS. WEILE:
the 20 percent.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At least we
what it is from now on and for future to go.
said, the turns are the only questions that I
at this particular time. I think it's nicely
done, but I think the turns are overkill.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're talking
about the sides on the closest point on che
corner?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking
about these entire corners on both sides. They
only further exacerbate the nonconforming side
j'ard setbacks.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The two extensions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That does make it tight
on the side yards. Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As you're aware,
both houses adjacent co this property are
single-story ranches, so already this house is
very large compared to that, and this would just
dwarf the other ones.
MS. WEILE: Yes. But then there's one
down on the other side of the next door house lS
just as high.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's one down the
road, second removed from the cousin. These are
adjacent properties. I agree with Mr. Goehringer,
I wouldn't have the problem with your
double-tiered front porch, but it would have to be
the width of the house, not including the shed,
I think we'd still be under
10
11
know
As I
12
have
13
.
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
9
1
5
the width of the house, which is 30'3" because
it's already both variances for total and single
are over 60 percent reduction in the code, which
is substantial. I don't know how your clients
would feel about having it that way. You'd still
need a variance because it's nonconforming to the
side yard setback, even if you went with the width
of the house. I would be in favor of that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Taking the turns off?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The width of the
house, pretty much the turns off.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide were those
2
·
3
4
6
7
8
Lurns?
9
MS. WEILE: Five feet.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would help.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just
mention one other thing before you go to
Mr. Simon, I would respectfully request from the
architect, again, the lot coverage with the decks,
and I would respectfully request the Board to wait
until the February regular meeting to vote on it
so we could look at all that aspect of it, and
she's not rushed in getting it prior to the
special meeting, which, by the way, I will not be
at.
10
11
12
13
·
14
18
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else, Vince?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I had not been aware
of the history of this project, but in listening
to what my colleagues have said, I agree that part
of the increase of nonconformity which includes
the wraparound deck is probably putting too much
pressure on the sides of the house. I would
support the plan to allow the project only as wide
as the rear of the house and not the wraparound.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we all agree.
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes
to speak on this application? So I'd like to make
a motion to keep this hearing open until che
February meeting.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's March 3rd.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you can bring the
calculations.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we close it
subject to submissions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Close it subject to
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
10
1
9
admissions but --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jerry just needs a
the total lot coverage, so we can close ic
to --
BOARD
only thing is
close it.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to keep it
open. Make a resolution to keep the hearing open
until the March 3rd meeting at which time we will
have your new calculations, about 9:30 in the
morning.
MS. WEILE: Fine.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
the audience wish to speak on this application?
(See minutes for resolution.)
copy of
subject
2
·
3
4
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me say,
the clock starts to run once you
che
5
6
7
8
10
-------------------------------------------------
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing lS for
the Coffeys who wish to have a bed and breakfast
in East Marion. I must say just to start ouc with
that this application is unusual in the fact that
there's no internal circulation in the house
between the bed and breakfast and your own home.
Every other application that we have had, the bed
and breakfast part of it is all part of the home,
and it does give the appearance, which you
probably do not intend to, of a two-family house.
So if you would like to speak to that, I'd
appreciate it.
MR. COFFEY: I guess on the first floor of
the house we do have doors leading into where the
guests will be staying. I guess on the second
floor of the house the reason we do not have
access to our side of the house as it exists now
is because we just didn't want people
inadvertently walking into our private space. We
have no intention of anything other than a bed and
breakfast.
MRS. COFFEY: Guests will have access
through our kitchen and in our office there will
be a connecting door between where our residence
is and where the guests will be staying.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also on the first
floor, I believe there was quite a walk between
the guest bedroom and the bathroom.
MRS. COFFEY: Each room has a private
There's a powder room downstairs that the
will have access to if chey're In the
bath.
guests
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
11
1
9
breakfast area. We figured it would be easier to
have a half bath near the breakfast area so they
wouldn't have to go back to their room.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Have you ever run a
bed and breakfast before?
MR. COFFEY: No. I'm a retired detective
from the New York City Police Department, and I
just thought what would be a nice thing to retire
to was a bed and breakfast. I went to cooking
school when I retired from the police department
so I would be able to run a bed and breakfast.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're not
opposed to strangers in your house?
MR. COFFEY: No. We grew up in Ridgewood,
Queens and her mother was a landlord in a six
family apartment.
MRS. COFFEY: So we don't want to do any
kind of apartment situation, but we do like having
people in our home to enJoy our cooking and just
meeting people from different areas.
MR. COFFEY: Walks of life.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So hence the reason
for the question for the wall dividing it, it
gives the illusion it's a two-family house, and
since you don't have reservations with strangers
in your house.
MR. COFFEY: I prefer to meet them on the
first floor instead of in my bedroom. It's not a
typical B & B setup you have here. The Building
Department wrote us a letter saying this is built
as a two-family house, without a hallway in there
as a typical B & B which is open to everyone to
kind of wander around and be part of the family
for the weekend. So you're building it more as a
cwo-family house than as a bed and breakfast. So
that red flag popped up, that's why we're
discussing this.
MRS. COFFEY: Linda had suggested that we
run our plans through the Building Department when
we submitted them to the Zoning Board, and I spoke
to Damon. He said they're actually construccing
single-family homes with a solid wall upstairs,
and he didn't think there was a problem with it
which is why --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There was a further
conversation with Mr. Rallis' boss, who is Mike
Verity, who said he would like to have a hallway
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
12
1
9
and some other alterations on the interior setup
of the house to meet the zoning code requirements
for a one family circulation.
MRS. COFFEY: Could we put a door in
upstairs between the two?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I
was going to suggest.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We're not opposed
to the bed and breakfast, and it may not be 'lou,
when you sell it in five years, someone can make
it a two-family house, it's not a typical B & B.
We're not opposed to the B & B idea, it's just the
design is not typical B & B.
MR. COFFEY: We're not planning on selling
it in five years. My wife's burying me out --
r1RS. COFFEY: There will be only one
kitchen so there is no way you can turn it into
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We've seen new kitchens
pop up out of magic. I think it would be nice if
you went back and spoke to Mr. Verity about
that. I don't have any objections to a B & B, but
it does give the appearance of a two-family house,
for that you would need four acres. I know you
have a large piece of property there, I pass it
e~.rery day.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my
suggestion to clear up the issue: You see where
this walk-in closet is right here? Create a
hallway going across here. It can be locked.
with a locked door here and a locked door here,
and a locked door here. And I think the issue is
taken care of on the second floor.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where would you put the
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
door?
19
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There can be a
door here with a solid hallway and a door here, if
you so choose to.
MRS. COFFEY: There's a chimney here.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You slant it off
a little bit, it can be moved.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Jerry, there is
also a change on the first floor that Mr. Verity
wanted also.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
20
21
22
23
24
that.
.
25
MRS. COFFEY: So we would amend our plans
and then submit an alternative.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
January 20, 2005
13
1
9
MR. COFFEY: Do we need to go through
another hearing also?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I would
suggest to the Board in granting a special
exception is that we reserve the right to look at
the property and inspect it prior to the issuance
of a CO.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, and also from
the second floor we do require that you have those
rope ladders or chain link ladders, so people can
get out in case of a fire. I don't think it's In
the code.
MRS. COFFEY: I know we're aware that the
windows have to be of a certain size.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We're just trying
to work with the Building Department so this runs
smoothly for you.
MRS. COFFEY: Downstairs what would you
suggest?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever the
Building Department suggests.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand you're
going to manage this bed and breakfast yourself?
MR. COFFEY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you have any
experience with bed and breakfasts except perhaps
staying at them?
MR. COFFEY: Yes, we stayed at the
Homeport.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason I ask is
this is a special exception, and it's a very
attractive building and I see a lot to be said for
granting it, but it's a special exception upon a
special exception, and that's the issue regarding
the wall of separation between where the guests
are and where you are. That's why I support my
colleagues that say this modification probably
ought to be made. If you're going to do a bed and
breakfast at this point Slnce it requires a
special exception anyway, is to do a more orthodox
one rather than an original one because the latter
does raise the possibilicies thac I would say
never occurred to me of being used as something
else later on, but I would support the plan as
amended.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think I'd like to
make a motion that we close the hearing with the
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
14
1
5
reservation that we have the right to inspect it
before a CO is granted.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the right to
look at the new amended plans.
(See minutes for resolution.)
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Please submit a new
set of plans.
MRS. COFFEY: Seven copies with cover
2
·
3
4
6
lecter?
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to speak?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Where is it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's the white house
that Rutkowski used to own. Thank you very much
for
coming in.
MRS. COFFEY: Do we
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
submit the affidavits?
Yes.
7
8
10
-------------------------------------------------
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Graysons, have a notice of disapproval
concerning an as-built accessory shed located less
than five feet from the rear lot line. Is there
someone here to speak on this application?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road,
Cutchogue, New York. I'm pitch hitting for
Mr. Grayson's architect. Mr. Grayson is here
today to answer any questions the Board may have,
but Mr. Leonard couldn't make it today.
I'll give you a history of this because I
think it's important for you to understand what
happened here. Mr. Grayson and his wife purchased
the property on May 21, 1996 -- and I have all the
exhibits to hand up for your consideration -- from
a Charles Jantzen. At the time of the purchase,
Mr. Grayson did his due diligence. I did not
represent him at the time with his attorney, and
they received a CO for Number 3144 on 7/9/68 for
the home issued by Howard Terry. They also
received a CO 7119 dated July 9, 1976 for a
private swimming pool with fence, and the CO says
accessories that also was issued by Howard Terry.
At the time they purchased, they had a survey
daced 7/16/68, which just showed the newly built
house which I just referred to for the '68 CO.
There was no surveys done when the pool area was
built with the building permit in '74 and then
completed by Mr. Jantzen -- he did it himself, I'm
told -- in 1976. At the closing when Mr. Grayson
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
15
1
5
bought the premises he was issued a title policy
issued by the Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company and that referred to the 7/10/68 survey,
and the survey inspection done on April 5th that
year of '96 showing the in-ground pool, which I'll
hand to you, referred to as a cabana. Mr. Grayson
tells me that the time when they went to contract
to buy this place and the time they went to close
that Mr. Jantzen told him about the pool and the
fact that he started it in '74 and then completed
it in '76. I know from my experience with COs
issued by Howard Terry, which was our original
building inspector until about 1978 that the COs
were typical, and when Howard would give a
building permit, and I understand it from what I
got from the architect, that when Mr. Jantzen
applied for the building permit in '74, he just
showed a rectangle in the backyard, and it was in
the backyard and typical Mr. Terry would wait
until the thing was completed to get the CO where
he would measure the distances, check out the
fences, measure the distances from the fences, and
also the fire underwriters for the pool and so on
and so forth before he would grant the certificate
of occupancy.
