Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/10/1997 HEARING II TPJ~NSCRIPT OF pnBLIC HEARINGS APRIL 10, 1997 SOnTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell Srom tape recordings) 6:4% p.m. Appl. No. 4464 - TOMIS AND KATHY KOnRKOnMELIS. CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: Copy oS a pending plan indicating the proposed pool approximately rive Seet Srom the existing house, 34 Seet Srom the bulkhead which is the outside end oS it and which leaves another 3% Seet to the hi,Nh water mark. I have a oS the SuSSolk County Tall }{ap indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. }ir. Cardinale, I understand you're representing these nice people. MR. CARDINALE: That right. CHAIP~AN: How are you tonight Sir? MR. CARDINALE: Good. I'd like to initially just send up the assidavits oS mailing and postinG. I also like to introduce Mr. & }{rs. Kourkoumelis who are here and also Mr. Wysoczanski oS Islandia Pools, the contractor in case you have any questions. As I indicated in the application there are two ways oS addressing this. One is because it's so unique is you've seen the site and so unlike sound Sront property I looked at the section that the Building Inspector addressed in his Notice oS Disapproval and the section where he says and I quote on the sirst pa,Ne oS the application "Ail buildings located on Lots adjacent to sounds upon which there exists a blurs or bank landward oS the shore or beach shall be set }Jack not Sewer than 100 Seet". Whether there exists a blurs or bank landward oS the shore or beach areas itselS a question because is you look at the site there's a triple bulkhead in place since 19%4 which is only in Sull height 11 Seet Srom the beach to where the location oS this pool is Going to be. In Sact, eSSectively there is no blurs at this particular location oS the sound. However, assuming that you would preset to making jurisdiction regardless oS the height oS the blurs on the sound I address the issue oS benesit detriment as well on the application and probably the quickest way to ,Net into it and to any questions you might have Sot myselS or the contractor or }ir. Kourkoumelis, just to reset to that application. The lot is a pre- existing non-conSorminG lot as you can see Srom the survey and the sketch. Permanent application was made Sot a 16 x 36 in Ground pool overlooking the sound. The 100 Soot setback requirement is not possible to meet. By placing the pool by % Seet Srom the house and limiting its size to 16 x 36 a 34 Soot setback Srom a bulkhead SrontaGe can be achieved. There's no other practical location available due to the Sact that the lot has a unique consiGuration. Its width as you will note is 63 Seet to 7% Seet in width. The Greater width being in the Sront on the road and; (E) the presence oS cesspools, well, driveway and large trees and open exposure to the highway south oS the house. The applicant thereSore has done everything possible to limit the variance requested in this instance to the minimal amount he needs. The lot as I said is pre- existing and unusually narrow. There's a very low blurs line protected Pa,Ne E - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board or Appeals by heavy duty bulkhead in place, undisturbed since 19%4. He requested a pool or not having an inverse impact upon the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and I want to emphasize this and that's why }ir. Kourkoumelis wanted to be here and }irs. Kourkoumelis and their children as well. This idea or a pool is intimately connected with the tact that at this location, in tact, right on that road in 199E, }{rs. Kourkoumelis had a very serious accident, severely injured her }Jack. She has a herniated disk as evidenced by the material you have from the doctor. As a result or that hydro-therapy, swir[s[~inG is r ecor[s[~ended. That will alleviate the pain and is r ecor[s[~ended. However, she has difficulty ,Netting down, not so much ,Netting down the steps as once she's down there the rocky beach, etc., makes the sound not adequate rot the purpose or her hydro-therapy. So that is a unique circumstances I'd like you to consider. Finally, I want to point out that there will be no undesirable change produced in the character or the neighborhood, nor any detriment to nearby property owners. Many or the lots are pre-existinG and undersized as you know with construction within this 100 root setback area and some have required similar relier and there's also apparently no objection from neighbors. He's discussed this with his neighbors and they have no objection. This is all I really wanted to say and ir you have questions or me or Mr. Kourkoumelis or John, he~s here. CHAIP~AN: We would like to speak to the pool contractor ir we could. How are you tonight Sir? Could you just state your name rot the record. MR. WYSOCZANSKI: John Wysoczanski from Islandia Pools. CHAIP~AN: Is there Going to be any deck around this pool? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: As rat as we know we're just Going to basically put Grass around everything and just a copinG, that's it. CHAIP~AN: Is this a Gunite pool, or is it a ? }iR. WYSOCZANSKI: No, it's a vinyl pool. CHAIP~AN: How many Gallons or water would you estimate being used? }iR. WYSOCZANSKI: That one probably would be about CHAIP~AN: In all situations regardless ir we have a higher erosion area or a lesser impacted higher erosion area as we have here, by virtue or what exists and what has existed is Mr. Cardinale said since 19%4. No way can a pool ever be hinged or attached to the house, either thru a decking system. They just have to stand freely in case we ever had a situation where the coastal erosion line moved closer to the house and then rot some ,Nod forsaking reason the pool was taken by the sound, which we never want to see happen, but just want you to be aware or that. I don't have any specific questions other than that. We'll star with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: How deep is the pool Going to be? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: It's Going to be 8 root. Pa,Ne 3 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. DINIZIO: The house is how old? 19%47 }iR. WYSOCZANSKI: 4% years. MR. DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIP~AN: }irs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTEP~ANN: No, no question. CHAIP~AN: }{rs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Are you planning to put a fence around the pool? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: Yes, the pool would be fenced in. Well, the property, you've ,Not to fence the property, the }Jack around the side. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: When I visited the site there's a big rock. Is it a Ground pool? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: We discussed that already. The rock is Going out the opposite way towards the house. Mr. Kourkoumelis said they had that put there and with the % foot away we may ,Net passed that rock. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: The other thing I had to do with the prior appeal on this application. I don't know whether it ever occurred or not in 1993. Are you aware of that Mr. Cardinale? MR. CARDINALE: I was not. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Was to construct an open deck spa addition. CHAIP~AN: I think that's next door. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that's a couple of houses down. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: That's open. I just wondered if it changed names or what. The only other thing I wanted to know is the measurements to the bulkhead. It's kind of deceptive unless you actually visit the site and look at it. Measurements to the bulkhead is 3% or 34 feet to the outer edge of the CHAIP~AN: The first bulkhead. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: No, the third. CHAIP~AN: Well, I'm referring from the beach, is the first, you can refer to either. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: And the bulkhead width is a total of, is it 1E feet? Is that right? CHAIP~AN: You're talking about the width in between the bulkheads? Pa,Ne 4 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MEMBER TOROTPJ~: Yes. CHAIP~AN: % -1/E and 6 -1/E. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: It's 1E Seet right? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Yes, that's what I saw. CHAI P~AN: An!~[~or e questions? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: No. CHAIP~AN: }ir. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: NO. CHAI P~AN: there? There isn't any intention oS every enclosing this pool, is }iR. CARDINALE: No. CHAIP~AN: I don't have any Surther questions. We thank you very much, we'll see what develops throughout the hearinG. I don't know is we'll ,Net to this tonight or not. We're not Going to make a decision on the Sloor, at the Greatest amount it will be made on the E4th is it's not made tonight, April E4th. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in Savor oS this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? We thank you very much Sot coming in, we wish you a sase trip }Jack to your homes. I ' 11 make a motion closing the hearinG, reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second CHAIP~AN: All in Savor: MEMBERS: AYE. 6:%% P.M. - Appl. No. 4463 - L. SnTER d/b/a BLnEWATER SEAFOOD }iR. CHAI P~AN: Relies based upon the January 6, 1997 Action oS Disapproval by the Building Inspector. I have a copy oS a site plan dated 4/8/97 and a copy oS the SuSSolk County Tall }dap indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Would you }iR. EHLERS: Richard A. Ehlers, 4%6 GrissinG Avenue, Riverhead, N.Y. Sot }ir. Suter, Bluewater SeaSood. I have my assidavit s oS posting publication. That's single service. I just want to clear that up. That causes a lot oS conSusion. }ir. Suter has a permit Sot 60 seats, nnder the Health Department Guidelines he can't wash the dishes Sot those seats, so it's one service Srom each utensil, basically paper or plastic plates and Sorks and knives. So, the prime water Slows meet with their Pa,Ne % - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals requirements so they don't overburden the Ground water. CHAIP~AN: So, that's how you ,Net that phase? SinGle service? MR. EHLERS: It's single service, that's what we applied Sot. In the history oS the application Mr. Suter opened in 1981 with his sish market at that location and obtained a site plan approval. I'll make reSerence several times this evening to April 10th correspondence Srom the ~lanninG Board to this Board, where their unaware that they previously in 1981 approved his parking along the Sront