Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/16/2004 Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN O P S OUT H O L D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Souuhold, New York December 16, 2004 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present : VINCENT ORLANDO, Chairman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member (arr: 11:12 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secrenary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney Absent Member: Ruth Oliva COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 5 6 ? 10 11 12 13 17 18 19 2O 23 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Welcome Eo the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing of December 16, 2004, and before we begin, I'd like te stand for the Pledge ef Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. On our agenda today is the SEQRA review. A resolution deelaring the following declarations with ne adverse effect en the £ellewing new applications, Type II Actions. !See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: First application 5621 Ellen Schultheis is a carry-over from last time, and Hiss Moore? MS. MOORE: Geed morning. I provided te you before the hearing a new survey for a revised survey bI, Joe Ingegno. What we did was based on the last meeting, the Board was inclined to reduce cur lot coverage to no more than 25 percent. My client went back te the drawing beard and what we did is we shrunk the garage, reconfigured some of the lot coverage and we got it to 25 percent. It was tough, but we were able te do it. The only thing I want to make sure, we'd like te leave open the possibility that if you see ever what is the existing one story frame house that put it to the left, facing Illinois Avenue, the westerly side, Joe Ingegno had, because the original design had the second story over the existing one story, we want to try to erase the little dash line that says "proposed second stor}r addition" and allow for the flexibility to go Eo two story, that was part ef the variance application, so it was all included in your let. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That little -- MS. MOORE: Yeah, that little jog, not that we're going to push out to two stories, but ~hat actually could give us some flexibility of design and additional storage. Se I don'E, down the line when we ge for the building permit, the Building Department will look a~ your Zoning decision that will have ntis survey attached to it, and read this to be jus~ limiting the second story to that space. We just want to leave some flexibility to have a second story over the entire existing west side of the building. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Less the garage? 2 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 lB 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 2B MS. MOORE: Yes. What we did was we can make two story the garage, but to the exuent that it is set back from the side conforming, it's a conforming side yard. And we reviewed with the Building DepartmenE and they said if our gable end over the garage is at ~he conforming setbacks, iE's not a variance with Ehis Board. So that's why the second story addition is partially over Ehe area that was the original garage. I~ would not have come Eo you for a variance for that. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay. MS. MOORE: That's it. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What did you originally stare out percenEage wise, the house now? MS. MOORE: lhe existing lot coverage is 23.4. So iu's already -- it's shown on the survey as exisEing lot coverage. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: 23.4? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio, any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Well, on this new map it has one-story frame garage. So that dash line, that's the 10 foot? MS. MOORE: Yes, 12 foot -- },es, I'm sorry, it's 10 foot at its closest point and then it kind of angles. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why you can go up, I understand that. Is that going to be Ewo-story at thaE point? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A long ~wo-story or is it going to be where uhe roof comes in? MS. MOORE: You know what, they've ~ad uo go ~ack because of the stringing of everything, the original plans have been scrapped, so Ehey have uo go back to the architecE. BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: At that point you want the full 35 feet? MS. MOORE: Whatever the code would allow. Realisuically, I think you had a Cape Cod style peaked roof, original design, so you'll be dealing wi~h peaks and gables. MRS. SCHULTHEIS: It's no~ going Eo extend past where the existing house is now. I mean, it's not going to be two story over the new garage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: Iu's going to be 3 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 probably over the new garage? MS. MOORE: I guess whanever is permissible as far as eves. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. I see a dashed line at 10 feet, from that point toward Illinois Avenue it's going to be two story? MS. MC, ORE: Yes. In the rear yard? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Anl~here along that line? MS. MOORE: It pouentially could be, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This says one-story frame garage, someone reading that MS. MOORE: Look at the other language, "garage to be converted to living space proposed two story addition." He has litule arrows, you see that in the center he put those little arrows no try to clarify that. The only portion that is BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One story is that little piece in there? MS. MOORE: Yes. That architecturally it's possible. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted ~o be clear on that. MS. MOORE: The only area that would deviate from this survey on the westerly side, right now it's next to the brick pauio behind what's called uhe stone area, you see that coo had originally, because the original design had made that the two-story over top of the main struct~re, t~at portion behind is kind of a porch entrance and uhings like that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. So you went from 29 percent lot coverage now you're down to MS. MOORE: 25. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's actually 25? MS. MOORE: Yes. That's what the surveyor of the job got, start cutting away until you get to the 25. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that's all I have, thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ail these setbacks are nonconforming anyway, right? MS. MOORE: You have Illinois Avenue which is a street, so that's nonconforming because it's considered a fron~ yard, ik's a corner lot, bu~ as you recall from my ~estimeny las~ ~ime, Illinois 4 Dece~nber 16, 200% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Avenue there are LIPA lines, I put the pictures in your file. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see it. Okay, I don't have any further questions, thank you for doing that. MS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else who would llke to speak to this application? Is there anyone opposed to this application? I see no hands, so I'll make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. ~See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRNL~N ORLANDO: Next hearing is Application 5630 Mortimer Kelly. MR. KELLY: Good morning, I'm Mortimer Kelly. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Good i~orning, what would you like to tell us this morning; what are you doing? MR. KELLY: I have a one story ranch, the objective is to make it a two story ranch, expand out the front, put a porch there, Referring to the survey that's been updated, put a proposed addition there. There is a screened porch there now. We'd like to enclose that and then that will stay ~he one s~ory that it is now, t~en in the back there is an entrance in~o the basement, an open space, ~hen there was an old porch there by a prior owner; they tore that Oown and put a storage shed there. We tear that all off, square it off and make that a one snory addition oun the back. We proposed this and had a building permit a couple years ago, but for various reasons we couldn't execute on it. Coming back Eo shaft on it we found out that ~he zoning had changed and that what was acceptable then is noL acceptable now because we need I guess 25 feet, and 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on our side. I~ looked like the house today so we're requesting a variance because the right side is no~ conforming. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: In total se~backs? MR. KELLY: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Have you spoken to your neighbors about this application? MR. KELLY: Yes. I've spoken to all ~he neighbors across the street, the Heads, in fact, December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 nhey just had something done, and I've spoken to them. I got Steve and Suzy on Denny, and Jeff en the right hand side, and in the back. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The survey doesn't show it bun your eno neighbor, because your house is en an angle and your topography you're much higher, you're really going to tower ever the Denny house or whanever their names are. MR. KELLY: Steve and Suzy, zheir house is to the lef~ of ourselves. CHAIRNh~N ORLANDO: Facing the house to nhe right? MR. KELLY: If I'm standing here, their house is about where, actually, if you come back, their house sEarts where my house ends. That's where zhey are. CHAIRNUkN ORLANDO: And they didn't have a problem? MR. KELLY: They had no problem. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I was te the it's a very unique area ever there. And I te tell you iE's very difficult to visualize size, have ute impact of this one story going to two snories, Hr. Kelly, I'm certainly not going Eo voice any noticeable objection to it. I'm jusn telling you it's difficuln to visualize because it's a fairly low one story house righ~ now. I'm sorry, certainly not going to voiee any objection. CHAIRMAN ORLPkNDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What is the uoual heighu to the ridge, are you aware? a letter nonifying what I'm trying to find in. Height confirmed by You asked for nhaE and Is that to the ridge? MR. KELLY: I sent nhe height was going to be, CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: letter, 26 to the top? MR. KELLY: Right. hinda called. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: MR. KELLY: Yes, ~he mean is 22. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Kelly, I'll see if there's anyone else who would like no speak in favor of this applicauion; is there anyone opposed te this application? I see no one, I'll make a motion ~o close this hearing and reserve decision. (See minutes for reselution.~ December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is for 5634, James Pappas. MR. PAPPAS: I'm here today basically for a pool variance for an undersized lot. Basically I'm over it by 2.4 four percenn. I'm allowed a maximum of 20 percent of the lou coverage. I know that this lot is 100 by 150, which is basically in today's standards an undersized lot, anG the only thing I have here is when I sent out the letter of mailings, Lot Number 54 never responded, and Jerome and Patricia on 45 Pasker Lane, the address was 45 and I put 645, but I spoke to Lin~a, and I hand delivered the notice into the mailbox, which she had a ton of mail in there, so I don't know maybe they're away for the winter season. But I put it into their mailbox and that was it, basically that's what I'm here for. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I was at your place, and I really don't have any questions. It's hard to imagine putting in pools when iu's Ehis cold cut, but you have to look to tne future. I have no questions. Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I walk by this house every morning, I live in Uhe neighborhood. It seems like a reasonable request. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have an}, questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It seems Uo be nicely placed in the rear yard. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: See if there's anybody else here te speak for this appllcatien? Is there anyene here opposing this application? I see none, I make a metion closing this hearing and reserving decision. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is for 5629 Alex Koutsoubis. Good morning, Mr. Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. Iu's pretty suraightforward. The Koutsoubises woulO li~e to put a pool in and there isn't regulatory-wise sufficient room between uhe honse and the edge of the bluff, so we would appreciate ,~our consideration. One uhing, I think it's important it 7 December 16, 2004 1 2 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 should be noted that the Trustees issued a permit, approved a permit for this project, although i~ turned out later that they determined it was outside their jurisdiction in nhe coastal erosion hazard area consideration, so they rescinded t~e permit simply en the basis ef it being beyond their jurisdiction, but from the environmental standpoint, they did approve it. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I ~on't recall, maybe Linda can help me, what is the closest -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 71 feet. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: 71 feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Peel is 71 feet from the bluff. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: No, ~han's a relneasurement, i~'s 41 now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: New it's 417 CHAIRN~IN ORLANDO: Correct. Hr. Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. CHAIRHAiq ORLANDO: Yes, I was wondering in the past, historically, BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Usually in's more than 60 feet. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Because I visited the site and nhe stakes, in's very close to nhe bluff. Hy recommendation to your client is to maybe nave it parallel te the bluff, closer to the house se we can get mere room between you and the bulkhead. I'm not opposed to the pool, I'm just opposeO to a Eight 41 feet and than's not incluOing the bricking or whatever's going to be around it. I was there. It was close. Have you spoke to them about putting it parallel instead of perpendicular te the bulkhead and bringing in closer? MR. FITZGERALD: I will do that. It's probably a good idea. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The other thing we usually dictane is that no large equipment be placed in the rear yard area during the construction of this pool, and uhe pool will Oe dug mainly by a backhoe? MR. FITZGEP~ALD: What do you mean by heavy equipment, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking about bulldozers and -- HR. FITZGERALD: I don't think there's access te it by any large equipment. 8 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a very unique area in the fact that Pebble Beach has multiple bluff areas, and I think the Board -- and I'm not speaking for the Board -- but I tnin~ the Board has always been concerned about the movement of earth on top of these bluffs. So I would like, when we get some confirmation from you that the Board consider the possibility of limiting it to a backhoe on the construction, preferably, and all Oackhoes usually are rubber tired, that's what we're referring to. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I was going to basically say you probably could gain about 20 feet just by turning nhat pool around. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it would make it 40. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. And I mean, I was fully prepared not to grant this application if it was going to go this way. So, if you want to come back with a map that has that, say make it no closer than 60 feet to the bluff? I don't know how you feel about that. It's either uhat or you have to wait another month to get on the agenda, er you can kind of agree now -- hew does everybody ~eel about no closer than 60 feet, if we write the decision ~ha~ way? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I was going to say 70 feet. I think you can easily get 30 feet. BOARD M~MBER DINIZIO: MR. FITZGERALD: 70? by turning a %0 by 20. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's up to you. We only gain 20 feet You could cut the deck or whatever it is on that side too. You know, Mr. Fitzgerald, it's a compromise. I looked an it and said I don't think we have ever gone closer than 60 feet with a pool and that's something that's easily accomplished by just changing on the map, and we can make a decision when we make our decisions on it, which would be in a couple of weeks, or if there seems to be not a consensus on the Board then maybe you should wait and come back again. MR. FITZGERALD: I would certainly prefer no~ ~o come back, but I think that 70 feet CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think you can ~o it. I nhin~ you can turn it and pull this. MR. FITZGERALD: How about if we say we can do 70 feet and if nou, we're going to do the December 16, 2004 1 2 3 6 ? 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 2S best we can. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're going to grant a certain amount, and when we make our ~ecisien, it's going te be a compromise one way er the other. If we make a decision, we're going to say we'i1 grant you this amount ef footage, that number's going te be a hard nul~ber. So if two people say 70 and I say 60, it's going tc. be 70, and then you're going to be stuck with it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you make it 68, Jim, thereby giving him the advantage of two feet if he needs it. MR. FITZGERALD: 68 you said? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's up te you, you want te come back with another map, maybe we look and see, try to de the numbers and see if you can gee in close to 60. MR. FITZGERALD: Can I have it both ways? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you can't, unfortunately. I mean, I was kind of surprised at 70 and you have to have a consensus, and 41, there's ne way I can do 41. I thought real easy }~ou can turn that box around and we can grant 60 easy. CHAIRM~kN ORLANDO: Jim, let's de 68 and we'll close the hearing, and we're okay then, and you don't have to come back; does that sound lzke a plan? MR. FITZGERALD: Sounds like a plan. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're going te give us a plan that has 68 feet? HR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And he should probably do that before what? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: if he can submit it to us the Friday before our meeting, then the Board can get it on the agenda. MR. FITZGEP~ALD: When will that be? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The meeting is set for December 29th, that would mean next Friday. If you need more time, then it will go on for the meeting after that, which will be January 20th, so the Friday before that will make it the 15th or something like that. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else in the audience thau would like to speak for or against this application? I see no one, I'll close the hearing reserving decision until later. December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 ~2 3_4 1_7 ~8 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 !See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Our next application is for 5627, Nancy Louise Carroll. MS. MOORE: Good mcrning, I have Miss Carroll here, so if we have any questions that I can't answer, I have Miss Carroll with me. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a questions, Vince, may I? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Of course, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: I was down an the sine and of course, we were here for the prior variance, what has changed from that prior variance? MS. MOORE: I'm glad you asked that question. The prier variance entitled Miss Carroll to build the back deck or replace the deck that's there and/or relocate it and put a new garage. What happened in the meantime is that she worked with an architect who suggested having the front porch to give a better, kind of softening the leek ef the building and give better circulation because they can put French doors in Ehe front and open onto the covered perch also gives them the use -- because ~his is primarily a sulnmer home gives the use ef the fronE porch, gives the flexibility of the use ef the house, so we're only dealing with the front covered perch. The house will be started and there's going te be renovations to it, and all your previous deliberations are appreciated and s~ill in place, buu new we're just dealing with the front porch. Whau we're proposing with ~his front perch, I gave you the elevations ef what the}' would like the house to look like, and this front porch will enable that to occur. As I look a~ ~he si~e data, I don't know why the architect provided se much information here. Somewhat in a sense at least lust creates a little confusion. The filed map with respect to the lot coverage, the filed map brings us jus~ slightly -- well, actually keeps you 2.6 over the let coverage requirements. When he uses the tie line as the measurement, I think iu just creates confusion. Because this is a filed map, you get the ownership of the let that is shown en the filed map. So I believe that the measurement we should he referring te is the filed map lo~ coverage calculation but for some reason I 11 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guess early on in the calculation, before I was inveived, they used both measurements and probably the Building Department gave a notice ef Oisapproval that referred to either let coverage calculation. So rather than being inconsistent at this point and confusion on uno second round of variances, we just applied for the same, under the same numbers that were used in the original. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I thought this looked familiar I finally found the site. MS. MOORE: I'm glad yon were all there because West Lake is very difficult te get to. I~'s a dead end. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There are two West Lakes? MS. MOORE: I went to the wrong West Lake. I went to the south side, I guess, er north shde, it's en the other side of the water, West Lake, and sure enough this property's on the ether side. So this neighborhood consists of maybe six houses all uogether. Each house liutle by little is being renovated. House when you're facing the Carroll house is en the right, has had major improvemenus, it's behind a privet hedge so it's hard te tell exactly what the distance is from the ~ront yard, but we were able to get a measurement of the house, the adjacen~ house which has an attached garage that pops out and the adjacent house is 22.5 from the s~reet line, from the property line. So we are actually extending towards the front less Yhan the neighboring home. Se that's why it seemed that this application was reasonable. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask another question? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Please do. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, it's always intrigued me on waterfront, if you're paying taxes en the filed map lot, then why can't l~ou claim it? MS. MOORE: You can claim it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But then we gee into the issue of subject to flooding. MS. MOORE: I guess technically you could ~ave rights of access, riparian rights ef access and se en up te the high water mark or the tie line, whichever is applicable. Here you have bulkheading. So unless you have a really low 12 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tide, you probably have trouble walking seaward of the bulkhead. This is kind efa unique area in that Cedar Beach was built out mant,, many years ago, and it incorporated into the water to some extent. Se the filed map actually kind of peps out, I believe, into the water, and that's why the bulkhead was built in at ~he time the DEC or prier to the DEC would have approved this. The decR builders wouldn't be building right into the water, they had kind of cut into the property some and builu the bulkhead. Se the measurements are taken from both. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are we raising an issue here on lot coverage or not? MS. MOORE: You are because the notice of disapproval included it but to the extent tha~ it's part of your rationale for going over your iuagic 25 percent rule, you are in fact at 22.6 when it is based on uhe filed map. So numbers-wise it's a little over what your general policies are. In fact, it's not consistent with ~he ownership with uhe properny, which is a lot on a filed map. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, excuse my confusion now, I'm looking at nhe architecnural site plan, and you have a proposed garage ~hat has already previous approval. MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have proposed deck that has previous approval? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the fronE porch is an addition, eight foot by the size of the house and that was not previously approved? MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, I'm looking aU the lou coverage and I'm trying to understand, it says here per filed map, says 17.3 percent, that's withouu the proposed garage, without the proposed deck. MS. MOORE: That's existing. In fact, existing also includes a deck in the back, which is to be removed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Then previously approved, I see. So they actually had been previously approved for over lot coverage? 13 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 ih 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you just intend to go 1.2 percenn more? MS. MOORE: Right. In depends which map you use. Let's use the filed map number which had it an 20.8. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm using that. MS. MOORE: Then it's 1.8. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 1.8 percent? MS. MOORE: Yes, 1.8, jusu over the previously approved. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, increase that's on the porch, away from the environmentally sensitive area? MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ail right. My concern is a minor also, the lot coverage is mnsmgnificant, but I would like you no really push back ~he fronn yard senbacks to the eight foot, square it off, I know it's kind of jogged out a little bit. So it's probably two feet or something like that? MS. MOORE: Than might be jusn ~he stairs. Because the elevations show a straight porch then steps down. So if you want to limiE it to steps, the encroachment beyond the eight feet Eo only steps. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: The quesnion is do the steps exceed 30 square feeu? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The setbacks uo the house is 36.6 minus 8 would give you like 28. I mean, the house may not be perfectly parallel. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You see, Pat, if that was nwo times 14 it would be 28. So iu appears to be much more ~han that. MS. MOORE: I interpret it to be steps iown but because they're kind of nhe wide steps, open, kind of an entry way. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: He didn't show steps on the design. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I show some sore of fancy design coming out. MS. MOORE: It's like an archway. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Some pillars or something like that? 14 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. It's a minor, if they want to keep the arch, they can keep it inside the eight feet. That's net a problem. CHAIRM~kN ORLANDO: So we'll call it 26.74 or de you want to come back with us? MS. MOORE: Why don't you just make a note that it's straightening it out, and I'll have the architect submit a drawing that will be pare of your file. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Can we say not to exceed eight foot front perch, then you can m~ssage the details, whatever you would like. MS. MOORE: Yes, just be careful Linda will know what you're asking for because the house kind of jogs in. I don't want it to be interpreting -- the Building Department net knowing might say, oh, it's go~ ~o jog in eight feet to where the house exists new. So I'd rather just straighten it out and give you a drawing that is correct. It shouldn't be difficult for Bob Tass te rede this. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else that would like to speak for this application? Is there anyone here opposed to this application? I'll make a motion te close this hearin~ and reserve decision until later. !See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is 5631, Peter W. Galliard. Is there anyone representing Peter Galliard, 56317 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who was uhe attorney involved? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There is no attorney. Why don't we recess it for a while, see if he shews up. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I want te go look at it anyway, why net, if there's ne one here, put iE to the next month's meeting; is that all right? Can we grant it without? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's up to the Board. else. picture ,CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: If you're going to go anyway because you want to leek at something BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you take a of it for us, Jim? 15 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why Oon't we close it on the 29th, unless we let him ge there in case we have any questions that we'd like te put into the hearing. Let's set it at the 29th, I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Special meeting December 29th. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Okay, 6:00 p.m. {See minutes for resolution.) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I'll make a motion holding this off until Mr. Dinizio gives us a full inspection. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: On December 29th, ~ow's that for you? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That might be a little tough for me to get over there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you don't do it by the 29th, then we'll just close it and do it after it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It might be after the first of the year. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not to hold you to that. CHAIRMAN ORL~iNDO: Next application is 5616, Charlotte Dickerson. MR. DICKERSON: My name is Allen Dickerson, spouse of the applicant here. We're doing our application, the only thing I can say is that we had a previous hearing, and the other Board gave us ~he dimensions and their surveyor come and located Ehe foundation, the mason sai{ he could locate it, an~ it was put in, and then the Building Department found out it was six inches too close to the south line and 24 inches too close to the embankment on the northeast corner of the property. So I asked what the procedure would be, and they said I'd have no come back and reapply, and that's why I'm here. I did have a call from the neighbor to the west, Mr. Alinodina, he called me last night around dinnertime and asked me if he could send out an email which I could take with me today, which he fully supports our application. So I'll just say that one of the four neighboring property owners, the other one another one to the south, Patricia and Kenneth Ho~nen, that's my daughter and son-in-law, they 16 December 16, 200% 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 couldn't be here today to support the application. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: But they're not opposing it, right? MR. DICKERSON: They're not opposing it. Sc. I would just hope that the application prevails, and we can leave the foundation as it's presently put in, and we'll proceed with Ehe construcEion. Nothing has been done since it was given the disapproval by the Building Department. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Has your mason reduced his cost in half? MR. DICKERSON: Well, he hasn'T been paid in full. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There you go. What aid we start elf originally with, Mr. Dickerson? MR. DICKERSON: It was going to be 36 feet from the embankmenE on the nerEheast corner. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Ne, the original preexisting site. HR. DICKERSON: Where the house was originally located? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Right. MR. DICKERSON: It was about six feet from Ehe embankment. New we're back behind the coastal erosion zone line. And we're a little out of sync with the previous approval. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have no oEher questions. Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: No. I mean, in lighE of the face it's there and everything, I'd like to see if we can vote on it today and let ~he gentleman ge en his merry way. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just as lots aren't completely flaE, nor are bluff lines, and I have absolutely no objections. I've been up Ehere to see it, as you know, the other day in dealing with the right of way. I think the foundation is well done and well placed. MR. DICKERSON: They did a nice job. Is Ehere anything else you need me for? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else here in favor of this application? Is ~here anyone here opposed to this application? Ef no~, I'll make a mo~ion closing Ehis hearing ann reserve decision. ~See minunes for resolunion.) 17 Decelllber 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 1'7 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Dickerson, have a good holiday. MR. DICKERSON: You too. CHAIRMAN ORLA~IDO: Next applicauion 5624, Grace Kehle. MS. MESIANO: catherine Mesiano on behalf cf the applicanu, Grace Kehle. Mrs. Kehle is proposing to convert an existing garage on a single and separate lot into a principal use on tile properEy, which would be a small residence. The properEy, the subject proper~y, which is located on the northerly side of Strohson Road is owned by Mrs. Kehle, as is the house across uhe street. Mr. and Mrs. Kehle purchased the properuy about three or four }Tears ago, undertook a renovaEion on ~he house, and the garage was in a staEe of disrepair, and being an accessory strucEure on a single and separate lot, it gave them some options. They propose to convert i~ into a residence. The building is strucuurall5~ sound, which is the primary reason for lea,zing it in its existing location. We're maintaining an existing front yard setback of, I believe, ~0 feet, and we propose no alterations to the exterior, no additions to the exnerior. I have photographs of the garage tha~ were taken before uhe new shingles were put on and so on. They were taken when they bought the property, actually. And they're maintaining the character in that the garage doors on uhe front have been reconstructed. The building was deteriorating quickly, so they baize done uhe roof, they have done uhe siding, they fixed Ehe doors Ouu the interior renovaEions are not underway yet. I would like to give you uhese photographs from when ~he5, purchase{ Ehe property. I have photographs I would like to submit to the Board, I had problems with my prinher, I couldn'~ print them, so I would like uo be able to submit them as soon as I can have them prinLed, if I might, to show the garage today. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think we all saw the ~arage. MS. MESIANO: I just wanted ~o be able to give them to you as well as the neighboring property. One thing I'd like Eo note as well, if one looks at the other properties on Strohson Road, i~'s obvious that the similarities are there, a number of homes have either attached or 18 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 iS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 detached garages and the garages are not a car's length from ~he road. Fortunately, Strohson Road is a minimally improved read, uhere aren't curbs and ether structures, so when the car sticks out of the driveway into the roadway, iu's not wholly apparenE bu~ it's a situation that's common in that area because Strohson Road is minimally improved. I believe it's a Town owned road because I de see drainage structures and -- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I believe it's dedicated. MS. MESIANO: I de toe, it shews on the map as a read. It doesn't have a tax map number associated with it. Se I do believe it's a town .awned road. Se basically we're just asking for a change ef use ef the structure and actually decreasing the degree of nonconformity in that we have an accessory structure on a separate lot. So we would like ua convert the accessory structure to a principal use, and everything else remains ~he same. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: Whau inurigues me about this one is thau if the driveway remains in its present position, you have a backing out issue onto this private road and more importantly, and I de agree with you that there are existing garages and there always have been in the older areas, I ~hink the driveway should be done away with. I think it should be put on ~he west side of ~he Duilding. And I think there should be some screening in particularly in the 10 feat area? MS. MESIANO: They have every intention of icing that. They have already started the plantings in that area. They have get a row of rhododendrons started. They have ~o~ some other plantings and o~her shrubbery in there. But they intend te further landscape that area te provide for screening along that radius, that closest area. They have every intention of doing that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So if the Boar~ was so inclined, thaE we reserve when it's done, be sold without anyway? I'm not speaking for the Board, the right ~o look at the screening I suspect this property would net the sale of the other property 19 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MESIANO: NO, they have ever}' intention of maintaining both properties because they have a large extended family and when children and grandchildren come to visit, iu's nice to have a guesu area. Iu's really more of a guest house associated with the big house, and they have no intentions of separating nhe property. BOARD MEMEER GOEHRINGER: Because there is another driveway and the beat's kept in that rear yard. But there's plenty ef reem for driveways. MS. MESIANO: They wouldn't have a prebleln with that nor the screening that they intend to do at an}, rate. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you will not be utilizing this as a garage anymore? MS. MESIANO: They wanted to maintain the character of the suructure and not have any apparent change to it. They will probably have some storage space in uhere, bu~ no, they don'u intend to use it as a garage that you would be pulling a car into. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So losing the driveway's non a big issue? MS. MESIANO: No, z~'s not a big issue. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are these separate tax lots? liames? MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are they in separate MS. MESIANO: No, Mrs. Kehle owns both properuies I believe in her name individually. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: But they're separate lots? MS. MESIANO: They're separated lots, separated by the roads, separate tax map numbers, and separate deeds for each parcel. CEAIRMAN ORLANDO: So I don't see any reason why you couldn't convert it to a dwelling? MS. MESIANO: No. It's not as though they were adjoining parcels and we were looking at a waiver of merger. In just so happens than they bought them at the same time from the same individual, and that I believe the prior owner, if ± dredge really deep I could come up with the name but I Oon'~ ~hink it's relevant. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Not necessary. MS. MESIANO: That had been owned in that 2O December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 family for many, many years in that same configuration. And they bought that property out ef that estate and tend to hold it the same way. That's really part of the value of the larger house because that property is somewhat uempremised because ef the setback requirements. CHAIRMAN ORL~kNDO: Out of curiosity is the vineyard part ef that lot er is that's another lot next to it? MS. MESIA2qO: No, that's separate. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That was just curiosity. No other questions. Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I just need a little clarificaEion. This is a separate lot, single and separate. We're going te grant a house out of this garage? MS. MESIANO: Yes. We're going to convert a garage to a house. We're going to take a nonconforming single story, nonconforming accessory structure on a let where no principal structure exists and convert it into a principal use on the property, a principal structure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: years down the road that lot single and separate lot? MS. MESIANO: That's BOARD MEMBER DINIZ!O: Beyond that, 10 could be sold as a right. just wanted to clarify that that is not going to have an}' restrictions on that? MS. MESIANO: I see no reason why it should be because they're separated by a Town maintained road. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be agreeable to Ehat. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I agree that's what I see. I'll see if there's anyone here opposing this application today? Or anyone like to speak in favor of this application? I see none, so I'll make a motion to close this hearing, reserve decision. (See minutes for resolution./ MS. MESIANO: Thank you, and I will suOmit ~he other photos for the record so they're in t~e file. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Make a motion to take a five minute break. (See minutes for resolution.} 21 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'd like co make a motion to reconvene. {See minutes for resolution.} CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is Marco Anticev. Geed morning, Mr. McCarthy. HR. MCCARTHY: Good morning. Yesterday received a fax from Mrs. Kowalski regarding a letter she received in opposiuion Lathams, and I had my response need ~o pass ou~ to you. from nhe ~hat, which CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Also, Mr. McCarthy, we got an internal le~er from the Planning Board. MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, I'm aware of that. First of all, this is a kind of unique situation inasmuch as there is a previously established subdivision, and we're requesting a further subdivision of that by virtue of Mr. Anticev's subdivision of his property. He owns approximately a three acre lot and the house sits on the piece that we would like to split sits on approximately an acre, just shy of an acre. We would like to spli~ ~wo acres off of that that's in the back, and so ~here is confidential information in there as far as medical information, that's for this Board's perusal, I'm happy ~o address that with you, I don't know if that could be done in public or L~ot. Regarding the letter from the Plannin~ Board, I met with Anthony, I met with Vai Scepaz, discussed different ways thaE this might proceed and the least objectionable ways te ge. And iE seems the application has te go forward on ius own merles, as far as the subdivision gees and hew we're asking to subdivide further in a subdivision chat has covenants and restrictions on it previously. Se wha~ we have is a situation where there is ~we houses on either side ef t~is lot that we're requesting to subdivide. One is significantly smaller and one is abouu uhe same size as the remainder lot. The remainder let being approximately one acre after we would take Ehe two acres in the back and make that the lot ~hat we're creating. The house Eo ~he left, or immediately te the east, is a house ~haE's been nhere for many years, has been part ef the 22 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2S neighborhood, was there long before the subdivision was put in. Tile house to the -- excuse me, to the west. The house to the east is the one that is on approximately the same size as the remainder piece, which would be approximately an acre. So it's not out of conformity with the neighborhood. In addition te that, we have mitigatiilg factors that are presented te you in the confidenuial paper regarding the Health issues. We do have a hardship case we believe. We believe that deserves very particular attention. We have received a letter from Scott and Allison Lazham. In this letter I have given you ml' response to it, and I have gone point for point in their opposition and I'm here te discuss any of that that you might think relevant for discussiexi. On the aerial map, I have indicated where the Latham's house is in relation to where the remainder lot is for Mr. Anticev where the proposed two acre let is, where Mr. Kre.uheviski's lot is and Mr. Siracazano's let is, as well as Tony Gregenes, across the street. It would appear by looking at the map that this would neu be anything that would De harmful er injurious 2e the neighborhood. I~ would not reduce any scenic vistas. The house could be placed se that_ it's in the back of the let inside the building envelope. There is already a very large line of mature evergreen trees separating this proposed property from the Lathams on one side, who wroue the objection, and it could he further ameliorated as far as a buffer zone goes if this Board decides ~hat's the way te go. Any questions you have for me, I will be happy ~o answer. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, Hr. McCarthy, for the recorO I want to say khat my commen~s are not directed at you personally er at your applicant personally, but at the application itself. I did read the confidential historical medical reasons, and I have sympathy towards that but I need te leek at ~he big picture outside the Oox, the repercussions that could ge beyond that, and I personally believe indirectly where you're asking us te rezone it, two acre area ~o one acre, indirectly, azld I personally feel if this application was approved, I think ~he result could 23 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 l0 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be caEastrophic and chain reacEive, and the other lets would follow suit, and I'd have a mile long line down the line here looking for other people for the same relief. So that's what I'm saying, I'm not directly attacking you or your applicant, but I'm looking outside the box for this application because what could happen after this if it was approved. I have a problem with this, a big problem. MR. MCCARTHY: I undersEand it's a serious concern for this Board, and I understand that there could be repercussions. However, I believe thaE this Board takes each case en its own merit and I don't believe that it should be a blanket type approval, opening the door for other applicants for the same reason. This is a very specific application with very specific reasons, and they're se~ forth in the confidential s~aEement as well as the public part ef that. CHAIRNL~N ORLANDO: I understand every application is unique and different on their own, but when we, if we did approve chis one and deny tMe next eno, an Article 78, the judge turns around and says you did that eno, why neu this cne, and it would snowball. And I personally Ehink it would be catastrophic to start this. MR. MCCARTHY: If it's a political situation Ehat's being addressed, I'm not prepared to aOdress Ehat. CHAIRMAN DRLANDO: It's not a political ~hing. You're basically indirectly asking us to change the zoning. MR. MCCARTHY: What we're requesting is to form a two acre let in two acre zoning, by default that creates an almost one acre lo~. That's in between a half acre let and a eno acre lot, eno on each side. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They're ali preexisting. MR. MCCARTHY: They are indeed. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: If we start a precedent new, then it's no turning bac~, an~ I'm afraid that that would be catastrophic te Ehis. But I want to see wha~ the other Board members have to say. I'm just one veto and it's my opinion. Mr. Geehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Regarding this applicauion, I was over and spent so,ne time 24 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 looking at the neighborhood and spent some time looking at the let itself to be basically separated, I'll use that phrase. I am still up in the air regarding it. I have no real qualms about the granting of variances en a lot this size. Certainly net granting Ehe let that size you're granting the variance en the house piece. And it could be made mere conforming thereby taking some property away from the 80,000 square feet. And creating an actual one acre let for the house. And all I can say is that we've done it before, and there certainly is a hardship and we are aware of Ehat. I'll leave it at that point. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizie? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just looking at your aerial picture here, Joe, seems te me like Mr. Latham's let probably benefited from a similar subdivision at some point in time, and that's Hr. Kuhn, that may have been one square piece of let at eno time, and they had an existing house there, and their just cut off a little piece, and then this larger lets exists. I don't knew if that's the case but seems to me like exactly what happened on that piece of property is going to happen en yours. MR. MCCARTHY: That's not the case. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: An any case, I have ne objection at all to it. I didn't read your confidential letter, I just got it and I would like te have some time te read it. MR. MCCARTHY: Understood, sure. I apologize for that, I did not get that until yesterday afternoon. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: It's jusE going to hold you up. I mean, I'm going te need te read iE. The point is, I don't see where approving chis would give any precedent at all, because we have done ~his in the past and certainly, you knew a three acre parcel in a two acre zone can be a hardship. It's not going to necessarily change the character, I don't see that happening. If you ean maybe make it an acre and a half, an acre and a half MR. MCCARTHY: We could work with Ehe Board en that if you decided te give us the opportunity to do that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That mai' help your application. RighE new I have ne objection ~e the 25 December 16, 2004 26 2 3 ? 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ way iE is but than may be something that you might warm to look at MR. MCCARTHY: If I could just suggest to you that nhe reason why we went with that size is because iu's naturally landscaped and bordered and it's almost a custom cut as far as separating the two. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't have to landscape it, you would jusn own it. The only uhing that it would affect is probably senOacks of ~ house that's built on the empty lot, and I understand why you did it because the aerial photos shows that, bu~ ~hat may be something that l'm jusn suggesting that may be helpful to you to get this approved. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here oppose~ to this application? Yes, sir? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Good morning, my name is Mark Krecheviski. I own an adjoining lot and I am opposed no nhis. I do think in does change the character of the neighborhood. I woulG also like to address what I believe is some inconsistencies wiuh Mr. McCarthy's application. I've seen that down at the clerk's office where it's on file. In there he states that he currently nas no buyer for this piece of property. I feel that that is inaccurate, that there is a proposed deal in place to spin this piece of property off right away. Also, in our {eeds when I purchased my lot, which is an adjoining let, there was a covenant in there tha~ there be no further subdivision, that was part of wha~ made me decide to buy my lot, that I would have nobody directly behind me. This house in the proposed building zone would put a house directly behind me, and vehicles coming and going, ~he headlights would be right into my back windows of my home, and it will completely do a number en the privacy that I currently enjoy. Also when I beughh my lot, I went around to the area residents and just checked on the wa~er supply and just if they're having problems with temic in the water and what have you. I spoke with Mr. Anticev and his house on ~hat let, if you leek at -- I'm no~ sure if any o~ your December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 drawings currently show where his house is stationed on his lot, it's all the way over to the west border line of his property, and I asked him about the placement ef his house and he told me that he intended te subdivide the let some day and by keeping the house there, he would be able to build another house and subdivide it and sell the piece off. It's unfortunate there may be solne health problems er whatever that have brought him te this point, but I think it was his idea ali along te subdivide this at some point, and I just feel that unfortunately for him that now's the time he cheeses to do it. I think this prior planning really casts doubt on the whole application filed by Mr. McCarthy. I don't think that it's really above beard because there's one of the questions in there is de you currently have anybody interested in purchasing the property; he says no, that he doesn't. Well, that's incorrect. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I celnmenE? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there anything that would satisfy you as far as screening is concerned? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Ne, it really wouldn't because in the winter there's going to be a problem with leaves off the trees. And the nature of this lot, this flag let is going to put a house Oack directly behind me, and I feel that down the road if I were te choose to put up a barn or utilize the back area of my property for any reason that I would be in here facing you folks trying to do what I'm currently able to do because he may net want to look at a barn, or if my kids want te ride mini bikes er ge carts out in tRis farm area that I'll be restricted in some way because this house is placed there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CoulO you just tell me where your lo~ is? MR. KRECHBVISKI: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it this eno? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Yes. And also the lot that Mr. Dinizie spoke of, the Kuhn residence, that was preexisting, that was an old time farm house and when the subdivision was put in place they went around that let. It wasn't spun off from Mr. Latham's let, it was just an old time farmhouse. 27 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just looking at a photo. What about the Anticev house is that old, new? MR. KRECHEVISKI: It's after the subdivision, it's a relatively modern house. That's why that little parcel there was just an old time farm house that was not part of the subdivision. Anybody have any other questions? CHAIRMAN ORLanDO: Thank you, Mr. Kresheviski. Would anybody else like to speak opposing this application? MS. LATHAM: Hi, my name is Allison Latham. My husband and I are here. We adjoin the Anticev property immediately to the west of the yard, the 3.3 acre lot, which I believe is the 54-326.5 is ~he tax map number. We wroue a opposition of this Board has reviewed. case the Board has us here today. letter ~o the Board in application, which I trust the We're just really here in any questions or comments for BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion uhat Mr. McCarthy said regarding this high greenery uhat's on the subject properuy, is mhat on this gentleman's property or is it on your property? MS. LATHY_M: That's on Mr. Anticev's property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is it well on his property or does it over shadow your property? MS. LATHAM: I believe mt's just on the onher side of the property line. I would have ~o look at the survey uo see where they're placed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I dio see uhe greenery from the road, but is i~ relatively - is iE maintained, or does it run wild; how does iE look? MS. LATHAM: I think it looks nice. It's not high enough to screen a viewing, my lot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn't get thau impression either. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you a question. I'm looking at an aerial photo. When y©u drive by the place, you have the Kuhn house, you have your house, which is in back of the Kuhn, then you have Mr. AnEicev, then you have what lsoks like a flag lot, that's what he wants to 28 Decelnber 16, 2004 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 create? MS. LATHAM: That's whaE he wants to create, un huh. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The front portion of that to what he proposes as his backyard, if you drew a line all the way across, you would have approximately an acre there, maybe a little less, but would you be opposed to -- say if we were so inclined te grant this -- would you be opposed if we restricted the house te being built in that area and forever make the whole backyard green, Ehat nothing can be done in there, no peels, lie barns, no whatever, would you be opposed to that? MS. LATHAM: I think I would because there's still going to be a house that's either next doer te mir house er in my back yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne, it's net going to be anywhere near your backyard. It's going ne be on the Main Road, house. MS. LATHA_M: not want ~haE. That of the neighborhood. right alongside Mr. Anticev's No, absolunely no. I would would really change the look BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why I'm asking. MS. LATHAM: You mentioned before, I think you were talking about the similarity between the Annicev property and -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I got that answer to that from Mr. McCarthy. MS. LATHAM: It was very old. That lot existed since before 1945. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was jusu looking at the lines. I was Ehinking in would be a very similar siEuation, but it's not, obviously not. MS. LATHAM: No. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Would anybody else like to speak? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I'm Abigail Wicknam. I am representing the Lathams. And one of the beauties of being an advocate, and Mr. Corcoran would appreciate this, is than I can and I am going to strenuously oppose this applicauion on behalf of the Lathams because, quiEe frankly, Z can't believe you're enEertaining it given the subdivision, the covenants and the layout of the neighborhood. But I will guarantee you that if granted, I will be in Mr. Orlando's line with many 29 December 16, 2004 3O 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 clients who would be very happy to abrogate the subdivision and zoning code regulations that they bought under and that they subdivided under if they can carve yet another lot out of t~eir property. This is an incredible precedent if 5rou grant it, and I'm really shocked that you are even frankly considering it, and I'll tell you why as far as preexisting Tax Lot 25, that's really the only basis on which he is even~ broaching you, ot~er than the personal matters, which I will approach in a minute, and that was one small preexisting lo~ in a neighborhood. And when people came in to subdivide this, I guess it was approximately eight or nine acres, I don't believe that lot was part of it, and they got a minor subdivision of four large lots, that's how Ehe people who owned this particular lot that we're Ealking about bought, that's how everycne else in the neighborhood bought in reliance on uhau, and I do think the Lathams and their neighbors have a right to object to another dwelling unit being imposed in that neighborhood, that's not what it was supposed to be. It's clear uhau it was intended to be one lot. Also, I don't think their lot particularly benefited, if I understood what you initially said on that, Jim, because it was preexisting. And iu's unfortunate, you do have in neighborhoods little, Einy lots that have been there for a long time, but that doesn'u mean that everybody else in uhe neighborhood gets that all uhe time. It's just the way it is and you have to work around Ehat, and I think the Planning Board did work arounO that in a specific way when they subdivided the property. A three acre parcel in a two acre zone is really not a hardship because that's the way they bought it, that's the way they understood And I would have to object to two nhings with respect to the confidential informaEion ~hat was submitted. Nnmber one, when you're dealing with a real property variance, and this is not a waiver of merger, this is a variance, personal factors are not supposed to be determinative of your decision. And I would also have to object strenuously uo any information being included s.n the record or given to the Board that was non public. I don't think that Eha~ is appropriate in December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a public hearing of this nature. I'm not trying to pry into their personal matters, but I don't know what they told you, and I don't Enow thau it's appropriate that you rely on it in any way and without it I have no way of commenting on tha~. I would also like to mention that aerial photos are really net hew we live. They're very helpful ~o get everyone te get a picture ef what it really leeks like, bu~ that's net when you drive in and ouE ef your driveway and up and {own your road, that's net really hew you're living and hew the zoning cede has to be interpreted. Se I would like to ask ~hat you consider these things very, very carefully before you make a decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hiss Wickham, leu raise a very interesting issue regarding cenfidenEiality of this. I really Ehink, and in the past I think it has Ee be made part of the public record bu~ not necessarily part of the public hearing, and I think you de have the righe personally to read it, than's my particular opinion, and net necessarily te comment on the specific elements of it, that's my opinion. So I ~hink you should be able to rea{ it, and I think you should be able to comment on it, again, ne~ necessarily te that particular point of confidentiality. MS. WICKHA~: Just tea general. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To a general broader point. And I think we should give you the opportunity to do so. MS. WICKH}~: I appreciate that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I think we should recess it un~il the 29Eh until we coulO do ~hat. MS. WICKH}~: I may say nothing more ~han what I have already said, that it's not appropriaEe ~o your decision, and I understand I would wan~ ~o respect privacy. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel's here, I'm net speaking for counsel. ASST. TOHN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: If nhe Board were inclined ~o take thae position, I ~hink ~hey should offer the applicant the opportunity to receive the information bac~ Oecause Ehe applicant did submit it under ~he assumption that it would be treated confidentially. Se I think the 31 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 applicant should have the opportunity to make a more general statemenn if trey would like about medical issues, but if the Board is going to as a part of its decision rely on information, I think that information should be made available to the public. If it's not going to rely on it, it's privacy protected information that does non need to be disclosed, but it may not be appropriate to rely on information that's non made available Eo the public. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I would like to ask if the confidential portion of this is going no be accepted because I would normally return in. Ail wrinnen documents have been made part of the record in the past. So if the Board does not want to accept it, I would return the top sheen than says confidential. MS. WICKHAM: Has the Board read it l, et, though? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We just received ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: We just received it. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: We just received it. MS. WICKHAM: I would say if you're inclined to deny the application, I'll withdraw my objection. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. McCarthy, did you want to come up? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. Even given the nature of the strenuous objections from Mrs. Wickham, I spoke with my client and we would have uo objection to removing the confidentiality of this providing that it stays within this realm, and does not go out to the general public. For the sake of discussion, for the sake of your entertaining our requesU, I think it's appropriate that you have than, and as long as she can guarantee that it doesn't go out to the public, that's fine with us. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We can't do that. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCOPJ~N: We can't ~o that. Once it's in the record and it's been disclosed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Once it's part of the record, Joe, anybody can go in there and see it. The reason why I didn't read it is because 32 December 16, 2004 33 1 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you have this first paragraph asking that, that's why. MR. MCCARTHY: Fair enough. We thought that that was not precedent setting, thac that had been done previously. That was the information that we were given, that's why we went that way. We withdraw the confidentiality factor of chat, and we submit it as part ef the record. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to submit it as part of the record? MR. MCCARTHY: We withdraw the cenfidenuiality part ef the request. Secondly, I would like te take exception te Mr. Krecheviski's objection stating that ti~ere was a buyer when we first approached this subject; there was not. When we first approached it and I filled out the application, there was net a buyer. The same as Mr. Latham alleges that there was an active listing en the real estate market; there never was. There was never an active listing. I had hoped that this wouldn't be necessary, but I find that I should ge point for point with their objection letter as I have delineated in there because that would explain in great detail, and if there's any further questions, then we could address them here, if that's okay with the Board. CHAIRN~AN ORLANDO: Also if it's all right McCarthy and Miss Wickham, I'd like to this to our next hearing. We're two short today, I'd like ne get them up to with Hr. adjourn members speed and they ma5' have ether questions that we may not have. So we'll have a tull Boar~ vote on chis eno. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to read ever the information. MR. MCCARTHY: If that's the case then there's no need for me to go point for poin~ on their letter and my counter on their leuter because you have that information in front ef you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The next public hearing is January 20th. I'd li~e to adjourn it until then. MS. WICKHAM: May I ask one more question? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You may. MS. WICKHA~: I just want to make sure that you have in the record the Planning Board covenant that was recorded, I believe you do? December 16, 2004 1 2 4 5 ¥ 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, we do. Is there a time for that, Linda? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes, I would suggest, we have so many other adjournments that are going on the agenda, I would recommend 11:00. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. I would just like to call particular attention to the Board's attention, if you would, that the last couple of paragraphs in my response is quite pertinent to the Latham's objection. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So noted. MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. 11:00 on January 20th? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, I make a motion to adjourn this meeting to January 20th, 1100 hours . (See minutes for resolution.) 34 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAlq ORLANDO: Next application, Nick and Olga Diakun. MS. DIAKUN: Hi, I'm their daughter, I'm speaking on behalf of my father and my mom because they have limited English, and that's my dad, and my mother's in the car with my other two year old. We're here to request a waiver of merger. They purchased two separate lots back in the '70s, two half acre lots, and unbeknownst to uhem, the iots were merged. So they just want to basically unmerge the lots on Stanley Road. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is the house, your parents' house now facing the road, than's their little ranch on the right that's there now, and the lot next door? MS. DIAKUN: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just raise an issue here? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, please do, Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This property belonged to my father-in-law, who has since deceased. MS. DIAKUN: The Slejeskis? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. Does t~is have any bearing on this issue? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Not to me. ASST. TOWN. ATTY. CORCORAN: I don't think s~ unless you feel you can't be partial. December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I'll s~ay with nhe hearing, and I'll still ponder uhau issue until we acuually go and vote, thank yolk. ASST. TOWN. ATTY. CORCORAN: There's no technical rule that will prohibit you from naking part. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: No ethic. They bought in same names? MS. DIAKUN: Yes, they're both jointly owned by my mom and dad, Nick and Olga Diakun. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your mom and dad bought the property together because they're married and they share everything and unfortunanely what happens is this. I have a lot of problems with this merger law, so and I can fully agree than you should get what you're asking for, but unfortunanely, that doesn't happen like that. The lot, there's a house on the lo~? MS. DIAKUN: On one lot, uhere's a raised ranch on one lou and then a vacant lot. (Whereupon, Board Member Tortora entered the hearing.) BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does nhe house have anything on it that supports t~e house? MS. DIAKUN: He plants vegetables there, tomatoes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No shed? MS. DIAKUN: Very little shed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: MS. DIAKUN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: MS. DIAKUN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ,On the vacant lot? No swimming pool? Is it fenced in? MS. DIAKUN: He has bushes. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's defined with evergreens. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically I'm just putting this on the record. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It's defined with evergreens you can see. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There are no uesspools that you would have to move? MS. DIAKUN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The setbacks of the house now, with this divided it would still meet uhe proper setbacks. I always ask this question, do you read the Suffolk Times? 35 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 6 ? 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 limited doesn't MS. DIAKUN: I don't live here, and it's English, Polish. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Polish? So he get the Suffolk Times in Polish? MS. DIAKUN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ask that question Oecause the only place that they would find the place to know that they would have a lot merger would be the Suffolk Times because I'm sure the Town still sent them separate tax bills on this. MS. DIAKUN: Right, they still do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With separate tax numbers and probably at no part during this did they realize that it was merged until they went to sell it; is that correct? MS. DIAKUN: Again, with estate planning issues now and in the event, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So up until recently that's when? MS. DIAKUN: Yes, they had no idea the lots were merged. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAHq ORLA/qDO: Also I'll a~d for the record that the property is clearly defined with evergreens. It's bordered off. Looks like it's somewhat been maintained as cleared and the lot size, I'm looking for the tax map, it is typical of the neighborhood, it's not larger or smaller, Out it's about the same. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If it were divided it would be typical. If two separate lots are no larger or smaller than any lot that was there, the merged lot is larger. MS. DIAKUN: Well, the merged lot is an acre. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: If they were unmerged. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I just wan~ te make that clear. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Geehringer, do yeu have any ether questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I only raise that issue because this was part of my father in law's farm. This is how these properties were sold. He held mortgages on most of them. These very nice peeple pay these merEgages elf, and those were the issues in these days, in Sunset Knolls Section One. And I still 36 December 16, 2004 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 haven't decided if I'm voting on it or not. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the improved lot is Lot Number 34, eno the lot to be unmerged would be Number 35? MS. DIAKUN: Yes. The home is on Lot 34. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora, are you prepared for any questions? BOARD MEMBER TORTO~A: No, I'm familiar with this application. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf or opposed to this application? I see no one, I'll make a motion no close this hearing and reserve decision. <See minutes for resolution./ CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application 5615, John and Joanne Gouveia. MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano for the applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Gouveia owned this house for several years. They're proposing a minor addition on the back of the house. The purpose of the addition is so thau they can gain some headroom in the bedroom. Anything that they would do on the inside brings into question the issue of conformity with the building codes because the ceilings are low. So, if I might just refer you ts the survey, and the sketches that I submitted with the application, I'll point out thau would be the northeast corner of the existing dwelling is Ehe area where the proposed addition is. They would like to make an addition of approximately ~.8 fee~ Oy 17.6 feet thereby squaring off ~he back corner of the house. That will allow them to gain some headroom on the in~erzor of the house. We do not propose coming any closer to the bulkhead than the structure presently exists. We're looking to close in a corner and meet the existing setbacks. I'd like to add uoo, that there's a strange configuration under this house in that chore are existing concrete walls, so it doesn't even appear that excavation will be necessary because there are concrete piers and foundatiozis under this property, we're not sure why, they ±~aven'n gonnen the history on it, but iu appears at one time there ma}' have been a ramp from the ~each before the bulkhead was extended so it's possible uhat that may have been how this came 37 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 11_0 12 1_3 14 iLS ]_6 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 about. There is a wood deck that exists in the area where the proposed addition would be. And the second part of the proposal is to extend the wood deck to meet the addition b!' creating a radius and that radius would hold the existing setbacks. So basically we would just be building over the already disturbed area because there's concrete piers and a concrete floor under this area, so they would be filling in with decking an area that's already essentially improved. It's hard to describe it, and again I would request, make the same request as my earlier hearing in that my photographs I'd like to submit because I had a problem wi~h my printer at 11:00 at night, you push the button and it just says no. So I realize, although it hasn't been staned by the Board, I realize that in reading the notice of disapproval it has the appearance of Doing substantial in the number of variances that are requested here, but because of the fact that this is a small lot, in's approximately 50 feet in width, with a depth at the most 134 feet, 110 on the easterly side. And the setbacks are nonconforming presennly, both in side yard well, everything about the house is nonconforming because it is an old structure, it's an original Sears house, as an interes{~ing aside, for which ~hey have the original plans. But anyway, we're looking te make a miner addition to a small house for the purpose ef gaining a lizzle bit of livable space and some headroom because ~hese ceilings are low. We're net looking ze further increase the degree ef nonconformity in that the setbacks that presently exzst will be held. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes. Actually I jush wanted to confirm it is a one-story building and it will stay a ene-s~ory? MS. HESI.~[O: Yes, we're not proposing to ge up. CHAIRNLAN ORLANDO: I think it's a modesh addition. The only problem is you're maximizing our leaps and bounds let coverage by a couple ef percents, and I don't think we're ready to raise the bar, we've never gone any higher than 29. BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: 28.5 on Sigsbee Roa~. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On a tiny lo~. 38 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And this is a tiny lot. And your lot coverage now is 31.3 you're saying? MS. MESIANO: Our lot coverage now is 29 and we're proposing the increase to 31. I have some question in my own mind as to how that number is derived because the area that we're proposing to create Ehis extension is presently covered by deck and foundation area. So is it truly an increase in the lot coverage? And I'm having difficulty reconciling that myself because there is foundation under that area although it's exposed and there is decking in the area where uhe addition would be placed. So is that truly increasing the lot coverage? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You know what may have happened here, if you look at the notice of disapproval nhey're calculating Ehat your total lot coverage is 31.3, so maybe they calculated that you just said it, you had calculated at 29, so perhaps they had already calculated nhat area in the lou coverage, and that's because I was trying to figure out how come if you're adding just what you said, if you're a~ding an addition to the deck, and then the 8 by 17 addition, how it ended one percent en their notice ef disapproval. So it would appear to me that what they did, the Building Department, was they included thaE soncreue par~ in the initial calculation. MS. MESIANO: ThaE's really the only explanation because it's an irregular situation. How often de you have concrete foundation exposed te the sky actually? IE's a very unusual situation. I don't know if you went around the back ef the house, and again, I apologize I have very descriptive phones showing the improved area underneath, se I guess the bottom line is the question, are we really increasing the degree ef let coverage because it's already covere~ bt' foundation even though that foundation is net under habitable space or impervious areas. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you wane ~o clarify this or adjourn this a little bit? Clarify your lee coverage, whether they counted it or di~n'e count it. MS. MESIANO: Sure, sure, I'll come back before you ~reak for lunch. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you want to make it 39 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right after lunch? We have some adjournments in the afternoon. MS. MESIANO: Okay, I'll come back at 1:15, make sure all ~he numbers are worked CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: O~ay, so I'll make a moUion to adjourn nhis to 1:1~. ISee minutes for resoluEion.) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Mesiano, I did go around the waUer side and iu was kind of difficuln uo visualize. MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry, I had the problem getting ~he pictures. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Nex~ application is Elizabeth Peyton and Anthony Just, 5632, on Village Lane in Orient. Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy here on behalf of the applicanns. I'm handing up my notice of posting {handing) . This is an application install a lap pool on village Lane in Orient. Zoning there is R-40. This is non-conforming. It's a small lot, less than 1,400 square feet. I'~ handing up a copy of ~he tax map in which I colored in the lots so you could get a feel for it. The reason for giving you ~ne tax map is so ycu can look aE the lot i~meO[ately to the north af this lot, which is the eorner of the Main Road, Route 25, and Village Lane. The house nha~'s on that lot is certainly forward of where we would normally expect a house to be. It's virtually on the Main Road. So what ~hat means is that the yard that faces uheir side where they're putting the pool in, it's an extensive yard. In's non a side yard ~o a side yard; it's virtually a backyard to a side yard, and ~hat makes a difference because I uhink the problem is we're punting a pool in a side yard, but we're not facing a neighbor's side yard, we're essentially facing a neighbor's backyard. And there really isn't anyplace else to put this pool. I'm handing up a copy of a survey completed recently from Pesonic Surveyors to show the distance of the cesspools and ~he well, is the disnance than's shown on uhis ~nap from ~he well to uhe cesspool is 110 feet. There isn't any o~her place than you can pun the cesspool and get it further away uhan it presennly is from the well or from where the swimming pool would be. 4O December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 The Health Department has standards, which I think you're aware of, which they publish. The must recent standards was published in 1995. There's also one in 1985. I have copies of both ~o shew that the distances required fur the distance between the well and the cesspool is initially 100 feet but the leaching pools must be lb0 feet. So we can't move the cesspool anyplace on the site. You'i1 notice that the garage is in the rear yard; the cesspool is in the rear yard, se we're constrained as te what we can de with the site. This is not a regular swimming peel, it's a lap pool, so it's only 12 feet wide and 55 feet long, but there isn't any place on this particular site looking at the map, realizing what the standards are -- and I'll hand those up to be part of the record that we can put this peel. If 5'ou have seen the house, the house is fenced in the back, sides, on the side yard, which would be adjoining the pool there are arborvitaes that are planted. They're approximately five feet high, they will get much higher over a period of time. So they would be screened from the neighbor, t0ut basically we don't have any other place that we could put a pool en the site. That's why I was showing you the Health Department requirements, bu~ we would have to move it but moving it wouldn't help us because we would be less than we are presently. We're the maximull~ distance we can be at any one point so we don't have an alternative, which I think is the question that is the main quesEion here. Again, I'll hand up bo~h copies of the 1995 rules and tile 1998 rules. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Es ~here public water down Village Lane available? MR. CUDDY: I don't believe that there is, not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you know, Jim, if there's public water? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know out in C, rient, but I don't think there is. MR. CUDDY: My clients are here, Miss Peyton and Mr. Just, and they said no, there isn't. And I didn't believe that there was. So we don't have that possibility either. So i~ really leaves us in a position of trying to put it 41 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 · n a place where we certainly would like to put in in the backyard, but we can't put it in the backyard because as soon as we do that we end up going to the Health Department, and we're not going to get approved by the Health Department. They're going to say to us that this is the best yon can do. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They were changed from 100 foot to 150 feet? HR. CUDDY: What they de is they tell you if you put a new pool in you have te do it two ways. You put in the septic unit, which has to be at least 100 feet away. You put in the leaching peels, and they have to be 150 feet away. So to de a whole new unit by the way is an expense, an enormous expense, but even doing i~ we still den't meet their requirements, and that's the problem. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I did visit the site. I get the impression it was almost in the front l~ard. You felt that impression because I could leek ever the fence and see the stakes. It was real close. The arborvitaes, as I'm facing that fence, it's your client's shrubbery? HR. CUDDY: That's right. CNAIRNLAN ORLANDO: I don't knew if they were five feet, but they were pretuy low because I was looking around it. HR. CUDDY: I measured them abou~ this size, I'm six feet. CMAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don't knew, when you come around the corner it's right there. I'm not in love with this idea. I have ne objection to a lap peel, but it's just also with let coverage. Do theM talk about lot coverage with ~his? H~. CUDDY: They noted that the let coverage was within 20 percent, which is yes. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: See what the other 8oard Members have to say. Mr. Goehringer? BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have a particular problem with this application. I know that it is in Ehe side yard, and you, ef course, clearly stated the reasons for the placement ef the pool. The fence surrounds the yard. I den'E know if you're going to surroun~ the peel. There, ef course, could be additional screening toward the road so that the peel couldn't be seen through ~he fence. MR. CUDDY: We would propose that b!, the 42 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 way to pun additional screening. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Outside the fence? MR. CUDDY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's an area that would either be garden or somethin~ else. I don't have a particular problem with it. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You know, you probably won't see it from the road because there is a fence there. Can the pool be moved back closer to the house three feet? MR. CUDDY: It could, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That way it would basically meeu at least the minimum. MR. CUDDY: The normal side yard. Yes, we osuld do that. We tried to figure out where to place it because I think, yes, because it is ~hree feet. BOARD MEMEER DINIZIO: Then it would give you a 10 foot setback. You could build your house uo there if you wanted to so why not the lap pool. And it's not going to be lighted, covered, anything like that? MR. CUDDY: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about decking? MR. CUDDY: It's not proposed to have a dec~ there. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you wanted to move it 10 foot off the side yardi BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just three feet more. He could take his house and build that. He could build it 55 foot and still come within the lot coverage, so what we're doing is maybe adding a little more in ~he summer, that's swimming, in's not going to be than much further away. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: How deep is a lap pool? MR. CUDDY: Four to six leon. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It averages er it could be either or? MR. CUDDY: I think iE starts and gradually goes towards the center, that's my understanding is than it's between four and six feet. board? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no diving MR. CUDDY: No. 43 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 1 S, 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Uniquely to a lap pool I assume the reason for no decRing is that you probably enter the pool an one specific source locanion and you continue to enter it and exit it from that location I assume? MR. CUDDY: Yes. Because it's swimming back and forth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRM}~ ORLANDO: Are you good, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I tend to agree that the 10 foot would be better, and also give your arborvitaes a chance to grow and give your neighbors a little privacy. MR. CUDDY: We don'~ have a problem, and we can get some taller bushes too. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don't see anybody else here, so I don't think nhere's anyone here opposed ~o uhis application. I'll make a mouion to close this hearing and reserve decision. iSee minutes for resolution. I CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll make a motion ~o take a lunch recess, to reconvene aE 1:00 p.m.} [See minutes for resolution.} CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll make a motion to /See minutes for resolution. I CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Firs~ application Peter and Mary Jacobs, 5604. Is there anl'one here representing Peter or Mary Jacobs? This is a BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I believe we left it where she only had to submiu the amended survey at the Board's request for a 31 foot rear yard instead of a 31 foot front yard, and she did submit it. So I'm not sure if she understood she was going to have to be here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Actually had ~o come back. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don't think she needs to come back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The front yard would have been nonconforming. We askeO her to move it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was something uo 44 December 16, 2004 1 3 5 ? 8 10 11 ]2 17 18 ~0 22 23 25 to with the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We did ask her to do this and she did exactly what we asked. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It is two variances because of the lot coverage. She had to amend The application, and we had to readvertise iY because we had i~_ posted for a front l'arl setback before, and now it's a rear yard setback and the lot c:o~zerage so it's complete now and ready. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Looks a lot k~etter. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They pushed it bacK. Any questions, Mr. Goehringer, internally? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio, any further questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision unnil later. !See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll make a motion to approve application 5604. ISee minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: With a 35 foot front yard, 31 foot rear yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Alternative relief. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application we have 5626, C.D. Rei~er's, Old Barge Restaurant. Mr. Angel MR. ANGEL: For the applicant, Esseks, Hefter and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York, Stephen Angel of Counsel. I have an original affidavit of postzng Ihandingl . I had a conversation with Linde yesterday and we neglected to send out the written notices by certified mail, purely my mistake. There are only mhree that have to be sent, and I would respectfully request that you listen to the application, then adjourn it, and I will send out. notices with an appropriate cover letter for whatever adjourn dated you set, and give the people an opportunity to come in and say their piece, either object, approve or say nothing. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That would De fine. ~5 December 1,5, 2004 46 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANGEL: This is an application in substance put a second floor mezzanine on top of the Old Barge Restaurant. It's been kicking around before the Building Department and the Planning Board on site plan applications for a few fears, and the reason we're before you is that when the applicant and her engineer and architect went before the Planning Board on the current sine plan application, a determination was made by the Building Department that a rear yard setback variance was necessary. The property's in the Marine 2 District. The use, which is needless to say nonconforming, nevertheless is a permitted use by special exception in the Marine 2 District. And there is, along with my application I gave you, a copy of the notice of disapproval from the Building Department. As it turns out subsequent on that, the Building Department changed its position and has measured the rear yard line from the o1~ subdivision deed line and has determined, which I believe is 29 feet from that line, has determined that no variance is necessary. Though in conversations with your staff, I wanted to retain the notice for the variance in case the Board disagreed wiEh the builting inspector. I wanted you to have jurisdiction to entertain a variance if necessary, bu~ there is, you'll see, there's a notice of {isapproval then a subsequent memo from the Building Department in effec~ withdrawing it. The second aspect of the application is a special exception, which when I made the application, that was the secondary aspecu of it. We were concerned that when we go back Eo Ehe Planning Board, since we are adding a little bit of bulk ~o the building -- by the way there's no additional seating capacity -- that the Planning Board may say that any additional bulk would necessitate a special exception, even though the underlying restaurant has been there legally as a nonconforming use so we made also an application fsr a special exception. So hopefully when we go oack to the Planning Board, we're only going to deal with site plan issues, not issues of variances and special exceptions. Now, your code has probably -- well, it has A through F, that's six basic factors you have ~o take into consideration on a special exception December 16, 2004 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 25 application, and A through P, probably about 20 other general factors that have to be taken into consideration. And I don't think in this particular application what we're really doing is putting a mezzanine er second fleer within the boundaries of the existing building. Unless you want me to, I can discuss each one of the factors because they're pretty self evident. Nothing's changing en the site, the capacity's net changing. I went to look at the site, it really leeks like a barge. If you've been there, the sides are moving. In case you're questioning how we're going to put a second floor on uhere, there's apparently a type of foundation called the helical structure that will be put into the space of the ,~ownsuairs portion and properly anchored to put uhat second floor on it. It will stablize both the building and the second floor. So, if you have any questions, I'O be pleased to answer them. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Please, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This I guess probably is the confines of the special exception, and we don't normally do construction, but it amazes ~e how this could be done in a wood frame building. MR. ANGEL: You mean code? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. HR. ANGEL: Well, if the second floor ~s small enough or the mezzanine is small enough anO the square footage of the mezzanine related to the existing square footage of the restaurant, it will meet code. So what we're asking you to do is to approve the concept of the second floor within the confines of the existing building. We still have to Oeal with a whole bunch of issues on the design. One, we have to deal with code requirements that they're dealing with with their engineer and architect and your engineer and Building Department; and two, we have to deal with flood plain requirements beca~se the construction and the retrofitting that's proposed. And the reason I say second floor or mezzanine is that I'm not sure how it's going to work out when ~ltimately building code compliances is complied with. December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was thinking, and again, only [rom a safety point of view - and please in no way am I trying %o shoot this project down, I'm actually exuremely interested in knowing how this is going to occur because I thought you needed cement block construction, which I believe in New York State Building Code is re[erred to as Type 5, again, this is just hypothesis on my part -- to create a second floor in a building uhat serves alcohol in the State of New York? MR. ANGEL: I don't think that's correct. I ~hink if there's a mezzanine construchion, I be£ieve that you don't need to do blocks, and don't even believe that BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Steel anyway, right? MR. ANGEL: I don't know what it is, but that's been discussed and there are memos going back and forth going back five years because there was a plan for an architect tha~ was an ou~ town architect that was discussed. I was involved three or four years ago on issues of that nature, Jerry, with the state architect, but really, you're righu, there are all sorts of technical code compliance, but the code does permit in actualiuy what they propose. They would not have proposed it and put all this money into the application process and the plans without that expectation. It is doable with the existing building. The other constraint, which is also a code consnraint, which I alluded to is the flood plain. And ~he flood plain you can't do new construc~zon, I think i~'s more than 25 or 50 percent of the value of the existing structure. So whatever we build within that envelope thau we hopefully get approved will have to fall within that requirement so ultimately it may even be more modest internally. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in dealing with the special exception if one was wriuing this decision, I assume since we're dealing with a co~nmercial strucnure which is a restaurant, and which serves alcoholic beverages, uhat i~ would not be improper in saying that it would have to meet all New York State code requirements? MR. ANGEL: AbsoluteLy not. BOARD MEMBER GOEHR[NGER: And that special Dece~nber 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exception would be predicated on that situation? MR. ANGEL: It has ~o meet it anyway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I'm not trying to shoot this down in any way or cause you any dismay as the agent for the applicant. MR. ANGEL: No. While we're speaking here and while this has been going the person for C.D. Reiter's whose handling it is Carol Denison, and Carol has been in touch with your engineer on numerous occasions and bas had meetings concerning code compliance and the compliance with the flooO plain regulations. So this is an ongoing concern, and I have no objection to you if you write a decision in our favor tha~ it has to comply wi~h all codes, because it has to anyway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I'm so concerned about this, no~ concerned, b~ it makes me innerested is because I think i~ is the first one that we've ever done on an existing restaurant where we've actually had a second story application. I know it's been done in the Village of Greenport and what they have done, I have no idea, but in this particular one it's the first one that I nave seen. MR. ANGEL: There are substantial constraints in ~he building code. I didn't prepare myself for them, but I know at one point Carol had hired, although sba grew up here, lives in Delaware, and she had hired a Delaware architect in the late '90s to do a plan that did sloe comply with code. It was too much of an expense, so that plan sort ef died along wi~h the - there was a prior site plan approval, a conditional site plan approval ~hat was given, · think in the late '90s or around 2000, then she hired a local architect and a local engineer who have been working I believe pretty much on and off, and now fairly actively with your staff over here to deal with those code compliance issues but in's doable. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Does the existing restauran~ have a special exception or is it preexisting? MR. ANGEL: Preexisting. There's a CO for -- BOARD HEHBER TORTORA: I saw the CO for December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 S the restaurant that was I think September 1989 she}' enacted the zoning. It was very close in there. MR. ANGEL: I mean the new code, it would have needed some soru of approval in the pasC. As far as I know it's nonconforming and that CO was issued as a result of that. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It's interesting. Maybe we could clarify that because if it's not nonconforming, I'm having a hard time understanding why we're here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Actually I checked the record, and there's no special excepcion that's been applied for over the years until now. So the restaurant use has been preexisting. MR. ANGEL: Why if it's preexisting am I here, is that the question? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: For the special exception. MR. ANGEL: There's a memo in the file that Carol got as part of her meetings with the Planning Board and it's staff which indicated the need of a special exception under these circumstances. So I felt it was prudenE when we had to make the application for the variance to include tha~ also. I didn't want to be in a sinuation where we went back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board would make an interprenation that when you add bulk to the building it's a special exception application. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask the town atnorney something? Is there a provision in the code that permits a certain amount of expansion to the business that would apply nero? ASST. TOWN. ATTY. CORCORAN: I'd have to look it up, I don't know. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought it was primarily in the parking area. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That provision that was added a couple years ago to the code. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Are you talking abou~ the 15 percent? It doesn't appl~~ to the Planning Board site plan review. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, exactly. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: This doesn't fall under that because you're not increasing the percentage of the lot coverage at all. You're sEaying the same footprint, correct? 5O December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANGEL: We're staying the same exterior footprint, we're nee creating an}' additional lot coverage, correct. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Does it refer to lot coverage, Linda, or a percentage increase in the size? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Member Tortora is talking about another provision of the code regarding businesses where you're allowed to increase by 15 percent. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It was added in there a couple years ago it was 100-244, I believe. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I thought that was when you changed the footprint of the building? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don'~ know. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Building Department didn'~ deny it for that reason. MR. ANGEL: Well, we're in the nonconforming area here. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I~ talks aOout the exceptions. MR. ANGEL: I think I found it, Nonresidential Uses in 192~43. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where it talks about an increase of 15 percent? MR. ANGEL: Right. I have it right here. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The restaurant never goU a special exception, right now it's a preexisuing nonconforming use. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: why the}, ~old you. MR. ANGEL: I think you're referring E.D 100 243 A1A, which has nothing in this article shall be deemed uo prevent ~he remodel, reconsErucmion or enlargement of a nonconforming -- do you want te see it? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. HR. ANGEL: While I bring this up, I ~hink - CHAIRMAN ORL~{DO: Mr. Angel, also en your site plan, here, can you s~ow me where tha~ 29 feet setback would be for ~ne rear yard? MR. ANGEL: I~'s not on that, in's on a separate survey, and I have that use somewhere. I'm going ~o hand up a survey Ihanding} . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The survey submitted is dated September 20th. Okay, maybe nhat's 51 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2b ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is the question whether a special exception is needed au all? There's no prior special e×ception. It's just a preexisting nonconforming. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is it a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use? MR. ANGEL: The use is technically conforming. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think ~hat's the reason why you're here. MR. ANGEL: I'll tell you exactly why we're here, there's an internal memorandum uhat my client got probably three months ago, four monEhs ago, dated May 19, 2004, and there's a suatement the Planning Board staff refers to the necessity of a special exception, it's noU 100 percenu clear it's going to be a condition, then Mr. Verity said the use permitted by special exception site plan required. When we looked at this, we didn'n want ts Oe in the situation coming for a variance going i2ack ~o Ehe Planning Board and saying well, you're adding onto it, you need a special exception for uhe addition, and we're back here again. So, if you make a determination nhat the special exception is not necessary under your coOe for this particular project ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR~: Right, that would control. MR. ANGEL: Righu, that would be sufficient. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Righu. MR. ANGEL: Or it can grant us a special exception. I just don't want u¢} non address the BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I understand. What's your reading on tha{~, Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Back to my question, ~his use is only permitted via special exception; is than correct? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORA~: And there is no special exception? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So in essence, it could be considered a nonconforming use, but in's preexisting, nonconforming use in the absence sf a special exception, right? 52 December 16, 2004 53 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANGEL: I haven't done the research on it. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Logically? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Building Department says it requires a special exception. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, but you ,~ould say they're wrong. BOARD MEMBER TORTOPA: That's right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ton't think you want to do that. I think you just want to grant the special exception. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Be done with it? MR. ANGEL: My preference would be to have a determination that a special exception is granted to the extent necessary for the addition, that sort of addresses it. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And move on? MR. ANGEL: And move on. But, like I said before, if you wanted to deal with the issue and say that under these circumstances, which you're F. robabiy better off, rather than digging yourself a hole because it's such a diminimus application, granting the special exception rather than -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I agree with you, because I know what you want, you want to move on. ~ would like, though, that maybe the Town Attorney seuld look a~ it, because we're going to adjourn this anyway, so that for future applicants, if it is not needed, that the determination isn't rendered by the Building Department and the Planning Board anO that this prevision in the code is looked at. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's clear, there's a little wrinkle to this application, it's clear that if it's a nonconforming building with a ncnconforming use, you can expand it by 15 percent as of right. The only question is, as I mentioned, is it a nonconforming use given the fact that it's permitted by special exception but you don't have a special exception? BOARD MEMBER DINIZEO: I would say they're clearly going more than 15 percent anyway. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Expansion-wise? BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: Yes. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That makes it a moot point then? BOARD MEMBER DINIZEO: Honestly E think the building inspector looked at this as you're December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 increasing this, therefore you need a special exception; in other words, you're enlarging the business. All right, now is the time te nave a special exception. Nothing really is clear here o~her than the face you're adding a second story ~o the business, you're increasing the size. The Town always leeks at it that way, and I think you can grant the special exception then you're blessed by the town and you'll ge ne further than that. MR. ANGEL: That's the way I looked at it. t didn't want to be in a position where I was going back and forth. I felt that this was a snealnh problem because of uhat internal memo. That would be my preference, but you are the Board. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: IU's unusual. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like te just ask a couple questions. CHAIR~N ORLANDO: Ge ahead, Mr. Dinizio. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is issued, and if you're no~ adding any more seats, wha~ exactly is going en in there? MR. ANGEL: I think they're going to put tables up there ue look on nhe water better. I think that's the idea, no capacity addition. not anticipated because when I actually, I ~ook it upon myself to be the agent and I prepared the papers for her, and I did a short form EAF, and I said uhe one pouential impact was there might be a slight increase in some solid waste due te increased usage. I get criticized by the client saying that she doesn't intend Eo increase the capacity. She just wants te probably make it nicer. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are ~hey going to move from downstairs te upstairs? HR. ANGEL: Yes. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: The}, may lose some teem just from having to pnt the addition. HR. ANGEL: I think they're going to lose room for the structural members that are going have Eo come up ~hrough the downstairs without changing the envelope, and I think they're probably going te have an open mezzanine, and they just want to put tables with a Oetter view. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. 54 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'll inake a motion co adjourn this application to January 20th a~ 1:00 p.m. {See minutes for resolution.} CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application FITF, LLC, application 5617, upon request from the applicant, they would like it pcs~pened, adjourned to January 20th at 1:15. I just want to ask if there is anyone here to speak on behalf of er opposed to that application? Seeing ne eno here te speak. BGARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER I'll make the motion. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The next hearing was an adjournment for John and Jeann Gouveia. What tid you find for us in your diligent search for let coverage? MS. MESIANO: Yes, I went to visit Mr. Metzgar and I had him recalculate everything. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We wen~ ~o Ehe site. MS. MESIANO: Good. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was cold. MS. MESIANO: Yes, it was. I asked Mr. Me~zgar Uo look at everything again and do a recalculation, anO this is what we've come up with. The existing house, decks and shoos is 1,924 square feet. He's also given the coverage for uhe brick walks, the asphalt walks, the patios, everything that's on uhis site so i~'s a whole picture, that contributes another 848 square feet. So uhe ~otal exisuing coverage is 2,772, bu~ I think 1,924 square feeE is the number thaE we're concerned with or correcE me, ~lease, if i ' tn wrong CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think nistoricallV if you could push a lawnmewer BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The concreEe slab is raised er flush? MS. MESIANO: It's flush with the ground in's underneath everything, it's like an open basement area. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you're at 1,9247 MS. MESI~{O: Now, if you then consider our addition, which is 155 square feet, however 55 December 16, 2004 56 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 that 155 square feet will be in the area we've already considered in the firsn calculauion, that's part of the 1,924, so there's no net change as a result of that. We're taking that space that's presently deck, and that becomes enclosed habitual space, but there's no net change in lot coverage. The deck itself, the deck extension is that radius on the northeasn corner, part of Ehat is over the concreEe slab than's already considered in the toEal lot coverage. So nhe area that is not over the area already considered is salculated to be approximately 28 square feet according Ed Mr. Metzgar. So, whether you back out Ehe driveway, the brick walP~, et cenera, an~ deal jusn with the deck, house, et cetera, whether you back that dUE or look at the gross number, nhe difference is the same, it's a half a percent. That's the net difference in the existing lot coverage to the proposed lot coverage. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So your house, deck, and shed is what percent of loE coverage? MS. MESIANO: Right now nhe house, deck and shed is 1,924 divided by 6137 is 14 percenn. 14.04. And at the end of Ehe day we weuld have ne back into this number -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That can't be righE. HS. HESIANO. 1,924 divided by 6137 is -- I'm sorry, 31.3. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then with the extra 28 square feet in makes it 31.8 percent? HS. HESIANO: Yes. So that's the nee difference is one half percenE. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And the Building Department had in their disapproval a similar figure? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's right. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: I theught they calculated 29 percent. HS. HESIANO: The amended disapproval says exisning let coverage 31.3, preposed 32.7. So I don't know hew they get te thaE point. They probably weren't taking into consideration the slab underneath. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So you're asking for 31.87 MS. MESIANO: 31.8, correct. While we're waiting, I'll hand you up a letter from a neighbor. December 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2b BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: From Mr. Lark and Maria Casagorges, they have no objections to the proposal. They feel the extension would enhance the value of their home and turn their home into a more valuable building as well. Please give them the utmost consideration when they apply for their MS. MESIANO: This is the property immediately to the east, and, just as another aside, if you have been to the site, I'm probably being redundant, but all of the houses in that stretch of beach are of similar size, character, condition in that they're built very close to the ~roperty lines, and they're built very close no the bulkheads, some of them have been expanded and are full two suory houses, so I think their lot soverage is at least equal to our situation and their floor area ratio would be significantly greater because of the area of t~e houses some of them are a full two stories. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make uhe :notion to close the hearing. ~See minutes for resolution./ CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application 5408, Orient Fire District, bouh attorneys defending both people have requested an adjournment to January 20, 2005 at 1:15. But we will take comments and statements from anyone here who would like to speak on their behalf, sir? MR. SCHRIEVER: Yes, my name is William Schriever, I live in Orient on the Main Road near the park there, East Marion, Orient Park District. I want to speak about this proposed uower on the fire department property. As you ~now, my wife held tha~ fire departmenu property for about a generation, then we sold it to the fire department, and they uook what they wanned, and we sold the other parcels as lots, two acre house lots at the time. They were half acre lots when we bought the property, so we took a punishment for holding than property. But anyway, I plan to be in Orient. My wife and I have a lot in t~e cemetery that's just south of uhis property, so I'm going to be there 57 Dece[nber 16, 2004 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1'4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 even after I'm dead so my concern is that maybe the issues that are being talked about are not the real issues, so I just want to give you my view of the thing. As far as the fire department's concerned, and I was a member for 16 years, if the}, need the annenna, then they should get nhe antenna. I mean, I can't imagine that that would be denied. Haybe there's no way you can deny it. But at any rate, I want to speak on ~han issue. I'~ ii1 favor of ~hat. If the Eewn police nee~ an antenna, ~hen they should get it. What I'm really here to speak aOout is the cell phone aspect of this thing which originally was incorporated into the application, and I don't understand what the objection is. I had an objection about them putting a flag up there ~ecause of the noise of the thing flapping around. I don't know if you go to Peconic Landing and listen Ee the flag out in front of the administrative building there in the wind, I i~iean it's terribly noisy, and I noticed in the last time I heard them present the thing they said the}, weren'~ going to put tha~ up there except on special occasions, which was my request. Se that was my objection. The thing that concerns me is I don't understand why people want to run this thing out of town, which apparently is what ~hey want to do. The cell phone technology is such that you need a tower every two mi~es because the range ef eno of those towers is about a mile. Se they snoweO here a couple times age, that when you put the cell phone antenna in Greenport that you reach abou~ the Orient, East Harion Park District, you don't quite geu to my house. Se we need something in Orient if we're going te have cell phones in Orient, in fact, we need two ~owers. We need one en the west end and eno en the eas~ end. And i heard somewhere that there was an offer by the Ferry District te allow one to go up there. So I'm just trying to anticipate the future here. I hope that you will allow these towers Eo be built because we desperately need them. New, as far as the cell phone Eechnelogy is concerned, uhis technology is spreading all over uhe world and a let ef countries are developing without land-line phones, they're doing ~8 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it on cell phones. So this is very important. And I heard that there's about one cell phone for every two people living in the United States, which seems incredible, but anyway, there's a lot of cell phones, and it's here ~o stay. They're going to be three companies, three major companies. There have been some mergers recently and Sprint is one of the ones that's going to survive, and they have a tower in the church so there would be two more needed in Orient, and I don'~ see why they couldn't go in this tower as proposed originally. I guess nhey were ~hinking about there might be three in there, but I doubt it now with these mergers. So we need to make provision for two more antennas in the west end of Orient, and it seems ~o me this is ~he logical place to put them. We need ~he tower anyway, fou're not going to see them excep~ for nhe hardware tha~ goes at the base of the antenna. I have a Verizon cell phone and the service is barely acceptable. I have to go ~o my second floor to geu reliable communication, or I have to go outside. I can't sit in my Iiving room and use uhe cell phone, which is amazing. I have an apartment on Peconic Lan~ing, and that's a s~eel building. Believe it or no~, the cell phone will wor~ inside that s~eel building and it won't work in my living room. It's because you're so much closer to the source, and ~hat's what we need in Orient. We need a cell phone anuenna, we need of them actually. So, I have reached the age of irrelevancy already, but, you know, please try to help us get the technology we need so we can live in ~he modern world. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, sir. Is nhere anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of ~he Orient Poin~ cell tower? If not I'll make a motion ~o adjourn uhis application January 20~h at 1:15 p.m. ISee minu~es for resolution.) CHAIRMAN ORLanDO: That would be nhe end of our public hearing. 59 December 16, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2_~ CERTIFICATION I, Florence V. State of New York, THAT the wiEhin transcript is the testimony given. I further certify that I am not blood or marriage, to any of tile parties to action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the of this maEter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto hand this 16th day of December 2004. Wiles, NoEary Public for the do hereby certify: a true record of related by this outcome set my Florence V. Wiles 6O Decelnber 16, 2004