When you look at the layout, I believe the
architect gave you that, you can see the cabana or
storage building as he calls it an integral unit.
There's no afterthought there. But when
Mr. Grayson went to sell the property to the
current owners Mr. and Mrs. Watson, they had a
west end attorney who also represented the bank.
they got a brand new survey, and guess whac, the
survey showed that the cabana at its closest
point -- you got a property line running on a bias
to the construction -- at its closest point was
4.5 from the property, and the survey showed it as
you see it there is 23' by 11' storage building.
And because it wasn't labeled on the CO, the west
end attorney representing both the bank and the
purchaser refused to accept it. If that was done
prior to the closing, that would have been fine.
This all occurred at the closing table and I know
that because I was present, and no matter what
Mr. Grayson said to him, it didn't make any
difference and Mr. Grayson was In a bind. His
furniture was en route to Sarasota, Florida. He
mo~ed out of the house, and they raised this at
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
16
1
9
the last minute on him. So I was able to
negotiate an escrow agreement wherein Mr. Grayson
agreed that he would come back and get it squared
away with the building department. I thought at
that point at the closing there would be no
problem because I thought they would honor Howard
Terry's certificate of occupancy especially since
he had written the accessories, so there was
obviously more than just the pool there. But I
guess I should have known better. Then I also
thought the Building Inspector could see this was
an integral part, it was done as a unit, it wasn't
done separately. Again, I guess I should have
known better because at the time, and the reason I
thought that, because at the time that the pool
was built, we only had three foot setbacks In
Southold Town for any accessory buildings in a
residential district. In fact, the three fooc
setback took place right from the inception of
zoning and I went back and got certified copies of
the zoning code when it was amended in November
23, 1971 we still had a three foot setback on
accessory buildings in a residential area and
January 10, 1989, when they adopted the R40
district, which Nassau Point was incorporated, it
still remained as a three foot setback. The
notion of increasing the setbacks due to the size
of the lots didn't occur until February of '91,
and that's why when they have roughly 30,000
square feet here, 29,900, you needed a five foot
setback.
Having said all that, Mr. Grayson is here
to confirm what I just said, but my point is this
Board can do one of two things if they would grant
the application. They could grant it as a
pre-existing condition, which can be recognized by
che Zoning Board of Appeals at the time it was
constructed in the '74-'76 time frame, which was
three feet and which it conforms under that; or
applying the balancing test under the Town Law 267
and looking at everything, the entire project, the
4.4, which it is, from the fence or the property
line from the five foot is not substantial, and
then they could, instead of recognizing a
pre-existing condition for all factors given In
the town law you could grant a variance that this
lS not substantial, and it is in conformity and
will not change the residential character of the
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
17
1
9
neighborhood especially since it existed since
1976. So I will hand up so you have it for your
file, I know you have the notice of disapproval
and the current architect's things, but I will
give you Mr. Grayson's deed. I will give you the
two certificates of occupancy that you can look at
because the key one is the one on the pool and
accessories, and the survey that they purchased at
the time, so he had no knowledge of it. And I'll
also give you a copy of the title report -- title
policy, which is an official document, that shows
it was there at that time. And if you want, I'm
just extrapolating, they are from the official
code at the time, the one that was in effect in
the '70s and then subsequently was in effect when
Mr. Grayson had purchased. So I'll hand that all
up as one exhibit and then you can have that for
your records, and Mr. Grayson is here to answer
any questions you may have.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Lark.
Vincent, do you have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would be in favor
of the big, nonsubstantial eight inch variance
you're looking for here. It obviously has been
there for quite some time. It's not habitable,
there's no window in it. I would like to put a
condition that it stays nonhabitable.
MR. LARK: It's strictly a cabana storage
for the deck chairs and pool equipment, stuff like
that.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's fine for me,
no other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would agree with
Mr. Orlando. If faced to choose between the two
theories that Mr. Lark has offered us, that it was
not nonconforming or the unsubstantial change, I
would choose the latter because if you choose the
former you can let into all kinds of horrible
chings that might have been allowed to continue
but for that historical event. However, I agree
that it is an insubstantial change and it
satisfies the balancing test so I would approve
it.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What utilities
exist in the shed at this time?
MR. GRAYSON: The building at the time of
.
25
January 20, 2005
18
1
9
purchase and continued throughout my ownership as
an unfinished interior housing the pool filter and
storage for the chairs and loungers that resided
around the pools.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No water for showers?
MR. GRAYSON: No. There are no plpes, no
mechanics for anything other than the filter for
the pool, no bathroom facilities.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just eleccricicy.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You intend to
leave it that way?
MR. LARK: He doesn't own it. You want to
put that in as a condition. The only reason I
brought up the first theory is if you knew the
building inspector at that time, Mr. Terry, he was
'"'ery thorough when he gave a CO, a little casual
on building permits but very thorough when he gave
a CO. You can put that in a condition that was
represented not only to Mr. Grayson, because I was
at the closing, it's just a storage or accessory
to the pool area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience
would like to speak on this application? Hearing
none, I'd like to make a motion closing the
hearing and putting as a condition of our approval
that it remains without any water, bath and so
forch.
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
r~R. LARK: Any habitable features.
(See minutes for resolution.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is James
Leydon on Parsons Boulevard, East Marion for a
deck addition partly in the side yard. Is there
anyone here representing James Leydon? The
proposed deck is partially locaced in the rear and
side yards?
MR. STAUTENBORG: Good morning, Board, my
name is Peter Stautenborg.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The porch that is
contemplated is enclosed, will it be enclosed to
the elements as well, that is to the cold; will it
be useable in the winter?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, is it
open to the sky at all times?
MR. STAUTENBORG: Yes. This is co give
them a couple flat places in the back yard for
picnic tables and stuff.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in no sense is
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
19
1
9
this gOlng to turn into a heated addition to the
house?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's always going to
remain open, in other words, you're never going to
enclose it to make it part of the existing house?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This deck is not
attached to the dwelling?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It does come very
close to your neighbor's yard, is there any reason
for the octagons and not making an attached deck
nice to the house?
MR. STAUTENBORG: Basically sun because
it's on the north side, shadow from the house if
it were attached, so it would be sort of a cool
location.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Then only one deck
is in the sun, the other one would be shadowed by
the house.
MR. STAUTENBORG: It's off the house by a
certain amount, so by mid-morning it would be In
the sun.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it's very
close to the neighbors back there, when you stand
chere and you look at the stakes right there.
It's right on the neighbors -- if you dropped a
glass off the deck, it would roll off the
neighbor's yard almost.
MR. STAUTENBORG: We talked to the
neighbor yesterday. He said he would drive out
from the city if necessary because he liked the
neighbors, he helped to stake it. They have all
been notified. I don't know if you heard
anything, the only thing we heard the neighbor
closest to it said they would drive out from the
city if they thought there was an objection.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We'll see what the
other Board members have to say.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was the
grade elevation above grade?
MR. STAUTENBORG: It will be less than 14
inches because we're not expeccing to do anything
but put a step on the high side, there's no rails
planned.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It elevates a
little there, at its highest point it's going to
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
20
1
2
be 14?
8
MR. STAUTENBORG: Right.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn't
require you to put railings around it because it's
less than 18 inches; is that correct?
MR. STAUTENBORG: Right. Use it for sort
of platforms, one for lounge chairs and stuff and
one for a picnic table and a grill. They lived in
che previous property that they owned about a
block away, and we just basically duplicated a
design they already had.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I was just
mentioning it's an accessory structure also. It's
not attached to the house, right?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No. We have a permit
for the decks that are attached to the house. One
of these is in the rear yard, but we've asked for
both of them in case there was any concern, but
only one is in the side yard that the variance
would be required for.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're noC going
to build one of the decks, is that what you're
saying?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No. We have a permit
for the attached, everything that's attached is
legal, and we already have a permit for. We
haven't started any construction because we wanted
to wait to see what the Board said, the two
octagons that are accessory in the rear yard would
be legal; one is in the rear yard, the other
isn't, but we put them both in the package just to
make sure that the Board had some question or
problem that we modified them both the same way.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not I'll close the hearing,
reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
e
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-------------------------------------------------
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
for Douglas and Karin Constant on Village Lane,
Orient, who wants to make a small addition
enclosing a deck in the rear yard.
MR. CONSTANT: Good morning everyone. I
have things to give you, Mrs. Kowalski. This is
24
tit
25
January 20, 2005
21
1
e
3
che letter from the neighbor who will be staring
at the proposed building.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They're In fav,::Jr of
2
it?
9
MR. CONSTANT: Very much so.
have everything.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: This
favor signed by Peter Hagen and Ken
Village Lane.
MR. CONSTANT: They are our new
that bought the house formerly owned by
Tom Madigan, it's the house just to the
my proposed roof and two screened walls
facing that house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
to make --
MR. CONSTANT: When I wrote to our
neighbors when I sent the letter, the first
paragraph of my letter said we're seeking
permission to enclose a portion of our existing
deck with screened walls covered by a roof, and
this will allow us to use the deck despite
mosquitoes, sun and rain. It is on the side of
the house that in the winter time is perpetually
damp, and we have had problems with rotted sills
and the decking never thaws in the winter time.
The house blocks the prevailing winds; and in the
summer time, because of its orientation, the house
blocks the prevailing winds which are from the
west and southwest, so we tried to mitigate that
b'( putting up one of those awnings that falls down
and all that accomplished was to make it really
still back there, sort of like camping in a pup
tent in the middle of a farm field, there's
absolutely no air. Then to fight the mosquitoes
because we have an undeveloped field behind our
house, which we love the privacy of it, so we
bought one of those mosquito magnets, which does
work, but it's overwhelmed by the number of
mosquitoes that come in that are laying In damp
areas. So we've done everything we possibly can
to enjoy the deck, and we're not moving, so we
thought chis would be a way to make the house a
little more enjoyable.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we're talking
abouc a partially roofed-over deck with screening?
MR. CONSTANT: On two sides. The other
I think
you
4
5
letter is in
Arthur, 455
6
8
neighbors
Susan and
north. So
would be
7
Basically you just want
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
22
1
9
two sides are formed by the house itself.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the entire
deck is roofed over?
~1R. CONSTANT: No. Only a portion of it.
The deck measures 16 feet wide by 20 feet long.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 23 by 21, even less
than that.