oS this parcel and the site plan showed that. He operated the sea rood business Sot sometime as is cot[simon with many other sea rood businesses in the township, more particularly would be a Good example, the cooking oS sea rood and the preparation oS chowders and oyster pies and similarly to a take-out tpe oS business as ancillary or accessory to the primary seaSood use and as that use Grew Mr. Suter over the years installed some tents. In 1988 those tents were the subject oS request by the Building Department or I should say the Fire Marshal who were certisications Srom the contractor who put the tents up, The Mills Company, Jamie Mills in particular and he satissied the Fire Inspectors and we have a letter Srom them oS AuGust 3, 1988 that the tents are in order and there is no sire violations Srom your existence. MR. CHAIP~AN: Is this retardant material we're reSettinG to? MR. EHLERS: Correct. The tents are not Slat[sizable and they had to be a certain certisication which the tent manuSacturer supplied. Mr. Suter has maintained throughout that the tents be removable completely. IS you Go passed there now you'll see roughly sill stations in the area, the side yard variance which is, the sirst variance that we're seeking which is Sot 3-1/E instead oS the required 10 Seet where this tent is during the season. I think the season can be Generally stated as June, July, vicissitude oS lire on the North Fork, certainly causing to close earlier than you might want to. So, the sirst variance Sot that side yard, this structure is removed annually Sot the period oS time that I mentioned. Building Department, and in the interest oS some sought oS compromise with them, we agreed that we would accept Sot their desinition that there's a structure sussicient enough to require a variance Sot the side yard, even thou,Nh it is removed. IS you look at Mr. Suter's lot it's a narrow, longer lot, the original house was owned by Mr. Newell. Mr. Suter bought the house Srom Mr. Newell, renovated it to the sish market so the location oS the existing house in the natural progression out toward the western boundary oS these tents is what causes Mr. Suter to be in that side yard. The second issue Sot your consideration and perhaps the one that seems to spark a lot oS interest among the Planning Board, not your Board, but the Planning Board is the ors-site parkinG. Chapter 100-191 Subdivision I, provides that where a lot is divided by district boundaries which is the case oS Mr. BaGshaw's property, that's the old movie theater, and we talked about this the last time, and that was a parking lot. That parking lot section in }Jack oS the movie theater is in the residence zone and what we propose is to provide Sot the use oS what they call compatible parkinG, or I should say cor[~Jined spaces. On the Pa,Ne 6 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals theory that Mr. Suter ' s restaurant is a nighttime activity and the adjacent boat yard or other retail sales would be daytime activity and so duplicative parking is not required or necessary and thereSore we're asking your Board to utilize Subdivision G, Cor[~Jined Spaces, as well as the Capital I, which permits your Board, where a Residence District is on the premises split. I should say split up or with the approval oS the Board oS Appeals, parking can be installed in that area. So, as we add it to the spaces that were previously approved Sot the boat sales which I believe were 1E in the }Jack, one handicap in Sront. We brought E0 spaces down Sot an increase in 8 which encroaches into that residence area Sot which we need your approval. We posted }ir. Suter's property, we sent mailings to all the enjoining property owners at the suGGestion oS your clerk, quite properly to the enjoined property owner, }ir. BaGshaw as well, since it would be on his property the variance would be Granted. The correspondence Srom the Planning Board, I have pointed out that there is a valid site plan Sot Mr. Suter's lot, parking spaces that are shown on the Sront oS his parcel. What' s particularly troubling is what appears to be a threat to your Board and I hope that it's not interpreted as such by you, but the Planning Board states that is your Board Grants this variance they're Going to revoke the approvals that you ,Nave to Mr. BaGshaw at your last meeting and Sot the lire oS me I can't understand how one board would write to another board and say within your statutory authority to Grant relies Srom the Zoning Board Ordinance and other legal requirements, that is you do that they're Going to take retribution out on someone whose ,Not an approved plan. So, I hope that isn't what they're saying and I hope it doesn't cloud your decision, but we're certainly prepared to meet and deal with them as necessary. CHAIP~AN: That may be a Sactor that we may want to do or deal with beSore we conclude this portion oS the hearinG. We'll talk about that thou,Nh, you continue is you want. MR. EHLERS: At one point in the history oS this project there was concern Srom the Planning Board whether or not Mr. Suter had valid Health Department approval, the Board oS Review has Given him the 60 seats, he installed the septic system that was required oS that and he has now Sull approval Sot those 60 seats, so that's no longer an issue. We have supplied you with a letter Srom the attorneys Sot }ir. BaGshaw indicating that we have his approval to make this application and Mr. Bressler and }ir. BaGshaw are present tonight is you have any questions oS them. }ir. Suter is here, his most recent accomplishment was coaching one oS the Ol!~[~pic sailors. He' s up Srom Florida, specisically Sot this application. I mention that to indicate to you how important this is to him. He has a tenant Sot the property to utilize it this su~[~[~er so he can continue with the sailing instruction and obviously is the tenant Seels that parking is not Going to be available, the tenant is not Going to exercise the right to use the property and it will be another closed business. }ir. Suter told me that over the su~[~[~er we ' 11 employ approximate %0 part-time people and I said to him "Larry, that sounds like a large nur[~Jer. It doesn't look like such a big store." But, when he, explained to me, that many oS these people are college students that work Sot 1E - 1R hours to earn pocket money over the sur[s[[ertime you can see how a 7 day week operation would Generate a lot oS disserent employees. So there are many people in the cor[s[~unity that both enjoy Pa,Ne 7 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals the rood that is served there as well as the employees. I think the use is very compatible, both the east end, boats, Sish, seaSood, eating outside, I thought that was what the area was suppose to be about. Not pavinG, curbinG, drainage, and other structures. I can imagine well that I will Go eat some seaSood at Larrys at night, walk around and buy a boat Srom Red. That's just the natural thing people like to do in the eveninG. As a }Joy, we use to walk the docks at Claudio's and drool over the boats they had. We seem to have lost that and we lost some sense oS understanding that businesses that are adjacent to each other can be compatible and each one doesn't have to stand on its own like a kingdom on to itselS. That they can all be integrated. Will people park under and around and near the boats? Sure, will we have insurance in case a boat, you know in case some accident occurs? ~Jsolutely, accidents are always possible, but that's why you have insurance and it's part oS the enjo!~[~ent that you ,Net Srom having the opportunity to eat and view the boats at the same time. I'd be happy to have Mr. Suter answer any qusetions. CHAIP~AN: Well, lets jump right into it on the issue oS this letter that we received Srom the Planning Board and see where we're Going to Go on this. What is your ir[s[~ediate response? I know your ir[s[~ediate response, but, what action on you Going to take based upon this letter? }iR. EHLERS: Well, assuming that you agree with me that a variance under Section I and ,3 is appropriate and that the compatible parking as shown on the plan we submitted meets the parking requirements Srom }ir. Suter and are adequate Sot }ir. BaGshaw, because that's the two phases oS that and you Surther agree that under Section I, that the residence parkinG, that you Grant permission to park and encroach in that residence area, I think at that point the Planning Board has no Surther say about the legitimacy oS that parking arrangement and we did not upset }ir. HuGhes. We did not upset what has been already approved Sot }ir. HuGhes. }ir. HuGhes has parking shown in the business section, we've just extended it slightly down into the residence section. So, we've not disrupted his plan at all. In Sact, is anythinG, it's improved because it clearly designates the E4 Seet oS travel width, necessary Sot cars to ,Net around to the }Jack which the plan that the Planning Board hoisted which didn't even show how you would ,Net to those parking spaces. So, is anythinG, it's an improvement so I don't see why he should be penalized. Suter then has adequate parkinG, so parking is no longer a reason not to issue the building permit and Srom our stand point he's entitled to a building permit at that point. CHAIP~AN: I don't know is we exactly see it that way, but, I did call the Chairman oS the Planning Board today and I asked him exactly what caused him to write this letter or his ossice to write the letter. He said, that upon physical inspection that he was unhappy with the width oS the road Going in to the rear yard area which is basically the nature oS what we're discussinG. I don't think we talked about much else concerninG. I personally think it can be easily rectiSied, in my opinion and we do have an advantage although there is a substantial amount oS complexity to the April E4th hearing because it is the wrap-up oS the NYNEX Tower in Orient but, is we are not in agreement Sot wrapping it up tonight, I would hope that we could wrap it up on the E4th because I have sielded a substantial amount oS calls to my house concerning these Pa,Ne 8 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals applications along with a call Srom the tenant. I assured him I thought we could work this out and based upon our conversation at the last hearing we discussed with Mr. BaGshaw with his attorney, we discussed with you and said that certainly we would entertain this Section 191, at which we're doing right now. However, there is this concern with the Planning Board. I'm asking you in all sairness to try and work it out with them is you can and whatever is Going to make that palatable to them. I don't want them to withdraw, or