Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/03/2005 Hear 1 2 3 4 b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN 0 F S OUT H 0 L D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Sonthold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York March 3, 2005 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present : RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, MICHAEL SIMON, LINDA KOWALSKI, KIERAN CORCORAN, Board Member Board Member Board Secretary AssisEan~ Town A~norney ORIGINAC COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to call to ~rder the regular scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for March 3, 2005. I'd like a motion to declare all our applications a Negative Declaration and do not have any effect on the environment. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is a carryover from Kostoulas, is there anybody here to speak to that? Good morning. MR. WEIL: I'm Reggie Well, architect for Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas. I submitted the information that was requested on lot coverage and also a survey of one and two story houses on that block. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Mr. Goehringer has some comment on this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, Miss Weil, I discussed this with you and had been present at the hearing in 1.991. I have no specific objection to the application in general except for those side areas that we were referring to -- some of us were referring to, I'm not speaking for the Board -- however, the lot coverage aspect is way off Oased upon what uhe calculations are thau I made. I can either share those calculations with you at this time, we can fax you a copy of those calculations tomorrow, yeu can run over them. I'm not an engineer. I've been doing this for a little while but there are some odd decks. I just want you to be aware that every deck that is raised is a part of lo~ coverage, and primarily those decks that we dealt with in 1991 is a part of lot coverage. Notwithstanding that fact, I don't have any objection to this applicauion, as I said. I am uelling you I'm coming up with a lot coverage of 1.4 percent. So we're at 21.405. And quite honestly, you can review mine. I'd be very happy to make the motion granting this application to this Board at 21.4. But we have to go down on record that we are dealing with a 10,872 square foou lot, and that we have a substantial amounu of lot coverage based upon these decks, and that's ~he story. So I would say you can ~ake mine, you c~n review it, you can come back, but I have no oOjection to the addition, which is almost March 3, 2005 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 dilninimus based upon the size of the decks in the back of the propersy, meaning toward the wa5er side. And I didn't even take into consideration the deck at 5he bottom of the stairwell; I just deal5 mainly with the buildings at the bottom, which are also part of lot coverage. This happens all the time when surveyors look at these things, Oecause unless they do an actual field inspection, and this is not in any way derogatory or sarcastic toward any surveyor or engineer t~at does work in this town, they wouldn't know, and foliage has grown up around them and so on and so forth, bL~t those are the issues ~hat we're dealing with. And I just need to have that on the record that it does exceed the 20 percent, and when the time comes, which I guess is nex~ Thursday when our special meeting is, I will deal with it. MS. WEIL: I would appreciate a copy o~ your calculations, and I will align mine and see where the discrepancy is, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have any comments? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mt, opinion stays the same as last time. I don'm have a problem wi~h the front deck as long as i~ doesn'~ expand beyond the original footprint in width. I was looking for the number off the top of my head, whether it was 20 feet or 30, I don't remember, but not to exceed either side of the existing house now. MS. WEIL: 30'3". BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 30'3" that's the widnh of nhe house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the lot coverage issue, I'll let you fight it out with Mr. Goehringer. MS. WEIL: We won't fight, we'll figure it out. Mr. that you may dispnte that lot Mr. Goehringer gives to you? MS. WEIL: As long as 1.b percent over. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I concur with Orlando. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would we expect coverage ~at it's not a problem 3 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're not objecting Eo the 1.5 percent? MS. WEIL: No, what's there is there. If you don't approve the extension beyond the property, do I need to resubmit for the new side? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MS. WEIL: Okay. Just by letter I can indicane nhat we stay within that restriction? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution./ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is Dorouhy Faucon, which was a one family house and now became a two-family house, and now the building inspector decided it was always a one-family house. Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Good morning, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicant. I believe you have the affidavits of posting and publication, so I think we're all set there. As you said, the building inspector, it's a shame ne didn't look at this two or three years ago when the upstairs was occupied by a Secuion $ tenant and the downstairs bt' an elderly couple. You can clearly see it was a two-family house. The issue before you really is was it converted prior to the enactment of zoning in 1957, and if you find from all the prooIs submitted there we are with uhe pre-existing. The building inspector has looked a~ everything that you have, and he just felt that he coul~ not make a determination because originally, and I agreed with him, tha~ the house was built in 1849, and i~ was a single family because it was like the manor house efa very large parcel. In fact, it wenE ~11 the way back uo the railroad and before the ~ailread was put in, because in the early ~iele Ehey gave a right ef way for the railroad to run, Ee bisect the farm up en the north end. If you haven't been in the house, I invite you ~o go. In the back rooms in the upstairs, you can see thaE's where the servants had iived because ~hat's Eypical of Ehe construction at that time. And Ehe March 3, 2005 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 garage, just so you know, was built in 1899, Ehat's back on the back property line there. It was purchased, as you have in your papers, in 1942 by the applicant's mother-in-law. And she, at EhaE point, used the upstairs as a tourist home. It was a tourist home, and individual rooms were let out either to school teachers or tourists during the summer. In fact, on the property there's an old tourist sign that I did see. The key here is that in 1954 and 1955 and it was used all through the '40s and the ~uratien of the war as a tourist home and also people who worked in the Greenpert shipyard during the war also iived there off and on. But the key was ii1 1954 and '55 when Dorothy Faucon, who's here today, and her husband completely renovated the upstairs and made it a complete independent apartment with the kitchen, bathroom, iiving room, bedrooms and se en and se iorEh and lived there until they built their home and moved out in 1958 and 1959, and ever since that time, the mother, Dorothy Faucon's mother, Elizabeth Faucen, rented the upstairs out and she lived in the downstairs, an.~ you have all the affidavits for that with people who were actually there. The whole point there is since it was prior to '57, you can ask the question, why didn't they de it. My personal knowledge, if I was to testify personally, in 1968, I visited Elizabeth Faucen, I used to work for Bilk wickham at that point, I visited her, he represented her at that time, and I was in ~he house and had gone through uhe house with her, iE was between tenants, it was another matter, and I said why don't you get a certificate from Hr. Terry, Oh, I don't need to bother, I don't need to bother. And of course, she didn't bother and when she died in the mis '80s, 1986, she still hadn't got it, and Brewster, her son, continued with renting both the upstairs and the downstairs at that time. That's the way it was. We wouldn't have to be nero today if it was going to remain in the Faucon family and the sons continued ~o lease it sun and so on and so forth because it is pre-exis~ing, but with the requirements of banks and Mrs. Faucen can't keep uhe home anymore due to net only physically and financially, se she has made arrangements to sell Harch 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it, and the buyer fortunately. Wants to renovate it and bring it back to some of its original glory because he's taking great pains to redo the moldings and take it apart and put them back, and if you've been to the place and modernize the kitchen a little bit. So that's where we are, and i did speak personally to Mr. Verity. And he just won't make the decision. He says leave it to the Board to make it. He understands where you're coming from, but he says just leave it ~o the Board. I was concerned, and I think you have to be -- he will be eventually, with the ingress and egress, but the upstairs both has a back entrance and a front emergency entrance, that door is not sealed, you can get out and ge downstairs and ge out the front door, and, ef course, the downstairs has the entrance off the kitchen and then the front ennrance. That's the way the hems is operated. If l'eu have any questions, Mrs. Faucon's here, one of her sons is here, who actually lived in the house right through high school and then ente college, so if you have any questions at all, I don't wane te belabor the record, you have those affidavits before you. Each and every one ef those people, except the fellow that lived in New Jersey at the time would be glad to come here today, but I thought we would be here for an hour. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Are the new owners trying to use this as a two family or a one-family? MR. LARK: I understand two family. I think he's here today. Ray, do you want 5e address that question she nas? MR. BLUM: Hello, geed morning, Hembers of the Board, Ray Blum from Southold and Peconic. I'm the contract vendee en this property as well as the adjacent landowner, and I have ne problem with the application obviously, and we do plan on using it as a two family. CHAIRWOMA/~ OLIVA: Jerrl', de you have any comments? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, as long as ~he house remains in the original sEaEe and there's no major additions. MR. LARK: No, there can't be, due to the configuration in the side yards, rear yards, everything has to be contained. As you knew, the}' March 3, 2005 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have gradually started to work on it by painting it and restoring it. CHAIRWOMA2J OLIVA: Looks beautiful, by the way. repair; MR. LARK: And everything has been just a there's been lie structural changes at all. CHAIRWOHAi~ OLIVA: If they do get a permit te de ~hau, will they have te put a fire escape en the outside for a two family er are they allowed just to use the ether entrance? MR. LARK: I would think you could use the existing ingress up and the ingress down because there is an in anC out en the second floor. I was concerned about that also, but that's the way that always was, that deer was shut but you could use i~ as an emergency exit and whenever they would mcve furniture in and out, obviously the back stairwell is too narrow so ~hey had to use the front stairwell, which, ef course, is qui~e wide, as it would be in an old house like that. CHAIRWONLRN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. I just agree with Mr. Geehringer, as long as i~ sUays as is. lo~ig as make it MR. LARK: You're talking about footprint? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Footprinu, yes. As you're not going to double it in size and a multifamily -- MR. LARK: You haw~ no problem with that, ds. you? MR. accommodate HR. people come BLUM: No, the lot size doesn't going much larger than it is. ORLANDO: You'd be surprised what back ~o the Zoning Board for. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And ~he garage will remain as a garage just for s~c. rage and for cars? MR. LARK: Yes. That's compleuely accessory. Storage on the second floor lofu and for vehicles and other lawn implements and so forth on the ground floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions, lust for clarification, has it ~een a single family ±~ouse alone during any eime since 19517 MR. LARK: No. I think you have ample testimony before you and I have Mrs. Faucon wMo lived right next door to it -- well, lived on uhe property since '54 and would verify uhat isn't March 3, 2C, 05 8 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 that correct, Dorothy? MRS. PAUCON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I imagine this is going to be used probably as an afforOable alternative for workers and nhings like that. MR. BLUM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know you're a businessman Mr. Blum, so I'm assuming you're going to put looking for an affordable place ~o put some people? MR. BLUM: Sure. And it does blend in with what I own around it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a beautiful house, Oy the way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience thau wishes to speak for this? MR. WALKER: I'm Garrett Walker, I'm Mr. Faucon's oldest son, and I just wanted to address, the house has always been a two-family house. I'm 52 years old and I can remember living in it, watching my parents' house be framed, and the other reason I know it was always a two-family house is there were always tenants in and out of there, constantly various {lime lengths, but the symbol for us, we couldn't sliOe on the banister, inside the house, the front s~airs is tile wide s~airs, it has one ef the (}id fashioned wooden banisters, I don't Lhink it's mahogany but i~'s really nice looking, and it's round at the and you can slide from the top and not going shooting elf and rocket out uhe front door, but close te it, that was always how we knew there were tenants in there, we weren't allowed in the door that that allowed, it was the eld fashioned parlor type entrance, and when there were Uenants, we couldn't go in there because it would disturb the tenants because we'd have to ge up Eo their part of the house to access the banister to get the full slide. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If nobody else wants speak on ~his application, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ISee minutes for resolution.} CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Harch 3, 2005 1 2 5 6 ? 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hichael and Karen Ca~apano, who wishes to raise some goats on less than 10 acres. Yes, sir? HR. CATAPANO: I'm Michael Catapano, this is Karen, my wife. We have some notes [c.r you if that would help you. We currenEly own the goat dairy in Ha~Eituck, and afEer being uhere for two years, it has become evident that to be able to operate efficiently and properly, we need profitability, we need more space. We have some space and storage restrictions there, so we have been seeking a larger property. We come before you today seeking Felief [rom tl~e Building Department's disapproval of our plans for a proper~y at 333705 North Road in Pecenic. This property is a five acre piece with an exisuing house. Ne plan to live in the house and ru~l our goat Oairy a~ that location. In order Eo do than we need to construct a barn, which would serve as storage, as livesueck housing, it wsuld also contain a milk house for milking goats, and a cheese making facility for making cheese. In addition, we would need a small farm s~and in order te sell the dairy products that we inake en the farm. The plans were disapproved for two reasons, uhe first was that 10 acres are needed for keeping and breeding of goats accerdi~ng to the Building Department. We asked fur interpretation of this ruling, the code states Ehat 10 acres are required for horses, domestic animals and fowl, but does not specifically incluOe goats. Also in ~he code, goats are defined as livestock and not as domestic animals. The second reason for disapproval is tha~ five tillable acres are required in order to have a farm suand. We believe that the intended agricultural use of the property is in keeping with ~he community. It is zoned agriculEure. There are numerous farms and farm stands locateO on nhat s~re~cN of County Road 48 both Eo our east and to the wesu. Furthermore, we believe that the goat dairy will be an asset to Ehe community. Our plans include public access te the cheese making room an~ te the milk house. This will make the farm both an educational and recreational desEination. March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In Mattituck, we have ±hosted 4 H, school groups, youth groups ~haE are interested groups, ]skit we're fairly limiued by the lack of facilities for that purpose. We think than there would be minimal if any negative consequences for our neighbors. To our east is a very large farm, 40 acres, to our wes~ is a seven acre parcel of preserved land, ~o our north is a residence on abouu five acres I believe, and the barn that we would consuruc~ would be no closer than 300 feeE to thau proper~y line uo Ehe north, and we plan to maintain the existing vegetation along Enat property line to ace as a visual buffer. As anybody who's come to our farm in MaEtituck knows, we keep it very clean. It's very nea~ and very quieE as well. To our south, ~he properEy abuts Count}' Road 48, which at that point is a four lane divided highway and access to the propert}' is via County Road 48. And in tront of nhe property there's a turn around uhat allows eastbound traffic to turn around and come in~o the property very easily. In Matuiuuck, even au our busiest times on weekends, traffic flow is fairly minimal, and I think the existing roadways ccuid easily handle uhaE number of cars that we would generaEe at Lhe farm stand. Parking we don'~ believe would be a problem. Ail parking would[ be located on tt~e property. There would be no neet for on road parking. So we ask ~he Board to rule favorably on our proposal and request. We Oelieve iE coincides wi~h uhe Board's mission uo promote and preserve agricultural nature of Southold Town, and protecus the surrounding community, and we think represenEs sensible relief from the code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many goa~s do you intend to keep? MR. CATAPANO: We would anticipate 80 te CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How i~any do you have 100. MR. CATAPANO: Six~y, we have 68 babies also. The babies are always temporary. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Hew big is your property in Mattituck? MR. CATAP~/qO: One. CHAIRWOMA=N OLIVA: You keep all Ehose 10 March 3, 2C:,05 1 2 3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 ~oats on one acre? MR. CATAPANO: Goats don't neeO very much room. We don't pasture the goats, they Oon'~ eat off the ground, we bring in feed. If you were to require pasturage for the goats, you would need quite a large place. But as long as they have feed and water they really don't roam; they jus~ lay and be quiet. Se they don't need that much space. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the question I had, 100, I read it in there. It seems like a leu ef goats to be laying aroun{ ena piece of property. That's all I have. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question about demesuic animals versus livestock; are cows livestock? MR. CATAPANO: According to the code, i believe so, yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question is whenher goats are to be classified like cows or horses. MR. CATAPA~O: I'm not sure what the code s~ates, I kzlow that domestic animals is net defined. I know and goats are listed as livestock and horses are listed as horses, domestic animals, ~pparently horses aren't domestic animals, I'm not sure what that means. We're just asking for an interpretation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does anyone know what tomestic animals comprise, besides dogs? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No. There's never toeen a definition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ne. BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: The one thing that has been done, Michael, that this Board in 1978 or ~hereabouts granted an interpretation for a gentleman by the name ef Brian Sheehan in Mattituck, and I just thought about this, when Ehis gentleman was doing his presentauion. Mr. Sheehan was very similar to what these nice people are proposing, except he really wanted te have an entire far~. So he came before nhe Zoning Board and requested an interpretation ef how many ~nimals he could have on a piece of acreage similar to your piece. In fact, if I'm net mistaken it was only in the early '80s that the piece that you are dealing with a~ this uime in ll March 3, 200~ 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lB 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2b Peconic was subdivided, abouu the same tLme, Oeiieve it or net, that the Mattituck piece was done. At that time in the real estate business these were called farmettes, beca~:se they were not as big as a farm but they were sizable pieces ef property for the one acre zoning that existed at that time. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was a different code too. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it was a different code. Se I'll reflect on that after. BOARD HEMBER SIMON: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: A few questions. Yo~ have a gnat pasture noted on your plan, but you said you really don't have a pasture. MR. CATAPANO: They don't eat elf the property, we bring in fond, but they need some space Eo roam, but they just don't roam. As long as they have food and water, they just kind ef lay down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What size area to you keep the 60 goats in now? MR. CATAPANO: I'd say it's a third of an acre. ~low? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have 60 ,]oats MR. CATAPANO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also, is ~zhe waste and the straw and the hay. I khow driving by your place every day going home, it seems to have been dumped down that hill en the side, it tends to accumulate quite large. I think we need to define on the property where you're going LO ~ut that so i~'s not on the corner that that vacant lot becomes a house and next thing you knew it's next to their property. MR. CATAPANO: I believe the cede states it needs to be 100 feet from the property line and ~nere's plenty of space en the property co do that. As you knew, ~he gnats don't make much inanure, the major waste is excess hay. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I guess that's whaY E saw driving by. But you know decomposing hay MR. CATAPANO: I think t~ere's enougM Nroperty linear feet te keep it 150 feel away from any property line. 12 March 3, 2005 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~4 15 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do you do with it now, just push it off someplace, the extra straw? MR. CATAPANO: Well, it decomposes and flattens out fairly quickly, and we have been using it to make flower beds and vegetable beds. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good. You use it for compost, That's what I wanted to know. MR. CATAPANO: Yes. And people come and take it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many goats do you plan on expanding up to? MR. CATAPANO: I think 80 to 100 will be the top. I think 60 to 80 is probably in keeping, but 80 to 100 I think would be our range. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon that interpreEa~ion, and again the clerk of zhe Board did mention it was a different code, ~his is probably one of the premiere applications that I have seen recently in any case. I live in MattiEuck, I'm aware of The property that you have. I'm aware of the situation uhaE existed prier te you people buying the property, and I eoncur with you this spot you have is small, it's also quite dangerous being on that turn going dowel into that ravine area, which there are substantial accidents and problems, one of which was that huge tractor trailer that turned over last year. So I am somewhat content with your application, but I think we have te discuss what the maximum amount ~f goats you would have, similar ~o what mi, colleagues were saying. MRS. CATAPAiNO: May I say something? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MRS. CATAPANO: Two things abou~ the number of the goats. One is that cows ~'ou can get a lot of milk from a cow, like a gallon or two; you only get a small amount from a goat, so you need a lot more goats To make a little bit of cheese. So I know 100 sounds like a lot, but if ~'cu look at the amount of milk you get it's really' not. And the problem is in the winter, it's not really in The summer having the goats, they need to come in in the winter. So nhat's why we need a bigger place because they need Eo have their babies inside. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's where the steel barn will be, you'll pum them in the steel 13 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 2~ barn? MRS. CATAPANO: Right. Because the problem is when it's cold out and the babies are born and they're weE, and if you don't gee co them then they die. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let's see if somebody else wants to comment on this application? Ms. Dotie? MS. DOTIE: I'm Debra Dotie, I represent the sellers so clearly choy support the applicacion. I just wan~ to re,er Ehe Board to cwo sections of the code. The denial, mi, understanding the denial is based on 100-31 2(b), which says the keeping, breeding, raising and training of horses, domestic animals, fowl, except ducks on lots of less than 10 acres -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: RighE MS. DOTIE: - I think the question is whether goats are domestic animals. They're hoe horses, you'll grant me thaE, and they're not ducks and they're not fowl. So, when you go back to anoEher section in the zoning code that's 100-221, it defines livestock as including cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, fur-bearing animals, milk, eggs and fur. A contention is that 10 acres doesn't apply to goats, and that's the point I wish to make, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Does a~ybody else wish to speak on this application? Yes, Mr. CaEapano, there was no information about we muse require 10 acres instead of five acres; do you wish to address that, the variance for the five acres? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You have cwo requests, also for a variance on the five acre requirement? MR. CATAPANO: I'm nbc sure of the quesuion. I did mention the second reason, the reason why the farm stand was disapproved was because of five tillable acres. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. You mentioned ic. MR. CATAPANO: I'm not sure of your quesCion. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If that's all you wanted co add, I thought Ehere was more you wanted to add. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment? 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: I mean, I heard from the gentleman and from Miss Dotie, nha~ the 10 acres doesn't apply toward the Section 100 2221, so that's ~heir contention anO I ghink they addressed that. I think the code does. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I believe the quesuion regarding the variance vis-a-vis the farm stand was since you're supposeO to have a number of tillable acres either there or elsewhere, so you are explicitly asking for a variance on uhaE quesnion. Do you have anynhing further to add in justification of that part of your request? MR. CATAPA/qO: Just ~hat the wRole area has farms and farm stands. I don't thiuk the traffic generated by the farm stand would be a problem for ~he existing roadways, and if there's a particular question, maybe we can address thau. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: i believe also there's a no~e in the file an adjacent landowner objects to uhis. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. You have a cop}, of that letter, Miss Hubbard; have you spoken to Hiss Hubbard? MRS. CATAPANO: I called her and ie~t a message that I wanted to explain wha~ we were doing because the lenuer is very vague. She said contrary to any -- I don't know the exact wording bun contrary to -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: arguments to uhe ccn~rary, I see no reason why Ehe Buil{ing lnspector's notice of disapproval shouiO not be upheld and uhe request for variances denied. MRS. CATAPANO: Right. And I think we made a good argument ~o ~he contrary and that's what I was just going ~o descriOe. And ~he five nillable acres, nhe only Ehing I want to say aOouU that, I mean it is five acres but they're not ~illable because ~he house is there, which I'm glad because I love the house, bL~t CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's pre-existing. MRS. CATAPANO: It's pre existing, so it's ~oing ~o be all used -- as much as is non hsuse for this purpose. If it was seven acres and Ewo was allouued for the house ghen we woulOn'n have a problem ~u~ i~'s not, it's a little bit smaller, b~t everything else it's a perfect location. So 15 March 3, 2,305 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 we are asking for that variance. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: Thank you. If there's no further questions or comments en ~his application, I'll make a motion to close the hearing, reserve decision nntil later. iSee minutes for resolution.} CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Mr. Whitney Armstrong to rebuild his house on Fishers Island. Hr. Lark. MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Hain Read, Cutchogue, New York for ~he applicant. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: We've been there, by the way, aE least Jim and Vincent and I visited there las~ summer. It's a gorgeous piece ef property. MR. LARK: It's something else. The application before you has to de with Section 100-239 4A Paragraph 1. And I believe I've given you ~he posting affidaviE and the required mailing a£fidavi~s. As you know, tha~ section of the code requires ~he building to be setback 100 feet from the top of a bluff. If you recall, this applieant and this property was before this Beard at a hearing on 8,'19/0~, and you rendered a decision on ~h'7,'0%, basically allowing ~he two and-a-half story dwelling ~hat had been destroyed by a fire tha~ previous December ~e tie built in the existing footprint. And ~he closes~ point, the question t~ere was there were 79 fee~ from the top ef ~he bank, just for the record, ~hat was your ZBA file b~77. Recall ~ha~ the property was located a~ Clay Pein~ ever in Fishers Island, the eviOence in that hearing before you there was little or no erosion on ~he shoreline in Ehat particular area of Fishers Island Sound since ~hat home was built in 1927. And I ~hink there was survey evidence and o~her evidence that was in,reduced before you in spi~e of the fact that there's no rock revetment, bulkheading or anything else ~here's just no erosion ~here which amazes me. Bu~ that having been said, when the applicant went Eo redesign or design his replacement heine, Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong came up with Ehe design uhat you have before you, I think I've given you ample pictures ef everything tha{l's proposed there with the site plans, and I gave you some additional March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 photos of the particular area that we're going to be talking about on Ehe easterly side, that embankment or bluff area. And when I saw the unusual nature of the architecture, I had w~at you call a pre-submission conference, if you will, with the Building Department just no see if it would comply with the -- I was assured by the architect that it was ~ but tha~ i~ would comply with New Ycrk State Building Code and so on and so fort~ before we proceeded any further. And between myself and them and nhe architecE, we worked out everything so than ~he plan Ehat you have before you as far as nhe building co{e is concerned so we didn't have ~o come back for something, that's okay, The question then came up with this bluff, because the surveyor, and you have his letter there, Richard S~raus, surveyor and engineer, believes ~ha~ on the easnerly side of the property, once you get ~o the middle and start going over Eo the eas~, that's not a bl~ff because of the gradual incline ~o the water to Fishers Island Sound, whereas on the westerly per,ion ~here's definitely a bluff because you have a s~eep incline there, but this other one is gradual. And he kepn pushing me to ask the Building Department ~o use, which is Subsection 2 of 239 4A, the hundred foot setback from ~he water as opposed to the ~op of the bluff. So I finally jus~ gave up and said, okay, where do you wane no show me where you determine no be the bluff line, that's ~he word he was using, building inspecnor, and he drew nhe line around anO got to the pcinE where you have there now where it's the 60 foot. So I said okay, there was no sense hassling it anymore because again we got into the definition of what's the bluff, what's an embankment, and, you know, I don't use the word "bank" because the dictionary does clearly say nhat has no do with a river or creek, whereas the bluff has ~o do with ~he sound or ocean or sa. mething of that nature. So I just len i~ go and said okay. He again admitted it was a close quesnion, the building inspector, Hr. Veriny, when he locked at it and reviewed it, but he didn't want ~o make than determination. He feln he should leave i~ ~c the Board. So he carried the line around no the 60 leon. So again, does Eha~ 17 March 3, 2,},35 18 2 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 sound familiar, we're here before you to make that determination? Parenthetically, the DEC and the Trustees, since the Building Inspector ~oek that and I knew eventually we're going te have to go for a Building Permit that I figured ~haE I be~er get nne DEC on beard and the Trustees en board Oecause they had approved it before but ~hey had not seen this extension to the east, and they submitted en February 25th from the DEC and February 15th from the Trustees, and they had ne problem with it. They moved the 100 foot back and the elevation, ant they said it's no problem. And they beth submitted letters of no jurisdiction. So we have no problems with those agencies. New, I bring all this up because when you get under 267 B of the Town Law, and you're faced with the balancing tes~ en considering the five mandated factors, I think what I just said has a greaY deal ef relevance; otherwise, if you don't sensider all of that you have an application before you there's 100 foot requirement; they want a 40 percent reduction for ~he variance -- boom. But I den'N think that's true. I think you have to look at the whole proper~y and what's being done there, and the fact ~hat that's not a sheer bluff subject ~e erosion and all the other kind ef problems to make the determination, and the Building Inspector agreed with me. He said it's a close call whether '[ use 100 feet or I use the top of this bank or whatever. He said I don't knew what to do, that was his wording te me. So that's why we're here, and I believe the photos, and some ef you have been to the property so you knew what's going on there. But when I sat down then, faced with that after the pre-submission conference with the Building DepartmenE, I sat down with beth Hr. Armstrong and the architect and I tried ~o rearrange reconstruction of the house utilizing the existing footprint, which you nad given ~pproval of, but try te blend it back a liuule bit so I woulOn't have to have this variance request that I'm here today and satisfy uhe Building Department. Well, that meeting took about an hour, hour and a~half and no matter what we did, I got outgunned. Turned out that ~he architecE pulled rank en me. He designed some of the Would Trade Center Harck~ 3, 2,305 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 reconfiguration, that he had done this type of work before, and it turned out that Mr. Armstrong is the Director emeritus of the Whitney American Museum of Art, and so I got outgunned. Because any time that I tried to move the house, I ended up -- and they showed me empirically I was ending up destroying trees. Finally Mr. Armstrong wrote a letter and said, i~ you want to move it the way you want to move it, we' re going to be ta~ing out irreplaceable trees. We cannot move these trees. They're tee huge. Se i~ got then chat they were going te keep the axis of the house basically on an east west direction -- because I tried to even move it west and that was interesting, I thought I had sold that to them, but when I pointed out when I moved them west not only did I destroy that retainiug wall that ttiey had, that landscaped retaining wall, I also destroyed some trees, but guess what? I had to come back for a variance because clearly now I was closer than the 79 feet that you had approved. So I lost out on all scores. Then I made the application, which yOkl have before you, and I submit te you when you consider all the balancing tesus -- and I'll just run through them real quic~ will it change the character of the neighborhood? That's a no-brainer; it was residence before, it's residence afner. Both Fitco, who has oversight as to house siting and everything, they have approved it because it's in the covenants there on the east end. The next door neighbor Mrs. Sturgis, s~e approved it, she was enthusiastic about it. I talked to Mr. Kashel, who's on tl~e east, he has absolutely no objection, I spoke to him personally. He's away in Florida so I didn't get anything yet from him, but I expect to. Can the house be replaced by some other metho{l? I think I explained that to you, yes, but you destroy the landscape of what the}' have done there. And what the architect has done is, they explain to you in Hr. Armstrong's letter a little bit, bu~ more importantly, he's interfacing the house, he's lowering it to some 13 feet below the Uree line ~here, and he's making only a one story situation. And the house when you look at it you' re in the garden, the landscaping becomes the more dominant effect, and the house is more segwayed in between March 3, 2005 20 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 25 it. They assured me that the construction of could be done with digging of the foundation and so on and so forth without any destruction of the trees if it's sited with the east-west access ~hat uhey have there. So what you see there is on the footprint of what they're proposing is what it is. So if you're going to replace it withont destroying the gardens or the landscape, then u~ere is no other method. Then we had, is it substantial? Well, t~ey're asking for 60 feet. If you take the Building Inspector's interpretation, it's like 113 feet from the high water at that point, measured at the angle, you did grant 79 feet, but because of the fact that it's so well vegetated, and it's such a gradual incline, I don't think i~'s substantial where I woul{ have felt that way if it was right up on the bluff where you had erosion and you have to bulkhead or do a revetment and stuff. Coming into the next one, which is ~ind of segwayed in there, will it have an adverse effect on the environment or physical portion of the property? Well, physically to the property, no, because of the uniqueness of the topography and the existing vegetation and the trees and the gardening that's there, iE fits right in; and as to the neighborhood, no, because as I say, for several thousand feet CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's got over three asres. MR. LARK: And for several thousand feet sn either south side there's been no erosion or anything there. Self-created, yeah, guilt}- with an explanation. This portion of nhe application is; the first part was not beca~se the house got burned down. So this portion is, but considering everything, I don't think it's an outlandish or an unreasonable request to ask this, and taking all ~he factors and balancing them like you nave to take those five factors and do that. Unless you have some questions, the photographs do not do lustice ~o the property for those who have been %here, but it was the best I could do in the winter. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any BOARD HBHBER GOEHRINGER: I have no March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 9 10 iI 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2,4 25 objection to the application. I~'s just very important for the Board, and I'm not speaking for ~he Board, but when we were over ~here in August, we would like to see the construction as it's commencing. MR. LARK: That goes without saying. And, in fact, Lhe public there is welcome tee, which is very unique for the east end, because he, being i~ Ehat business of a curator of a museum and everything, he wants the public to see the specimen trees and everythzng ~hat he has t~ere. So when he's in residence, people de come when he puts the sign up uo come look at his gardens. He's very proud of them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He should be. MR. LARK: But }~ou're more than welcome to come, that is net a problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My only question is, did I interpre~ your writing, correct, it's going to be a one-story structure, the whole thing? MR. LARK: Yes. They lowered everything down. In's one story, i~'s net two and-a-half ii~e the old house was. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have ne questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim'? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This legend, part of nhe record, uhe numbers on here, do you have a iegez~d for that? I couldn'~ find that. MR. LARK: The photos should be numbered. I~'s just to show you where they ~ook the angle of nhe photo, otherwise you're lost. It was anuicipated, the reason that I do it ~hat way, that when someone goes to the property uhey can compare, uhey were standing here and that's what I'm seeing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I did visit une properuy. I have uo write the decision, Ehis one seems uo be the clearest, you have a solid existing residence; that's that piece that was lef~ over that didn't burn, and then to the west of tha~ towards than retaining wall there's li~e a shaded gray area, that's the old house, thau's the footprint of the old house? MR. LARK: Yes, and[ it's outlined with uhose ribbons that they require. 21 March 3, 2005 22 2 4 5 8 lO 11 ~2 13 ].4 15 ~6 ~8 2O 21 22 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now }rou have a striped area that appears t:o be three times as large as the existing house that's there now, that's the footprint ef the house? MR. LARK: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, that outside line, that large rectangle, what is that like an overhang? MR. LARK: Yes, if you have the pictures of the proposed house, you'll see that, there's like that 10, 12 feet overhang where yoc~ have the walkway all the way around. Tha:'s pare of the living in the garden concept there. With that roof at that point is like lattice. BOARD MEMBER DINIZlO: I saw the pictures, [ wanted te be clear that the actual disuances, to ute bluff to the actual wall ue the house is wiuhin that rectangle. MR. LARK: Yes. That's to the edge of Lha~ 60 feet. If you were :o go to the foundation wall, you would probably have another 10 feet back, mere or less. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. notice this gentleman doesn't do anything that is not perfect because his property is perfect. MR. LARK: You'd pick up another 10 feeu, but that would be disingenuous ~o this application because the way the architect designed Ehe reefline that's really part ef ~he house, al:hough iu's outside of the conditioned living space. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand ~hat. As far as excavation is going, if you're going te go down eight fee~, you're probably going down eight feet te make a wall or basement, 10 feet away from where you actually have this line. MR. LARK: That's right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the rest can just be footings, three fee~ er whatever it is. MR. LARK: That's right. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Is ttxere anyone else in the audience that would like te comment en this epplica~ion? If net I'll close the hearing, reserve decision until later. ~See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWONL~N OLIVA: Our next application is for Wallace and Walters en Washington Avenue in Greenport. I believe they wane te make a March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 lb 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 :we-stor}' house. Is there anyone here to speak on .i,n this ~pplicatien? MR. WALLACE: Good afternoon, I'm Gregory Wallace. Unfortunately, my wife could not attend neday. We have approximately jus~ under a 1,000 square foot house on a .28 acre lot. We want ~o pu~ on a second story to accommodate a family. We de net want to change the footprint of the building because ef the financial restrictions of digging and the zoning ef ~he neighborhood is very dense; the lots are a 100 by 15,3 -- I'm sorry, 100 by 50. My lo: happens to be 100 by 120, and I'd like ~e keep the side yard open to keep some open space in nhe neighborhood. The original plan did call for a four feet santilever. Mr. Veriny had a lot ef objection to :hat. It: could be done, se I just recently reduced the plans from a four feet cant±lever ~o a Ewe foot cantilever to accommodate Mr. Veri~y's wishes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have a problem with tha~:. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the cantilever off the second story? MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it includes 2 feet by 37 feet; is that correct? Which is basically the width of the house, so it's ~he whole width of :he house? MR. WALLACE: Yes, but i believe it's 36 feeE, yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask ;'ou that question is similar to what Hz'. Dinizie just said, I have te write the decision. However, I am still referring to it as an in-place/in Kind replacement of the existing foetprin~ of ~he house because that's a can:ilever and it doesn'n affect the first story. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: For the recerd, se you'll be mainLaining the 11 feet one front yard and the 28 feet other front yard? MR. WALLACE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLP~NDO: And may I ask why Hr. Verity talked you eu~ ef the four foot cantilever, was it safety or structure? MR. WALLACE: Traditionally you don'~ de four feet, usually the standard is two feet. They 23 ?4arch 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 could be done with the special untreated lumber, but he has not really seen four feet and in his opinion it was maybe a little too much, and after looking at it, I kind of agreed with him. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the record, Gregory is a distant relative. Not necessarily of mine but by marriage; his mother and my wife are ~ousins. I wanted uo disclose that and the plan actually says on here that your house is 37 feet wide. MR. WALLACE: Okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If Jerry puts 36, you're going to be cu~ off a foot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to it just as I said, right on ~he existing footprint. MR. WALLACE: I forgot to carry the one. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Besides that I have no objection ~o this application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is uhere anybody else in the audience that would like to make a comment on ~his application? If not, I'll make a mouion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. ISee minutes for resolution. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is for Ryan and Kramer on Bungalow Lane, Matniuuck. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this application? MR. KRAMER: Good evening, Steven Kramer and there's a very small garage there right now, and we'd like to make it bigger. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And ~urned in a bit? MR. KRAMER: Right. Because the door is now facing the house and there's a tree now that's grown in nhe way, and it would be very difficulu ~o use that entrance. We just want to have a place to put a lawn mower and cars, bikes and family stuff. And you can't puE the garage Oehind the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, no I ~now. Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 24 MarcM 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 BOARD MEMBER ~IMON: It s going to be just a garage; is that correct? MR. KP~A~ER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. ,lust a comment that you'll have the three foot setback on the eno side and the 3.1 foot en Ehe side }'ards ? MR. KP_AMER: Whatever I said, first time here. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You actually have 2hree garage doors, buE it's a two-car garage. MR. KRAMER: There should only he two garage doors. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have two shaped like a barn door and eno looks like a standard roll up. MR. KRAMER: That's the old, ~hat's the :l}lle that ' s there now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just going te be using this ~or storage'? MR. KRAMER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But just ~lectricity and no water in that? MR. KRAMER: Righu. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no obj eetion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there an!~one in uhe audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion no close uhe hearing and reserve decision until lauer. !See minutes for resolution. I CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is for Jenson on Sunsen Wa}, in Sounhold, a porch _addition. Is there anyone here uo speak on behalf of this application? MR. JENSEN: Edward Jenson. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hi. MR. JENSEN: Yes, what i wanned to do is go off the existing footprint thar_'s there and come Oktn for a porch. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: And you'll be less Ehan 3S feet where a lot of the houses on Ehaz street ere set further baek, you're fairly close ~e zhe road as it is. How wide did you want to inake zhat 25 March 3, 2005 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 porch? MR. JENSEN: I wanted to come out six feet from the furthest part of the house. Right now the s~oop is coming out five feet an}'way, ~here's a brick suoop uhere. And I want to have the entrance coming along from the driveway to walk across the front of uhe house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want the entrance from the driveway to go this way? MR. JENSEN: Yes. In other words, you'd be walking along the porch. I have a picture if you wanu uo see that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We had had a subs~ant, ial amount of these applications, Hr. Jenson, and we in many of the cases -- and I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself - have requested that the applicant reduce the depuh of the porch. I just don't know -- I was there two Saturdays ago, and I jus~ don't know if it's viable for you to do so a~ ~his nime and decrease the depth of tha~ porch. The existing steps Eha~ you're referring to are exempt in the code. I certainly would like uo see iu no closer uhan 30 feet to uhe front property line, and ~a~'s the story. CHAIRWOMa~N OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that a feasible thing, the five and eight? To reduce it to five and eight? You have six foot as the shorter side mnd eight foot on uhe longer side, correct? MR. JENSEN: Right. And Mr. Goehringer is saying a five and seven. MR. JENSEN: Yes, I guess I can do that. I~'s basically for the aesthetics and the fac~ thau I can walk from the driveway, and it would cut down coming around. It would reduce the front lawn, actually. If I came out wi~h a stoop because we're moving the doorway. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other ~a~estions. MR. JENSEN: But also I'm doing a second fleer on that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is a covered porch, not to be enclosed, correcu? MR. JENSEN: No, not enclosed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When I looked at the 26 March 3, Z 2 3 4 ? ~2 :1_3 14 ~7 18 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 property, it sort of struck me that even with the front stoop and no porch, it's already closer the road than the neighboring houses. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And because there are hedges at the edge of the property, it's perhaps less noticeable than it otherwise might be. However, since there is a let of land on the water side of the house, I was curious as to why a porch was being built on the side where there is already R nonconforming setback. Wha~ is the motivation for building the porch at that point in that place? MR. JENSEN: To gain access from the driveway te walk underneath the porch to the fronu of the house, and the layout of the wa}, they designed the house that they thought it would look better to be some sort of design than just a fla~ front. CHAIRWONLRN OLIVA: Curt, appeal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ne further questions. CHAIRWOM~[ OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would think that it would add some charm to that big wall you're going te be building with that second story. I think that would perhaps make it leek better. Now, is that five feet of the porch, er is Ehat five feet to the overhang ,Df the actual reef; ~-ou knew? The roof has te come out a little bit beyond where the deck is going te be, and I'm just wondering -- BOARD SECY. KOWALS~I: It's probably without it, Jim, because the overhang could be 18 inches. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It can be, I'm just wondering if that's the case. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Usually it's net ~'eunted in the setbacks when they give that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask vsu a question, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that 29 feeE Eo the house or is tha~ 29 feet to the deck, the perch? hOLtSe. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it's to the 27 March 3, 2005 28 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it's to the house also. So my firs~ request is that -- I got a 21 on the other side, and I think I meassured that by ruler, so my request is out the window. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The math should be 23 foot setback I think. You have initially of 29 minus 6. BOARD MEMBER ~OEHRIN=ER: Right I just wanted te clear that up, Jimmy, I'm sorry. MR. JENSEN: Yes. One side is 29 and the other side I think is 21. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's your existing setback without putning the porch, then you have to add another six to ~ha~, so actually i~'s 23 feet that yen're requesting. MR. JENSEN: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then Jerry proposed that perhaps instead of six feet iu could be five feet, and you have ne objection to that? MR. JENSEN: No. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And that weuid make iE a 24 foot setback. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be a little bit better. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: that's what I was getting at with the overhang thing, it would bring you to almost to 20 feet if it were 18, and I don't wanu that Building Inspector coming back and saying I can't have tha~. So we're going to say 24 foot to the edge of uhe deck, and we'll grant you tha~, and the overhang, if Linda's correct, can probably be 18 inches, it will be a little more than the deck, I would imagine. Again, I think you' re doing it mostly for aesthetics more than anything else. MR. JENSEN: Yes, more ~han anynhing else, and tile fact that I can come in from the driveway side with a covered porch. Bun mainly %he aesthetics of it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: it's definitely a curb appeal asset and I don't think it's a very highly trafficked road down there. MR. JENSEN: No, it's private road. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Jim, what about steps? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They're on the side, right ? March 3, 2005 29 2 3 4 5 ? 8 9 ~2 ~4 ~5 2O 2~ 22 23 24 25 MR. JENSEN: proposed - BOARD SECY. the front or on the MR. JENSEN: Yes. I left a picture of the KOWALSKI: Is it proposed on side? On the driveway side. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the north side sf the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak on this application? If net, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. ~See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for North Perk Realty in Ehe hamlet business zone in Seuthold. You wish to change a roof line? HR. SHANNON: Kevin Shannon for JKJ, North Fork Realty. I'm here te answer any questions. It started out as a repair, and as we rippeO off the seven layers, a lot of she roof was rotted. Ail we did was really, the building is split in two and one side was peaked so we took the peak over to the ether side, it was actually the best way te repair the roof in terms of getting water off the roof and net creating any snow drifts or anything like that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have any problems. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I again have to write this decision, and in looking at it, I'm dealing with a second fleer as being aR area - I don't have the numbers in front of me -- but the back of it you have doors going on the second story into what I assume is somewhat of a storage area; is chat correct? MR. SHANNON: Yes, en the first story you BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the second story. I have roof ever existing or existing roof no change in the rear of the property; ~o you want ~o look at this? MR. SHANNON: That's part of the area there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se that's usable area? MR. SHANNON: Yes, anO that's flat. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: That's flat? MR. SHANNON: Yes. March 3, 2005 30 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lJ 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what are we Rczually producing zhen, this area in here as second stery? MR. SHANNON: No, it's exisEing. Ail we did was in Zrying to replace a portien of tile roof tha~ was ~errible so we ripped that elf, and in replacing it we peaked, if you leek at the building on the left side, the same as the building en the right side, and zhere's a flat ~ortien in the back CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Weren'Z you zrying tc make that peak so that yeu get a better waEer drainage? HR. SHANNON: I'm sorry, if it peaks .off the zhe back portion I think is the storage area -- is this ~he whole secend fleer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the whole secend fleor. MR. SHANNON: I suspecE Ehis is the front. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's wha~ the problem is with the plan MR. SHANNON: This is the fronn. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the fron~ porch? MR. SHANNON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what are these depicting windows or doors? MR. SHANNON: Those wer~ ~oors which are probably going to be BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Replaced Oy a windows? MR. SHANNON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So again, this teesn't exist. MR. SHANNON: No. I'm sorry, tMis does exist. This side of the building comes all the way forward to uhe street. This side nas a pcrch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. MR. SHANNON: So this is showing an internal wall with doors leading inuo uhis room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So ~ha~ room does exist? MR. SHANNON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the nature of the very, very close nonconforming side lard, in itt}, propesition of writing this ,decision, my cencern is water runeff Zoward the neighbor's March ~ 2005 31 2 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 properuy. So I'm going to ask you to contain chat water runoff to the best of your ability. MR. SHANNON: I think we've done that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll come down and look au uhat again, all right? MR. SHANNON: Yes. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. You're not going beyond the foctprint, you're just noing a second story renovation? MR. SHANNON: Right. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The water runoff was my concern too, so please have him address Ehat with dry wells or something. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thau's what I put. My last question is what is uhe second story going to be used for? MR. SHANNON: Hopefully we're going to rent iu ou~ for a business office. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in this audience who wishes to speak on ~his application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve desision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mr. Schetman in Orienu. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of this applicauion? MS. MOORE: We have Mr. and Mrs. Scnetman and the architect here. Good morning, for the record, I'm Pat Moore 51020 Main Road in Southold. I have Mr. and Mrs. Schetman here and the architect here as well to go over uhe plans if you have any questions. They were very kind uo provide me with a large phstograph of uhe ho~se, which I'll refer to, as well as a visual of whau a neighbor, what the public would see [rom the s~reet. So I would staru off with I know tha~ you have received a letter from a neighbor, and I believe you gon a follow up letter after a meeting ~hat Mr. Scheuman had with the neighbor, anO I Oelieve his concerns at lease as far as March 3, 2005 1 2 10 11 12 13 1~1 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 understanding why the notice of disapproval, we are not asking for a second dwelling on this property. The house right now is a single-family house. It has historic value in that iE was relocated. It's an 1800s house and it was relocated from another site. I know Chairman Oliva is very familiar with Orient but for the benefit of the others of you, the house was moved ~o this site, and Dr. Schetman pointed o~ that this house originally had two wings on it. There would have been at the original site, i~ had t~e wing that's showing today. It also had a wing on the other side. So there was a reconfiguration of ~he original house when it was moved uc. this site. The Schetmans loved the house dearly. They have invested an enormous amount of money to bring the house up ~o its condition today. They have planted enormous amounts of vegetation. Mrs. Schetman is an avid gardener, and you can see from the look of ~he property that iu is very beautifully vegetated and there are some additional natural vegetation that I'd like no show you in the next panel lindicatingl . You can see that this is the street, the private road than is the common road to ~he few m~uses that are teveloped in the small community, and the house right now is right here. This portion is the porch, the screened-in porch, that was added within the last two years. And the reason why ~here has been a great deal of thought in how this addition was going to be built is they just spent a good deal of money on this screened in porch. It's very lovely, very useful, and it would be a shame to remove it in order to build the additional living space. On the other side of the property you can see that the pool is on the other side of Ehe property, the east side of the property, and iu wouldn't make sense really to extend additional living space on the opposite si{e as an extension cf uhe wing on the easterly wing, that would just compromise the architectural integrity of the structure, so that would not be an option. ,liven the architec{~ural design ,Df the property, the architect and the owners planned an addition in the back, which I equated to a typical New England charge house type of addition. Iu's Hatch 3, 200~ 1 2 3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 intended to be matching in character in architectural style, matching shingles, white, and I'll have the architect describe in more detail the design. But you can see from the footprint that the addition will be placed right behind some very large natural evergreens. So the architect placed it in silhouette in a sense frel~ a perspective ef where a neighbor might be standing i£ he was standing in fren~ ef his house. You can see the silhouette, the addition is going te be behind the vegenatien, so you will net see anything. It's still very private. There is ~lse a shed that is towards the end of the vegetative line of evergreens and that is being removed. So again, they're improving en ~he property. If there is further neeO to vegetate and screen from view this addition, certainly, they are willing te de that. It may net be needed, but if it is, they're willing te plant some more evergreens ue the south side ef the property. At ~his point, I think it would be helpful to address any questions you might have. I think the photographs speak for themselves. We also have what's in your file alreaOy is a feetprinE, and, just for the record again, because this information wasn't provided to you, uhe Building Department didn't have an issue with lo~ coverage, but you should know for the record that ~he proposed addition is 1,074 square feet. The existing lot coverage is at 4.6~ percent; with the addition, the total leu coverage ef this property will be 6.22 percent. Se this property is very reasonable in its lot coverage. That wasn't an issue for the Building Department, but certainly with respect to other considerations you might have, it's relatively small change te the footprint. Also a small clarificauien, we provided in~erier layouts ef the first story, which is the .¥arage, and at the time wasn't there Out iE was identified as a storage potting shed area, Mrs. Schetman again is an avid ~ardener, se she's constantly planting and storage of chemicals and storage of materials for her hobby, and what ~hey hag proposed to do, and iE didn't show en your plans, is that there's going to be a partiEioned wall to isolate some ef the chemical storage, the topsoil and that kind of stuff. Se that's the 33 Plarch 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 only change, it has no impact on the application, bL~t for clarification, the first story is garage, including the potting area, storage shed then obviously there has te be a connection to tile existing house in such a way that, again, it keeps to the architectural character of the house, ~he existing structure connecting to the new addition. With respect te the second flour, no kitchen, obviously, there's what we call a family room, the living room, it was identified as a living room, but i~'s really a family room. Tile existing house, and when the architect came Es the existing house is an 1800s construction. I~'s very small. Everything is compact, it's very quaint, but it does leave some room fur kind of today's living style, computer age and kids and all the activity that occurs, you need te nave some privacy. And this living space will provide a family room without compromising the original s~ructure. And then provide a guest room. The separation of the guest room from the family room by virtue ef the bathroom and ~he closet will enable a guest to come te stay and be in the guest teem while the family room you san still have activity going on in there. So that's why it was designed the way it was. I~'s ~ typical addition if you were te place an addition on anybody's property, a family room addition with an extra bedroom for guests. CHAIRWOH~kN OLIVA: Hew large is ~hat breezeway, and is it going te be heated? MS. MOORE: The problem is it's net really a breezeway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is it then? MS. MOORE: I'll h~ve the architect explain, very briefly. It's a connection, a heated connection iii front of the -- CHAIRWOMAN SHIVA: Could you please ge to the mike and give your name? MS. HELFAND: Good morning, my name is Margaret Helfand, and I'm working with the ScheEmans on this project. The firm name is Helfand Architecture. I'm also a part time resident of Orient, so I'm quite familiar with the wonderful history of the area, which is why I'm there in the first place. And I'm the proud owner .of eno ef the homes in the historic district in downtown Orient. March 3, 20,35 1 2 3 4 6 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Let me just explain the breezeway connection, which I will point to. There's an existing screen porch, as was just describeO, and we are proposing to put as small a link as possible in front of that to allow us to have a common entryway for the main part of the house that will connect into the family room area and guest quarters. So we have a very narrow passage that's around five feet wide and it extends the length of the screened porch and then a few feet further to allow us to separaue ~his new carriage ho~se structure from tile screen porch and the main house. Although this means more censtrucuion for the Schetman family, it does allow us to create a Setter architectural solution which separates this house from 5he original histeris house. And it's been our intent to create as sensitive as possible an extension te this historic structure. So ~ha~'s the explanation for 5his other little link. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: heated? MS. HELFAND: No. with the screened porch. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Will than passageway be Because it's contiguous When I was there the screened porch also had windows in it, no? MS. HELFAND: They're just wind break and ~hey're not -- no, this is not a heated structure. MS. MOORE: That's actually why we're here. The Building Department said if ~he screened porch was heated, it would be a standard addition to an existing residence, but to heat the screened porch is a waste of money for the Sc~etman family because they like the screen porch to use in the summer time as a non-~eated area. It's their summer residence in a sense. So to have it heated seems like several thousands of dollars to spend no satisfy the Building Department rather than because it's a utilitarian value for the family. It made more sense to come in an{ ask for relief froln that position of the code because why waste the money. We're here anyway with regard to the front yard setbacks, so we nlight as well try to keep everything as it is functioning. And ask that this heated connection, this heated space be allowed to be connecued to an unhea~ed space, which is just a technical ~uirk in .Dur code. 35 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I caught myself wondering why you didn't just heat that thing. MS. HELPAND: LeE me talk to ~hat from a nechnical standpoint, because we did discuss iu because that we did realize that would relieve some of the concerns and issues as far as ute zoning resolution goes. First of all, and I think most importantly, the room is there because ~hat's where the}' live in the summer, and ~o not have it as a screened porch doesn't really answer the program, as we call it in architecture. The second ~hing tha: I can explain, again fram a technical standpoint, is to create that as a heated space and comply with all the New York S:ate energy requirements, we would need te tismantle the entire s~rucEure :o insula:e it and change some of the foundation because i~ was really built as a porch and there are different requirements far porches and heated space. MS. MOORE: Also window treatments, te heat the space, you now have te comply with window hurricane resistant window standards. MS. HELF~D: So that really means you dismantle the entire structure ~o heat i~. I~ seems like net a huge thing Eo to, but, in fact, it's a substantial undertaking. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But ~he addition will be hea~ed? MS. HELFAND: The Rddition is heated for ~he habitable space no~ the ground floor. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Just the upstairs? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a number ef questions, I find some ef it confusing. Having lived much of my life in New England I'ln very familiar with the neEien efa carriage house. It's a stretch to use that analogy, ~ha~ may ne~ be very important. I~ does raise another question, a carriage house, in what it 2omes to mean in ~he northeast, is a separate dwelling. In fact, first of all it's a separate building, ~ra~i~ionally it's over the garage. Historically it was over ~he barn where ~he horses were kept. But the idea ef building an aOOiEion te yo~r existing house which is continuous with it and calling i~ a carriage house does raise the question ef is i~ really going ~o be a one-family 36 March 3, 2,9,95 1 2 3 7 9 11 12 13 15 17 18 21 22 23 2~ 2~ house. I have no evidence except for this terminological quirk. MS. MOORE: Then I would withdraw that description of a carriage house. In my mind a carriage house in New England Vermont where I usually hang out, is part of a ]Darn, eno mosE ,of the barns in New England are connected because ef Ehe weather. You can't ge~ through the snow trifts to get to your horse, your cows or whatever without a connection. So forgive me, I don't wan~ to imply any kind ef thought that this is going te be a second dwelling. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I want to talk about something perhaps mere substanuive. The breezeway sr quote, breezeway, is in fact a cennecuien. When you say the family lives there in the summer, you mean essentially spend their time there. It's not a living space; there's no bedrooms or anything like theE? MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. Correct, the screened-in porch is connected Eo Ehe house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in effect, you're building an addition to the house which is separaued from the rest of the house bi' this screened-in porch? MS. MOORE: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ma}' I ask how many square feet, upstairs, downsEairs now exisEs and how many will exisL once this project is complete? MS. HELFAND: The total area should be on here. The main house certainly it's arsund 2,500 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 2,500 square feet? MS. HELFAND: And Ehe addition -- MS. MOORE: That's including the screened-in porch. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: IE would exclude it, but it wouldn't include the garage, I would MS. HELPAND: That's existing, there's no .garage. The habiEable area ef the existing house ±s abouE 2,500 square feet and we're adding about 1,000 feet ef habiEable space an~ about 1,000 feet of garage and ancillary downstairs unheaEed space. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. Se ~he only heating in the addition will he on the second fleer? 37 March 3, 2005 38 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HELFAND: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And how will that be heated? MS. HELPAND: We are at the moment debating between heat pumps, which would be our preference, and gas fired furnace system. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A separate furnace from the rest of the house? MS. HELFAND: Absolutely. There's a lot of concern about energy issues as well here. Se they can operate thaE independently. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: i don't have a particular problem with the whole thing except your scaled drawing shows your addition garage aczually taller than the original house to tile ridge. That gives me a perspective that it's not in proportion, thah the extension is much higher, garage is higher than the house. I think for an l~isterical house that would just be ouzef character in my opinion. BOARD MEMBER ORhANDO: Either way, I'd like te see that come down te tile same height, salne ridge. What is the height ef the existing house to ~he ridge? MS. HELFAND: Well, we have the median. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Either way I would like Ee see the ridges the same, there would he more symmetry. MS. MOORE: Let us answer Ehat before you come to that conclusion because there's a technical problem with that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Technical proDlems .ran be fixed, we ~now that. MS. HELFAND: We wish. The existing house is eno and-a-half stories. The second fleer is kind of a habitable attic, if you will. You could no~ build that house today because the eve line is about four feet. The interior, where the ceiling meets the wall is around four fee~. The current state code requires you to not Oe under six eight. So we are as low as we can be in the addition. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Hew high is your garage ceiling? MS. HELFAND: The garage ceiling is eight ~eet. March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 2% 25 MS. MOORE: We have the median at 20' on the addition, which is significantly Oelow the 35 foot. MS. HELFAND: Let me answer the question about the difference in heights. The difference zn eves line en the ceiling between the two buildings is three feet, because one is at four feet, the other is at 6'8", closer te seven. We've actually pushed the first floor of the addition down about 18 inches to help reduce tile height of the ridge, se the actnal difference between the two now is 18 inches, and we can ge another BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you need by code to have the ceiling of the garage eight feet? it's just a garage, not living space. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Fairly impractical, sheetrock is sheetrock. They'd have te cut every beard they put in there. MS. HELFAND: Right new our eve line is at seven feet, what we can de, an~ I've been discussing this with the Sshetmans to make sure that this is acceptable to them, we can drop another four inches and s~ill be within tile State cede. We would be happy if we sould go under 6'8" because it creates more efa traditional interior with the iow eve line, but unfortunately Eo do ~hat we're in trouble with the State cede. And we would have te ge to them fur a variance. If you could grant the variance, that would be fabulous b~t I knew you can't. Se we're prepared Eo go another four inches. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can't reduce the pitch of the garage? MS. HELF~D: We looked at it, and -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it wasn't you couldn't de it, you didn't like the appearance. MS. HELFAND: Well, the appearance is what this is all about ultimately. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: T~e appearance of the garage higher than the house is out of character. MS. HELF~{D: But a flatter roof is also out of character. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: hidden behind the evergreens, see that. MS. MOORE: But so is But it will be so no one's going to tile height of 5he 39 March 3, 2,90S 1 2 4 5 6 7 .B 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2b whole sEructure, so why bastardize the architecuural design. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: ~ut from the front ysu can see it. MS. HELFAND: We have matched the slope ef the original house. That has been our goal. We can make it a lower, flatter roof shape, but if you look around at buildings, and if you gee a glimpse - the highest pare ef the building is the most visible ~hing you see, I just feel and the Sche~mans also feel that's a little out of character, and they're really trying tc work with ~he architectural integrity of this new s~ructure and keep it in tune wi~h the original house. MS. MOORE: It's onl}~ feur inches and that brings iE down ~o 14 inches difference, the difference between the two peaks. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I just wanued ue clarify what the total height, once again, of the existing and the proposed with ~he new addition, you said 20'8" -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The mean in the eld. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What would the new he? HS. MOORE: That is ~he new. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Wha~ is the existing mean height Ebon? MS. MOORE: The existing structure is 18 inches below. Again, it's net a full secon~ seer}' per se. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And to ~he Eop of the ridge it would be approximately whaE height Ebon? About another five feet higher, would you say? We just need i~ for the record. MS. HELPAND: Approximately. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm hOE even ~here in reference ue height in Ehis presenuatien and I'm going te tell you why. The reason why the code is se explicit regarding additions for you're going Eo call it a breezeway, I'm referring ue it as a link, it's a link between one strucEure anU anouher s~rucuure, there is no link unless that s~ructure and this has nothing ~e do with the Schetmans who appear te be very, very nice people is heated and part of the original house. I don't care if it's added as a separate building and you leave ~he porch area as it 4O March 3, 2005 41 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 exists, and my suggestion to you is that that is the only way you will garner my vote for this application, regardless of the word "carriage house," a house or building succinct from, regardless, either way. It has got to be added to tile house. It has got to ]De part of the new strucYure. So that has uo be heated along with the second floor, if you're considering it to be living area of this particular area. There's no other way. And the reason why the code is so explicit is in uhe '80s the word "trellises," "breezeways," et cetera, were abused. And that is the reason why the code reads as it is today. And thau's Number 1. Number 2, in t~e sophistication in uhe beaning systems that exist today, there is no reason why that particular link can't have heating below uhe surface of the room and that same heating be used for the second story of the new proposed area, radiant heating. MS. MOORE: Are you ualking about BOARD MEMBER OOEHRINGER: I'm referring to the link. MS. MOORE: Just the new portion in front of the screened-in porch? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ThaY's correct. MS. MOORE: That little BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we discussed this two years ago, Mrs. Moore, on a house in Nassau Point on Broadwaters Road, if I'm not mistaken, okay. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you don't want the screened-in porch to be heated, but the h. ree zeway? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no reason for the screened-in porch to be heate~, but the breezeway ~ which is not a breezeway, it's a link because iz is part off :he existing house. The breezeway is normally a phrase used for a building nhat is open on uhree sides. MS. MOORE: I will wait until the Sc~etmans have -- but I don't think that solves z~e problems because assuming that it was acceptable, because I don't know how they feel, you still aon't have the old building, which the z. riginal, the heated portion, habitable portzon, you still have a wall, maybe a five foot wall, eigh~ feet between ~he new cerridor, the heated March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 corridor, and the existing structure because you still have that screened ii1 perch that's there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Referring ts the interpretation of the building inspector? MS. HOORE: Right. So if we were to make that compromise about heating that corridor space, then we'd still need to understand that what you're granting us, the Building Department still wouldn't consider that to be the solution because l, su still have that unheated space between it. Whether the Building Departmen~ would o2. nsider that a breezeway or neE. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not a breezeway. It's a solarium if it's anything. HS. MOORE: I know i5's net a breezeway. But maybe the porch that's only got less than 10 feet between it, would they consider it a breezeway or not. CHAIRWOMA~I OLIVA: But otherwise, Pat, according to the code if i%'s nob heated, you're really having two separate buildings. MS. MOORE: I disagree. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be an accessory building MS. MOORE: I disagree because the reasen Ehan we're here for the variance is that the Building Department, when you have a heated space connected to an unheated space, uhey look at it as a second dwelling. What I say is we don't have a ~itchen, iY's not a second dwelling, it's all connected, it's an integrated space, and it's really no different than servants quarters or whatever you used to do when you had one area segregated from another. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Pat, we have nothing in the code as to guest cottages. MS. MOORE: They're connected. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unless it's heated to me, it's not connected. It's two separate b~ildings, two separate living ~reas. MS. MOORE: We're drafting and revising as we speak here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll let Jerry spe~k uo chat in a minute. MS. MOORE: Jerry, can I show you what we're thinking about? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you have to go te the Building Department with this anyway '42 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 prior to us closing this hearing. So you probably can do that today. MS. MOORE: I can walk it over. This is heated space. We have to connect it to this heated space. So what we would have to do is sotne kind of a length between the two, whether it's the whole way or whatever portion of i~. So we have to take some portion of the screened in perch ~nd i~ea~ it to connect it to the other heated space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. The ~,ther question I had is why are you boxing in this porch; why aren't you taking this line and going all the way across with it? I realize iE encroaches a little bi~ more into uhe tree area and going straight across with it. Instead of oreating this little jog in here. MS. HELFAND: We were trying te ininimize. MS. MOORE: We had no problem with i~. That would have been a logical - MS. HELF~gD: Wait a minute, wait a minute. We were also trying to not interfere with these trees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't care. It doesn't make any difference te me. I was just wondering why you did that. MS. MOORE: If you wanted to pun up. ~o whatever that distance is, and we ceul~ then, when we're on site, as long as the contractors don't, because certainly there's backfill required and we don't wan~ to compromise those beautiful trees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't either ~ecause we wanu them as screening. MS. MOORE: Right. So if the Board wants to push us towards the front yard setbacks by Ewo feet, whether or not we use it, we have the discretion of not using it anO therefore, I don't think the Building Departmenu would care if we are less than the maximum variance tha~ the Board allows. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So how many square feet ef addeU space would you be adding te tt~e proposal? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 5.7 times whatever the distance of that link is. MS. MOORE: Why don't we supply you afuer the hearing with a drawing, the footprint we gave you originally ef where uhe actual corridor, se you can have i~ in your file. 43 March 3, 20}5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 11 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a morion uo slose the hearing and reserve decision until later, pending nhe review, your permission from the Building Deparnment. ISee minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMA2[ OLIVA: Next hearing is Bruce Garritano, who wishes ~o have a bed and breakfast in Ease Marion. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? What would you like uo tell us? MR. GARRITANO: Good morning, I would like to tell you that I'm applying for a B an~ B applicatien at 8100 Main Read in East Harion. The Beard has come dawn and reviewed the property. I had applied for five units, they had made a recommendatien for feur. I have agreed wi~h ~hat recommendatien, and I am taping te proceed ferward with this applicatien. CHAIRWOM~[ OLIVA: Our preblem is that eur cede dees not address guest suites. It is really primarily far a bed and breakfast, and you have ,rome back and ferth several ~imes with different arrangements of your suites and your rooms. I would sugges~ that yeu come back uo us with really what we want to see is really just a bed and breakfast of ne more than five bedreems that are internally connecEed, and also we de have a question about that stairway. HR. GARRITANO: Abou~ what stairway, the existing stairway in the hack? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The rear stairway cannot be an entrance to a bedroom. MR. GARRITANO: Okay. That is the owner's suite. That is my ream, a sitting reom and a hedreem there. CHAIRWOM~{ OLIVA: Yes, sir. When we were ~here you said you wanted the downstairs, then you came back Ehe next day anO wanted the upstairs. MR. GARRITPkNO: I'll ta~e the upstairs to simplify. And uhe other rsem only has ~he sitting roam. There's enly ene rosm aside fram the owner's quarters that has a sitting room. And we do have rooms that accommodate more than two peeple, you have people tha~ cema cut here from all ever the world, that csme cut with a husband, 44 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 wife and a child, and they need room to set up their crib or whatever. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with you, Hr. Garritano, but our code specifically says bed and breakfast. It doesn't say efficiency or suite and breakfast. MR. GARRITANO: Okay. If the wall is removed in between those two units in the back, ~he two that you are considering suites, they're sitting rooms but you're considering them suites, if I take ~hat wall out adjoining the bedroom wiEh the siEting room on those back two uniEs, will that then work for the Board? Will that wor~= if that wall comes out and it becomes one big room insEead of two small rooms? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: AnO Ehen you'll still have the suite upstairs? MR. GARRITANO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And nhe downsuairs would just take that wall out also and Ehen uh~t would be one large room? That would be preferable. MR. GARRITANO: Okay. We would love to ~o ~hat. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Let me see what everybody else has to say. ~erry? BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, Ruth, I did not see the interior ef this, but if that is okay with you, i~'s okay with me. CHAIRWOH~ OLIVA: But we would nee{ a revised plan. HR. GARRITANO: _Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: I didn't go inside either, I just was outside ef i~. Can you clarify which walls you were talking about taking down? MR. GARRITANO: Certainly. Firs~ floor right nero is a small bedroom, we're going ~o take this whole wall out. There's no electric, no phone, nothing in this wall. We're going te take ~his out and make this one large room. We'll .Se ehe exac~ same thing on the second floor. Rmgh~ here there's a wall here and take that right out. There's no electric in the wall. CHAIRWOM~g OLIVA: Also the two bedr©oms ~hat you have on the top flour will have a shared bathroom? HR. GARRIT~kNO: Yes. These two will have 45 March 3, 2005 46 2 3 5 6 '7 $ 11 12 ~3 14 ~6 2O 21 22 2~ 24 25 a shared Oathroom and the other two will have their own bathrooms. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now that you Mayo moved upstairs from what you told us and shewed us several days ago and agreed to turn suites into large rooms, I am not aware that these objections have not been answered. I think the objections do seem to be answered. CHAIRWOM_AN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: [ prefer EhaE he non have te remove the walls. I am familiar with ~his house growing up in the area, as a kid and hanging out down there, that you're going to fin~ a bearing wall there. MR. GARRITANO: Actually ~hat is net a bearing wall. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're comfortable with that, I'm comfortable with it. MR. GARRITANO: I'd rat~er net take down ~he walls, I'd rather have two room suites, o~e for myself and eno for a guest that has children, 10ut if ~he Board would like me te ge ahead and take down those walls, they're two by three construction, they're not bearing to anything whatsoever, and we can easily take those walls down. CHAIRWOM~{ OLIVA: Jerry, do you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I want Ee explain to the applicant a special excepEion is a special permit. Everything has ~e be perfecu by ~his Board for it Eo be approved and ~he Board does have a right, apart from what eno celleag~e inay have -- and this is not sarcastic Yo my colleague -- we can pull tha~ permit at an}, ~ime. So we want you to come up with a plan that we appear te have a compromise on, and we need t~at permit te be standard when the decision is ~ranted. MR. GARRITANO: Okas,. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOM~[ OLIVA: Is t~ere anybody else in this audience that wishes to speak en this application? Yes, sir. MR. ZIZZO: My name is Joseph Zizzo. I own the house across ~he s~reet from the building in question at 8245 Main Road. I would just like March 3, 2005 47 2 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 1% 1S 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 to give you something from an ad Mr. Garrinano put in the Suffolk Times, if I may? This is an aerial photograph ef the three properties Hr. Garritano owns. It would imply to the casual viewer that they're all efa piece, which they're not. Local residents and I have been suffering with what I would call a pushing ef the envelope ef the zoning regulations as I understand them for a resort/residential. Hr. Garritano closed en his property a couple ef months before I closed en mine, and let me assure you had I known what the gentleman planned to do with that property, there's no way in the world I would have ever bough~ my house. Currently, Hr. Garritano is operating a nigh~ club en the property, which is composed efa ~ent with outdoor ampli[ied music, which can sometimes be heard for a mile away. New, I am right across -- HR. GARRITANO: This has nothing to Oo with the application at hand. HR. ZIZZO: It does. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do agree with Hr. Garritane. If you wan~ to complain about t~e c.