MR. CONSTANT: Whatever. The architect we
hired to draw the plans up is going to cover the
length of the deck, which I measured at 16 feet,
and he has a roof proposed for 14 feet of the
length of the deck.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's going to be
14 by 16?
MR. CONSTANT: Correct, sir.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to
write this, that's why I'm askng. Leaving that
portion of the deck that faces that area that
you're referring to.
MR. CONSTANT: The woods, that's where we
put the grill outdoors.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This will be
open on two sides with screening only.
MR. CONSTANT: A knee wall.
BOARD MEMBER GOERINGER: And then
screening the rest of the way?
MR. CONSTANT: Yes, sir. We have no
intentions of putting storm doors back there.
It's a big house, just the two of us. Our
children live away. We're not moving, so we don't
need any more living space other than we can't
enjoy the outdoors.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand,
thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It says it's a
seasonal covered porch, you're not going to have
heating or air conditioning?
MR. CONSTANT: Might put a fan in.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's acceptable.
Not to be habitable. No other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
In the audience that wishes to speak on this
application? If not, then I make a motion to
close the hearing reserving decision until
later.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
23
1
2
(See minutes for resolution.)
-------------------------
-------------------------
.
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing lS Mark
and Ellie Gordon on North Road or Middle Road, In
Greenport. They want to put a swimming pool less
than 100 foot from the bluff. Yes, ma'am?
MS. STAGERBERG: Good morning, my name lS
Jane Stagerberg. I'm an architect and I'm here to
represent Mark Gordon. I have some cards to give
you and also I received a fax requesting that we
submit an alternate design to be considered
I. handing) .
It was suggested that we rotate the
orientation of the pool. So what you see on the
revised plan is we did, in fact, rotate the pool
90 degrees, and we moved it westward on the site
so that by maintaining the edge of the deck with
the steps going down to grade, we increased the
distance from the sound and from the edge of the
bluff by 13 feet.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the edge of the
deck how far is it then to the top of che bluff?
It only shows here to the coastal erosion zone
line.
MS. STAGERBERG: Actually, if I could
refer to the extra set of plans.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Looks like it's
47'8" to the top of the bluff to the deck.
MS. STAGERBERG: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason
that you couldn't move the pool entirely to the
side yard?
MS. STAGERBERG: Well, the side slopes off
Co the west, and it's moving the pool to the west
there, would put it behind those trees that you
Q~~, the existing trees. The site steps down at
that point so it becomes difficult, the pool
lowers and it's kind of in sort of a belly on the
s 1. tE~. So it I S not a very advantageous place on
che site In terms of view or location. It also
gets close to the neighboring property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because your bluff lS
not in terribly good shape. Vincent, do you want
t'J comment?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We had a similar
application to this last month, and the long and
short of it is thac the Zoning Board in the past
has drawn a line in the sand, and we have not gone
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
24
1
6
any closer to the bluff than 64 feet. So we're
not going to draw a new line In the sand, so
that's the number you need to meet. How you come
up with that is your creative mind to do that. We
can't start at 47 now after we have been doing 64.
Then we'll go to 24, 17, then there will be none.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is that the distance
from the edge of the deck to the bluff or the edge
of the pool?
BOARD
BOARD
BOARD
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
GOEHRINGER: Pool.
ORLANDO: Pool.
SIMON: From the pool
to the
2
.
3
4
5
7
8
bluff.
9
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael, just
let me rephrase that, if you had a ground-level
stone patio, that may not be part of the
calculation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is that a raised
deck around the pool?
MS. STAGERBERG: It is a raised deck, yes.
If we are to revise our proposal and make some new
considerations, do you have any comments in terms
of building a deck on this side of the house
within the footprint that we have shown on this
revised plan?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What exactly do you
mean by that?
MS. STAGERBERG: I guess I'm wondering
given that the 64 feet lS a number that we can't
violate In terms of its proximity to the bluff,
and if we chose to look for a new location for the
pool either to the west or the south of the house,
would an application to build a deck only within
the footprint that we have shown here, the deck
extending out the 31 feet from the face of the
house, that would that be considered if it didn't
have a pool; if it were a deck only?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Tha t 's S till 'Je ry
close, even for a deck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We really do not like
to see any weight put near the bluff at all.
These bluffs are not stable.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're suggesting
the footprint you have now with a deck without a
pool at 47' 8"?
MS. STAGERBERG: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: She was suggesting 31
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
25
1
2
feet.
8
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I heard that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question,
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's come to
che construction of this; is this a gunite pool or
liner pool?
MS. STAGERBERG: Gunite.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some of the
construction that we have seen recently from the
pool standpoint is that of a lap pool l!1 the front
with a lazy "L" going around the corner. And in
gunite you can do anything, in liner you can only
do what you can buy a liner in. That's the reason
why we ask the question. Again, I'm not speaking
for the Board, but I think in gunite you can
narrow the aspect of the pool. If you want to
make it part of the deck area in the front based
upon the setbacks that my colleagues are referring
to, it can be done, there's no question about it.
So, if you want to make it a pool, if you want to
make it a deck, whatever you want to do. If you
want to make it "L" shaped and wrap it around.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a very large
piece of property. It's two and a half acres.
MS. STAGERBERG: It is. I think one of
the issues that we're facing with the property is
that the relationship between the house and the
1'ard on the north side of the house is rather
disconnected from the bluff. So it comes down, it
steps down, and I think the desire on the part of
the owner was to really utilize that south side of
the house and enjoy the credible view. Because it
sort of ends up bellying towards the house, there
really isn't the opportunity to build an on grade
deck, which is what I understand is something that
lS allowed and that doesn't require a variance,
but because of the topography of this site, it's
not possible to build an on grade deck. And so I
think what we're struggling to find is a way to
appreciate that side of the house and sit on what
lS really the natural side of the house that you
want to be on, to enjoy the environment and the
view. So that's why we located the deck where we
did, and we were hoping to build it in such a way
that it would be lightweight, wood construction
and have minimal impact on the existing condition.
e
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
26
1
9
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no trouble
with the argument that says that it's important
for them to ~njoy the access to the sound from
that side of the property and all the reasons you
state, none of which implies a pool. A pool isn't
built in order to help enjoy the view. The pool
is built because, in part, there's a lot of room
there and why not put a pool there. I would make
a sharp distinction between building a deck and
building a pool, and if you can't squeeze the pool
into the 64 foot rule, then the pool will have to
go someplace else is what I think.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we're all
agreed on that. Somehow you will have to fit it
into that 64 foot rule.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you would like
you could submit an alternative plan and adjourn
this.
MS. STAGERBERG: I think we would like to
submit an alternative plan. Would we submit that
to you and would that consideration be part of
this hearing?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You could do it
either way, either adjourn it and discuss it at
the next meeting, which would be March 3rd, or you
could submit it and close the hearing at this time
so you wouldn't have to reappear and just let the
Board make a decision on that plan.
MS. STAGERBERG: I think we would like to
do that in an effort to speed up our
decision-making. So we will go back to the
drawing board, and I will submit a plan to you
early next week.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless the new plan
creates a new variance. If you create a new
variance there would have to be a new public
hearing so another neighbor would be notified.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You'd have to get a
new disapproval, you'd have to make an
application.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If you stayed
within this variance, which is just the setback to
the bluff, we could do that.
MS. STAGERBERG: So I understand fully,
you're going to require a 64 foot setback from the
edge of the bluff to the edge of the deck.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you give an
alternative plan and the Board closes the hearing
2
e
3
4
é
~
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
27
1
9
today, and they don't agree with the plan, they
could also give an alternative to that plan and
tell you what setbacks you would have to meet, if
you wanted to accept that.
MS. STAGERBERG: All right. Then I did
have a question about the other aspects of our
proposal, which was the balcony on the second
floor facing the sound, what it is is an extension
of a balcony that runs on the second floor on the
east side of the house and our proposal wraps that
that deck around the front of the house, around
the sound side of the house.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That wasn't
mentioned in the notice of disapproval.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a permit to
construct a deck, pool and upper level porch. It
just doesn't go into it any further.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's on the
construction diagram that you gave.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it's not
part of the notice of disapproval, is it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At the top, it is
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
Jerry.
19
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was on the
construction diagrams.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That second floor
balcony only extends out past the existing
footprint two, three feet, if that?
MS. STAGERBERG: That's correct. The
existing balcony, which you see on the right-hand
side of the drawing, that's the existing balcony
and it ends at the north face of the house. And
what we're proposing to do is wrap the corner
around by four feet and extend it along a portion
of the north side of the house.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Above the
15
16
17
18
20
21
garage?
22
MS. STAGERBERG: Yes. The portion that
exists now is above the garage and the portion
that would extend on the north side is over the
living room on the firsc floor.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's only four
23
24
feet.
·
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That balcony is
probably 80 feet from the bluff if not close to
100.
January 20, 2005
28
1
6
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
kind of diminimus.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's probably about
77 feet from the bluff.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a
motion to close the hearing, reserve decision
until later until we receive the alternate plans
for the pool and the deck.
ISee minutes for resolution.)
I think that's
2
·
3
4
5
7
-------------------------------------------------
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Diane
and Scott Mulvaney at 225 Marion Lane, East Marion
for a second floor addition and alterations to the
dwelling at less than 40 feet from the front lot
line. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in
favor of this application? Would you like to tell
us what you would like to do?
MS. MULVANEY: We purchased a house in
East Marion that apparently has two fronts because
it's a corner lot, and the house is an existing
two story that has a hard roof line, you know, a
cape, so the area above the garage, which is
currently an attic will become bedroom space. It
turns out through the application it was denied
because the setbacks you have to be 40 feet from
the front of your house to the street. Where the
front door is located, which is the actual front,
I have no problem there as far as the setback. On
the side yard, the house measures 40 feet to the
existing split rail fence, then there's an
additional 17 feet of property but the original
owner dedicated it to the Marion Lane Association
because it's a private road. So I fall under the
issue of needing four additional feet.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're stuck because
j'OU have the two front yards.
MS. MULVANEY: Correct, but not to mention
we're not moving any exterior walls already up,
we're going from this to this, further up.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
any questions?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My understanding is
that this would ordinarily be a fairly simple
improvement converting a one and-a-half story cape
to a two-story house, and turning attic into
living space within the footprint, a kind of
construction project which I would think improves
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
29
1
5
the appearance of the house and hence the
neighborhood.
MS. MULVANEY: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I am not aware of any
objection to improve on this in this case.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
You're on the same footprint?
MS. MULVANEY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
2
e
3
4
6
7
comment.