basically deal with a site plan aspect Sot Michael HuGhes at the same time thereby holding that business in abeyance even though we've Given him the permit and the same situation having the problem with }ir. Suter's property openinG. I think their tar,Net date is }{ay 1st according to the tenant. I mean they may not open }{ay 1st but they'll be down there workinG. MR. EHLERS: Getting all your supplies and material. CHAIrmAN: RiGht. So, that's the }Jest I can do there. Now, on the aspect oS the sish market itselS, are the total areas within that tent area? Does that cor[~lies the entire 60 seats, or are there seats additional to that, Larry? MR. SnTER: I thought we countered them. I think there's about 8 tables outside the tent area. CHAIP~AN: Does that increase the seating about 60 then, or was does that do? MR. SnTER: No, no, the total is 60. CHAIP~AN: The total is 60. So, what's inside the tent area and what's outside the tent area. So, is it was raining out that would be the only time that the 60 seats, I mean then oS course you didn't have Sull occupancy. MR. SnTER: You probably couldn't ,Net all 60 inside, so you would lose some seats. CHAIP~AN: I have to be honest with you. OS all the years that you have been there you operated and its always been takeout Sot me I have never sat in the tented area. As you know, we had a minor little sire there last year and the Fire Department was down there. I did visualize the whole thing when it was totally operatinG, and I did notice the outside area, that's the purpose oS my question. Will start with this side. }ir. Doyen, any questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIrmAN: }{rs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTOP~: You talked about seating at night. You're not open during the day? MR. SnTER: There's the sish market that's open all day, during the daytime and there's very minimal lunch. There's really no white collar Pa,Ne 9 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals This is in Mattituck, so there's a minimal lunch business. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: About how many people do you serve Sot lunch? }iR. SnTER: I would say the maximum ever is E0 - E% lunches and that's over Srom 1E to %, over a % hour period. Basically the store is open and you're cooking soups and stuSS and you're preparing Sot dinner and someone comes in Sot lunch take-out or lunch. It's like a sish and chip. Last year I ran, I closed Sot lunch, because it just really wasn't sinancially Seasible. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: On the plan that you have just submitted, you're including a total oS how many parking spaces? MR. SnTER: I believe the total is 30 between the two places. I have 8 that was approved in 1981, EE on the BaGshaw side. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: There were 8 approved on the Blue Water site. }iR. SnTER: That's correct. MEMBER TORTOP~: 8 approved on that and how many then are you proposing on, it looks like - CHAIP~AN: I just counted 13, one side, so that's E6. MR. SnTER: E4 and E handicapped. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: E4 plus E handicapped. MR. EHLERS: That nur[~Jer is designed to meet the requirements oS all Mr. BaGshaw's properties. We believe this plan permits the Suture use oS the auto parts/movie theater buildinG, which the previous plan did not show any parkinG. IS you approve this, I don't think there'll be any need Sot Mr. BaGshaw to come }Jack to address the parking issue when he ,Nets the time Sot the other buildinG. So, the nu~[~Jer that drove that nu~[~Jer oS spaces is the potential use oS the BaGshaw parcel itselS, which is more than what Mr. Suter will require, but that's just as well because - MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Separate them by the HuGhes to the Suter to that and restate that please. MR. EHLERS: The nur[~Jer oS spaces required by the actual parcel which is the old movie theater and machine shop, we believe is E6, and that's the E6 that is shown on his site. We believe, that }ir. Suter, requires 30 spaces, 8 oS which he has on his site, EE OS which he will use on that compatibility. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: So, there's a total oS E6 Sot the HuGhes' site. MR. EHLERS: To the HuGhes, BaGshaw site. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: A total oS 30 Sot the Suter site. Pa,Ne 10 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board or Appeals CHAIP~AN: No, no, there's 8 on the Suter site. Correct me ir I'm wrong Mr. Ehlers. When you refer the word compatibility, you're referring to the word or being used I assur[[e on a concurrent basis? MR. EHLERS: Correct. CHAIP~AN: So, ir Mr. HuGhes has two patrons and he intends to be open passed %:00 o'clock, when the tenant or }ir. Suter really cranks up the business, then they will be utilizing two or those spaces and the remaining spaces will be then let out to Mr. Suter's property. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: So shared 34. MR. EHLERS: Shared be the word. CHAIP~AN: Shared, yes. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Question I have here is, correct me ir I'm wronG, but, when I saw the Planning Board approved rot Mr. HuGhes' parking plan, it didn't look like this. MR. EHLERS: It didn't look like this. This one is much prettier. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: It may be prettier, but it's not the same one. MR. EHLERS: I have Mr. HuGhes' plan here. In what respect do you reel a difference? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Well, see ir we can ,Net it and look at it. I believe at the time they had said, we have approved it. I just don't want to ,Net into a situation where we're infrinGinG on a plan that has been approved by another agency. The plan that they approved according to this, Mr. Ehlers, here, at least this is what we're Goner - CHAI P~AN: You're talking about the plan that the Planning Board approved? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: RiGht. The HuhGes' property doesn't show any parking }Jack here. MR. EHLERS: That's what we're asking you to do. Exactly that, is we're asking you to extend under your authority, under Section I, to extend the parking to the Residence Zone, to add sufficient spaces to occupy this building properly, which is }ir. BaGshaw's building as well as }ir. Suter's buildin,~. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Then, wouldn't it require authority from Mr. BaGshaw to revise this and wouldn't we have to have a revised hearing because in order to undo what the Planning Board has done, which is in essence what you're asking us to do? Ir we're to consider a new plan that is contrary to what the Planning Board already has approved, then we would have to have some sought or revised application from either from Mr. BaGshaw on behalf or }ir. HuGhes and }ir. Suter. Pa,Ne 11 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals CHAIP~AN: That's basically what I asked Mr. Ehlers to do and that is to rind out is they' re Going to approve this particular one or what other modisications they are Going to be required to want. MR. EHLERS: You're asking me to meet with the Planning Board? CHAIP~AN: Yes, I'm asking you to do that between now and the E4th. MR. EHLERS: I can't argue with that at all. I'd be happy to do that. But, I would like to say, they did not address the residence section because unless you Grant ils permission to have parking there, there may be no parking there. CHAIrmAN: But you ,Not to understand situation. We don't designate parkinG. you understand? that this is a real unbelievable We can only allow it to happen, MR. EHLERS: Well then, we'd be happy to have you allow it. CHAIP~AN: IS they say that they're happy with the E6 spaces, the E4 and E, in the conSormity that you have here, or any conSormity, as being the total amount oS spaces that are required in this consiGuration, then, we are then able and Sree and aware oS being able to Grant it. Without having that availability, we can Grant it, but it causes a mix-up between the Boards because we lack the jurisdiction oS the total amount oS spaces that are clearly needed. You have clearly told us that those are the spaces that you reel are needed by both. I can deal with the concurrent or the sharing or whatever. I can deal with that aspect oS it, but I can't deal with the Sact that they're telling us that they're not happy with the site plan. We've ,Not to know what revisions they want on the site plan beSore we can Grant the parking spaces a residential district under Section 191. MR. EHLERS: To put it on the table the real problem is that the Planning Board has a master plan Sot this area. Are you aware CHAIP~AN: Yes, I saw it. MR. EHLERS: They attempted to beat Mr. Suter into that in 1988, 1991 and while that had happened the beverage store added on, they converted a house to an oSSice, no site improvements, up and down the block everybody does and no site improvements and Mr. Suter is the only person that they keep trying to install this curbing and drainage and cutters in their Grand scheme. We will never agree to that as a practical matter. I'm happy to Go }Jack to them, but it's just unSortunate. I met with your clerk and with Mr. Kassner beSore I did this and I called your clerk to day just to consirm that I wasn't hallucinatinG. }ir. Kassner said, "Go to the Zoning Board, ,Net their blessing and bring it to us". I'm sitting Sat, dur[~J and happy on the Expressway, when I ,Net }Jack there's the letter and we're all opposed to it." I'm happy to Go }Jack. Mr. Suter told me he wants to legitimize this business. He's tired oS being picked on. I'll use that term careSully over the years. That's why we're here. Pa,Ne 1E - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals CHAIP~AN: I never did ask Larry this question, when he called me in two instances. I'll ask the question tonight. Is this one oS the reasons why you never really wanted to put on site parking on your own parcel? MR. EHLERS: He's reluctant to put on site in }Jack because he's ,Not a very nice oak tree there which he would like to leave. You know, next door has all this parkinG. It's just a big vacant area and it makes logical sense. He has cesspools }Jack there, one that the county made us like triple up the cesspools. Lord knows he won't have to pump them in this lisetime. We did everything we could. We put a meter on the toilet to show how many times it was Slushed in a day. I can't say we won't Go to the Planning Board, I just want you to be aware that is they come }Jack and say pull out the master plans, start talking about curbs and drainage street lights and trees and setbacks. I mean they