Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/31/2005 HEAR 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD ,DF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN O F S O UT HO L D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Soutnold, New York March 31, 2005 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present : RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, JAMES DINIZIO, MICHAEL SIMON, Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney ORIGINAl2 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~631/ 878-8047 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2b CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to call together our ZBA meeting of March 31, 2005. And we'd like to have a motion to declare a Negative Declaration on all our applications as a Type 2 Action. !See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for these good people on Koke Drive, Springsteel and Pollak, would anyOody like To address the Board on this? Mr. Springsteel. MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to tell us? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: I guess the reason for the room and why we need the variance. As I stated on the copy that you have there, we would like to have a computer and library room. Also because we're getting older, we would like to have a downstairs room in case one of us becomes iacapacitated or confined, and there's already a full bathroom on that floor, so it makes it CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the reason you need the variance is because you have two front yards? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes, right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you ~eed less than ~0 leon? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes. And ~he e×~ension would be 20 feet from the road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Excuse me, 20 feet from Koke Drive? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Right. Much farther ~han the front road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're quite a ways ~ack [rom the roa~. MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes, must be aboun 60 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you ~ave any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this time, Ruth. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No particular questions, just a comment for the record. You're sol back Ee ~he private road, Koke Drive is just about 20 feet, bun you're actually about 30 feet to the right of way, the actual[ stone gravel? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Right. There's an extra March 31, 2005 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 piece of land there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. So looking at it., you're more like 30 feet from i~. No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No q~estions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Is there any reason you can't puE this addition on the other side of the house? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes. The other side of the house has Ehree sepuic tanks, and iE's Ehe nicest side of the house already, the way it looks. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The sepuic tanks are fine. I just wanted to get that on the record. I'm assuming ~hat the room configurauion has something to do with it too? MR. SPRINGSTEEL: There's no real rooln, Ehe dining room, which is the only possible place, the lighE would be blocked. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you, I just wanted ~o get that on the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, I'll see if uhere's anybody else who would like to say something about this applicauioN. Is there anyone that would like to say someEhing abouE uhis applicaEion for or against? If not, then I make a ~uoEio~ to close Ehe nearing and reserve decision until lauer. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'i] be making a decision by April 14th. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Gregory and Barbara Wood on Marlene Lane in Matui~uck Eo build a new dwelling there. MS. MARTIN: Good morning, I'm Am}, Martin, I work for Fairweather Brown. I'm here on behalf of Barbara and Gregory Wood. They currenuly have, as you see in our applicaEion, ~wo pre-existing nonconfor~ning dwellings, actually it's a dwelling and an accessory apartment on this property which has been joined, and they would li~e to remove Ehose uwo and build a single-family residence in the cenEer of uhe property. The designer of the house likes to make March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his houses not look like boxes and not have an appearance to be overwhelming to the neighborhood, and therefore, the house is stepped in different directions to give it a more welcoming, more cottage effect. And due to This fact, the Ewe joined lots make the lot kind of square, ra~er than the usual deep and long lot, and we have a 50 foot setback required from the DackyarO. The screened porch, which is in the most appropriate location for the house, off the livii~g room, which is the south corner for air and light, then therefore extends into tha~ 50 foot setback from nhe backyard rear line, and it's - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would give you 41.7 feet? MS. MARTIN: Yes. It's 8' by 20' of screened porch, which would be over uhe line, anO we're asking for relief from that setback. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a nice loT. Jinx? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Sc if you built a house without the porch, you wouldn't need any variances? HE. MARTIN: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Iu leeks like the house is maybe two ~eet from that line. MS. NLARTIN: Right. And another thing is, this is nos someone who has j~st bought the property. This man, my age, has Deen a summer kid, and they haven't chose to move to a wa~erfrens let or anything. They would just like to make what they know - the cemmuniuy they live in is where they would like te stas,. He has growing kids and wants an area with a screened perch on the back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And my understanding is ~hat you're taking down two ether buildings? MS. MARTIN: We're taking down uwc ~ha~ are en property lines, and put~ing this in the middle of the let. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand tha~ she front setbacks will be increased because o~ the removal ef the existing building, and that will Se a conforming setback. MS. MARTIN: Everything but the screened porch will be conforming set,acks, whereas right now there's quite a few - the exissing buildings 4 March 31, 20,35 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 are all nonconforming setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: VincenE? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would like to commend the architect, if that would be you, for tesigning a very nice house for the neighborhood. One of the criteria is, is it in character for the neighborhood? This is very much in character with the neighborhood. There are not many ~wo-story very tall buildings, where he has a very large piece of property, he could go very big and szill be in Ehe guidelines of the code. And he did keep it quiue conservative, and in keeping with uhe characuer neighborhood. It is a minor variance in the back for the sun porch in the sou~h side of Ehe house, which would be most pleasanE. I have no objections to uhis. MS. MARTIN: My husband thanks you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was firsE going to ask you, Amy, why you csuldn'~ pu~ ~hat screened porch in Ehe niche, but then I guess tha~ would be too close te the swimming pool? HS. MARTIN: It wouldn't have any air and light in the niche. The idea there is it's uhe south corner, and it gets the air and lighE, and i~ would be useable all day rather than just late afternoon. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: I was down Ehere, i~'s a very nice lot and I think what you're doing looks very, very nice. 9OARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Even though you're asking for a variance, in uhe whole you're making the lot more conforming Ehan it was if you left iE as is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let's see if somebody else has something te say. Does anybody else wish to comment on this application both pro or con? If not, I'll make a motion ~o close this nearing and reserve decision until letter. {See minutes for reselution. I CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Reeve a~O Kramer on Front StreeE in Greenport. iou're just trying Ce fix up an eld lovely house and make iCa little more conforming and livable. MS. HARTIN: Yes, again, Amy Martin, Fairwea~her Brown. CHAIRWOMA2¢ OLIVA: BeauEiful house. 5 March 31, 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 MS. MARTIN: Yes. And they've restored it quite nicelt'. It was in fairly bad disrepair when Ehey bought it quite a few years ago. I'm not sure when the porch was added eh, but that was before our involvement. And that needs a CO, as it was net - it has only one little corner that is non-conforming of uhe previous -- it's net in cenfer~nance -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean the deck unat's in the back? MS. MARTIN: Yes. It's net in conformance :o the real setbacks but only one little corner exceeds the existing disEance to Ehe fence, to the properny line. The new addition is they ha~e a growing family of three children, and they need mere bathrooms. So Ehe new addition is right against the side of Ehe eld building, batwee~ the deck, and it's jusu a two sEory, two bathrooms, one en the first fleer and eno en the second floor. And we're asking for relief froln The setbacks te add a very uraditienal, appropriaEe, small bump-out that will achieve that purpose. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the drawings it will just fit in. MS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, de you have any q~estions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The property line is just Ehat deEned line in the back? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my question, it leeks like, is this a lot line application as well, because there is a let line through the back of the house. MS. MARTIN: This properEy }~ears and years ago belonged Ee t~xe CaEholiu church, and the let lines were changed when the lots for the houses en Brown SEreet were built. There are four small cottages in the back yard. This whole property was one property an one uime, and I'm not sure, this is a very old survey, so I'm nee sure when the let line was changed, but it was prior ne Ehis person's purchasing of it, ~d Ehat Ehe}' just don': have a new survey. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I suspect w[~au l~appened, Amy, was when they bought the property they found eu: Ehere was an encroachmenu and Ehey changed ~he lot line aE thaE tithe. MS. MARTIN: I assume. March 31, 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 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So this survey was dated February, 2005, so it's a new survey. MS. MARTIN: I'm sorry, this is a new survey, I think you're looking at a site plan. The survey is a Van Tuyl survey so it's quite eld. But the property has existed in this shape for quiEe some time. BOARD MEMBER ORLanDO: Se the Van Tuyl shows the exact same thing. I was confused when I was there as te which property line was the real property line. MS. MARTIN: The real property line was Ehat strange tie angle added. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: They must have done i~_ because the house encroached on that and they made some sort ef arrangement. MS. NL~RTIN: Yes. It was a -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did the Rramers build that deck er was iu before they p~rchased in? MS. MARTIN: I think they did. Bu~ wa}' before we were involved, but right after they purchased it without a permit. I'm net involved in that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My other quesnien was on t~e site plan because it wasn't on Ehe survey, they didn't include that detached garage, Ehat accessory building. I know it didn't have anyuhing to do with the applicauien but it's non on ~he survey. MS. MARTIN: IE does have a CO but it's neu en Ehe survey, bun we're neu involve{ wiEh it, so we ~ry to not cause the clienn more time Orafuing, punEing things on. If you would like a site plan with the whole thing on there, we can de that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to iuake sure Lhis person was net ~rying to hiOe an illegal s~ructure. MS. MARTIN: That structure does have COs and does exist and we're no~ trying te do anything te that. He works a little bit out ef that area and it is a home office kind ef thing. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's what that is? MS. MARTIN: Yes. SOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: questions. No other Marcii 31, 2,9,35 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a ,sase where the rear boundary line is on an angle, and Ehere's onll, a corner, how many square feeE is Ehat? MS. MARTIN: I think i~'s eight square feet that's over thaE exceptional line that is further back from the original wing of the building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I hate t.o throw cold water on the projecE here, but I think we need an updated survey, one that has all the buildings on it, and any of the COs than are on the building. The Town's going in that {irection. I know our Board is even asking Ehe Town tha~ they require updating surveys before they make an application to us; the reason for that is ~.hat so we don't run into problems later on. The momen~ I looked at this, I actually attended school in than building when it was Mother McCauley Hall, and as I recall it had something to do with the Mazzafaros giving back some of their lots, whenever the diocese sold that piece of property. Honestly I think we need to see that transaction. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Jimms"s made a ~ood point. Just for },our own sake, have a paper Erail, I think iE's a good idea. MS. MARTIN: I ~hink at ~he ~ime we were surprised t~at iE was accepted in any form the way it was. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's why I asked Ehese questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you mind if we ~eep this hearing open until we receive the updated survey? MS. MARTIN: I do hOE mind at all. MS. KOWALSKI: How much time do yon need? MS. MARTIN: I'm not sure what survel~or they will use and what their backlog is at this point. It's fairly straightforward, and the weather has changed now so they may be catching up, but the? were seriously delayed. Sc, I would Erl~ for the four wee~s, and I will leu 5~su know as soon as I geu a commitment from a surve}'or. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That will be May 4tM at 9:30 in the morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is Ehere aris'one tha~ would like to comment on this application eiuher 8 Marci~ 31, 2005 2 4 5 ? 8 10 ~2 15 ~8 22 2~ 25 pro or con? If not, we will keep this hearing open until we receive the updated survey. ISee minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is for Burrs Reliable. Good morning, Mr. Romanelli. MR. ROMANELLI: You do have my application up there for a rear yard setback. There is a small change to it, which I did bring a~ updated plan. The original plan that was given to you guys was for a single-story building along that setback. The single story builOing was going Eo be changed to a two-story building, setback stavs along the same line. That is the one change. The setback is staying in line with the existing two b~ildings that are there, following the same line down. MS. KOWALSKI: Do you have new maps that Vou wanted to give the Board? MR. ROMANELLI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jo~n, why did you decide that you needed a two story? MR. ROMANELLI: As my business has grown over t~e }-ears, I have storage scattereO throughout town in different barns and garages, and I would love to centralize my location to one part. As I put the application together, yo~ start squeezing things in and then you realize if I get the second story, I can move evervthing under one location, that's my one goal. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have To compliment 5,ou, over the years you have dressed that place up. MR. ROMANELLI: We keep trying, we keep running out of space too. It's strictly storage, garage space, metal fabrication space, tRere's no office space going in this addition, no bathrooms. CHAIRWOMAI~ OLIVA: Just storage. You have no objection if we put that as a condition of our approval.? MR. ROMANELLI: That's fine. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: Jimmy? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I see you Nave this door on top, is that how you're going uo load upstairs? MR. ROMANELLI: That's how we're going to load sheet metal to the second floor. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have no March 21, 2005 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objection to just storage, anything else you're going to be doing? MR. ROMANELLI: With this addition I've ~axed out my lot coverage. I'm at about one percent below the maximum lot coverage for the zone. So there will be no other additions to this property. Would I take than as a condition, at this stage I could say yes, but you never know, things change. I would prefer not he have that condition on it, te ~e honest with you, but aE this particular moment ~his is being strictly built as a storage facility, garage space, no plumbing involved. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Behind this building is the parking lot, right? Se r~o building is ever going to be constructed there? MR. ROMANELLI: Agway's parking let, righu. Ne building constructed uhere unless uhey ineve their building, that could happen. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the record, you're still under the let coverage? M~. ROHAIqELLI: I just make i~. The let coverage for LI Zone is 30 percent, I think this works out to 28.6 percenE ].et toverage, so we' re right there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. C~{AIRWONLAN OLIVA: Vincent? Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. While you're building it, },ou want te expand a little Sit. Whe~ my friend was helping me put a skylight ir~ the kitchen, I was going ~e put a little one in, he said, you're cu~ing the hole you inigh~ as well cut i~ big. You have ~.~ think down the road a litule bit, and I'm sure Vou're going to get bigger. ~R. ROMANELLI: That was the thought. To be honest, once I had the site plan done and saw uno let coverage, that's when it hit me, I said, hey, this is it, there's no aOOitions going baok c.~ ~his properEy. So that was really uhe seep ~hat said let's do iE and de it once. CHAIRWOM}~ OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: BaseO upon uhe maneuverability and everything you need for the terminal aspect of the storage facility, you March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really had no other choice Ehan to do whan you .did; is that correct? MR. ROMANELLI: Yes. Any other spot I put Ehis building woult require a variance on an¢}ther lot line. The thought process here was len's keep all our buildings on one side, it's only really a ~wo foot lot line an nhis poinn, keep uhat all the way down. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Than]< you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in nhe audience wish to comment on this application either for or againsu? If non, I'll make a mouion to close the hearing and reserve decision until laner. ~See minutes for resolunion.} CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next nearing is for ~ruce and Mary Bollman, who wish to demolish Eheir house and rebuild another house on nhe property on Truman's Path in Easn Marion. Is t~ere anyone here who would like te comment on uhe applicanion? MR. BERTANI: Hi, my name is John BerEani, i'm here for Mr. and Mrs. Bollman. As of nwe days ago, we were made aware of than the school, Miss Gould, the neighbor, has made some comments. So I have some things for rebuEnal. CHAIRWONtAN OLIVA: Would you jusn like to {ps over some of these poinEs? HR. BERTANI: Yes, jusn eno or two. CHAIRWONblN OLIVA: Go ahead, Mr. BerEani. MR. BERT~[I: Ail I have te say about this is Mr. Bellman's owned nhis property, it's been in his family since 1947. It's always been his dream tc have nhis home there, it's his own personal home, fix it up. He basically worked on the footprint that's there. The house is only going bE. be a ~wo bedroom, two bath, living room, ear-in kitchen. Unfortunately, the let size is only 50 fee~ wide, and that's what causes the encroachmen~ on Ehe side yards. Mrs. Gould, if you leek on --- there's a picture and also a survey showing the proximiEy of the two houses. Hr. Bollman's house is I would say 90 percenE behind Hrs. Gculd's house. I don't think we're going to interfere with her light, her ventilation, her views by going up Ewe sEories. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have a CO for 11 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 the Bollmans for that garage with the deck upstairs? MR. BERTANI: Yes, we de. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is tha~ garage inhabited? MR. BERTANI: It's being used, yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For living quarters? MR. BERTANI: Yes. It's only because the house is unlivable. There's ne cooking facilities in there, it's just a bathroom and one room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is enclosed in that plastic covering in front of the garage? MR. BERTANI: There's an old car and some small beats, a sail fish type of thing, kayak. And that would be gene as seen as the house is ready. The contenEs of the house is in the garage aE this time and that was put ouEside and covered. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understan~ ~ha~ you took any furniture that you wanted from ~he house, stored uhat in the garage, they're living upsuairs, and nhey covered up the two cars they have outside? MR. BERTANI: Yes, one car and cna beat and that will be gone as soon as that can go back in the garage and the other stuff can go in the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The other question I have is why does this ridge of Ehe new house, if you're zeally only making a small house, have to be 30 feet high? It will be larger than any onher Nouse in that whole neighborhood, and I have problems wi~h a 30 foot high Nouse, 28 or 26 would be far more acceptable. MR. BERTANI: I undersEand that, and I made a mistake. I took nhe elevation heighus off of the plan, and the grade of the property is higher. So it wouldn't be that high to begin with, and also, we could lower the pitch of the roof and bring it down also. And we coul{ probably get it down to 28 feet or less. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ~hink you answered all the questions thau I had. I appreciaue your doing ~hat. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The question with the CO, you may not have nhis or know in, the CO 12 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 for the accessory garage, does the CO sal' it's habitable space or is it just an accessory garage? MR. BERTANI: I really don't know. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It reall5 looks like uhere's two dwellings en the property. MR. BERTANI: It's not meant te be. It's ineant for just an office. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's relatively new, isn't it? HR. BERTANI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the drawing the house is offset. I~ goes up and then it comes ii1 and goes up? MR. BERTANI: Yes, that's on tRe north and south. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the second floor is c~oser to 10 foou on the one side and then 15 foot, 10 and 157 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. BERTANI: No, I don'u undersuand the question, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There's two side yard setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 12'7" and 5'9". BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Bu~ then i~ has the 10 foot right there. CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: I don't know what that is. feeu HS. KOWALSKI: The existing house is i0 on the noruh side. They're proposing 5.6? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Those are existing side yards, 10 and 15, and you want to go even closer? MR. BERTANI: Ne. The shaded area is wha~ ~E would be if we had ~o ge to ~he 10 an~ 15. The existing house is at 5.9. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're just showing uhe setbacks. MR. BERTANI: Yes. The surveyor had to show the square footage of the noncompliance. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is there an older survey Eha~ shows the existing setbacks? MR. BERT~I: Yes, it's in ~here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Do you have one with you? MR. BERT~gI: Yes. It's in nhe packet I just gave you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I apologize for 13 March 31, 2,905 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 having to ask this question, nhe side on which the addition to the original footprint, that is on ~he west side? MR. BERTANI: The addition to the house would be to the nornh. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The water's on the south, right? So nhere is no increase in the footprint on either of the side senbacks, right? Bun the difference is there's going to be a second story, on which side the east or wesn side? MR. BERTANI: The second story, on the east and west side, it goes suraight up. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No furnher questions a~ this time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the house that has a dormer on top already? MR. BERTANI: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're bringing from a bungalow and going up two stories. Whan is the height from nhe story on tile ground near the side yard up to where you're going to see tile angle of nhe roof? MR. BERTANI: ProOably about 18 leon. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just approximate, it's not 28, 30 feet there? The 30 feen is going to be close to the middle of the lot? MR. BERTANI: Right. On that side of nhe house we broughn nhe windows up very high so we wouldn'n be really looking an nhe neighbor's yarO so on and so fornh. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: T~e actual wail your neighbor is going ne be looking at is abeun 187 MR. BERTANI: About 18 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whan are ~hey ±coking au now, about 107 MR. BERTANI: There's a peak on that side, they're probably looking a~ 1{ feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's two variances going on here. {}ne is for nhe additional amount ef footage, not footage but actual ground space you want to ~ake up in ~he front ef the house, extend ~hat a little bit; and the fac~ ~han you wan~ te go higher in a nonconforming area. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a little bit more, he's rebuilding ~he first floor also. March 31, 2{}05 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand ~hat. I understand he's tearing the house down. That's one thin~, but we're talking about just the footprint and what he's adding. MR. BERTANI: Right. And it wouldn't be our choice to tear this down but the Town wo~lld ~let accept the house the way it is if we jus~ went ~lp ii1 sections and changed windows and toors, it's very poorly constructed. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: I~'s 2' by 4's and 2' by 6's. MR. BERTANI: That's correct. That's the floor joist 2' by 4's. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going te keep the basement, the foundation's going to be the same, ~here's not much digging other than this ~lew area MR. BERTIkNI: That little section on the ~orth side. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Then ~he garage itself will be returned ~ack to the original. was surprised to hear that somebody was living t~here. He's living there because he likes ~e go out on weekends. IE's not a seven days a week preposition year round, he wanes to cema out and enjoy his property. He's preparing ~o do wiuhsut the construction he has now. Ail right, I ~uess that's all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are exceeding ~he 20 percent lot coverage to abe~t 22.9? MR. BERTANI: 'Fhat's correct. But many hemes in the area are also in that same beat because we now are counting si{ewalks, decks and ramps, and so on, which I don't think we ever did before in lot coverage. So I knew the neighbor right nex~ door is definitely also in the same boat if we came today before you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Hr. Bertani. Would anyone else like Ee comment en this application? Ms. Gould. HS. GOULD: Hi, my name is Jennifer ,Gould. I live at 1820 Truman's Path, which is directly west ef the Bollman line; and first I would like to apologize for getting my paperwork in se late, which is Harch 30th; Mrs. Bertani did ge~ me notice on March 9th or somewhere thereabout, b~lE I i~ad a vacation planned, and I was gone 10 days. Se trust me, trying te work and getting back, I 15 March 31, 2005 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 went and saw I got back on Wednesday, I went to the Building Depar~menn on Thursday, I looked the plans, I went out and measured from his house to the property line on Saturday, called mlr surveyor on Monday, they came out yesterday, 1 asked them to rush the calculations, and my survey print, anO I don't think it's a real imposition on the Bollmans if the hearing stays open a week or so for me to get my final survey in so t~at you get a whole view of this thing. This happens to be a very big deal to me, and I might add tha~ the property's been in ~his condition I'll give you pictures -- for 18 years. I've lived with ~his kind of dilapidated structure, so if we have wait another week to get this sorted out, I don't think i~'s a big deal. These are pictures that I would like to enter into the recorO with my statement I made yesnerday {handing}. I assume that goes into ~he record if you will. I numbered each one of them, n~ey're all in order, and I just wrote a little commenn on ~he back of them. So you can see what I tried to do. I saw ~he application tha~ went into you. You saw just a snapshot of ~he front of the house they want ~o redo anO the back of t~e house, but I think you have to see the entire property. As Mr. Bertani said, this property's been in nhe Bollman family for a long time. know that Bruce has an attachment to the land, we all do. These three parcels were all one at once. In Exhibit A on the paperwork I put in, I put a 1970 survey of the property, and his mom owned all three parcels and now ~hey have been divided, and Bruce's is in the middle, it's 50 feet, PureEtes is to nhe east, he's 50 feet, ~0 feet. I have the smallest lo~, the smalles~ [louse, and, Mr. Dinizio, you asked -- I didn'~ warm ~o bring this up because no me how he uses ~he accessory building is really non the issue. He does live there full time. It's him, he's my neighbor, that's fine. The issue for me is, ~n a nutshell, is you have two structures on one piece of preper~y which is less than a quarter acre that Look like houses, whether you c~ll it a house or not, it looks like a house and you've got the pictures here. This is the CO, it says accessory garage 16 Mardn 31, 2,905 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 in front yard with nonhabitable storage area akove as applied for, and I said in m!' letter that I wasn't sure if it was already exceeding lot coverage for the steps and the decks, just because it's not in the CO, I don't know. I'm just saying that if it exceeds lot coverage already there needs to be a variance for that parE. Also, the canvas shed, I don't know why it's necessary, he has covers on the things that are in there and he has had in the past. The boats were always neatly stacked at the side of the yard, but visually you .ran see from the first picture, it's a lot to hit your eye ~e have a 10' by 18' storage shed smack ~p against the garage, which is already the size of most houses in the neighborhood, that accessory building is 1,485 square feet, and I take these measurements off the Ingegno survey. That 1,48S -- I haven't had a chance to read Hr. Bertani's letter but, when y.su get ~ny survey, my whole house and my accessory building is not 1,485. The house that was reconstructed en the other let is 2,000 square feet; the accessory touilding is 23.3 wide. My house is 20 Eeet wide, the Purret's house is 20.2 feet wide. I don't know what it is te the peak of the Bolhnan garage. I think the Board sheulO know what that is because the peak of the garage, it's a cathedral, it's a nice design, don't get me wrong, but what I thought was going to happen in 1977, when this building went up, was that the house would come down, he'd have a big beautiful lawn, and that maybe he would add en Eo the accessory building in terms of a residence. And from the aesthetic point ef view, tha~ would be great. But what he wants now, and frankly, what he's legally entitled to, he has his footprint, he can keep house he has and remodel that, but he does need a variance te go up two stories. It's substantial. To my roof is I think 20 feet, that's one reason I i~ad a surveyor come out so you could know what is te the peak of mt, roof, I don't know. He's talking about going up 30. There's no other house in the neighborhood especially the six houses around that are anywhere near that, anO you have ~o consider that the distance between our houses, his surveyor says it's six feet from his house to the line, and there are pictures in there that show the shrubs along the property line. 17 March 31, 2005 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 iS 19 2O 21 22 23 25 measured it and it's 65 inches, to me that's feet. But I'm not a surveyor, when surveyors say i~alf a feet doesn't make a lot of difference, well iT does make a lot of difference ~o me because just means ~haz our houses are that much clese~. So no matter what way you cut it, we have ~wo structures on a piece o[ property. It's maxed eut on lot coverage already and this was by choice. Thin accessory building is .44 percent ,of the total lot coverage. He's at 8.82 percent with ~he accessory building; the house right now is think 10.67, whether you count ~he walks and all that stuff, that's for you to decide, i don't knew, but it looks like it's maxed out or ciese maxed out right now, and I just need for a variance to increase ge totally up two s~eries to 30 are design alternatives. As an addendum ~e this, to not see the the footprint er feet where there I gave you six pages, and that's only from 2004 and 2003, out of HcKfnney's Case Law about ~he factors yoe're to sonsider for a variance, and what the person wants ~o do with their land is not a controlling factor, and you're supposed to look at the land itself, and there are reasonable alternatives here. Ail £'m asking for is some compromise. I don't w~nt t.z. live next to this shack any longer either. But I think design-wise, everything in the neighborhood is one and a-half stories, why couldn't he bump it in so tNe second story doesn't go straight in like a box. I don't know, I'm not an architect, lh'm going to ask Glennis Barry to ccme in here, she's in another meeting, she's an architect, she looked az this for me and tried ~} come up with nome alternatives tha~ I did puE in my letter. I'm just asking that they consider some alternatives to this. I'm open to other types of variances, but Izhink just zo came and put the biggest thing you can en the thing, and Then -- I just don't think that Ehat's the way Ee de it. I think there should be some compromise on This whole deal because the fact is, it's close, it's two houses on one let, looks like two houses. There is nothing else in the neighborhcod like this. If you do your balancinq test from 267 B3, The detril~ent to the neighborhood, te me as an adjacent neighbor, to Bob O'Brien, the neighbor en the other side, te Jessie Purrett, it far 18 Harch 31, 2005 1 2 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 outweighs an}, personal gain he gees for having a real big house. Something's get te give here. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani ba~ mentioned that he could lower ~he 30 foot height te something like 26, 28. Would ~ha~ be acceptable? MS. GOULD: I think we need to see how high my house is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I agree with you 30 feet towers over anybody in the neighborhood. MS. GOULD: John Bertani said it was like if you look at pictures I think i~'s 19, 20, and there's 17, 18, 20 and 29 it shows the roof line of the current con,age, okay, it's between 12 and 14 feet. Glennis has scaled that fcr me. If that goes up 18 feet you can ge~ an itea from those pictures it's going to be massive from the road. It's not going to look very nice. It's already there's one house and then there's going to be another ~ouse. I don't see why something couldn't be designed that's csmparaDle to the out building that would Rind of matcn it, have like twins or something, and that would still give them space. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wane varying roof lines? MS. GOULD: I think varying roof lines would be something to look at as an alternative if they don't want ~o bring it back and heek iu into the other house er go smaller into the existing f©o~print; after all, ~heir existing footprint is 29.5 across, that's 50 percent larger than inine and the next door neighbors and we all have similar size lots. Se already they have something pre-existing that's bigger. Also, we're talking abou~ adopting a new code here in May, the pyramid roof law, and small lets increasing setbacks to 15 feet. That's going ~s mean this variance is even more substantial than it already is. I know my le~er's in ~he record, I pu~ my calculations in there, maybe they'll change oz' yo~'ll change them when you see my survey because it's based on wha~ I think the distances are from ~he property line, and I'm estimating those because I don't have a survey. My old survey is in there, but you'll see, it doesn't have any of 19 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Ehose distances, which is why I requested a new one . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two commenEs, one is I gather you weuld be happy if they made this existing cottage into a beach frent cettage rather Ehan a primary house given Ehe size of the existing garage? MS. GOULD: I think it weuld leek real BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One peint abeut the ~uestien ef how important is ene feet tea surveyer, or less than a foot? Surely I think one fo.aE cempared with what? One lost out .al six feet is a lot mere than one feet out of 20 feet. MS. GOULD: That's my peint. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where this becomes relevan~ is we're talking abeuE Ehe effecE en Ehe neighberneed, small increments add up to a lot if the setbacks are already small. Clearll~ l'ou have a number ef ideas, weuld you be willing te negetiate Ehis with Mr. Bellman? MS. GOULD: Absolutely. BOARD MEHBER SIMON: Regarding seme~hing that weuld be mutually acceptable. MS. GOULD: I said thau in my letter if he had come to me with the plans befere this, we could have talked abeut iE then. Bu~ my noEice e{ uhis whole deal has been just like yours. I got a card in ~he mail. Se there hasn't been any negotiation yet. I said to Linda Bertani that I thought that Ehere sho~ld be some cempro~ise here. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think glancing at the survey, we misse~ anether variance. The Building DeparEment missed anether variance, it's 35 feet to the bulkhead, tile house. But yeu're iemo-ing the heuse, so they missed that variance. That will be caughE dewn the line. HS. GOULD: There's lees of potential variances. I leave tha~ to the Beard to Oetermine what those are. I den't persenally think he has a variance for the canvas sEorage shed, I Ehink he should gee rid efiE. He's not going to get a variance for it anyway. Get ri~ of the mound of dirt that's been sitting t~ere for 10 years from when the garage went up. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I as~ a questien? 2O March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been down there twice, I observed it with snow, without snow. I have to tell you, that we recently got an application before us in New Suffolk which was exactly the same situation occurred, the house was demolished, or partially demolished, the house was not livable, the people lived in the garage presently, temporarily; and the same exact situation occurred where at that time it was the applicant who, by the way is an attorney, said we're going ~o move ou~ of the garage, we had no other place to iive, the house was unlivable. Mr. Bertani said that. What I need you to do because of this median roof line issue that we're constantly discussing, the roof line really dcesn't go -- it goes median to the center of the roof, I need you to address iss~es that refer to the ridge line itself, because i don't understan~ when you're talking height Eo a median roof line. We have to talk to the r~dge so we understand exactly what the situation is. MS. GOULD: You're asking me what the ridge of my house is? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you're addressing ridges, le~'s talk r~dges. We can't visualize mean roof lines, that's the issue. MS. GOULD: So far all i've been a~le to do is visualize because I don't know what the heigh~ is uo his accessory building's ridge line. I do remelnber when it went up I was a little alarmed au the height. I think I asked the Building Department, this is 18 feet, nsw an accessory building is supposed to be 18 feet. I believe you're allowed higt~er than that to the ridge line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Twenty two. MS. GOULD: So the other thing that you have uo factor in is that the property takes a bit cf a dip, and you'll see that in his elevations. Where Bruce's accessory building is, I think in's only 6.3, so whatever it is, he's a little bit lower than what we are up [ronE, which I think the elevanion is about 17. But if you look at ridge line and Bob O'Brien and Ann O'Brien's riOge line, they have a one and-a-half story house, they're about 20 feet from me on the other side, his is a little bi~ lower uhan mine visually. 21 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Then my ridge line I think is going to be in the area of 21, 22 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To your base elevation of where your house is at that time? MS. GOULD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s a credence factor we can understand. This median situation I can't understand. MS. GOULD: I don't understand it either. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me share one thing with you. Number one, there is a CC, on the back building, nouwithstanding whatever the determination of the Building Department was a~ that uime. We have an admission from the builder that they are going to move into this house. We do no~ have a pyramid law at this time. We are going to have a pyramid law in a very short time, I assume. I don't know how much you can pus~ the envelope au this time based upon what you are requesting because we are here mainly fcr lo~ coverage and a small addition, which mi,' understanding is for the purpose of a heating system to be placed in the basement and so on and so forth, a mud room type of effect in the rear of this new proposed house. I jusE ~on't know how far we can push it. I appreciaue all of those cases you have given us, many of which we have seen before, and I'm not saying I am blanking these out. When we make a decision, as you ~now, we agonize a long time over some of these decisions. Bun exactly as my colleague Hike said, speak to them, see what you can do and get back to us and that's where the issue is. And we will accept any further information, assumin~ the Chairperson wanus to leave the hearing open, from eny other data and then we'll go Oack for ansEher inspection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jenny, how about we leave the application open and you and Mr. Bertani get together wi~h your new survey and come up with something that would be more equitable to both of you and come back in a monuh? MS. GOULD: That's fine wan~ ~o address your statements t he envelope. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: with me. I jusE about me pushing You have ~he perfect right as a proper~y owner, and please, that mai' have not been the best choice of words. 22 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 Based upon the fact that we do non have a pyramid law, an~ in has not been addressed in the notice of disapproval, that's all I'm ~nentioning. There's nothing against you or yourself as a property owner. MS. GOULD: I understand. But when you csnsider a variance you don'~ just look at nhe snructure, you have ~o look at the whole property an~ you have to look at ~he neighbors, that's wha~ I'm asking. That's not what you nave in the file, you got a front and ~he back of a house. I don't have an objection to 10S feet back, we're nalking aboun increasing a nonconforming house not jnst by 100 percent by adding a second story, we're nalking about taking a house nhat's only 12 feet high and going up anonher 1.8 fee~, no manner how vo~ cu~ it tha~ is substantial. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a comment for the record. First of all regarOing the pushing of the envelope, my undersnanding that is ~ha~ first of all unlike appealing a case to a higher court which you're prohibited to raise issues ~haE weren't brought up earlier, we are not iimiteO to things tha~ were specifically cited in the notice :pr disapproval when we review nhese cases, bun winh regard to nhe so called pushing of the envelope, since we de have seine discretion in granting a variance if a variance was required, we can cernainly pay attention ~o t~he kinds of considerations that are going inno the possibility of adopting a pyramid law. We're hOE invoking the pyramid law as law, but simply the kind ef reasoning which is in our scope of discretion, I believe. Se I don't think it's irrelevann for you to mention this as long as you're not citing it as having legal precedential light. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I agree with ysu, Hichael. MS. GOULD: And also as to his use of the accessory building, it never came from me in a piece of paper that I put in or in this hearing except as a rebuttal hew he was ~sing it, because frankly, that is not tile issue; thaE's an issue for another day, another place. The issue is what type of buildings are en this property, and there is an accessory building on this property that looks like and is bigger than a lo~ of the houses in ~he neighborhood, and you're being asked to 23 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 grant a variance for another structure on tMis property that will be twice as big as an accessory building that's alreaGy there because this is 1,486 and I believe the house will come out tea little under -- between 22 and 24, but you're net counting this distance to the peak, maybe the feotprint's only going te be 22 er 23, but the peak, the physicalness of this hsuse going up 30 feet is a lot. That's really tile issue, how it looks in the neighborhood, how it affects the neighbors, not the use. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's ne question about it. I just want you %o know that we appreciate the pictures that you gave us, and i'm not speaking for my colleagues but I've been there twice and I certainly know the area and i certainly appreciate the area and I certainly accept ail the comments that you have made, but you neeG to try and work it out at this point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani, are you at the moment willing to negotiate a little bit with Ms. Gould? MR. BERTANI: I'll speaH te Mr. Bollman, I'm sure he's willing te speak with Hrs. Gould ebout this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Suppose we keep this hearing open and schedule it te the Hay 4th hearing? HS. GOULD: I think ~here are other people that would like to make a comment on this. I'm going te ask Glennis to come back in. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR~{: Just en :rlari~y's sake, I would like to expound on something Hr. Goehringer raised an~ Mr. Simon, while there is a law that's been set for public hearing, which we have been referring ts as the pyramid law, there hasn't been a hearing on it yet. It is nob a law. It may or may not be a law as currently drafted er some other form. Se this Beard will not be applying that law. However, in applying the balancing factors in ruling for an application on a variance seine of the same ,2onsideratiens are necessary, including oDvieus£y the ef{ect on the neighborhood and the overall change in Ehe property. MR. O'BRIEN: My name is Bob O'Brien. I live next to Jenny and two houses wes~ of Bruce. Hy main objection is the height. My house is a 24 March 31, 9"~ 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2b liutle lower than Jenny's and I had been Ehinking of adding additions Eo the house, and I had sonsidered going up 35 foot limitations and so forch, and I felt it was just net in keeping with the neighborhood. So I'm never going E© apply fcr that. So the height is the main issue I think to me . I think the Board also has te consider that this house is right en the coastal eresicn zone, the foundation basically, and I don't know if there's going te De other variances needed besides 5,our Board because the house is substantially, the only thing that's going to be kept is the foundation at this point. Se ail bees may be off as far as heights and so forth, ycu're probably more informed en that than I am. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He just makes it insiOe the coastal erosion. MR. O'BRIEN: But the code states if the house is substantially deteriorated or a fire occurs, that it's supposed to be set back so far from the bluff. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's from ~he bay. HR. O'BRIEN: Unless there's a reasonable alternative. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's only from the sound front. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There's a setback Erom the bulkhead on the bay, 75 feet from the bulkhead. HR. O'BRIEN: From the coastal erosion zone too. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The coastal erosion zeno is basically just on ~he sound sloe not sn the bay. HR. O'BRIEN: Why is i~ shown on the map? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's shown what his zone is, which is Elevation 9. Se he has Lo be nine feet up, which he makes. He just would have tc have maybe a variance again from the bulkhead i~self. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR}~: If ~here is an issue with the coastal erosion line, Lhat is something Lhat the Building Department nas to pick ~lp, and if there is an issue thaL will be sene Eo Lhe Trustees for a determination. This Board doesn't have jurisdiction over the coastal erosion law. 25 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. O'BRIEN: My main concern was that ycu say you really don't have jurisdiction on the heigh~ limitation, I think that's the gist ef what you have been saying. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The gist is exactly what you said when you started your conversation, Mr. O'Brien, and that is regardless to nhe application, that generically in my opinion, the code reads 35 feet. In mI' discussion with Miss Gould really that's 42 feet because we're talking mean height, that's the reason why an issue of disapproval was not a nature of ~his particular application. And, of course, one of nhe reasons why I think the Town Board is coming before us with this new law Ehat Counsel is jusn talking about, and I do concur with what exactly Miss Gould -- she may have not have understood when I referred no the situation of pushing the envelope, which might have been a poor choice of words -- that everything we do is taken into consideration on these pre-existing nonconforming lots, everything, and we've done that I've been here 25 years and I have to tell you that front yard garages, everything is taken into consideration. And we understand the factors Ehat you're concerned with. We understand everything that goes on today regarding those factors, I'm speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself, so let me rephrase that and say I understand. The question is, in order to get the needed square £ootage that some people need in reference uo construction sometimes it beco~nes the law of diminishing returns and not do anything with the structure if you're not going to gee a house nhat's habitable ~o live in. Tile issue that I referred Ed also, and I don't mean uo be redundant on this issue, that you've got to live somewhere if the place isn't habitable and by admission mhey said they're living there it doesn'E have kinchen tacility, and so on and so forth. That's the issue. We weren't here. We were not part of that CC, that has been issued on that back garage. And we understand that based upon the admission from ehe attorney we understand that things are going uo c~ange once the house is constructed. But I'ln saying that we need Ed discuss ridge line, then we need to discuss median roof line if we're going uo discuss those issues. 26 March 31, 200S 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 MR. O'BRIEN: That's my main thing too. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As Mr. Corcoran said, we don't have a pyramid law in place, but according to the balancing test we can take some of those issues that are in the pyramid law into account in our decision. MR. O'BRIEN: Because the house has to be · n keeping with the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani? MR. BERTANI: I would just like to aOd that we have a nonjurisdiction from the DEC and we have a Trustees Permit and a Health Department Permit also, so we have had all those agencies there already, and they have no problems with it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you give us copies of that for our file? MR. BERTANI: Yes, we can. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have another question you may want to speak no the Building Department about that just to save you another trip back here. MR. BERTANI: The bulkhead, it's way down au the foot of ~he high water mark. There's numerous tiers, so I'll check and see. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So just to save you a trip beck, you can get it amended. Also I didn't look when I was there, but I'm sure that foundation's a block foundation. MR. BERTANI: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Any ~hought a~out removing that and since you're demo-lng it, just come into conformity on the side yards? MR. BERT~{I: The only problem is the expense, it's expensive to -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the foundation structural? MR. BERTANI: Yes, it is. We were going to do very little work to it, just to have ~he basement there for the heating system on t~e north side, that would be the only work we're going to do on the actual existing foundation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further comments, then I'll make a motion to keep this hearing open until the May 4th hearing pending the two people, Ms. Gould and Mr. Bertani, getting together for an amicable solution. ~See minutes for resolution.} 27 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Roberta Elwell on Fishers Island on Montauk Avenue. MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning, mi' name is Hark Schwartz, I'm an architect for the project. The Elwell project is an existing structure with a ~irst floor of 670 square foot. The owner wo~ld like te add 270 square feet te the footprint with a new living room en the south side. We want extend the existing roof line in keeping with what's there. And the issue is the front yard setback, which is existing as 32 feet and proposed is 28 feet. So that's what we were hoping te do i~ere. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hew big is that porch you're adding on? MR. SCHWARTZ: It's net a porch, it's a Ewe-story addition, 270 square feet. That's the footprin~ so it's double that for the second floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my application, I just for the life of me can'u visualize hew busy Montauk Avenue is, bu~ I s~spect that the difference between the existing -- I mean, it's all existing anyway, but I think 28 feet is probably adequate te accommodate a front yard, Hr. Schwartz, so I ~on't have any comments en CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne, I actually drove by this, and I don't think this will make much difference. There's already a porch on that. I nave no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hichael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ne questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: ,lust a statement for the record, it's 28 feet to the property line, but actually it's probably over 50 feet te the actual road? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wante~ ~o put that on the record. No other questions. CHAIRWOM~g OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience wish ~o comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing, reserve decision until later. 28 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 {s~ minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearin~ is John and Joy Gallagher, who wish te construct additions on Bayview Drive in East Marion. That's an odd lot. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. It's a very szrange lot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We spen~ a lo~ of time trying to decide who owns that righ~ of way. MR. SCHWARTZ: I know they own ~he property beside ~hat. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unknown owner. MR. SCHWARTZ: As you know from the file, they're looking to expand a second floor bedrcom with a central dormer. It's going to add abouu 70 square feet to the bedroom and there's an existing porch on Yhe first floor with a flat roof, they would like ~o change that and do a deck, so you can walk ouu the bedroom onto uhe deck, and that's ~he scope of the project. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER ~OEHRINeER: I don t have any particular objection te this based on the fact ~hat the right of way does exist, and it's probably a walking path right of way. if you trove in and parked next to 5hem, there's no real way you could turn around anyway. CHAIRWOMAB[ OLIVA: Not unless you want ~o gc in~o a 5roe. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are no encroachments en 5hat at all, that house is strictly en it, it's not over the righ[ ef way in any wa}'? MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I just want to mention that Joan Egan dropped off a lenner in opposition. BOARD MEMBER eCEHRINGER: Do you know where she lives in reference no this? S lives at 330 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: ._he Knoll Circle. CHAIRWOMAN OLiVA: She's a fair distance BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: She menEions that I'll read the letter if you want me to. "I am more than concerned wiEh this appiicat~on being submitted by Mr. and Mrs. John Gailaghez for 29 March 31, 2005 3O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 several reasons. One, iE is on our deeded right of way and will put more weight en their bulkhead and the existing bridge to Fox Island. Two, I am also concerned with the fact that it could be turned into a two-family house, which so many homes in Gardiner Bay Estates is doing. Three, at this point, I de net knew if they have submitted ~heir plans te our real estate committee." MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, we have. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: "Four, ~? deed restrictions, two-family houses are no~ permitted. Five, it is also mere than probable they will enlarge upstairs bathroom and need mere drainage for that. Number six, we have had numerous problems with their dog and children being frightened. I am against the application." Signed Joan Eagan. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Noted. Vincenu? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. I walked down the right of way, took the walk te the bridge, I thought that was se cool. I don't have a problem with that. CHAIRWOMhm2J OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions, wha~ is uhe el{oct on the side setbacks? MR. SCHWARTZ: We're going straight up, we're encroaching. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They're not going to be increased, righE? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, not at all. CHAIRWOMAI~ OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. This is not going to be a two family house? MR. SCHWARTZ: No. We're just expanding the bedroom and there's an existing bathroom in that bedroom now, we're just expanding the bathroom. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ~ou're not expanding the size of the drain or putting an extra toilet, just what is there is going te be there. MR. SCHWARTZ: It's just a dormer. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes te speak en this? Yes, sir? MR. LUSHER: My name is it Charles Lusher, I live at 820 Bayview Drive, I'm Gallagher's immediate neighbor, and I spoke to the real estate committee this morning, and Gardiner's Bay has ne March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 objection to the addition and I certainly don't. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much, sir. Any other further comments from the audience? If not, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution. I 31 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nex~ hearing is Hiss Healy on Matthew's Lane in Cu~chogue for a sunroom. MR. SCHWARTZ: Hrs. Healy would like to add a 315 square feet one story addition. There's an existing deck there now the same size, ~he existing rear yard is 48 feet. With this addition it would ~e reduced te 44 foot rear yart, 50 is ~equired, and that's wha~ the owner would ii~e to BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jerry. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a heated rsom, Mr. Schwartz? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it would be. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One story, right? HR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. BOARD MEHBER SIMON: TMere's a swimming peel in that backyard, right? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will this addition be between the swimming pool and the house? CHAIRWOMAM OLIVA: It's adjacent to the }louse just behind the garage, actually. MR. SCHWARTZ: It's ne~ ~irectly between the pool and the house, ne. BOARD HEMBER SIHON: But it's no~ on the far side of the pool? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's on the west side ,Df the pool. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD HEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAn[ OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in ~he a~dience that wishes te speak for or against this application? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I~ not, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision March 31, 2,905 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 ~ntil later. !See minutes for resolution.! CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for a waiver of merger for Daysman and Morris on Brown and Linnet Street in Greenport. MS. DOTIE: Deborah Dotie for the applicants. This is an application to unmerge two parcels that have been in separate ownership for almast 15 years. Mr. Morris an~ his wife purchased about five lots in Greenport in 1957. They were cenveye~ in one deed as two parcels, one, the subject let, on Brown Street, which is still vacant and four on Linnet Street. In 1989 they went to the Planning Board got a lot line change and moved the lines on the Linnet Street parcels so that the sizes were pretty equal, and the Planning Board at that time approved didn't even discuss Brown Street at all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So they just did the ones on Linnet Street? HS. DOTIE: Yes. Mr. Morris then sold that property, meaning the 7.1, which is ~he one directly north of that vacant lot, to his daughter in 1990 and in '99 sold the other parcel to his son. The only thing they own in the area is that one parcel en Brown Street. They went into sontract to sell the Brown Street property, Building PermiY application was submitteO, anO it was denied en the grounds that LeE 24, the one on Brown Street merged with his daughter's property ta the north. They have been receiving separate tax bills all these years te retain 24 as a separate lot, it's consistent with many of the lots in the neighborhood. I did a quick count, think there are 41 lots in the immediate neighborhood, of which 27 are about the same size as 24 if it were left alone. Selling iu uo 1 assume a young couple, I don't know that, a couple in Southold, they're going te build a house. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: As tar as we can see the 7.1 and the one on Brown Street are still in .one ownership. HS. DOTIE: No, they're net. Laurie Latney owns 7.1, I gave you the deed for ~ha~ and Mr. Herris and his wife own 24. BOARD MBHBER DINIZIO: I have it ~ere, Ruth, if you need it. 32 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. DOTIE: There was a deed in 1990 to Laurie Latney and her husband, and I gave you the mosn recent deed, which is 2001, when Mr. and Mrs. Latney transferred it te Laurie alone. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is, ef sourse, a little different because it's already been deeded out, meaning the properties adjoining, Hiss Dotie. MS. DOTIE: It's net the first cne I have had like ~haE. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know. MS. DOTIE: And the deeding out occurred in 1990, too, before Ehe currenc merger law. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Righz, which was in 1995. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Lot 24 MS. DOTIE: Lot 24 is the Brown Street properEy. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It shows a 1953 deed te Herrises. It's still iu the name ef Mr. Morris. HS. DOTIE: Right There were various zhings carved out of than BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And the 7.1 is .-- MS. DOTIE: Laurie Latney. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In 1990 you gave to Laurie Latney? HS. DOTIE: That was the original deed to Laurie Lanney and her husband. There's a subsequent deed in 2001 from Laurie an~ her husband te Laurie alone. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se she still resides nhere? MS. DOTIE: Yes, she does. AnO a small house with a garage which overlaps a li~le bi~. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Actually, some of the houses in ~ha~ neighborhood are really upgraOed. MS. DOTIE: Yes. There are a number of Dinizios living there. CHAIRWOM~{ OLIVA: Jim, you're more familiar with ~his whole area. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honesuly, I don't have any objection to this. I can ask the usual questions about did ~hey read the Suffolk Times and would they have known if this is merged or MS. DOTIE: How could they know it was 33 March 31,= ~005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inerged after the facE, if the law went into effect in 1995 and they didn't own the two adjoining parceling in '95? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Our Town seems to think that everyone should read the Suffolk Times and understand what the legal ramifications are, anO it's an objection I had to Enis law all along. Do these lots share anything in sommon? MS. DOTIE: The only thing is the overlap on the garage, which is depicted on ~he survey, an~ ~he contrac~ provides that that will be allowed to remain. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no cesspools, no rights of way? MS. DOTIE: If there is I think we could arrange to get one put in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm talking about ~he cesspool for the house now doesn't sit on that lo~? MS. DOTIE: I don't believe so. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there sewage Ocwn there? BOARD MEMBER DINIZiO: There's sewage down there, but I don't believe ~his house has it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They may not have it on 9th Street, I think they extended it to 7th years age. The sewer goes to Linnet? MR. DINIZIO: Paul Dinizie, 637 Brown S~reet. The sewer goes from 9th to Linnet bt. 6t~. There are a lot of propernies on Brown Snree~ than are merged, have their sewer going from Brown Street to Linnet Streen. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One questisn, ~here is an existing condition tha~ is that that lot, as I identify in, is some sort of a mini jun~yar~ at the moment. Are you suggesting ~his is a remedy ta that condition bi' getting a Building Permit so Eha~ a house can be ~uilt ~here ~e replace the garbage that is on the let? MS. DOTIE: I wasn't suggesting that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would that be a consequence? MS. DOTIE: I assume se. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And probably a desirable consequence. MS. DOTIE: I assume t~e debris is a resnlt ef Douglas Morris' business that ne may store things there on his father's proper~y, and 34 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 12 i3 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% that's a big assumption. I don't know that for a fact. Looking at what was on the property, I would guess than. I did notice a trailer on the Nrsperty, but I think it was on the neighbor's trailer that was overlapping. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree that this lot is the typical size of the neighborhood. But also, I would like to defer the interpretation of the deeds to our Counsel so he may remove it. CHAIRWOM/kN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak? Mr. Dinizio? MR. DINIZIO: Pa~l Dinizio, 637 Brown Street. I currenuly reside across the street from the parcel, and it's kind of a double edge{ sword, ±'m for the house because I know young people need a place to live, but on the same token, ~here's all kinds of merged lots in that area. My lot happens to be an acre, and if I tore down my house, I'd have eight lots; woul~ this variance be made part of nhe law, I would assume, allow me to to that? Would i~ allow people who own two lots side by side to split them in the neighborhood that are currently merged? Would it allow an owner in the neighborhood ~hat owns ~hree lots that are currently merged Eo split them? Would it allow other peepie who own houses that are currently merged with ~he houses be able Eo split them, which by a rough count plus or minus ~hree er four, there are 20 situations like that in the neighborhood. I think if ye~ want to unmerge lots, you would should de throughout Southeld Town, not just in Greenport or net just in the neighOorhood in Southeld, and not just in a neighborhood in Mattituck. It should be town-wide law. CHAIRWOM~[ OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, we've had many requests for waiver of merger and usually our rule of thumb is if iE has been owned since hefcre 1983 and since 1983 and they're merged, that they never unmerged it when the merger law came into effect in '83, '84, than i~ is still one let and we rarely grant a waiver. Does that answer your question? MR. DINIZIO: The key word is "rarely," so apparently you must do it once in a while. If you said we never do that then it's a moot point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll let Jerry go, as 35 March 31, 2005 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ far as I remember, au least since I've been on the Board, we don't. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: A merger from .teath. MR. DINIZIO: I'm not talking about the merger, I'm talking about the unmerger. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unmerger if there has been a Oeath or extraordinary circumstances, but as a rule of thumb, no, we de not. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There are also standards in the code book. MR. DINIZIO: Like what standards? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have the cede book in front ef me. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You can get a copy ef it from my office. MR. DINIZIO: Like the lot can't be bigger - smaller than 50 by 100 er something like that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it doesn't men,ion any specific dimensions. HR. DINIZIO: I live in this neighborhood and I'm worried about my property values. If I .san make eight lots, you're going ~o increase the price ef my property considerably. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Not unless the Town Board decides te change the zone in which you iive to say R 10,000. MR. DINIZIO: Eighth acre lets Ehat's what you're 5alking about. That's what you're talking about changing here. You're talking about making an eighth acre let, which, like I said, it's a double edged sword, and I kind of have no problem with it on one side and on tRe other side I do because there are a lot of lots in the neighborhood Ehat are separate and that are buildable. They're in different names so they're allowed to be built upon. It's as simple as 5Mat. And are you going to start a flood for people asking for lets te be unmerged now that are .rurrently just alongside another house er there's three together. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think so. HR. DINIZIO: I would like to knew that net going to do it. That's my whole thing. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: One san never say MR. DINIZIO: Whoever's got the most money 36 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 and can hirer the best lawyer is going to win. It's as simple as that. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The Board's r~ling on this application right now. There are standards of the law it has to follow. It can't speak as te what it's going te do on applications that aren't before it in the future. But your question as to setting the precedent it's well-founded. People could refer to any decision the Board makes and say you should have to act consistently. MR. DINIZIO: I have to De frank with you. H!, own nephew owns the lot next to it, and it's the same thing excepz his house is on Brown S~reet and che leE's on Linnet Street and he owns another house en Linnet Street with the lot next te it, and he's just itching for this ze go through. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This Beard doesn't have the powers to enact a law or rule that says we cannoE or can always do this; ~hat's the no~ the jurisdiction of this committee. We can only deal with cases as they come before us. Yes, precedents are taken into account, but zhey're not automatic, they're always distinguishable, and we cannot enact a general rule that says you can never de this er you can always do zhis. MR. DINIZIO: My concern is that you as a Board seeing this take place, you sheuid either ~ell the Town Beard that you're for breaking ~p unmerged lots or you're against it. Because this is where the people have to come to get them unmerged. BOARD MEMBBR DINIZlO: Let me comment on that, Paul, and I'll put it in context ef yours. If you came to me, ~e this Beard with - I'm only speaking for myself and I vote consistently en this particular law because I didn't like it when iE was there ~ if you came to me before ~his Board with eight deeds, eno for each eno of those lots Ehat you sa}' you own, I'd serieusiy consider that, and that's what Mr. Morris is coming here ~!or. I feel like he realllf had ne opportunity Es know au nhe time that this law was enacted ~hau l~is lots were being merged. Before 1983 if he wanted to sell those lots ~nd puE houses on iu, ne weuld have done it. What ~he Town basically' di~, in the notices that you read in the paper that are se dull and you can'E possibly know the 37 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 ramificauions of that unless you're a lawyer sr un]ess you participaued in making that law, wnat's going ~o happen 10 years from new that to mind, they get it automatically, but I can ~ell 5,ou if yo~ look a~ the merger law, they don't meet the criteria. Very few lots in the town mee~ the sriteria for unmerger. MR. DINIZIO: Jim, I found out Ehis same thing. I was before this Board in the early '80s asking for the same thing, I haO three separate tax deeds ~o a parcel in the same neighOorheed, and I was turned down to have a separate and distinct leus. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR~: That's re £ event. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That was Eor area variance, it wasn'~ for a lot waiver. They only put the lot waiver provision in in 1997, so this application is a little bi~ Oifferent by the standarOs. HR. DINIZIO: Linda, you can call it whatever you want. You can call it three differen~ shades of green. It's making a separate piece of land the same size. BOARD MEH~ER DINIZIO: At the time you i~laOe your application, Paul, there wasn't anything in the law that said the Board could grant it te you, there is now. It was Bill Moore, the}, all goE together, it was such a bone of conEention between us that we brought it uo committee and said no lots would be unmerged ~y the wa%, we were going currently at ~hat time, and they changed it to allow some relief. Two people die aE the same time. One owned the let next door, they died, they ended up ~erged, that's net a fair taking of of the property, that's an excepUion. If you sat down and read the merger law, and read what these people are asking for, the]? don't meet the criteria from the Town. Very few lots would. It's not founded what you're talking about. MR. DINIZIO: I'd like to comment ena few other things toe. We were always living in the neighborhood in the contention thaE this was a nonconforming let, and it was being used as a business which Mr. Horris 'was in for years. I had no problem with i~. The things on that property don't ~alk hack to me, se I had lie problem whatsoever, so is it still a nonconforming let er 38 March 31, 1 2 5 ? 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 23 2~ 25 not? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What they suggest to do is make it conforming. So just because it's nonconforming that Mr. Morris ran his business out of there doesn'n make it non a residential lo~. Doesn't restrict him from building a house on it in any way. Certainly if he stops doing business and cleans the lot up and after two years doesn't use it, then he no longer has that nonconforming use. He can't put cesspool covers on it anvmore, he has to go someplace else. Now he's entitleO it because he's been doing it for so long. It doesn't go the other way around. MS. DOTIE: If I may, I'd like to address one particular part of the merger law that is causing this problem, and it's cne that I have discussed with this Board before, that's ~he fact that by the way it's written i~'s retroKctive. It went into effect 1995 or 1997 and applies OacK to parcels that may have merged in 1983, and that's jus~ plain not fair to the people, and there should be an exception in the law where those should be exempted. Particularly in a situation like this where you have adjoining parcels that are owned by two different people. And, add to that the fact that Mr. Morris went to the Plannfng BoarO in 1989, nobody said it ha~ merged with the adjoining parcel; it was not even addressed in the lot line change. It was a separate parcel as far as the Town is concerned. With respect uo the possibility of perhaps ~nmerging your three lots, I believe you probaOly get one tax bill -- MR. DINIZIO: I'm talking about a parcel than I got. I'm talking about a piece of that I owned than was three lots. MS. DOTIE: In this instance there were separate tax bills. T~ere was no notice to Mr. Morris that there was any issue of merger until I got the no~ice of disapproval. I have to admit I discussed it with him, but the Town never said an},thing. It's the retroactive nature of ti~e law. I've been here Oefore on this issue. It really should be changed, and there should be exception for merger by death, which there isn't BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe there is nOW, no? 39 March 31, 26,05 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 ~4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. DOTIE: I don't nhl~k so. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't nhink so. Thank you, Miss Dogie. If there's no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is [or Scripps down at Pine Tree Road in Cutchogue. Mr. Finzgerald. MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Scripps would like to ~nake some renovanion to ~he house, most of which will be interior and no change in the fooEprinn, bun it turns out that some of them enter into the air space that the Walz decision said we need Eo talk ~o you about. There's a s~ed dormer at the rear of the house where they have the side facing the water nhah nhey wane to extend on both sides ~o tee existing first floor wall, and on the sounh side of the building, that would exnend in~o nhe prescribed 1~ foon setback. The existing setback ef the existing building is only nine leon. On the front of the building, nhey propose a gable dormer, Ehe corner of which extends inuc than six foot area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go aheaO, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection Eo the application, even though there is an insufficient side yard. It's my appiicanion, so I'll write nhe decision for the Board as they so choose. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No objections. It's a minor alteration, I believe the reverse gable in the front will give it nice curb appeal. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree winh Vince. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne quesnions. ,2HAIRWOM~{ OLIVA: Is there anyone in ~he a~2dience who wishes te speak en this applica~isn? Hearing none, I make a motion Ea close the nearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Timothy Steele in a right ef wa~ en Ore~en Road. 4O March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WICKH~4: Gail Wickham for the applicant. It is complicaned and one reason it nook us so long to get here is because the Building Department found it so oomplicateO. I'd like to start by saying Mr. Steele is somewhat of a rare breed now, he's a local lifetime young resident of Soutnold town who is engaged in what I call real farming. He was aOle to purchase nhis farm as a vacant piece of property a few years ago, sold the development rights to a considerable portion of in to finance in and decided than rather than putting the house np on uhe front by Oregon ~oad, he would rather maximize his farming potential a~ld saved out four acres au the back of the farm to house his residence, which he has since built and his accessory buildings. What he didn'n realize au uhe time was he situated his house, and actually al~ of nhese buildings and proposed buildings are situated so they are geographically and visually appropriate. But by putting the house in the ~iddle of the lot, and on a corner lot Oecause of Ehe configuration of the Oregon ~oad and the ~riveway, he doesn't technically meeu {_he setback requirements of the Town of Southold. And ne also has taken into great account, as you have seen, he's in the nursery business as well as general farming and his yard is his office to some extent, so ne has done an awful lot of landscaping but ne has also been able to restore in the rear of the property a wild cherry grove of trees, which are Eretny concennrated along the sound front snore, but most of which have either been overgrown or ruined. In fact, his neighbor just clear cut a lot. So he's been able to preserve a lot of that oll growth cherry in that area just east of the garage. So in siuua~ing his buildings, he has tried ~o take both the screening that he has put in with the landscaping as well as some of the natural features of the property and the overall aesthetics into account. Like most farmers in this town, he also nas to have another job, and he is a salesman for a nursery company which makes him Eravel alo~, and anybody that knows farming knows it's a tough business; you have to have your snuff when you need it, you don't know wNen that's going to be because of weather and what most guys do they just 41 Harch 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 1! 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 leave it around outside. He was able Eo get a storage container very quickly, and so he put it in the back thinking it was a temporary structure and didn't need a permit to pun some of his stuff in, a lee of his stuff is still out. He hopes to build a barn some point soon to build a barn when he's able, but the Building Department advised that we apply for that now because of the yard crineria se you could gee nhe overall picture. So ~hat's what we're doing te be specific about what we're looking an, because of the juxtaposition of the Ewe fronts yards, the rear yard is very, very small. Se we are encroaching with the proposed barn into a 1,500 feet front i'ard. We are encroaching into the westerly fronn yard with the garage, and the proposed storage facility, into a front yard that is several hundred feet back. We're net right up .on a rc. ad. Really the only thing I think that is affected is the very rear, and as you can see from being up there, he has already plan~ed ~haE with arbivitae. When your Board asked than screening be effectuated by screening like arborvitae you usually specify four te six lean. He pu~ 10 feet arborvitae back nhere. There's also a very large Leland cypress tree where the proposed storage area would ge. And it is his intention ne keep that well screened and landscaped. One thing he pointed out ~o me, which · hadn't Eh.ought aboun, is if he were te bring storage facilities back in te 20 feet, ~he natural tendency ef people is to pile junk outside them. So he actually nhinks this will make iE look nearer rather than bringing them closer in frown the rear yard and piling junk out. He wanes ~e have s~orage facilities and nhen the arborvitae screening behind it. He had intended te dress it up quite a bit, put siding on it, barn doers se in would leek nice, bun was advised not Es proceed with that until such time they were approved, and uha~ can be a condition that ~hey net be I think it's like a gray siding material. In wenld be made Eo look attractive like his ether buildings. It's where he conducts his business, where he sells ~o some extent, he has people came leo]< out of there, so we wane ~e make in leek attractive, and they iive 42 March 31, 2,305 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there so they wane it to look attractive. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma'am, Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have ~o tell ?su I had a great deal of understanding this application. I blew this up to 400 percent, and I would like te make a copy of that for each of the Beard Members. Se if you exc~se me for one second. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'll jump in there. Building % as noted on the notice of disapproval. TNat is what I would call a sea container; is that correct, a steel structure? There will be two of those? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, the as-built, that is tNe one directly behind the garage. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And that's wha~ you're trying to duplicate wi~h three, and there will be two ef these? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And they will be located as you drive up the 25 foot right of way, tile property is very heavily landscaped and ~he trees will remain, so you won't even see than from t~le access. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Then you propose an addition to that garage. MS. WICKHAM: The additio~ would Se en what is on Mr. Geehringer's map, Building 2, framed garage, ~he proposed addition is 16 feet te the east -- to the west, excuse me. And that is partially in the front yard because ef the angle of the house. MR. STEELE: Mr. Orlando, it's no~ a sea container, it's a truck body. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, sc are you planning on using another ~ruck body, something similar to? HR. STEELE: Similar. MS. WICKHAM: The purpose of those two buildings is to house his pets, his stakes, his tools, his potting soil, all ef those hypes ef equipment Eha~ he uses on ~ regular basis in tNe nursery. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ne herbicides, pesticides in £ha~ container? MS. WICKHAM: He does not keep pesticides at ~he proper~y. They are kept at his brother's ~3 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 farm at another location. Pesticides are not kept on this location. I don't believe he's permitted to de that under DEC regulations. That does not include fertilizers, uhere may ~e fertilizer as pare of the ordinary gardening, but pesticides are not there. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: The proposed baun is tha: ~lack and white picture that you submitted? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. That is a photo of a beautiful New England style barn in another portion ef Cutchogue. He would like to duplicate that, although the size specifies 30 by 80. It's a 28 foot te the ridge line, 22 feet te the midliRe. It would be a very attractive barn. It will essentially be in line with the other buildings. I don't think it would protrude, it would look nice from Oregon Road. BOARD MEMBER ORL~gDO: That's before us because part ef that is past the front of the i~ouse. MS. WICKHA~: That is a partial front yard on the Oregon Read side, 1,500 feet away, yes. CHAIRWOMAlq OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham, I have absolutely no objection to your clients. And, of course, you have presenued cases before this Board for many, many years, but_ I don't ever remember us ever dealing with truck bodies or what I refer to as temporary structures, structures that are not necessarily affixed to the ground, as permanent accessory structures before tills Board, I could be wrong on this, and I understand the nature ef operations of farms. My father-in ]aw being a farmer at one time in his life anO being a part of that farm during the period of time I went with my wife prior te getting married. So it's important for me to understanO why these particular -- I'm going ce refer Ee ~hem as even though the code doesn't address temporary s~ructures -- why they have to be in ~ha~ locanion? MS. WICKHAM: Probably the reason you haven't dealt with them is most guys just put them up and don't come to the Town. We will have ~e go te the Building Department to ds whatever they require in terms of affixing, tying down, whatever. To answer your exacE location question, 44 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 24 25 the reason they are there is he would certainly not want to pun them out in what is the real fronu yard, where everybody driving up and down the road would see them, if he puts them ~ny further back in what is actually the rear yard, which is the northeast corner over behini uhe pool, he's interfering winh a tremendous amount of screening, bonh natural and planned, and the houses that are up there or will be up there would probably benefit from keeping nhat screening intact. There are some very ~all evergreen trees back there, immediately to the west of the garage, north of the pool, which is where they would be able to put in a complying location, that's where ti~e old growth cherry is, and he's done a lot of work to ~rim those urees and make them aUtractmve. They're not just straight trees, they have bent urunms, Ehey're very nice looking, and he would have ~o rip than out in order to do uhat. MR. STEELE: That's also where all t~e utilities for us and the neighbors, anO there's a number of overgrown cherries on either side of the structure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objecEio~l to ~he position of where the new barn is .going. I think it's an excellent choice and I don't care what yard i~'s in, I have to say that and I shouldn't say that as a Zoning Board member because, of course, that determination is dozle by uhe Building Inspector and not by you or I. But I w,suld think uhat, although in's farther away from ~he home, and it's farther away from some of uhe other s~orage areas, I would think it would be a perfect spot to put it on either side cf ~he proposed barn and screen it by way of fencin~ screening by other method to ge~ it out of ~he MS. WICKHAM: If he put iu north of uhe barn. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sounh ,of nhe MS. WICKHAM: Souzh of ~he barn is visikle from the roaa, and I don't think the neighbors would like it. He planned it back here because nobody really sees i~. The only thing north of the proposed s~orage conzainers now is a line of arborvitae and cypress, then a driveway, then there's a big, big area before Ehe buildable area 45 March 31, 2,005 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1S 16 17 19 21 22 23 24 25 ef the lets to the north. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any way that we could -- that this Beard could give him a temporary situation to allow him to construct something over, south ef the barn that woulO be more appealing te put these implements in, and then eventually get rid of the storage containers, be them truck bodies er what we refer to these containers that just come elf of trucks. I really think that's the area to be in, to be honest with you. I mean, if it takes him six months Ee do it, if iE takes four months Es do it, that's the wa}, to de it. MS. WICKHAM: That would involve as well ripping out quite a bit of nursery stec~. He uses as much of his property, the southern pare of his residence and the eastern pare of his residence as for nursery stock as well. MR. STEELE: The reason it is where it is new is you can't see it, and I would challenge anybodi' to drive down m1, driveway and find it without looking exactly where iu is. You can't see it. That was my purpose for puttin{[ there. It's behind the garage, we can'~ see it. It's out of sight and sue of mind of mI' children, which was another reason to put it there, and to have a locking door on it. We keep the fertilizers and we have a couple rambunctious boys and it's e~t ef their minds, and it's nearly invisible te the neighbors where it is now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm jk~st telling you as a pcintef fact that I cannot as a Board member vote te place something that should be probably a minimum from a lot line, I know neb addressed in this notice of disapproval, which I think is inaccurate because it doesn't address the 20 foot setback on a two acre MS. WICKBAM: I thought that was one of ehe - I think it does. I think that's one reason we're here is because it's within the 2,3 feet. The garage is net. The garage is confc, rming as to siOe yard. The storage structure is not as t.o side yard and BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It shows the section but it doesn't say the 20 feet. MS. WICKHA~: Yes, we are talking abou~ 20 feet. That's true. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The skeleton of a ~6 Harch 31, 2,905 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 greenhouse that is being put up? Because that looks like where the barn's going to go? MS. WICKH~{: Yes, it is. But the Building DeparYment has confirmed in writing that a permit was not required fsr that and that's to keep undercover until he can ge~ his permanent structure up. MR. STEELE: It's ali done with nuts and bolts and screws. I can take it apart. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm still having a hard time with this lot line in the back. I see the right of way; if I look in the survey it looks like the right of way is wholly on their property; is that right? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We got a letter from Miss Wickham, Mr. Corso bought that right of way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where is their let line? line. BOARD MEMBER ~OEHRINeER: This is ~heir MS. WICKH~: Mr. Goehringer, I spoke to him about the proposed funure storage container about locating that on either side of the barn, and that is something that he would be willing to do. He'd prefer to leave the existing one where ~ is because that's where his ~tilities are and ne would have to rip out some trees to .let it out a~ this point. If he has to, he would have no do that but then he'd have to replant. If you would like to have us amend our applicanion to move the future storage container over to the barn side, north or south, we'd be glad to do that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If tho Board doesn't mind, I'ln just going to talk to the Building Department because ~his whole s~orage container thing is brand new to me. The ones I've seen are all temporary. I'm trying to understand this as a Board member, and I understand than nhere's a need for storage. Everything I have ever seen that people have done have put them in bac~ o~ these stockade fences with arborvitae cr any onher type of greenery in front of thegn, and quite honestly, you're absolutely correst, Miss Wickham, you don't even know ~h~t mhese are there. 4'7 }{arch 31, 2,90[5 48 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1% 19 20 21 22 2,1 25 The problem is that these are visible and the problem is that I suspect that there are going to De more people utilizing more rights of way up there because there's going te be more houses up there. MS. WiCKHAM: I think that zhere will be one house. The guy that clear cut. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEN: That's the concern I have as a Board member. MS. WICKH~: That's whS~ he was careful no screen it. If you would like ~o ge back and have him ge over the property with you, he'll be glad ~o do that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wil£ be b~ck, I just don't know how you can grant an accessory structure to something ~hat's not permanently affixed to the ground. MS. WICKHAM: That's e~e question and the second is the location. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. Certainly you can drive 4' by 4's around it, yc:.u can side it and you can roof i~, and then it becomes a container within a storage building, and I'm talking about in uhis particular case, iu's just there. CHAIRWOM~q OLIVA: You're talking about nhe existing suorage building? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEN: Yes. That's the reason why I blew it up so I could understand it because I have to write the ~ecision, that's number one; and number Ewo, I have a question with reference to the validity of a container. CHAIRWOMA~ OLIVA: I agree with Jerrv, we've never - storage containers. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think they are a really great permanent storage facility but they need to be sided and roofed. MS. WICKHAM: The only uhing I can tell you is that the Building Department has been up, down and around this a hundred zilnes, and that has never been an issue for them. So i[ assume ~hey are going to treau i~ as a shed, declare it be anchored properly, and as E said, he would wanu to side it se it looks nice. Did yen plan en putting a roof on it? I guess he wanted to keep ~he elevation on it low se he hadn't planned on reefing it over, jus~ making it look nice from the cuEside, but whatever their require, we would de. March 31, 2.905 1 2 3 5 6 ? 9 10 11 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Jerry, I think what happened was when the}' applied for a Building Permit, on the form iE said that their proposed accessory building, is existing as proposed. So it's almost as they were going to make them inno buildings, I guess. So the Building Department probably thought you were gsing to convert Yhe structure into a building. Which you're not doing, right? MS. WICKH~'{: Mr. Steele took these pictures this morning. This one was inEo the sun so iu's not that clear. This would be taken frsm in says on the back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Taken from that lot behind you, looking toward your garage. The container is here. There' s anouher container over here {indicaEing; . MR. STEELE: There's one container. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the proposed. MS. WICKHAM: This is coming up Ehe driveway, you don't see in and you wouldn't see it.. This I did wane no show you, this is his neighbor to the west, his sheds, so we're really sompatible with the neighborhood, shall I say? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But thaE's a building. MS. WICKH~: Yes. If we have to ~nake i~ inno the building, we would. Whatever the Building Department requires, we have to eome ~o you for location, then we have to go to ~hem for s~rucUural. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application? Miss Moore? MS. MOORE: Thank you, I have written material that I'll put in ~zhe record, and I'll go over ~he points in my address. I represent the Corso family and also Morrell, LLC. For placement here, the Corsos own the house north of the property, ~hey also own the tennis eourt, and Horell LLC, who Corso is the principal of the £,LC, nham is the conservation subdivision that is in ~he process of being finalized. So we anticipate the homes than are, certainly one home that's going to be abou~ an the same line as Ehe Steele residence, and that's part of a conservation suodivision, those are mi, clients with respect ~o this application. Just so you understand, I put in a lot of 49 March 31, 2005 1 2 4 5 ? 9 12 14 15 ~9 2O 2~ 22 23 24 documentation here with respect to tile opposition, but Mr. Corse has been upset about these containers in particular since 2003. I've been asking the Building Department with respect te acting on the fact that these containers as Miss Wickham points out, they got put on ~he property it seemed like overnight, and then there was ilo building permit, when we asked the Building Department te look into it, ~hey found all kinds of other issues and violations because of placement of structures; a garage that was originally built here didn't get built in accordance with the building permit that had been issued. I~ was placed in a different location, and that too was a violation. So this has beell an en going complaint ef my clients, as I said, since my written correspondence te the Building Department October 20, 2003, and we have been patiently and not so patiently I guess asking the Town to get compliance, and finally we're here and we appreciate the fact that thel"re here because this is what we have been asking for. The survey that I gave you te begin with shows what is the actual property line, and where the right of way actually is located. The survey that you have in this packet is inaccurate iii that the land that is like a triangular piece shown on the surveys tha~ are submitted to you and on my survey was acquired back in 1997, this was after a lot line change before the Planning Beard anO a relocation ef the right of way that was done ~hreugn Planning Board action, and all the owners new ge~ access via the 50 foot right ef way that does run along this common proper~y line. We have access, my clients and all ~he property owners to the north, use this as a common access. Mr. Steele does use nhis right of way for his ~Eilities, it continues, and, in fac~, I have a ccpy ef the deed transferring from Steele to Corse bac~ in '97 and in does make the reference for the utilities. I only have one of those, and I'll put that in for the record. So with respect ~o the setbacks, given the distances ~o a right of way and the fact that Mr. Steele does nave use ef hhis righ~ o~ way, the variance snonld not he for an accessory structure tea side yard, it should be for an accessory structure to a front yarO because we are adjacent ~o a right of way. That is 5O March 31, 2005 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 scmething that in looking au ~he code it depended en whether or not Mr. Steele had use ef this right of way, and it he does have use of it. It's for Rll of uhe uuilities that are commonly used b!' him and also by the neighbors. Se that's all issue that you should consider with respect to whether or not you should gran~ this variance, one for the garage in an as built location. Going back to my notes, this 60 foot so,hack that would have been required for accessory structures I believe was recognized when [dr. Steele put his pool in Oeca~se the pcol does conform. So uhere was at eno point in uime some recognition that the appropriate setback was e0 feet. So I use that as a point with respect to what kind of setbacks are we dealing with. As to the storage containers, mhese are commercial grade s~orage containers. The storage container tha~ is there presently is illegal. It's an 8' by 20' structure ~hat you don't see i~ residenEially zoned properties. I've cnly seen %hem on other people's properties as commercial properties. They are commonly used for commercial purposes as temporary storage. But they have not been, ~o my knowledge and I spoke te Damon this morning, I said, Damon, I don't understand why didn't you address this as a commercial structure. He said it's the first time he's seen i~ in a residentially zoned parcel. Than's solnething I ~nink you shenld address because if, in fact, it's possible for residences te pick up these commercial storage containers, w~ich are relatively easill' obtained, they can drop them as ail oversized shed anywhere they want en any residential property. That's lioE where I think the Town wants to go. And I believe, eno, the way i~'s used here, Mr. Steele, and I'm sorry, he didn't mention wheuher he's a landscaper - MS. WICKHAM: Ne, he's a farmer. MS. MOORE: Don't you have a landscape business? MR. STEELE: No. MS. MOORE: Is that your brother? HR. STEELE: No. MS. MOORE: Well, I stand corrected, I thengh~ he was a landscaper, acuually, but in an~' case, he's already stated ~hat he's a wholesale nurser_v business, and that is, in fact, a business 51 Harch 31, 200~ 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 and it is listed in certain zoning categories and these structures are used primarily for the landscape nursery business, that's where ne stores all his whatever he uses for the wholesale nursery landscaping that is obviously there on the property. We would ask you to take a look at those containers, I don't believe they're allowed on residential property at all, and if that's, in fact, the case, which has been the serious complaint by the neighbors throughout which is, wait a second, how could these things be here, they're a commercial structure, whether or they stere hazardous materials, Miss Wick[lam says that he holds not pesticides but fertilizers, I think under the Health Department regulations, they might still be considered hazardous materials. I'm taking my information from w~at we could see from the property line. So to that extent when you do these inspections, I would like you to take a look at what's inside these containers and see what's in there. IEhink you're going to find it's where he stores business materials. With regard to the placement, one, we objecn to having these containers au all, but two, certainly the placement behind [lis garage as soon as he makes it so he doesn't see them, but Ehe people that are most affected are not on Oregon Read, because it is about 1,500 feen from Oregon Road, it's all the proper~y owners to the north of him, and they're the ones that have been most affected by this and are opposing this. So as far as the testimony that was presented that it's not bothering anybody, they're vegetated, they're ~here, you can see them, they're toe close to the property line, and the neighbors strenuously 5bject. In addition, the area that is to the north of the existing garage and the storage containers, he does use that area as well for nhe equipment storage for his business, an~ he also stores a gas tank where he has a gas tank there, so it is an actively commercially used property, and the area that is righ~ adjacent to our property line that is very obvious, very visible and there isn't a grean deal of landscaping, in fact, Lot 2 just did ~he clearing and they're in the process of going 52 ?~arch 31, 2005 1 3 6 ? 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 ~ 0 ~2 ~3 2~ to do some landscaping of their own, but in shouldn't be the neighbor who has to landscape away an illegal use or even a variance condition. Sc. at mini~num, we would ask than with respect to the garage, do the landscaping, take the garbage out from behind the garage. The gas tank is there, I don't know if it's connected or not, but there's a gas tank there. Iu's been an eyesore to those neighbors and it's been a real source of contention. With regards to his hardship of front yards and so on, he had 16 acres as of '97. He had a large piece of property and he could have chosen to put his sEructures anywhere he wan~ed, certainly in what he considered the real ~,ard. He made a reserved area after selling off the development rights. He's kind of created his own situation. We're now having to deal with what ~e's left oehind for himself, with respect to ~he barn, the barn could ge anywhere where he's proposed it. He could also put a barn if it's part ef the agricultural operation on tRe sale ef development rights parcel. It's permissible use, all you have to dc is go to the County's ag semmitEee and get permission. So the barn could Go anywhere. We also point out that as I saiO before, Ehe garage was issued a violation because it was the building permit of '96 was ultimately not used or he moved it tea different location, se he has an illegal structure. The expansion of a nonconforming illegal structure is certainly tha~ we would oppose as well. The garage is large. It's in a nonconforming leeaEien. It was built wiEhout a permit and now he's asking t.s expand on it. There's a problem with ~hat for obviens reasons. The Board sees illegal condition as bully structures all the ~i~e, usually peo~21e lon't ask te expand en them, so we certainly would oppose the expansion of that garage. There's a greenhouse there, Miss Wickham says that the Building Department claims to be a ~emporary structure, I wonder how ~hat is possible because from the property line I could see a fsundation. Hy understanding of the Building Department's analysis ef b~rns is if it's on a permanent foundation it needs a permit; if it's not on a permanenE foundation, iE's a hoop house. 53 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 ,4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 Se they're somewhat inconsistent here, and that's been a problem for us to understand what Mr. Steele built and what he hasn't built. In leaves everything, as you yourself pointed n~is is a confusing application but in part because the Building Departmen~ has been somewhat inconsistent. I know you've heard enough aboun nhis. It's obvious ~he neighbors oppose this. The containers are the mos~ serious objection here. They don't belong on this property, they don't belong anywhere in a residentially zoned parcel and we would hope zhat you ~ake that very carefully inzo consideration and you do do some research on it because you're going to find the Building Department's going to say we have never issued a permit for chese in a residential zone, and they will make you apply for a permit as a structure because it kinds of falls under that definition, but you have ~o ~ihd of look a~ i~. And you nave treated other applications like than, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. So I ask you to looR at these structures, if it's a commercial grade container, it's a commercial use, it does not belong in a residentially zoned parcel. I have a cop}' o~ the deed (handing) . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Worst case scenario, Mr. Goehringer's research, the Building Departmen~ says okay, they can stay in a residential neighborhood can yo~ ask your client if than would be acceptable where Mr. Goenringer was suggesting? MS. MOORE: I think what Mr. Goehringer suggested was that if it was enclosed in a structure or fenced in some way or another with arborvitae or whatever so you don't see Ehem, it wculd be the equivalent of a [enced in storage CHAIRWOM~E OLIVA: He wanted it south of uhe barn. MS. MOORE: I understan.