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have any
objections either. Is there anybody else in the
audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing, reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll have two weeks
we'll have a special meeting, you're welcome to
come then you can call after that and see whether
you're approved or not.
MS. MULVANEY: Is there anything I could
do to expedite that because I have a huge
construction issue, I'm at a complete standstill
right now. I have a house that's been gutted with
heat eking out the windows waiting to move on an
application that I put in before Thanksgiving.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whose is this?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: This is
Mr. Simon's. Would you have any objection to
drafting this up in the next few days?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. I can draft that
in the next few days.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I make a motion
that we grant this application for the variance of
less than 40 feet as applied for.
(See minutes for resolucion.)
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-------------------------------------------------
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Peter
Cosola, Opechee Avenue, Southold down in Laughing
Waters, for a second story addition and
alcerations to the dwelling, which will constitute
an increase in the degree of nonconformance with
front yard setback at less than 35 feet.
What else do you want to tell us, if
anything?
MR. COSOLA: Nothing. We are just
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
30
1
9
extending the roof line actually over an area that
is a closed-in porch right now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just going to
cover that in?
MR. COSOLA: Currently it's at two
different heights. We're also going to renovate
the house, but we're going to stay on the same
footprint.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's one and a
half story?
MR. COSOLA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's going to
remain a one and a half story, it's not going to
be a two story house as was stated. Plans are
accurate, yes. I'm not sure what the survey
reads.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It said one and a
half story.
MR. COSOLA: It's accurate. It will
remain that way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What in effect
is going upstairs? What is the addition for?
MR. COSOLA: It's a storage loft in the
house, it currently has that on the opposite side
of it that we're going to cathedral it on the side
that has it is loft now and then put the loft over
the area that has the porch now.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
questions.
MR. COSOLA. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in the audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not, I'd like to make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(See minutes for resolution.)
22
-------------------------------------------------
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Koehlers on Bay Shore Road
deck addition at less than
existing stone riprap.
MR. KOEHLER: Good morning.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a
question, Ruth?
Next hearing
in Greenport
75 feet from
is for
making a
the
che
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
31
1
5
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Koehler, is
this deck going to encompass some of that cement
area that exists there? I mean, is it going over
that wall?
MR. KOEHLER: The deck lS going to the
edge of the existing concrete retaining wall, and
underneath it is all the concrete sidewalk.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That will stay open
as it is on the other side next to it?
MR. KOEHLER: Correct. Are you looking at
2
e
3
4
6
7
that
9
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The room over it
will stay open underneath?
MR. KOEHLER: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is it being
constructed; are there pilings going in there to
hold this up?
MR. KOEHLER: The way we're going to do it
is we have, I think they're four by four columns
that will rest on top of the existing concrete
retaining wall, that's what we're using as our
existing footings, if you will. And on coming
back to the house, we'll have a ledger on the
existing house.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the openness
that we feel and see when we walk down will be
covered by deck; is that correct?
r~R. KOEHLER: Correct. Right now there's
a set of brick steps that go down to that area,
we're going to level that off right up to the door
chat's leading into the house. I have a brick
walk that -- I don't have the survey here with me,
but that goes out to the driveway now, so I'll
have the deck will start from the brick walk and
go straight out.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
reason why you're going all the way to the wall?
MR. KOEHLER: We originally were going to
hang out two feet past the wall to match up with
the existing room that's there now, and che DEC
restricted us to the wall. Our neighbors on the
left side and the right side of us have a deck
that is beyond us already, they're closer to the
water, so we didn't think that was a problem but
the DEC didn't want us to encroach over the
retaining wall.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In a flood or a
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
32
1
9
storm high tide, does the water come up to the
wall?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sure it could.
MR. KOEHLER: Very rarely in a storm
you'll see seaweed come up to that wall, but it's
kind of rare.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a unique
piece of property in the respect that you don't
necessarily have a bulkhead there or anything
there the way the property just lays down right to
the beach area almost.
MR. KOEHLER: This wall is a bulkhead.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it's a
bulkhead but it doesn't give you the appearance of
one.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
13
MR. KOEHLER: No, because it drops down
before that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Picking up on your
comment, your one adjacent neighbor with the large
house has a pool, yes, I don't know how he got
chat one, you can almost step in the pool and the
bay at the same time.
MR. KOEHLER: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you were to
imagine the footprint as including your wall, then
you would be building this deck on the existing
footprint.
MR. KOEHLER: Basically, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in the audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
10
11
12
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-------------------------------------------------
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
F.W. Koehler and Osprey Dominion on Main Road in
Peconic who wishes to build an accessory to the
principal use with a location in the front yard
instead of che code required rear yard for
accessory buildings. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of this application?
MS. WICKHAM: Good morning, my name is
Abigail Wickham and I have just been recently
retained on the matter. Mr. Koehler is out of
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
33
1
8
town, his son is here and there's a gentleman here
from the winery. As I spoke to Linda this
morning, there are a number of details that I do
need to review with the applicant to give this
application a little bit better definition and
examination. So I just really want to speak very
briefly to you today, see if you have any
preliminary comments and then ask that it be
recessed to a later date to better zero in on what
we have to deal with here. We want to look very
close at the Board's edification as to whether
there are alternatives and whether they're
feasible to this particular location that's
proposed. We are going to be examining in
connection with that some traffic and site lssues
and try to give you more preclse details as to
specific use of the building and the various parts
of it.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
24
We are aware that the map that I have seen
doesn't completely disclose the wetlands. I
understand there is a pond in the rear that takes
up a significant part of the northeast of the
property and does extend southward along the
swale. We understand it is a mapped freshwater
pond so it can be identified and shown that it is
unfortunately full of invasive species and
apparently a tremendous amount of garbage, only a
portion of which has been dealt with. I
understand the prior owner made quite a mess
there. They have done some clean up with the
Trustees approval and the neighbors have
apparently gone through the property to clean up
cheir property, but we do need to examine how that
job is going to be finished and how that's going
to impact on his project as well.
So if I could ask that the Board give me
some time to do those things, I would appreciate
it and see if you have any preliminary comments
that you would like to ask me to specifically
address other than those that I just mentioned.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you're going to
have some problem with an accessory building for a
use where you propose to do it. We would be more
inclined to look at an extension of the tasting
room itself to do something like that.
MS. WICKHAM: That's why I wanted to look
at that alternative. I do know that one of the
reasons that it was proposed by the applicant here
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.
25
January 20, 2005
34
1
9
was because there was an existing building here.
He has apparently already voluntarily merged the
cwo parcels in an attempt to facilitate this. I
think he felt that the landscape setting here,
because it would be more extensively landscaped
and made private, might be more conducive to the
artistic flavor of the project and it would be
less congested than up at the winery, which is
basically a retail/wholesale sales facility, and I
don't think that this is intended to be retail as
much as it is cultural and artistic. So we do
have to define that for you and see if that site
lS appropriate and if not, why we think not and
let you make that decision.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think if there was an
accessory building down there in an AC zone, you
might need a use variance?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know there are other
wineries here and out at Napa that have art
displays and just to the side of their tasting
room and done attractively and very interestingly.
MS. WICKHAM: It very well may be the way
to do it, I just haven't explored it with them,
and I know there are liquor license issues as well
too. We'll have to look at it closely.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I'm glad
you're going to look at those issues because those
are issues difficult for us as the application
stands right now to deal with.
MS. WICKHAM: Pretty bare bones.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The only thing that
popped in my head right away, but you have 40, 50
parking spaces, isn't that a little excessive for
an art gallery?
MS. WICKHAM: I think we have to examlne
the site plan issue, as I had mentioned that
traffic site plan.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a number of
questions, and I think these have to be addressed
before the fine-tuning of the actual site plan is
reviewed. It is clearly seeking a use variance to
run a non-vineyard activity in, in fact, a
separate building on a winery's plot of land. And
from what I read, it's not just simply for
display, it's an operation. They're talking about
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
35
1
9
an art framing operation, a business, and as I
understand the code, if you have permission to
operate a winery, that doesn't automatically give
you permission to operate another retail business
and especially not on another building which may
happen to have on the same plot of land. Is ic
artistic or is it artistic plus commercial?
~IS. WICKHAM: I think that's exactly what,
when I said we have to give you a better
description of the proposed uses, that's exactly
what I have to zero in with them on because to the
extent there's any primary retail use, I
understand you're going to have a concern. To
what extent you would consider accessory to more
of a cultural facility, again, we have to come up
with a more cogent plan that gives you definition
of what we would like to do, and see if that's
amenable to you or if it isn't. I do have to
agree with you that we have to explore those
aspects very carefully. I think the applicant
came up with this very nice plan keeping in mind
what he had envisioned for it because he had
communications with an educational facility to
help augment the cultural aspects of this. And I
think the whole project has to be defined to
address those issues.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Some questions I'd
like for you to address -- I'm not asking you to
address them now -- is this because it's a high
cultural activity, does this qualify for a special
exemption?
MS. WICKHAM: That's a very good question.
I think this is the first time I get it to examine
the iliomascinary position of your code. I
definitely need time on this one.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If this is good for
the soul rather than good for the body, then
you're going to look for some sort of legal basis
for this. There's a suggestion to have a
spiritual center, well, there's a slippery slope
and not a very steep slope from there to having
yoga lessons, schools and all sorts of
good-hearted activities, which are commercial but
of course are extremely valuable. From my point
of view, I'm not sure what the difference between
having that is and having a studio where you teach
people how to take apart their motorcycles.
MS. WICKHAM: I'll try to define that one
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
36
1
e
3
for you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
March 31st at 11:00 a.m.,
2Sth?
Gail, would you prefer
or postpone it to April
2
9
MS. WICKHAM: I think March, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At 11:00 a.m. Would
anybody else like to speak on this application?
MR. BAUER: George Bauer. Thank you for
letting me come and express my views on this
situation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'd be more than happy
to listen to you.
MR. BAUER: Firstly about two to three
weeks ago before this came out in the mail, I
looked up in my backyard and there was two men
standing there. So I went up to see them, first
they wouldn't talk to me. I thought they were
measuring and like they always do, you know.
Finally, one said to me, whose been destroying the
wetlands. I said what are you talking about?
Finally they said, someone cut a swath through the
wetlands, cut down the bushes, the trees, the
cattails and piled big rocks in order to make like
a bulkhead. I said I know nothing about it. I
don't go near the place, there are too many deer
ticks there, I don't want to get them on me. So I
thought they were surveyors, but they had cameras,
and they had measuring tape and they're writing
down everything. That's the last I saw of them.
I don't know who they were. I saw a car parked
across the road, looked like they had some kind of
sticker across the side. I don't know who it
was. Where do you consider the measurement from
the wetlands to the project, could someone tell
me?