want to take Larry's parking away in Sront oS his store and they want to take Mr. BaGshaw's parking away in Sront oS his store. Those are pre-existinG non- conSormities. CHAIP~AN: The only thing I don't have is a copy oS that 1981 so I'd appreciate that. The site plan approval that you were reSettinG to. Secondly, there's some question about, some backing up burrer in Sront oS Larry's building that was never placed in there, or somethinG. MR. EHLERS: That's the letter Srom 1981 Srom the Planning Board. CHAIP~AN: Now, this was only a sish store at that time? MR. EHLERS: Correct. CHAIP~AN: So that's how they're dealing with the aspect oS the expansion this now, is that correct? MR. EHLERS: This is the plan. The accessory tables, originally they were just outside picnic tables, they've been there a long time. It's when he decided to put the cover on it that they added that to his attention. In 1981, thin,Ns weren't as precise as they are today? CHAI P~AN: RiGht. MR. EHLERS: To }Jest oS my knowledge this documents that I'm Going to hand you is the site plan Sot 1981, which is essentially the same as what we show you today on Suter property. It shows that they approved the parking in the Sront with the enmity out and Srom a legal stand point, it's my position that he's vested in that parking and to now say that parking somehow is inadequate. CHAIP~AN: So, this is the route we're Going to be Going then so to speak and hopeSully we'll be able to deal with the whole aspect oS it on the E4th. I just want you to know that on the E4th this entire room is Going to be loaded with people. I can't Guaranty that a news crew isn't Going to be out here Srom News 1E and and the whole nine yards but it's one oS the advantages oS having two public meeting in one month and we don't know where you're Going to lie on the calendar so you're just Going to have to be - Pa,Ne 13 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We're Going to have to designate a time, probably 7:1%, we'll take him first. CHAI P~AN: Yes. MR. EHLERS: A procedural question and Mr. Bressler, we were asking you in }ir. Suter's application to say that the parking can occur in the residence district and my position is that that's properly before you to decide. Is that a fair statement. CHAIrmAN: That's correct, yes. MEMBER TORTOP~: The only thing I want to know, is that true on behalf of those parcels? SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is what true? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: I understand what you're saying is, yes, is it properly before us 191 reGardinG the residential property. You, represent Suter. My question, is how do we address Mr. HuGhes because we don't have an application from him for 100-191. MR. EHLERS: That's what I'm askinG. Have I perfected that. It's my position that it says I can be compatible on an adjacent property and with your permission I can have parking in a resident zone. If we need to crank up another application I don't want to learn that later on after time has passed so I'm hoping that your Board will accepts my position. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: I'm not sure of your question. I understand your question. I have the same question. I don't know personally the answer for that. CHAIrmAN: We still don't have the amended disapproval. MR. EHLERS: I wrote Mr. Fish, I called Mr. Fish. CHAIP~AN: Well, the way to deal with it hopefully is when you're over at the Planning Board, maybe you can stop in and see him and tell him you need it. In the interim we'll discuss it with the Town Attorney. When are we meeting with her? SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't know. CHAIrmAN: We'll set another date when we're meeting with her and we'll ask her to review it and see it we have to reopen the parking on the aspect of the tenant, but I don't think we do because I think the entire piece of property is one piece of property and who is Going to state if it's parked on residential or if it's parked on business. It's reversed, business or residential. MR. EHLERS: I agree with you. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was a Special Exception that we did for Mr. Pa,Ne 14 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals HuGhes. CHAIrmAN: I know but it was predicated upon a site plan by the Planning Board. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Planning Board not Zoning Board. CHAIP~AN: RiGht. You do understand what I'm saying about the parking issue? That as long as it's designated within a block area and there are certain designation oS parking spaces approved by those people over Tortora, then we can approve it. We cannot designate parkinG, we can approve parking that they say is appropriate Sot the site. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: We can approve this. In other words we can approve the space but not the nur[~Jer oS spots available. That's up to them. CHAIP~AN: So in other words is they wanted to dog leg to the east that's up to them. MR. EHLERS: Just to address that, that E76 SootaGe they raise in their letter. The quote talks about lots within E00 Seet within the lot line, not within E00 Seet oS the Sront door and I suGGest to you that the parking lot completely does not comply with E74 Seet because most oS the spaces are beyond E74 Seet Srom in Sront oS the store. So, that an absurd cot[silent that they make. CHAIP~AN: It's also one piece oS property owned by one owner, this particular piece. This piece is owned by one owner. I'm not talking MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Another option on that you know, would just be to amend Sot the next public hearinG, request to include }ir. HuGhes Sot the 100-191 on he~s Going to be using it in a cor[~Jined manner. the cor[~Jined parking to amend the variance the }Jack parcel since MR. EHLERS: Mr. HuGhes, we're not upsetting what he has in anp~ay. We're only Giving him more parkinG, so I don't understand how it could hurt }ir. HuGhes' application. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: I'm not saying it would hurt it, but is he is Going to use that we don't have an application beSore us. Not in our legal notice, nothing Sot him to use that, correct? SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's not the application here though, right? MR. EHLERS: RiGht, it's the site, the entire site requires that parkinG. CHAIP~AN: }{rs. Ostermann, question? MEMBER OSTEP~ANN: No questions. CHAIrmAN: Mr. Dinizio. Pa,Ne 1% - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Let me just see is I ,Not this clear. This particular map right here, really has no bearing other than you're su,N,NestinG to us in order Sot this use to be used, that you would like to have some parking spaces on this piece oS property which our code says, can occur. You're stating to us and you reel that you complied with the code, whether or not this site plan particular map has been riled with anybody, because we don't do parkinG, we just do the concept oS the amount oS space that it would require Sot parking and perhaps agree to the Sact that, yes these two business are somewhat compatible in that such as a movie theater would be with the shopping center, parking at night Sot the movie theater and the shopping center during the day. Ai[~ I correct in that? That this is not an application in anyway beSore the Planning Board right now? What you would like Sot us to do is to approve this, the concept. Then, you're Going to take this map and Go over to the Planning Board and try with our approvals on here to ,Net this particular site plan approved, am I correct? CHAIP~AN: Can I answer that question? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm asking him the question. CHAIP~AN: No, Jim, there's are two applications. beSore the Planning Board. There's also one MEMBER DINIZIO: But that's not beSore us. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Not Sot the Zoning Board. CHAI P~AN: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: RiGht, I'm saying this particular application right here beSore us with this map is what they would like to take down to the Planning Board Sot both the use oS these two particular parcels that you would like Sot us to consider. IS we rind Savorable you're Going to take this concept, Go down to the Planning Board and try to convince them that this is a Good concept Sot the rules that they have to Sollow. Ai[~ I correct? MR. EHLERS: Can't ,Net a Building Permit unless the Planning Board signs ors with either a waiver or a site plan. I think they' re unaware they have approved a prior site plan because their letter where they say I can't have the parking in Sront oS Mr. Suter's store leads me to believe they didn't look in their own rile. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but that's not Sot us. We don't have to worry about that. MR. EHLERS: You don't have to worry about that, Good. I think they' re Going to accept that parking is you say that we may have the parkinG. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm just concerned that Mr. HuGhes is draG,Ned into this particular hearing right now. MR. EHLERS: I'm not trying to draG,Ned Mr. HuGhes in this hearinG. Pa,Ne 16 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I don~t believe that he should be, that's basically what I'm trying to say right now. CHAIP~GLN: But the problem is, he is being draG,Ned in by the nature MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we'll read the memo when we Give it the due weight that we consider and then we Go on Srom there. We make a decision, yes or no based on that, but I just see us Going and dra,N,NinG the other Mr. BaGshaw's property into another application at this particular time is not something that is warranted. It's not part oS the application that's CHAIPSGLN: I understand what you're saying Jim. to take the wind out oS your sales beSore Mr. reSlect on any oS this. MR. EHLERS: Maybe, I don't understand, but is there are i% seats in here that Mr. HuGhes needs, and everybody agrees they're OK Sot Mr. HuGhes and then I bring in another 1% seats in and put them down, I don't understand why anybody is mad at Mr. HuGhes because there are more seats Sot him to use. We're not disruptinG. We took their plan where they put the parkinG, the Planning Department where they put the parking Sot Mr HuGhes and we tall SOr[[e more on the bottom in the residence Eone under Section I, which says you Solks can Give us permission to do that and we came to you to you to ask. So, I think I agree with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to be clear on that. I saw it Going in a way that I didn't consider right now. We should just be considering what than others