~her, then you will have te take that before the Town Board for some sort e[ noise ordinance or call the police for the disturbing of the peace. ~ut the Blue Dolphin has nothing to de with this one application. It is ~erely ~hat one house on the corner. HR. ZIZZO: I understand. I agree with you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I heard complaints about that, but that is noz under our jurisdiction today -- MR. ZIZZO: I understand that. The only point with respect that I'm trying to ma~e is tha~ Mr. GarriEano's been pushing the envelope in terms :}f zoning where he already is, and there is ne reason to believe that EhaE won't be the case in the new home. CHAIRWOM~g 0LIVA: I can assure you that if we grant that bed and breakfast that it can be inspected every month if necessary. Okay? MR. ZIZZ0: Sure, I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: We'll have a permission or not have a permission for a bed and breakfast and nothing else, and ~his is the only thing Hatch 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 itefore us today, and I don't want to hear any comments about anything else. MR. ZIZZO: Can I lust comment on [dr. Dinizie's CHAIRWOM~Iiq OLIVA: Ne. MR. ZIZZO: Then I would just say in conclusion then that we as neighbors feel that the granting of this bed and breakfast would substantially change the character ef the area, would continue to substantially change the character of the area, which has already been going .un fur three years, and we feel it's eno mere seep in transforming what was a quiet, residential area into a very busy, loud business district. And we feel it's being done quietly and slowly, but we feel thau this bed and breakfast -- net Ealking about anything else -- but ~his bed and breakfast is just yet another step in transforming this area from a quiet residenYial neighborhood into a loud, lousy business district. That's why we oppose the bed and breakfast. We're going to have increased traffic. We're going te tlave increased noise. I have had people by Hr. Garritane's establishment CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't want te hear about any of his ether -- MR. ZIZZO: excuse me fighting on my lawn with police car headlights shining in my front window. Now, I'm from Brooklyn and that doesn't shock me, but I was hoping that in East Marion I could gee away from that. And my fear is ~hat, ma'am, that the same thing is going to continue te ge en in the bed ant breakfast. 1 understan~ in your mind it is not an expansion, but trust me, if you lived across the street, you would see it very clearly as an expansion, an,~ I only ask you to look at that photocopy as proof than it is an expansion of the Blue Dolphin. AnO any denial of that cannot be taken seriously. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Your oOjections will be noted. Thank you for coming. MR. GARRITANO: Can I make one commen~ on t~at? CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: I'm only concerning your bed and breakfast. MR. GARRITANO: These complaining bought houses Dn a million passengers pass by people who are a state highway where their fron~ door. 48 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Barbara and Robin's house i.s 30 feet from a state highway where a million passengers pass there front door, 18 wheelers, motorcycles, everything else. The noise from 7:45 in the morning to 11:45 a~ night. MR. ZIZZO: From Saturday -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do not want to [~ear this. doing MR. GARRITANO: The Blue Dolphin has Oeen ~he same thing since 1957. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are out of order. Sir, sir, yen will sit down. If yen have any comments about the bed and ~}reakfas~s, fine. I don't want to hear anything else. Ma'am. MS. IMANDT: Robin Imandt, I live at 7835 Main Read, East Harien. All I would like to say · s ~hat from ~ha~ ad that we passed around, olearly shows tha~ Hr. Garri~ano is referring Ehose other two properties as part of uhe Blue Dolphin resorts. It's clear. So my point is Eha~ te me it seems obvious that this bed and breakfast will be absorbed into the main section originally called the Blue Dolphin Mouel. I know you don't want to talk about the Blue Dolphin, I'm jusn saying if you look at uhat photograph uhau uhey prepared, Ehey're clearly stating from ~hat photograph that the bed and breakfast, private residence, which Mr. Garri~ano does not live in now, I don't know if that's what he's saying, is ~aru of that parcel. So all I'm saying is that Ehe problems that we're having with the property uhat we're not going to be discussing here, we could be having with ~hau because iu's clearly sta~ing from their photograph that they are calling this the Blue Dolphin Resort. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ma'am, again, I'm saying we control the bed and ~reakfast. We can inspect it at an}' time we mo desire. He has to meet special conditions in that special exception permit, and if he doesn'~ meet it, he's out. MS. IMANDT: And I assume there's no enuertainment or music allowed? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's nothing in there at all. MS. IMANDT: Hopefully ~ha~'s wha~ will happen. MR. ZIZZO: Will ~he patrons of this nightclub au the Blue Dolphin be able te park on 49 March 3, 2005 5O 1 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the property of the B and B? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The B and B is only for the residents of the B and B. We can put that in sur condiuions. MR. ZIZZO: As a homeowner I put close to $100,000 into my house. The property values have not kept pace around this lovely establishment. 1 woulO just like to know what the recourse is should that start to be used as parking for the nightclub. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We could be very specific with than. Ail right, is there anybody else wants to make any commenus on the application? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a quick question for Mr. Garritano, do you plan on residing in that house? MR. GARRITANO: Yes, I do, absolutely. And last year we had 14,000 guests that shopped in your shops and drank in your wineries and ate in your resuaurants, and on the south side there's 3,500 rooms, and on the north side there's 350 rooms. There is a need for housing for the transient people who come and stay in our community. None of these people live off of Ehe tourism dollars that are out here. Blue Dolphin was for sale for many years CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're here fcr the application MR. GARRITANO: B and B application is what I'm ~ere for today, and I knew they would bring up this issue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're running late. Thank you very much for your thoughns. MS. IMANDT: Does he have to live in the space in order for it uo qualify? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. I'll make a motion ~ close the hearing and reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOH~ OLIVA: Our next application is for Janice and Bill Claudio about a see off on Gull Pond Lane. MS. MOORE: Hr. and Mrs. Claudio are here today, and we are here te !}et a variance for the lot sizes for a proposed subdivision ef this parcel into two parcels that each parcel will March 3, 2005 51 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 result in a lot that is at lease an acre each. What we had provided for this 8oard in the packet submitted te you, the written packet, is a aelered rendering showing where the parcel is, how the surrounding homes are developed on this proper~y. And you can see from the colored rendering that this area has been developed fully, ~his let is eno of a five lo~ subdivision nhan was dsne at one time, where conservation area was on the north, Let 12.1 and 12.4 are oversized large parcels. The owners are here today. I happen te knew them very well. They have done a wonderful job, one has a leg home on it. These lots have ~ovenants and restrictions tha~ prevent further development. 12.8 I believe is the only o~her let ~hat came from that subdivision, and then ~his ~arcel as well. There was at one time, and there was some confusion, there was a let line change in '86 ~hat reek some ef the land from 12.8 and added it to 12.6, there was an exchange of some land, and that is the configuration that shewed en the tax map for some time as two separate tax numbers is actually one lot, it's 12.9, an~ I think you have ~ letter from me trying to clarify that chronological tax map issuance. BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: The 12.& and 12.7 are one. MS. HOORE: 12.6 and 12.7 are now 12.9 and is eno parcel, and that's ~he parcel we're dealing with. The applicant was able te obtain here, the Claudios did a very nice job here on a tax may, ~hat shows the actual let sizes ef all the parcels. It's very impressive as you con see from this diagram, it's taking the tax map then identifying the actual acreage }f all ~he parcels. The zoning line really falls e×actly a~ this parcel. To the north along wha~ are designate.~ 16, up to the north and east are zoned one acre, this parcel te the west is zoned two acre, bu~ ~his parcel is adjacent tea eno acre zoning districE. You cai1 see the way ~he code was adopted a~ one time we didn't ge below one acre, and every single parcel te the ,east is en average half the size of one acre zoning, and we similarly want to ~ake this parcel, which is directly adjacenm to the one acre zoning disEric~, and make March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 each lot one acre. So we are taking this waterfront parcel, we gave you a survey that shows that the parcel can be developed with two building sites. When we are finished with you, we go back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board designates the building envelopes en each parcel. So we will ge back to them and have them identify front yard, side yard, rear yard setbacks, as they often do en lets when they're created. Se that's our next step in this process assuming this Board will agree with us that this property will not change the character ef the area and can be suOdivided into two. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a clarification anyway. Can you tell me, according te the zoning map, it looks like Ehere's a line there new; is that line going to change? MS. MOORE: On the 12.6 and 12.7! Yes, that line doesn't technically exist anymore. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it was there? MS. HOORE: It was there and originally when we looked at it, it had me szumped [er quize scale time because it looked like it was a waiver of merger issue, but, in fact, it was due tea lot line change that at the end of a lot line change you do confirmation deeds that take -- when you ~ake a little from one, give it to another, you do a confirmation deed that takes the entire perimeter ef the new parcel as it's been adde~ to cr subtracted from. That was never done here until recentls,. So when 12.9 once that was tone get re established. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When was that done? MS. MOORE: I think last year. BOARD MEMBER DINIZEO: Until thaE ~ime it was two separate -- MS. MOORE: Two separate tax lot numbers ~hat were merged. But actually merged net jusz because of Eitle, it was merged because it was a loz line change application which was the condition of that particular agreement was we're going to inerge those two properties, and, in ~act, mhey effectuated the let line change. So Marcus reek some ef Brader's property, merged it, anO Brader took some of Marcus's property and merged it. And ~haE was the agreement, it got approved 52 Harch 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2~- and was done. It just took a long time to get that last deed done Eo get the appropriate tax map number. So what we're dealing with now is the total acreage of 12.6 and 12.7 as shown on this map. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do I understate that the easE-west line on the old map is going te be replaced by a north-south line if they ~eE their variance? MS. MOORE: Ne. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MS. MOORE: Let me come up te you, if that's all right. The map is in your packet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Se only one ef them is going te be en the water. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The}, both are. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going te make them equal in square footage? MS. MOORE: That's the goal unless the Planning Board prefers otherwise, but your variance, we have 40,913, Lot 1, and 41,000 as Let 2, those two are pretty even. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Close, equal size lots, and if I leek aE the map you gave us today, i~ leeks like it's probably, each one of those lots would be twice tile size ef most of the lots in the area. MS. MOORE: Yes, correct, adjacent lots included. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: To the west, those lots, a couple of those lots, these large ones are preserved? MS. MOORE: The eno that's preserved is iOenEified as 12.3 on that map. Lot 12.1 and 12.4 ~re righ~ new improved, the 12.1 has the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If I read the ~ecord right, they're restricted from further subdivision? MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: By covenant? MS. MOORE: By Planning Board covenants, l~es, and they were very specific as to which one. This one did not get included. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question. It's been suggested by a person who corresponOed with the Board that there's a disagreement with the claim zhaE this variance would not change the 53 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 character of the area; would you care to comment on that? MS. MOORE: I thought that all the documentation that I provided for the record ~isputes that. It contradicts that opinion. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Specifically. It has to do with the question of what is now an open expanse of view of the bay, which will be aluered ~f the variance is granted. MS. MOORE: That is to begin with so many fallacies there, I don't know where to begin. 12.9, the new 12.9, formerly 12.6 and 12.7, permitted to have one very large house with tennis courts and swimming pool and everything else, ail the amenities they would desire to have. This is not a park; this is not an open space; uhis is a private single and separate lot. If 6 has waterfront, they are also on Gull Pond inlet and uhey have a nice waterfront parcel. They're not entitled to views, no one's entiuled to a view unless you pay for a view, and the Claudios are paying for this view, and they're buying ~his property. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So they're contract vendees? MS. MOORE: Yes. The lot was available, if 16 wanted to preserve their views, they certainly could have ponied up the money and bought iu. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They coulO plant evergreen borders all around there. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. There's no prohibition on a fence, as long as Trustees okay it, within their jurisdiction; obviously, I preface everything with you can do everything as long as you have a permit. The view is not a guaranteed view for Lot 16. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Currenuly nhe character of the neighborhood, you would have to ua~e in marine place and osprey, and if you look ah this map, the character of this neighborhood is half acre lous. MS. MOORE: Absolutely, if our zoning code was a little less creative and actualll~ provided for zoning that conforms with existing area. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why you have Zoning Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What you're 54 March 3, 26,05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 saying, Mrs. Moore, is similar to wha~ you heard me sa}'ing aE o~her hearings, ls that you reviewed the title on the piece of property Ehat the Claudios are buying and there are ne scenic easements over this property; is that correct MS. MOORE: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a further sommen~, wha~ you're saying is you're suggesting that the character of the neighborhood is no mere damaged by replacing an emNty lot where there could be one house surrounded by half acre t[ian having two one acre lots. One acre lots would make it more in conformity wi~h uhe rest of the neighborhood rather than eno single two acre lot? MS. MOORE: Yes. And ~hank yon for your statemenE, ~hat is quite accurate. In £act, I would say that smaller lets result in smaller houses that probably march t~e character of the area mere se than an oversized lot that allows for Ehe 20 percen~ lot coverage that you're entitled Eo. Se to the exEent that iE is actually crea~ing a situation that encourages conformiEy ~o the character of the area, the smaller lets -- smaller by virtue of double the size ef everything else around you -- but nhe house is going to he placed ou a one acre lot certainly has more restrictions on its size and loE coverage ~han a house that could be placed on two acres. CHAIRWOMPO[ OLIVA: VincenE? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a quic~ ~uestion, and I coulO be wrong on this, buE did you hOE win in Supreme Court on East Marion inayOe a let that could no longer be subdividet wiuh covenant resEric~mons, and you were able to overrule that? HS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So eve~ ~heugh 12.4 says C and Rs no longer subdivided, you won in Supreme Court to overrule that on another case, something like that? MS. MOORE: Yes. But that would be as 12.1 and 12.4, but not as to this one, this one Nas no such restrictions BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But covenants and restrictions say not to be subdivided? _55 Marcli 3, 2005 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ MS. MOORE: No, let me clarify. The Planning Board, when they approved this one lot of four lots, specifically said, well, the fifth lot was a preservation let, the fifth let w~s sterilized in the subdivision process. Lot 1 and 2 cannot be further subdivided, that would be the equivalent of 12.1 and 12.%, those large four acre parcels. I don't recall at the time whether 12.8 has that restrictions, but cerkainly our properS_y, 12.9, does not have that similar condition. So the Planning Board very specifically said to the ether eno, which are four significantl~ larger than the zoning requires, and that certainly ce~ld be an issue uhat could be appealed, whether er not that condition is a legitimate condition and enforceable, I would leave te another date, but it doesn't apply te ~his at all. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would comment ~ha~ there's a lot ef wetlands en these lots and it appears to me that that's the reason why they require the covenants. MS. MOORE: I think I would have a har~ time - BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: I think you would net have -- MS. MOORE: Never say never. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Getting back te the application then, so with this 80,,300 square foot lot, we're looking for a 40,000 square foot variance? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No ether questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: These lots ~o have Town water, right? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I~ any way is the topography of these prsposeO parcels going to be comprelnised in any way from a topographical pcint ef view if construction was te exist? HS. MOORE: From my observation ef the tcpographic features shown en the survey it doesn't appear to be Oecause, in fact, we have a very flat parcel - it's already cleared thau's why the complaint from the eno neighbor - it's a cleared property, so you can see right from the road the water that shows it's flat and t~ere's not a lot of natural vegetaEion, that w.soded 56 ~.'Iarch 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 $ 9 ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 vegetation. In fact, the topography is such that from tile water you don't really have a ion of I want to call it slopes. You ge from elevation 1 0 waner to 9, again, on a very slight incline. So it's really flat. There appear te be no environmental reasons why this couldn't be developed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any FEMA restrictions en this let? MS. MOORE: Coastal Zone there's no issue. We are in ~he AE Zone and F. So chose are not FEMA issues. We can actually build with, chink AE 9, as long as finish floor elevation is at nine feet ~here's no issue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My only ether question is you're having Ehe right of way ge across eno of the properties. CHAIRWOM~iq OLIVA: Which lot are the Claudios interested in, 2 or 17 HS. MOORE: Lot 2. What we show as Let 2 is where they would immediately build. Let 1 would be one where kids, family, there is a pouential to put a small house nex~ te you. lt's going ne be a family compound if everything gces well in life. Certainl5, as nime goes on, things can happen, and it does also plan for estate plannir~g issues down ~he line. They are noo young tc thi~k of these things right now, but tile right ef way really has no impact. If you see where the righn of way's actually on the west side ef tile where cul-de sac is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm just saying whoever owns that Let 1 maybe not now but may in the future, may net be! too happy te have a righn of way going across in. HS. MOORE: BuC nhey would be ~uying it knowing that. And it's us~lally not an issue. A waterfront property the right ef way, ~he driveway -- actually the Planning Board very .zemmonly asks for common a2cess. So the reality is even if we somehow or another had a way of providing a driveway nhat wasn'C a righz of way, the Planning Board would most likely make a common access point en Gull Pond Lane. The only alternative is te de it as a flag lot, and it s~ill requires some form ef common driveway access. So it actually works well. And the Planning Board did get a copy of nhis 57 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 application. There's been informal discussions and there really dldn't seem to be any disagreement with the right of way. I don't believe it will affect our decision here as far as the area of the lot if, for some reason, the Planning Board in their review says, you know, I'd rather you move the right of way further west, wherever. We'll deal wi~h wherever they think in ~heir epinien the right of way kelengs. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else sn the Board that has any questions? If not, is there anybedy in the audience that has anything te add to this application? HR. WITT: Richard Witt, W-I-T-T. I own with my wife the feur acres adjacent on 1900 Gull Pond Lane and the feur acres adjacent to that, 1710. MS. MOORE: 12.1 and 12.4 now. MR. WITT: Just as a little bit of history, my wife and I are ex south forkers. grew up in Lazy Point, a place in Amagansett, she grew up in Southampton. It's finally turned into an area we didn't want to live, and we moved the north fork, so if we could save a little bit ~f the north fork before the most beautiful place on the Earnh disappears. When we moved to Gull Pond, the first ~hing nhau got us it looked beautiful, pond with all these little lots. It was planned. Iu was iai~ out beautifully. It had some half acre and two acre lots and four acre lots; it just looked like a lo~ of planning went into that tivision around Gull Pond, as opposed us ~he south fork that over the last 50 years has become this hodgepodge of property lines, right of ways, roa{s going no where, cul de-sacs that never existed. No planning went into the south fork because they diOn't know what was going to happen because it nook 30 years. You people have a big job ahead af 5'ourselves because what happened there that nook 50 years is going to happen here in the next five. It's not going to take the momennum. There it was started in the '70s. It's here. So it's something the Board has to look The property is a beautiful piece of Eroperty. The size is wonderful, the views are wonderful. It's definitely an estate quality. One thing the Town should put in its mind while 58 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 $ 9 10 i1 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 it's deciding this, on the south fork we've seen them divide up pieces and also leave what we call "estate areas." Where estate areas are a little larger, they go for a lot more money, and they're not really at the whims ef the real esEaEe market. The smaller houses, the market goes down, t~e market goes up, the properties sell, they don't sell, people buy them, people go bankrupt, they get left, people knock them down, and people put ~p estates. The estates, regardless of the market, regardless ef what happens, these people always see~ to have money. They just ~uy them. I believe in the long run, the Town would have larger nee tax proceeds frcm t~e place being left as a whole instead of it being subdivided. Personally,, it doesn't destuey my water view. I won'E even know Ehe houses unless I go down to ~y deck. It makes no difference. This is semeEhing the Board will have te decide on the direction of the Town, which way we want the Town te go. If we start subdividing, I can almost guarantee you, if Ehey subdivide that lot, and I see this place getting all tern up and subdivided, I have four acres; I may have te ge te the Supreme Court, but it's adjoining these two and I have four, and I'm between two roadways. I have no wetlands. I don't have hundred feet setbacks. I'll go for a subdivision on that whatever it Eakes, make my money and leave the area, which I really den'E want te do. This is eno ef the bose places to live and we try to preserve a little more . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you opposed this or are you for this? I'm .£enfused. MR. WITT: I think it's up to the Town Board te decide the direction they want the Town te ge in. We're deciding large parcels of land, whether we should subdivide it, a~d here we're deciding whether we should subdivide that's already divided. The property is big enough, if you subdivide it you can p~t in two small houses. If i~eu put eno large house up 6,000 square feet, I'm sure you're allowed, it would be the same square feet as Ewe small houses and it would retain its value more. Ani it would be much more pleasanE. But it's not my call. It's uot ~ny piece of property; what a person does to his piece sf property is between him and his Board. 59 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% If you subdivide this property will I immediately go down and say, oh, I want to suOdivide my property? No. It has to be the direction the Town takes. How they're subdividing, hew man~' things they're cutting down, what's happening te the north fork. I'd hate to see this turn into the south fork. Granted, it's hard to live in a place like this. Buying four acres like my wife and I did and opting on one just to Oevelop it as four acres net suOdivide like normally they would do on uhe south fork, cut iE in half, sell two acres, I can put my house on the two acres, that way I can live and have some extra money in mir pocket. It's ver}' hard te live in these areas. In order to pay the taxes on these properties, my wife an~ I have ne health insurance now. It's a k. alance now. We live in a nice place, so we don't get caught by too many diseases. It would be easier to cut the piece of property in half, sell in and then have the money to build our h©use. Then we would destroy the character of ~he town. I don't want to do that. i would rather keep it as a four acre parcel. Which iu's not easy. In order to do it in town, especially on the east end, is very hard to preserve, and we hear a lot of the rhetoric about voluntary preservation. We're trying. The ultimate decision is yours. If I was going to vote on it, I would vote no. Bu~ the ultimate decision is yours. It doesn't destroy my water view, it doesn't do anything to me. I~ just happens to he the neighboring piece s~ property. It's half the size of my property and he wants to cut it in half. I thinM it's a beautiful piece of property. I think uhe Town should also put into their mind the net taxes they will be receiving froln this proper~y. The south tsrk, let's face it, the estates pai- a lot oI the taxes. You have people that ge in and ouu of ~heir little houses but the estates pay ~er t~e school. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is ~here is ~he~e anybody else that wishes te spea~ en this application? MR. AHLERS: Hy name is Panl Ahlers, I live at 1905 Gull Pond, Lot 1 .on the survey that we have. MS. MOONE: Tax Lot 16, I believe 6O March 3, 20,1,_~ 1 2 3 5 '7 $ 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 ~9 20 21 2~ noruh. MR. AHLERS: Yes. Mir question to the Board is this just a variance or is iu a zoning change since it's uwo acre zoning, and then They're going to break it down to one acre? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Indirectly you're correcU. The variance is so large itl would be almost a rezoning, indirectly. MR. At{LERS: Okay, for a note of the record, I'm opposed to it since I'm Lhe adjoining house. You know, crowding uwo relatively narrow lots, wiuh ~he waterfron~ property nhey're not going to be smaller homes. They're going to Ouild uo the building envelope as much as they can and ~hat's going to crowd me more. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Is Ehere anyone else who wishes ne speak on uhis application? MS. CLAUDIO: Hi, I'm Janice Claudio. I guess I want to digress for a moment and tell what brought Bill and I here today. I grew up as ~ summer person, I know thau's not a great thing, bun since the 1940s my fammly's been coming here, which is Oefore I'm born, and my grandfather literally built a house on the bay in Jamesport. He and my uncle -- I'm nou ualking like an architect, they buil~ the house -- my uncle and my aun~ honeymooned Ehere. Hy mother and my fagher honeymooned there. We grew up ghere with barbecues and birthday parzies and everything. It's a living bit~erswee~ memory to me. Mi, grandparents died in the early 1990s and ~o settle their estaue, the house was sold in 1996. I~ has been a goal sf my life te ge: back Lo the water. So this is tnat. We're going to live ghere. It's ~ot anybody else. We're not going tc sell it. We're going to live there ungil we die. Hew this came about is that in late fall we decided to take a boat ride, another digression here, and we drove up ~he bay to Riverhead to see what was going en there, and we thought we'd leek a~ the house, see how it was looking. And as we got close -- we know this, iT's ingrained in your brain as we got close to the house, there was nothing sganding but the chimney. It had beeh resold and it's a hole in the ground with the dirt :}n the sides, and I guess ~he chimney's required 61 March 3, 2005 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 for something so the chimney's there. So mom, my aunt and l, we had a little cry fest an,~ that led me te ge and see what was out there, just to de this. If we're going to do this, we get to de it now, we're getting a little long in the tooth and it's time to do it if we're going to do it. So that's what brought us to this property. It's what we want te do with the rest of our lives. I think you know we are community people. I sit on the Long Island Hospital Bcard. I'm on the BIB. I run the Greenpert merchants fcr years and fears. We are community people. What leu see is what you get. You all know us. We have been here forever, and I hope you see it cur way because t~is is just a dream ef ours. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have a letter here asking for a postponement. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: We usually allow out ef courtesy allow one postpenemenu, so that would be held over to March 31st, net that you'll have to be here, if you wish to be here that's fine, for this person te voice their objections er comments. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: At 1:15 March 31st. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there's no further comments from the audience, I make a motion te close the hearing reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Warns on Peconic Bay Boulevard, an expansion of the house, just really making it bigger, keeping mostly the same side yard setback of 3.9 ieee en one side, and then expanding on the other side to kind of even the whole thing out. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. I also have letters from the adjacent property owners, John Abbott to nme wesE and James Abbotu to the east, they're brouhers, and uhey own the houses on either side. And I have seven copies of each letter. Neither one objects. The only other noticed person was a person from across the street, and we haven'~ heard from them. I'ln not sure if the Beard has either. That's it. If you have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHR£NGER: I was there last week on a very beastly day. Would you please inform Mr. Warns that I will be back to do another 62 March 3, 26,05 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 inspection or continue the inspection? The one concern I have is water runoff based upon the proximity to the westerly property line. So when writing this decision I will inOicate that water has to be contained on-site. MR. GOGGINS: I think there's intent ts put in the dry wells and gutters and so forth. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good. Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANEO: Is this a complete demo start over? MR. GOGGINS: No. It's an addition, maintaining some of the original foundation, some of the original wails. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far beyond the original footprint is the construction going go? MR. GOGGINS: According to the surveyor it's not much. It goes off to the eas~ about 14 feet and that's it. The rest o{ it goes up. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the southwest side yard stays the same? MR. GOGGINS: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZ!O: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that has any comments ~o make application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. /See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is at Walnut Place, Giardiello. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. I also have the ~ffidaviu of posting. I apologize for not getting these things here earlier. I was on vacation. We just got back. This is a total renovation. They wan~ to knock down and renovate it. It's an old community on Walnut Place. The houses are close together. I think they all started as summer bungalows, and now the Giardiellos want no retire and move out and renovate this whole cottage into something that's new and improved. And they want tc, make it a little bigger as you can see from the drawing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My only questian is csuldn't they move ~he house back just ~ little 63 March 3, 2,005 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 bit to get it off the street? MR. GOGGINS: Yes, I think they could. Presently all the houses are that close to the street but certainly - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do have some room in the back? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that an in-ground pool in the back or above-ground? MR. GOGGINS: Above-gronnd. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be my suggestion. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many feet do they have in the back from the existing structure? MR. GOGGINS: I believe it's 60 feet. CHAIRWOMAi~ OLIVA: They have enough room. MR. GOGGINS: There's enough room. They could go Oack a few feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 20? MR. GOGGINS: 20 foot se~backs from the street? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just make it look more attracuive. If they ever had to sell it, make it ~nore attractive to sell toe. Some of the houses ~hey have back there they have upgraded them Eo some degree. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. I ~on't think that wo~ld be a problem, 20 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It could set a good example for other people to do similar things on that street. MR. GOGGINS: It's an interesting street. There's a dirt road and there's no apparent demarcation from where the road ends and where the front yard begins. It's one of those to~gh areas in town. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going ~© go from 13 feet to 20. That doesn't affecn the cesspools, water? MR. GOGGINS: That's so~nething we need to find out, I don't think it will. BOARD MEMBER DINIZ£O: If you're happy with than, I'm happy. MR. GOGGINS: Yes, we're fine. When I spoke to them I said you know, still close you're increasing a nonconforming use and the Board's probably going to wan~ a little bi~ of a se~Oack. 6~ March 3, 20,35 1 2 3 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this application? I'll make a motion to close the [~earing and reserve decision until, later. ISee minutes for resolution.} CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is Welch and Guido[i on Vincent Street in C, rient. MR. GUIDOLI: We try to add the porch Eo our house. We felt our house is very simple looking, I mean, it's faceless. We were trying to create something that is aesthetically pleasing and also respect the look an~ feel of the historic district. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: You wanted that porch to go not only around the front b~t to the side also? MR. GUIDOLI: Yes. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: Is that going to be covered? HR. GUIDOLI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But net enclosed? MR. GUIDOLI: Not enclosed. CHAIRWOMA~I OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEHBER GOEHRiNGER: I spent some time on Vincent Street. We had some applications zn the past year. My only concern is, and I don't knew if you were here during the discussion on Sunset Way, but my concern is that Vincent Street being a very, very Narrow road and your house being, there's ne doubt that what you wane ~o do adds tremendous amounts ef aesthetics, and we discussed that before in the ether hearing, however, the problem is that the house is the 21esest house to the road, there's ne question about it. You're going te have to cut that perch down if you want my vote, in reference to depth. HS. GUIDOLI: How many feet would yon need us to cut it down no make it work? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I'd like to see it cue down three fee~ to 5'6" The ~hing -- MR. GUIDOLI: We are very social people Rn~ we expect to spend a l~u cf time oh that porch ant I picture a table with chairs. I picture a lot of furniture en that psrch, and somehow I think that it will be very crowded to make it that size. 65 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not agree with you more but what you need to do is emphasize the social area to the side and make that porch a little deeper. MS. WELCH: Would in have to be ~, 6, is that what you're saying? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I think six foot would be the max that I cculd go. MS. WELCH: The one thing we realized when we were actually driving is that the house further down on Vincent Street, the McNeeley, they have just it's not necessarily a porcn, but an entrance and it felt to me that it was almost the same depth Out BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I di~ look at that; I think it's a little farther away. I think we had an application on that if I'm not mistaken. MS. WELCH: May I ask another question? The existing stoop that's there now - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's exempt. MS. WELCH: I understand that, but I think we could easily go cut down a foot or so, so the porch equals -- my worry about doing a six foot porch is that it does make it cramped, and I'm not sure in would be worthwhile to put the money into building a porch if we couldn't actually use it comfortably. So would we be able no maybe come out to where the stoop is as it exists now? It seems to me like that might Oe seven feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember I'm only one vote on this Board, and I'm the ~irst one to be asked. And I don't really like to do this to people, but I have to tell you that we have become an authority on porches, primarily on the Main Road, and I think if y~,u take a rocking chair and you measure the ,entire width of the rocking portion of the rocking chair, you'll find that at six feet, you'll have plenty of room t~ walk through the porch. This is exclusive of the overhang, remember. But, ~gain, the concentration should be on that side, but that's my opinion. MR. GUIDOLI: Let me ask you a questicn. You have a se~ of photographs in front of you. There is quite a huge tree, very, very close to the roa~, how that affects whatever can happen near the road compared to what we are trying ~o do? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sensitive 66 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ about trees, but I don't know what the .question is. HR. GUIDOLI: What I'm saying is you are concerned that we are building closer to the road and somehow that tree is closer to the road than our house. So you are concerned that ii perhaps the fire department has to come to our house, ~hes' have no space; what is the concern? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The concern is very simple. The Town may choose to widen that road, and the Town really has a seven foot right of way for the first seven feet of your property, they have a right of way on everybody's property. And most of those things are for easements. What are the easements there fez-? They're easements for sidewalks, anO any other utilities that may ge into the property. So if we have 17 and take ~ off that, new you have a 10 foot setback. As I said, it's a very narrow street, and I don't know what the Town's intentions in the futere are, but I can tell you this, as Orlent further ,levelops, just as every place develops, you will see eventually the elongations of these rights of wavs, the rights ef way I'm referring to ether towns. I work for the Count}, ef Suffolk; the County of Suffolk presently owns at this time aDeut %,000 private roads, all of which are under mi' jurisdiction. And I have to tell you we are en constant review by individual property owners te do something with those. This is net in my opinion a private road, however, this is a publis road. So it's up to the Town to make tha~ decision. BuU I can tell you that as activity ,~ccers, that may be a situation. The fire tr]lcks that exist today by OSHA standards are in excess ef 10 feet wide, and I have to tell you I am net a fireman in the Hamlet ef Orient, I'm a fireman in Mattituck, and I have to tell you it takes approximately 12'9" to make an average turn with the present fire trucks we nave which are Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, Number 4, Number b pumpers, we did that based upon a building that was being built next to Penny Lumber, whiuh is presently a i2rick storage building. So those are tile issues that I'm telling you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're the first I've seen a deck in six inches, 8'6". I don't 67 March 3, 2009 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 19 2,0 21 22 2~ 24 25 know how with dimensional MS. WELCH: I think in's eight feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that with the overhang? MS. WELCH: with the overhang it's 8'6" In sounded funny uo you? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, with dimensional lumber why would you have a six? MS. WELCH: I think she drew iu with the averhang; does that make sense? BOARD MEMEER ORLANDO: I agree with Mr. Goehringer. I have a six foot front porch and my family and I, we enjoy i.u. We have plenty of teem. The problem is, yen're the first one en the block that's close in that way, and the precedent, se then the other guy wants to ceme to ~en ~oot closer and so forth. So I'm going te agree with him that a six foot or 6'6" MS. WELCH: If we were to de something like that, we would have te take it back te our Rrchitect and redraw the plans and come before }'on agai~l? Or we would just agree that that would be okay. That would change probably the side porch es well. I don't know. I would have te talk to the architect abou~ it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your side porch is seven feet or is that 7'6" with the overhang? HS. WELCH: 7'6" wi~h nhe overhang I think. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Building Department might require a revision en ~han plan. MS. WELCH: I don't think we have gotten to ~hat point yet. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ne other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Hew far out does Ebe existing stoop go? MS. WELCH: The existing stoop new is I think it's about 7'6" down to the last seep., the actual stoop inself. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's about 7 fee~? MS. WELCH: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A six foot deck ~hat would replace that would not s~ick ou~ any further than tha~ front stoop would be. HS. WELCH: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I also agree Ehat a six foot deck, from personal experience, thee 68 March 3, 2005 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 while it doesn't do what a 10 foot decking will do, is quite adequate. I have a four foot deck which is limiting. That was my only question as to whether it would be appropriate to build past the distance of the front snoop. And as I say, what you want to do on the side, six foot in the front or eight foot on the side, that's between you and your architect. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we're going to allow him no go further out on the side, I think we ought to say so. MS. WELCH: I think the reason that the architect drew in at eight feet was when we originally talked about a porch, we envisioned a porch swing, and I think she literally went to o~r neighbor's house, they have a porch swing and meassured in based on thau. So out on the side, I think we decided seven feet Oecause we thought ~t would be nice ~o maybe do an outdoor dining table er ~o have that as an option. We were trying to figure out how we were te use it, and if we were to shrink it in the front, I don't know how than would affect the side. I'd like te discuss ~hat with her if it's okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Here's the problem I see you running into. Say yo~ reduce the front bI' six and you increase the side to eight, then he could den}' you because you still are in a nonconforming area, and that's ~eing ~o he an increase in than nonconforming. 8o you need no ~ecide. Let's say we decide we'll grant you 10 foot side porch, but no further than six feet out from the house, the front yard, would that be acceptable? We need te state that se the Building Inspector doesn't say, eh, look, you're increasing it again by say a foot, but you're still doing it, you're going te be back be[ore us. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you don't have te build 10 feet side, but if we say ~en and you build eight ~- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you six feet is porches. dearly, and we thought a porch would really enhance .and E'm sure you've seen the drawings. more than enough, even with a swing. MS. WELCH: Clearly you know moze aOout To us, we love our house, we love it bu~ in is the plainest house on the blo.s~ 69 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I live in Orient so I know. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You want ten foot nn the side so we can confirm that in the decision or do you want seven? HS. WELCH: Let's ask fur 10 feet en the side new, and then we don't have te use it. That makes sense. CHAIRWOP~tN OLIVA: Is there anykody in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? ~'11 make a motion te close the hearing ~nd reserve decision until later. !See minutes for resolution.} CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're going to ask the Board's and public's indulgence to take Susan and Curtis Rand because S~lsan has te make a ferry back, and she won't make it unless we go now. MS. YOUNG: My name is Susan Young en behalf of Curtis and Susan Rand. They would like ~o rebuild their fren~ perch and legalize ~heir back deck, and the front perch would be just like all the other front porches down that row of houses. Eight feet in depth, which is identical bs. 5he usual, the historic setback, although iE doesn't conform te the zoning law setback. The ~ouses were built just after 1900 by the Army, and so that's the way they were built, and then before the Rands bought the house, the back porch had 5urned into a deck, which .ks more appropriate for recreational use because you loc. k out ~c. the sunset in that direction and ali ef the houses have back decks in that location. Se they would like to legalize that. And we asked all the neighboring property owners and they all, we h~ve letters from every single one ef the foyer of them, ti~e Ferry District, the school iistrict, Rsbertsen's and the Graves en the other side, and there's pictures in Exhibit A, although inaybe some o~ you nave seen this when you went out to Fishers Island in August for your meeting, there are some gray houses across the stree~ between ~he school and the ferry district and those are the enos we're talking about. So I shouldn't take up ~oo ~uch ef your time. De you have questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I did actually see ~hat house, and actually they're built to the 7O March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 military standards. You can take a string of line and run right down. They're all pretty much uniform. And the back deck, is that a subject of mhis application? MS. YOUNG: It is the subject because we wanted to lock everything in because there was something there originally, there was a back porch, but none of houses have back porches ~nvmore; they have back decks. But this back deck has no C of O now. I~ should have been done before, and we thought as long as we're going to pklt the front porch on, let's legalize nhe back deck ~oo. We feel it's the appropriate size, ~here's plenty of rear yard still between tha~ house anO the Ferry District, and you can see that in ~he pictures, in Exhibit 8, on the seconO page, yon can see a large sort of play yard that ~ees between all ef the houses that's about equal distance between the back porch and the hedge, and this is right in keeping with that. And I think people are happy with it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: We did see it, and we saw ~he back deck tee, and I have ne chjection aU all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEHBER SIMON: Net having seen it Out what I can see from the p~otes, I have no objection to it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My questiezl here is l'sur exhibit here as a nine foot front porch and this one has an eight feet. MS. YOUNG: Yes. Griginally we had been toying wi~h the idea of trying to set a new precedent in the neighborhood of making a larger front porch, that maybe when the o~her front porches were built maybe they should be nine feet because we thought the eight feet wasn't big enough, but anyway we brought it back down to eight feet te keep it the same as the others. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I measured the oEher one when I was out there last summer, and they were all eigh~ foot. No other questions. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to find this hard te believe, but I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have any 71 March !, 2,1,05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 questions eiEher. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If neE, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision unEil later. !See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Martorana, the new house on Deep. Hole Drive. ls there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? This is another one, Jim, ~hat I was uhinking couldn't move Ehat back anoEher five feeE? MR. FITZGERALD: The problem was it was set at a 35 fooE setback from the front yard, buE a~ Ehat location, the DEC, who says 75 feen from ~he wenlands no development., we would have been 45 into uheir 75 feen. So they sai.i they would approve it if we moved ~t 10 feen closer ~o uhe road, and thaE's how it goE to be where it is. And they didn't seem like they were willing ~o discuss it any further. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem thaE I have is given the limitaEion on Ehe back and the size of Ehe house, this is going to be pretty imposing tc have someEhing that big and thau close to the Main Road. That's what i'd like to see a~tressed, whether Ehat could be mitiganeO in some way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also, Jim, the way ~he point comes out there, there's only one point ~hat comes 25 fee~ from the road, can't they cut that back a little bi~ so it will be another five feet? I~'s just this eno little edge that comes out and it is a big house. MR. FITZGERALD: JusE bi, cutting ~haE back wouldn't give us five feet more because it sticks ou~ on tile other side of Ehe house also. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: VincenE? MR. FITZGERALD: BuE I'm sure it's nc~ cas~ in stone the design. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It seems te be ~he consensus of the Board it needs te come back a smidge. If you come back with a number and the architect can be creative and design whatever ~hey wane te design. Fair enough? MR. FITZGERALD: What is the number? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'll let the Chairwoman decide. 72 March 3, 200g 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Jim, what are the dimensions now on that one sloe? MR. FITZGERALD: Dimensions of the house or the setbacks? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The setbacks on the front part of the house, ncr the setbacks, the .Simensions of the structure on the angle where the steps go out, which is how far out is it at this triangular section, and how far of a platform; do leu have any idea? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We could just make a 30 foot setback if the Board agrees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I'm proposing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, 30 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's my file and that's what I'm proposing. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak? MR. FITZGERALD: Should we make it 30 feet and show you, or do we have to have another hearing? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're just granting it at 30 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it's up te yet to figure it out. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I~'s relief. Is there any change in the design ef the deck, Jerry, .sr would you ge 30 feet straight across? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He can do whatever ne wants as long as it's 30 feet. The impresszen I have is that the old house is going to be totally removed? CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Yes. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes te comment en this application either pre er con? If not, I'll make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.} CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is for Kellc en Lecest Lane in Seuthold. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: This is for an outdoor shower, which is en [he property. The reason there was ne intension to violase the code or ordinances in any 73 March 3, 200~ 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 way, the owner had gone to a garden tour and seen mhis structure during eno of the garden tours and asked Cottage Gardens in Mattit_L~ck if they wouldn't mind being able te build something similar en her property Oecause the property is en Locust Lane and LaHadue, a cer~er lot. The only real rear yard she has is ~he area around her back deck and patio and she wanted ~o make iE look as nice as possible, and also she's an avid gardener, she wanted te have a sink Eo wash her han{s instead ef the hose, you have something a little more formal. When this was built, the Building Department came out and took a look and it was their position that because it has plumbing it needs a permit. There are lo~s of outdoor showers all over ~ewn, and I'm not sure if that in fact is the case, but certainly the fact that it was too olose as an accessory structure as a shed, let's call it a shed with running[ water, a shed has to be at least three feet from ~he property line, and when the survey was done it. preyed te be a little ~oe close. Se given the options, the owner came zn and we're asking for a variance because Yhe cost of removing this structure, one i~ would be ~u~dermined, the cost is really expensive given the ease of the structure originally, it's aimcsE the same price as building the thing because you have ~o actually take it apart completely since it doesn't have structural wa_ls per se, it's equivalent to a shed and four pieces of fence put together. It doesn't have that structural integrity that you can pick it up and move it. It would have to actually be taken apart and move it. That option was one they would prefer to come in and ask for a variance. I know that the neighbor I believe is here to oppose this application. I would point bun for the Board those who haven't seen this or jusn for ~e recor~ if you have seen it, that on the other side, she common property Line zhere is a six ~oot fence that is on the property line, zhaz is actually my client's fence that replaced an old dilapidated fence that had been there all along, and the owners were very pleased that Hrs. Kellc, when they replaced the fenoe, that it was done so and kepz the privacy between nhe property. There's also, unfortunately righz now in she 7'4 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 '4 5 6 ? 9 10 ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 winter time, the lush greener}' that surrounHs this but there is an avid amount ef landscaping, I believe I gave you a photograph in your file that shews the landscaping, Out I will show 5'eu another picture which pretty much gives the same view. You can see hew lush it is. With respect the fence is still there anH the fence does block the view ef the structure. A trellis above is an architectural feature no different than if you were ~o put a garage and the eve would be showing. So that comes te mind because in eno ef photographs that I Eeek in winter time to try to get an idea of things, I nctice that the neighbor, the northerly neighbor, has a garage that seems te be about a feet elf the property line, it's an existing structure, no problem, but they have an eve for a peak of the structure that you see over Ehe fence line. Se it's not uncommon that you have an accessory structure, that you see over a fence. The fac5 that it's there, as long as it's on your property, we've made -- ,Dr my clienn has made, ever}' effort to mitigate any impacts, again, by the fence and by the greenery around it. I will answer any questions that you might have, and I'm sure that there will be someone else wanting te speak. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is in tha~ shed? MS. MOORE: In that shed is just an outdoor shower, the spigot of tt~e shower and there is sa}' like a little sink, actually a copper, a low basin copper sink that's built into a little platform. It's very lovely inside, and it's the equivalent when you have the outdoor spigot a~ 5'our house you have the equivalent. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does i~ include a dressing room shower? MS. MOORE: No, when you walk in you have ~he little sink, then when you walk beyond it you have the shower. The dressing area is the combined space of uhe sink. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's not just the shower iu's plus MS. MOORE: Right, there's a slnall are~ it's only a 6 by 9 structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which is big for a shower. MS. MOORE: Personally I have a shower ~hat's bigger, because when they were Little 75 March ~ 20nu 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 16, 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's basically a shower stall. MS. MOORE: I guess that's a matter of subjeetive opinion. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't think you .-ould buy a shower stall that's 6 by 9. MS. MOORE: One that you could put in },our house? BOARD MBMBER SIMON: Yes. MS. MOORE: No. This ~s typical outdoor shower. Used to be that the Town called uhem fences, a fence enclosure, in facE, because I know when I got a building permiu fence enclosure at ~he time my husband was a public official, I didn't want to have anything going on without a building permit whether it was needed or not, so I gcU a spigot ouu of the back of my house and ~he fence that goes around it is cons±doted a fence enclosure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason I'm suggesting -- and I don't mean this as an sOjectien ~ I think this whole s~ruc~ure is very attractive, but man}, of whaE people call outdoor showers are just essentially a 4 by 4 because that's all it is continuing all around the town and you see these li~le showers ~ha~ people have in the back, i~'s not a 6 by 9 room. I don't have any particular problem with that. MS. MOORE: I ~hink it depends on the neighberneed you go to. Where we are in our neighborhood, you tend ~o take off your bathing suin and dry off and so en with a little inore space because you don't want to mrack all the sand into your house. In particular at this properuy i~'s very important ue have that space because they are on a corner lot, very visible, 7-Eleven is about one hundred feet away [ur~her property, two hundred fee~ away, iE's a little more practical in particular of the rircumstances ef ~his corner lot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One more qnesnion. This may not be a problem, but part ef the reason w~y in works as well as iE does has to do wiuh u~e existence of the fencing and your trees, which are en %,our client's property; is there any way in wi~ich it's either necessary or tesirable or possible te insure tha~ the fence would not be removed, the Urees cut down maybe with a 76 March 3, 200S 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subsequent owner to have this structure sort of si~ting out there six inches from ~he pFeperty lille? MS. MOORE: You're going ~o be ~here ~or a lcng time, but I guess the fence definitely, absolutely no doebt, the fence will remain there, az~d you can make that a condition ef the approval, and the trees ye~, buu again, we could have that it continue Eo be vegetated, whatever that might inean at the time depending en whatever vegetation works se thaE's an acceptable condition. CHAIRWOM~/q OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Essentially if it were twa feet closer te insiOe then you wouldn't even be before us. MS. MOORE: Correct.. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where does the water go when you take a shower? MS. MOORE: Well, uhey actuall}' did it the right way but we found out it can't be done that way. They actually had the water going down into ~ dry well, se therefore it doesn't run in~o the },ard. We were ~old that iE has to run dawn and pipe onto the property. So we are disconnecting the pipe uhat goes into ute dry wells, disconnecting it se it's no~ a direct connection, still have the dr}' well there, have a F~eEural seepage, and all the water is running and the grade ef the property is running so it all runs toward ~he dry wells. Joe Fischetti, the engineer here, after the face he looked aE it anO said, ~-ou can' t do nhis because we can' E have the actual pipe contracted ue ute dry well system. We have to cut off the pipe at grade then let the wa~er run in and we were doing that, ~hat's fine. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: If I were to get dawn en the ground, would [ be able to look into nhis; does th±s fence go all the way into the qreund? MS. MOORE: Yes. The fence goes in~o the grade. In fact, en our side it's landscaped so it's a little tiny - I don't want to call it a berm because it's not that big -- it's a slight landscaping mound, and if it's something we need to mound some more BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'm just concerned. The inside is just what, lire blocks er? 77 Marck~ 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 MS. MOORE: Are we talking about the fence or ? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'm talki~lg necessarily about the structure itself. HS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I ~heught you were talking about the fence. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is a fence, really. MS. MOORE: O~ay. The structure sits on posts, but mhere's a stone ~leer uhat i~'s above grade by half an inch er so, so there's light and air so i~'s net a sealed structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's net public. MS. MOORE: No, no. It's actually -- uha~'s why it's difficult to move because everything is independenu and what you'd have to do is you take apar~ the walls and you still have the flooring ~here, so you'd have ho tear out all the flooring that's ~here and move it over. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I wanted ~o get an idea. This is just four pieces ef whatever and 4 by % posts. There's no roof other than that pergola looking, the roof is not solid? MS. MOORE: No. It's an open pergola. It matches, there's a fence entrance on LaMadieux ~hat's a terrace and you go ~h~c. ugh ~hat. It kind 2f matches the landscaping pla~i of the property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any o~her questions? Is there anybody in the audience who wishes ue speak for or against this application? Yes, sir. MR. DIPIETRO: My name is Arthur DiPietre, I'm an attorney. I maintain offices at %1 S~nset Avenue in West Hampton Beach, and I'm here to represent ~he proper~y owner immedia~elV ~o uhe east, Jean Sanford. I would like te preface ~his ~c. say ~ha~ Miss Sanferd has aske~ me ~e immediately say, acknowledge ~hat she and ~he applicant are neighbors. She was pleased by ~he erection of the fence; she advises me she even gave her neighbor a present in acknowledgement ef how pleased she was abou~ {_he erection ef the fence. This application mai~ seem minor. I~ certainly has ne~hi~ig ~e de with hostility, it has to do with the zoning ~'ode, i~ has to de with self-imposed hardship. It has 78 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 (~ 1'7 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 to do with your specific requirements of 5he zoning code, and it has to do with the fact that prefacing it by the acknowledgement that it is a self imposed hardship however unwittingly or innocently it was done, that's an important factor in your determination. It may not be the only factor. There was a point in zoning law where a self-imposed hardship was deemed to be fatal, however, now it's a presumption against the applicant which the applicann can overcome. One of the most important considerations is what are the alternatives and how substantial would be the removal, and whether or not this is a fence and I'll be presenting an exhibit, some members of the Board have already personally ~one to the site and ~;iewed the structure. Even though technically since it's open to the sky it mat, qualify as a fence, it's got shingles on i5, it's a little more substantial than a fence. There are two or tt~ree very important, in descending order, provisions of 5~our zoning code that I believe mandate you to deny this application. First off, the specific provisisn applied fcr in the application a variance from the three foot setbacks. And at first blush you say what are you making a mountain out of a mole hill for, Arthur, three feet, six inches it's not a bi~ difference, but when you think about it, it is a bi~ difference, and I'll point to a question the Bcard asked of the applicant's attorney. You said, can you make some kind of assurance or ccvenant that the fence will always be there, .and she said well, maybe, maybe not. MS. MOORE: No, we sai{ yes. MR. DIPIETRO: But a fence according to your yard for a s~de or rear lot line has to be no more than six and a half feet. The s5ructure is more than six and a half feet. Another important ~hing, even though, in my spinisn, three feet for an accessory structure isn't a lot of roo~n, buL I'm onlt, here to recommend, not ask the Town to ~'hange the code. What's important with three feet would be instead of a fence, you could as a remsonable condition of approving this veriance impose a condition to put landscaping between the structure and the neighboring property, which would have more permanence than a fence, would be legally taller than a fence and would do a better 79 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 16, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 job of screening. The other thing I'd like to direct you to is I believe your zoning code in the same section says chat accessory structures mnst be in a required rear yard. And although there may be other considerations that would make the applicant less than thrilled from her standpoint about using the property, there's a loc of room on ~his property to the north, back to the garage, which is in the 35 foot required rear yard in this zone where this structure could be. So I think there are cwo variances here, and only .one was applied for and one was advertised. The! variance from the three foot setback requirement from the yard but this structure isn't even in a legal location on the property. An accessory use as I read your code has co be in a required rear yard; the applicant has asked for it to be in a side yard, the applicant has apparenuly elected for the north back of the property no be the legal rear lard so Ehat's where this structure has to be. And finally, as I mentioned before, {_he Section 100-231, which regulate height of fences says tha~ a fence can be no more than six feet in ~ side or rear yard, six and-a half feet, i believe it's four in your front yard. Se if you're going to sa5, chis structure really is no more than a fence, I would submit it viclaces that prevision in the cede. And whac I would like te offer up into evidence as parc of the record are some photographs taken by my client from nor vantage point, and although we had no intention whatsoever to damage or deface our neighbor's fence, a section was removed and replaced in order for the photograph to show what we're talking about. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. DiPieCro, you are asking apart from the issues in the beginning, the issue of the replacemenn of the fence with live greenery? MR. DIPIETRO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is tllat correct? HR. DIPIETRO: Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that I chink to emphasize ~he point of why three feet is substantially more signifisant than six inches is ~hat if it had been built in 8O March 3 2005 1 3 6 ? 12. 12 17 18 ~0 21 22 23 the conforming locanion, I'm not admitting that this is a conforming lecanion even for nhree feet away because of the provision in nhe code that requires an accessory building to be in a required rear yard, and as I read it in this zone nhat would mean it would be limited ko some position 35 feet south of the north property line, that's ~nother issue - but to go back he yours, then whether er not there were a fence, there could be the addinional screening and buffering and landscaping ef natural vegetation with a fair expec~anion ef growth tha~ would provide height. It would also provide some acoustical buffering, because here we net only have a visual issue, we have kind of, alnheugh it may non be like the Blue Dolphin disco sounds, there is noise and activity and so on, very proximate Eo my client's back yard, which constitutes an audible and physica£ innrusion, in addition ko nhe visual intrusion, because this was placed in a way that mai' have been very considerate of the applicant's needs a~d desires for her property, but somewhat inconsiderate ef Mrs. Sanford's and nhat's why we're here today. ~O~RD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I took it as a rhetorical question, and that's the reason why I'm asking the quesnien. The peinn in question would be that any type of greener}' would definitely bare to go on your client's property at present? HR. DIPIETRO: New, yes. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: A~d be conninueusiy maintained witheun the person transversiNg the preper~y or in effect the person trespassing? HR. DIPIE?RO: In effect, my clienn would }~ave te solve nhe problem en her property and pa}- for it and maintain it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn't say pay for it, I'm saying maintain i~, that's the issue. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think he was getting a~, Jerry, if in were three feet off the proper~y line, you could pat shrubbery mn between. MR. DIPIETRO: Yes. The applicant could solve im herself and your ~oard would have available to it a reasonable condinion than you could impose as an element of the approval process. 81 Pdarch 3, 200~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2h BOARD MEMBER JOEHRIN~ER: II1 no way are ~ou accepting any of that; is that correct? MR. DIPIETRO: To put it on my client's property, absolutely not. So I'll be brief, I saw your little notation at the head of each page and I tried to submit some documentary proof but reiterate, there's a required rear yard issue here which is in Section ~00 33, there's the lack ,of any opportunity to buffer, there's the self-imposed hardship and there are many, many sEher places on the applicant's property where this could be located legally as a far less intrusion into my client and still not really adverse effect the use and enjoyment of the property by the applicant. And finally, although Miss Moore has stated about an extensive removal, ~here were no specific numbers given, and it would seem that common sense would force anyone to conclude that taken in the context of hem' comments about how insignificant the s~ructure is, therefore removal and relocauion would also be an insignificant expense. Thank you very ranch. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to ask you something, I don't get the rear yard at all. see where ~hey put it except for the one foot setbacks but that is a rear yard. Mg. DIPIETRO: No, it's a side BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I think that you ought to look at ute code. MR. DIPIETRO: I have looked at the code, and when you have a corner lot, you have a double fron~ yard and you can elect your rear yard and the applicant has elected the north ~e be their rear yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, sir, that's not the case. I~'s behind the house beth instances. C}{AIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: Tha~ is in the rear _vard, it's behind the house from both streets. MR. DIPIETRO: If thaE's the case, sir, ehen why would the application itself say three feet from the side %.,ard and ute side lot line? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: it has to be three feet from any let line. MR. DIPIETRO: I agree with you completely, and I disagree with your conclusion 82 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1'4 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tna~ there can only be when you have a corner lot by the definition of your code, you have two front yards then you elect }'our one rear yard to determine what the fourth one by process ef elimination becomes your side yard. This is now ill a side yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Ail it has te be is behind the house from beth streeEs, that's all it has te be. MR. DIPIETRO: The cede as I read it, it says an accessory structure ulust be in a required rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, I'd like to refer it back to our attorney, Town attorney. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR~: It just appears that in either case, the shower or ~he proposed structure, no matter which is elected as a rear yard, it's in whatever Ehat rear yard it's behind the house in any direction, ne matter which way you slice it, it's in the rear. BOARD MEHBER SIMON: Auother way ef putting that is, unless there is evidence some other place is designated as the rear yard there's ne reason why this couldn't be the rear yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Either choice behind the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can't have two rear yards in any case, but that's not the issue. MR. DIPIETRO: I don't want to beat a ,lead horse, your Board certainly has the benefit of advice of counsel and also the benefit Ee interpret provisions of the co~e, but it's mV experience as a zoning attorney and municipal attorney that once in a corner lot, a rear yard is elected by a property owner for one purpose, that rear yard gets locked in, you can't have a rear yard in one place for one purpose and another place for another purpose and put it on rcller skates and move it around ko your convenience. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The ~einE is that the rear yard exEends te ~he line of the iici/se so even if the rear Faro that you say is chosen was chosen, it's in thau rear yard. MR. DIPIETRO: Again, tile way I reaU and iE may be an anomaly ~hat literally the prevision in your code that talks about the location of ~ccessory structures it doesn't say a rear yard, 83 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 it says accessory structures must be located in a required rear yard. And the word "required" makes a big, big difference because }'ou only have one rear yard here and the required rear yard is 35 feet from your rear property line into the property. And that's not where this shower is located, and that's my opinion, my interpretation, but, of course, you feel differently, but I would like to note for the record that I strenuously disagree with that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have another question. If we took the door off of tMis, anO we only let it go up to six and a-half feet say without the pergola thing, we wouldn't be here. It would just be a fence with a couple of pieces of fence hanging off the end forming a box. MR. DIPIETRO: If it were just two partitions sticking out from the existing fence no higher than the fence, you're probably correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I object to the piping being on that side, I think nhat's pretty cr~ss. MS. MOORE: They don't see that piping. Just for the record they vandalized my client's fence to remove it. anO the pipes are behind, we could agree, a permanent fence se this is quite disturbing to think that a neighbor would take dowil a structure that was ours to make a pein5 that there is pipe 5here. That's a serLous problem. That's borderline criminal. MR. DIPIETRO: I want to get my violin out here. I guess two wrongs don't make a right but len's be perfectly clear that ~he first wrong was the wrong, and illegal and improper siting and location and building of this snructure without a permit. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no doubt about t~at, sir. That's wily they're before us now. We're looking for some kind of half way point, obviously, that your client's not happy with that maybe this structure can stay in the place ~haE it's in. I don't know that we can require that the applicant plant s~uff on this ledy's property. MR. DIPIETRO: I'm not ~sking for that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know that that can happen, maybe you don't want it Eo happen. 84 March 3, 2005 1 2 6 ? 10 11 12 16 18 20 21 23 happen. r~R. DIPIETRO: I doa't want to it to BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was g3ing to ask of my I guess that question. MR. DIPIETRO: It's a utilization client's property to solve their problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank ycu, that's all I have. MS. MOORE: Can I just respond to a few things? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quickly. MS. MOORE: I think we're prateV set on the rear yard issue that ycu pretty much said what I was thinking. wimh respect to the structure, if it was three feet off the property line, you'd be seeing the exact same thing over the fence and there would be no vegetation, nothing, it would be legal and we wouldn't be here, the only thing we nee~ ,~o is after the fact get a building permit because :Df the interpretation of needing a building permit due to plumbing, but Vou would seeing exactly ute same thing. Realistically, a lost gives us difficulty in planting shrubs that are trees or l~ou're going to have a root system. Even at three feet the root system is a problem. So my client will certainly make the offer, and has before this date, that if she wants to put some evergreens on her side, we'll pay for thc}se evergreens, we're not opposed to that. In fact, if she were to build or her next owner were to build an accessory garage at 18 feet above grade, she coult build it three feet off the properts, line, and we'd nave no say about it, so understand the rules are, three feet, but the objection is what they see over the fencing and you'd see the exact same thing, the only dif{erence being that instead of being ~hree feet it's at one foat and that was a problem. If they wan~ us to Duild a little box around the plumbing behin~ it, I don't know what purpose t~at would be because ?~u still haYe the fence in front of it and we would hope that they would put the fence back where it was. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The actual question ,Df the neighbor's attorney, if },ou say the purpose of the setbacks was three feet ar five feet is to allow for the planting of vegetation, unless the person chooses (inaudible/ setbacks exists had to 85 March 3, 2005 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 be mandated to build the vegetation, how is that geing te serve the purpose of this setback law if that's what you say the reasons were? If, as Miss Moore sa~,s, if she had put it three feet back, there weuld be reem for vegetauien, but if Hiss Kellc ditn't want te put up the Tregetatien, she ,couldn't be required te do so. So what does that de to }'our rationale for the setback rule? MR. DIPIETRO: It's just that the vegetatien would be an alternative to the fence that the preperty owner could voluntarily put up %e exhibit some degree of sensitivity ~o the neighbor that apparently exists because her atterney has just volunteered tc put it on my client's properuy. But there's anether very interesuing thing, and I'm going to ask Miss Sanford to clear ~zp my error and I apelogize, about the removal ef the sectio~ of the fence, anether thing, even where the plumbing is, a little bit of wiggle room between the structure and the fencing would make it a lot easier to maintain the structure, and if y©u have any other questiens of me, I'll come ~}ack but I'd like Mrs. San£ord to come up and talk abeut the circumstances under which that photegraph was taken. MS. SANFORD: Jean Sanferd, I'm the neighbor next door. You know the Founder's Landing area, it's R40 I think, it's a very densely pepulated place and we have te always be considerate ef each other's privacy and rights and everything, and it's very, very, close; that shower thing is right by my garden, right by my side entrance ~e mt, heme, right by a sitting area where we like to sit eut, and ue have shower eetivity going en as Pat described, yeu know because they want ~o disrobe a~d the}, don't want to have all this sand stuff in their house, all that kind ef activity is a loss of privacy on mi' side ef the fence, on mi, side of the side yard, which I den't know what the law is, but [~er mailbox is on Locust Lane and that is uhe frent of her house, and so I'm not arguing the peint bun that is Locust Lane and even Pat Moore's letter said the side yard, that this structure was on the side yard, and it's where the twe side yards ceme together and the property is very close. We're all clese there. It's six residential 20, 40, I 86 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 1{ 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2S think we're 40 and that's pretty densely populated, and we have to be careful how we treat each other. As far as the fence, in order to fix up their pipes they had to come on to my property and dismantle, they took the fence down and in order to work on the pipes, because they had no access to ~he pipes for this shower unless they come on my property, and that's when I took the picture. I didn't take that fence down, I don't T~andalize. I have never vandalized my neighbor's property. And I was very pleased when she put up the fence. We went over, we thanked her. I thought it was very nice and before she pun iu up, she came over and told us they're going to Oe putting a fence up, but she never once came anO said, I'm going to put a shower right here in your face, never discussed beforehand what they were going to do, and I just think that it's nine feet high, it's intrusive. If a pipe Oreaks all that water's going to be on my ~roperty. It's my headache. The loss of privacy is the main thing, Vou know, thau's the thing. She could have put it anyplace else and she put it right where on our side yard, where you use our back door. I don't have a picture of my house but it's the loss of privacy that I feel the worst about, and I think Yhat's about ali. I have to say. It's just I hope I don't think of anything later. I just thin~ that she could have put it someplace else or at lease discussed it before she put it in. Thank you. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CONCORAN: Pa~, do you have an estimated cost for moving the structure back? HS. MOORE: It was hard te tell. I know I did ask the contractor. For the walls it's about $2,000, then I have Ee remove the base, the material, yen have to take the -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Foundation? MS. MOORE: It's not really foundation, it's flooring. So you're going to have demolition oosts of that, refuse removal cost, and then whatever else you want to replace in the wherever you move the structure. So it could be anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. The}~ couldn't really tell. IE's time and money an~ ~naterials. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR~: We just wanted 87 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 a ballpark. MS. MOORE: I did ask arid they gave me a range. They couldn't give me anything mere specific than that because ~hey didn't want to be pinned down, you know, eh, $2,000 then yeah, it cost them $5,000 to de. Se he gave me a range of $2,000 ~o $5,000. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What kind of wall is it! MS. MOORE: Wall? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What is it made or? MS. MOORE: It's plywood with the fascia cedar s~ingles. MS. MOORE: What's on the inside? MRS. KELLC: Bead board, all weather bead board. insulated BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's noE Out there's four inches. MS. MOORE: Yes, it's air space, yes, but it's not insulated space. OHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further questions? MR. DIPIETRO: I would like to submit one other thing to the Board, it was submitted to ~he Building Department, but I don'u know if it w~s part of your record. I would also jusn note for Ehe record thaE the speculation just stated as ~o cosu of removal is not sufficienE evidence upon which your Board can make a determination. MS. MOORE: We can provide a written verificaEion. He gave it Eo me verbally but I can provide it in writing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one more question, Mr. DiPietro. Mr. DiPietro, again, bits and pieces of your presentaEion are issues thaE I'm hanging on trying to proviOe a soluuion with this rather than a demolition of Ehis s~ruc~ure or the removal of it and then reconstruction of it. You referred to the area in back of the s~ruc~ure as being wiggle room, so it is my understanding ~hat upon the erection of this fence, this fence was nou erected on the property line? MR. DIPIETRO: No, it is on the property line according to the survey, which was part oE the application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the survey says one foot off ~he proper~y line? MS. MOORE: The shower is one foot off the property line. 88 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DIPIETRO: I don't think the shower is even one foot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because this fence is directly against it, and I would say that if the fence was en the property line MS. MOORE: Ne. It's the fence then there's about a foot, I saw there's about six inches or so, six inches or a foot. There's a £oot between the fence that's on the line and the wall of the shower. HR. DIPIETRO: We're dealing with such close tolerances, Mr. Geehringer, that I would have te have the surveyor here to find out which side of the fence because you have 4 by 4 posts, you have the fencing, I notice the fence was -- I don't know, does your code have a requirement that the finished side of the fence is supposed te benefit the neighbor? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I always thought it did, but -- MS. MOORE: Now with pools and :iow fences don't require a building permit if they're on the line. MR. DIPIETRO: whine about that buy portion ef the fence nhe posts are on Mrs. I don't point that out to rather since the unfinished is on Mrs. Sanferd's side, Sanferd's side, and if ycu measure uhem from the post, then we've got the 4 by 4s, plus the thickness ef the fence; I would submit from the photographs with all due respect that the distance between the wall ef the shower enclosure and the applicant's side ef the fence is nc more than six inches, so there really isn't a lot ef teem and as you heard Mrs. Sanferd say and I apologize te the Board and Mrs. Moore for creating a non-issue when I talked about removal of the structure. It was removed by the applicant's contractor in order to gain access te the plumbing, which is another issue your Board should consider. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I am a great believer in compromise and yourself beiuga litigator, I'm sure you have some feeliug toward ~hat also. The point in question is if the posts separate the fence and are not placed either in front or in back el, there's wiggle room. If the survey is correct, there's got Eo be 12 inches there, 12 inches less the fence and you've go~ te 89 March 3, 200S 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 2O 21 22 25 have 10 inches back there somewhere. MR. DIPIETRO: I don't know if there is or n.st looking at the photographs but in any event, and I will concur in everything you said about characterizing me, although I haven't seen you in a long time and it was wort~ the trip up here just to see how good you look. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Millions of years. MR. DIPIETRO: After all these years. MS. HOORE: For the record, no schmoozing with the Beard. MR. DIPIETRO: If you can de it, I can do · t, I'm not here every week. In any event, you know me well, and you knew that number one ~ represent property owners and applicants a lou, as well as a neighbor such as Mrs. Sanford, and I've been a municipal attorney, and I believe that a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit, bu~ having said all that, there is so little maneuverability here that it makes it difficult. If I could see an opportunity tc address Mrs. Sanferd's concerns without -- I'm not here to be vindictive, just to punish the applicant, but it weuld also seem to ~e that given ~he nature of Ehis structure, there are no footings, there ~re se~e pests that you could get a fork lift in here and pick i~ up and move it, and semmonsense says it wsuld be back down in half an hour an~ we're not talking about $3,000 or $4,000, thaE's just my layman's - obviously since I'lu an attorney inaccurate conclusion about consErucuion, but I've been around construction enough te know that common sense compels i~e to believe that there's a simple solution en the applicant's side Eoo. MS. MOORE: If I may share with the Board ~y client's attempts te mitigate, we have that Erellis above, we could cut the posts ef the trellis, it compromises the look of it, but so he i~. Where ~he posts may be en my picture we take off the arbor en the top so she weuldn'~ see i~ er she'd see this portion, we'd cut it off, put the top pos~_s and just cut it off. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How would ~hat benefit ~he neighbor? HS. MOORE: Just visually. Other than not w~is~ling in the shower, I don'~ know if we could address ~he noise because Lf we had just an 9O March 3, 2005 1 2 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 iS 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 outdoor shower with no building, no~hing around it, it would suill be the same water noise. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Another compromise would be exactly what I saiO Mr. DiPieEro, that is do not put the posts on either side, put uhe posts next to the individual pieces and attach the pieces to it. Instead of putuing the 6 by 6s on both sides, put it in the center and attach the posts, the [ence to that, therefore you'll have 10 inches of room in which you don't have to bouher Mrs. Sanford when you go over to work on ~he back side of the unit. BOARD MEMBER ORL~kNDO: You still have to get in ~here, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not ge~Uing in there with any fence. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You atnach the posts to ~he fence this way, whichever way the fence runs and you don't overlap it, either in front or in back. MS. MOORE: I see. What Mr. Goehringer suggested was that the post you see how the fence is on the inside of the posts, take the fencing and put it as a connection beuween the post here - it's just taking the fence and pushing sc that you have the outside, the fence and ~he post on the same line, correct? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Giving as much room as you possibly can between. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Are you going to submit a new diagram; what do you want ~o do? MS. MOORE: It's up to the majority of uhe Board, whatever you want us to do, we're willing to take off the top, if that satisfies anybody. We are willing to give well CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, why don't you just talk uo the neighbor and we'll leave this open for written stuff for a week or two. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. Let's get this ironed ou~ now. MS. MOORE: It's ollly a shower. Let me just go back. We're willi~g to take the arbor portion of our shower featnre off and bring it to Ehe height of the wall of the shower. We're wilLling to put the fence in between the posts, or if the owner would prefer, have the posts and the fence, since we could ~ake this piece down, reposition the fence so that it, the good side 91 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 8 9 10 12 13 1,4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 faces them, therefore it's on her side of the posts so you can pun -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The whole fence or just that portion? MS. MOORE: Just that portion. Or we could put the fence in between the posts in addition or any of those a la carte menus, we also offer some evergreens or whatever plants that they would choose on her side of the property. But that's again it's up to them to maintain, you would hate to see and pay for shrubs that somebody takes down later on, but so be it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: There's one other thing you could do, you could put high density styrofoam on the back of the fence towards the applicant's property and see if that mitigates ~he noise issue. MS. MOORE: Is there a foam that is weather -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Put it right on the fence. MS. MOORE: Will it survive the weather? if you want us te put foam on the back of it, we will. MR. DIPIETRO: I have perhaps a recommendation along the lines that the applicant and her a~torney have just talked about with the Board, and I prove as this by saying that I have advised Mrs. Sanford that even if you were to deny the variance, the applicant could pick this structure up and move it two feet away based upon your rear yard interpretation and put it back mown anO ~here would be some of the other issues of intrusion that she's concerned about. So rat~ler than punish the applicant or take a position of looking like we're ~rying to punish the applicant to force her to an expense of moving it, ~ would much rather see us pursue the offer of expending some money to mitigate the impact, and what I would recommend is if the pergola is removed and ~he height of the structure is reduced so that it's no higher ~han the fence and that MS. MOORE: We can't do tha~ s~ructurally. HR. DIPIETRO: I don'~ know if you ca~ or can't, and it's up to the wisdom of ~he Board to ~ell you what you can do and tell me what you can'~ do, fortunately I'm here no argue and 92 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 ? 8 10 11 12 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they're here to decide, they have the tougher job, but if -- and this is a Chinese menu, I'm offering ideas, you can pick some of them, all ef them er none of them. If they were ne remove tile pergola, as has been offered, getting a little greedier, if the~, could reduce the height of the structure a little bit, then en Ehe issue of buffering the Landscaping, the distance, perhaps the plumbzng, the intrusion and everything else could be mitigated with or w~theut styrofoam, if they agreed to double face ~he fence, it would De to my client's advantage to have a finished side on her side and the double fencing with the air space in between ~- again, lawyer playing engineer, which is dangerous -- might do something from an acousEical ahd intrusion standpoint. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: InteresEing point, you could put styrofoam in between that fence. MR. DIPIETRO: You love that s~yrofoam, I'll leave that up to you and ~hat fellow en the other end who doesn't like it. And I would ii~e to offer, as I started before as an exhibit, Mrs. Sanferd's letter of April 26, 2004 ~o the Building Inspector with Ehe same photographs I have previously offered. Thank you for your patience. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS. HOORE: My client will le~ vc.u decide what we should er shouldn't do with respect to the pergola. As far as the double facing cf the fencing, we could do that, I think Ehere would be like three pieces in the area, ~t's two but there's overlapping, assuming two to :hree, each piece is a six foot piece BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Eighn. MS. MOORE: I den's: know. Se we put up a fence that is double in the area where the shower is, we have no objection Lo that. If they wan~ed us Eo put a higher piece ef fencing in front of the shower, we could do a double piece. This Board could give us relief as miEigation an eight feet piece Eha: goes in front of the shower of ~he outdoor shower as a second piece. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That might be a good idea. MS. MOORE: Would you -- MR. DIPIETRO: We want the fenoe to be consistent across ~he back of ~he yard. March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSK[: Are you going to give me a new diagram? MS. MOORE: No, you're going to tell me what you want. I don't know that we have a diagram. It's very simple, the pictures pretty much identify, you cut the shower at the level of the wall, which is our request as a mitigation, if you think that's what we have to do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have anything to say about this applicauion? I'll make a mo~ion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. [~oore, I have to go back to your applicant's property on Saturday morning, so if she sees me there, that's what I'm doing. MS. MOORE: You're welcome to come on. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Nex~ hearing is Robert Heintges on Strohson Road, C~tchogue. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? You want to put an accessory shed on your property across the street? MR. HEINTGES: Yes, we £ive at 280 Strohson Road, across the street, and we bought this property about six years ago. I p£anted a small vineyard, it's a hobby of mine, and I want to put a little storage shed to put the rototiller, the sprayers and lawn mowers and stuff 1. i~e that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unfortunately, according to the code, we cannot pu~ an accessory structure on a vacant piece of property. Pu~ a principal dwelling with an accessory, b~t net just an accessory suructure by i~self. MR. HEINTGES: I understand that that's the code, but I was hoping for a variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We had just turned down someone in Orien~ who wished ~o build a ~ennis court en an empty piece ef property just across the street from her, which is classified as an accessory structure and we denied it. So we ~annoE set a precedent. HR. HEINTGES: I can't ~fford to build a house in order to build a suorage shed. All o~ my neighbors enjoy my property. They come help me pick grapes. 9~ March 3, 200B 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 1£ 13. 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 2~ 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a nice piece of property by the way. MR. HEINTGES: Architecturally with shingles, everything else. It's removable. I~'s not going to have a permanent foundation. By the way, the pose office returned these because they had post office boxes instead of ~he addresses, but I went to one ,Df the neighbors and he signed it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIMGER: Does this gentleman know why we don't allow them? MR. HEINTGES: I can understand you don't allow them because people take advantage, and they might try Eo live in them, but I live across the street. I have no reason to live in this 8' by 12' storage shed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I also explained Eo that we denied a tennis court in Orient. MR. HEINTGES: I'~n not building a tennis couru. I think a tennis court would be a far more offensive use to my neighbors than my little storage shed. As you can see on mt' map, I tucked iu in behind trees there. It's not going to be offensive to anyone. I wot~ld really, really appreciate your reconsidering. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's really a Use Variance. I don't know how to deal winh it any o~her way. MR. HEINTGES: I just can'E afford te build a house in order te buil.i a shed right now. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I den't have a preblem with it, sir. I don't think it's a tennis ceurt. I think it's an 8' by 12' shed fer your ~oels for your vineyard. I particularly den't nave a problem with this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's R Use Variance nc> matter how yeu slice it. MR. HEINTGES: How do you see that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: If it was an agriculsural piece of property, under the AC law and the Ag and Markets Law, we probably could let you build a small barn there. It is a residensial piece of properEy. Certainly under the residential auspices of what we could do, it's net primary to anything. MR. HEINTGES: I understand that and in 95 March 3, 200% 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 the spirit of zoning in where m~r house is and where my lot is next to my house with residences all around, this is consistent visually and everything else with that. I'm not builOing something that is going no obviously look like a change of use or is going to offend anyone. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn't say that it causes offense. MR. HEINTGES: I pay taxes on this thing and you're telling me I can't enjoy the use of this property the way I should be able to. I Jon't think that's fair. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have one board member that's just returning now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe you could build it on wheels? MR. HEINTGES: I'm going to put it on concrete blocks and you could get a forklift and move i~. We hope to build a house there some day. But I just can't afford to build a house now zn order to build this shed. So when we build a house, obviously, I'm not going to have the shed stay right in the midOle of the property where I'm locating it now, I'm going ~o stick a forklift ~nder it and move it uo the side. I mean, the irony is, if i had a house on here, a huge, 5,000 square foot house, which I would be permitted to build Eo the distress of all my neighbors, then I could build 20 sheds all the way around, and I would be fine. I really appeal uo your common sense to let me build this little shed so I can put my garden tools in it, please. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I've been on ~he Board for such a short period of time t~at I'm not completely devoid of common sense yet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thanks Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm blaming an institution maybe, not people. But when I lsok at this, I thought there is something strange aboun what I hear about your remarks is that Vou somehow cannot put a garden shed on a buildable piece of property which could then be sold to somebodV who wanted no build a house, tear down the shed and put up a house with very little loss. But there are zoning limitations, apparently, which may have to be decided ultimately by a code committee. I don't know. I'm not sure what our jurisdicticn is 96 March 3, 2005 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 on this Beard of Appeals. It was mentioned to me at one point would be ~hat technically you could probably, instead of putting up a garden shed put up a trailar and use it for a shed. That to me sounds very bizarre. MR. NEINTGES: I'm not sure the neighbors would appreciate that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's what I'm saying. That's exactly the point. I'm non recommending that. My argument is sympathetic to you. If that's what the law allowed then there's something surange about nhe law. A shed would be less offensive than a trailer would be. But I don't know, and I defer to others whether there is any way around your predicamenu given what nhe code says, but I have a general unhappiness about the idea of having to turn you down. MR. HEINTGES: I'm an arohitect myself. I understand you don't want people building accessory buildings that they're going to sneak inuo later; it will be hard to live in an 8' 12' shed, but really, we can't afford to Ouild a house, and it would really be nice so that on my garage, which is full of all the vineyard stuff, I'd like to move it into this little she~. Put a little sketch there, iE's going te be shingled, it's net going to be an obtrusive thing, it's triendly architecture really to the neighborhood. We've done everything poss!ble, it just never sccurred to me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, you don't have room en your own property? MR. HEINTGES: No, we don't. It's a very ti~y lot. It's probably as ef right the garage it's private road se the garage is almost righE en ehe road. Se there's no room a~ all. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAI]: It's t~e use issue. The code does net allow accessory uses on their own without a primary use. Se he's coming in for a Use Variance, which is a very Oifficult thing ~o geu, among other uhings he'll have to shew that there's no other economic use of ~he proper~y, which is tough. This is just like the tennis courE case uhat was ~enied some time last year. Someone wanted a tennis court without a house and ~his Board decided to reject that application because ~he5, viewed it as a Use Variance and an accessory 97 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 use, someone had an empty lot across from their house and they wanted to consider it accessory to the let across the street, and the Board refused in ~hat instance to grant the variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's precedent. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael, I would suggest te this gentleman that he bring in his survey, and select a spot across the street on his own piece of property, no matter how small it is, ~nd see if we can find one no inatter how small it is, and see if we can find one and put one in there for him. MR. HEINTGES: There's absolunely no way, sir. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's always a MR. HEINTGES: There's no room for an 8' by 12' shed. I'd have to put it between the house and Ehe water, which I don't chink you'd go for, we wouldn't either. Ic's not a permanent shed, it's portable. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We understand that. HR. HEINTGES: It has no foundation. It can be a canvas tent. MS. KOWALSKI: Ic's for tools? MR. HEINTGES: It's for a lawn mower, sprayer and rouotiller. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to follow this a little bit and ask Kieran, am I correct in assuming that if you own a vacant lot, you cannot use it for anything except building a house? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORA2.[: You .san use i~ for whaEever permitted uses are in the zone. You have to start with primary use before you get uo an accessory use. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For example, could he put up atenE? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCO~Z~: If a Eerie is permitEed under the code, [ don't think that it is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A tent is not a strucEure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Se if he wanted a garden shed, he'd have te put a non-structural, something minimal. MR. GEINTGES: The point is it's not going to have a permanent foundation, iE's less than 100 98 March 3, 2005 1 2 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For example, boats, those are not permanent structures, a geodesic, put up a dome; would that be permissible? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a structure, it doesn't make any difference architecturally how it's built, Michael. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It just seems to me like if you had a house, you wouldn't eT~en need a permit to put this on the house. It's not even accessory anymore. The town doesn't consider it acoessory. MR. HEINTGES: But frankly, all my neighbors told me I was crazy when I get Ehis letter. They said you should nave just built iu. My wife didn't want me te do that. She said you ~ot to de ute right thing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know why the Board can't look at it that way either. This ~[s 100 square feet and I believe net too long age we made a rule as long as it was within 100 square feet that they didn't even need a permit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was en your own property if you had a primary structure. I~ was 10 by 10 er something. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think ~he law says that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Hiss Hocre, would you like to say something? MS. MOORE: Yes, I have a solution, maybe. For one, you're permitted to have an agricultural use on the proper~y, why, if he plants a couple of ~emato plan~s, and he puts a shed far his maintenance of his agricultural use, he could do it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bu5 it's not in an agricultural zone. MS. MOORE: In every residential zoning district you're permitted .agriculture. It's always a permitted use. So if you had a garden, you could do 5hat. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORf~N: I don'5 know %Mat a garden would qnalify, couple tomato plants either. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: He has a vineyard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He's got jrapes. 99 March 3, 2005 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: So he actually has a vineyard. MR. HEINTGES: I have grapes, I make wine in the basement. Ail the neighbors come and help. It's a fun neighborhood thing. MS. MOORE: I think you're allowed an agricultural structure, it's permitted as of right. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are ~he gzapes on this piece of property? MR. HEINTGES: Yes. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This part of the property is planted? MR. HEINTGES: Yes. I cleared property myself. I laid the land myself, and ± am working on ~ BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is not stretch at all to say he can't have this building. ASST~ TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'~ not sure why it was denied in the first place. ~e's got in. Let's not speculate on what would be sufficient. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Let's say when he has, he has a small little vineyard there. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It looks like it's planted, and he has an agricultural use. MR. HEINTGES: And I will give each one of you a bottle of my homemade wine. The lot is .85 acres. The vineyard is exactly one-eighth of an BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: How big is the lot? MR. HEINTGES: .85. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll investigate in fuzuher, but in the meantime, is uhere is anybody else in ~he audience thaE wishes to spea~ for or against this hearing? If not, I'll make a motion to close uhe hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. I CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: Next hearing is for CDR Hat~ituck on Stanley Road. Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. We are here t~is afnernoon, very briefly, hopefully, on a m~tter that we trusE will be relatively simple. I know uhat the Board is familiar with the application. I would ask whether hhe Board has in its file the plans that were submitted to the Building Department? 100 March 3, 20}5 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have been iumping back and forth, whish ones? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one better, Mr. Bressler, I inspectet the property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I did as well. MR. BRESSLER: This is an application no make improvements to a basement. If you look at the stamped plans from Jeffrey T. Butler, appears they comply with all code requirements. The improvements consist of the office, laundry room, bath, exercise room, recreation area, egress. There are no plans for a kitchen, and the application was denied on the basis that this is really a two family. It has always been my understanding that in determining whenher or not a two family is planned or existing, we look for the existence of a kitchen; in determining whether there's a kitchen, we look for a snove. There are none. There are no plans for it, they're not there. They don't exist. When the application was denied, it was denied, you can see the reasons, it was denied based up the facn that there was a feeling that maybe solnebody might in the future do something. Well, if this 8oard adopted that rule, ± think ~hau's a road we just don't want to go down. I'll leave it at that. This Boar~ approves all the time improvements above garages, ~hird floors, whatever, and it's just something you can't do. And I don't think that the Building inspector, based upon a feeling or whatever he had, was authorized to do this. We're no~ here for a variance. We don't want a second dwelling unit. We don't have plans for a second dwelling uni~, we don't want a variance. We just want to do what the plans say, no more nc. less. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was down nhere, I saw uno big windows and it doesn't give the effect of being in the basement at all. MR. BRESSLER: We were uold that we needed those by the Building Inspector. We were told we needed them, so we put them in. Why would we have gone uo that expense if we didn't need them? They weren't there before. We were ~old ~o puu them ill, we pun them in. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? 101 March 3, 2005 102 2 3 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 'Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the past for the people -- this has nothing to do with your applicant -- who legitimately go to the Building Inspector, and I'm not speaking for an5' of them, I'm telling you my past practice, thetr would allow you to finish the basement and have the nnderwriters come in and look at the electricity and put the heating, and so on ~nd so forth, Out in would always be stamped non-habitable. And the reason it was stamped non-habitable was because there was only one means of ingress an~ no other means of egress. In this ~articular case upon looking at this, I concur with Madam Chairperson, indicating than the windows have been elongated so that any one of those windows in the front of the house, if not the windows in the back of the i~ouse, could serve as a secondary exit for the use of this basement area. Secondly, this is what I construe to be a hi,h-level ranch as opposed to a high ranch, eno t~at means approximately three or four feet of this house is built out of the ground, which gave you the advantage of elonganing those windows. So ~herefore, I don't see any reason why we can't address the issue. That's it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't know what the issue was, you left me hanging there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll tell you when the issue is, the issue is to reverse the Building Inspector's determination and that's it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don't think it's a two family. MR. BRESSLER: There are no plans for a kitchen. If the Board is going to speculate on what might happen there, then the Board would never approve any improvements over garages or anyplace. This Town has always regulated that on a catch is catch-can basis, and this plan does not call for another dwelling unit. And I don't wann ~ variance because I don't wan~ another dwelling unit. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you file for a building permit and then build? I see a stop work permit ordered, some neighbor dropped a dilne, or quarter now, to have it stopped. MR. BRESSLER: There was a stop work order Marci~ 3, 2005 1 2 3 b ? ii 12 13 15 17 18 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 put on because there was fire damage down there and my client went in and started repairing the fire damage, tearing up tile, cleaning walls, doing things of that nature, and was stopped. In fact, she can address that directly. I'm not ~etting into that one way or another. We nave come here to this Ooard to get the issuance of the permit. It was our position now that what was going on down there was clean up, and we don't nee~ a permit for clean up, but we have opted not to bring that to this Board as well. We have opted to get our permit. If you want to know what I think about that, I think it's wrong. I think when you have fire damage, you can go in there and you can pull up tile and you can remove fire damaged things, and you're not subject to a stop work order because you need[ a building permit for those things. But what we want opted to do was Oring in a unified plan and address everything here all at one time and iii this Board sees fit to direct the issuance of a bnilding permit, that ~roblem goes away. Is that basically so? MS. RIVERA: I asked the Chief Building Inspector if I could clean up, and he a~vised me I could. And Ail State came in and did a primary clean up, and I continued to do it which entailed painting the studs that were scored by the fire and lifting the tile and putting new tile down on t~e floor, which I clearly understand you do not need a permit for, to paint and put tile down, and he came down and put a stop work order on me foz doing that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's not uncommon, a lot of my friends have large windows in the basement, not that they have second dwe£1ing, but it's nice to have natural light. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doesn't make it lcok dar~. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I wish I had large windows in my basement. MR. ERESSLER: I wish I did toe. I take ~r. Goehringer's point. I don't think that proves anything. BOARD HEHRER ORLANDO: Doesn't necessarily mean a second dwelling. HR. BRESSLER: I think this Beard has uniformly ~aken the view that whether it be above a garage, a pool house, we can cite the examples 103 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2~ over and over again, if theue's no kitchen, it's okay, and the Building Department has routinely taken that position, which is why I'm Taken ~back. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There are some things crossed off on my plans, the proposed baths, the proposed closets. MS. RIVERA: No, they're on there too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The word "proposed" is crossed off, it just says bath. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay. Proposed means it's not built yet. MS. RIVERA: No, it's existing. It always was existing. So when the Building Department said I had to go for a Building Permit to restore the existing space, they advised me I needed to change the windows to make them egress, they were double double bungs, twin ~ouble bungs, which I changed to elongated sliders no meet the egress code and basically just cleaned the place up. I was ~enied on the feeling that it could possibly be a two-family dwelling in time, and that was the reason given to me. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In order for the disapproval by the Building Department to be defended, I would need to hear a defense, and I haven't heard any. I haven't heard any at all, any defense of the disapproval. And if there is no objection to the points tha~ are made as tu what counts as a second unit and what doesn't, having coe~ing facilities and having a stove, witnout any rebuttal to those claims, I think we have no cRoice but te override the disapproval. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly the defense is the disapproval. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's not a defense. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What he says is there, and he's pretty clear en what he says it zs, and we just make our decision on what we thi~k it is. MR. BRESSLER: I would have to agree t~at is an assertion b~lt it's non evidence. So that's our position, it's very simple. I said I'd be brief. I trust I was if no one has any more questions, that's our case. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We can pu~ as a condition no bedrooms in the basemenE. 104 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 lC, 11 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think honestly - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No kitchen. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No kitchen, right. MS. RIVERA: It is our understanding that all these years a stove was the condition of uhe ]<itchen. If i~ has a suove, then it's a ~itchen. You can have cabinetry, you can have a sink, but you cannot have a stove and the stove makes ~itchen, and that has been the position of tile Building Department and this Town for ~'ears. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it can't be denied on uhe basis of a pcssible stove. MS. RIVERA: Exactly. MR. BRESSLER: In answer to your question, Mr. Orlando, I'm not sure on a reversal that the conditions that are norlnally applicable to variances appl~', and, in any event, the law is you can't baize a kitchen. So it would appear to be largely superfluous, we haven.'t planned for one and that's our position. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the end of the rainbow you're looking for a CO for the use of ~his bottom half; is uhat correct? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, but finished basement, non-residential. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's exactly what I said before; that's why those ot~er ones that I was referring Eo with the small windows were stamped non-habitable because there was no egress. Now you have egress with these elongated windows, so that's what you're looking for at the end of the rainbow. MR. BRESSLER: That's correct. So it's Rc~uall~ part of ~he house, and that's correcu. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not really finished basement. It's mute than that, it's livable space. If you call this a basement, nhen chey're going to stamp it as non-habiuable. MS. RIVERA: Finished living area. MR. BRESSLER: If you have a laundry room in the basement, I feel maybe we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We ha'ze a laundry room down there, does one live in a laundry room? No. Does one use a laundry room as part of the dwelling? '/es. Can i~abiuate in the launGry rcom? No. MS. RIVERA: I really ~o thin]< i~'s aOout time, and I don't know maybe the Board has 105 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 addressed it, but it has to be very clear of what this Building Department determines is a second dwelling. A kitchen determines a second dwelling is my understanding and - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's what shay have always used. MS. RIVERA: And it cannot be based on a feeling, and this is what I was surned ~own on, a feeling that it could be useO as a secenO dwelling. Well, down the road maybe if I sell the ho~se and the applicant wants to put a kitchen down ~here and make it a second dwelling, that's his prerogotive. MR. BRESSLER: And they .can come back ~ere. MS. RIVERA: But it has to be determined once and for all and make it {:lear that she Building Department cannot turn down applicanus toased on a feeling what something could be down Ehe read. And we clearly stated before we came here that this is ridiculous, that there's not a kitchen here and it cannot be a dwelling. M~. BRESSLER: I think the Beart understands our position and we thank you. CHAIRWOMAi~ OLIVA: We do. Is there anybody here te address this application? If net, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision entil later. {See minutes for resolusion.