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
lS
19
22
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You need to be 100
feet from the wetlands. The wetlands are defined,
you hire a team of people they go and survey it
and they flag the wetlands. They define the
wetlands based on vegetation. It doesn't
necessarily have to be water. If there's
'.-egetation in the area where it's moist they
consider that wetlands and they flag that and the
surveyor measures from there, 100 feet and that's
the area you cannot build on.
MR. BAUER: When you get the runoffs
through the winter and the spring, the water comes
up maybe 25, 30 feet higher, do you consider high
20
21
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
37
1
9
water or low water, cattails, right?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's based on
'fegetation because the water goes up and down.
MR. BAUER: If you fill In that covers up
it that, right? Has the Board of Trustees looked
into this or has the DEC from Stony Brook or
Albany checked this out? They used to all the
time.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It sounds like the
Trustees were there that you were talking to.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Either the Trustees or
if it's a green car and had some marker on the car
it might have been the DEC.
MR. BAUER: Now that I look back, this
could have been DEC but maybe it would be wise to
have them come back and look at that because
there's a lot of stories with this
property. Richman Creek used to run up to that
years ago. There used to be a wood bridge across
the road so horses and wagons could get
across. I've been there over 40 years, so I know
everyone that's been there in all that time. I'm
adjacent right to this property. I'm very
concerned. He told me that the story was that the
Indians used to live back in there and they have a
burial ground right on the slope where that slopes
down. Now, I don't know. The only thing you
learn this is from old timers who were here many,
many years ago. Considering where this proposed
building goes, 100 feet long by SO feet deep
that's a big building.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mrs. Wickham said
she was going to address the wetlands issue. She
was going to have this flagged.
r~R. BAUER: Those maps are vague. They
ne'ler show you the wetlands, they never show you
where the cattails are.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Miss Wickham is
going to address that now.
I~R. BAUER: They say that all the time.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They will have to
because they cannot get permission if they are
within 100 feet of the wetlands. They will not be
able to build.
MR. BAUER: Wetlands come way up, but
suppose this is filled in?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The DEC has maps.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The DEC has maps.
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
,3
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
38
1
9
MR. BAUER: From years ago.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. They have recent
ones. A lot of the wetlands have definitely been
mapped.
MR. BAUER: They can check what it was
like back compared to what it is not. It's
beautiful, there's all kinds of birds, ducks,
geese, swans and it's terrible to destroy this.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We agree.
MR. BAUER: Now, up on the road, we're
going to have 40 parking spaces right next to my
property, dumpsters, music playing all weekend,
lights. Now on the weekend when they have
weddings, the traffic is way past my house. I
have had it so I can't get out of my driveway. So
we park our car there, so we park at the head of
my driveway. I've had people come in my driveway
and say, where is this place, and they turn around
and go out and the smell and fumes and
all. That's my complaints.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand.
MR. BAUER: And I don't think anyone of
you would like that big tin building next to your
house.
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Miss Wickham is
saying they're going to revise their plans and
look at what they can do.
MR. BAUER: All through the season I have
people stop from around town, they're familiar
with this, and they tell me it's starting as a
warehouse and it's going to end up a wine tasting
and a gin mill. This is the rumor around town.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MR. BAUER: I want you to take it into
consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else like to
speak on this application?
MR. STEVENSON: Tom Stevenson, I'm the
vineyard manager, the farming side not necessarily
the building side, but I figured I'd just come
down. And George is our neighbor, I talked to
him. He tells it like it is. I never heard about
the Indian burial ground before. If we had heard
that we probably would have been researching that
already, but obviously it's a sensitive spot. If
we're able to get this variance, we want to work
within, let the site tell us what is going to be
there. It's a really beautiful, scenic spot and
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
·
25
January 20, 2005
39
1
9
we've tried to improve that with Mr. Koehler
bought the decrepit house four or five years ago,
structurally was unsound, termite ridden and that
came down. But we tried to clean up the area.
George didn't point out this time, but he's
pointed out in the past that there was a septic
guy who lived there and he used to run his truck
into the wetlands and there's all sorts of --
we've cleaned out dumpsters and dumpsters of trash
that's gone in there and DEC aside, that's up to
five years ago people were dumping trash in there
and there's so much in there, there's still so
much in there. We've cleaned so many dumpsters
out of there it makes me sick, regular household
trash, beer cans, refrigerators and things like
that, like they didn't know what a dump was; it
was their backyard. So we're trying to improve
the area. I think the wetlands are as vital as
probably it's ever been. It's a really special
spot, probably some sort of kettle hole pond. And
the back part of the wetlands, the north side is
like year round water, like in a real draught like
'02 there was still a little water there but
almost all gone, now it's back up. And the
southern part it can fill but usually it's more
like a marsh, phragmites, Japanese knotweed,
Norway maple, all that kind of stuff. We have
herons, blue herons, the great egrets. I've seen
20 of them all at once, it's like a roosting site,
it's a great spot. So I think the art gallery
would add to the appreciation of such a nice spot.
You have Richmond Creek. There's educacional
aspects I think would be great for us to work
with. More a community center and point out the
history of the bootleggers who used to bring their
booze up through the creek. And George is
definitely a great resource for some of those
stories. I know he's got a lot of concerns we
want to work with. It's very preliminary, and
certainly not going to end up. So thanks for
letting me speak.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion
adjourning this hearing to March 31st at 11:00
a.m.
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
(See minutes for resolution.)
-------------------------------------------------
·
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
recess for three minutes.
Make a motion to
January 20, 2005
40
1
.
3
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Alan and Teresa Sucher, Fisherman's Beach Road.
They are in need of a few variances. Go ahead,
Pat?
2
4
9
MS. MOORE: This is Sucher. Actually, the
house is there. It's an existing house. The
property is on Haywaters Road and the subdivision
is from 1931. So this house has been there a '.'ery
long time. The first CO we find is from 1969, but
the house looks older. In '69 Howard Terry
wouldn't issue a pre CO. If you did a renovation,
it was a CO, he incorporated whatever you had done
into a certificate of occupancy. When they
started off with when they bought the house, it
really needs some upgrading, I think if you have
seen the house it has not been upgraded in a long
time. What they plan to do is put some small
dormers, keep the same roof line, adding some
dormers because it's a one and-a-half story, the
half-story needs some small pop outs to bring the
ceiling heights to code and that's all well within
the existing footprint. The only new area is the
decking in the back that extends along the back of
the house, and there is a stoop I guess is being
replaced, architecturally they're making a little
front porch area where I guess now a cement stoop
exists. What we found, and this isn't conclusive
in that town records at the building department
from the '60s were not always as clear as they
could be, and it looks like there was a building
permit that included, I called it a shed because
it wasn't really to scale, it showed a
construction on the side, but ultimately, ic was a
garage. And the assessor's office showed it as an
existing garage, so conservatively I thought let's
clean up the record now, have the garage get
legalized, clarified so that for future purposes
it's on the property, it's reflected on the
property. So we need to grandfather a garage that
appears co have been there since 1969, whether or
not it had a permit at the time is really unclear.
I chink from the drawing that was attached to the
plans because at the time in '69 there really
wasn't a need under the state code for elaborate
plans.
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
the shed a garage?
So we're calling
January 20, 2005
41
1
9
MS. MOORE: On the plans from 1969 there
was a little box, the size of the box looks like a
shed, but at the time they built a garage. So I
would presume that the building inspector when he
was making inspections under the existing '69
building permit would have noticed that a garage
was built.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I want to mention
in 1972 there was an application for variance and
the Board required a setback, and the map that was
submitted with that application showed that there
was no garage existing in '72.
MS. MOORE: I wasn't aware of that.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's in the file.
It must have been built after '72.
MS. MOORE: It may be after '72 then. I
only had the Building Department records and
that's the only thing I found in microfiche, chen
I stand corrected, so your records -- either way,
it was built prior to setback conditions.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's been there a
long time.
MS. MOORE: Yes, and they would like to
keep it. So at this point we've got the drawings
chat show what they propose to do, and I'll try to
answer any questions that you have. It's pretty
much a built-out community. I think if you look
at everyone's house there, they are built
similarly on small properties, very close to
property lines. The area is all bulkheaded. Last
night we were at the Trustees. This got approved
by the Town Trustees so the project has approval
last night. I believe the DEC application is
pending but they shouldn't have an issue because
ie's landward of a bulkhead more than 100 feet and
che bulkhead was built prior to '77 I believe, so
do you have any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question I have,
the increase is lot coverage, it says from 23
percent to 31.7 percent, is that mostly taken out
of by including garage?
MS. MOORE: Yes, correct. As I said the
only square footage addition that isn't already
built lS the 257 square feet of wood decking In
the back and 47 square feet of front stoop, porch
area. Aside from thac, everything is as-built,
it's there. So the garage is what brings it over
2
e
3
4
"
~
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
42
1
9
the lot coverage.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you don't have a
number of lot coverage.
MS. MOORE: That excludes the garage?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes or would have
included the garage in the first place?
MS. MOORE: Existing lot coverage, 2S.7.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's really from 2S.7
percent co 31.7?
MS. MOORE: Right. I take it back, In the
2S.7, the surveyor included the garage. So we
would have to calculate 22.6 by 24.3, come up with
a square footage and subtract it out from the
first number, the existing lot coverage.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there a CO for
that garage?
MS. MOORE: From what you said the Zoning
'fariance from the '70s, if the survey didn't show
that garage at the time I'm assuming they used an
accurate survey.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: In fact they had
restricted the side yard at that time to about 24
feet, so he couldn't have had his garage there.
MS. MOORE: Did they say the east side or
the west side? Because there is 24 feet on the
west side, not having read it.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Dated April 20,
1972, allowed to build an addition provided that
the garage be now wider than 22 feet by 24, and
then when you look at the map it's a different
location than what's there.
MS. MOORE: Where did they have the garage
at that time, on the other side, because there's
not much property there?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Those dimensions
are what the garage is. We're sure it's on this
property, right?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Could you come over
and take a look? It's an odd map.
MS. MOORE: This is the same that was
attached, that's what I found in the microfiche.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's the one you
found for the shed?
MS. MOORE: Yes, looks like it's got a
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
garage.
25
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Setback to the shed
is 22 feet, but there's no garage showing.
January 20, 2005
43
1
9
MS. MOORE: But the description for the
varlance is for a garage? That's why I'm asking
to correct it now because I couldn't make heads or
tails of the description.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The description of
the variance calls for a 22 by 24 garage.