and then Go Srom there. I don't want to see this thing Go to another application Sot somebody else at this particular time. CHAIPSGLN: So the nature basically is, that is Mr. HuGhes had to come }Jack Sot another application he would come }Jack separately and we'll deal with it on that basis. The only question I have is that is were to deal with this aspect as it sits beSore us now, the Planning Board would revoke the waiver oS Mr. HuGhes and that's what I'm concerned about because that puts us }Jack at square one. Eric would you just state your name Sot the record. MR. Bressler: Yes, I would like to speak to that is I could. I'm Eric J. Bressler, P.C., Sot the owner oS the property, Harvey BaGshaw Realty. I'm sitting here listening to the discussion and - CHAIPSGLN: I have to be honest with you. Sometime we ,Net a little wrapped-up with this stuSS. MR. BRESSLER: No, I don't think so, I think that the issues are being employed and I think that having employedall oS the issues we ,Not homed }Jack in on where we're Going here. I listened to what Mr. Dinizio said, I Sound myselS sitting there nodding my head. There's an application in Sront oS you Solks tonight Sot conceptual approval Sot }ir. Suter to Pa,Ne 17 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals utilize this orS-premises parking on a residential portion oS my client's property. I think that he's entitled to that relies and I think that is this Board Grants him that conceptual relies it is then his obligation and Mr. Ehlers has indicated that he Sulsill that obligation to Go down to the Planning Board and talk about where these spaces are Going to be and how many oS them there are Going to be. I must say speaking Sot }ir. BaGshaw to say that I'm outraged by the letter oS the Planning Board is a Gross understatement. How the Planning Board can threaten the applicant, Mr. BaGshaw, Mr. HuGhes and this Board with revoking a site plan because this Board Grants conceptual relies to someone who is entitled escapes me. LeGally, I must tell you, it' s my opinion it' s totally unsustainable. There is no concept oS law that I'm samiliar with that says because the Zoning Board Grants conceptual relies and nothing has yet occurred with the Planning Board has any right to revoke anybody's approval. I think that's just outrageous. CHAIP~AN: You're SorGettinG one issue. One major issue. That these two Boards have existed. Separate, but to,Nether on certain issues throughout the town. I don't want to bridge what has been built between the Boards over the past year. Conceptually as I said to you, all you Gentlemen, except Sot }ir. Suter, was not at the last hearinG, I would love to approve this tonight. I would love to deal with it tonight, but I don't want them revoking this man's site plan approval. MR. BRESSLER: And by doing so, the only thing you have sacilitated is a trip }Jack to their ossice. We can't, he can't even Go }Jack to their ossice unless you people conceptually approve the notion. They've as much said that, which is why this letter is so puzzlinG. CHAIP~AN: So, we'll Give you a straw vote and then Go }Jack to the ossice, we'll approve it on the E7th and that's it. That there is there philosophy that yes, we would approve it within Section 191 area, but we want them to tell us where they want it put and how many spots they want. MR. BRESSLER: I think that's not an unreasonable suGGestion. However, I do have pause Given what they told Mr. IGelias. However, we'll see. I think the applicant is entitled to it. Let me address one other issue. Everybody seems to be concerned about what's Going to happen to Red here. Well it seems to me that all we're asking Sot, all he's asking Sot and all that Mr. BaGshaw has agreed to do is to take that little parcel in the }Jack and add some additional parkinG. That doesn't impact him one way or another and I rind it oSSensive that another court should say, you know is he doesn't accor[s[~odate this Guy, we're Going to slam dunk him. I don't think he has to make an application. I don't think he has standing in Sront oS this Board to make an application. Nothing is happening to him. However, is this Board and to ,Net }Jack to a point }is. Tortora made, is this Board Seels that }ir. BaGshaw as owner oS the property ought to be saying or doing somethinG, either in conjunction with this application or a separate one we would be pleased to do that. It's not him, Red over there, it's us. We're the owner oS the property, it's our property in the }Jack that he has no rights to anp~ay, that is an issue here, so I just want to clarisy that. We're the interested party, he's the interested party and he is the unintended benesiciary oS the judicial parking but we don't be,NrudGe him that. OK, that's what I think you were Pa,Ne 18 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board or Appeals ,Netting at and I think you put your ringer on the problem, you just ,Not the identity wronG, it's us you want to hear from and I'm here telling you that we will do what we have to do to Give you jurisdiction over this issue so that you just don't say you can park orr site, you can say, you know, and you can do it on your property. CHAIP~AN: Would you concurrently discuss that with the Town Attorney as we will? }iR. BRESSLER: Or course. CHAIP~AN: AlriGht, so we will - MR. BRESSLER: I think procedurally that does it ir I had my wish list its what Mr. Dinizio said, however, we're willing to try it any way that will ,Net this deal done. I think in a perfect world, yeah, you Grant your approval, you send it down and say, OK folks where do you want the spaces, and ir they don't say yes, well, you know, but in light or the tactics enGaGed in, maybe your suGGestion is the better way to Go. We tried to do that, we met with Kassner. He's suppose to be here, he told MR. CHAIP~AN: I think what you need to do is just schedule rot their work session and say listen, ir you're unhappy with this, tell us the way you want it rewritten and we'll rewrite it, meaning you. MR. BRESSLER: I think at this juncture Mr. Chairman, ir we can take an interlude from the legal rationality }ir. BaGshaw here, will say some t h i n G · MR. CHAIP~AN: How are you Mr. BaGshaw? MR. BAGSHAW: Very Good. I'd just like to point out one factor here. My admission or the Planning Board, my previous tenants were more intensely than Mr. HuGhes and his boats. We had swir[s[~inG pools, bicycles sales, I think, approximately sill years and we never had a problem parking with Mr. Suter sharinG. We never had any arguments amongst ourselves, we never had endanger any pedestrians, we never had a traffic accident, we never had any problems in the sill years or this hi,Nh intensity use business at Mr. Suter. Ail we had was ten designated parking spaces in the front or the place and the empty lot in }Jack, no designation. Ten in front, his sill or eight, we never had a problem. Now, all or a sudden and I think it's because or the big plant, now all or a sudden, I need E6 parking spaces rot my two buildings. We never needed E6 since the movie theater went, now we do. I do not want to see him hurt by any or this Gestapo, John Gotti, intimidating remarks from this Planning Board and I don't want anything reflecting on }ir. HuGhes. As a matter or tact, I'm tired or it, I'm sick or it, and I'm not Going to stand rot this intimidation another second. I've fought it rot rive years and I'm done with it. Thank you. MR. CHAIP~AN: Thank you, Sir. OK, so that's where we are and we'll just ask ir anybody has any questions and we'll conclude the hearing and recess it until the E4th and hopefully that will be a quick easy Pa,Ne 19 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals situation and we'll wrap it up then. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 7:1% P.M.? CHAIP~AN: 7:1% P.M. is OK. }iR. BRESSLER: Can I just ask a question? I Guess I'm just assuming that you're Going to Go see the Town Attorney or whatever? CHAIP~AN: Eric is, you both will. }iR. BRESSLER: You're willing to take your chances on the application as it stands. As the evidence is submitted and you're willing to take a yes or a no from us on the concept of this on the basis of this matter and I correct? MEMBER DINIZIO: Correct. }iR. BRESSLER: OK, thank you. CHAIP~AN: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands, I very rarely do this but I will tell you that the use of }ir. BaGshaw's property is a use that even thou,Nh it is a use that has changed over the years, meaning the use of the tpes of buildings so on and so forth that I have no specific problem with entering into the residential portion of that piece of property for the use intended, as I told you Gentlemen last meetinG. I've known }ir. Suter for 3% years, I've known }ir. BaGshaw for 30 plus years, I've know Red HuGhes for 1% years. These are all upstanding Gentlemen as I told you. I have no objection. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you want to do a poll? CHAIP~AN: I don't want to force anybody into a poll. If anybody wants to offer their feelings or conceptually it is entirely up to them. Does anybody feel that they want to say anythinG, Jim? Do you have any objection to this? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not Going to state. CHAIP~AN: AlriGht, that's the }Jest I can do at this point. question in the }Jack there. Yes ma'am. There's a SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can we have your name please. }iS. MILLER: }dy name is Luck Miller and I live to the west of }ir. Suter's property. I wanted to know if that has been addressed? CHAIrmAN: We're still addressing it. MS. MILLER: Approved or disapproved. CHAIrmAN: We're still addressing it. Pa,Ne E0 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MS. MILLER: It hasn't been. CHAIP~AN: It has not been approved or disapproved. MS. MILLER: In this letter that I received it doesn't say how many Seet there is. It just says any sussicient side yard oS blank, less than the required ten Seet. CHAIP~AN: You're talking about on the sish market? MS. MILLER: Yes. CHAIP~AN: Or the restaurant? I have to ,Net the - MS. MILLER: No, its the tent. I had thought that that tent was approved by the town. Its been there now Sour or rive years. I'm just concerned Sot myselS because that's my property. CHAIP~AN: I have 3-1/E Seet. MS. MILLER: 3-1/E Seet and I was just concerned Sot myselS that is its not the required amount oS Seet, will it aSSect me when I want to sell that property? CHAI P~AN: Your piece? MS. MILLER: Yes. CHAIP~AN: I can' t answer that question. I could not answer that question. I think the issue basically beSore you is, its been Sot a long period oS time and its not something that has been established. MS. MILLER: Yeah, well I had thought that it was approved. I didn't know how many Seet it was Srom this. CHAIP~AN: From the legal notice? MS. MILLER: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: The word aSSect, it would not aSSect what you do on your property. IS she's asking will it change her side yards, we're not aSSectinG how big or small what you use your property Sot. CHAIP~AN: Thank you. AGain, not hearing any Surther cor[~[~ent, I make a motion recessing the hearing to 7:1% P.M. on April E4th. Second? MEMBER DINIZIO: I~11 second. CHAIP~AN: Ail in Savor? MEMBERS: Aye. 7:%7 P.M. App1. No. 4466 PETER WALKER Pa,Ne E1 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals CHAIP~AN: This is a request for a variance based upon the March 11, 1997 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to locate a large portion of accessory tennis court structure in an area other than the required rear yard. Article XXIII, Section 100-E31A. Location of Property, 37% Pine Tree Court, CutchoGue, NY., Parcel 1000- 98-1-7.17, containing a size of 79,13% sq. ft. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tall Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The tenant's court area is on a private road leading to Mr. Walker's house. We have been down there and had seen it. It's a 60 x 1E0 foot court and we welcome you here tonight Mr. Walker and anything you'd like to state for the record. MR. WALKER: I'd just like to say that I have with the court itself, it's basically the only place I could put it on the property, on the creek side in the front. The way I had it positioned catecornered you see on the drawing is the north and south exposure, so you can play tennis without being in the sun. The private road itself although it's %0 deep wide, only 1% or 16 feet of it is used, and as you can see on your diagram I drew that would leave from the corner of the tennis court to my closest neighbor's house 1E0 feet. The north side of it is 10 feet away from my other neighbor Phillips Marco, Patricia Marco and that's on vacant field, 100 feet to another parcel that is undeveloped. The only people that do come down that road are us. It's a private road of ingress and egress to the property itself so it wouldn't be seen by anybody but ourselves. CHAIP~AN: We address the height of the fence issue which is the height that is permitted within a front yard area which is 4 feet. Went there for the physical inspection and the only question I didn't ask you, are you entertaining any lightinG? MR. WALKER: No. Mr. Chairman: No lightinG, Great. We' 11 start with Mr. Doyen. Questions, }irs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: The only question I had that does appear to be the flattest area that you have and it also appears to be the largest area that you have, open area without disturbing any trees. CHAIP~AN: No, he took trees out. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Any further trees. MR. WALKER: Just for the record, the trees that I did take out would came out regardless of this. It ~ s a windbreak because our house faces not only Marco's field but off the Marco's field then you have Briarcliff Sod farm, so when it blows, we ,Net nailed. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Explain to us on which side would the fencing be? MR. WALKER: The fencing would be on both ends of the court, 4 feet, abutted by trees, landscaped to keep any of the balls I might hit,within the quarters. Pa,Ne EE - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MEMBER TORTOPJ~: OK. CHAIP~AN: }{rs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTEP~ANN: I have no questions. CHAIP~AN: OK. Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIP~AN: No, alriGht. Is there anybody while you're standing there Mr. Walker, is there anybody in the audience like to speak in Savor? Anybody like to speak against? We have a procedure in reSerence to a dealing with this aster the public portion oS the hearinG. You're welcome to stay or you're welcome to call us tomorrow. We sincerely hope that we will ,Net to this one tonight. MR. WALKER: I'll call tomorrow. CHAIP$~AN: We thank you very much Sot coming in and sase home. Hearing no Sur ther question I ' 11 make a motion reserving decision until later. Somebody second that. MEMBER OS TEP~ANN: Second. CHAIrmAN: All in Savor. MEMBERS: Aye. 8:04 P.M. - Appl. No. 4410 - CAROLINE TALBOT CHAIP~AN: This is request Sot a variance based upon the }{arch 4, 1997 Notice oS Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector Sot permission to construct and accessory storage building in a Sront yard area, at premises located at Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; Parcel 1000-9-1-E7, containing a lot size oS 18,%00+ sq. st. The nature oS this application is a 10 x 16 Soot storage building in the Sront yard area adjacent to Equesterian Avenue which is approximately 10 Seet Srom the property line adjacent to Equesterian Avenue. I have a copy oS the SuSSolk County Tall }{ap indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody here on behalS oS this? No, Mr. Doyen, is there something you'd like to add to the record since you are the most close related person Srom Fishers Island? MEMBER DOYEN: Other than your new procedure in the whatever you call it, has already been silled out with my remarks on it. IS you want me to read those OK. CHAIP~AN: Well, just paraphrase it. What would you like to tell us. MEMBER DOYEN: It's the most logical, practical phrase to put it, it doesn't interSere with anybody, visually or otherwise. Pa,Ne E3 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals CHAIP~AN: OK, I don't see any indication that they intend any utilities in this buildinG. MEMBER DOYEN: No, no utilities. CHAIrmAN: Is there an~Jody on the Board that would like to discuss anything on this application with Mr. Doyen? Seeing no hands, is there an~Jody in the audience would like to speak in favor? An~Jody like to speak against? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OS TEP~ANN: Second. MEMBERS: Aye. 8:06 P.M. - GARY SACKS and ALAN SCHLESINGER CHAIP~AN: Based upon the July 16, 1996, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, applicants request a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-E39.4B for a proposed deck addition within 7% feet of bulkhead, at 1E% Mesrobian Drive, Laurel; Parcel 1000-14%-4-7. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tall Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. We have seen you, have you come to some unanimity with the next door neighbor or agreement or a - MS. BORRELLI: Before we start, I have a question. Do you have sole control over decks? I mean this isn't shared with the Planning Board? No, OK. CHAIP~AN: My question is, you're not brin,NinG up the issue of parking are you? MS. BORRELLI: No, I don't want to Go through and find out who has control over the nur[~Jer of spots, no, I don't want to do that. You have the plan in front of you. It is essentially the same, my clients have talked to the next door neighbor. They have shook hands on an accor[s[~odation that they have made with one another which actually is a continuing acco~[~[~odation to the next door neighbor having put up the two car GaraGe and they didn't oppose and }Jack and forth. So, they've come to an accor[s[~odation. What the plan is essentially as it has was proposed I believe that the next door neighbor wrote a letter and said that he was withdrawing his opposition which I ,Not a copy CHAIrmAN: What's the date of that letter? MS. BORRELLI: It's very recent I think. CHAIrmAN: March 14th. We're either a 1E or a 1% foot deck. MS. BORRELLI: RiGht. Our deck as proposed was 1% feet. Its %0 feet from the bulkhead. The Board of Trustees has already Granted a waiver. It's 10 feet from the lot line. I think it is approximately E0 feet long at the most easterly side because it cuts off at at angle on both sides. Pa,Ne E4 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals I don't know what else I can tell you other than you have the plans. CHAIP~AN: What I was unable to calculate and maybe you can ,Net for me between now and the E4th is the height of the deck above Grade at the 1% feet from the house. MS. BORRELLI: The height of the deck above Grade. CHAIP~AN: Because the Grade slopes. You see we were talking when Mr. Villa was on the Board of a 7 os a 9, I calculated it under with one step coming off the Glass sliding doors, I calculated at 48 inches, but it's Going to be Greater than that, if the Board is Going to entertain a 1E os 1% foot deck. MS. BORRELLI: OK, Mr. Chairman you're have to Go slow because I'm not very Good with nur[~ers and second of all this kind of architectural stuff just me a little crazy. CHAIP~AN: Here's the house, here's the deck. here as she falls away. I want to know the height MS. BORRELLI: Over these, at the furthest point, as the Ground fall over these. I can ,Net that for you. I'm looking at the map that he was building and that doesn't Give you where it is where it falls away, but, I can ,Net that for you. CHAIrmAN: I hate to ,Net into this issue, but it does not appear we have any opposition. Are we still talking a trellis asea os we're not talking a trellis asea? MS. BORRELLI: What we were talking about was the deck as proposed with the railing Going around it with like columns but you know past of almost a continuation of the railing and then lattice Going across the top. That was the original proposal before the Board. Is that what you're addressinG? CHAIrmAN: That's what I'm referring to. particularly in favor of that. I don't know if I'm MS. BORRELLI: In favor of the lattice work? CHAIP~AN: Yes, because what happens is that then becomes roofinG. Not necessarily with your clients but subsequent owners, it becomes roofing and then it becomes another room and so on and so forth. You understand what I'm sayinG? MS. BORRELLI: Your talking about setting the Ground work for somebody else in the future asking you to add on to it. CHAIP~AN: Yes, I would like to see the deck and then if these was a need in the future for that. That can all be achieved by crank out awnings, it can be achieved by ur[~rellas so on and so forth. MS. BORRELLI: I talked to my client before about the lattice work Pa,Ne E% - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals the sun screening across the top and what he is primarily interested in is maintaining the columns at the end. He would be willing to SoreGo this provided he could do the outer structure on the perimeter so that it can be used Sot hanGinG plants and so Sorth. Then he has the columns that Go up in an outer perimeter like a Sramework Srom which you can do hanGinG plants is you wanted something like