~ south of the barn. It seems ~o me that he's always been promising ~hat something was going to get -- temporary, it's only while I'm building something, it's only when I'm doing this -- if he builds the barn he's essenuially eliminated the need for these containers, just build the barn. That's ~he 54 March 31, 20(}S 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 simple solution, and that certainly belongs in both an agricultural and residential area. No one has an objection to that. I will ask the client how he feels about it being relocated south of the location of the proposed barn. I'm sure Hr. Steele doesn't want to see it, so maybe he will enclose it in some kini of screening of some kind, and he should propose to t~is Board e×actly what he's proposing to do. So I'm discussing it with some intelligence as far as what is it he's s~ggesting, picking them up and leaving them as metal boxes south of the barn? I don't thin~ ~hat's acceptable. I don't think it will be acceptable to my client, and certainly nobody on Oregon Road who's been given a hard time about the development along Oregon Road, they're certainly ~ot going to want to see these sore of structures in what is considered their view shed. I think kt's a serious problem. Please have him submit in writing some description of what he's offering. I'll pass it on to the client. I'm no~ sure that they really belong at all, so, please keep that in mind as well. MS. WICKHAM: May I very quickly respond to those points which I don't think are valiO? First of all the violations are cleared. Tile Building Department and I spent months trying tigure out after they issued ~he permit for the swimming pool and built it where the lines were. This was not something that was easy to figure ou~. We've got six maps with differen~ lines. As far as commercial building goes, t~is is a farm, and it's farm building, and than is clearly within the zoning. Miss Moore keeps referring to "neighbors." The neighbors she's representing are Mr. Corso who owns property to ~he west. The property on tile map shown as Maudlin, which didn't technically have to be notified, is the most affected, they're not a.Sjoining owners so they weren'~ technically notified b~t the Steeles did give them a copy of ~he notice, and they have absolutely nc objection, ehat's shown on tile map as Maudlin, now it's other people. The lot to the north of ~hese Nroposed buildings now are Nina Stevens, it's no longer owned Oy own Mr. Corso. I understand tha~ although Miss Moore maintains ~hat's an eyesore no that lot, Mr. Corso was able to sell it acc. uple 55 March 31,~'~05,J 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of weeks ago for a S1,050,000. The situation was nDt created hy him intentionally; iu was done to effectuate effective farming and aestheEics and ~e barn that's being proposed is not on his side, I don't think it affects him, and if she's suggesting that we put it or~ farmland nhau's been preserved, I do thin~ that's poor policy, and certainly ~he large buildings that Mr. Steele is proposing are Owarfed Dy some of the buildings that Mr. Corso ew~s. And the foundation she referred uo on the lzttle h©op things are merely stacked 8 by 8s for wind s~ability, and tha~ was, as I u~-:derstand it, okay with the Building Department, but we will certainly clarify that as well as the issue w~nh nhe temporary structures and what has to happen to them. And I take it you all want us to come back for another hearing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I had one question. The two containers, one' s already there and o~ie i s proposed. Is ~here a reason why they have to be sontainers? Could you take than square footage and put iu in Ehe barn and there's no reason for the containers, or is there a reason for the ccnnainers? MS. WICKH~M: To put up a barn he's got ~.o come up wi~h some money to do that, and he's innending to do that but i~.'s not going to do than overnight. Once the Darn is consEructed, he may still need the containers just because that's where his farming operation is. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: is tNat addinionai storage or does the snuff that's inside need to be in containers, not in a Darn? MS. WICKHAM: As opposed to a barn, I ton't know. Once you get his equipmen~ in the barn and some of his other supplies and stuff in ~he barn, }'ou expect you will s~ill need sEorage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: More space, :,'es. But say he made the barn bigger? MS. WICKHAM: That's an economic problem, also it's a massive building. So he didn't want to make i~ real big, he thought it would look better to have these smaller teulporary storage structures, and then Ehey can csme and go. If he doesn't need them he can get rid of them. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no valid reason why you have to have these Eypes of storage 56 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 containers on the property? IE could be a building. The material that's inside doesn't require that it be in a storage containers? MR. STEELE: It's economic. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. Why are these containers, is there some reason they have Eo be separate from everything else, some law, but there isn't. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's economic? MS. WICKHAM: It is economic, and the reason why she said they went up overnignt, tile guV across the street at Oregon Salvage called him one day when he was leaving for one of his business trips and said I've got this thing, fou've got EO take it today or you don't get it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understanO. I know who iE was that towed it up there and put it there probably, I'm just hunting for a reason why he needs these connainers. In was econo~nic. MS. WICKHAM: One other thing, Pat mentioned that the right of way along the top on the piece that Mr. Corso acquired I thought was 16 feet for access to the two properties to tRe northeast. She says it's 50 feet, I'm not really sure. Mr. Steele does not have access over thee excepu IEhink one utility caOle line. His power comes up the east side. Bun mi, point is if it's a 50 foot right of way -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does say than MS. WICKHAM: Does it say that? Well, if iY's a 50 foot right of way from Mr. Steele's north line, there's a 50 foot h. uffer now before ~hese guys front yard even starts. So tha~ gives ~s more space I feel to further justify the requesued relief. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks to me like it's 70 feet to the ouher side of the right cf MS. WICKHAM: That's not a right of way anymore. It's a SO foot right of way, according to Pat, along the north end of his property, an~ uhen the rest is his yard space. CHAIRWOM~q OLIVA: Jerry, I think this whole space with the righn of w~y, and it seems to be that triangular piece right behind his structures there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pat said t~at's incorrecu. Pan submitted this new piece. Pan, 57 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 you're saying the right of waiT is parallel to his rear property line? MS. MOORE: Yes. Because it was a 50 foot on nhe subdivision map, the Planning Board relocated the 50 foot right of way as it had been previously approved. It used to be Mr. Steele owned this land, and he had everybody going over the property as a right of way. In '97 he sold in no the north property owners so it wouldn't be a liability to him. So there is Oy mapping a 50 foot right of way. The road itself is 16 feet, and i~'s staying at 16 feet, and for the mos~ part on the south end -- MS. WICKHAM: So that to me creates 50 feet of buffer from where he's proposing the storage buildings, and I'd also mention that than is clearly stated in the agreement with Mr. Corse that Mr. Steele does no~ have vehicular access over it, and we went through that with the Building Department, and that's one reason -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gall, Itnink we need a new survey. It's so messy. The right 3f way looks unclear, it looks like they still have the triangular piece that could be still his. It's very confusing. MS. WICKHAM: I will ask him again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We need the actual setbacks from his property line. They leek as though they're two feet; they're saying it's five fee~ and five feet. MS. WICKH}~: It's five feet. I'll ask iTiln to blow up this area of the {nap. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: E den'{ recall ever granting a b~ilding five feet from a right of way. I den'{ recall ever doing {that. }dS. WICKHA~: It's no~ a street. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you. People have come to us and said we want te put our two-story house next to a right of way and we ha,re sai~ no. HS. WICKHAM: This is a temporary structure. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Gall, is it possible te shew ~he two sheds toe that you're ~aiking about, I wasn'~ sure which one's the shed and which one is the container% Some off Ehe paperwork refers ~o two sheds here in the prejec~ description. 58 March 31, 2,005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 MS. WICKHAM: They're both containers. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But then there's a third structure that was given in the project tescription that's an accessory structure. MS. WICKH~kM: That's the garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we need something from the Building Department as clarification of a container and whether or not that's allowed. I would like to see somenhing like tha~. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can you also respond - Mr. Goehringer, pointed out iu the Use regulations in the AC Zone and RS0, that storage of fertilizer is supposed to be 150 feet from the property line? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They didn't raise that issue, Gall. MS. WICKHAM: fertilizer in there. have in o~r garage. MR. STEELE: MS. WICKHAM: into that. MS. MOORE: Then there won't be What he's got is what we It's organic fertilizer. It's organic but I'll look It depenOs on who you talk to at the Building Department, but the sense I get from the Building Department they're going to rely on you to determine whether or not it's a customary accessory use to a residential zone. Here he's using it for his business, but is it customary and accessory to a residennially 131 and 133. MS. WICKHAM: It's a farm. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It doesn't say that cn tisapproval. HS. MOORE: They don't say what it is, but what I'm saying is these containers whether i~'s a farm er net, it's in a resiOential zeno. MS. WICKHAM: It's in farm zone. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's AC. MS. MOORE: Which also includes residences. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It also includes residences. MS. WICKHAM: I'll get back to you with that information. CHAIRWOMAM OLIVA: Le~'s make it to June 2nd. Then I'll make a motion adjourn this hearing ~ntil June 2nd. 59 MarcN 31, 2005 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 (See minutes for resolution.!. CHAIRWOM~g OLIVA: I'll need a resoluEion on Donna Cook for a carryover to May 4th at 10:50 a.m. {See minutes for resolunion.! CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We also need a motion to adjourn Ed 1:00 p.m. on June 2nd for Koehler and Osprey Dominion ISee minuhes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And we have another one, we need a resolution to extend the Kellc application to April 8th fcra written reply. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's the shower, Ehe neighbor didn't get ~o have a response Oy the annorney, it came in late, now she wanted time to respond. April 8th is ~he deadline ~o submit the written. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a ino~ion ~o adjourn for a lunch recess. /See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWONL~N OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Marko An~ieev for a waiver of merger. I~[r. McCarthy, I believe you are representing them? MR. MCCARTHY: Good afternoon, Members of the Board. When we last met, there was an issue tna~ Miss ~ickham brought np relevant to jurisdiction, and I believe that has Ed be followed up before we ge any further. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think last we met you were postponing it because legal ceunse£ was representing your clienn. MR. MCCARTHY: According to the minutes, Miss Wickham states, "I'm not going to address the variance issues because apparently that will be le[erred te the next hearing, and we have no problem wi~h that. But I would like to as~ the Boazd in the interim to review the issue of the jnrisdic~ion it may have te grant this variance in Ehe first place. Obviously you have a Planning Board letter which, while it Odes not make a recommendation in favor of or against, .ices give you a very clear indication of how they feel about Eno ma~ter, and I would submit ehaE they probably don't have jurisdiction to make a recommendation 6O Harch 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Eo you. ~ I ~hink we need that information before we go further. Because if we're fighting an uphill matter here, and you don't have Ehe j~lrisdiction ~o make this decision, then we need ~e ~new which way to go. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: The Planning Beard has a£ready made more er less ~heir determination, Ehan what they had said in the pasE, zhaE there be no further subdivision of ~his land, and ~ wculd assume that that is Eheir position ~oday. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay then, is it your position then that ~he point Eha~ Miss Wickham brough~ up has ne merit, and you have not looked inEo it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I jusE go by what the Planning Board has said. MR. MCCARTHY: Se it did nee go any furEher Ehan thaE as far as what Miss Wickham said? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ne. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are you before the Planning Beard right new, or will you be before the Planning Board for let line change or some sort -- MR. MCCARTHY: We consulted with the P£anning Board and they deferred ~o this Board before they teak up the issue again. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If you do receive relief from this Board then you will sziil have to ge to the Planning Board as well? MR. MCCARTHY: That's my belief, yes. question was, if thaE's the case, what Wickham alluded ~o is that the Planning Board mighL noz have the ability ~o make that decision, and that's where we came up agains~ a little stumbling block here. MS. WICKHAM: Would you like me ~o address nhat? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCC,~I~: Please. MS. WICKHAM: I read the memorandum of December 14, 2004 from ute Planning Board to ute ZBA as indicating uhat the Planning Board believes thaE they should address tRis mat~er before ute Zoning Board of Appeals adtresses it, and the word "before" is in bold. I don't know if ycu have had any further correspondence wit~ the Planning Board, I'm not aware of it. Mr. McCarthy's 61 Harch 31, 2.005 1 2 5 '7 8 ~0 &3 14 ~5 ]_'7 &8 19 20 22 23 2B correct, they make some comments which indicate a disfavor with nhe proceeding based on the covenants and restrictions ~nd the major versus minor issues than were discussed at the subdivision phase, bun I do believe that it indicates that the Planning Board should mee~ and iecide on the amendment of the covenant ~nd restriction at a public hearing before the ZBA makes a decision. That's how I read ~heir memo. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I re~d it both ways, Gail, frankly. If ~he ZBA grants ~his ~equest it will open the Town to criticism that it's not i~onoring its own covenants and resErictions. Then again on the next page, they say the application to be advised that ~he issuance of the variance are also not undue the need to obtain subdivision approval? MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. That's what they're saying. I think m~' point at the last hearing which Mr. McCarthy is referring to is iu's my undersnanding that once the Zoning Board of Appeals grants an undersized area variance relief, the Planning Board is bound to consider that in nerms of the lot size. I don't know that it binds them as ~o whether the covenant can be invalidated, but I think the granting of relief in and of itself would invalidate the covenanu and y.n. tt get a mess. That's why I think iE should go uo the Planning Boar~ first, I would actual±y agree wiuh him on thau. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's certa~nly complicated and it's cerUainly messy. It would be my advice and my view that granting of a varia~lce would not -- well, I do have a view that has and will be expressed confidenuially to the Board as to certain legal issues here if uhey were no grant a ~ar~ance, I do not think that would bind of hands of the Planning Board as uo whether it can and will and should enforce its covenanUs. It dces hake away the issue as to whether er not they can approve an undersized lot, whether they can or not, not whether they should and must. If uhey have other reasons why they would decline to approve such a lot, they c~n cerEainly express them and enforce them. The reasou I asked the applicant: whether they're before the Planning Board or not is because if you go before the Planning Board for a 62 Marcti 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subdivision or sine plan application, you have the right to come here directly, immediately in any event, whether or not the Planning Board wants you to seek your variance, It looks like you're here off a notice of disapproval, though. I don't quite understand how you could have applied for a building permit on a lot that doesn't yet exist. MR. MCCARTHY: We didn't apply for the building permit, we applied for the actual structure of the lot per se. We didn't saV we're looking to build a house on a nonexistent lo~; we said we're looking to subdivide this property. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Did you submit a subdivision application? MR. MCCARTHY: We submitted an application, and we were told tc go to nhe Planning Board. We met wi~h the Planning Board informally and they referred us back to ysu formally. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But you got a notice of disapproval from the Building Department, correct? MR. MCCARTHY: That's correct. I still feel we're caugh~ in the middle here and we don't know which way to go. MS. WICKH~: I want to address the Board, was a subdivision application submitted to the Planning Board? MR. MCCARTHY: Actually originally it was a lot line change application. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Was a fee paid and file number issued? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, there was. And somehow when this was brought to Damon, I believe, an~ he bounced it off of Mike Verity, the}' changed it from a lot line to a subdivision Dec,use the rules and regulations and code changes had nranspired in the meantime. I don'u uhink than was the right thing uo do because we originally applied for a lot line change; that should have followed through in the application and then brought to your attenEion Ehat in was a lou line change, and it might have been brought in under Ehe rules and regulations of pre existing code instead of the mess that we have right now. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Lot line change wouldn't change the number of the lots in a subdivision, and you are asking to create another 63 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 1~ 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 lot. So that would not be a lot line change. MR. MCCARTHY: That's how the application went in to begin with. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We have a new ,rode, and the new code applies now. MR. MCCARTHY: This application actually started in 2003. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Be that as it mai', dozens if not hundreds of people in this town are in the same situation. MR. MCCARTHY: I agree. I still think we're caught in the middle here because we're not getting correct guidance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CC, RCORMq: Because this is an appeal from a notice on disapproval, I think the Board does have jurisdiction to consider the application. Again, I don't think that's binding on the Planning Board. Depending on what this Board does, you're going to have to go ~o the Planning Board anyway to get your subdivision. So .et one point or another this Bcard is going to have ~o make a decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we do it after the Planning Board? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We're only going to end up here anyway. The Planning BoarO is going to say subject to a variance from the Zoning Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't know what they're going te say, historically. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If he made application to the Planning Board, the Planning Board said no, gc to the Zoning Board first, and then we'll consider it. MS. WICKHAM: Mrs. Oliva, I don't think ~hat's what this memo says. CHAIRWOM~{ OLIVA: I'm net saying that's what the memo says, I'm referring to what Mr. HcCarthy just said. MS. WICKHAM: I will say historically ~his has always been a confusing issue, it's never been a clear case, but I think haze ~hey should go Eo the Planning Board first. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: IEhink the reason in was going to go to the Planning Board also it was a question as to whether they're going bs amend their covenant because nobody else could answer that, and that's where the last question 64 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was left at the hearing. MR. MCCARTHY: In inV informal meeting with the Planning Board they sail we could decide whether or not to amend the covenants, hut }~ou have no go Eo ~he ZBA first. Understan~ my position that we're caught in the middle. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are, I'm sorry. MR. MCCARTHY: We de need resolution. Mr. AnEicev is net able te be here today, nor is his attorney who happens to be his son. His wife was rushed ~o the hospital, yesterday, so they're all at the hospital. Regardless ef the outcome with Mrs. Anticev's health and the outcome of this Board's decision, Mr. Anticev asked me express to you that he plans on going the full length of this, whether you lecide },es or no, we go ue bnilding, er no we go te an Article 78, but he wanes that expressly delivered to you. He as]ced me to tell you that. I still don't know where we are with this, 5hough. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think iE would make some sense te get an official position from the Planning Beard on hew - this is really that's the driving issue, is the Planning Board issue, as te how they're going to treat the C and Rs, anO I think they need to decide wheEher i5's heard here first or there first. I don't knew if we can keep the hearing open until we're advised toy the Planning Board on that issue. CHAIRWOM~g OLIVA: Sure. I feel badly you're caughE in the middle. I didn'5 know ~eu were se caught in 5he middle. MR. MCCARTHY: This has been going on since '03. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I 5hink part of the reason why it's so confusing, mayOe I'm not sure, is iE came to us as a lot line change. A consequence ef the giving ef that lot line change would be then to consider an application for a building permit ena nonconforming lot, less thail one acre. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This will be conforming. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They want ~c sell ti~e big lot and ~eep 5he small lot. Those are two separate issues. There is case law, we have been apprised, tha5 we may not have the jurisdiction, [he power, te decide 5he question of the division, 65 Harcii 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 the creation of a subdivision, this is not the Zoning Board of Appeals is what this Marx case is about. So there are a lot of reasons why it's very awkward for this Board to take any position at all at this time until those questions are resolved. We cannot make a decision if there is a significant legal challenge to this our power. MR. MCCARTHY: Would that reflect back on previous decisions that you've inade? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's a jurisdictional matter as Mrs. Wickham has said. It's sort of darned if you do, darned if you don't. The Planning Board can't create an undersized lot without this Board's approval; and this Board can't actually create the lot, it can give you ~he variance for it. I~'s a c~icken and egg nhing. MR. MCCARTHY: I would s,~ggest that you two Boards sim and talk about these things so the public isn't caught in this position in the future. I think that would be to the public's benefit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did send a letter up there asking for their comments, and you have a letter ef their comments which is rather ambiguous to put it mildly. HR. MCCARTHY: It is indeed. They diOn'E want to make a decision. I was told tha~ ~here migRt be a possibility that this might {~o through, an~ in Ehe letter, the opinion ~hey issued it seems te cast a negative slant on it which Hiss Wickham has represented. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: T~at's the reason it should ge back to them. It they're ambiguous er even self-contradictory, ~he}~'re the ones who have tc sort this out before we can ~eact to it. CHAIRWONE~N OLIVA: It is the Planning Board which made the covenants and restrictions, not ~s. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: [{iss Wickham is making suggestions that she'd rather ge back to the Planning Board, correct? MS. WICKH~M: I think that's what the Planning Board memo says. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: It does and it doesn't. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You said you'd rather go back to the Planning Board. You made that statement a little while age. 66 March 31, 20C, 5 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 2B 25 MS. WICKHAM: I think that's the appropriate way to handle it, yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLPGqDD: Do you have a problem with that, Mr. McCarthy? CHAIRWOMA2{ OLIVA: Do you think 5rou're just going Eo be hung up? MR. MCCARTHY: I don't see how we have a choice if that's what ~his Board decides is the bes~ course of action. We're at your mercy. We'll do what you decide. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have a problem with just continuing on with the application and ~aking a decisio~l, but if both applicant and defendant want to go no the Planning Board, I don't have a problem letting you go to the Planning Board either, if you'd rather go there first. MR. MCCARTHY: Are they going to give us a decision? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: AE the very least trey can issue a clarification of their memo. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whic~ is not very clear at all. I agree with you, Joe, at one side it kind of says take it to the ZBA, and then it says, well, no maybe the Planning Board should have it first, well, make up your mind. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR.~q: Do you have an official application on record wLth the Planning Board with a subdivision or lot line change? MR. MCCARTHY: Nc). We were told to go to ~hem and have a Oiscussion with them first. And t~iey suggested that we go to you. MS. WICKHAM: May I suggest that you go to the Planning Board for pre submission conference, which I think is their procedure, and discuss it with them and get a clarification. MR. MCCARTHY: I would ask then if uhan's their procedure, why wasn'u I informed of that to begin wiuh? I'm not asking you because yo~'re not that board. ASST. TOWM ATTY. CORCORAN: That's why we should leave this hearing open. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let's leave it open. MR. MCCARTHY: I have a lot more that I have to offer, but I will do ~hat at the ~ppropriate time. I would ask that you work with us as far as getting this tone as fast as possible after we get done with the Planning Board. 67 March 31, 2005 68 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 BOARD SBCY. KOWALSKI: Was there a letter to the Planning Board asking these questions recently, since Ehe last letter; did you se~ld them another letter? MR. MCCARTHY: Ne. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But they have ncEhing in writing to reply to. MR. MCCARTHY: Ne. But this Beard's j~lst telling us new, or this Board's telling us now that we should ge Oefore Ehem. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Give them something in writing so they have a map to look a~ and they can discuss iE. HR. MCCARTHY: I thought you'd be giving us some sort of decision, Eha~'s why thaE hasn't been done. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I was a be~ting man, I would say you have te go uo uhe Planning Boar~ and ~hey're going Eo write you a letter and say come back en here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This has been going on since 2003? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But there are no letters in writing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's jusE been pre submission conferences? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. discussions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: up one way or another. ASST. TOWN ATTY. to do one of Ewe things, It's jus~ been I ha~e no see you held CORCORAN: They're going emther Ehey're going Ee say yes, we're willing to override the covenants and restrictions and allow you ~e proceed, and in such case, yon need a variance from the Zoning Board so go get it; or they're going tc say, no, we're not willing to allow you to proceed in the face of Ehe covenants and restricuions, in whish case yoe can then bring your Article 78. MR. MCCARTHY: It's ne~ a landmark case, i~'s been done before. The relief requesEed has been granted before. I'm aE a loss te explain why we have ~o go through all these moEions, but we will if we have ~o. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CDRCORAN: But you ds need Ehat relief from the Planning Board ~o move forward, either from the Planning Beard itself or March 31, 2,D05 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 from the court. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll keep the hearing open uutil such time that you can get back ts us with a date that either t~ey're sending it back Eo us or they're going to amend their covenants and restrictions. We'll just leave iE open ended. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR~{: Do you wane to allow him Eo put more information on the record nc.w? MS. WICKHAM: I am prepared to de that, but m!' experience, Hrs. Chairman, is EhaE we'll say it all ceaay, a~d then we'll say it all again. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is your a~to~ney going to be at the next hearing? MR. MCCARTHY: We certainly hope so. ASS'~. TOWN ATTY. CORCORY~: So you're going Eo need another hearing in any event. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we'll postpone it for another two months and hopefully you'll have something from the Planning Beard. AnO we will write a letter to the Planning Board asking for a .iecision as expeditiously as possible. MR. MCCARTHY: Thank yon. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You're going to need to fill something eut officially for uhem to schedule that conference. MR. MCCARTHY: I'll go in for a pre submission conference first, and then we'll take to the next level. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion Es adjeurn this hearing unEil June 2nd. kSee minu~es for resolutien.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing's a carryover frem March fur William and Janice Claudie fur a lot line change frem the Planning Board review letter, which we have. MS. MOORE: Pat Moore fur Mr. and Mrs. Claudie, whe are here today. I saw that, just for ~he record, on March 22nd i'eu did gee a recommendation from the Planning Board that was in support of this applica~ien er at least maae ns c©mments in epposicion he the applicatien, just placing that in the record although it's already in the your file. Last time we were here, there were comments made, and I know you were talking about the cevenants and restrictions, I think Mr. Witt 69 March 31, 2,305 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 23 25 raised an issue which I want to clarify for the record. He was under the impression uhat he could go ahead and subdivide his property, and I ~hink from the previous hearing it sounds like you're experiencing what it would take to resubdivi~e a parcel that has a covenant and resuriction. The Iar~nou case that we went to the Appelate [)ivision was a situation where a property haO this restriction that appeared in the file, but it was never a covenan~ filed en record and the Appeliate Division said that a condition on a property er covenanU, a zoning restriction, whatever it might be, if it is not made ef record it is not binding z.n a geed faith purchaser for somebody that buys wi~h a title report and finding no such restriction on record. So a situation would be scmewhat different, and I think that the lower .co,irt has held that a covenant for ne further subdivision was not warra~EeO in the case that we dealt with, the Appellate Division reversed or upheld ~he lower court deeisien with slightly different terminology. So it left open whether or not it is an unwarranted restriction in total as far as no further subdivision if the zening's one acre and you place a restriction no further subdivision ena parcel that's two acres or mcre. That's the situation. I think Hr. Witt's situation would ~e one of those where tt~ere is a covenan~ on record, the covenants you have on file affected the larger parcels. The conservation parcel, which was te be in conservation, ~hen ~r. Witt, who owns the two oversized parcels, those have a covenant and restriction ,of no ~ur~her subdivision. This parcel is sEecifically ne~ listed in tha~ covenant, and therefore could be further subdivided, or put iu this way, there's no restriction er prohibition on further subdividir~g. I wanted to make that recorG clear. I think there was some confusion at least from his testimony last time. Also there were comments from neighbors with respect ~e zoning issues, is this a rezoning and se forth. I thought given the value of the property and the circumstances here that are very strong already, I have asked Thomas Kramer, Mr. and Mrs. Claudio have Thomas W. Kral~er, he's from Kramer Consulting Group, he's going te be ~estifying with respect te the zoning issues as to 7O Harch 31, 200~ 1 2 3 5 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 the subdivision of this property, he's going to be presenting you with some written documentation, then ~estifying on the record. But I do want to introduce him to you. He is the principal at Kramer Consulting. He is also very familiar with ~_he Town of Southold as he was one of the planners er the planner with respect ~o nhe Route %8 study. ss he's is very familiar with Southold, its zoning and its policies. His office is in Miller Place. He was formerly the commissioner of Planning and Environmental Development in the Town c~ Srookhaven. His credentials certainly west and even in Southold are recognized for his expertise. Se I wonld ask Tom to come to ~he microphone. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I've known Mr. Kramer for qui~e a few years. MR. KRAMER: Good afternoon, as Pat said, I have been retained by ~he Olaudios te provide expert testimony on this particular case. I will just run ~hrough some of my report as far as the history ef the silo and ge~ in~o the snarac~er ef ~he area and hew i~ relates to the zoning and land use in the area. The site was eriginaily par~ efa 1984 ~inor subdivision by Leon Marcus that was approved by the Planning Board. The total subdivision contained 18.5 acres and was divided in~e four building lots and also eno 7.3 acre parcel for preservation. The four building lots ranged in size from almost 3.9 acres to 1.%. These parcels te~aled 11.14 acres. The subject site is part ef ~he building lets, which I believe was Let 1 on the subdivision. In May ef 198%, as part of the approval were five conditions. The firs~ one, there be ne further subdivisions ef Le~ 3 and 4, these are the two larger lots further te the north, and khose parcels contain wetlands. Second condition was the building enve£epe will be set back 100 fee~ ~rom the shoreline en Let 2; the third one would be tha~ the Nature Conservancy accept the parcel for dedication. It gees on to say that if they do not accep~ it that covenanhs be placed on ti~e property. Currently it's on the ~ax rolls for ~ne - well, South Fork Land Foundation, which is the Peconic LanO Trust is posted by. The required covenants te be filed with regard te conditions 1 ~hrough 3 and that also a bend Oe posted. Parcels 71 [~arch 3~, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~t 25 1 and 2 are the two southernmost lots. As Pat said before, these have no covenants on them for further subdivision. Let 1 had a buildin~ envelope located en the western portion ef tile site had approximately 105 foot frontage on Gull Pond Inlet, Let 2 had approximately 360 feet frontage en Gull Pond Inlet. Tile two le~s, Lot 1 represented 94.3 feet and -- 94,300 square feet and the second lot was 61,000 square feet respectively. In 1986 there was a lo~ line medificatie~ of Le~s 1 and 2. On Lot 1 all the land and the waterfront east of ~he existing tennis courts that are on site were transferred to Let 2, and ~hen Lot 2 transferred a sma±l portion of land just north of ~he tennis courts te Let 1. So essentially it was LoE 2 represents the inajority of the parcel that we have here today, and this lot line change represents the let line configuration that exists today on the site. In the back of my package I provided some illusnratiens; one is a tax map superimposed en hop of the aerial, which will give you the character ef the area around. And the second one is ~he tax map ~hat I Rave colored up to illustrate the existing land use characteristics in the area, which I will discuss in detail. At present the site is vacant. It does not have any residences on it, bu~ it is improved with two sneds and two docks on the preperts~. TMere are no natural habitats on nhe si~e with the exception ef tidal wetlands along the eastern property line and shoreline. In ~he handout I gave to you I have a couple photos that illustrates what the site looks like. Tile elevation of ~he site raises fairly quickly from shoreline to maximum elevation about 10 feet above sea level. The building envelopes, as required in ~he original approval, are setback 100 feet from the mean high water line. Within these building envelopes the elevation is benween eigh~ and 10 fee~ above mean sea level. CHAIRWONL~/~ OLIVA: Are you in any zone for FEMA? nhink is? MS. MOORE: I'll check that. I don't so. We're certainly no~ in a velocity zsne. MS. MOORE: We're in Zeno X. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The whole parcel 72 Harch 31, 2,305 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 ~2 13 15 16 ~7 ~9 20 21 22 23 2% 25 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, AE. MR. KRAMER: with an elevation of nine feet. So with the existing conditions it will not require any grading or filling to bring it up to meet the flood plain elevation. The site is located within RS0 District, and under the Town code, as you are aware, requires a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet end minimum lot depth of 250. Since we are below that, we require variances for this land division. The size of the two proposed parcels to conform to New York State Departmenn of Environmental Conservation Regulations with regards to construction ox regards to subdivision and construction on lots adjacent to tidal wetlands, their minimum requirement is %0,000 square feet. Both these parcels are above that. The building envelope and also the sanitary systeln would be able to be located greater than 100 feet from the wetlands; again, this is in excess of their various requirements. Likewise, Suffolk Count}' Department of Healt~ Services setbacks can be met. They require minimum of 100 feet setback for sanitary from open water, as well as the elevations on the site. The sanitary system can be put on to the property without any significant additional filling or grading on the site. Suffolk County Water Authority will be providing the site with potable water. Lot 2 is proposed to be accessed by a 15 toot wide right of way across the building envelope of Lot 1. Given the configuration of the lots an~ their relationship to Gull Pond Road, this is only the realistic alternative to provide access uo the proposed Lot 2. The proposed right of way, although it will cut across the building envelope, Ehe building envelope is still buildable. It still provides significant area to be able to lccate a house and sanitary system without being impacted by the right of way. Given the existing habitats and elevations on tile site and proposed lot sizes, we do not see Nny potential impacts to occur to the environment nor surrounding area. With regard to the surrounding area, I have carried out several field inspections on the 73 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 site and have also reviewed various inaps and aerial photos that relate to this area. As I say, I've attached the two figures to my document. The existing land use figure, which is the colored up tax map, graphically illustrates the size of the individual parcels within the area, the vast majority of the parcels are shown in light red; tRose are parcels that are smaller than the proposed lots in the area -- proposed lots in the project. There are within the area and again, pulled a larger area than whaE the Town usually lsoks at, but I think it's very representative of the character of the area. I went from Rou%e 25 south down ~o the other side of Manhasset Avenue. And within that area there is 208 parcels, 184 of these are smaller than the proposed site or 88.6 percent. The lots that are cslored in in dark yellow represents iots that are approximately the same size as the subject parcel; of ~hese there are four, with Ewo of these immediately adjacent and south of the subject parcels. The larger lots within uhe area are shown · n the pale yellow, there's 11 of these which represents only 5.29 percent of all the lons in the area. Three of these were those lots created as part of the regional 1984 subdivision and the 1986 lot line changes that occurred as part of the Harcus subdivision. Two lots immediately to the south of the subject slue, and adjacent to the two parcels I mentioned before that are the same size as the subject parcel, the building envelopes are uhe same as the subject site, however they abandoned two roads sometime in the pasn, eno nhey were added to the subject - those two parcels tha5 we're showing as large a~ this time. So uhe original configuration was about the same size as the subject parcel. The building envelopes represent a configuration that ~re the same size as 5he subject parcel. However, as a resul% of ~he abandonment that extends all the way down to the Manhassen Avenue, the square footage from 5he old roads have been added to those leus. Tibet's wMy they appear as a light yellsw, but in reali5y and as far as the character of the area, nhe actual building envelope and the building area wi~h all those le~s are comparable size ~e the proposed lots on ~he subject. 74 Harch 31, 2005 1 3 6 ? 8 10 ii ~3 19 2 0 2i 2~ ~5 The character of the area then is such of single-family homes on relatively small lots, lots either equal to or the same size as the proposed ions. This extends from Route 25 south on bo~h sides of Gull Pond Inlet to SandV Beach Road, and if you look beyond than, all the way down to Young's Point. It's the same character as what's being proposed. In fact, this particular parcel if it was left in its presenn state would be out of character with nhe area. The proposed subdivision brings it into character with nhe area. I've also shown eight parcels that are iu public or quasi-public lands. These include ian~s ~wned by the Town as well as cemetery, the two cemeneries, Sterling Cemetery, that is the large ~ne that's developed and also the land owned by Peconic Land Trus~. This is principally ~he area that's west of Gull Pond Road and east of Manhasset Avenue. This is also an area of extensive wetlands in the back that runs up u~rough the area and indeed wraps around and comes into the cemeteries. As I have stated, the proposal is consistent with the character .Df the area. Wi~h regard to the zoning, the site is indeed zoned R~0, that would require the variances on it. However, the proposal is to create two lots at 40,000 square feet. These lots are essentially the same as the three lots that are to the scuEh, same in size. The question I know came up whether the Town, whether this could be considered a rezoning. At the time when the Town did nheir rezoning on their own motion to rezone these areas to RS0, those lots did exist. I believe those parcels were created in by this Board in 1975 anO I did have a copy of the minutes, but if I may for nhe record (handing). BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There was a prior ariance on one of these lots? MR. KR~{ER: Ail three. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The applicant's lots? MR. KRAMER: In 1975 these were one acre zoning. At that time the variance that was granted was for access to these lots. These lots didn't contain any frontage on it. These lots do not contain any frontage on a r{}ad and 280A was 75 March 31, 2005 1 3 5 6 7 $ 10 11 12 lB 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 23 2~ approved in the February 27, 1975 Board of Zoning Appeals decision. So those lots did exist back in 1975, however in 1983, the Town on its own motion rezened the property to the R80 designation and Ehe rezening included these three lots and as such made them nonconforming. But lE think it goes to illustrate that there has been precedent set of lots ef this size within the RS0 zoning, even by the Town's own motion. The other question comes up whether this proposed subdivision is affected by the zoning. If we leek back at the original approval ef the subdivision, uhis is the Markus subdivision in '8%, the land division, it was considered a cluster application, which the Town is allowed te dc is go back and leek at the yield. The Town at ~his time excluded wetlands out ef the area. So I ran the numbers and teak a leek whether any additional lots could be gained instead ef the original configuration whether a different configuration could have been laid ouu in conformance with the R80. And indeed it coul~ Oe. I excluded the Peconic Land Trus~ property because that is in essence all wetlands. I then looked at ~he parcels within the 11.2 acres that represents the four building envelopes that were approved at tha~ time. Within those parcels tnere are sections of the site that is wetlands, and frets aerial photos and topographical maps, I would estimate t~ere's approximately 8,300 square feet .Df ~he 11.2 acres that would be considered wetlands, and that would net count to yield on the property. In considering the access that the site i~as from the various roads in the area, I think that is straight arithmetic computation cenld be dcne dividing the total of 479,572 square feet and tividing that by the 80,000 square feet weald result in a yield ef approximately six lots Eh~t could be done on the overall subdivision. Essentially that would have been ~he density for the original Marcus subdivision. As I said, there were only four lots approved on that subdivision, ~here was the density that co~ld have been achieved on the property where six and only tour were approved. So there's two kinds ou~ ~here. Under the proposed land division this would crea~e an additional let on uhe subdivision si~e. If you 76 March 3i, 2C, 05 1 2 $ 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 loak at it hypothetically if it were a cluster, we're not changing overall R80 density on the original piece of property. In addition, you can look at it another way. If you consider all ~he large parcels ~hat are RS0 between Hanhasset and Gull Pond Road, or Gull PenO Lane, the total is approximately 42.9 ~cres that would include cemetery si~es and the spen space, Pecenic Land Trust, the church property, the cemetery, if you look au whole parcel er it's a total of 61.4 acres that are zoned RS0, there are only five houses EhaE would be located within the entire parcel right now, which result to approximately one house per 534,916 square feet. It's another wa}, of looking at the overall densities of the site at RS0. In conclusion, it's my opinion that the proposed action would no~ have an adverse impac~ .ui nhe physical and environmenual cendinions ef t~e site itself, the district, the neighbernood or tbe site itself. The site is presently in lawn and landscaping, ne natural habitats exist and wiuh the setbacks greater than 100 feet for the p~epesed construction of the homes and sanitary sl, sEem on the ~wo lots, the setbacks will meet both the New York State DEC and Suffolk County Department of Health Service regulations. Granting of the variance would not produce an u~idesirable change in the character of the neighborneed, nor would they he a detriment to the nearby properties. The proposed lot size are equal to or greater ~han the vast majority of the ions within the area. And the characuer of the area is that of small lots. In fact, most ef them are smaller than the proposed action. The ZBA previously granted similar lee sizes and configurauiens on lands immediauely to ~he souUh ef this property. Under the original minor subOivision ~hat crea~eO the parcel, a great n~lmber of the lots, a numOer ef other lots could have been created, as I said it's estimated to be about two. Se the creation of one mere additional lot en Ehe property would net effect the overall density ef the RS0 zoning category. If ~he Board has anl, questions, I'll De glad ~o try ~o answer them. CHAIRWOHA/¢ OLIVA: I don't. I'm familiar with ~he area. 77 March 31, 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 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I do. Tha~ was a lot to digest there. Obviously the lot in ~uestion is uhe lot they are looking no subdivide, where are the three lots for the minor subdivision? There's four including ~he site; are ~hey south of them? MR. KRAMER: No. If you look a~ the map, i~'s listed as 12.1, 12.4, 12.8. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Tha~ was a cluster done by Marcus? MR. KRAMER: It was a minor subdivision by Marcus. MS. MOORE: Ones to the sou~h were these Harcus? MR. KRAMER: The subdivision approved by ~he Planning Beard in '84 ~hat included the Pecenic Land Trust property, is Tax LOE Number 12.1, 12.~, 12.8 and the subject site as well as the Peconic Land Trust property. CHAIRWOM~q OLIVA: Then Marcus gave that to the Peconic Land Trust? MR. KRAMER: Yes, Marcus gave 12.3 to ~he Peconic Land Trust, that was a conditie~ of the original approval. But as I said, uhe four parcels that were created at ~haE time are principally upland buu they do include some wetland of abeu~ 8,300 square feet. Again, ~he wetland were deducted out and still six loEs could i~ave been creaEed en the parcel meeting the RS0 code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No e~her questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, de you have anl~ questions? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. My questions have been answered. CHAIRWOM~: OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. CHAIRWOM~ OLIVA: Jerry, do yc.u have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ne. CHAIRWONhm2~ OLIVA: Thank you very much. Pat? MS. MOORE: Unless ute Beard has any ouher ~uestiens, we'll respond to any commenEs ~ha~ are mace. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is nhere anyone in nhe 78 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1,9 11 12 13 1% 15 17 18 19 2O 21 24 25 aL~dience that wishes to comment on uhis application, either pro or con? Yes, sir? MR. AHLERS: Mi' name is Paul Ahlers, and I live at 1905 Gull Pond. Firsn of all, I would like no know why originally back in '84 the Board did create two RS0 instead of R40 and whau is the reason to go back? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can't answer nhat. The Board on its own motion back in '83, '84 started ~o create two acre zoning, and then i~ was codified in 1989. I can't answer you exact reasons probably because there were some wetlands in ~he back. Tha~ is in}' only justification. ,i,Eherwise, I don't know why the planners did that an that time. MR. AHLERS: Also I was under the impression that in order to gee a zoning change that there had to be either a configuration problem with the property £,r a hardship ether than jnst giving someone the right te build two homes insnead of one. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The ZBA is here as a quasi-judicial board that you can colne for an appeal if you want to divide or change something ~ha~ is in place. B~lt if you want to have a · ~ariance from that eno way er the euher this is ~he board you come to. Jus~ as an Appellate Division of ~he county or the snaEe or what have 5'ou, that's what we act as. MR. AHLERS: What is the justification for a subdivision for this, then? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean to divi~e this? MR. AHLERS: That, yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's what tMey're trying ~o -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There are several factors that the law requires ~he Board to consider including effect on ~be neighborhood, size of the variance, whether or no~ iE's been self created, any hardship, et cetera. There's a balancing test that this Beard considers. Applicant was trying to reech so,ne of these, and !'ou can ceruainly dispune whether uhey meet. MR. AHLERS: By subdiviting this ne said it was out of character, at the same token he was talking about the Peconic Land Trust that has the four acres that are nou going to be allowed to be 79 Harcb 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 subdivided. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most sf the Peconic Land Trust property is wetlands. That's probably why Mr. Marcus gave it to them. MR. AHLERS: Right. But the ones where Pit. Witt lives on the log cabins, that can only be like four lots I think, and they're way over 80,000 per square foot per lot. I'm dispuuing his saying it's ouu of character Eo leave that ~wo acre, that's my point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's fine, thank you. Is there anysne else that wishes to commen~ on this application? Yes, sir. MR. PASAVETTI: Hello, my name is Donald Pasavetti. I live a~ 1775 Gull Pond Lane. I'm going to be very brief but I want to go on record as being opposed ~o this subdivis±on. I uhin~ one of the major concerns when they made this zoning must have been the environmental issue. Allowing a division of this property ~ think is taking a step backwards. If they're allowed to builO two homes here, we're going to have ~wo cesspools, we're going ~o have two heating systems, we're going to have two wood burning fireplaces, all of ~hese things create negative impacts on the environment, and I'd like ~o have these people consider that. I believe you owe it to us in the commu~ity to uphold this two acre soninl. I wRnE to welcome the Claudios to the community. I feel they shouldn't make a negative impact on us. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, s~r. Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on this ~pplication? MR. CRANDENETTI: Hy name is Ralph Crandenetti, I lives on the other side of the pond at 445 Osprey Nest Road. I feel similar ~o Hr. Pasavetti, based en Mrs. Cla~ldio's desire te one day be in the Greenpert community, she can have that, it's just tha~ why must they divide the property and create double the impact on Gull Pond. Not only would there be more cesspools in an area that was once filled land, there will be another probably home and ali o~ ~hat drains into ar seeps into Gull Pond, a negative aspect, probably Bulkheads we're trying to do away with CCA. There will be more docks, more boats, mare pollution. I can'~ see where ~his situa~icn is 80 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 able to go this far. I would imagine tiiis Board is concerned with extenuating circumstances. What are the extenuating circumstances? They want to be there, buy the property as it is, not change the rules. The rules are there for all of us. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. is there anyone else that wishes to comment en this? MR. KRAUSE: My name is Tern Krause, and I occupy the let directly te the south of the southernmost ef the two lots that might be created. So I'm ~he next door neighbor en the south. I de net have an objection to this request. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. Anyone en the Board have any other questions? Mrs. Moore, do you have anything else ts sa}'% MR. KRAHER: with regard te the zoning issue, this particular piece of property at the time of the rezoning included, i~ was ~otal Harcus property was the subject of the rezening. [ think from when they come in and do the rezoning, they would have taken the whole parcel, that would include the environmentally significant areas, which are to the west of this particular site, as well as while it would have made a let more sense from a land use standpoint ef just dropping i~ straight down from Gull Pe~d Lane and including that as tRe one acre, because that's really the character ef what's happening in there, the planners most likely just pulled in the entire parcel and brought i~ as eno parnicular parcel ra~her than split zoning an individual parcel. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree. Any other Board members have any questions? If not, I'll make a monion to close the hearing reserving decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOM~[ OLIVA: Our next hearing is Papadopoules en Miriam Road. Concerning an addition at less than the code required 35 feet rear yard setback. You have two front i'ar{ls. HS. RIVERA: As you can see from the site plan it is a corner parcel and the Papadopoules are requesting to build a single car garage te the west. And for all intents and purposes, ~heir existing rear yard as existing is ~5.9 and the 81 March 31, 2,905 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 garage will be at 14.6 because the building is slightly skewed and with the topography of thaE lot if ycu have seen it CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have seen it. MS. RIVERA: We see there's no ,other place no pun this single car garage exnension. To the east it arops of significantly, and again, you need a variance no matter where you put this exmension, and it's currently an existing two-story residence. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. Mr. Goe~ringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So this is not just a garage, this is a dwelling abcve the garage as well? MS. RIVERA: Yes. rhere's an exisning bedroom upstairs now and this would be an additional single bedroom. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: A master bearoom suite? MS. RIVERA: A master bedroom suite. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When I looked at tRe property I noticed there were red markers in a couple of places, and there were some half ~he way to the embankment red markers and Mr. Papadopeules was there and he said he didn't ~now what they were fur either. HS. RIVERA: I put four flags fur where nhe outline for where the garage extension was going ~o be. It was 15.5 I:eet from the existing dwelling now, and i~ went back 27 feet. It was jus~ a square, actually. It was just four flags that I put. I only had foyer flags, like irriganion flags, the other red markers may have toeen when they had done the survey. There was several pink markers. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think I counted MS. RIVERA: Those were from the BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're going to have a total five bedrooms in nhis house, that's whaE the survey says? MS. RIVEPA: Proposed may possibly be five but righ~ now it's going to be fur ~he sanitary system we put in for five bedrooms because we changed the sanitary system, bu~ when i~'s completed i~ will probably be only ~eur. The 82 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 C, 21 22 23 24 25 master bedroom suite is going to encompass a dressing/office area. You may or ma!' ncr consider a bedroom, depending en how you open it up te the c~her space. You have to have an opening. You can't have a closed door. But right now, there's an existing Bedroom/den downstairs. They use it es a den but it ce~lld eventually be considered a bedroom, but there's a very small bedroom in the rear behind the new set of steps, and there's going te be two upstairs, the master bedroom s~ite and the existing master bedroom the way it is new. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you raising the reef line actually above where ~he reef line is now, above all those win~ows [n the front, according ~o 5he plans? MS. RIVERA: In the cenuer? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. You're raising the roof a bit over there? MS. RIVERA: If at all very slightly because it's existing now. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a demo/rebuild? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's an add-eh. MS. RIVERA: Ne. Just an addi5ion over hhe garage, the addition will be the garage and new space over the garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMhER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in 5he audience wishes to speak on this application either pro or sen? If neE, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ISee minutes for resolution.; CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing now is fsr the Scannells who wish to open a B & B at 5405 Rocky Pein5 Road, East Marion. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf ef uhis application? Yes, sir, are you jus[ completing beilding Ehat house er is it finisheO? MR. SCANNELL: It's finished. CHAIRWOM~q OLIVA: I was late yesterday afternoon, and I didn't ge5 a chance to come in. I wettld appreciate if I call you in advance, [ weul~ like tc see it before we make a decision. 83 March 31, 2005 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCANNELL: Okay. I have the affidavit, do I bring them up to you? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. Give us any information you want to give us; you have three bedrooms? MR. SCANNELL: Three bedrooms and two bathrooms upstairs. We have a master suite downstairs. We don't have any kids so we rarely go upstairs except when we have visitors. So we figure we may as well be a bed and breakfast. We just got certificate of occupancy about six months ago, everything is up to code. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What about kitchen facilities for additional people, six more people? MR. SCANNELL: It's a big house. There's no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're only doing breakfast anyway. MR. SCANNELL: It's just for six guests. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerrs? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: Traditionally, Mr. and Mrs. Scannell, we are always mandating, which is really part of a special excepkion purview, that the Beard has the right te leek at it. AnO this is very important in this situation because you have a magnificen~ house, absolutely beautiful, but we don't want to get sued and we don't want you to get sued. We don't wan~ anybody backing out en Rocky Point Read. MR. SC~kNNELL: You mean backing out onto the read? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. They have Eo be able to turn around in your driveway, if you have to elongate those parking spaces to make tha~ happen. MR. SCANNELL: That's no problem. We have plenty ef room before the septic. We can prolong that another 10 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: This is not an objection or a sarcastic statement, but it's nice ~o draw them in ~ut until you actually get to use theln, that's what I'm saying. MR. SCANNELL: There's ne problem in doing tha~ because the septic system is another 12 feet beyond, se probably over another 10 feet, then 84 March 31, 2005 2 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 ~5 ~ 8 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they should have ever 40 feet to pull in and back BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWONUkN OLIVA: Does anybody else in the audience wish to comment en this application? BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: Se there will be a c:endition and that will be that all your people that stay there must be able te turn around in your driveway and go out forward, no backing out snho the highway; it's going to be a condition o~1 this. MR. SCANNELL: Will we have te put it on the final survey or somebody come out and see? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll come out and look at i~ next week. I'll give you a call first. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. ,See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next nearing is Dash on North Parish Drive. MR. AI~DERSON: Bruce Andersen, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for uhe Dashes. I'm going to hand you up some photographs snowing their house from the neighbor's house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: I was there ~his morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there the e~her day. MR. ANDERSON: Basically the Dashes own a ranch heuse on North Parish Drive. The},'re proposing an addition. We are here because they have a pre-existing nonconforming setback with regard to ~he westerly lot line and ~hat is at 11.8. As a point of interest, this is alo~ that inadvertently merged in 1977 er sometime prior Lo that, and the Board granted a variance NumOer 2635 tr} resubdivide the lot maintaining the same site i'ard seebacks of 11'8". The construction is for a one-story addition and that addiEion is essenuisll}, tucke~ behind the existing house. The screened area in the front is converted to a one car garage. So there's ne further encroachment ~owards the side yard in any way. The house next doer to the east is owned by Crosdale and setback similarly from the roaO. The house ~e the wes~ is cwned by Salsman and 85 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 6 7 9 lO ll 12 13 2O 21 22 23 24 2S setback considerably from the road about probably to a distance of about 100 te 12,9 feet. Across the street is the house owned by Patella, which is probably setback something the area of 60 feet. Se you have in ~he immediate neighborhood three ranch houses Rnd erie two s~ory house. Again, the addition is to provide some additional living space. Fairly obvious to that there be no change in the neighborhood. won't be really visible, and iu doesn't impact any of the neighbors including, for example, the a~jacen~ neighbor ~e the west being sc} £ar setbac~ off the road and towards the water. If you look at the photo and compare wi~h the building plans prepared ~}y Penny Lumber, you'll see ~ha~ there is really nc} change to the roof line a~ least facing ~he street; what happens is ~nat you have a reverse gable that goes towards ~ne water. The property, ~he project already has DEC permit that has a statement from the Trustees ~haE ne permit is required, and it's about as straightforward as can be for a zoning variance. But I'm here te answer any questions you may have . CHAIRWONh~I OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLM~DO: Partial is alreaOy constructeO, that little porch you're going rebuild over that? MR. ANDERSON: Instead of the screening comes as a garage door. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Part of the side i'ard setback is already existing? MR. ANDERSON: The setback doesn'~ change. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. The new part will go beyond that. MR. ANDERSON: Towards the water. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you show a desk on yo~r picture here, but we're not really adUressing the deck? MR. ANDERSON: The deck ~s net an issue. BOARD MEMBER ORLA~'DO: For us. MR. ANDERSON: No. And the addition's substantially over the deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And it's a single story. No outer questions. 86 March 31, 2005 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 25 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No ques~ions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is uhere anybody in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? Then I'll make a motion to close Ehe hearing and reserve decision unEil laEer. ~See minunes for resolu~ion. I iTime ended: 2:17 p.m.! 87 March 31, 2005 1 2 3 5 ? 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 21 ~2 25 CERTIFICATION I, Florence V. Wi]es, Notary Public for ~he State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript ~s a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related by bleod or marriage, Eo any of the parties to this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome ,Df this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunte see my hand this 31st day of March, 2005. Florence V. Wiles 88 March 31, 2005