MS. MOORE: That would be wonderful
because it sounds like we got it, but the drawing
doesn't match it, that's the only drawing I found
from way back in '69. So I'm wondering, could
they have used the same '69 survey toward that
application?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That was appeal
number -- there were two variances, one in '69 and
another one in '72. Apparently the one in '72 was
for the garage but they didn't submit a new map is
probably what happened.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The garage shall be
no wider than 22 feet.
MS. MOORE: Surveying has gotten a little
better but that eliminates one of your -- so all
we need now is your dormers, if you can refer back
to that variance.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean the
dormers that you're proposing?
MS. MOORE: Yes. The dormers increase the
degree of nonconformity under our interpretation
and the decking in the back and this little
decking In the front.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
purpose of the little deck in the front?
MS. MOORE: I think it's architectural.
They look to have a little -- it's already
existing notch -- existing house it probably has a
typical old fashioned covered canopy for a step
In, and I have the plans in your file, I just have
to find my set. I think it's just making it all
kind of cohesive In design.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And all che reverse
gable dormers are within the footprints?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I believe the height of
the structure is less than 35 feet for sure, I
think it was 22.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 21'4".
MS. MOORE: Here you can see the front,
what is called the south elevation shows a little
front porch. It's already under existing roofline
so the setback already establishes just putting
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
44
1
.
3
porch underneath
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Existing ridge
scays that height.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is that
2
4
porch?
9
MS. MOORE: It's an extra 47 square feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I would
like to see done, Miss Moore, looking at the rear
of the property where the 19.9 hits the proposed
wood deck, I'd like to see that deck 45 at that
corner there, creating approximately another foot
or two. The back of that property is extremely
crowded when you walk around the garage area,
getting another couple feet in there would be
greatly appreciated.
MS. MOORE: So kind of angling the deck an
5
6
7
S
10
angle?
16
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where the 19.9
hits the bulkhead, proposed wood deck, 45 it on
the corner. It actually will look pretty
decorative too.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I don't think the
applicant will object to that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Dormers I have
no problems with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no further
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
finished?
Michael?
No further questions.
Jerry, you're all
11
12
13
e
14
15
17
19
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All finished.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in the audience who wishes to speak on this
application? If not, I'll make a motion closing
the hearing and reserving decision until later.
\See minutes for resolution.)
lS
20
21
-------------------------------------------------
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to open the
hearing for Donna Cook and ask if anybody wishes
to be heard on that application? If not, I'd like
Co make a motion to adjourn the hearing to March
31, 2005 at the applicant's request.
ISee minutes for resolution.)
23
24
-------------------------------------------------
.
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Mark Anticev for a waiver of merger. Mr.
January 20, 2005
45
1
9
McCarthy. Good morning.
MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning, Ladies and
Gentlemen of the Board. We have two concerns
going forward. First is that Mr. Anticev has
consulted with an attorney and the attorney
unfortunately could not be here this morning to
represent him. Second of all we agreed with the
Board to continue today from last month because
you only had three members present, this mornlng
you have four. I'm just wondering is it normal to
have a full slate or a partial slate?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. We usually ha'Je a
full slate.
MR. MCCARTHY: We would ask for the
Board's indulgence in postponing this until the
next meeting so that Mr. Anticev's attorney can
get up to speed on this and have all the facts
necessary to adequately present it. And we would
hope that there would be a full slate next
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is everybody agreeable?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When would be our next
available date?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: March 3rd or March
31st. March 3rd is pretty much full.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 31st what time?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I would say
approximately 11:00, 11:10.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, I'll make a
motion to adjourn the hearing until March 31st
about 11:00.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that all right
with you, Miss Wickham?
MS. WICKHAM: I have no objection to that
adjournment, but I would like to make, if I could,
a very brief presentation on a legal issue. Is
that okay with you? Are you finished?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MS. WICKHAM: I'm not going to address the
variance issues because apparently that will be
deferred to the next hearing and we have no
problem with that. But I would like to ask the
Board in the interim to review the issue of the
jurisdiction it may have to grant this variance in
the first place. Obviously you have a Planning
Board lecter, which while it does not make a
recommendation in favor or against, does give you
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
46
1
9
a very clear indication of how they feel about the
matter. And I would submit that they probably
don't have jurisdiction to make a recommendacion
to you.
If you look at the Marx v. Zoninq Board of
Appeals case and cases in that line, and I have
that for you today if I might hand that in. It's
an Appellate Division Second Department case which
was decided in 1988, and I'll just read the first
paragraph: "In this case we are called upon to
determine the question of whether a village zonlng
board of appeals has the authority to modify the
conditions imposed by the village planning board
upon a subdivision plan approved by the village
planning board. For the reasons set forth herein,
we conclude that it does not."
The last paragraph of the decision says
essentially the same thing, and there's a very
good reasoning in there. It's based on the
village law, which is pretty much mirrored by the
town law under which you have your authority. I
ask that that be considered and reviewed by your
counsel, and then we defer until March. Thank
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
":{ou.
18
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The hearing should
be probably adjusted to approximately 10:45 that
morning.
MR. CORCORAN: Gail, may I ask you one
question? Is it your view that the ZBA has no
authority to modify conditions of subdivision
approval, or that it has no authority to grant the
variance? Because those are somewhat different
things in the presence of conditions and
restrictions that relate to the granting of
~lariance .
MS. WICKHAM: The effect of granting the
variance would be a modification of the
subdivision approval in my opinion.
MR. CORCORAN: Without speaking for the
Board on what they would or wouldn't do, one could
take the view that you could grant a varlance, but
you're still subject to the conditions of the
subdivision approval, which would then need Co be
addressed by the Planning Board.
MS. WICKHAM: I think in this case it is
pretty much on point. It talks about substandard
lots being created. We do have two substandard
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
47
1
9
lots which would be created here; one is
substandard in terms of area and width, maybe
more, I don't remember and the other is
substandard in terms of width frontage.
would like you to address that.
MR. CORCORAN: I understand and I will.
MR. MCCARTHY: If I may?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
MR. MCCARTHY: In discussions that
Mr. Dinizio had, unfortunately he's not here, we
expressed a willingness to recreate lot lines so
we could eliminate at least one of the points Miss
Wickham has just brought up. There is
approximately three acres there. We request to
build a two acre lot in the back with a flag. We
could reconfigure the one acre piece to be a two
acre piece, thereby creating a one acre piece in
the back to eliminate one of those objections chat
she has. If the Board finds that they are willing
to work with us on that, we would be more than
happy to do that. Additionally, I would request
that the Board examine any previous decisions chat
they have made that might be similar in scope to
this or in legalities as far as legal issues go
with the point that Miss Wickham has just brought
up. Because if, in fact, there are some, and we
believe that there are, then they would need to be
revisited as well. Thank you.
MS. WICKHAM: I would like to say
there's going to be a new plan submitted,
to see it ahead of time. I'm not sure it
change my opinion of the legality. And I
apologize for the size of our print. It was done
on our copier at a 64 percent reduction, which I
might note, is less of a reduction that the
applicant is asking for in this variance. I'll
give Mr. McCarthy a copy also.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion co
adjourn until 1:00 p.m.
(See minutes for resolution.)
So I
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
if
I'd like
would
17
lS
19
20
21
22
-------------------------------------------------
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is CD
Reicers, Old Barge Restaurant. Mr. Angel.
MR. ANGEL: I neglected to send out notice
to the adjoining owners. I have an affidavit with
the copy of the notice and a copy of the letter we
sent with it, I'd like to hand that up (handing).
I should probably give you my appearance.
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
48
1
9
It's Steven R. Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel,
108 East Main Street, Riverhead for the applicant,
CD Reiters.
We pretty much discussed this application
for a special exception when I was here last
time. Carol Denson, who is the partner of CD
Reiters most involved with the project, is here.
Last time she was on a trip I believe. If you
have any questions, I'm sure Carol could answer
them or would try to answer them. Certainly if
you have any legal questions, I'd be pleased to
answer them myself, but I really have nothing to
add to our prior presentation.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I always have
questions. You told us in the last application
they're actually going to suspend in steel this
second story from the first story; is that
correct?
MR. ANGEL: That was my understanding but
has that changed, Carol?
MS. DENSON: No.
MR. ANGEL: This is Carol Denson?
MS. DENSON: The design is such that the
upper level will be sitting basically on its own
bottom, which will be a base or substructure
consisting of pilings. And then steel beams will
go on top of the piling then the upper level will
sit on those steel beams. This will be all
independent of the current or the existing
building that's there now.
MR. ANGEL: Structurally independent or
connected interior.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Stairway or something?
MS. DENSON: Yes.
MR. ANGEL: But there will be a separate
structure for the second floor.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are those
pilings going to be outside the original structure
or inside?
MS. DENSON: Within the existing
footprint.
MR. ANGEL: So there will be a slight
decrease in the existing --
MS. DENSON: We don't have the actual
construction drawings at this point, but the way I
understand it, we would have the piling encased
almost like columns.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just as much space as
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
49
1
9
is required for the support?
~IS. DENSON: Exactly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
asked that question is there is no doubt in my
mind, as we all know -- and this is not a
sarcastic statement, nor does it mean to degrade
that building -- but that is an existing old
barge; is that not?
MS. DENSON: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's been
great settling there, there's been great movement,
and so on and so forth.
MS. DENSON: And that's exactly the reason
why we were designing the upper level with its
own, self supporting --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's own independent.
MS. DENSON: Yes, exactly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My other
discussion with counsel was, it was my mistake, I
guess, I had always thought that anything new that
was constructed to an existing building that
served alcoholic beverages in the state of New
York needed to be of masonry construction, and
that's what I mentioned to counsel. Again, this
was not for any other reason other than the point
of view of my own personal thoughts and beliefs.
And counsel -- I'm not speaking for counsel
because he's here and we've known counsel for
many, many years -- but he said he didn't think
that was correct. Am I putting words in your
mouth, Mr. Angel?
MR. ANGEL: Yes. My understanding is to
add the second floor or mezzanine area depending
how it's finally designed out of regular wood
frame will be consistent with the state building
code, and I believe Carol has examined that up,
down and sideways over the years; isn't that
correct?
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
24
MS. DENSON: We have. And the building
code was changed a couple of years back. So we're
in compliance with the current building code. So
we're okay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I personally
have to write this decision, and I didn't want to
write something that was in noncompliance -- not
that we control the building code, we don't.