that but this he would Give CHAIP$~AN: Now, is this again Going through model? IS we had this standing at the end oS a deck, the columns at the end, are these columns then attached }Jack to the house on both ends? }iS. BORRELLI: This is }ir. SchlesinGer. Yes, (}dr. SchlesinGer) I would like that. That answers that question. Alan, would you like to do that? to do that. He would like to do CHAIP$~AN: For the record this is }ir. SchlesinGer. So you want to say something Sot the record? }iR. SCHLESINGER: You said something about the awninG. We did look into that a while ago and there's a problem because oS the winds coming ors oS the }Jay. They said it would just be ripped to shreds. That's part oS the reason we need something to ,Net out oS the sun and an awning doesn't do it. }iS. BORRELLI: You're talking about the columns Going ors Alan and those columns being connected and Going }Jack to the house? }iR. SCHLESINGER: Yes, I just a, blankinG, I Guess they'll be about so bi,N, they're between each column, designed wise to a - CHAIP~AN: A sun screen. MR. SCHLESINGER: No, just along the perimeter oS the columns. CHAIP~AN: The Sour corners. Three corners. Well two corners actually. Well its Sour corners when it's attached to the house, it's Sour corners. MR. SCHLESINGER: }{ore Sroma designed point oS view to tie it all up. CHAIP~AN: I was a little conSused because I thought the neighbor was upset with the Sact that their waterview was Going to be blocked and that was the reason why they were concerned and that was one oS the reasons why I thought we eliminated everything Srom the deck area up. You understand what I'm sayinG? MS. BORRELLI: I have to tell you Mr. Chairman, that it really has become very conSusinG to me as to exactly what the concerns were because I~ve had so many conversations and the concerns have changed. I mean at certain points we actually wound up talking about the air conditioner noise and the lights Srom outside, lights that have existed Sot ten years so, that is somewhat conSusinG. CHAIP~AN: Not that we deal with waterviews anp~ay, but Go ahead. Pa,Ne E6 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MS. BORRELLI: No, but he was worried about the waterview. However, I think the way the trees have been planted now and the way they will be Groomed in the Suture his waterview is not Going to be hindered Srom his deck which is what he was really interested in was Srom his }Jack deck. I do not think that his waterview will have a hinderance the way this is working out. As a matter oS Sact everybody seems to be enjoying some more privacy as which was one oS his concerns. OriGinally, it was that this was Going to be so close to the lot line that they would lose privacy and I think because oS the plantin,Ns that have been put in they actually have wound up with actually more privacy, both oS them on both sides oS the plantin,Ns than they had beSore. CHAIP~AN: AlriGht, so I'll deal with that aspect. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I just want to cot[silent about the trellis worked out. I'm not in so much in Savor oS it either. I just think we ever really dealt with that tpe oS thing Sot a deck. I just don't think that we ever dealt with that tpe oS architecture Sot a deck. MR. SCHLESINGER: Directly opposite a - CHAIP~AN: The JudGe's house? MR. SCHLESINGER: Yes. CHAIP~AN: You see the problem is, Mr. SchlesinGer, again, we Go, not necessarily you and your partner or your co-owner, it then creates a room aspect Sot some time in the Suture and not that you would enclose it or whatever the case might be and that's where the problem is. As you know the lots are undersized and so on and so Sorth. MS. BORRELLI: Wouldn't they have to come beSore you is they wanted to add a room on to the house? CHAIP~AN: These miraculously happen. MS. BORRELLI: Yes, miraculously happen without a CO means that you can't sell it in the Suture unless you're Going to tear it down again. So, I mean even thou,Nh you may be creating what somebody might think at some point in the Suture that they can use to build a room, is they build it, they' re building an illegal room Sot which they do not have a CO Sot which they cannot sell it is they Go to sell it. They've ,Not to either then legitimize it by coming to you or they've ,Not to take it down. MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm sought oS being punished Sot maybe that somebody might do in the Suture. CHAIP~AN: No, absolutely not. Mr. Dinizio is absolutely correct that we are just not use to Granting the trellis aSSect without actually seeing what it's suppose to look like. MR. SCHLESINGER: I mean it's not a trellis, nsually a trellis is a Pa,Ne E7 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board or Appeals crisscross. This is just straight slates and usually about so wide. CHAIP~AN: And you're talking about tilling that in on a you know, a 16 inch basis or an 18 inch basis Going down. }iR. SCHLESINGER: Going across. CHAIP~AN: Going across. Yes, basically they're tir[~Jers without a root. MR. SCHLESINGER: RiGht. ,let some shade without closing it orr. I don't want it to be a root. MS. BORRELLI: That's the whole idea, is conceptually is to have the open affect but to just have something from which you can Grow thin,Ns. I mean you can actually have vines ir you want, whatever, ir that's the point or you have some shading affect from it. CHAIP~AN: They do that on the south shore on the ocean side. MS. BORRELLI: Is that what they do. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just think or all the people that we've said could not have that. I think a deck is a deck and it's a place rot you to Go out and ,Net some sun and do those kind or thin,Ns. You know a lot or people come here and we tell them specifically that it's not to be enclosed, it's not suppose to be open to the sky, you know it's something that is out or the normal, you know you like in the Grey area as rat as I'm concerned. I wanted just to be fair with you that ir you have some other reason as to you could try to convince me that this is something other than you know a root. MS. BORRELLI: I think that the only thing we're trying to convince you or is that my clients rind it aesthetically pleasing and that the design that they have suits what they think or as what this decking area should look like. I mean we all want to enjoy the outdoors and we want to enjoy it in the manner in which we would like to enjoy it and other than that I can't do anything else to convince you. I can tell you that they have no intention or enclosing it. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not accusing anybody or that I'm just, I don't look into the future. We're looking at this particular deck right now, the design that you want. You've been honest enough to come to us with the design and tell us what you would like and you know I've been listening and considering and I suppose I could or just went inside or made the decision without you having any input. I just wanted to add to that it seems to me we don't normally ordinarily allow that. We think or a deck as having a 4 root rail and basically that's it. Anything above that to me is over and above what we normally Give rot a deck. MS. BORRELLI: I mean we're here at your discretion rot what you elect to Give us in this variance that is our preference and we are willing to cut }Jack the slats that Go all the way across and just do the perimeter. I mean would even rind that acceptable although that it's less acceptable to ils, but or course we will accept what you Give ils. Pa,Ne E8 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals CHAIP~AN: We do have an advertising problem, Carmela. MS. BORRELLI: An advertising problem. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, the application was Sot a deck. CHAIP~AN: The application was Sot the deck, not Sot the enclosure oS the deck, because that's really a quasi route tpe oS situation. So, what we have to do is we'll ask you to modisy the application, we'll readvertise it, but that entire area that's adjacent to the deck that basically ,Noes toward the south or toward the creek, does not appear to have been addressed in reSerence to an insuSSiciency to the bulkhead which is landward oS the planting area that's in Sront oS it. MS. BORRELLI: These are the steps that come down, right, and I believe that he measured the %0 Seet Srom here. So, we're talking about I think that's an old plan and I think the new plan is three steps, is I'm not mistaken. CHAIP~AN: OK, because the steps can't exceed 30 square Seet or less. They~ ve ,Not to be in, that ~ s the maximum. MS. BORRELLI: This is not part oS the proposal, this was potentially a Suture landscaping plan. In Sact, I was Going to ask you about that. Potentially, what is anything oS this would have to be here? But this is what is being proposed right now. Just the steps to it. I mean all oS position to be even thinking about Sot a long time. I mean we're talking long ran,Ne planning here. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: One question, is you can just sur[s[~arize Sot us again why it is that you can't ,Net the same benesit Srom just putting this addition where the existing patio is right now? MS. BORRELLI: We have a couple oS reasons Sot putting it where it is. The existing patio is on the sunny side oS the house. As Alan told you beSore they had actually looked into creating shade there by doing and/or installers that because oS the winds coming in ors the }Jay the awning would last about two years and they would have to start replacing because it would ,Net a rip here, and a rip there and so Sorth and that's just not economically Seasible. One oS the other reasons is, is that that portion ors the stone patio is the only part oS this lot that is sairly level, so that is you're Going to use it Sot any }Jack yard kind oS activities, is you have company, is you have sriends and you're ors the deck and ors the patio and you want to, I don't know what you do, I mean is you're playing badminton or what have you, or croquette, that's the only area that you can use because the part that where we're proposing with the deck as has been pointed out has a sairly severe slope. I mean, its even dissicult walking down that so you so you can't use it and then you're taking up with more deck area the only part oS usable part oS your }Jack yard or side yard. Pa,Ne E9 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals MEMBER TORTOPJ~: What I was actually talking about was using the existing patio. Because, you know, patio, deck, presumably you're Going to sit outside and you want to enjoy the water. An existing patio is certainly located within the water. MS. BORRELLI: Yes, and it's certainly advantageous Sot looking at the waterview. I think that what they want is additional decking space and this provides them Sot it. I mean it's just additional space. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Would you say that Sot the record please. MR. SCHLESINGER: It's too small here. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: It's too small and it's not practical. Tell me why it's not practical to expand it. MR. SCHLESINGER: It's just - MEMBER TORTOPJ~: You mentioned, you said an expansion would insrinGe on the level part oS the yard and that awnings were not practical because it was too windy, windy on that side oS the house. MS. BORRELLI: RiGht, and I think that those are sussicient reasons us to consider doing it the other way. sur[s[~er day it's scorching that day and there's no absolutely no place. CHAIP~AN: You mean the cement patio? MR. SCHLESINGER: Yes, so I personally, I wound up Going inside. CHAIP~AN: OK, Mr. Doyen, any questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIP~AN: OK, so in lieu oS chanGinG or modisyinG the application, why don't we just Go with what we have right now and then is there's sometime in the near Suture that you want to come with something else we'll deal with it. MS. BORELLIT: What you mean - CHAI P~AN: Open deck. MS. BORRELLI: Open deck. This is a suttle way oS ,Netting us to agree to not doing anything else. CHAIP~AN: No, this is a suttle way oS closing this hearing sinally. }iR. SCHLESINGER: I don't understand this Carmela. I'm not asking Sot a MEMBER TORTOPJ~: OK. MR. SCHLES INGER: On place to Go Sot shade, Pa,Ne 30 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals CHAIP~AN: Yeah, but she didn't, no, no, - MS. BORRELLI: No, the application asked for a deck. The design that came in asked for this additional stuff so that the advertising and the publications did not include that so that they would have to, we would have to start again, we'd have to revise the application, they would have to republish and we would have to come }Jack in front of them. That's the choice. Would the columns be OK? Is that part of a deck, just the CHAIP~AN: StraiGht columns, up on each corner? MS. BORRELLI: StraiGht columns up. OK, and that's part of - MR. SCHLESINGER: Without a permit? CHAIP~AN: Without a permit, right. MS. BORRELLI: OK, then we Go with that. CHAIP~AN: Yes, and you're Going to Give me a height figure, sometime, right? MS. BORRELLI: From the end of the 1% feet to - CHAIP~AN: Elevation, take a straight line with a level Going out and just measure it to the height. MR. SCHLESINGER: Do you need to know exactly, because I can tell you that I expect it to be something that I can maybe just ,Net under. CHAIP~AN: How tall are you? }iR. SCHLESINGER: %-7" CHAIP~AN: OK, that's about right. MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm talking from my head. MS. BORRELLI: Is that Good enough? CHAIP~AN: That's Good, yes, because I have 48 inches at nine foot. I think that's what Mr. Villa was talking at the time. Seven or nine, I MR. SCHLESINGER: This is what I'm expectinG. CHAIP~AN: RiGht, we just wanted to er[~Jody that within the decision. We didn't want some faulted thinG. Anybody else like to speak in favor or against. Hearing no further cot[silents I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OS TEP~ANN: Second. Pa,Ne 31 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board ot Appeals CHAIrmAN: All in tavor. MEMBERS: Aye 8:E6 P.M. - Appl. No. 4468 -}~ATTHEW AND LAnRIE DALY. This is a request tot a variance based upon the }{arch 17, 1997 Notice Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, tot a building permit to construct new inGround pool, which disapproval is based "...under Article III, Section 100-33, accessory buildings, structures and uses shall be located in the required rear yard..." Location ot Property: E%0% Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, Parcel 1000-11%-14-1E, containing a lot size CHAI P~AN: I have a copy ot a survey dated Decer[~er 30, 1993 trom Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., indicating a two story trame home, indicating a proposed renovated pool in the side yard area and I have a copy ot the Suttolk County Tall }{ap indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Please state your name tot the record. MR. DALY: }{at Daly. CHAIP~AN: OK, and what would you like to tell us. MR. DALY: In its simplest terms, we have an existing pool that has been there since I Guess around 1976 and what we propose to do is renovate the pool area because the existing pool has tallen into disrepair. CHAIP~AN: OK, and I assume that the Building Inspector disapproved you because it's in the side yard area and he said it has no more intrinsic worth or something in that nature probably. MR. DALY: Basically, I Guess its lived its lite. I want to put it out ot its misery. But, we want to renovate the existing pool in basically in the same area involving the same envelope. CHAIrmAN: The size ot the pool is? MR. DALY: The size ot the pool, the current pool or - CHAIP~AN: Or the one that you're intending to build. MR. DALY: E0 x 40. The existing pool is a little bit less. CHAIP~AN: And the total decking area around that will be what? MR. DALY: Around 1,000 sq. CHAIP~AN: And how wide would that be, % toot, 4 toot? MR. DALY: On one side the east side ot the pool would be 4 toot and the west side would be 4 toot up to 1E toot. It's Going to be like a rounded moon shape. Pa,Ne 3E - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board oS Appeals CHAI P~GLN: MR. DALY: CHAI P~GLN: composite? MR. DALY: CHAI P~GLN: MR. DALY: CHAI P~GLN: Is this like Ground level or is it Going to be a Ground level. Ground level. Is it Going to be wood or will be sun The actual deck? Yes. It's Going to be a stone deck. Now, the location oS this pool is approximately % teet ott the property line? }dR. DALY: CHAI P~GLN: that % to. }dR. DALY: That's what's showing here. The existing pool? Well, actually it shows % but it doesn't actually Give me what That may be to a deck area. To the }Jest oS my knowledge the edge oS the pool is 1% teet. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that trom the steps to be rounded? }iR. DALY: Oh! with the new - CHAIP~GLN: Proposal, why don't you measure it ~or us and Give MR. DALY: I think I can probably do that tot you. The new pool have steps on the shallow end and we'll try to mimic that look. Going to bow the other end oS it which is about 4 teet. CHAIPSGLN: So, it's Going to be 4 teet into that 1% teet area. talking 117 MR. DALY: Yes. CHAIPSGLN: Now, is this Gunite? MR. DALY: The new pool will be Gunite. CHAIPSGLN: So, it is a cement pool. So it's Going to be 11 tinished. shower end is Going to be on the east side? MR. DALY: The shower end will be the same side it is now. that's the west side. CHAIP~GLN: So, in e~ect where it's bowed there's not Going decking area around it is what you're telling me? MR. DALY: No. The I Guess to be any Pa,Ne 33 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board or Appeals CHAI P~AN: OK. MR. DALY: Actually on that end or the pool racing the east, that's Going to be the smallest part or the deck. That's very unusual. We would be happy just putting coping on the pool on that side and leave it at that. CHAIP~AN: We just have to ask these questions because we have to er[~ody it into a decision and that's the reason or else we end up calling you on the phone after and it doesn't make sense to do that. AlriGht, we'll start with }ir. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAI P~AN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Yes, I had asked ir you could provide distance from the edge or the deck to the end or the deck to the pool to try to determine how much is in the rear yard and how much is in the side yard because it looks like it is split in halt where the end or the deck is. MR. DALY. OK, I misinterpreted that question I Guess. What you're saying is how much the existing pool? MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Ir you draw a line straight through because your wire had said that the Building Department had determined that from the end or the existing deck. That that was the rear yard. So, ir you look at your survey and looking at it, it looks like halt or it is in the rear yard and halt or it is in the side yard. CHAI P~AN: Actually 40R. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: Yes, doesn't it, so I thought ir you could just Give us that figure. MR. DALY: I had that discussion with Gary Fish and we measured it orr at the time it was 10, a difference or 10 root. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that %0R. MEMBER TORTOPJ~: So, %0e, OK. MR. DALY: Ir I can just say one thinG. My reelings were, you know, the current pool has a CO, the deck has a CO, I don~t understand. I Guess my question that puzzled me earlier was why would we even have to be disapproved ir we just wanted to renovate an existing pool? CHAIP~AN: Because it lost its real, its value. Very rarely you'll see this application come before us rot houses or the same situation. The town has felt that the house is no longer a residential use. The same situation here, the pool has fallen to such disrepair that it has no value. So, we have to reinstitute the value. It just so happens that this value happens to be in the side yard area and that's the reason why you're here. I'm not speaking rot the Building Inspector but I assume Pa,Ne 34 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board ot Appeals that' what he's reterrinG to. MR. DALY: I think so. CHAIP~AN: }{rs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTEP~ANN: No questions. CHAI P~AN: MR. D I N I Z Illl ? MEMBER DINIZIO: And, certainly, it you are enlarGinG it also, which is another reason. I mean, it you had just pulled what you had to out, lett a hole and put new stutt in it might have been a ditterent determination. That's just an explanation. You're certainly entitled to do what you su,~Gest, but, there were reasons why. I know you had a CO, you had a CO tot what is it a 16 x 36 pool, now, it's Going to be a E0 x 40, so, there are some ditterences there. Its deal with the side yard, we have problems with side yards. MR. DALY: I understand, we tried to basically keep the shell ot that pool, the walls have to be pushed out in order to renew the pool. Its not really cost ettective tot us just start over and do a whole new pool. They're two completely ditterent processes. CHAIRMAN: OK, while you're standing there is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak against'? Anybody like to speak for'? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Motion seconded and ca~ied.