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Cingular Wireless. This is basically just to add another shed on to what's already existing. MS. FLEMING: Yes, Jacqueline Fleming, Munley, Nielsen and Ray for the applicant. I represent New Cingular Wireless, PCS and ATT and Wireless. In this application Cingular seeks an area variance from the rear setback to locate wireless selecommunications equipment on the ground near the base of the existing monopole in Cutchog~e. As a site plan shows that was previously submiuted ubat Cingular's equipment will be further away from the rear setback line than the existing equipment of another carrier that was previo~sly approved by this Boazd for a rear variance. This is an industrial zone. It's an industrial park, and the property across the rear property line is actually the Town landfLll. The 106 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 11 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 monopole's been there since 1991 or thereabouts. And at the site Cingular is generally proposing to ccllocate antennas below the antennas of the three other existing carriers at the site. Collocation o~ the antennas on the existing monopole in an inOustrial district is a permitted activity pursuant {~o the Town's wireless regulations suDject to site plan approval. We have submitted an application for site plan review and the Planning Board has recently issued a letter saying that they have no issues with the application at this time. As you know, Cingular is licensed by the FCC to construct, maintain and operate cellular telephone systems in Suffolk Count}' and throughout ~he United States and is considered a p~Olic u~ility for zoning perpeses in New York. We strive to provide reliable service, and in this part of Cutchegue, there's a gap in coverage, if you leek at the coverage maps that we previously s~bmitted to the Board in our application, there's an existing map for existing coverage and what would the coverage be with the proposed facility at this si~e, and this site fills in the gap in coverage between the antennas ~hat Cing~lar ~naintains in Ma~tituck and those in Peconic. So ~his is a needed site to fill in that coverage gap, and we submitted these maps. If you have any questions, I know this Board is fully familiar with how these maps are prepared and their interpretation, but if you do have any questions, we have a radio frequency engineer who prepared ~he maps here to answer any questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you tell me at wbaE height this antenna is ~eing to be placed? MS. FLEMING: Sevents' feet. It's about 100 foot pole and the ether three carriers are above that, and it's about 10 feet between the carriers. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is only for the shed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it's only fcr the shed. MS. FLEMING: The reason the equipment needs to be where it is is it does need to be as close to the monopo]e as possible for efficiency reasons. The length of the cable and the diameter c,f the cable is reduced the cleser you are to ~he 107 March ~ 20,05 1 2 3 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 b monopole, but not only that, the code in your town does try to have a goal that these sorts of uses, these types of facilities in the rear of the building without encroaching on parking or planting buffers, and that sort of also limits where we can put this equipment on the property. The way that this is designed, it's very unobtrusive because the OmnipoinE equipment that's lccated even closer to the rear line and the Nextel equipment that's located next to it, it's all tucked in there and it will fit right in there, and it won't be any significant difference visually. We're going Eo plant, some trees, some evergreen vegetation along the south and west side that will screen the equipment compound further. At this time I know that you li~e to have us submit reports for the records in lieu of oral testimony. I'd like to submit three reporns, a planning report that considers the environmental and land use perspective of the application and the report concludes that there's no significant a~verse impact to uhe environment. AnO a report hy Michael Lynch of Lynch Appraisal, he's a licenseU real estate appraiser, and he prepared a report on the potential effects of proper~y values in the area, and that based on his studies in seven Long Island communities that the proposed facility will not have an ~dverse impact on Ehe surrounGing community, and a report by Pinnacle Telecom Group prepared an FCC csmpliance report demonstrating that the cumulative emissions from t~e whole sine, with ail the antennas from ail the carriers, including this new proposal, would be less than two percent of the FCC standarOs, and at this time I'd like to submit those reports i~i lieu of the ~estimony, but if you do have any questions about any of those issues, we can get those addressed with our experts if needed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I undersnand. I was really inquisitive, Ruth, to know how many more of these could be located on the site. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLAi[BO: Just a comment that your unit is a 10 foot high unit or is the fence 108 Marci~ 3, 2005 109 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 15 19 2O 21 22 2! 25 10 foot you're putting up there? MS. FLEMING: It's a six foot fence and the equipment tends te be areunO seven feet tall. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm getting to the landscaping. For some reason, the last time we approved the adjacent with Nextel, we had proposed and put in a condition landscaping and selnenow it just vanished. MS. FLEMING: Nextel just recently got their CO, and I think the planning report t~at you haven't had a chance to read because you just received does indicate that Nextel just recenuly get its CO and Bru~o Simo~e made sure all the plantings were alive and well and at least six ~eet tall and evergreen. Now we are going ts take those evergreens out, unfortunately, that's jus~ hew this is going to be set up. Se we're going to replace the vegetation on the west and sout~ side h~ an L shape. We have submitted a landscape plan. BOARD MEMBER ORL~{DO: You're not adding, you're jusE replacing. MS. FLEMING: Yes, we're moving it over basically because we're going te be in the area where Nextel's landscaping is. if you ~ave been to the site, you know there's a bunch ef trees on that west side too; then there's the building on the south side and the landfill on the north side, there's no~ a lot to actually view; no one's going to view the equipment except people in the parking lot of this particular site. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you'i1 be putting si~ feet evergreens on that southwest? MS. FLEMING: Yes. That's part of our proposal that we're going to complete. Bruno will i~ake us complete it if we're going to gee our Certificate ef Occupancy. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ne ether questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Nc questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in Ehe audience who wishes te comment on this application, pre er con? If not, I'll make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision un, il later. March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 9 10 ll 12 12. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 ~See minutes for resolunion.~ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Francis Kestler. MS. KESTLER: Good afternoon everyone, I'm Christina Kestler residing at %0 West Mullen [)rive, ShelYer Island, New York. My husband couldn't be here today. He's been activateO for eno day, Army Reserve. We're just requesting a variance nc. enclose our front porch and the existing footprint and to put in a handicapped ramp for our panients. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That porch will be heated to make that as a waiting room? MS. KESTLER: Yes, it will be same heating system, forced hot air. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any q~estions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I have to write this decision. What por~ion of nhe lower half of the building will be utilized as the dentist area? MS. KESTLER: The whole portion is going Ye be utilized as the dentist's office and the upstairs is storage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Am I righ~ from looking at this, the porch only occupies a por~ion ~,f the part of the building that fronts on Main Road; it's an L-shaped building out the porch? MS. KESTLER: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does the porch go ail ~he wa}, across? HS. KESTLER: Ne. It's a little square en the corner. It looks like, and I den'n know if this is indeed what happened, it leeks like maybe when the house was originally built, there was a front porch and way back when, because the house is eld, the section was closed in. And when we boughn the house, it was a close~ in partial front porch, and we just want to extend that enclosure so tha~ we can enlarge the waiting room. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's what I mean~. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're going te enclose that and incorporate that square footage as part of your first fleer? MS. EESTLER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OhlVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 110 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, are you sauisfied? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in ~e audience wish no speak for or against this application? If no~, I'll make a motion ~o close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minuues for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nexu hearing is Archer. MS. MOORE: Mr. and Mrs. Archer are here and Tom Samuels ~he architect is here as well. For the record I will get this uo you, I have a letter mhau Mr. and Mrs. Archer, when they first started this process Kimogenor Point, as you know, is a condominium -- excuse me, co-op ownership. It consists of ~wo sections, altogether there are 12 structures, dwelling units all within ~he common areas. So that's the way this is set up. This predates our zoning code I believe bi- many years. When mhey began, ~hey sent out a letter ne all 12 property owners in a. ddi~ion te ~he corporation. The corporation itself sen~ you an authorization, bu~ they also get from everyone individually an approval. Se I'll geu that ne you for your records because ~his is the only copy we have. I'll give i~ to you right after ~he meeting; I'll make a copy with }'our permission. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The only problem we have had is you have eno lot with many principal uses. So what we have come up with is that the Archers and anybody else than wants to expan~ what have you in that whole area be a ce-applicant with the applicant, and then ~he application will be signed by eno ef the officers of the corporation. MS. MOORE: Okay. We did modify it so that you could have -- in fact, we actually did than in advance of putting in ~he application, we got permission from the corporation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't want in as permission, I wane MS. MOORE: BOAR[} SECY. MS. MOORE: application. BOARD SECY. in as a co applicant. I believe, didn't we say that? KOWALSKI: Yes. The}, joined in uhe KOWALSKI: Something with the 111 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 Il 12 13 19 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 2~ post office, there was a delay before we got it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MS. MOORE: The reason for ~his is [hat this is an old building to begin with. It was last renovated I believe in [he 1970s, arid itt order to do a small amount of renovation, you have to actually end up meeting certain provisions of the present New York State Building Code. So the footprint itself is just being boxed in, a diminimus expansion of the footprint. The property itself is large, 5.6 acre parcel, so ~here's no issues of setback or lot coverage, it's just the enclosure or the expansion of the nonconformity because you choose to say that the use is multiple dwellings, rather than the residential use, which is a permitted use, Dut that's one way of avoiding variances in the future. The Archers wish to put in a master suite sa that the second story dormer is an expansion of the roof line to meet the ceiling height requirements, state code requirements. In addition, the FEMA, because of the flood zone here, we have to elevate the basement hy 18 inches. So there has to be some work done to bring all the mechanicals above the flood zone. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: They don't have to raise the house? MS. MOORE: Yes, Tom, why don't i'ou come np and give the specifics? It's concrete block, raise the house, put an extra number ef blocks and bring the height of the finished fleer elevation tc Ehe FEMA code. I guess finally, the addition s~ill keeps the houses smaller, both in height, volume, less than many of the names that have already been renovated there an~ the way they're existing. Se this is well in conformity with the character of the area. Kimegenor Point, I think all ef us recognizes, is a very unique set up. The character of the area is Kimogener Point, it · s its own distinct area. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Very lovely. MS. MOORE: Yes. Beautiful area. If you have questions, I don't want to prolong the application. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I deil't. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question about 5he legal status ef Kimogenor Poin~ 112 March 3 , 200S 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 19 2O 21 22 27 24 25 CorporaYion. Is it, as far as New York State Law, identified as a co-op, like a New York City co-op? MR. SAMUELS: Co op in the State of New York. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think no expand on some conversations we had in t~e past, I think the best way we can look at this is noE as a nonconforming use, it's a little lnisleading, and that might require a gse Variance, obviously, which would be tricky, but as a pre-existing nonconforming lot - MS. MOORE: Pre-exis~ing, nonconforming structure. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So they're all conforming uses, but it's a nonconforming lot, and so even though it doesn't soun~ exactly righ~, it's more aptly an Area Variance and those are ~he points you've hit upon. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: I need Tom ~o just give me an idea, since I have no write the de~ision, what acnually is being bumped out. When I looked at it, I looked at the porches, meaning the ingress and ogress areas. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the whole poinn are you filling in that notch? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. A 2' ~y 3' notch. The northwest corner, we're squaring that off. MS. MOORE: I have a red marker, would in be helpful to you no draw on your plan the area? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll just refer to the plan then. Pat, one of the problems that we had from the prior reconstrustion of one of the houses, I believe it was the first one coming in, is the ability to identify the properEy. And that ia, it's very nice to say it's 590 XYZ Eoad, but there was no number on the house. So I think it would behoove us to identify in other titan just by nalne. If you want to s~art with the westerly house, is it the uhird house from the inlet or something of that nature in a very trite, easygoing way, we need to idenEify in. MS. MOORE: Do you remember how many houses back? It's the third ¼ouse. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's the third house from the inlet, and it's so much easier ~o do that because in years to come, hopefully you won'~ sell the property, and I'm sure you won't, but subsequent owners it's just so much easier. 113 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fire department must have some way of designating that. MR. SAMUELS: 855, it's not an official address. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not an official address because I tried to coordinate ~hat. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The houses coming up in en Jackson, I came in, the houses en the left, are they part ef it also? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's ail Kimegener Point, ~t's like Section 1, Section 2. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three parcels I thought, you're 1, 2, 3, you're on Number 3, Mr. Archer? It doesn't make any difference anyway because it's all one corporation anyway. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But they're single and separate? MR. ARCHER: The units are all single and separate. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They own the MR. ARCHER: Lifetime lease. for me. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else house - questions have ally q~estions? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next nearing is for Will~am and Patricia Moore on Main Road in Southold. MS. MOORE: What I have here before you is a special permit because our luc~ as always ~s what we want to do with our office always is one step before the code changes. When we first put in the office in the RO Zoning District, it was by special permit. Then they changed the codes and now it's a permitted use. So our office is a conforming permitted use. What the situation developed is that mV family, mi' parents who happen ~.o be the architects on the office and all the plans, they're ready Es relocate. They're getting older, and they want to come close to their oldest daughter. So I guess to keep them here, which they love Long Island greatly and because his business has been developing, he kind of gets a nice little niche in 114 March B, 2,305 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 19 2O 21 23 24 25 Southold with the kind of work tilat's required, every ett~er day I have somebody who needs an as-built something. Thank goodness the Building Department's interpretations, architects have a lot ef work out here, it's been working out very well and they're out here more so than just traveling back and forth. In order Eo give them the apartment, we have to put in, I call it an accessory apartment f.ecause our principal use is our office. The uses, ycu're allowed Eo have apartments with businesses. My business is the law office. The architect who is going to occupy the apartment, my dad, is the architect also with a professional office, and it works out very nicely. But when somebody wants to -- my father wanes to be en the end of the building, it kind ef forces me te try te think ahead ef my children or whatever. I don't want te block myself out that if I give them Ehe end, I now am stuck because we can't professionally do renovations er expand the office however we need because once you put the end en the building, you're stuck to that footprint. It would be difficult to build out any other place. Ss we tried te think ahead. And give~ EhaE they're ready to do the addition of the apartment, what we thought was, as far as our office is concerned -- and this is the permitted use part ef it -- but just as far as co~text goes, our office was an old house. Se that setting it up for professional office for the confidentiality we wany ~e preserve for our clients, it's a little difficult. Our secretaries sometimes have te walk through a conference reem Oecause ef the way the set up of the old house was. So what we thought was let's bite the bullet and fix the office the way it should be. Se wha~ we are going te ~o is change the entrance of our office to the new portion, you come in en uhe side as you do now, buL instead of coming right into the secretarial space, we're actually going te build a secretarial waiting area, secretarial space, bare ~he .so~ference room, that is now where the secretary · s, and provide a privacy for Bill and I. New Bill is ne longer fiddling around with Town Hall, he is in the office, and we need ~we legitimate conference rooms. So the space that is ncw our entrance to the office aha where our secretary 115 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 sits, now can be a conference room. It's a beautiful old original living room of the house with the fireplace. It's very lovely, very suately. Our efforts here are Eo try to minimize the change to the office because the office itself was built in the late 1800s, early 1900s, se we're krying net to touch the existing structure. We are putting the renovation and the addition in such a way that we are going to match it Eo ~he existing building. Se in order to do that, we unfortunately, when the contractor looked at it, we have our file room in an area ef the building that is very old and probably was an eld outside porch that got sealed up 1920s, it's not structurally adequate, so they said take it down. So my bathroom on the first floor gets removed, but in a way it's geed because we will be able to provide a handicapped bathroom on the first floor as well as having adequate space for our file cabmnets. So that brings us into the office, then there's a space for growth between the aparument and the immediate space of our office, our secretarial space. And that expansion area can either be ~ my life's dream would be te find a surveyor or somebody that can work with me with seine of uhese site plans and ali ef the subdivision regulations that new we can make a fortune because ef the code the way it's been adopted, I can find somebody to take tha~ space, but if it doesn'~ work out, and I have no o~her professionals that cmn work out here, then it's possible that 500 squ~re feet of space between the apartment that my parents will occupy and ute immediacy of my secretarial space could be also an accessory apartment. I'd rather not use it as an apartment because just as a lanOlord I think it's easier te have a business tenant er a business relationship than to have a residence, but the going ways of town, apartments are needed. I just need to have tha~ space, and because it's a special permit, rather than ask for one accessory apartment, I ask ~[or one shat I absolutely knew is going to be my parent's occupancy; the second one is maybe an accessory apartment but preferably office space. Either way, the same space is used. I just have to sake that box and decide which way to occupy it. 116 Harch 3, 2005 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 iI 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 So as far as special permit criteria, there is absolutely no change in the criteria cf special permit. Whether it's an office or a residential use, it weuld have to be a very limited eccupancy, 500 square feet is about the size of a~i efficiency, and it would have te be able to worx well with an effice that's running. Se it's going to be a relatively minimal impact on us, the ewners and neighbers ef that apartment, and any neighbors. We have notified all our neighbors. Everybody was welceme to come and see the effice. Nobody had any objectiens. In fact, en the ene side, Dr. Pasco, they're geod friends of ours, and they were thrilled when we heught the effice, we took down, I knew you remember Pete Wymeth, who used to own this building, we took down a steckade fence between eur properties, and we landscaped and it's a beautiful park-like setting, and we wane to keep that. So eur additio~ is really straight behind the building se we can preserve as much landscaping because we love the landscaping as well. Right new Dr. Pasce is the only one whe sees all the landscaping; now with this additien acEualiy we'll get uhe benefit of it because we'll have windows facing that as well. Site pl.an issues, we pretty much can meet all the parking requirements. In fact, our ,lriveway is going te change in seme ways in that s. nr parking is going to be all the way in back ef the preperty behind the existing garage. Se we have the handicapped spaces in the fronu, but aside frem that, it will be less intensive a use because the parking's geing Eo be in the backyard and nebedy will see it, nebedy, that is, from the Main Read, Dr. Pasce's parking is similarly situated in the back and the residential neighbor on the ether side in that area is a secenU lee in the back, which is, he passed away but the gentleman collected fire engines. So there's a very leng large garage in the back there that used ~o house old fire engines and fire trucks, and ~here is no activity back there whatsoe,~er. We back the scheel, se cur property gees quite far in the back. We have a w~ole acre. We have abeut an acre and-a-half of back yard. So, the existing building is a ~raditienal Seuthold architecture close to the road, the typical Hain Road loo~. Do 117 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 ? 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 24 2a, you have any questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to Know again for me, Pat, so I can understand the apartment for your father is going to be downsmairs in the back of the building? MS. MOORE: Yes, everything is one story here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One story? MS. MOORE: Yes, one story. It nas to be handicapped accessible. My momher is ill and she's been in a wheelchair, so she needs handicapped accessibility. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in loo~ing the plan, the apartment, the second apartmenm that you may or may not use is the one just in front of that? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is also one s~ory? MS. MOORE: It's all one story. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we go to tile existing new area or the existing area, bum redone based upon the office c¼anges tha~ are made, and five sided area that will be the reception area and the covered deck, and so on and so forth. MS. MOORE: Right. Right now it's a covere~ porch and utility porch that houses our hexes and garbage, so that all comes down and ~ets rebuilt wi~h office space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The front of the building stays exactly the way it is? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEB: The second story of ~he building as it exisms now, where you have ~hat stairway that goes up, stays exacmly the same? MS. MOORE: Yes. In fac~, when we did the design of the entrance, we had to keep it semewhat low because of the windows that face mhe south side of ~he yard, the backyard, and we have to keep that pitch and everything. So, yes, we're not teuching the original structure, the only part we're touching because of construction issues what is a pop out new where our file cabinets are and a little utility ba~hreom. The bath roam barely Ei~s a teilet and a sink. 118 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 2! 25 BOARD MEMBBR GOEHRINGER: You ~hink, this is the only thing that I was looking at - I nave no objection to the plan, I think it's very nice, and I'm happy you have the parking to accommodate that plan - but do you think that area is small enough? I notice thau the destruction of a garage today is a very expensive thing to reconstruct it, but do you uh~nk you're going to have enough room beuween the building and the garage? MS. MOORE: Oh, yes. What we did is we had the site plan, that was an issue planning asked about. We actually have from the existing garage, we have clearance of 15 feet for the driveway and that's with providing about the equivalent of almost 15 feet of landscaping in front of the building. So we can certainly shrink the landscaping closer ~o and have 20 foot passageway. We have plenty of room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: I jusu wanted uo understand it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? HOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don'u have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? ~C, ARD MEMBER SIMON: I just was wondering, what is driving this project? I take iu is that you couldn't find an adequate apartment for your parents, if your parents had decided to move, to live with one of their other daughters, how much of this project would you be doing; would you still be building the additional office? MS. MC, ORE: Yes. That was a plan at one poinu or another. Our office really doesn'E work as professional for privacy and handicap accessibility and so on. When we first moved into ~he office, we made do with what was there. Over uime, this is probably six or seven years ago, our practice has grown, our clientele is older. We're at a point now where we really do need to deal with the office and the layout of the office. So either way we would have had to pop-out in t~at .direction. The accessory apartment, really financially, my parents are selling their house and they're paying for their accessory apartment. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where de they live now? MS. MOORE: Pennsylvania. They're relocacing completely. He's licensed in New York. 119 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 2R That's wha~ it is. He's paying, that's why I kind of let him decide what he wants to do with the dimensions and the architectural features of the accessory apartment. I'm raying for everything else. And that space in between makes sense. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is not a case of building an accessory aparEment for your parents, getting permission, and, eh, Dy the way, I want to add another unit to my office; it's net that way, · ~'s more the other way around? MS. MOORE: The %iming is the issue. We ultimately need te de something with cur office, bnt the design would have been eno way or another something similar to this. The apartmenE for my parents is very customized to their needs. Se the dimensions and the interior layout is their thing. I gave them carte blanche ~o de whatever they wanted. They're paying for it. It's our property, but as far as an investment goes, it ~eakes sense te invest in our property here. It wouldn't work to give them an accessory apartmen~ in cur home. There's no room for it. It's not appropriate in the neighborhood we're in. Se really ~he choice, you're all gcing te face some ~amily members that you might have te take care ef one way or the other, could be children Ehat come bac~ or parents, and it makes sense, if you have the ability, i£ you have the property that's s~itable and large enough, why not. And seine day down the line when my parents - God willing, hot ~so soon -- but my children, I have two daughters, one ef them might come back and need an apartment. So I'm hoping I'm kind of leaving room for future needs, and that's kind of wh}~ that accessory apartment law was put en the books. A lot ef people, home occupancy and stuff like that, it's not really for the income, that's no~ the issue. lt's really for Ehe need, the extra family or ~he family needs. And that's really one of the inten~s behind the ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You finally moved i~our parking let in the back, you could have saved your big tree. MS. MOORE: I had a beautiful eld tree nhat the first time we did this site, we diO our lanOscaping and everything here. We maOe every effort te save it. You don't know hew ~any little 120 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 .5 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 old ladies and not so many little old ladies thaE urea. I have glass under my tree many, many times, but ~ha~ tree actually became decaye~. So we had to take it down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You jusuified it. MS. MOORE: Yes. We figured nobody sued us for hi~ing our tree because the tree hadn'~ moved. Everybody was pretty good abouE i~. But we're going to ~ry to preserve w~atever we can. That's why any parking that we can land ~ank, we're going to do ±~ do that. We'd ra~her see a garden seEEing than we would parking. So we've really tried to reduce down, ~houghE abouu exactly what our needs are. The carport covers Ehe apartment use. The garage that's there now provides two parking spaces, bu~ really we use it for our own personal use. I have a car that I pop out in the summer, and I'll put my car in. So eliminates one of my parking spaces for me personally, for professional use. It works well. This really does work well for us. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody wanu speak on ~his application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision unEil later. ~See minutes for resoluuion.) 121 March 3, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 26} 21 22 23 25 CERTIFICATION I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related hv blood or marriage, to any ef the parties ne this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of nhis matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m!' hand uhis 3rd day of March, 2005. Florence V. Wiles 122 March 3, 2005