MR. ANGEL: What I told you the last time
was that there has been over the past four or five
21
22
23
e
25
January 20, 2005
50
1
9
years there have been continuous discussions with
the local building department, even with the
regional architect from the State Construction
Board of Review and the design and the genesis of
this application was certainly generated after all
chose discussions. I don't think that there's any
doubt that this type of second floor can be
constructed on this building and be in compliance
with the code. We have an engineer; we have an
architect; it's our second architect.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sure. And
this particular room that you're constructing is
like any other dining room area that would be in
the building itself; is that correct?
MR. ANGEL: What does that mean?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's being used
as a dining room, regardless of its being used to
augment the existing dining room as an overflow,
you put people up there, and they would come back
downstairs after the upstairs was filled, that's
the purpose of it?
MS. DENSON: Yes.
open area design so we can
tables upstairs, move them
upstairs.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very
interesting, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no further
It's basically a shell,
accommodate some of the
from the lower level
2
e
3
4
é
~
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
22
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to
know, because you said last time you weren't
adding seats so how many seats do you have now,
whether seats or tables?
MS. DENSON: It depends how you're
counting but our occupancy is for 120 seats.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could
accommodate that many now?
MS. DENSON: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And when you're
done you can accommodate that many and no more?
MS. DENSON: That many is what we're
proposing. I think we lost one seat. In the new
design it's 119. We lost one seat.
17
lS
19
20
21
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
51
1
7
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're not
increasing any?
MS. DENSON: No, we're not.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Angel, the
actual square footage of the new addition is what?
MS. DENSON: I think it's about 1,300,
it's approximately one-third of the existing
footprint.
MR. ANGEL: And you know, I should submit
one other thing, which I neglected to submit last
time. Linda asked me to have it prepared, which
was a letter from the architect measuring to the
highest roof line, and it's 26 feet will be the
top of the elevation.
MS. DENSON: That proposed square footage
on the addition is 1,397.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very
2
.
3
4
5
6
S
9
10
much.
16
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish
Co speak on this application? If not, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'd like to open the
hearing of FITC, and then if there's no one here
to speak about it, we will adjourn it to
approximately 11:00 a.m. on 3/31/05. But what we
were thinking is this is something that should be
heard on Fisher's Island, the one on Silver Eel,
Jim?
11
12
13
e
14
15
17
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was my
21
request.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, I agree with you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it should
be done before August.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're saying doing It
maybe April. Yes, let's adjourn it to April 28th
and send a memo to the Supervisor's office asking
us if there's money in the budget to send us over.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It will be a
special meeting.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which one is
lS
19
20
22
23
that?
24
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Fisher's Island
subdivision, ferry terminal and --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to
e
25
January 20, 2005
52
1
9
ask, if we're going to do this thing, do it on a
Saturday. It seems like the people over there,
just speaking to a couple people, most of them
work off the island.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's fine with me, I
don't mind.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm more than
willing co help set that up if you guys tell me
to.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have any
problem setting it up.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Good.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because then, by that
cime we may have a couple others over there. We
can do it at the same time.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can do it in a
day. It wouldn't be that difficult for us to go
over there in the morning and get back.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I comment on
that? I have to tell you that I am unable to go
on a Saturday, and I'm also unable to go during
the week most of the time. So it appears I am
unable to go. I have too many people in nursing
homes and too much activity to deal with. My
Saturday mornings are devoted to the Zoning Board,
and at 11:30 I'm away, I'm gone. And I apologize,
but I can't do it.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Well, you need at
least three members. Who would like to offer that
motion?
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll offer ic. We'll
try for the 2Sth.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's our regular
meeting, what we'll do is have it a week or so
later.
17
lS
(See minutes for resolution.)
20
-------------------------------------------------
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'd like to re-open
the hearing from the Orient Fire District, the
carry-over from 12/16, for coordination between
che applicant and the concerned citizens. I would
first like to hear from Mr. Reale to see if he has
gotten che information that he has requested from
the fire district.
MR. REALE: Good afternoon, Members of the
Board. Well, just by way of background, the
represencatives of the Orient Association did have
a meeting with representatives of the fire
21
22
23
·
25
January 20, 2005
53
1
9
district. We met on December 15th at the fire
house, and I thought that was a very productive
meeting. Mr. Boyd was present at that as well.
It was a good start. There were a lot of
questions that were asked by John Turner, who is a
resident of Orient who has a background In
communications.
There were a number of questions that came
from that meeting. We eliminated a number of
questions, I think Mr. Boyd will agree. The view
is narrowed. It's not as broad based as it's
been. Mr. Schiebel had given some answers to
questions there. There was a series of questions,
about eight or ten questions, that were posed by
Mr. Turner that he only received answers to the
day before yesterday, and his feeling is -- I have
a letter here from him. He couldn't be here
today, unfortunately. His feeling was there
wasn't enough time for him to respond to those
questions. I was myself at the December 15th
meeting. I think we made a lot of progress. We
eliminated a lot of probably unnecessary issues
between the two entities, but really, Mr. Turner
and the Orient Association do feel as though they
need a little more time to look at those answers
that Mr. Schiebel had provided just this week. It
actually came through Mr. Boyd on the 19th, and
Mr. Turner didn't have enough time to respond to
that being yesterday or the day before that he got
them. That's where we're at at the moment. What
the association would like to have one more month
to see if we can bring this to some sort of
conclusion.
I think Mr. Boyd will acknowledge that the
issues have been narrowed substantially, there's a
recognition of some of the problems, there's been
pledges of mutual support and cooperation, but we
don't have all the answers to answer your question
in brief.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does Mr. Turner feel
that a month would be sufficient for him to get
the information he needs then to pass it to on to
Mr. Boyd and also to this Board?
MR. REALE: Yes. In fact, I won't say
that every question was answered precisely the way
we would like it to be, but we just got a bunch of
information yesterday that he hasn't been able to
really respond to or analyze. I'm not saying that
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
54
1
9
that was necessarily anyone's fault with the
holidays and everything. We met before the
holidays there were questions, it was back and
forth, but he did just get that information
~'esterday. So we would like to put it off another
month hoping to avoid making this into a
controversy and making it more into a community
solution.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to see
this brought to a conclusion as long as you have
the proper information that Mr. Turner can answer
or look into any questions that he has.
MR. REALE: I will say for the benefit of
everyone, at least my personal reaction and the
people who have been working for the Orient
Association, feel that they have been enlightened
as to some things, I've seen that, and also the
range of questions and range of doubt has
certainly been narrowed. And Mr. Schiebel had
given a lot of information that I think helped
eliminate that at this meeting. I feel like we
made a lot of progress, but we would like another
month.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would hope it will be
done in another month. It's just been dragging on
too long. And I'm sorry that Mr. Boyd wasn't able
to get that information to you earlier, but be
that as it may, we would consider with Mr. Boyd's
approval to move it to March 31st at 1:15 p.m.
MR. BOYD: March 31st?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's the earliest we
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
have.
lS
MR. BOYD: That's hardly enough --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, we have
accommodated you for many months that you didn't
have enough information, month after month after
month.
19
20
21
MR. BOYD: We have answered Mr. Turner's
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But we have not seen
Mr. Turner -- we have seen his questions, but we
haven't Been --
MR. BOYD: We haven't seen Mr. Turner
22
23
either.
24
MR. REALE: Mr. Turner was at the meeting
at OFD that Mr. Boyd was present at also.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, if he just
got the answers yesterday, I hardly think he's had
e
25
January 20, 2005
55
1
7
time to review everything, fair is fair.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is this the feeling of
the Board or just yours, Ruth?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I think it's the
majority of the Board. We'd like to see this come
to a fruition. We don't like this going on.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's been delayed and
delayed and delayed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
the mike and say what you
AUDIENCE MEMBER:
Stash, would
need to say?
No, I've said
you get to
2
e
3
4
5
6
what I had
to say.
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think the Board is
addressing everybody's input. If Mr. Turner needs
some time to review, you can't ask a man who's
only gotten the information yesterday to come
prepared today to say fine, yes or no or what have
you.
8
10
e
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
reason why we can't meet as the last hearing on
March 3rd?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a special meeting.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: March 3rd is okay.
Do you expect it to be an hour and a half hearing?
HR. REALE: Just so it's clear, we're not
asking for March 31st.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: March 3rd would be
available, but if it takes a whole afternoon, then
we have to knock off ten or twelve other
applicants and push them over to March 31st, and
they have been waiting a while.
MR. BOYD: The length of the hearing would
depend entirely upon how much information the
Board needs to feel comfortable with this. I
intend to put Mr. Schiebel back to present the
technical information that we did not get to In
our last presentation, which claimed exactly why
we'd need a 120 foot tower and why we need the
tower in the application we made the application
for. If we can streamline this matter with the
loose group that is objecting to it, and there are
no objections at that time, the presentation would
obviously be shorter and we'd take less time.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Can we do that
presentation today?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this just for the
equipment that the fire department needs for their
communications not for the cell tower?
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
January 20, 2005
56
1
9
I'IR. BOYD: That's correct. It has nothing
to do with the cell tower whatsoever.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then I would agree to
it if the Board's agreeable.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are we going to
accomplish anything with that?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They may have
questions about your testimony.
MR. BOYD: If we have questions about the
testimony and Mr. Turner who seems to be such a
vital part of this decision-making process is not
present, then I wonder whether we're just backing
ourselves into a situation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Board Members
may have questions about the testimony.
MR. BOYD: I would be more than happy to
go ahead today. That's what we're here for,
that's what I have Mr. Schiebel here for with his
presentation ready to go.
MR. REALE: I don't think that solves the
original problem, but the suggestion made by
Mr. Dinizio which was to try to get community
consensus on this. We're not in a position to
come to a conclusion. All that leaves us to is to
create opposition to what's going to be said.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The applicant and
the other people who oppose it are not the only
ones that have dragged this on, okay, because we
have too. We can accommodate these people also.
We're supposed to be public servants so why can't
we have -- today's the 20th, why can't we have a
meeting on the 3rd of February for these people?
There won't be any extra work for Linda to do
other than this one legal notice.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Jim, there's no
legal notice involved.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn't change
their application.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
we had on announce that we're
meeting at some time.
Great. I assumed
having a public
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 3rd.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: February 3rd.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What day is
February 3rd?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unfortunately,
.
25
January 20, 2005
57
1
2
Jimmy, I'm not going to be here.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why can't it be at
·
3
night?
9
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't have a
recording machine.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I cannot make a day
time meeting on February 3rd.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're probably
talking a half hour.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I thought he wanted
to have it at the bank annex building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not concerned
with the logistics. It seems to me like we meet
month to month here. These poor people sit around
and wait for us. Quite honestly, I'm not for
that. If it's going to be 2:00 in the mornlng, I
don't care, it's got to be done. I'm hoping this
gives you enough time, Mr. Reale, to have this
gentleman preferably have him here and whatever
comments he has, if he could reduce them to
writing so perhaps maybe we could review it. I
don't know if he can, but it would be nice if we
have already looked at what he's going to comment
on.
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
17
MR. REALE: Actually, I was going to make
the same suggestion, I think that probably both
sides should do that in advance.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand
there's going to be back and forth. Today I would
like to spend a little time and find out exactly
what direction you did go in, and what exactly is
ic that you have agreed on, and where is the
sticking point, and I'd like to know thac before I
leave this room today, if I could. You say you
sent a response back to a gentleman that we
haven't met yet, but I don't even know what he
asked.
14
15
16
lS
19
20
23
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How long would the
meeting take on February 3rd?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Depends how long
would your presentation be, Mr. Schiebel?
HR. SCHIEBEL: I have a tendency to,
technically, ramble.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I may make a
comment before we go through all these gyrations,
Mr. Dinizio and myself last time said to everyone,
one month that's fine, everyone agreed. That was
three months ago. So before we jump through hoops
21
22
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
58
1
5
February 3rd, is this really going to happen or
are we going to get another letter for
adjournment?
HR. REALE: I think it has to. We've
played it out.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there will be no
more letters for adjournment?
MR. REALE: I don't know if we're going to
agree on everything but we won't ask for another
adjournment.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment
2
·
3
4
6
7
again?
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As I understand it,
we're here basically for a tower that's 120 feet
tall, and we're listening to people who volunteer
in the community to respond to calls day and
night, and they don't have the time necessarily or
the wherewithal financially to invest in a lot of
sophisticated gear. They want to throw an
antennae up, get it up as high as they possibly
can and be able to speak on it. No guarantees it
will work everyplace, but it seems that they think
it will work for them better than what they have
right now. Am I clear that that's what we're here
for?
8
10
11
12
13
·
14
23
MR. BOYD: That's very accurate.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Shy of that, and
I'm coming from a perspective that I just
witnessed a pretty high pole go up in Mattituck
about an hour ago, that's at the fire department,
and I can recall absolutely no opposition
whatsoever to a tower that we approved in Southold
at the fire department.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It wasn't as high as
this one.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Height is a
relative thing to where you are. What have you
gotten to that allows them to build this tower;
are you any closer to realizing that there is a
need for it?
MR. BOYD: Yes, I think that's accurate.
~!ay I speak for a moment? We had a very lengthy
meeting at the Orient firehouse with Mr. Reale and
members of the Orient Association. We went
chrough the entire communications problem from
start to finish, explaining the system we were
laboring under at the present time, the reasons
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
59
1
9
why the present system is not able to be upgraded
to give us the coverage of the area that we want.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Schiebel was very
forthcoming with lots and lots of information, I
think it was agreed and I'm sure I'll be corrected
if I misspeak here, that we need a new
communications system in Orient.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Agreed.
MR. BOYD: And that communication system
lS going to have to be in the 450 megahertz
range. The questions that remain in Mr. Turner's
mind and In the Orient Association are basically
two in nature. One, the physical location of the
tower, and two, the height of the tower.
Mr. Turner proposed a number of questions
relating to towers at remote locations, some as
remote as being in the Village of Greenport, these
are not acceptable to the Orient Fire District,
even if they were to work, which they will not and
I'~r. Schiebel can explain why they will not work.
We're down to basically the question of how high
must the tower be at the Orient firehouse
location. We supplied information about that. We
supplied these various propagation maps to show
what the coverage would be to the various parts of
the Orient Fire District. We are constrained by
several things, the license that we are operating
under, and, of course, the topography of the
district.
Orient is shaped a lot different than
Mattituck, you just saw the pole go up In
Mattituck they can get by with slightly less
height because they're basically a round area. We
have to get all the way around to the (inaudible!
What we have agreed upon, to get back to the
original question, we need new communications,
we're trying to find the best way to do it. The
question is site of the tower and the actual
height of the tower.
MR. REALE: That's why they're In front of
the Zoning Board, and we have narrowed some of
those issues. Questions that Mr. Turner had had
to do with alternatives and whether that height
was really necessary for the service that was
presented. There are a number of questions that
are still there. That is the question is the
height, we don't disagree on that. I'll be happy
to come back in two weeks and try to bring this to
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
60
1
9
a conclusion.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But I don't see
where you got anywhere. Those were the quescions
that were given to us in November. And you're
saYlng you came closer, but I don't see where
you"Je come any closer on that.
MR. REALE: Then we have to get into the
details of the application. The question was
whether this will be an upgrade in equipment. Mr.
Schiebel's telling us that there's not going to be
an upgrade in the hand-held equipment, only go
higher. The question whether there's a need to go
up to 120 feet. There's full support among the
association for whatever needs the district and
the fire department have. They're not trying to
stifle that in any way. The question more is
whether you need to go that high in this
particular spot. That was why we wanted two weeks
co respond to the information that Turner got
yesterday.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me see if I've
got you clear. You have no objection to this spot
as long as the tower is not 120 feet; In other
words, you're saying technically you're saying
this is probably a good location for the tower.
It's just a question that the tower is too tall?
HR. REALE: No, there's a tower in
Greenport, there's a possibility of alternative
sites, there's possibility of other methods of
sending out the signal. For example, in East
Hampton it's done in a different way. There are
other solutions to the problem.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I hate to take up
too much time here, but it's of concern to me.
Isn't that more a question for your district
personally than for the town, for the Zoning
Board? We're here basically, if we agree that
this has a public need, that it would be in the
best interests of the Town that they have this, we
don't necessarily need to have negotiations or
allow negotiations as to what type of equipment
chat you're going to use.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I speak to that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you think the
question is, does the district need this, the hard
question is what is the "this," and that question
cannot be avoided without knowing how far, how
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
January 20, 2005
61
1
9
high and where it's going to be. This is too
general. It's not the role of this Board to glve
them cart blanche to make it as high or as close
as they want to because they need it or this.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We have to
determine that they need it. I agree. But the
applicant is the fire department. And the fire
department needs to prove they have need to us,
not co people who object to ic. We're supposed to
determine whether this is in the public interest,
that they have a need for better communications,
how they go about doing that, honestly, is not our
purview, and we certainly have to take into
consideration, cost; we do all the time, and we
should in this instance. Now, if I am hearing
from the two parties that they're not any closer
than what they are before then --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think they are.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then maybe we meet
in two weeks and we vote, and that's the end of
this.
MR. REALE: Just to be clear, the first
first thing I said was that we thought the meeting
was very productive. We narrowed the issues
considerably, at least from the way the Orient
Association saw it. The questions are much
narrower, I think they're much much closer. They
have a much better understanding of the needs of
the fire department. I can tell you all these
things. I don't think we haven't gotten here. We
didn't sign off on 120 feet, but it's a much
different dynamic than it was two months ago.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You think
Mr. Turner can come up with a better alternative?
MR. REALE: I'm not saying -- Bill
Schiebel's very capable and did a very good job of
explaining a lot questions, we're not questioning
that or challenging him, we're just trying to get
this closer and see if we can't work this out.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we meet In two
weeks that's more than enough time for you?
MR. REALE: If that's what you want to do.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I'd like to
see the stuff if I could. If she emails me the
night before, I'll stay up and read it.
MR. REALE: We'll get the stuff in.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Freddie, did you have
something to say?
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
January 20, 2005
62
1
9
MS. WACHSBERGER: I'll save it for the
actual hearing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, did you have
anything else to say?
MR. BOYD: There are some documents that I
want to present to you at this time in line with
the request of having everything in advance.
First off, I have seven copies of a revised
elevation which removes any reference to the
cellular tower. It simply shows what it is that
we plan to erect on the scene. And also I noticed
in past discussions that a great deal had been
made of a report made by a one David Weyerhauser,
an analysis that he's had done of communication
needs. Mr. Weyerhauser's analysis was based upon
the continued use of our 46 megahertz
communications system. This is simply a letter
from Mr. Weyerhauser saying that he had based his
opinions solely on that 46. He had not taken into
account che hire frequencies, the 450 and that
really, the earlier part of this report should be
disregarded because he did not consider the 450
megahertz (handing). There are seven copies of
Mr. Weyerhauser's letter.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question, Ruth?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Boyd, as you
know, I was missing a couple of meetings In and
out of some appointments that I had, and I
apologize for that. This is a very important
thing to me having been a fire person for 35
years. I share the frustration that my fellow
orient firefighters share with lack of
communication. Is the construction of this
antennae that this gentleman is discussing that's
sitting before us today, still going to be on a
monopole cell phone type of tower or is this gOlng
to be something succinct from that?
MR. BOYD: It's going to be on a monopole,
2
·
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
·
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
yes.
23
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that
monopole is going to be in the same general
location as the application was that was going to
come before us at that time?
IVJR. BOYD: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what happens
to this monopole later, it will be dealt with
24
·
25
January 20, 2005
63
1
9
later in a different sense; is that correct?
MR. BOYD: We are making application to
put the fire department communication at 450
megahertz at the top of the 120 foot tower. At
the 90 foot location, there is going to be a
location cross arm and basic north/south
direction. One of those arms will be used for 46
megahertz communications for the fire department.
The other will be used for hire band communication
by the Southold Town Police Department and the 155
megahertz range. There is a large public safety
component in this application that covers the
police department communications, which I'm sure
you're aware talking to the police department that
they're woefully inadequate In the far east end of
the town and also with regard to the increased
marine responsibilities that the Southold Town
Police has picked up relative to plum Island and
the patrolling of the area around Plum Island. So
there's a great need for that type of
communication enhancement. That's what we're
planning to erect.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No other questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
date and when.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: February 3rd, if this
meeting hall is open. Would that be agreeable to
everybody?
MR. BOYD: 6:30 on the 3rd of February.
We appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hopefully we can draw
this to a satisfactory conclusion to everyone.
I'll make a motion to adjourn this hearing until
February 3rd at 6:30.
(See minutes for resolution.)
(Time ended: 1:55 p.m.)
No.
The question is the
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
January 20, 2005
64
1
2
e
3
C E R T I F I CAT ION
4
5
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the within transcript is a true record of
the testimony given.
I further certify that I
blood or marriage, to any of
action; and
THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
of this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 20th day of January, 2005.
am not related
the parties to
by
this
6
7
S
9
10
11
(',
,
13
~ } 1/ ! / I.
/0) ólC'UX /0, ¿i4
~ 'Florence V. Wiles
12
e 14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
January 20, 2005