Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/20/2005 HEAR 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN O F S OUT H 0 L D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York October 20, 2005 9:00 a.m. Board Members Present : RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney OR Gll IAL' COURT REPORTING A_ND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 CHAIRWOMA~N OLIVA: I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of October 20, 2005 for the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to have a motion saying all our actions are Type 2 Actions, have no effect on the environment. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want to make the motion for Morse, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first public hearing is for Roberston on Marlene Lane in Mattituck. MR. ROBERTSON: I'm John Robertson, 1350 Marlene Lane, Mattituck. We're requesting a variance in order to put an addition on our home. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're having a problem with - MR. ROBERTSON: When we extend out the back, it overlaps the edge of the garage. The garage is no longer in the rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. It's now in the side yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, have any problem? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at all. CHAIRWOM/kN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, just to confirm it's a story and a half, like a cape? MR. ROBERTSON: It's going to be a two-story, because we have the existing floor, then we're going to put a second floor, it's only going to be two bedrooms upstairs. I guess when you mean a story and a half - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That this is what it's going to look like? MR. ROBERTSON: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This garage is going to be only partly in the side yard, correct? MR. ROBERTSON: Correct, it overlaps, it runs past the front of the garage, I think between six and a half feet, roughly around six. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it appears to be dictated by the small size of the lot? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 2% 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have two surveys. Which one is the actual survey? It looks like you're putting a porch? MR. ROBERTSON: No. We were extending out in the front, but it does not go the full length of the house. So it's actually an entranceway. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you just show me? MR. ROBERTSON: This was the original survey and they wanted us to put in where the addition was going to be. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that where you're putting on, this little 19 foot piece; is that there already? MR. ROBERTSON: No, we're putting this on in the front. It's only actually coming out 10 foot by 19. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just making a real entranceway or porch? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. The part where we have the problem is where it comes out in the back. That's drawn a little more correctly. It's 30 foot long. This is sectioned off -- right now the current part of the house has a bump out where the breakfast nook is. So it's the 11 plus the 19. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So this would be accurate? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. This is the most accurate. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're referring to Mr. Keller's map? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, ma'am. When I handed in the application they asked me to draw that part in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to be sure. I have no further questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? Is there any reason why this wasn't denied for total side yards? I think that has to be addressed in the hearing so this gentleman doesn't have to come back. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Total side yards? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Supposed to have 25, proposed 10.8 and 9.3. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It is. And they October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 refer to the deck as being accessory on the disapproval, and they mention in there that the proposed addition will diminish the size of the rear yard so they create a nonconformance for the existing garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garage would be an accessory anyway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know. I'm just saying if we incorporate that within the decision, this gentleman doesn't have to come back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll do that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you wouldn't mind, Jimmy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision for later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Mr. Anderson down on Love Lane in Mattituck about a roof. Good morning. MR. ANDERSON: Hi, Thomas Anderson, 1240 Love Lane. I got to reconstruct a roof and I would like to add dormers to it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You had a previous one though for the garage? MR. ANDERSON: That was the previous owner. I just bought this this year. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a nice location. MR. ANDERSON. Yes, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No objection as long as everything stays within the footprint. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a total demo; you're going to demolish the whole house and start all over? MR. ANDERSON: No. Just the roof, we're changing the configuration. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically a single story, and it will be a two-story house when you're done? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or a story and a half? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, a story and a half. No bedrooms, the basement it's a very small October 20, 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 house. It looks big on the picture, it's under 1,000 square feet. There's not a lot of storage and that old hip roof, no room in the basement, we just need more storage. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you are staying within the original footprint? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Essentially a replacement roof leaving room for a couple dormers, right? It's not even a half story. It's not residential living? HR. ANDERSON: No, it's not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something before he leaves? Because of the steepness of the roof that you're proposing, you need to put some type of dry wells in for whatever type of sophisticated leaders and gutters you intend to put on there, and I think that should be incorporated into the decision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You were doing that anyway? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We did that for the Trustees. We agreed on all that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You were doing that? MR. ANDERSON: With the Trustees. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It bubbles up in my back yard too. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Mr. Watroba at Pinewood Road in Cutchogue. Yes, sir, the house is kind of at an angle there? MR. WATROBA: Yes. I want to put another garage attached to the existing garage, and I'm not within the 35 feet of the property line, so I'm asking for a variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have two front yards? MR. WATROBA: Yes, I'm on the corner property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just want to add 5 October 20, 2005 6 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 onto the property for storage? MR. WATROBA: Add the garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No living space? MR. WATROBA: No, what I'm thinking about is putting a deck over it when it's done, just an addition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's a hole already dug there. That's where it's going to go? MR. WATROBA: Yes, how did you know that? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Saw it. MR. WATROBA: I didn't think I was going to get denied a permit, and I had to move a tree, so the guy was there already, so I told him to dig it. We could always fill it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not illegal to dig a hole in your lawn I suppose. HR. WATROBA: Just looks bad, so I need that garage in there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Looks like half your garage will be below the grade because I saw the topography of your yard. So we'll call it a single story garage. The drawing has a deck above it, which would be nice, add curb appeal to it. MR. WATROBA: I think we'll do that, right. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's personal preference. We don't want to tell you what to do, utilizing the space above because it's almost deck height. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Richard and Marie Schulken down on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Mattituck, Yes, sir. MR. SCHULKEN: My name is Richard Schulken, and I live at the house at 10435 Peconic Bay Boulevard. And we're looking for a variance to put a screened porch on the front of the house. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a porch? MR. SCHULKEN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house sits far, really pretty far back. MR. SCHULKEN: It's almost at the back of the property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. I was surprised. Jerry, you're the man of the hour. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I grew up of course on this block. I've known this house for many years, and I've known the Schulkens for many years. And they are basically incorporating a portion of their deck and actually incorporating it into their house as a screened-in porch. And I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One thing I wanted to ask you, part of your shower really extends over the line to your neighbor's property? MR. SCHULKEN: Correct, by one foot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So everybody's aware of it? MR. SCHULKEN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They're good neighbors. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wanted to point it out for the record. Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. It's going to continue to be a single-story residence? MR. SCHULKEN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the Rudience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Richard Kubiak, conversion of a portion of the existing open deck into an additional living room ~t Willow Point. Mr. Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. As you know, the variance was granted previously for the construction of the deck to a previous owner. Dr. Kubiak would like to add a portion or convert a portion of the deck to a living space as the previous variants indicated since the deck would October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 25 not be enclosed. So we're here te ask you change your mind about that. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Basically jest squaring off the house? HR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that that's right. C~AIRWOM/kN OLIVA: Because it's just a little corner you want to put the addition HR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: Actually, the feetprint's there already, you just want to enclose it? There's something there, you're just going te enclose it? HR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: I have no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD HEMBER SIHON: The relevant part ef the footprint was created when the deck was built, simply using that area as a way ef expanding the house without going beyond footprint. HR. FITZGERALD: The portion ef the deck, yes. BOARD HEHBER SIHON: It leeks like it would be an attractive addition, actually. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: And the deck that's seaward, the existing deck, that will stay open te the sky? HR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: And I guess it's a story and a half addition te match the e×isting house? MR. FITZGERALD: The existing house is two story, the ridge line will not change. Se the reef en this one's a slant. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes te comment on this application? If net, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Next application is for Pollie. Mrs. Moore? HS. HOORE: I'm ~ere with Hr. and Hrs. Pollio. The hearing started last I guess August and I just happened to have been here listening to the entire exchange, se it was nice te actually be October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 ahead of the game hearing the whole conversation from before. There were three issues I think that were in the Board's mind that we're going to address. The first issue is you had questions about ownership. I think that was addressed but I'll put it on the record, clarify, and I have Mr. and Mrs. Pollio here who are certainly more familiar than I with respect to the ownership issues. The second issue was environmental issues that were raised by the adjacent property owners and I think we can also establish that there are no environmental issues that this property would impact, or the renovation of this house and the relatively small addition would impacE. The third issue is the lot coverage issue and the Kimogenor PoiNt development; we are going to point out some facts that are already or should be known to this Board from prior applications, and we're going to ratify that information in this application as well. What I did was I have it as a memo for the file for you to follow, to use as part of the record. So, with your permission, I'll just present it at this point. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I was wondering if I could give a copy to Mr. and Mrs. Fenton? MS. MOORE: I don't have another copy. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You could give them mine. Linda. MS. MOORE: That would be fine, thank you, with respect to the ownership issue, as you know Kimogenor Point is a cooperative and Kimogenor Point is the owner of the land. The original development contained three parcels. One parcel has the Archer house, from a prior application you're familiar with the Archer house. I happened to have been the attorney on that so I too, am familiar with it. The Archer house has the clubhouse on it. Then there's Parcel 2 with five dwellings, and Parcel 3, which has the Pellio house and another cottage up by the road, and a garage for all the dwellings. The Town at one point or the other combined Parcels 2 and 3, so we are dealing with two separate tax map numbers. One of the issues Mr. Fenton raised was the notice, but we followed the notice specifically as October 20, 2005 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it set forth in the code, plus the fact that the 30 day statute of limitations has run. But nonetheless, the statute was followed. In this instance Mr. Pollio's parcel is an adjacent property owner to Fenton, and he was notified accordingly. The Pollio has a proprietary and perpetual lease. Specifically, Mrs. Pollio who is the title owner of the property, owns the building and improvements under the lease, and she owns the capital stock of the corporation, which owns the land. So there is a split between the structures and the stock ownership of the underlying land; that's the way the cooperative runs. In this application as well as I believe certainly applications I've been involved in with the past and all through time, the Zoning Board has been careful to get both the consent of Kimogenor Point as the cooperative as well as the individual property owners seeking to make modifications to the structure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: True. MS. MOORE: So that was all accomplished; it's all in your file, so there's no issue with respect to ownership. We deal with the environmental issues ~ext. In this instance, the Pollio case, which ms hhe relevant one before this Board, there is a conforming septic system that was installed in 2004. One of the allegations raised by Mr. Fenton is that there is detergents seeping into the bay. That is not true. The sanitary issues are issues that are addressed by the Health Department. To the extent that these cottages, in this instance Mr. Pollio has a full house. It was built as a year-round, insulated, air conditioning even at the time was quite a feat in the '40s, I think, when this house was built. It is 12 feet higher in elevation than the rest of Kimogenor Point. So the issues that we're dealing with today really are related to Pollio, but with respect to the sanitary system, the Pollio sanitary systems are conforming. There are no environmental issues that relate to that. As to the rest of the Kimogenor Point, it really is in the Town's best interest to see that these houses are renovated and are improved, because at each stage of the game as these houses are improved, the sanitary 10 October 20, 2005 11 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 issues are addressed and to the extent that any pre existing structures are renovated, and the Board sees this all the time with all kinds of renovations that are presently - I guess the time is now when homes are being renovated, that the sanitary and fire separation, all the safety issues that are in the code today are being applied to the renovation. So as a matter of policy, we should encourage the rehabilitation of these structures, the rest of Kimogenor Point. As to Pollios, they have a conforming structure. They have a conforming sanitary. And the issue with respect to the environmental impact of the sanitary is irrelevant here because of the conforming system. As I said before, the property is elevated 10 to 12 feet above the rest of the Kimogenor Point. In fact, this house is outside the flood zone, as was confirmed with these major floods that we had with the rain storms that we had a week ago, the Pollio house had no water in their basement -- I wish I could say the same for mine -- but certainly it was tested this past couple of weeks. So their property is probably as stable and as sturdy as they come. It's equivalent to any house, major year-round house in the town of Southold. As far as the history of the cottages, they were built between 1903 and 1905 and 40 years .later the Pollio house was built. So this house was built with more current standards, and like all homes after a certain period of time, they do need to be renovated, they do need to be improved, and the family's circumstances change. Everything needs a little sprucing up, and if we all could get plastic surgery and nip and tuck for our, you know we'd do it too - not me - with a house you bring it up to code. Again, this house is above the flood zone. It has heat, it has a basement and in some portions it has a crawl space, but for the most part it does have a basement. It is fully insulated. It has air conditioning, and that's how it was originally constructed. This house with respect to the open space =~nd the allocation of space of the land to the parcel, this particular house was built with the most open space around it. I called it it's October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 typical of the manor house in that it's the most imposing, largest, unlike the cottages, it was built later and it was a substantial structure existing today. Kimogenor Point does have public water, so again, environmental issues with respect to water quality are not relevant here. The homes are connected to the public water. There is no issue with respect to drainage of dry wells - excuse me, water runoff, there are dry wells; and, in fact, generally that's a condition of any of the permits that are ever issued near the water. This property has gotten COs all throughout its lifetime. There have been renovations and small additions and alterations and every, single step ~f the way the Pollio family and their predecessors did what they had to do. They got a building permit and they got a C of O, and I believe in your file there's a regular list of C of O's that have been issued. In fact, this renovation got a certificate of occupancy prior to this Board changing their policy with respect to structures like these. So they actually had a CO in hand. The family circumstance changed a bit, they decided not to build the plan that they had originally, and so they went in and went in for an updated CO. And at that time they were brought into this Board under today's interpretation. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You mean building permit? MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, building permit not a CO, I stand corrected. They've had CO's for all the other renovations. Again, the building permit was for a second floor addition and first floor renovation, and that is exactly what they're asking to do now. The plan will change slightly, but we will deal with the specifics with the Building Department. Our concern is making sure we have the authority to do it today. Pardon me, it's a first floor addition. There is no alteration to the second floor. The architect's here and if I have confused you on exactly what is being done, he's here to clarify. Finally, lot coverage. The lot coverage issue was addressed on the Archer application. We are so under lot coverage requirements that the Building Department didn't even think twice about 12 October 20, 2005 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. The existing surveys that they had and aerials clearly show that we are well under the 20 percent lot coverage. If we take the two properties that are in Kimogenor Point ownership with the cottages, with house, we're at seven percent - excuse me, 9.5 percent. If we take the Pollio property as a stand alone parcel, we're at 14 percent. That again, is so well under the 20 percent that it wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't know how you can make them a stand alone because it's one big piece. That's part of our reservations internally, side yards, that's our reservations on the next person with the side yards. Your client actually has the one of the few side yards. MS. MOORE: We are the only one that has a side yard because all the rest are internal. But that's something that the Building Department, because there are no side yards other than the parcels that are closest to the property line. If, in fact, there was an issue -- and in fact on the Pollio case we did do a survey of their house of the side yard setbacks in order to prove to the Building Department and prove it was your title survey as well, to make sure there wasn't an issue with respect to side yards. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How can you have side yard setbacks if you don't have a boundary? MS. MOORE: Side yard with respect to Fenton, that's the only side yard that's applicable. With respect to the internal development, I thought your issue was lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As a whole, that's what Mr. Goehringer - MS. MOORE: Right, Mr. Goehringer. It's riot before this Board. It wasn't an issue to the Building Department. Again, we are so under the lot coverage limitation that it really isn't an issue. In law school we call them red herrings, it's an issue that's not an issue. It distracts the Board. It's not relevant here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, just a minute. It was an issue that was brought up by ~ contiguous property owner, and that was the reason it was brought. Not only that, you have clearly stated to us that you did represent the October 20, 2005 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Archer house, you are now representing these very nice people as well as the Archers were. And now we are going through a building stage, as you can see when you go down there, and Mr. Fenton and I were just discussing that outside. There's a house elevated 18 feet in the air at this particular time. The place is going through a renaissance. So you are absolutely correct in saying that it would be better if it would go through a renaissance because of the updating of the sanitary systems, et cetera. But you have to have a building block somewhere. We're starting that process. These homes built in 1900, 1902, 1906, et cetera, have now been continually updated, and they will continue to be updated. The first one we had was at the time you worked for Rudy Brewer, if I'm not mistaken, and that was the first house as you come into Kimogenor Point, correct, where Jackson Street makes the bend. So from that particular point on, we now have a building situation. So the issue from a contiguous property owner is not really an unreasonable issue. I realize it was not an issue brought to bear by the Building Department MS. MOORE: And I think they were trying to answer that. The aerial photographs and the surveys from Van Tuyl from the original development answered that to a great extent. You have to understand that when Kimogenor Point as a corporation authorizes these cottages to be developed, they keep in mind many of the same issues that this Board would look at, which is scale, am I as owner as of cottage one, how am I impacting cottage 2; what is the fairness issue with respect to everybody's redevelopment of their cottage, you're not going to get a disproportionate share of the Kimogenor Point land, everything is controlled that way. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To use your term, red herring, I think the voluntary establishment of guidelines by the original corporation for the units within it is a red herring with respect to the legal issues that are involved at this hearing. MS. MOORE: At this hearing we're dealing with Pollio. There is not side yard setback. We're taking a structure that already has a footprint. We're expanding the footprint by October 20, 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 square feet. So again, remember that a survey for the entire Kimogenor Point property is not an insignificant process. So to the extent that it has not become a numbers crunching issue, you're very close to 20 percent, you're now asking to build a house that is disproportionate to a land area that your house presently occupies, we're going off on a tangent that I'm trying to focus back. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's what I'm suggesting, that that is a tangent te talk about what the original corporation did with regard ~e the arrangement of the houses within their overall internal plan. Let's go back. MS. HOORE: Se in any case you have the Archer application that had a let coverage review in a sense. Tom Samuels look an aerial, reek the surveys that he had from historical data and determined what the lot coverage was. This Board looked at it, thought, okay, reasonable, there's very little doubt, even if he's off by point something, we're close enough; we're not anywhere near the lot coverage issue. In this instance we are doing the same thing. You have in your file the Tom Samuels determination and Mr. Lenhert did his own review, came to very similar conclusions. Se that issue, I'm trying to pin down and hope that I've addressed it adequately for this Board so we can move on to the application and the request that's before this Beard. At this point, I am going te sit down and see what Mr. Fenton has te say, I'm sure he'll have plenty te say. Is there a question for either the architect er the Pellio family? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question for you, if it's okay. MS. MOORE: Okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think you even addressed the issue that Mr. Fenton brought up, which is the fact that you have eno lot with a uumber ef septic systems en it that can be ,expanded tea point that really ne ether let in town would be allowed to be expanded to. We're talking about the domino effect of each house being upgraded. Now, I saw the pictures that Hr. Fenton showed us, and quite honestly, a brand new septic system or a 100 year old septic system is going to do the exact same thing when it's 15 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 ¥ 7 10 11 12 13 14 16 ~7 2O 21 22 23 24 25 under that kind of water. MS. MOORE: With all due respect, those are issues that the Health Department addresses daily. So as far as this Board being concerned with the sanitary systems, I would respectfully say, that that's what they are there for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. It's not the sanitary system that I'm upset about, it's the increase in the amount of people that can be put on that piece of property by adding here or doing something there. MS. MOORE: I would disagree with you. The Pollio house that's the application that's before you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is one lot. MS. MOORE: You have 13, 14 however number of acres here. Pretend it's a condominium. We all understand condominiums better than we understand co-ops. A condominium has to follow design standards for their sanitary. The number of sanitary systems in an area, you're probably at half acre zoning, maybe a little more than half acre zoning if we were to do an allocation of square footage per lot area per overall land. So it is actually in conformity with the rest of that area which is pretty much the same way, BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Some of us do understand both co-ops and condominiums and the differences are important because the condominiums area separate property units owned by the occupant; this is a portion of one single property; and that is very different from the condominiums. And it's relatively different because what you do to one property is essentially doing something to the entire property because it is legally indivisible. MS. MOORE: I'm answering the question of sanitary. With respect to the sanitary systems for the individual units, what I'm trying to point out is in this instance, the Pollio case, you have a conforming system. So as to the Pollio application, we have conforming system that is not creating any problems for the Fenton property or to the environment as a whole other than standard sanitary issues that you and I existing in this community create, just normal, average, environmental issues. With respect to the other cottages, they over time, whether they actually 16 October 20, 2005 17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 had upgraded sanitary because it's feasible that cottages that were built in the early 1900s may have New sanitary systems by now. If they did, anybody who is putting in a sanitary would have a more conforming system, and as these systems are put in, if the DEC, the Trustees, they get into the picture and the sanitary systems, particularly now with public water, as the cottages are renovated, their sanitary systems, most likely, will be placed away from the water. So again, these environmental issues will be addressed through time and really through the permit process of renovation, because you and I both know if your sanitary system fails you can certainly go in and put it back in. But when you're doing a renovation, there are multiple agencies reviewing your placement of that sanitary. So you can't change what is already an existing situation. So if there is pollution there, it was there in the early 1900s and it will continue until these cottages are renovated and the situation is improved. I would say that Mr. Fenton, since he raised all these issues, he has serious problems ,~f his own. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He's not part of this application. MS. MOORE: I understand that, but you san't target Kimogenor Point and disregard everyone else. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not targeting Kimogenor Point. I'm looking at Kimogenor Point as one lot, and I'm sitting here month after month turning down people for decks and front porches for far less egregious reasons than this. And I'm wondering now what the cumulative effect of this is going to be. We do this all the time. We had how many applications before you come before us because a guy wants a five by five deck covered so he can make it livable space, and he's got to come before us. Now we're talking about how many houses on 14 acres. MS. MOORE: I can't presume what each of these cottages is going to be - BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you, we can't either. MS. MOORE: I can only deal with Pollio's application, and one application at a time. Archer, for example, did an application that you October 20, 2005 18 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 felt was reasonable and did not create environmental issues of great concern. Pollio has a better situation, a better example of compliance. I'm trying to point out that what he's asking for, he's not -- it's not an nnreasonable request. It's not asking you to do something that is really egregious. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, in all due respect, I understand your concern. I think this is something that should be brought to the association as a whole and should have meetings with the Health Department to sort out what they can do because a lot of these other cottages are very close to one another, and I'm sure that to upgrade their own septic systems they may have to come up with a whole different system. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not concerned about that, Ruth, I'm concerned increase in contents of Walz. I'm concerned with increasing nonconformity. Now, if they're nonconforming, which they are, by many houses on one lot - MS. MOORE: In the courts I would disagree with you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would love to see you do it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're three lots. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, it is part and parcel of how this Town looks at lots. And if you're increasing a nonconformity in any way, you need a variance. Now these people have relief. MS. MOORE: Let me point out that as of two years age he had a building permit for this ~dditien and there was ne nonconformity. You have actually had some cases where a second cottage on a structure, I think it's the Dawson case to be precise, the court said that you tried te shut it down because it was really a nuisance ef the neighborhood more than anything else. They said you have a C ef O for this structure; it's not a nonconforming use. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not talking about a nonconforming use, I'm talking about the structures. MS. MOORE: But the structure has no setback issues that are nonconforming. I understand your rationale where you have a nonconforming structure and now you're expanding a October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nonconforming structure because of setbacks. We have no lot coverage. Your determination of nonconformity is the use here. And I don't want to go there because we've said, okay, fine, why should we argue that point because that can be a very complicated point and discussion for this Board, fine we won't argue the point of whether or not it's nonconforming a use or not requiring us to be here. We'll take the position to say we won't argue that point, we reserve that argument. To say we are not nonconforming and that the interpretation is not accurate but we'll reserve it for another day. I don't believe -- this application is really relatively straightforward, simple. It's building up without asking for very much. As I said, we have a conforming sanitary and we have COs for absolutely everything that is existing today. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm grappling with this because what you just said, it can't be if you read the notice of disapproval. MS. MOORE: But they're following a notice of disapproval based on Walz. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which this Board every month - MS. MOORE: But whether or not Walz was right or wrong I won't go into. And I know that Board members agree or disagree with the {nterpretation of Walz. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's not based on Walz. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But this isn't based on Walz. It's based on 100-31 (a), not Walz, which is a use. In other words, you can't expand, erect, alter, arrange, intend, design, use, all of that stuff, one family dwelling if you exceed more than one house on a lot. It's a use. MS. MOORE: I understand what the Building Department - I think the Building Department got there because of interpretations that came through the Zoning Board. Because otherwise you wouldn't have been able to get the building permit two years ago. So we're kind of -- it's a circular argument. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not circular. Whatever the Building Department did two years ago is not totally determinative with what we decide today with regard to what is going on. I would 19 October 20, 2005 2O 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 ask you, given that this is one lot with a lot of dwellings on it, could it be treated as if it were one house, one lot, one building with one single owner? With all of those buildings because from the law of co-ops that's the way it works. And it would be as though Mr. Pollio owned all the houses in that particular lot and not just his particular segment, and was asking to do what it is he wanted to do with one of the buildings on that lot. So I think that's the question that has to be addressed rather than trying to segment off his particular portion of that multi-house lot. MS. MOORE: No, I disagree with you. Because let's assume that we take that as one owner, and Mr. Pollio comes in and owns a large 30 acre parcel that has multiple structures on it, and he's coming in to make an alteration on one structure, you're telling me that without upgrading every other structure on that property, you can't get that permit? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not saying anything like that. What I'm saying the consequences, the effects of the alteration of one structure can only be judged in consideration of all of the others; and there you have to take into account the incremental effect of the entire lot because when one changes, the whole lot changes. MS. MOORE: You have a house here with the number of bedrooms that it has, the living house that it has; I believe, Mr. Lenhert, can you address to the Board what portion of this renovation -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't think that's relevant. MS. MOORE: But you have an existing situation with an existing family that occupies the space whether it's this way or altered, so the impact on the overall property is - BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How much of an increase is there over the whole lot when one house is expanded? MS. MOORE: I think you have a square footage request. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, Jim, can we see if there is anyone else that would like to comment on this application? Mr. Pollio, did you want to say something? MR. POLLIO: Yes, I do. Good morning, October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 everybody. I understand your concerns. I'm Ben Pollie, by the way, my wife Nancy owns the house. We have been there since 1982 it's a little touch of paradise for ns and our kids, many ef them have grown there. It is part efa development, yen're right, and yen're partially right when you say we should consider the whole thing, but remember a ce ep lease is also a perpetual lease and a proprietary lease and they call it a proprietary lease because it means ownership. As a matter ef fact, the way the leases are drawn, each owner owns the individual hense. And that is sort of a dichotomy. The house is owned by the owner but the property is owned by the ce-op. We are concerned. I've heard yen have raised many, many, many issues. We have discussed it at Himogener Point also. Yes, we are concerned about plot use. I think Pat just told yen that there is a nine percent overall plot use. We're talking about a 20 percent plot use, se we're well within that margin of 20 percent. You talked about the sanitary system. You know I'm awed by this sanitary system. I guess I'm unfamiliar with all the sanitary systems. But when it went in, I call it two rooms and a bath, they're so huge. We went down almost 14 feet, and we didn't hit water. We're 12 or 14 feet over all of the other houses in Kimogenor Point. So your comments about the water, you said you saw the pictures, well, that's fine but none of those pictures included our house because we're right up on a hill right alongside of the fence. We have a basement, we have had 59 years of no water in the basement. We have crawl space that's four feet high. Se I think the two major issues, one environmental and the ether of plot size, really have been responded to. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't look at all the ether sanitary systems, and we're doing that, each house at a time. Pat said it very appropriately, each time they come here they have get te comply with the requirements ef the Beard of Health, the Health Department. You can't ask me te have 12 er 14 houses te comply for sanitary systems. It's net my business. Plus, these houses have become very expensive new. They're en the water. It's a ~ouch ef paradise. And I think all we're asking 21 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for is something relatively simple. It's an extension of the first floor because we want a family room. So that's our request. Nancy and I feel that it's somewhat unfair -- I'm a little nervous now because you have raised so many issues and it's so personal, and the issues that Mr. Fenton raised are somewhat personal and that's a difficult thing for us, and that's the reason we asked Pat to represent us here. But I think, look, when we came in in '82, we asked for a CO and we got one. There was probably one in '46. In '84 we got one for a deck. I think in '87 we got one for a second floor renovation. Each time we did something we got a CO. This house is 40 years younger than all the other houses on Kimogenor Point. There's a difference, there's a major difference. Nancy, would you like to say something? MRS. POLLIO: We do love it and it is originally a screened-in porch that we want to make somewhat larger and close it in so that we have a TV room for our grandchildren. And they're not always there together. We hopefully someday to retire there because we do love it very much. And as Ben said, it's our little piece of paradise. And we do respect our neighbor's privacy. We're quiet people, we're not rowdy or anything. And we're just hoping that we could make our living space a little more unique, and as I said, a TV room for our grandchildren, which would be right off the kitchen so we can keep an eye on everything. And that's what it boils down to. There was a bathroom there and we're just going to update the bathroom and that's it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Pollio, said you purchased that house in 19827 MN. POLLIO: '82. And that's really all kt is, it's an extension between partially enclosed and partially screened-in porch. And it is an extension of the kitchen as Nancy said, we do have grandchildren, we don't have a family room. And it gets a little hectic, particularly when I want to watch the 6:00 news with a lot of grandchildren running around. In fact, the last time out there was a thumping noise on the floor and I turned around and I saw little Brendan McGaily, one of my grandchildren, and he's only 22 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 five you would think he was 200 pounds, he's about this big, but he walks somewhat heavily, so people cannot use our living room - adults cannot use our living room without running interference with the young kids. So we wanted this separate room. But you know, so just to go back. I read the minutes of the last meeting, I was a little surprised by some of the comments by our neighbor, but there were three issues raised, and I think Pat covered those issues. The ownership, i think she addressed that. The coverage issue, we're talking about it's 20 percent and Pat just told you it's nine percent. As far as sanitary, I can't deal with the sanitary systems of everyone else. When Bill Archer came in here, he put his own sanitary system; it's a brand new system. I put mine in, but I'm up on the hill. I never get flooded. I'm out of the hazard zone. I'm not in the picture that you mentioned. So it's very, very different and I ask you to consider that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else hhat wishes to speak on this application? Hr. Fenton? MR. FENTON: I'm the neighber, Jeseph Fenton. You were kind enough last time te give me more time than I was entitled to, se I den't want to take up much time now. I just want to point out a ceuple things. Hrs. Meere's letter says that I had raised an issue of ceverage, I didn't. I think someone en the Beard did. And I think it was appropriate because it is ene lot or ene company that ewns the property, and I felt that it sheuld be leeked at in its entirety rather than allowing you to get picked apart one at a time, which is what has been happening and is likely to continue te be happening. And there sheuld be an overall plan, an everall view ef this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hr. Fenten, I want to interject that what we've done is when Mr. Pellie or Mr. Archer come in for an application for Kimegenor Point, it must be a co-application with the whole beard ef the asseciation. Se therefore, ene cannot start something witheut everybedy else knewing what they are deing. HR. FENTON: I understand that. The other point I would like to make is this suhmissien is not a survey, and you certainly can accept it for whatever it is. I think the concept that I had 23 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 because I'm a bay person and that's why I raise the issue, and I think there seems to be some acceptance of that concept by members of this Board, is what I would like you people to concentrate on, that this is one co-op, it's not a condominium, it's not owned by the individuals; it's owned by Kimogenor Point Company. And the attempt to portray it as each person's house is misleading. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Hr. Penten. Hr. Pellio? MR. POLLIO: It's net misleading, I resent that. It's a ce-up, we've always said it's a co op. You know what a co-up is, it's an accident of procedure that it's a ce-op. I wasn't there in 1905 when they organized it. It's probably the first co-op in New York state. I don't think they opted under the co-op laws, in other words you can elect te be governed by the co op board. It's just a procedural accident. It's a matter ef form not substance. We could easily reincerperate and de it under a condo status; we could divide the lines as you have said. I think you do have te treat it as a whole and as separate properties. Te the extent of dealing as a whole, sure you have te apply that 20 percent rule, and you did. And I think, as I said, Pat responded te that. with respect te sanitary systems, those are things that are concentrated and under the jurisdiction of the Board ef Health, you know that, we all knew that. The Board ef Health has te approve, they have their rules. Archer, I understand, is putting in four cesspool runoffs. I only had te put two in because I'm up so high. I'm at the same height as Mr. Fenten just about. Se there's no issue with respect to my runoff. And I think the pictures that are shown I think misrepresent because they're 10 er 12 feet below where our house is. Our house is 40 years younger, as I said, se those three issues I believe have been addressed. The fact that it's a co-op, if that's your objection, we could easily change it to condo. We could divide let lines, there's ne question about it. You should be looking at beth, the whole and the parts. And just one more thing, our architect is here, Rob, what was the percentage en the whole let? MR. LENHERT: 9.5. 24 October 20, 2005 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 MR. POLLIO: He did a computer study of an aerial survey and that's the percentage, 9.5 you're looking for 20. Where do we go on that issue? Where do we go on the Board of Health issue? I have two rooms and a bath downstairs as I say, they're huge. I could never imagine the family using all that space up. That's what I have it's a conforming. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Pollio, how do you distinguish internal property lines? Like you're planting your mums in the fall, how far do you go toward your neighbor? MR. POLLIO: There's a natural boundary line that everybody's aware of and everybody respects. When we did the leases over I took a pass at discussing a separate line, it got very complicated. We all respect the natural lines. Everybody knows where their line is and everybody discusses. It's a wonderful, wonderful environment. It's fantastic. So some of those things, the complexity of lines are at issue. But when you have two houses that are 60 or 80 feet apart, and it's open, there's all grass, there's no trespassing. That's another thing, we don't have fencing, we don't have bushes, we have no line separation. The parties that own those houses relate to one another very closely, and there's no impingement. We don't walk on each other's property anymore. We used to 30 years ago, we don't do it anymore. The leases say that the property consists of the adjoining property that is consistent with the house. So the leases don't have an actual line. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you have invisible lines that everybody respects. MR. POLLIO: Invisible but discernable, they may be invisible but they're the half way mark. And that, by the way, was used by the Board of Health when they put the cesspools in. Our cesspool went in on the other side. It's away from the property line from my adjoining neighbor. We're very different. We have five or six COs. We are not a grandfathered nonconforming use. We are very much a conforming use. That's what's so perplexing to Nancy and I because each time we do something, even decks, we come in and ask for it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Fenton, you wanted to add something? 25 October 20, 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 MRS. FENTON: I have never spoken before. Having lived next door to the Pollios, and we are not en the same level, the Pellios are beneath us. And I just wanted you because I don't know whether you have come and looked at property, but we are above the Pollies; they are beneath us. Our hedge is planted along the line. It's been there for a long time and the hedge is quite low when you come to the Pellios' area. Se he's not en the same level. That's a correction. HR. POLLIO: That's correct. It's about a l!eot and a half er two feet, but we're still two feet over. HR. FENTON: Four and a half feet. MR. POLLIO: It's hard to say because it slopes. You'd have to have a topographical map. We slope up te their property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's close. I would like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mr. Paul Maleney down on Goose Creek Lane. Is Hr. Malone here? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Mr. Herd is the builder, Hr. Herd did submit the map. The Board had asked him te make it either eight feet or 10 feet. The old plan was proposing a 20 foot setback. He's new proposing 31 and 27. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's wonderful. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's good. We did ask him te move it back. I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is Hr. DeMaggie for a single side yard setback en Smith Road in Peconic. MR. DEHAGGIO: We have a very small house en Smith Road on a fair sized lot. The house unfortunately is very close te the property line on the left side, only about three feet. The house has been there for, I think, about 75 years, I'm not quite sure. But what we want te do is convert a very aged screened-in perch te mere of a sort ef family room/dining room because that's the 26 October 20, 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 only place in the house where you could actually sit down and have a meal. Make it closed in, make it a little bit larger. And because the house is only three feet away, it's about seven inches short of a 10 foot setback. So I've been told that we need to come in and ask for a variance for that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The proposed addition would be about 9'3" back? MR. DEMAGGIO: Right, instead of 10, that one corner. And the neighbor on that side has ~ctually sent in a letter saying they have no like opposition to the structure or something that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I saw the site, you'll be building on the existing, I guess you poured a footing, a slab, and I believe if your house was built parallel to the property line, you wouldn't be here today for the extra nine inches. I don't have a problem with it, good luck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. DeMaggio, this is my file to write the decision on. The house itself is relatively low. The addition will be not any higher than the normal ridge of the house? MR. DEMAGGIO: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And this will be heated? MR. DEMAGGIO: No, it will not be heated. The house is a summer home, the house is not heated. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Mr. Kropp, Riley Avenue in Mattituck. HR. STROMSKI: My name is Robert Stromski, I'm serving as architect for my client General Anthony Kropp and Joan Kropp. We are in the 27 October 20, 2005 28 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 process of looking for side yard setbacks for two existing accessory structures and a proposed addition on the existing home. I have, for the record, the affidavit of posting and second affidavit of mailing due to the change from the original meeting, we sent out the certified mailings again (handing). These are the cards from the first mailing that were returned. These are the receipts and the cards for the second mailing. And unfortunately I wasn't able to get this notarized. For the record, I'd like to state that the affidavit of posting, I did the original posting and General Kropp actually was the individual that changed the date on the poster showing today's date, so just want to clarify that for the record. We also at this point would like to submit a letter of one of the surrounding property owners, a Mr. June McGowan, who would like to bring in a letter stating that they have no opposition to the variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. GENERAL KROPP: And I'd like to add that my other neighbor, John Kurbs, on the other side, I've gotten a letter from him also. I just recently underwent an operation, I'm more concerned with getting my pain pill today then bringing my letter. So I just called John, he's probably going to fax a letter in the next half hour or so. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. GENERAL KROPP: Se it will be both ketters. HR. STROMSKI: From the legal notice, I just want to clarify the situation with the accessory sheds, the larger shed, which is more south, my client has in our letter that we gave to you about two years ago started to do some structural repair on the shed, and in 2003 was when he found that when he started te work en it, he ended up he had te do more work than he initially intended. He intended te just replace the roof and siding. When he started working en it, he found that there was structural damage, so he started te repair that. He was issued a step work order in 2003. At that time he filed a building permit, was given a denial due te the setback variance, and unfortunately at the time October 20, 2005 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that this was all going around there were certain things in General Kropp's service to the country where he was involved in things overseas, so pretty much the project stopped at that point that's why from the first stop work order, there's such a long time frame to actually starting this going on. At that point I was also in discussions with my client about doing a possible addition to the house. When finally it became time that General Kropp and Joan had the time to actually sit down and begin the design on the house, it was decided that we would go for the variances for everything, the existing sheds and the additions to the house. So at this point the application is to pretty much do the structural repair on the existing shed. Much of the existing exterior walls are going to remain intact from the existing shed with the event of the new roof is actually being framed on it. That was where most of the structural damage was and one of the walls, so that is what's happening with the larger shed. The smaller shed, our client was with the possibility of when the addition is done to the house, the smaller shed has somewhat of a gambrel roof, and they would like to change it to a reverse gable with a shed dormer to kind of keep in character with the shape and the aesthetic of the home with the new addition and with the existing shed. With the house, they're looking to do a one-story addition towards the rear and also a second floor, a master suite for themselves. Their intention is to retire from their residence in Huntington and move out here permanently, so that's why the addition is of a larger scale as it is. Also the reason we have the variance for the house is of the proposed attached garage. Due to the layout of the existing home and the desire to keep the existing front porch, it facilitated the attached garage to be towards the side of the house, which brought it closer te the property line. As stated in the application, many of the let areas in this neighborhood are fairly narrow, there are some houses within the area that are fairly close to the lot line, I wouldn't know the October 20, 2005 3O 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 exact measurement but I would be safe to say it was within four or five feet in certain homes in the area, so we feel that by granting this variance, we wouldn't necessarily start to create precedent or definitely change the character of the home. One of the things I think helps this application is the addition is fairly - is far back to the road. Some of the other homes are closer to the street and it's definitely much more visible from the street as to how close they are being this parcel and the residence being further back from the street, we didn't feel it was going to make any adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. GENERAL KROPP: The neighbor who it directly affects, the HcGewans, their house is much further forward, this would be further back, so there's ne structure that's really adjacent to Choir structure, their house or anything. There's a reasonable amount of substantial space between where the garage would end and their house, due te the different setbacks on both homes. MR. STROMSKI: Also, at this point with the other agencies, we have received a permit from the Board of Trustees; we are also in the process of getting our approval from the New York State DEC, so pretty much as far as with the other agencies, we seem to be in compliance. The Health Department made a recommendation along with the DEC that the sanitary system be moved up to the £ront of the property. So on that end, most of the other agencies are pretty much in favor in their jurisdiction, which leaves the variance. If there's any other questions that the Board may ]lave, I would be happy to answer them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason you can't move both those sheds a little further away from the edge of the property? MR. STROMSKI: Being that we have an ~xisting concrete slab and foundation, it just becomes somewhat costly to move them. GENERAL KROPP: The existing shed, the larger shed has probably been there since the '30s or '40s, and it was really structurally unsound. Even the joists in the roof were spaced 24 inches en center, with nendimensienal lumber. Se the reef was collapsing in. So all I wasn't changing October 20, 2005 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the footprint or anything, I just wanted to re-have what I have. It's probably been there at least 60, 70 years. The other one I don't need to touch. I don't have a strong desire to change the roofline per se. That one again, I'm just going to be putting siding on and new shingle tiles to match the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question or two. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to, General, I have to tell you that I grew up on James Creek and it's a place that's extremely akin to me, and John's house next door is an area we spent a lot of time in. There's no doubt that what you're saying is absolutely is correct. I think one of the concerns I have is basically water runoff to your neighbors. So the issue of those sheds, and I have to tell you I forget if the larger of the two if the ridge line runs east to west or north to south; if the ridge line runs north to south, that's where the concern is because the water runoff is on your neighbor's property. If the ridge line runs on both of those from east to west, which I think it does on the smaller shed, from what I remember -- GENERAL KROPP: I believe by the drawing they're going to run east-west anyway, in addition, we're going to put dry wells at the end of each downspout gutter. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But with the issue of having a one foot setback with the larger shed, the issue of water runoff is of concern to me, I don't know how the Board is. So those are the issues that are at hand. GENERAL KROPP: Again, it's as built. It's been there for 60, 70 years. It's never been ~n issue of concern. In fact, that building never had down spouts or gutters on it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but that's just an issue we're concerned with. GENERAL KROPP: Well, it appears to me that's an issue that's going to be resolved by putting dry wells, there wouldn't be any runoff then. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, you wanted te say something? BOARD HEMBER SIMON: Yes. The larger October 20, 2005 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 shed, the one to the rear, is in, as we have said, very poor shape, so poor that it looks as though it's a candidate for demolition, to be replaced by a newer, more spiffy shed. And if that were the case, I predict that this Board would say this had to be farther away from the neighbor's property. It's hard to see that there is a very good reason for approving the continuation of this non-conforming setback given the extent of the work that needs to be done to that shed, and it looks almost as though that if it weren't for the fact that it were that close, you wouldn't even be talking about retaining some of the side walls. It looks as though this is a demo job, and that it could be done farther away from the boundary. Partly for the reason we worry about the runoff, but I think just for the idea of being that close to the property where it doesn't seem to be the necessity except for this decrepit pre-existing old structure. MR. STROMSKI: ultimately this is where the Board's decision would come into play. As stated, being that there is a footing, an existing slab there, the existing walls are being maintained to a certain extent, and to move a foundation for the size of shed and the cost that it would take is somewhat - GENERAL KROPP: And the property is only about 50 feet wide back there, and, in fact, again, if I was just trying to rehab the existing building, I could have put siding on it, and so forth and so on, correct, that would have been a non-issue, if I was just trying to make that a safer structure would I still need a permit to just make it a stable building? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pretty much, General. GENERAL KROPP: It's been there for 60, 70 years, and it's never been an issue? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. GENERAL KROPP: So I could have left it the way it was, and make it look very unappealing towards the neighborhood, and have a structure there that's unsafe if I wanted to keep it? I certainly don't want te narrow the backyard. There's ne other structure back there in the first place. Again, from the McGewans' it's 150 feet from my neighbor's yard, they don't October 20, 2005 33 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 have a concern with it. I think certainly the runoff issue can be resolved and the foundation is there, and I believe the contractor, unless I've been misled, he left enough of the structure up there, as I understand, that it's not considered new construction or whatever, I'm rehabbing the existing building that I thought could be grandfathered. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you, General, there's no doubt that with the letter from the McGowans that there's not a particular issue of great concern on their part. Now we get to the nitty-gritty of the zoning of one to five feet in reference to a setback. GENERAL KROPP: It's been there, it's been approved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember that this is a democratic organization, it requires three votes out of the five, that's all I'm going to say at this particular point. If you're telling me that in the rehab of this building that you will have no water runoff, that the back of this building that faces the Mcgowans' property will be flat so there is a straight one foot all the way up, no overhangs that protrude into the McGowans' property, then I don't have a particular issue, knowing this property as I do. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Here's a diagram of the elevation for the roof. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. We're concerned about water runoff, and that's the reason I asked which way the ridge lines were running so that way we know which way the water is running. Of course, we know that it's a downgrade at the same time at this particular point. So we're trying to just assemble some information so we understand the situation. GENERAL KROPP: I have never appeared before the ZBA. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. And that's basically the situation, and we realize that at this particular time you're probably not feeling the best you should be feeling. So we're here very simply to gather information. MR. STROMSKI: Just to answer your question. What the drawings do show is your is somewhat of an eve overhang, we could reduce that October 20, 2005 34 2 3 6 ? $ ~0 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 to actually have no overhang on the westerly side, closer to the neighbor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what it should be. GENERAL KROPP: I'll take a chainsaw and cut that off. MR. STROMSKI: So there will be no overhang there. And what we will propose is due to the comments from the Board of Trustees, they require that dry wells be put on the main structure; what we could do to facilitate the question of runoff is we could pipe and put gutters on the accessory sheds, and pipe them to additional dry wells in between the two sheds. So at least at that point there would be no runoff from the roof that would either go onto the ground and potentially go on to the neighbor or at any point there, so we think that will be contained runoff from the roof, if that is a concern. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember, Hr. Stromski, we had over 12 and a half inches of rain over the eight days. That's a main issue. It's always been an issue, and it will always be an issue of concern of runoff on neighbor's property, not necessarily on this piece but on any piece where you get any type of structure close to a particular property. The other issue I just want to mention and that is the addition to the house, which includes the garage at 4.4 feet to the property line. Having been a chairperson with this Board for some 21 years, and I have great feeling for the present chairperson, I am of great concern about the closing of any other side yard. So if this Board is so inclined to grant that variance on that particular side, the side yard on the opposite side, which is, of course, north probably northeast as the direction goes, it is very important for me in voting on this application, for that side yard to remain open, which is that 20 foot side yard. MR. STROMSKI: Ab this point the addition isn't encroaching any further than the existing house. The only additions other than that is just taking the house and extending it towards the rear. The only thing that's going on that area in the rear is a small bay, which is still within the furthest east portion of the house. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm saying by the construction of the garage, which is attached to the house, you're taking a 12 and five, which is a 17.2 setback and reducing that to 4.4 at its narrowest point. What I'm saying to you is that I want the side yard, if I'm voting on this application, never to be touched on the opposite because we need it for fire and emergency were purposes, and that's my reason for it, whatever other Board member's reasons are, it's up to them to make that statement. GENERAL KROPP: I definitely want that open. I have no intentions of adding anything to the other side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just for the record, the existing larger garage/shed is a single story, stays single story? GENERAL KROPP: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The small shed the And the new proposed garage is a single same. story? MR. STROMSKI: The garage itself, yes, a single story. The second story addition on the house is further back and that is basically only over the existing footprint. Because I couldn't find, I didn't want to ruffle through the papers, {~he larger garage you're putting dormers on that or just a regular hipped roof? MR. STROMSKI: The proposed, the larger dormer, this is pretty much rebuilding the existing shed as it stood before with a single reverse gable. The smaller shed, which is pretty much, there was a desire to possibly change that i. nstead of a gambrel just do a reverse gable, with two shed dormers out of the height of which would not change. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The ridge would stay the same? MR. STROMSKI: Primarily stay the same. And te clarify, the garage and the fact ef hhe single story, pretty much what we have here is this is the two-story addition on the house over the existing footprint. The garage itself is only a one story, which is fairly low due to the slope of the reef, se it's not like a 12 on 12 roof pitch where the ridge would be very high along that eno story. It is somewhat low to try and 35 October 20, 2005 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 keep some sort of respect towards neighboring properties not to have a massive 12-12 roof pitch. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The other two existing sheds, no bathrooms, running water? MR. STROMSKI: No. Pretty much they're used for storage, boat storage, storage of watercraft, furniture. There is no provision for any plumbing at one point -- GENERAL KROPP: No water, no heat. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have slabs there ~low? MR. STROMSKI: They are existing, yes. The footprint ef the slab will net be changed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, de you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ne questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we can't come to an agreement, that shed, that garage, the bigger one, it has like a little indentation in it, leeks like maybe three feet off the property line. GENERAL KROPP: I think someone many, many years age maybe even lived in there. Because when I bought it in '84, there was linoleum tile and so forth back in there. And that was where a fireplace was, and that was the chimney set in that little niche. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just asking, would you be adverse, I'm just asking this question, if we cut that building back to that point? I mean, you would still be able te build on the existing garage; you wouldn't be able to go elose to whatever that point happens to be. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Another, what, three feet? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can say what you want to say. GENERAL KROPP: It's certainly better than moving the entire structure 10 feet out in the middle of the yard. So if that's the option I'm given by the Board, then I certainly would follow that recommendation, not that I would encourage you to give me that recommendation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I want to hear. If you're going to be upset about it - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He's smiling, Jim. GENERAL KROPP: I'm not used to testifying under such smiley faces. October 20, 2005 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If not, the only reason for not moving the shed is you would like to maintain your undiminished view? So the elimination of the side closer to the -- of a section closer to the boundary would net interfere with maintaining your view. GENERAL KROPP: Correct. Because it's net on the S N. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't mind moving that wall if you had to? GENEP~AL KROPP: If we had to. Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, I'm slot for that, because we are horse traders. You've get a lot of give-and-take here. GENERAL KROPP: I'm net used tea lot of give and take, the democratic way ef conducting business, I guess. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're a military m a n ? GENERAL KROPP: That's correct. MR~ STROMSKI: At this point we have a letter from Mr~ Kurbs, as another letter ef support. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The letter from Mr. McGowan states you request no new construction no closer than four feet to the established property line, no removal of trees and shrubs. He did mention in his letter the existing sheds. GENERAL KROPP: Just concern was the garage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI about the garage addition to GENERAL KROPP: That BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI for the new, the You're talking the house? s correct. Was there any laention of the sheds, the sheds were okay, less than four feet? GENERAL KROPP: Only new. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I were being reconstructed? BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: are existing. GENERAL KROPP: Those two buildings have been there longer than, be the same as the McGowans have been there. MR. STROMSKI: As it was presented by General Kropp to his neighbors that the intention was the sheds were just going to be a rehabilitation, not new construction. So under thought the sheds The foundations October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the letter the pretense of new construction is only dealing with the attached garage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience wishes to comment on this application? You would be then content to make your garage 15 feet instead of the 18.27 GENERAL KROPP: If that's what the :[imensions work out to be. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd feel a little bit better with that. Then I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is tot Paul and Linda Zeneski on Jasmine Lane in Southold about a garage. Hi, how are you today? MR. WIDNER: Hi, how are you. My name is Michael Widner. I'm going to do the addition for the Zeneskis. I have never been to one of these hearings. I don't know what's expected of me. I know the problem with it was I guess the setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Part of the garage is in the side yard instead of the rear yard. That's the way the lot probably and the house are configured. MR. WIDNER: Right. The way the house is on the property doesn't really lend itself. They want a two car garage to go side by side, traditional two car garage would take up too much room, that's why they wanted it front to back. I don't know, again, like I said, what happens from this hearing. If there's not anyone in opposition does that mean we can go ahead with it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have to vote on it and that will probably be next week. How high is this garage going to be to the ridge? MR. WIDNER: I believe 18 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it's just going to be used for storage? No water back there for a shower or anything else? MR. WIDNER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for a garage and storage? MR. WIDNER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jerry? I don't have any 38 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 objection te it. The concer~ is when a garage gets this size, we put normal restrictions en it that it only be used for accessory purposes. HR. WIDNER: Basically there's cars not too much in the way for storage because there's ne attic, we were going te go with a steeper pitch, but realized it's more efa pain te de that, se we came down really enough room to get two cars in. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How long, this garage is going to be 32 feet in length? MR. WIDNER: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Why is it going to be that long? MR. WIDNER: It's because the cars would pull in front to back, not side to side. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Isn't it though you're planning to put bulldozers and such? MR. WIDNER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no objection to this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Alfred and Mary Knapp on Soundview Avenue, Peconic, for a carport. MR. KELLER: Good morning, my name is Steven Keller. I am the architect for A1 and Mary Knapp, and I am here to present their variance case. First I would like to submit the certificates of mailing. I guess first I would like to start by asking any of the Board Members if they had the opportunity to go out to visit the site? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. KELLER: Because I think it's important to recognize that this property, although there's a house on it, is completely surrounded by woods, not only the physical property that by owner has owned but also the ~djacent properties, and what we have here is a situation where they would like to propose a carport in the exact same location that the cars 39 October 20, 2005 40 2 3 4 5 6 ? $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of course parked on this property, I guess since the construction of the existing house. They're looking to do a very low impact approach because they want to maintain the natural beauty of the site. They really don't wish to change the configuration of how you drive onto the property. So the concept was to stake out the spot where the cars have been parking and to design a structure that is very reminiscent of a state park lean-to that would have less of an impact than a formal garage structure. In doing so, we would like to maintain the dirt/gravel drive that comes into the site and also keep that as the ground floor for the carport. Proposing a minimum foundation structure, which I don't know if you have the plans in front of you, if you don't I would be happy to present to the Board, to keep it as minimalist as possible. And the concrete would be surrounded by loose laid stones. The roof slope would be fairly low to the ground. It does raise up a little bit in the center and that was a gesture to match the existing entrance canopy onto the house. Is there any questions from the Board? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. These people own another house on that road, right? MR. KELLER: They own the property across the street, yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, just comments. Very tastefully done. I hate to see all the trees come down for this. It kind of matches the architecture of the house, very Adirondack looZing. I think kudos to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Like anything, although they're surrounded by a lot of woods, it is going to -- and some of my colleagues may disagree -- cause a precedent by placing this in the front yard area. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But it's not enclosed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But have you simulated this ena system that we can look at ef October 20, 2005 41 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 what it would actually look like? MR. KELLER: I do have some two dimensional drawings that I would be happy to present you to this morning. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would just like to look at it; that doesn't mean I'm adverse ho the project in any way. MR. KELLER: We have all four sides that open to the air, just the roof structure. There's a slight slope that we are going to very minimally notch-in to try to maintain this low profile. The concrete is going to be surrounded by naturally loose laid stone. And it's going to be sort of a timber-like construction reminiscent to a park lean-to that you might come across in a state park. You can see the footings only touch base in four locations. There will be no concrete slab, just a gravel base. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pervious base. So, Jerry, to make that argument for someone else who may want to build a three-car garage in the front, has an impervious surface, open to three sides, no electricity. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Similar to what we did on Rachel's Lane. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pretty unique. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do realize that your play house is sticking onto your neighbor's property? MR. KELLER: I spoke to him about that, and he informed me his children are now teenagers, he'd be more than happy to remove the structure. He was unaware of the fact that it was not built on his property. He had hired a company, and I suspect because of the skewed property angles that the company made an assumption that was incorrect. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Your neighbor was the one that built it? MR. KELLER: I believe the Knapps built it which ended up not being on their property. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Yes, okay. I don't have any questions. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is October 20, 2005 1 2 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 for the Monacos up on Aquaview Lane in East Marion. Hello again. MR. MONACO: Andrew Monaco. The Town has I believe the first affidavit of mailings and the second affidavit from the postponement that the letters were sent out. I have two out of three returns (handing). When I originally applied for a permit for the deck to the Building Department, we had shown it on the easterly -- northeasterly side of the property. And then when sitting down with my surveyor, even though it would be aesthetically and also keep us away from the woods and the bugs and the ticks and all the location where we first proposed location one, would have been more ideal for us in looking at the proximity by taking this and moving it over to the east rather than keeping it to the west, even though it reduces the size of the deck by 35, 40 square feet approximately, we just felt that even from our standpoint, it would probably be a better location. And that proposal looked at number two, over deck number one. And as I pointed out, we had some estimates come in for people who built patios on there, and we have % unique situation in that we have water coming the topo of the property, we have to keep the water away naturally from the foundation and naturally from the buffer zone. I don't know if it was the Trustees or the Town engineers, but they asked us to pull the rear of the house to slope from an easterly to a westerly direction and then we installed a very large drain on the westerly section of the house so that all the water would run that way. By putting in a patio, what we're going to do is disrupt that water from coming down and going into that drain and divert it to the coastal erosion zone and then against my house. And that is basically why we're here. To he able to get your permission to install a deck off the ground; and also, you know, it's really becoming a problem and you walk around the backyard and especially with the proximity, we have deer living in that coastal erosion zone, if you walk around you get ticks on you. We would !~eel more comfortable to being off the ground when kt comes to eating or sitting out there on any type of brick or deck on grade. There's also cesspools there, drainage pipes that run under 42 October 20, 2005 43 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 there and that would be another problem as far as building brick and actually getting te the system if we have to, where with a deck we can pull off boards if we have to there. The deck was also designed that also the septic tank, we made it small enough that we would have access te that Beard ef Health cover that's in the tank that has te be en grade according to the Board ef Health. That's basically about it, I guess. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question, Ruth? The deck will be of a type that water will diffuse through it? MR. MONACO: Yes, sir, that was my next point. HOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: What erosion control measures are you going te make underneath the deck se that the water, whichever way it runs, will he slewed down? MR. MONACO: We would put gravel under there. I mean, I have to say other than a leak in the chimney, which that caused a lot of damage in the last seven days, and I didn't notice it until Saturday when we came out because that wind comes pretty loud, we had some water damage coming down the chimney, but the point I'm getting at is the erosion was almost absolutely nil. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good. MR. MONACO: At all, I mean I had put hay all along Rocky Point Road so that when the water came down, I never expected anything like this, but that it wouldn't go into the Town drain and it did go down into my drain. So I was very, very surprised at how little erosion there was there. But in answer to your question, I will put a pea gravel or something down under that, also to keep the vegetation down and the bugs out from under the deck. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just for the record, there is required 100 foot setback from the bluff, so you're asking for a significant reduction in the code. So I would be looking to pull it back a smidge. So if you can live with a 12 foot deck that would increase the setback to ~{3.4 instead of 61. MR. MONACO: My original proposal was 16. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mine shows 14. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 1S 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: 14 for deck number two. MR. MONACO: Cables and stuff out en it. I realize toe, the original variance gees back probably 14 years when I bought the property, and at that time, the variance was given 75 feet and I think 65 feet to one side, and that 65 feet has new been extended because the Town finally came in five years ago and filled the gully and all the erosion from people walking when stairs weren't there. I also fought hard te get these stairs installed because people were transversing my property. ANd it took the Town maybe six, seven, maybe eight years to finally put the stairs in and te fill in that erosion. I'm planting that also. What I'm saying is it's probably extending about seven feet e~ the northwesterly side. Se that's 65 feet that we originally asked that was given. It's probably more like 70 now plus from the tilling in from the gully. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: But the original number was 65. MR. MONACO: That's what I'm saying. Where the deck would be on the northeast, I mean, we had te ge down 30 feet for cesspools. We had all types ef machines down there, big concern was net getting into that zeno. It's still heavily wooded. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Fourteen feet is still a large deck, 12 foot is still a large deck te entertain on. MR. MONACO: By all means. Whatever you're willing te give me as far as that. I can at least get a table and some chairs because it's kind of what the application shews that we are extending a deck, which we're really not doing. I believe you were all out there and the pictures all showed basically it's more of a stoop, and what happened was we had te design the house like that because we had to ge out for a variance at that time, se New York cede from the way I understand it says you have te come out te at ].east a 3' by 3' er 3' by 4' platform. And the building inspector told me that I was going to have te redesign the house or ge for a variance, and I felt it was just for time's sake and all I was trying to get my foundation in and all, we actually indented the house in se that when you 44 October 20, 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 come out the doors you have a platform to come on. And he said the steps from that platform going down will not count as far as the setback. So it's kind of misleading and saying that we're really looking for an extension of a deck because especially now that the storm doors are out there, when you open these doors, the inward doors swing in, the outward doors swing out, you can't put chairs there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's a landing/deck, I can see your point. MR. MONACO: It's not a deck that's functional at this point. I just wanted to clarify that, it's more of a platform to get out of the house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What brought the 12 foot up in my mind is your original site plan here has a 12 foot deck. MR. MONACO: Again, I'd be happy with that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I really don't think that two loot's going to make much difference. I go by that house quite often. I never walk down the cliff, I use the stairs, we do go fishing, my son goes fishing a lot. I see you did a lot of work as far as the grading was concerned. I know that was a problem there. MR. MONACO: It took a long time with the Town. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You helped the Town with the way you graded. MR. MONACO: Not only that at 30 years old at 40 years old, I'm 52 now honestly, how many bags of top soil was carried down there then brought back up, so this year, I'm still planting because honestly, the highway department and engineering department didn't live up to their bargain as far as planting. They dumped all the topsoil down there and walked away. Everything that's planted there I've had to do. I'm a little too old now right now to put in and start climbing back up. We have it stabilized now. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Don't you have a variance for the fence? October 20, 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 MR. MONACO: Yes. Because the fishermen, that was a variance I came for a couple of months ago. You have to see it now. The people are wonderful. When I came for the variance for at that point at night the children are parking there and we found bags of -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know what I find there. MR. MONACO: It was just kind of bad to see bags that drugs are kept in. The fishermen are great. It's like a meeting point. I guess they go from Horton's Point 15 trucks will come pulling up. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have an internet camera, I can tell when fish are down there; when they're there, I go. You mitigated a lot of that and the problems that the Town had by just being there. MR. MONACO: I think it looks a lot prettier down there. I'm constantly painting that guard rail and cleaning up the garbage. I think it looks a lot prettier. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Vince, what is the setback you're proposing? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We just increased by two feet. I guess the side one said 60.8, so ~2.8. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As it winds down towards Rocky Point Read, we're talking 62.8 there, and in the center of the property 63.4. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. MR. MONACO: I would like to be honest with you, again, from the original proposal, which is deck number one, and I think that's what you're reading off of. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We're on two. You suggested that you and the surveyor liked two. MR. MONACO: us further away from BOARD MEMBER it on two. MR. MONACO: 61.4. BOARD MEMBER make it 64.4. HR. MONACO: would be 62.4, Yes. I think it would keep the bluff. ORLANDO: Yes, we're basing Okay. So we're 62.4 and DINIZIO: So you're going to Shewing the 14 foot deck and if the Board asked me to reduce 46 October 20, 2005 47 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 it down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That will be 64.4 at that point. MR. MONACO: That's correct. Understood, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I get this clear because I have to write specifically that the northeast corner can be no closer than 64.4 and the south can be no closer than 62.8. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I need. MR. MONACO: For my own clarification, we'd like to have two sets of stairs coming down close to the house. I wrote it on the -- is there a problem with that if I'm granted? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we're granting you the distance. So if you don't go any closer than that, I think you're okay. MR. MONACO: I don't know if you were going to go on a square foot. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Are the steps going beyond that 12 feet? MR. MONACO: No. They'll be on the sides BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just don't put them on the very tip. Right, close to the house, yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak en this application? If not, I'll make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Radacinskis at the intersection of Route 25 and Sound Avenue. Good morning. MS. RADACINSKI: Helle. The house I live in is the upside down house. The living quarters are all upstairs, the kitchen, living room, dining room, and it seems to me that a deck is the thing that's missing if we want to entertain, have a barbecue or something like that, I'm upstairs/downstairs constantly backwards and ~orwards. We always forget something and have to run up and down, and I would really like to have a deck close te my kitchen. The ether thing toe October 20, 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 about the way the house is designed, if you're at the bedroom end, God forbid there should be a fire there's no way out except through a windows and a deck at that back of the house would give me another exit from that end of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? I have no BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: questions. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: too. Second floor deck, MS. RADACINSKI: Yes CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's my application and I have none. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience wish to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Mr. Harris on Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue. MR. HARRIS: Good afternoon, I'm Ted Harris. I have my return receipts (handing). What I would like to do is basically enlarge the little mudroom in my house and turn it into a family room because I think where it's situated has the best views over the farm fields and vineyards, and also it's away from my neighbor, who has farming activities on the other side. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're not associated with that, I thought you were, you're so close. MR. HARRIS: Originally that was the farmhouse for a 20 acre farm, and it included those out buildings. I think the people that had a house before me carved out the two acres that I have, and they bought the out buildings and the farmlands and left me with the farm house. So lots of people think I'm associated with them. I think they rented it for one year for some of their workers. So the problem that I have is in order to extend that mudroom, which is about three feet by 10 feet, and turn it into a family room, 48 October 20, 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 I'd have to extend the front line of the house, the entire footprint of the house is nonconforming because when it was built I guess, probably the '30s, and so I think I would be violating the front setback, it's about 21 feet. And that's basically what the plan is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my application. I have been to the site. There is no doubt that what the applicant is saying is correct. The house has been in existemce for a long time and I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a question. I think it would be a nice addition, kind of give a little symmetry to either side of the door. It's a single story addition, but it looks like you can leave the top open as an open deck trellis er something? MR. HARRIS: That's a concept that I have been discussing with the architect that I've been talking to. At this point I'm not thinking I want to do that. I think that might be a little complicated for the area. I really want to maintain the integrity of the area and the simple scale, it's a nice idea to be able to stroll around up there and have a higher view of the ].and, but at the end of the day - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It will be roofed? MR. HARRIS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it a flat roof? MR. HARRIS: No. This is just an initial drawing, sketch. I'm intending it to be pitched so it will in a way echo the other side of the house. I think the pitch will be different; it will be that same concept. Sort of a lean-to notion. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But not really an upstairs in that portion? MR. HARRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: BOARD MEMBER SIMON: lot? Michael? So this is a two acre MR. HARRIS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But where your extension is is in a direction where there is the most room? MR. HARRIS: Yes, exactly. Adjacent te me 49 October 20, 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 on that side of the read is Gristina, Gallucio Vineyard, and that gees for about a quarter mile to the next house, and then on the ether side of the road is open land. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have ne questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that has anything te say on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Albert and Barbara Reibling en Island View Drive in Greenport, they wish te make an extension. MS. KRAMER: I'm Heryl Kramer, I'm the architect for the owner. I have here the second affidavit ef mailings and inadvertently, the second notices went out certified mail but without return receipts so I have the receipts here~ I also have a letter here from Mr. Reidy, he's eno of the neighbors. I can give you a copy of it. It is extremely informal and not written in a way directed towards the Beard but I would be happy te furnish you a copy of it as well the way it's written. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can you read it? MS. KRA~ER: "Dear Sandy," -- it's Mr. Reibling -- "my daughter-in law forwarded the papers regarding the addition to your house to me at my residence in Shanghai. I can understand your desire to add an extra floor - this is before we were going to be doing a second fleer addition, ee subsequently changed the project significantly just te change the roof line - given the need for accommodating kids and now grandchildren, I'm in the same boat myself and plan te add an extra fleer to my house when I finally return from living overseas. Since it is the neighborly thing to de, I will need your support when my time comes. I totally support your application. There was also a diagram attached te the paper sent to me. Sandy, I have to confess that I'm terrible in figuring out these drawings despite the fact that my father was an ~ngineer. As such, I can make no meaningful 5O October 20, 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 comment, but I do support your application. I would like to talk with you sometime about the process you have to go through in progressing this project. I would even be willing to pay for dinner by way of tuition." I don't know if you would like a copy. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Who is the letter signed by? MS. KRAMER: Reidy, and it's copied to Meryl Kramer, Architect. In my application I included the east elevation which is from the waterside, then the east elevation drawing showing the modification. Essentially what we're doing is just unifying the roof of the house. We're leaving the footprint exactly the way it is. We're re-siding with cedar shingles, changing the windows and giving this house just a one continuous roof rather than a broken up roof, the way it is now. I have some existing photographs to refresh your memory, if you would like to see. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have it. MS. KRA_MER: In doing se we are capturing some ef the space that's created by increasing the roof area. We are giving a cathedral ceiling to the living room and the dining room, and then the area ever the bathroom and the bedrooms, we're going te give a little left area, so that the grand kids can have a place te hang out while the parents are having dinner, something like that. I'd be happy te answer any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Absolutely looks like a wonderful plan, Meryl. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a great little spot they have there, MS. KRAMER: It's troublesome. We have been working en permits for two years new. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Price you pay for having a cute little spot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where is the house of the correspondent? Is someone else living there because I spoke to someone at that house. MS. KRAMER: It's adjacent. I think it's his daughter. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: She said she wishes 51 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 11 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 there were no house there at all. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It will be on the existing footprint, and I think it's a great design, you did well. MS. KRAMER: Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLiVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? If not, I'll make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. {See minutes for resolution.) {Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing in the afternoon is for Trupia for an accessory apartment for her mother. MR. GORHAN: Hi, I'm Bill German, I'm representing Maria Trupia. We'd like te postpone this until next month. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You would like te adjourn it te November 17th? MR. GORHAN: Please. CHAIRWOMA2{ OLIVA: I'll take testimony from anyone that's here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It would be at 1:00 on the 17th. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY: Geed afternoon, I'm Carl Murphy, representing Brewer's Woods Association, and I have with me a presentation stating why Brewer's Weeds Association is against it. Listed in here are all the reasons why it would be breaking the law legally and ethically; for us te live in a residential neighborhood, we feel it's the wrong type of request to be made. Who de I present this to? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Give it te our senior clerk here. MR. MURPHY: This is all signed and notarized (handing). CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just mention something to you? MR. MURPHY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: this Zoning Board for some time, to be aware that Mr. Murphy, can Having been on I just wanted you by special exception, this Beard 52 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 can permit an accessory apartment in an existing dwelling in the town of Southeld, if the house has a C ef O prior to January 1, 1984. Just so you're aware ef that. HR. HURPHY: The house wasn't in existence. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: This is a relatively new house. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. I'm just making this statement te you. HR. HURPHY: In our petition we se stated that it was an improper request to be made te the Zoning Beard, and possibly a proper request would have been to ask for another avenue of doing the same thing you want to do. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Mr. Murphy, I'm sorry, we received this from you. It's an affidavit, but you're submitting it as an individual not representing the association. MR. MURPHY: Okay, I'm submitting it as an individual, but I'm an officer of the association. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're welcome to get other documents if you want, I just mention that I can only receive it from you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else want to speak on this application? MR. BURKE: I'm Michael Burke, I live in Brower's Woods on Woodcliff Drive. I have a question, can the applicant just come in and say we'd like an adjournment? How many adjournments are usual? This has been adjourned once already. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two. That was because I was sick. This is the first hearing, we do allow usually at least one adjournment. MR. BURKE: Do you know what the date of the next hearing will be? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: November 17th at 1:00 p.m. MR. BURKE: And I'm sorry, Mr. Gorman represents the applicant as a private person or as a business? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He has to answer that. MR. GORMAN: I'm just representing Maria as a business. MR. BURKE: Well, it's come to our attention that apparently -- MR. GORMAN: I didn't do that work. MR. BURKE: It's come to our attention 53 October 20, 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 that the Gorman that's involved in this, the license lapsed, the general contractor's license has expired July 1st. I was just curious as to that portion of it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He doesn't need a license to represent her. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He doesn't need a license. MR. BURKE: Okay, not a problem. The next item that I have, I'd like to submit, I have received and made application to the other area of the town here, I have, Maria, the applicant has made application and has been approved for STAR Relief Program for her residence. She's claiming a residence in Brower's Woods, but in fact she has made an affidavit here, and I'd like to submit to you that it says that she lives at 1395 Sleepy Hollow Lane in Southold, and therefore, she receives her STAR exemption at that property. I would also like to submit that to you. And I also have to submit to you the signatures of 93 of our residents in Brower's Woods who are opposed to the approval of this entire application for the reasons that are also in the paperwork that was presented to you. So I'd like to present this at this time, these two items. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Burke and Mr. Murphy, feel free to come back if you have any additional information that you have on November 17th. MR. BURKE: Thank you very much. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I ask Mr. Burke a question? MR. BURKE: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're submitting here STAR exemption for what reason? MR. BURKE: Well, there seems to be a question with regard to on her application for her change of variance that she's stipulating that this is where she resides and lives, and on the other hand, she's living and residing elsewhere. The application is either flawed or in fact she's not entitled to her STAR thing at her other residence. So it's one way or the other. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're contesting her residence then? MR. BURKE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else 54 October 20, 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 that would like to speak? MS. MCGINTY: I'm a resident of Brewer's Woods, my name is Julie McGinty, and I object to the two-family house going into the neighborhood, and also for another reason, that house - Brewer o~omes up off Grand, and the Trupia house is here and there's another house here. The two driveways come out like this together. You come up Brewer, I mean, each house has a two car garage and sometimes there's more than two cars in each ~lace, but if it's a two-family house later on and gets sold, there will be maybe four cars. When people have company or a party when you come up Brewer Road and they all park on Brewer, makes it like a one-way street. It's dangerous, you got cars on both sides, it doesn't happen a lot but it does happen. That's another concern for the neighbors. I just wanted to express that as a safety issue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else? MS. REITER: Yes. My name is Barbara Reiter, and I reside next to, adjacent to the property in question. I sent you two certified letters, one on the 12th of September and one on the 13th opposing this whole mess. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else today that wishes to comment on this? MS. MASCATO: My name is Lisa Mascato, I live in Brewer's Woods on Westview Drive. I also am against the two-family in my neighborhood. It's predominantly a residential area, and it would set a precedent not only in our area but Mattituck as well, I believe it would affect property values. And then, if it's resold, you have a legal two-family there. And it wouldn't be good for us in the neighborhood. I am opposed to it. I would like to add if a legal two family home is needed for whatever reason, they do exist in Greenport without needing to get a variance and change over how we are in Mattituck today. There are legal two families in Greenport and it would be no problem for whatever reason they need this kegal two family rather than to set a precedent in our neighborhood and for Mattituck as well to have this house. I am against it being in the area for ~ight years, I moved in the area having single-family homes, and I want it to remain so. It's a quiet area. We don't need the 55 October 20, 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 additional traffic, that's my opinion as a resident of the area. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir? MR. MCGINTY: My name is Gerald McGinty, I live in the Brower's Woods section, and I'm vice-president of the Brower's Woods Association, and as an officer of that association I'd like to back up Mr. Murphy's submission. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we will adjourn this to November 17th and if any of you wish to come back again you are more than welcome to do so. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMA~N OLIVA: Next application is for Peter Izzo, Vanston Road in Cutchogue. Mr. Fitzgerald. MR. PITZGERALD: This is the building that we have, and the shower is here, this is the corner of the house. So this part of the deck is permitted but not CO'd and the setback here is a 10 foot setback. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: When did they file for that building permit? MR. FITZGERALD: '86. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should have a copy of that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Se they built it, they just didn't follow-through far the CO. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Get the building permit but never got the CO? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Can we look at that map? MR. FITZGERALD: I'll make copies ef it since you made reference te it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, any questions? BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: No. i was once affiliated with Mr. Izze's son in a business. I just want to disclose that, many years removed. I'm sure he enjoyed this deck for many, many years without sleepless nights. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which is the side that has the building permit, the east side or the 56 October 20, 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 west side? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Southwest. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Mary Butz on Hyatt Road, wishes to put in a pool. MR. GORMAN: Hi, I have a copy of a letter from her doctor. Mary Butz has arthritis in her knees, and it's recently been diagnosed as a degenerative bone disease and the surgeon has been told it would be very helpful for her if she swims, so she wants to put in a lap pool. She lives right on the sound and she can't swim in the sound. So here's a letter. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What else would you like to tell us? MR. GORMAN: Well, she has a 28 foot front yard setback and you see on the permit the location is really the only place it can go without really disturbing the property. If we put it anywhere else, it will fit in the setback requirements but it will require an enormous amount of grading and we're concerned that it will create a different kind of runoff that will affect the bluff and deteriorate the bluff. If you can see on the survey - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see on the survey part of her deck is sitting right on top of the bluff. I know it's none of our business, the pool setback, I know, she has to take out that big tree if she wants to put the pool there. MR. GORMAN: It will also require moving the septic system 40 feet. We did a septic system across the street, we had to go 48 feet. We're also concerned that we are going to have to dig a huge hole in that front yard for that septic to move that septic system if we are to require a 40 foot setback. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there any reason 57 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 why the pool is so long? by far. MR. GORMAN: BOARD MEMBER the pool. MR. GORMAN: BOARD MEMBER isn't it? MR. GORMAN: BOARD MEMBER It's bigger than average 36 feet. ORLANDO: Mine says 45 feet, 45. BOARD MEMBER I ask you a question, MR. GORMAN: BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was changed. GOEHRINGER: It's a lap pool, It's a lap pool 36 feet. ORLANDO: Mine shows 16 by GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gorman, can sir? Yes, sir. Is this pool running parallel to Hyatt Road or perpendicular? MR. GORMAN: Perpendicular. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this pool going to be covered? MR. GORMAN: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then she won't be swimming in the winter? MR. GORMAN: No. It will be covered in the winter with a tarp. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ne cabanas? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I think you won't have any problem, you have that let in the front there. The hot tub, is that en that piece of property? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It is. I see a line there, what is that it's not just a fence? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it's the top of the bluff. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a wood bulkhead, Jimmy. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You have copies ef the letters opposing the application, right? MR. GORMAN: I de. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What are the neighbors saying? MR. GORMAN: He wrote this letter, then on the end on the last page he writes I guess you can sum this up by saying that I'm neither for nor against the application. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then there was 58 October 20, 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 another letter from the immediate neighbor to the east who is Dr. Dangus. MR. GORMAN: They're the neighbors directly to the north that would be the old Cashman. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, you had no other questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He told me, he said it's going to be four feet deep. I have to know exactly, you know, because if I say four feet in there and it's five. HR. GORMAN: It's four feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't put it any closer to the house, the pool? MR. GORMAN: It's right at the 100 foot line of the bluff. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the audience have any comments on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is Xor Peter Sabat on Peconic Bay Boulevard. Let's hold off for a while on this one. Our next hearing is for Martin on Meadow Beach Lane. Good afternoon, Mrs. Moore. MS. MOORE: Good afternoon, I get to see you again. I have Ural from Samuels and Steelman here, the architects for this project. So we can speak in terms of what we've done and prior to the last, well, the September hearing, we submitted a set of plans to show you the landscape that is proposed for the tennis court. And we had also suggested having a sunken in tennis court. The Martin family, they're trying to be considerate of their neighbors. They're trying to keep it in the character of their home. It's the original home there, that's been renovated, but the placement of the house, you have right of ways from the old subdivisions that were done here. There are right 59 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of ways almost in every direction. So from everywhere we turn we have a front yard setback. The tennis court where it is proposed presently, the application before you, we are told by Mrs. Suter, who is the original owner who has been there for many years, she said that there has been a tennis court placed there. We don't have a survey to that effect, we're taking it based on her historic memory of it. In the time that the Martins have owned this property, there was no tennis court there. So if it was there, it was removed some time ago. But it is the logical place to locate a tennis court. The tennis court where it is proposed is set back from the front right of way by about 30 feet. Around it we've proposed a hedge in order to block the view of the tennis court, and I would suggest that you go to the drawing, page drawing shows you that is proposed. proposed six foot both sides of the two on the plans, and that the extent of the landscaping Sheet number eno shows the high fence, planted hedge on fence, three sides of tennis court. That's the proposal. In addition, the tennis court will be sunken down by 24 inches below grade with a low stone retaining wall 24 inches above grade which also surrounds the tennis court. Se it will be sunken, then there will be a retaining wall around it, and there will also be a hedge so it will be hidden from view. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, what is the composition of the court? MR. TALGERT: I believe they're we're not going for a clay court but asphalt. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you mind if I have the floor for a second? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One ef the main concerns that I have, and we've raised this issue, and it becomes very honky tenk when I mention it but because ef the proximity of the neighbors across the street, I have to knew what the "boing" factor is. I'm being perfectly honest about this. You can sink it; you can raise it; you can put all kinds ef periphery around it, but unless I know what the court is and where it's been built and I can throw a tennis ball on it so I can hear what the being factor is, I'm not in favor ef it in that location. 6O October 20, 2005 61 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TALGERT: The boing factor, when it comes to noise -- MS. MOORE: Noise abasement. MR. TALGERT: When evergreen shrubs are planted around the property especially, the juniper type, the needle type, that absorbs sounds reasonably well. When you plant a plant like holly that reflect noise. What we're planning on doing is planting on two sides of the property ~lense evergreens that will muffle the sound, so the boing factor goes down tremendously versus just keeping it open. So we're trying to muffle the sounds. We're also trying to eliminate views from say the neighbor's homes to the tennis court. Basically everything will be hidden from view. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but how do I get proven that without spending an exorbitant amount of money to construct this thing and then still having a boing factor that is too high for the neighbor to listen to. These people across the street, and I don't l{now if they're here, have a deck probably within 40 feet or 60 feet of this tennis court. MS. MOORE: Are you talking about Lot 217 Because they have spoken to those neighbors uepeatedly, and they have no objection to this kennis court at all. And we were very concerned about their interest primarily because it is the closest adjacent property owner. They have been very supportive so to our knowledge they're not an issue. The neighbors I think that are here might be the ones much further to the east, which are located probably 300 feet away from the tennis court. So 300 feet away that's quite a lengthy distance to be concerned about. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I couldn't agree with you more. MR. TALGERT: Can I say a couple words? We've looked at and designed the property and found that there is an alternate location on the property that meets with the zoning, and it's in the front yard. MS. MOORE: Let me just give you a little caveat on this. This location is not the uecommended location either to the Martin family, or I think the neighbors because it places the tennis court in a location where it needs no variances, but it's squarely in the front yard and October 20, 2005 62 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 it really is not the optimum location for maintaining a residential character of that neighborhood. We can do it and if forced to do it, obviously we will landscape it so it mitigates the impact to the property, to the homeowners themselves. They're going to change the parking area. It's not the optimum location, but we wanted to show that if we were to not ask for variances, the variances are really in order to tuck the tennis court in in such a way that it would be least offensive to the neighbors, The alternative here is one of those cut off your nose to spite your face. You're put in a location that maybe the neighbors have no say, and the Zoning Board has no say in it, but it's really not the best location. So that was drawn up because we wanted to see if we had a location here that would be a conforming location, and we do. I've asked the Martins, they could live with it, but they certainly don't like it. And they certainly don't think that it would be an optimum location for the neighbors. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you consider the seaward side of the house? MS. MOORE: That is in a location that didn't work. If you have seen the house, you have windows that go along the whole waterfront length of the house. To put a tennis court right there blocking your waterfront views is not an optimum location for a waterfront piece of property. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But it's subsurface tennis court. MS. MOORE: But it still needs a fence. And we are actually vegetating, we're surreunding it with vegetation se we actually block out the noise and the views of the fencing and the tennis ceurt. So it just deesn't make sense. Yeu put it in the waterside frent of the house, that's net what they have a four acre piece of preperty fer. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's why the Beard gives yeu the eption ef putting the frent yard en the waterfront lots. MS. MOORE: Put it this way, the property owner will net put it in the back because that makes no sense. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I saw a till, I den't know if they were going to put vineyards back there er what they were going to de. I was October 20, 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 just curious. MS. MOORE: It's all lawn as it was before in the past. We don't want to disturb any of that. I think the kids have their play area, that's about it. So the alternative now is either keeping the tennis court where it's originally proposed -- we had another alternative -- we have been trying to wrack our brain trying to make alternative locations that work. This alternative location keeps it in the same general vicinity as the tennis court as proposed, but pushes it back further into the side yard. So we are able to meet the front yard setback, but we still need a variance for accessory structure in the side yard. So you can see our concern with placing it in the side was making sure we had adequate clearance in the house, we do, we have 17 feet, that's plenty of space. So we are able to push it back away from the front yard; that's another alternative in ~his instance, again, we can sink it, put the evergreens around it. However, it does push the tennis court closer to the Suter property, that side yard setback, and it pushes it into the Martins' side yard. So not completely, but just enough so it gives you the front yard setback. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What do you want to call it for the record? MS. MOORE: Why don't we have A be the proposal that's before this Board; B is the proposal that is in the front yard, not requiring variance; C will be the proposal that pushes it into the side yard. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, that's fine. MS. MOORE: That's a very good suggestion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a statement? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I do like C best of all, however, I think you have to go at least another five feet closer to the house because you need to maintain landscaping on the parcel closer to the Surer property -- I mean to the setbacks closest to the Suter property. MS. MOORE: That will push it 12 feet to the house. That we could work out. The Surer property in between it's a high hedge. It's a mature hedge so it has bare spots. 63 October 20, 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 MR. TALGERT: That would be replaced by other plants that would reduce the being factor. MS. MOORE: That would work. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the clay court not an option? MR. MARTIN: I'm Jim Martin, I'm not a tennis player. Honestly, it's for my wife and my kids. I don't know what the boing factor is. Whatever is less of a being factor, I'd be willing to do. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just let me say this te you, Mr. Martin, it's a pleasure having you here. If it's composite or if it's clay, I think composite is easier te take care ef than clay, because clay you have to roll, as long as you get away from asphalt, you're going to have much less noise in the playing ef tennis, in my opinion from what we have studied. Ural? MR. TALGERT: One ether thing, Jim has a couple things. Basketball would be an issue, roller blading would be an issue. It would he a multi purpose surface. Asphalt works the best. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Composite is a dense material. It's poured in but you can still roll it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Hard Tru? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That's granular. MR. TALGERT: We have to consider the multipurpose aspect. If the kids want te go roller blading or basketball, things of that mature, but if the Beard wants te limit us te clay, I'm sure Mr. Martin wouldn't mind. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, see how the Board feels. MS. MOORE: And the accessory as-built shed? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Next month, at your request. Miss Moore preferred te have the tennis court done first and then the accessory shed, se that's why it was done that way. MS. MOORE: Our preference. Did the Beard have any ether questions before we sit? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON. No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 64 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any questions on this application? Yes. MS. ECKERT: Good afternoon, my name is Linda Eckert, I live at 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, which is Lot 22 on the map. I'm across the street from the Martin property. And it's interesting you talk about boing factor because that's eno ef our concerns. I have a statement here I'd like to read te the Board. "My name is Linda Eckert, and my remarks reflect my opinions and these of my husband. We live at 1635 Meadow Beach Lane across the street from the Martin property. "Our position is very simple. We feel that the proposed tennis court would be better situated in the back yard of the Martin property. We feel that the granting of the variance will be a detriment te our quality ef life and possibly affect the value of our property. The part of our house that is closest to the proposed tennis court is our bedroom. According te the site plan, the unscreened side of the court will be in direct sight line ef our bedroom. And the sights and sounds of the tennis court are undesirable to us, and could be considered a nuisance. "As to Miss Moore's statement in the application for the variances, the proposed location for the court is the optimal one. That indeed may be true for her client's point of view but not ours. The Town zoning code discourages if not outright prohibits tennis courts and swimming pools in front yards for obvious reasons. Tennis courts require eight foot fences that are not allowed in front yards. "We are aware that waterfront properties are granted exceptions because of regulations imposed by agencies protecting wetlands that would not allow a tennis court to be built in a rear yard. After viewing the map of the Martin property, this exception does not seem to apply. There appears to be ample property on a side yard and a rear yard to build a tennis court. Variances might be necessary to meet side yard setbacks but the court would not be in view from the street. "Our last comment concerns Miss Moore's conversation with Mrs. Alma Suter, who is the 65 October 20, 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 adjoining property owner. In the application, Miss Moore said that Miss Suter told her that quote, The former owners had located a tennis court in the same location, end quote. Miss Suter's recollection of a tennis court in the proposed location is not borne out by Town records. There are no records in the Town assessor's office, nor the Town Building Department of a tennis court having been taxed or even built by the previous owners of the Martin property. "My husband and I hope that in fairness to those property owners who will be negatively impacted that the Zoning Board of Appeals will deny the Martins' request for a variance for a front yard tennis court. Thank you for your attention, Linda and James Eckert." CHAIRWOM~kN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to speak? MS. AMPER: My name is Julie Amper, and my remarks are presented on behalf of myself and Mr. Joseph Lee, who could not be here today. We live at 1645 Meadow Beach Lane, directly across a shared 20 foot wide right of way from Jim and Denis Martin. From our front windows, we would have an unobstructed view of the tennis court they are proposing, and the prospect has filled us with dismay, eight and a half years ago when we were searching for a home on the north fork, we looked at a house on James Creek. It was by far a much nicer house than the one we ultimately purchased next door to the Martins. Unfortunately, the view from the house was unacceptable, for directly across the creek from the house was a tennis court, which is why we rejected that property. When we discussed our rationale with our realtor, he agreed that it was a definite drawback, one that had discouraged several other prospective buyers. Should this variance be approved, we will now find ourselves looking out our windows at a tennis court. And this one will be located much closer to our house than the one across from the house on James Creek. We are, as you might imagine, disheartened by the irony of the situation. And we are hopeful that the Martins will reconsider and shift the location of the 66 October 20, 2005 67 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 tennis court to their back or side yard. It seemed to us that there was ample room in the backyard to position the tennis court well beyond the 100 foot wetlands setback required. Miss Moore indicated in her letter outlining the reasons for the appeal that there would be no detriment to nearby properties if the the variance is granted. Based on the comments of our realtor about home buyers' reluctance to live opposite a tennis court, we worry that the proposed tennis court will impact negatively on the resale potential of our home. Miss Moore also writes that the proposed location is the best location because the fence will not obstruct the views of the waterfront. This is true. And I can certainly empathize with Jim and Denise for not wanting to mar their fabulous view with any man-made structure. While we do not have the Martins' enviable unobstructed view of Peconic Bay, we did enjoy a lovely scenic vista from our front windows, sweeping lawns, towering trees, mature landscaping, a small vineyard, truly a bucolic setting, and one of the main reasons we bought the house in 1998. In the course of the recent construction, some of those trees and shrubs have been moved or cut down and the vineyard was removed, but the view remains lovely. Miss Moore writes that the proposed location of the tennis court is the optimum location according to the neighbor Alma Surer, who has no objection to the placement of the tennis court along the front side of the house. Since Hrs. Suter's house is located te the southwest of the back ef the Martin residence, well out of sight and sounds ef the proposed location, we can certainly understand her lack of objection. However, the proposed location is not optimal from our viewpoint. The court is to be fenced and screened en three sides. The one unfenced, unscreened side faces our house. But even additional landscaping te hide the court from our view offers ne permanent guarantees. The Martins or subsequent owners of that property can remove any landscaping at any time. Incidentally, Miss Moore indicates that according to the Suters, the former owners located at tennis court in that same location. We were unable te confirm this. The Building Department has no records for a permit October 20, 2005 68 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 for a tennis court on this property in their files which date back to 1957. On the chance that the former owners had indeed erected a tennis court without official permits, we checked with the tax assessor's office. They have no record of any tennis court on the property since they began keeping records on May 11, 1960. All they have is a permit request for the Martins dated 3/23/04 status pending. The records indicate that the property was inventoried in 1962 and showed no tennis court at that time. In 1982 the former owners applied for and were granted a permit for an in-ground swimming pool, accompanying their application is a survey dated July 1972, again showing no tennis court on the property. And I think these have been corrected since then because the original letter indicated that Meadow Lane, which is actually Meadow Beach Lane, was a public road and it is a private road and we are granted right of way across it. And I do have photos if they would be helpful. I did a tracing and pasting up where ~hey proposed the tennis court and suggesting moving it down, I wasn't sure about the clearance of the house, but it looked to me like it would fit. And I haven't seen the new drawings. I got a copy of B from Eugene Berger but I never saw C, so I don't know what that proposal is. I don't want them to lose their view, but I don't want the view of the tennis court, and I think the solution is to shove it back along the side of their house. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. ECKERT: Good afternoon, I'm James Eckert. I am the president of the Bayview at Mattituck Homeowners Association, not, as Miss Moore addressed us, as the Meadow Beach Lane Homeowners Association. Our association comprises 38 homeowners and lot owners, and it also owns Meadow Beach Lane, which is a private road, and other streets in the Harbor Farm subdivision, which is called Harbor View at Mattituck. The Martin property borders on Meadow Beach Lane on which they have deeded access. The Martin property and four other properties south of our subdivision are not included in our association as their properties predate the subdivision. October 20, 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 However, as their property as well as our subdivision is an area called Harbor Farm and these properties appear to be part of our subdivision, therefore we feel that we have a vested interest in the overall appearance and tranquility of Harbor Farm. Our association has covenants and restrictions and architectural guidelines that allow for the homeowners association board of directors to protect the properties and require the owners to maintain their homes and properties in a manner that preserves the overall appearance of Harbor Farm. The board has the authority to approve the architecture of the homes, landscaping, driveways, fences, swimming pools and tennis courts among other things. On September 17, 2005, the board of directors of the Bayview at Mattituck Homeowners Association voted to oppose the zoning variance application that would allow the Martins to construct a tennis court in their front yard. The board felt that the tennis court in the front yard would be a detriment to the appearance of the community and would be a nuisance because it would be in the view of the adjacent property owners. For example, Stroed, Eckert, and Amper-Lee. As well as from Meadow Beach Lane, the noise would also be heard from them as well as other neighbors. The board of directors feels that it would be more appropriate in the back yard where, in this case, there is ample space without impinging on setbacks and wetlands. We request the Zoning Board disapprove this request. And I'd like to present this to you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask this gentleman a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sir, I just need to clarify something. Is this property covered under your covenants and restrictions? MR. ECKERT: No, they're not. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So they're not part of your association? MR. ECKERT: They predate our subdivision so they're not part of it. But they are adjacent to our property. MS. MOORE: Thank you. I wanted to 69 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 clarify that because I did want to point that out, this property and the association doesn't have review authority over this property or the Surer property, or probably some of the others that are there on the bay. I wanted to point out because this may be in your file for the pool and the shed because we provided you a much more detailed landscape plan for the second application for the following meeting, but I think it's important that you look at it, and I would ask that it also be incorporated by reference into this appeal. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What is the date on that map? MS. MOORE: This is the one from September 14, 2005. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have it in the file. MS. MOORE: Sheet two shows the landscaping that is proposed around the property. The Martins are trying to address the concern of the neighbor by enclosing their property with landscaping. So you can see that some of the concerns that the neighbor has with respect to seeing the tennis court, we actually are landscaping our property so that we retain the privacy, the tennis court should not be seen. As the shrubs grow, this house will not be seen. So we are proposing a significant amount of landscaping around the perimeter of the property, in particular, if you can see on the north, at the top of the page is the area where I think that the people that spoke, they live up here in this general vicinity. We have some existing mature trees there, but we are proposing to plant screened plantings of evergreen shrubs and more trees. So we are actually going to be hiding the property and the houses and the structures. It's going to be a very private setting. So we can pretty much block the views of this house, tennis court, anything that's on this property with our own landscaping, and that's what they propose. I think one of the speakers mentioned that it would be best in the side yard pushed back a little bit. I think proposal C was the one we looked at before that really does make sense because, as I pointed out before, the tennis court could go in the front yard. We checked with the 7O October 20, 2005 71 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 Building Department, that tennis court would not need variances. It is not the optimum location. I think the neighbors would be disappointed if that's the alternative. If the Board denies the application that we have made with alternatives that we have suggested, they are not going to build it in the backyard blocking their waterfront views. So the only alternative will be in the front yard, and that would not be the best ~lternative for the neighborhood. I do want to emphasize that. I would hate to see this Board deny it based on the neighborhood opposition and the neighbors get a tennis court in the worst place possible. MR. TALGERT: And also, the other solution was to move the tennis court and move the driveway around. The driveway would be actually opposite one of the neighbors at that point, so I'm not sure how positive that is either. MS. MOORE: We have to shift everything around, I think ultimately they may be disappointed with the end result. So I think one of the speakers spoke about pushing the tennis court back, we tried to accommodate that, that was a good suggestion. And as Mr. Goehringer suggested, we could squeeze it a little closer to the house, if you feel comfortable with that, we're all right with that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Was that plan B or C? MS. MOORE: I think C was the one that pushed the tennis court into the side yard more. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Which is the one that did not need a variance? MS. MOORE: It was a derivative of C because C was the one with the location with slightly more of a setback from the Surer property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Which is the one that showed a tennis court that would not need a variance, B? MS. MOORE: That was B. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you. MS. MOORE: Did you want us to get a fax to you tomorrow, the drawing of the location of the tennis court a little further into the property, Mr. Goehringer's suggestion, to have that as another alternative in the file? October 20, 2005 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Faxed copies don't work well. MS. MOORE: I'll drop it off. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make it a little closer to the main building, 17.5 feet? MS. MOORE: Right, the Beard hasn't deliberated and come te any consensus, but if that's an alternative that you want us te draw, which is Mr. Geehringer's suggestion, it is placing the tennis court as we had into the side yard more, but just pushing it away from the Surer property line. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It would be 10, if you moved it five feet it would be 107 MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question, when Ural was mentioning this, and apart from what the site plan says, this is C with more of a setback from the Suter property, are we talking about surrounding the entire periphery except for the portion that faces the bay er the rear yard with mature plantings? MR. TALGERT: We are planning on putting plants surrounding this entire edge and whatever we can use. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're not singling the court out specifically? MR. TALGERT: Right. That could be 20 foot cedar trees completely cutting off the view into the property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will they be continuously maintained? MR. TALGERT: Absolutely. MS. MOORE: I overheard questions about the size of the court. That is a standard court size, that's regulation size tennis court. MS. AMPER: I'm not good with plots, I have photos. My question is, if anyone can tell, here's the existing old vineyard, which is where the tennis court is proposed, where is it going? MS. MOORE: What she's asking is the vineyard on the survey, the Ehlers survey in the file, it shows the original vineyard, she's trying to get an idea of placement lines, how much can we push it into the side yard. Remember we want to put shrubbery and blocking access on the side. We have been able to squeeze on the larger side -- MR. TALGERT: 60 feet in option C. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ural, then how close to the existing residence? MR. TALGERT: Twelve and a half feet. MS. AMPER: Where is the tennis court beginning in relation to this "L" of the bedroom juts out? MS. MOORE: What she's asking is how much can we push it into a side yard, and what our concern is that the house is on an angle. As you push the tennis court back, remember we want to put shrubbery and a fence, so we're blocking access on the side. We've been able to squeeze on the larger side down to 12 and a half feet. As you get closer to that back corner, you're going to be shrinking it down to -- MR. TALGERT: Ten, nine feet. It's really tight. MS. MOORE: As you get back to that 10, nine feet, at that point it becomes really tight. That becomes tight for fire access, just equipment. MR. TALGERT: There's also a beautiful linden tree back there which we don't want to disturb. MS. AMPER: I was thinking it could start right on the other side of this beautiful tree. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ma'am, you do understand that the Town permits waterfront parcels to have accessory structures in the front yard, such as pools, tennis courts and driveways? MS. AMPER: I understand. But when you look at that property from the air you think, oh, my God, look at this property, even if it was the backyard hugging the fence, it's not in the line of sight from the house. The house is far enough moved over. MR. TALGERT: But it would be that beautiful linden tree that would be cut down if we did that. MS. AMPER: I didn't say they didn't have enough room in the backyard. If the tennis court started here, hugged the fence and went to here, it isn't even in the line of view. It's to the right of it. MS. MOORE: I think there's a water line easement there, that we have to be away from that water line easement. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Miss Amper was 73 October 20, 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 going to submit a map. MS. AMPER: Here's our statements (handing). HS. HOORE: Just keep in mind, we're reluctant te have someone who isn't a professional. MS. AHPER: It isn't to scale. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, I need te make one more statement te counsel and te Ural if I could. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Geehringer. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Most ef this noise situation that has occurred from these tennis courts were ones that we were discussing on flat pieces of property er reasonably flat pieces ef property, net that this is a topographical problem because it's not on this piece ef property, but let's assume that the court goes in iN C, and let's assume that there are still concerns regarding noise from this court. Ural has mentioned to us and please, Mr. Talgert, by using your first name all the time, but I've known you for a long time, and you do wonderful work by the way, I would suggest to the Board in the making of its determination that the Board does reserve the right to look at future landscaping around this court, similar to what you were saying, particularly on those open sides which as you said may not be open in the future. I don't think that's an unreasonable request being in a really fantastic, phenomenal residential area as this one is, and as this house is pushed more towards the northerly portion of the property, the houses tend to be a cluster as these neighbors have indicated to us. So I would suggest to the Board that the Board does have the right to reserve the possibility of more landscaping generally around the court to be continually maintained. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request. MR. TALGERT: No. Mr. Martin has expressed a need for privacy. We did a little bit of work around his pool. We planted densely evergreen trees, cedars. When you're behind there walking the right of way towards the beach, cedars have a wonderful way of absorbing sound. Again, sound is a very interesting thing. When you have hard surfaces like what we have here, sound 74 October 20, 2005 75 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 bounces around; but when you have carpeting that really deadens it, and plant material is the same way. Say, for example, a holly, a large leaf evergreen or large leaf shrub, that bounces sound all ever the place. When you're talking about a cedar tree or juniper that absorbs the sound and muffles it really well. If the Board se decides te say we're going te plant all three sides ef the property with cedar type ef trees, evergreens, don't think that Mr. Hartin would have any objection to that; I think that would enhance his privacy in the front yard so his kids can run around without too much of a problem. BOARD HEMBER SIMON: I have a question, I understand that the property owner might very well have a hard time having to decide between having the tennis court between the house and the water ~nd net having a tennis court at all, which means that saying te the owner ef the pr©perty the location of an obstruction efa water view is quite relevant. New, do you believe that the owner ef the property, who has the choice after all, has any mere of a right te have the Beard be concerned about unobstructed view ef the water than residents do? My understanding is that that weighs very lightly in the considerations, net this case but ether cases, when people complain about their unobstructed view ef the waterfront and they're net the property owner, that doesn't seem to count. So I'm asking whether you think that the owners MS. MOORE: Yes, I don't remember the name ef the case but it was the case where the property owner wanted te put a pool on the decking en the waterfront side ef the house, and the Beard said ne. The court said absolutely it was a reasonable amenity that a waterfront property owner has a certain right to improve their property te enjoy their waterfront; that would net be the case for somebody who is a neighbor behind them wanting them te keep heights of the houses low because they want te enjoy the waterfront. When you pay for the waterfront, you have a certain right te enjoy it, t@ improve it. Se there are some zoning cases, I know eno in particular, I do recall it was a variance that I guess it was neighborhood opposition en putting a pool in a certain location and the Board said, ne, you can put it in the October 20, 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 front yard, in the non-waterfront side of your house. And the court said, no, that's unreasonable. The waterfront homeowner has a right to put a pool on their waterfront views. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Those cases are not on point because here we're talking about the owner's claim that they shouldn't have to put their tennis court in their front yard rather than someplace else. It's exactly opposite. MS. MOORE: No. I would say to you that we are preserving our views by placing a tennis court that obviously that would be an obstruction of the views to a location that is preferred by the property owner. You're saying put it in your backyard and you don't need a variance. We're saying actually, we can put it in our front yard and we can get a variance, but that would not be good for the neighborhood, and I don't think the neighbors would be very pleased when the tennis court is exactly where it would be permissible. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand you're saying that the neighbors would not be happy if the court was placed between the house and the waterfront? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, in the front yard, right by the road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The neighbors, from what I hear, would rather have it on the bay side. MS. MOORE: We're saying that is not the option the owner wants because we do not want to block our water views. We have four acres of beautiful waterfront that they paid dearly for. I think they have the right to enjoy it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does that give them the right to put the tennis court someplace where the neighbors don't want it? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Our code gives them the right. Our code says - and it doesn't say, if you don't have room in your water view side ef your property, you may put it in the front yard. Our code says you are permitted to have an accessory structure in your front yard. This particular application is merely where to place that thing for the best possible conduct for all the neighbors, not just this property owner. From what I'm hearing from the property owner, he can build it in the front, and it looks like he can, just getting a builder, that's all he needs. 76 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We're not discussing what the neighbors want, what they need, because they're not irrelevant and they will be affected, but our code -- and that's a code that everybody gets to read before they purchase a house -- says that they can put one there. It existed when everybody purchased their house. MS. MOORE: I'm net sure that Mr. Simon is getting to the point ef does it give us a greater balance of the equities, when in fact, somebody with some common sense would not block their water views with a tennis court and fence. Te that extent I agree with you that when you're balancing the equities the homeowner should,be given some consideration, yes, I guess we can put it in the back but why would we do something so silly as te block the water views. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not relevant in this case. MS. MOORE: He's arguing as far as balancing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be relevant if it were illegal to put it en the road side of the house. MS. MOORE: We're saying the only thing is we need a variance to put it in our side yard. So in order to mitigate impacts, we're trying te place it in a location where it doesn't bother us and it will bother the neighbors less pushing it te into the side yard, but we can't do it as of right. We do need your approval to de that and that's why we have proposed it as an alternative plan. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have any questions or comments? If net, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goggins, would you like to come up with Mr. Sabat en Pecenic Bay Boulevard in Laurel for an as-built deck? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. william Geggins of Goggins and Palumbo, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck. Good afternoon, we seek a variance pursuant to the paperwork. Back in the early '90s, I don't remember the specific date, Mr. Sabat had a contract to put these decks in, 77 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 they never got a building permit, never got a CO, and Mr. Sabat was contemplating selling his property, and we reviewed it, realized he didn't have a CO for the deck and we applied for this variance. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So he's going to remove it? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is this preparatory for the sale of the property? MR. GOGGINS: In preparation. It's not on the market now, it's not for sale now. He approached me about three months ago. We decided to do this so we could clean up the property, so when he does go to sell it, he won't have any problems. As you know, if this came up for a title report and you're in a 60 day window period for an executory contract for sale, there's no way you would be able to get the CO in the time period allowed by the contract, so he took preparatory action to do this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So your argument is that even if that gazebo would not been approved at the time it was built, nothing follows with regard awarding a CO for that right now. MR. GOGGINS: I didn't argue that at all. I said it was built without a permit, without a CO, and they didn't address whether there were side yard issues or rear yard issues. They built it and Mr. Sabat just assumed everything was fine. So I'm not saying it was permitted at that time. I don't know what the cede read at that time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. What is in the rear ef this property? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Another house. MR. GOGGINS: Another house and behind that is Laurel Links. There's kind ef an access te the rear part ef the golf course. The lot is there a long time, I don't knew if you've seen the overview ef the tax map, they're pretty small. Ail the houses are very close together and very small. This must have been a subdivision done whenever, I guess the '20s. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 78 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection to it. It was done in another place and another time. I just want te make you aware of the fact that, Mr. Goggins, that if the Beard condones this, it's net te be anything ether than what it is at this time, and that is a deck and gazebo, er two gazebos attached to a deck and not construed te be an addition ether than something that's partially open te the sky and that's it. MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience wish te speak en this application? If net, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for the Rayner proposal. Mr. Lark. MR. LARK: Good afternoon, I guess it's been about two months since we had this application presented te the Zoning Board, so I thought it best a quick review to put everything in perspective. At the end of the hearing on August 18th, the Beard wanted an amended survey, a foundation plan, an architect certification that the foundation is and will be in conformance with current FEMA and New York State Building Code regulation. I believe all of that was forwarded to you. I just want to make sure that's all there. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We received it on the 28th. HR. LARK: Because as I pointed out at the hearing en the 18th ef August, the FEMA requirements for this particular area, they vary depending en where you are, are eight feet, and the Rayners' existing house is 9.4 feet at the first floor elevation. And as you have it in the certifications there, the existing footings there required by the state building cede are three feet or 36 inches, and they're actually 38 inches by [neasurement. At the outset, I believe it's proper to bring te the Board's attention that the application ef Mary Rayner, which is before you, is for an area variance. The building inspector's amended notice of disapproval en July 14, 2005, in 79 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 spite of everything that's been said, boils down that it requires for the Raynors to go ahead with this project, it requires two variances. One is for a side yard for the second story pursuant to the Zoning Board of Appeals Walz opinion 5309, the vertical space situation, and under the zoning code under 100-242 (a), since this will be an increase in the nonconformity on the second floor and the prohibited 10 and 15 foot side yard space, that's why we're here for a side yard variance for the proposed second floor, and also under Section 244 of the code because it does presently exceed 20 percent lot coverage of the improvements and it will continue to exceed 20 percent. So there's two reasons that we need a variance, which are required by the zoning code particularly 242 (a) . These two variance requests have not changed and is shown on the surveys that the existing buildings, a side yard setback on the easterly side is presently on the first floor is two feet. That will remain the same no matter whether this variance is granted or it's not granted, it's a steady two feet all the way because the building on the east side, Raynor building, is parallel with the property line. So that two feet is a steady factor. Now, this was explained to you at the last hearing, on the second floor by lowering the ridge line on the roof by 32 feet and reducing the angle on the slant on the roof, the architect was able to move in the living space on the side yard area on the east side by 10'9", and you have that on the plan there. One thing I wanted to point out, all the architect's plans are drawn in feet and inches; the surveyor's calculations are all in feet, so I'll try to transpose it so to keep it all in feet, which will marry the survey, which is where the zoning code is written; it's written in feet not in inches. And she'll show you in a little while on that easterly line on the second floor living space on 10'9", the total effect of it is, the variance request boils down to under the Walz opinion to be 12.75 feet, which is where the nearest point would be on the second floor to the property line. You have the two feet plus the 10 foot that I explained to you. Therefore, on the easterly side, it would appear that we meet the 10 foot requirements. However, that's not the 8O October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 case on the westerly side. On the westerly side, no matter what we do, we still have to have a variance. On the westerly side, as you look at the survey, the house and the survey line are on different angles. If we start at the north, just by review, you'll see that the closest point of the house to the westerly property line is 1.2 feet on that northwest corner, that will remain the same, again, with or without the variance. That's where the house was situated at the time it was put there. However, again, due to the roof slant and the way the architect has constructed the proposed second floor, that's going to be moved, the living space on the second floor there will be 4.6 inches in, so you're going to end up with 5.7 feet from the property line on the second floor on that northwest corner. Now in the middle portion of it there's been a slight change from the original application. If you look on your surveys, there was a jog in the buildings where the porch was. The applicant now is removing, as you'll see on the survey, is removing that jog. Originally that jog as it is today was one foot from the westerly property line, and that will be eliminated so you'll have a property line there at the foundation at 2.8 feet. And when the second floor living space is 3.8, so you're going to end up with 6.63 feet on the second floor at the closest point in the middle portion of the building. As you move further south on the southwesterly corner, you presently have 3.6 feet, which is the side yard from the building to the property, and when that jog is removed, you'll have 5.5 and then up above on the second floor there, you have a five foot open deck, and then the living space starts back five feet. So in effect the actual living space on the southwest corner will be 10 and a half feet. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're moving the jog the length of the house? MR. LARK: Yes, that's correct. I'll call it the middle. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Seaward. MR. LARK: That's a better way to put it, seaward. The applicant, I believe, when we discuss 81 October 20, 2005 82 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 the factors, in the spirit of the Walz opinion, has tried to deal with the existing conditions in the neighborhood to ameliorate and made a sincere effort to minimize the impact of the second story as you have before you. As to the variance request, the Building Inspector indicated in his notice of disapproval that the lot coverage would be 27 percent. At the Board's request I had the surveyor go around and we have given you a certification now, that after everything is said and done, that the actual lot coverage will be 26 percent, which is a slight increase from what exists today. You have the certification, correct? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes. It's noted on the survey. MR. LARK: Also, I wasn't sure because there were so many things coming and going, I thought I received and it was given to you, if not, I will hand one up, a certification from the architect, an actual certification that it was actually 26 percent. Because that was a concern that the Board had, what it actually would be when it was all said and done. And he did measure that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I don't think we had all the breakdowns of all the corners and all the jogs, but he has that breakdown, right? MR. LARK: Right. As the Board is fully aware, the Town law a half dozen years ago was changed to codify under Section 267 B3 (b), the requirements the Board his to consider on a balancing test in evaluating the five mandated factors that you must consider, and weighing the benefit of granting the variance to Mrs. Raynor against the detriment of the health, safety and welfare of in this case the Beachwood community. We reviewed all those five factors the last time, I don't think much has changed. In reviewing them, the neighborhood will stay residential; with or without the proposed addition it's a residential neighborhood. And unless someone can come up with something, I don't think the actual putting on a second story will cause a detriment to the neighborhood because that's all that's really being done here. There has been some improvement to the side yard on the westerly side, but basically speaking it's a second story October 20, 2005 83 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 addition, everything else pretty much remains the same. And Hrs. Rayner pointed out to yeu that she wants te make it a year reund home. In order te make it efficient, the architect came up with this design te make it a year reund heme fully insulated, so on and so ferth. And the enly way to de it was te go up. You couldn't go to the nerth her te the south seaward fer obvious reasons. It weuld impinge en all the neighbors' views and everything else. So the only way was te go up, and the architect tried te de that te the best of her ability by creating a cottage type roof, keeping that cettage-type roof so it wouldn't be a big, steep incline there and to soften the impact. It's submitted that the 917 square feet, which yeu have in the recerd, which is what the secend story additien will be, is not substantial in and of itself. And in fact, we have decreased the feetprint en the first floer slightly. However, that was more or less equalized because the building inspector viewed, rather than have a patio on the seutheast cerner, that they were going te put that deck, and as he pointed eut in his disapproval, that has te be computed in the space, which it is fer that 26 percent se it became semewhat of a wash. I don't think there's any questien that abselutely this additien is going to create any adverse effect on the envirenment. And I will admit that one ef the facters, I'm not dispositive that you have to consider that it is a self created hardship because they want te make it ~ year reund heme, bring it up to date se en and so forth, but it's net dispesitive. Se, if the Beard has any questiens ef myself er Hrs. Rayner, but I did bring teday with us because we didn't have her here befere, the architect who drew the plans so if you had any specific questiens, she's got the actual detail of the plans here that yeu can ask because yeu were cencerned about it last time. So I'll turn that over to Hrs. Suter. MS. SUTER: I'm Bebette Suter, do you have a question? Would you like me te present the plans? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. HS. SUTER: What this shows, if yeu can October 20, 2005 84 2 3 4 5 ¥ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 see it, it shows the existing foundation in yellow, the existing foundation of the existing house, and this house area here in orange is going to be the new foundation work, but you can see the dots where the existing piers exist, which we are going to keep, and over here to the far left side, which is to the west side, which is next to Olsen's property, that is the 1'9" by 24'8" that we are removing so there is more space to walk through between the two properties. So what this drawing is depicting is the foundation plan with the existing conditions and the new work proposed because we're using the existing foundation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is that orange; is that deck? MS. SUTER: Ail of this is heated interior space. What is existing, this is the existing cottage, which I think is electric heat, and this is a covered, screened in porch in here BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not heated? MS. SUTER: Not heated, but it has a solid knee wall, and it has a roof and a ceiling, but it's finished inside. In fact, right here it's got a fireplace in the porch or barbecue. Then this drawing depicts the proposed first floor and the pink denotes the current lines of the existing house; that's the perimeter of the house and where it started in here, this is the 1'9" by 24'8" area that we are removing. So we're really not increasing the size of the house other than going upstairs. Now, when we move upstairs to the second floor, essentially the one-story cottage will be a cape with dormers. And this drawing depicts the perimeter, which is what we have around the outside of the house, and the pink depicts the proposed second floor that we're adding. And the second floor will be underneath a gabled roof with dormers because it is a cape. And this side of the house is the west side, which is the Olsen side and that was the side in question. And that's what Dick was discussing, the setbacks to Olsen, and when you add, for example, the area within the eaves to the wall, it gives you a larger setback for your area code. It's not a pyramid law, Dick, what did you call the law? The Walz law? October 20, 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 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's an interpretation. MS. SUTER: Interpretation. This side, to the east, we're quite far back, I guess you call that second floor living space. And this is a better example, again, of what I'm referencing. Underneath, and you do have these plans, beneath are the proposed construction documents, you can see the gable, with the dormer and this is what exists in blue. This depicts the mass that we're applying above the existing house. This is the other side. This is the side facing the street, which also depicts the same elements. This is the gable roof with the existing cottage beneath. And the orange denotes the existing footing line. When they raised the house not long ago, it was put on conventional foundation to code. So essentially we're using the entire foundation that exists. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason you have to go 32 feet; could you go a little lower? MS. SUTER: We did reduce the entire thing a foot. If we reduce it anymore we're going to start making a very small area above. So far living with knee walls essentially, except at the primary gable all the way out by the bay, otherwise. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: How high to that top of the ridge? MS. SUTER: One is 32 feet, the other is 30. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How tall is the existing house? MS. SUTER: It's 18 feet. And you have this page also. This is a clean sheet showing the ~xisting cottage. And this is the side facing the water, which this depicts in blue and that's the side facing the street, and this side is Olsen, right here, and the big difference between the current gable and the proposed gable, is the current gable runs east-west, so that the ridge line is higher, you have more wall, you have a lot more wall facing the neighbors so we turn the ridge and we're running it north and south from the road to the bay. Therefore we have our height on the end rather than the sides. So when you look at the house, the roofline drops very iow to the sides. 85 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Suter, can I ask you a question? When you say that the existing roofline of the cottages is 18 feet, are you referring to the actual ridge line or to the mean? MS. SUTER: Top of the ridge, net the average. I knew in Seutheld you calculate te the midpoint, net te the ridge. Ne, I'm talking about the highest point ef the roof. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It certainly leeks much higher than that when you get en top ef it. MS. SUTER: It's a small house so it's an illusion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I reek the liberty of going te the top floor, and when you're up there you certainly leek much higher than 18 feet. MS. SUTER: You went te that roof deck and you steed up? Yes. I knew what you mean. I'll shew you this drawing because it's a section through the house and you have this also. This drawing denotes the living area upstairs. So you can see where the living area is, and this is all eves and attic off te the sides because there's ne head room. And this ether drawing also denotes, you can you see the living area here, and as it drops lower in the attic and in the eves in the installed closet. Se there is a let ef bulk area that we cannot use, you cannot walk in there, but essentially we created a very attractive cottage. And I suppose theoretically you can chop this off and have flat reefs throughout the house. But I don't think the neighbors would like to see that either. CHAIRWONLAN OLIVA: Thank you, very nice. Board members have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a comment. I would like to commend Miss Surer and the Rayners for a tight tolerant situation up there. They really helped mitigate some of the side yard encroachments on the neighbors, which made a radical reefline te accommodate that and the second fleer doesn't begin te weigh in. We've seen a lot of presentations this morning, net as severe side yards but pre-existing, nonconforming houses that just went straight up. So you took some effort te be conscious ef neighbors. 86 October 20, 2005 87 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. SUTER: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It wasn't easy, I'm sure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Someone in the audience have any questions en this application? Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: Geed afternoon, my name is Gary Olsen of Seutheld. I am a co-owner of the property te the west ef the Raynor property, which I own with my sister Janet Maureen and my brother, Richard Olsen. This property was turned over te us by my parents Harold and Hilda Olsen in 2002. We're not only neighbors ef the Rayners but we're friends of the Raynors, and I also commend them for a really nice job in preparing a set ef plans that I think will work. I know why they want to do it. They have very valuable property. They want to live there year round, and quite frankly, my parents who own property to the west some day either we may do something by going up like somebody else down at Beachwood or our successors. Nothing's certain in life so I don't know what's going to happen to our property. The thing that concerns me, and I don't know if the Board really can address this issue, is how close the Raynor house is to our property line. It's only 1.2 feet and if there's some way the plans can be reconfigured to at least give five feet or four and a half feet between our house and their property line, I think it would make a lot of sense not only for us but also for the Raynors if they go to sell. They're wonderful neighbors, but we don't know who's going to move in if they do, in fact, decide to sell. I don't know how the construction on this house would be done with 1'2" from our property line without basically coming onto our property to do the construction. Right now they have an open porch on the west side of their property and they have been bringing things from the road side to the beach side through their house or through the porch, but that porch is now going to be enclosed, which means from a realistic standpoint, they're going to have to, without coming onto the Olsen property, bring everything from the north side to the south side by going through their home, and that's not going to happen. Not only that, the issue came up at the October 20, 2005 88 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 last meeting that I was not able to attend, about fire. It is extremely close. I don't know how you can any get any closer to the property line than what this is. I know the comment was made by Mr. Goehringer that he walked around my parents' property and noted there's plenty of room to go around the Olsen property to get to the Raynor property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was not the way it was meant to mean. It was meant to mean, Mr. Olsen, to put water on your father's house at that time, so as to preserve your father's house from that area. It was not meant to go MR. OLSEN: Then I misread it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. I was going to actually call you on that, but I thought we'd wait until this hearing so you understood that. Certainly when you're in the middle of a heat of the battle, you don't deal with property lines. Everybody goes everywhere and hose gets laid and so on and so forth. Certainly the preservation of your father's house and the preservation of the Suter house on the most easterly side of the Raynor house is of great concern to anybody. I just happen to be doing this for 38 years as a volunteer, and I was only offering that as being a board member. MR. OLSEN: But in any event, it would seem to make sense not only for the Olsen parcel but also for the Raynor parcel, so that they would have total independence basically of our piece, and we would have independence from their piece. I think the plans look great. I like the roofline. I like the fact that they don't have but two or three windows on our side to give us privacy from each other. But if there's some way that the plans could be slightly altered, and it wouldn't take a lot because as I scaled it out, this house is basically 40 feet wide and 40 feet deep, that's about 1,600 square feet, that's a good sized first floor, and it wouldn't take a lot to just give them five feet, and I would think they would want it. But those are my comments, I'm not here to oppose it, but I do have a question and a concern about the access and the proximity. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Mr. Lark, a response or Miss Surer, is there any October 20, 2005 89 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way we could get it back to five feet? MR. LARK: I have to refer to the architect. I'm not a specialist. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Suter? MS. SUTER: On sheet A 3, we have small bedrooms on the first floor, they're only 12 feet wide. The master bedroom is 12 feet wide and really the concern is from east to west and one bedroom essentially is 10 foot 8 by 12 and the other one is 19 by 12. To reduce it down more it's going to be very minimally sized and to champer it, it might gain you a few more inches on the side, but it's not going to give the Olsens the relief that they are wishing to obtain. And then the living room and dining room are 25 feet wide. It's not massive. And I also can say for the Raynors, I know that they do not want to make the house any narrower because it's very tight to begin with to live here year round, particularly as they become older and they cannot climb the stairs and they are dictated to stay only on the first floor. Then the only other option is to get rid of the foyer and have to walk around the outside of the house to get through. And I think that would be very odd. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How big is the foyer? MS. SUTER: It's really no foyer, it's a hallway. It's five feet by 15. It's a hallway down the center of the house. There's not a formal foyer. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure that I agree that 25 feet is a modest size for a living room. MS. SUTER: For a living room/dining room? This is the kitchen, and that's basically 13'9". BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I realize the bedrooms can't be made any narrower. MS. SUTER: The question is it's over in here. BOARD SECY. whole house? MS. SUTER: feet. cut off modest. KOWALSKI: How wide is the It's 42'3". It used to be BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's right. that section. MS. SUTER: It's modest. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We concede that it is Is there any way of getting another foot 44 You October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 or two by redesign of that first floor? MS. SUTER: I guess is it a foot or two for the entire length? Or is it a foot or two only in that section? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess that's a question of what the neighbor, I would suppose that the neighbor if he wants a foot or two or three, he would like it the length of the whole kength of the house rather than part of it. But khat's not my question. MS. SUTER: Well, you have 2'9" right here at this point existing, and this is 1'3" in here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can you slice off MS. SUTER: And you're only talking about it occurring en the first floor, net the second floor. So you can have an overhang. You can have a soffit and walk underneath this space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question, Hr. Olsen? MR. OLSEN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is your house set back en that side? BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: My parents' house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. OLSEN: I don't knew. They built their house right after the second World War. They built it probably in the mid to late '40s. Then in 1971 when my father decided te retire, it was a summer cottage, and they applied to the Building Department te move it ever. Actually, believe it or net, my parents don't have an actual survey of their parcel, I tried to find it. But went to the Building Department the ether day, and there was this plot plan that shews that their house is, I think, 14 and a half feet from their easterly line, which would be the Raynor line. MR. LARK: At this point where you're asking it's 14.3 -- I had the surveyor measure it. The Olsen house is 14.3 from the property line, that's the northwest corner of where the Rayner house would be, which is 1.2 off ef it. MR. OLSEN: So that jives with what the plot plan in the Building Department shews. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That house is set back off the side yard by 14 and a half feet? HR. LARK: Not talking about the garage or cottage en the north side ef the Olsens, we're 9O October 20, 2005 91 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Calking about the main Olsen house itself, that was your question; was it not? MR. OLSEN: I do have a copy of the plot plan that was in the Building Department records. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I look at it? It's kind of difficult because of the bushes on the one side. MR. OLSEN: The location of the Raynor house was not done by the Raynors. It was done by a lawyer from Rockville Centre by the name of Ernest Belfy, and my father actually, and the owner by the name of Shelker, who now owns the Suter house, which is on the east side of the Raynor property, he was a lawyer from Westchester, and he said to my father, Harry, why don't we buy this vacant lot and we'll split it, you can take half and I'll take half. My father said that's a great idea. This was back probably back in the early '50s. And then this guy Walter Shelker, who was a real estate lawyer in Westchester, said Harry this thing is so tangled up in estate issues and one thing or another, nobody will ever get a clear title to this property. Well, of course, one spring my mother and father came down to open up their summer cottage at the time, and there was this house plunked on the property. Apparently had been brought in, according to Mary which I didn't know, probably in the middle of the night. It was plunked down on the property with one foot, basically one foot from my parents' bedroom and property line, and two feet from the Suter -- now the Surer property line. So that's how it all happened. And this house is too big for this property width wise. You can build a really nice house 30 feet wide, 37 feet wide. My feeling is this is the time to correct a mistake, of course there was no code at the time, but to correct a situation which is really intolerable, total lack of concern on the part of Belfy on the part of his neighbors. Actually I brought a ruler, 12 inches, that's how far this house is from my parents' property line. None of you on the Board would want that situation. We don't like it. I don't think the Raynors like it, and they didn't create it. But now is the time at least to make some sort of minor adjustment where they can get from the back of their property to the water side of the property by walking on their own property October 20, 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 rather than having to go through their house, which is not going to happen when these renovations are done, when the construction is done. They're not going to be able to do it in this space. So that's kind of the history of it. Getting back to the original question, if you look at survey, on the water side of the property, after that jog is taken out, there's going to be 5.5 feet from the Olsen property line, that's the water side. As you go down towards the roads, then it still goes down to 1.2. My suggestion is they have already got 5.5 on the southerly end, bring that line down so you have 5.5 all the way down. That way they can walk all the way down, obviously if there's fire or emergency, somebody's got to get in at least it helps. Obviously we have no objection to people going over the Olsen property either. I have to say the Raynors are wonderful neighbors. My father lives down there by himself now. He's 93 years old, and they're checking in on him all the time, and it's a real comfort to my father to know that the Raynors are there and that they're going to be there year round, other than that, there's nobody there. On the other side there's the Suters, but they're not well and it's a nice comfort to know there's somebody else around. But I do think this is the time to correct an error that was not created by the Raynors but was created by this guy Belfy, just have a little more separation, so that each piece is independent of the other. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen, the perception is that your house, which you share with your brother and sister, is closer to the line; is that where the garage area is? MR. OLSEN: No. Because Dick Lark just said that he had a surveyor check -- my father mentioned to my sister that they saw a surveyor around the property either yesterday or today. I guess he verified that my parents' house is 14.3 feet from the Raynor line, which corresponds with what that plot plan shows. To be honest with you, my parents when they built their cottages initially back in the late '40s, their house was very close to their property line also. It was probably not any more than a foot or two because in those days you could 92 October 20, 2005 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 do what you wanted to de. And once the Belly house came in, they ceuld reach out and shake Nands from ene house to the ether. Se when they decided te ge year reund, they sheved it ever te give themselves s©me privacy and a little breathing reom. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It weuld be easier to de a let line change. MR. OLSEN: This heuse is ever 43 feet wide I just heard. I den't see any reason why it can't be pared down just a little bit. The enly peeple that are affected are us. I den't think that the Suters care that the Raynor heuse is enly two feet frem their property line, but there's no access that way either fer the Rayners te get from the read te the beach. The enly way they were doing it was they were going through their porch because there's ne reem, nebedy can fit threugh this. Once that perch becemes part of the heuse, then nobody's going te bring surf beards and water skis and gas tanks and whatever else, lawn chairs, thr©ugh the house to get to the beach. I weuld think they weuld want it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fellowing up en Hr. Orlando's suggestien, I don't know what it weuld take te redesign it, te create what yeu're asking, but might it cest less to sell a strip of land? Right now the houses are abeut 15 and a half feet apart minimum, and if the land -- if the beundary was halfway between them, er ene-third of the way from one te the other, probably would not be a problem that anybedy weuld have. I have ne idea. HR. OLSEN: What you're asking is let's selve this ene by geing to the Planning Beard, er whatever, getting a let line cNange and convey a parcel to the Rayners to solve a preblem that's ~ot really eur creatien. And I don't think that's a fair request. Plus, all of this preperty is so darned valuable new, yeu go dewn there the views are spectacular. My parents' house faces the bay, and on the side we have Hall's Creek geing dewn. It's like being on a boat, and there's no way I would consent te make their preperty smaller. don't knew what that weuld de in the future, if we decide te sell er whatever, how that's geing to create what we can do. I know Mary, in the last presentatien mentioned that she showed my brother October 20, 2005 94 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 these plans, and he agrees with me and my sister, that these plans are really nice, but he did mention to her that maybe you could do something to get a little bigger space between the westerly side of your house and the westerly side of your property. And that was kind of just ignored. I don't know why it can't be done. It's just a question of pushing lines around a piece of paper. The house isn't built yet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Suter, do you ]lave any thoughts? MR. OLSEN: Also it would increase the value of the Raynor house. So they could say to their buyer, look, you don't have to go through Olsen, you don't have to bring stuff through your house. MR. LARK: I just wanted to clarify, Hr. Geehringer raised a point about the let line change. The reason Hr. Goehringer asked that question, is that when you ge te the property, the Olsen buildings are closer than the 14 feet, not at this point but as you ge further north, they're only three feet elf the line. That other building, as you pull into the Raynor property there, immediately adjacent there there's a building there, like a little cottage/garage effect, and that is about three feet off the line. But where he asks specifically, the space between the two buildings, it was 14.3 the surveyor. So I wanted to clarify. So a lot line change is not a simple thing, forgetting economics and waterfront and all that, because the way that line is drawn and it starts out, I think they have 35 feet on Beachwood Road, then it just widens out, there's an odd angle there, and one building up real close. The other building is not the main building. So you would end up with the lot line change with jogs going around the building. Which the Planning Board doesn't favor much. I just wanted to clarify because I understood your questions BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You had me baffled there for a minute. I have a similar situation on my own property I have these huge angles which are pie shaped, which causes a phenomenal problem when you're trying to figure out things. MR. LARK: And also, I'll let the October 20, 2005 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 architect talk more about it, but it was considered at one point, if you could move the house on that northwest corner by chopping it off, and I was told and she can verify, forget the cost of that because the foundation is in and everything is in over there, forget the cost, in order to make up the space, she'd have to go seaward. And if she's goes seaward, it's going to start impinging on everybody's views. You can't go northward towards the road because you have cesspools and those things that are there. So it got to be a situation where it is. And when they raised the house, they just put it right on the same spot. So that's the problem there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just one more question. One could look from the point of view from the neighbor as this application is an opportunity to correct a long-standing wrong, an opportunity. But given that the house, the lot is made a little bit wider there, how much worse will it be if this is approved than it is right now? MR. LARK: No worse, it will be the same. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was asking Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: If it's approved, honestly, it's almost an intolerable situation as far as house location, now is the opportunity to try and fix that problem. Again, it wasn't caused by the applicant but by a predecessor in title that didn't care, but I'm expressing my views. Now is the time I think if it can be fixed and obviously we're here because they need a variance, and by pulling that house over just so it has maybe 5.5 feet all the way down or whatever the architect feels can work, it's also going to decrease the area coverage issue because you're going to have less house covering the property. And this is expanding a nonconforming situation that's why we're here. I think the design of the house is fine. I appreciate the fact that they're not going out further, it would block my parents' view, that the roofline is soft and cottage-like, I think that's great, but on the other hand, if the Board can see its way to give approval subject to getting or maybe see what the architect can come up with at another meeting to give them a little bit more space. I mean, how is the construction going to be done with this much room October 20, 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 without going on our property? And that's not so much the issue, I don't care if they go on our property, as I say, they're friends. I've known Mary and Henry almost all of my life. I'm older than they are, so they've known me almost all of their lives. MR. SPITALLERI: My name is Joel Spitalleri, I'm president of Spitalleri Construction Management. The Raynors had asked me to be here to kind of answer any questions regarding the construction feasibility. Mr. Olsen had brought up some questions regarding that, being able to work within that 1'3" area. You're right, we would need the cooperation of the neighbors in that area. Five feet, four feet we can work in without going on the neighbor's property. When you get down in that area one, two feet, you do need some cooperation. We've done it before, generally with the understanding that if there's any damage or anything, things will be replaced or repaired. You have to understand that the outside wall of a house is not constructed from the outside on the neighbor's property. It's constructed from the inside within the building footprint. The only time a contractor generally has to go on the outside area is to install sheathing or siding, possibly fascia. And that's pretty much a quick thing that's being done. It's a day or two's work particularly in a small area like that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Miss Surer, do you have anything further to add? MS. SUTER: I think Miss Raynor wants to speak first. MRS. RAYNOR: Good afternoon. We raised the cottage I think it was in 1995, and the Olsens knew about it at the time. We didn't have any objection then. The house has been there. The cottage has been there for over 50 years without any problem. Unbeknownst to Dick and Gary, we don't carry gas tanks and other stuff through our porch; we've carried surf boards around the side of our house, we've carried Sunfish, kayaks around the side of our house without any problem. There's also a right of way, if you look on the tax map along Olsen's property that should be clear, and that would have access through the creek through the bay. So if there was a problem, 96 October 20, 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 we could always get access through the right of way that is legally there. We have no intention of selling the cottage. I would like to live there year round for the rest of my days. That's why I have a five foot hallway, because I'm planning on being there -- hopefully not - but maybe in a wheelchair. I need access and room on the first floor. If I take five feet off, I lose that back bedroom. I would have 20 feet, less than 20 feet, I believe for a living room/dining room, and that's not much space at all for a living room/dining room combination. It would just not be feasible. I would have to go out front onto my deck, which I believe I could do, but then I would block Olsen's view of the water and Suter's view of the water, which I don't want to do. I thought we've always gotten along. Like Gary said, we've been friends, we've accommodated each other along the years. And I was hoping that this wasn't going to be the problem that it's turned out to be. I wish you luck in making this decision, I know it's not an easy one. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that wishes to comment on this application? Anything else from the Board members? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our Next hearing is the re-hearing on the Bollman property on Truman's Path in East Marion. Hr. Arnoff, are you representing the Bollmans? MR. ARNOFF: I am, Mrs. Oliva. Harvey Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York, good afternoon. I'm somewhat perplexed and it's a scheduling thing which I think is more form than substance, considering the hour. But it would appear to me that before the Board should act or consider acting on the possibility of a re-hearing, it should make a determination in regard to Miss Gould's application which the time for that has already passed since it was scheduled 97 October 20, 2005 ~8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 for 2:50. It would seem to me that the issues presented by her per her application here to revoke the determination of the Building Department might impact upon this Board's ultimate determination as to whether to even grant a re-hearing and what to do with a re-hearing. I question that -- I didn't call because it's really none of my business, but when I saw the scheduling by the Board and the timing of these two hearings, I thought they were inverted, and I think we're putting the cart before the horse. So I would ask the Board if it would consider hearing the second hearing first and then utilizing that information to go forward. Because otherwise, I think, they're all going to kind of blend together in some kind of an uncontrollable mish-mosh. They're going to all spill over, and we can focus our attention, if you will, on each part of this by doing it in that manner. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any objection to that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to get a legal opinion on that. Yes, Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: May it please the Board, my name is Eric Bressler, of Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa, Mattituck, New York representing Jennifer Gould. It seems to me in response te Mr. Arneff's comments, that the actions of the Beard were quite clear, quite rational and that there is ne bar to this Board having granted er voted te have a re-hearing proceed with a re-hearing. I don't believe there's going te be any mish-mesh one way or another. I think that easily any perceived mish-mosh can be easily remedied by dealing with whatever evidence is brought in by this hearing be incorporated by reference into the second hearing or vice versa. Or the Board could open the matter up te take testimony and argument with the understanding that what's said is germane and admitted into both hearings. I don't see the point in duplicating everything we're going do and it seems to me that the applicant ought te go forward, make its case, and the Beard can rule as to the admissibility of everything that's said, and we'll deal with the issues before the Beard. That's my suggestion as te hew the Board ought to proceed in the interest of economy given the October 20, 2005 99 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 hour. MR. ARNOPP: In order to grant a re-hearing, there must be new evidence or a reason for the Board -- and additionally, I must point out, the statute gives this Board the power to direct this hearing, but at the same time you must find that you did not by your earlier determination vest certain rights in people, meaning the Bollmans, and that they acted in good taith in reliance of it. We had an application, I believe, the initial application was to demolish a house and the Board gave permission to do that. It's gone. So we're having a re-hearing on whether we can demolish a house that isn't there. I'm not entirely sure what we're doing here and that was going to be another question I had for this Board, I'm not sure why we're here. I'm prepared to go forward, but I'm not sure that we just say on a re-hearing we rest on the record; you have our testimony, you have all the evidence, you have everything; there's nothing new except for this problem with the foundation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's why you're here, not because of the building being demolished but because of the foundation. MR. ARNOFF: That's correct. So the issue then is: Are we not here on a very narrow issue of the foundation, or are we opening up the whole panoply of side yard, front yard, all of the rest that goes because that's what we need the direction of this Board to do because this could turn into a whole de novo proceeding, and I'm not sure that that's what this Board wants to do. I don't think that the Board can make that ultimate determination until it gets to the second hearing, that being Miss Gould's application to annul the determination of the Building Inspector. That's what my point is. MR. BRESSLER: Ma'am Chairwoman, the Town law is extremely clear in Section 267 {a)12, it authorizes the re-hearing of a matter upon the unanimous vote of all the members of the Board present. That's what it says. Now, independent of that authority, the Board may also grant a re hearing if new facts and circumstances are shown. So, with due respect, Mr. Arnoff is wrong on the law. The Board voted to have a re-hearing, we're going to have a re-hearing. And October 20, 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 respectfully, if Mr. Arnoff chooses to rest on his record that he made, and he chooses to incorporate that into the new hearing and the Board so allows him, that's his decision, and he can move forward. But the Board has voted to have a re-hearing. It's clear under the law they have the authority. Let's have a re-hearing and whatever evidence he wants to put in, he'll put in and I'll respond to whatever it is that I think needs response. And let's go before we all start getting hungry. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The Board can do whatever it wants. They're both validly noticed hearings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: what does the Board wish to do? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Proceed with the hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's go. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Clarification for me. If I could ask Eric a question, as I'm reading the first application, which is pertaining to Mr. Arnoff, we made a decision based on certain facts presented to us at a hearing, and I'm not quite sure how procedure goes, but we feel perhaps that that particular decision wasn't followed due to the evidence that was presented to us before. Now, we have new evidence; that new evidence is the actual, physical new foundation that's there. Am I -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The footings. MR. BRESSLER: The fact that the old foundation then became certified as unusable, a footing went in and then this Board stopped. Now you have new facts, that's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I went through the minutes. I went through the minutes, and I have here, and I want to know if this is the crux of everything. "Mr. Orlando: Is the foundation structural? Mr. Bertani: Yes, it is. We are going to do very little work to it." That would be the basis for opening this new hearing. MR. BRESSLER: So therefore, a re-hearing is called for, an examination of the facts is called for, and while Mr. Arnoff may be technically correct that with respect to the 100 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 demolition what's done is done, he is incorrect with respect te the fact that the rest ef what is going to be done remains within this Board's jurisdiction. And that's the issue. And I think this Beard needs to hear the whys and whereferes and hew this happened in determining what kind ef relief its geing to grant. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think maybe I ceuld sort this out. At the time ef the last hearing, the approval was given under the implicit assumptien -- it's not so implicit, it's actually stated in there that they were net going to be able te use the old foundatien -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They were going te be able re. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They were going te be able to use the old feundation, and it turns out that that assumption is false. It turned eut te be false. Maybe nebody ceuld have knewn at the time it was false, but it was false. The reason fer recensidering this whole business has nothing to do with the fact that the demolitien eccurred before the defectiveness in the feundation eccurred, it had to do with this is a very important relevant new fact which said we should reconsider what we decided in the light of this one new fact. What that means precedurally, I don't know. But it's pretty clear te me what the substantive issues are here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There were two reasons. And the other reason was because the foundatien was remeved, Beard members went dewn and saw that it was removed, so circumstances changed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just have feetings there and no feundations. BOARD MEMBBR DINIZIO: We need te then figure eut how that happened. MR. ARNOFF: I agree. BOARD HEHBER DINIZIO: I think that the owners have the opportunity te present te us infermation that draws a picture fer us, whatever {t is, ef hew that feoting get there. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Fer clarity's sake, we have two hearings. While the standards might be slightly different for them, the facts are essentially the same. We're going to hear beth hearings. Let's just start and let's have 101 Octeber 20, 2005 102 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 the Board hear who they want to hear first. MR. BRESSLER: And I am going to ask that whatever be done in the first hearing be incorporated by reference in the second hearing. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I would assume so. HR. BRESSLER: And hope that ne mere than that is necessary and let the Beard issue its determinations. I don't intend to re-up everything, doesn't make any sense. HR. ARNOFF: I don't have a problem with that, but my question is: Are we going into the side yard variances? Are we going into the height variances, which this Beard gave? Are we addressing all those issues de hOVe? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If the Board wishes te hear them. HR. ARNOFF: Unless we knew that, we can't address it. That's my point. In other words, are we addressing -- I'm here te address whatever this Board wants me to address. The issue then becomes eno, as Mr. Dinizio said, are we dealing with the foundation and the history ef what happened te the foundation and that alone -- at least for the time being -- that's fine BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's Part 1. CHAIRWOHAN OLIVA: Let's start with that. MR. BRESSLER: And the consequences that flew from that, se make your case. HR. ARNOPP: I will do what the Beard directs me to do, not what Hr. Bressler directs me te de, most respectfully. At this particular point, I think considering the comments that have been made, I think it would be best if I were te call en Hr. Bertani, the general contractor, te give the Beard the history of how and why this all happened. John. HR. BERTANI: Good afternoon, my name is John Bertani. Basically we came, I believe, in Hatch and we started the process ef asking for variances to reconstruct Mr. and Mrs. Bollman's house. We met with the Board, made some suggestions to us, we tried to maintain the foundation, that was our original thoughts to keep the front portion and the right side, which would be I guess the east side of the foundation, we were altering the rear for an addition and also te October 20, 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 get access to the basement which was there. It had what was called a "Dutch wall," and that's where the equipment for the house was going to go. We adjusted the house. Miss Gould came and made some suggestions. We worked with her. We lowered the house to 27 feet, the maximum height on the ridge, and that's the highest ridge, there's other ones that are much lower. We brought in the east side of the house, back to get more of a variance -- less of a variance I should say, on the east side of the house. And we did receive the permit for that, the Board's variance for that, for the front yard we received a variance and I believe lot coverage variance. So we proceeded to demolish the house once we got the permits. We went forward with that, and when we got to the point of when we took down the wooden structure, we started just by going along the side of the foundation, it started to buckle and cave in. The foundation was found to be substandard. We did not know it at the time because the house was completely surrounded by bushes and everything else, and it was never, ever really tested to see if it was structurally sound. We were just following the plans prepared by Penny Lumber and it was stamped by the engineer for them, which was based on the structural part of the house and the foundation, I guess the new foundation that he was stamping basically that it was structurally okay. We then went, we saw this problem, I went to the Building Department. I asked what should I do, what procedure should I follow. They looked at it, they said they had no problem with us replacing the foundation that was there, and then they said we should check with the Trustees. They actually checked with the Trustees. The Trustees said it was no problem because they gave the permit based on the actual footprint of the house. Well, it was nonjurisdiction for the wetlands because of the height of the bluff, then I believe Pat from the Building Department went to the ZBA office and asked Linda or she said a secretary. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No. I was off that day. MR. BERTANI: The secretary contacted Miss Oliva and asked if we could go ahead and proceed with the demolition of the foundation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Supposedly the 103 October 20, 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 conversation was that they wished to replace a piece of the foundation or a section of the foundation that was crumbling. My response was that you could replace it in-kind/in-place, not to go further, just in-kind/in-place. MR. BERTANI: We did not go any further as far as the footprint of the house. It's actually less of a footprint than what was there originally. And I was not told that; I was told that we could remove the foundation and replace it exactly in the same spot, that's what I was told. I did not see any paperwork. So we stopped. I waited for a surveyor for over a week to stake out the location of the existing house, and we followed that right to the letter, and we also have proof of that which we gave the Board. It's exactly in the same place it was before. It's no further towards the water, towards Miss Gould's property or Mr. Peretz's property, it's actually less. And the one corner in the front, they said something about the coastal erosion line, we're back actually four and a half feet from that with the corner of the footing if you looked in the back on Mr. Peretz's side of the property. So I just don't understand the reason. Basically we did go down, it's no doubt about that. We removed it and we wanted to replace it because it was structurally insufficient to hold a new house. Well, the reason it was structurally insufficient was it was less than three feet for the frost line. We only had approximately 24 inches in certain areas. It was all varied throughout the foundation, different heights and so on. I guess the original house they must have dug under it by hand and slid in block where they could. And the Dutch wall in the center was done at a later date. There are some pictures. I don't know if you're interested. CHAIRWOMA~N OLIVA: Sure, we like pictures. So in other words, Mr. Bertani, once you started to work on this foundation you found out that not just a piece was crumbling, but just most all of it was not done properly. MR. BERTANI: Right. It just wasn't done adequately. And believe me, if we could have left the front and side, we would have done it. We weren't looking to cause any problems for anyone in the neighborhood or anything like that. I 104 October 20, 2005 105 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 thought we tried to work with the neighbors as best we could and also end up with something - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And I don't believe anybody up here is disputing whether the foundation was or wasn't -- the integrity. It's just that the previous hearing that we deliberated so intently with Miss Gould and everyone we were basing it on leaving the foundation in place, so we had to work around those boundaries. And once we found out that that wasn't part of the equation anymore, that changes the whole game, and the job went out ef scope, which happens in the construction field. So we want te review it again because now it's a new ballgame. We're up to bat again, it's the first inning, so new we can move things, we can change things. HR. BERTANI: The ether thing we have te know also is like we stated before that maybe is in the record also is that the septic system, the water line, everything else is in the back of the house. You're net going te be able te put that on the water side of the house; there's very little land there, and I don't think the Health Department would really want that because it would probably blew the bank out. Basically, we have no place te ge with it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You installed new septic systems already? HR. BERTANI: Ne. I'm saying we have to. there's an old one there we have to abandon. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have te bring it up te code? MR. BERTANI: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you're saying you have to put that between the house and the garage? MR. BERTANI: Right. And we also have to bring the water line in, have that 10 foot separation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does the garage have any bathroom in it? MR. BERTANI: Yes, it does, but that goes into the existing system which is in that area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question of Mr. Bertani? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MR. BERTA/qI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bertani, apart from this situation that you were referring October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 to where they go in and dig out the walls, you know where you had some - I'll refer to them as ],nee walls, the outside walls, and they go in and put an internal foundation around the existing outside walls, is there any difference between that footing that exists today, that I looked at, and the outside walls as they existed if I was in the basement of the house? In other words, those outside walls which included the square apart from the addition you were putting on the back, are those outside walls, meaning the furthest outside walls, any difference on that footing as they exist today? Are they in the same place as I'm turning? MR. BERTANI: Yes, they are, but we did take the corner in off Mr. Peretz's, that would be the west, southwest -- southeast corner, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you move it in or move it out? MR. BERTANI: In. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How far did you move it in? MR. BERTANI: Four foot four inches. Any other questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any other questions of Mr~ Bertani? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, looks like you have a pretty deep cellar to begin with. MR. BERTANI: Yes. It was the full height from the center. They dug it out in the inside to provide for the heating equipment. We were making access on the addition side so we could get to that because there was no interior access to that. Then that's where, from that forward we were going Ko keep, and that's the part that we found when we started to do it, that wall was fine if we could have kept the front. We didn't look forward to doing this. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: What did you do? You took the whole thing out? MR. BERTANI: Yes. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: You could have just put three feet down? MR. BERTANI: We could have went down four feet down in the front. We just decided while we were doing it, we'd get some more space, it's not a very big place, figured we could use it for mere 106 October 20, 2005 107 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 storage. MR. ARNOFE: Miss Oliva, if I may, I have the original survey that is referenced, which is updated August 29th, I believe the Board may have this. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't have the one showing where the footings are. Was there another survey done for the footings? MR. VERITY: That's the same survey that's on here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There were new footings put in after that, right? MR. VERITY: That's the same survey. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So this building's locked in stone. It cannot be moved one foot either way? MR. BERTANI: Well, the footings are already in. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Say the footings aren't there. MR. BERTANI: Where can we go? We already have a variance for the front, we have six feet I believe at the widest and then 5.9 on the west. We have 12.6 I believe on the east. I don't know where else we could go. If we try to come back, we have the septic system, the water lines. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Harvey, the Chairwoman had a question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the footings on this survey? MR. BERTANI: (Marking.) MR. ARNOFF: Miss Oliva, I would ask the Board to take notice and to deem admitted before the Board as evidence the correspondence you received from Mr. Durkowski with regard to the foundation. I believe there's a letter in the file indicating it is structurally unsafe and unsound to proceed. With that, I would also ask that there are letters which have been sent to the Trustees and from the Trustees back and forth to this Board, I would ask that they be incorporated as well into the record. I would ask that the Board also take notice of all the testimony that it had before it in the prior hearings in this matter and deem them admitted for purposes in this hearing as well, rather than have to induce additional testimony of the exact same nature. October 20, 2005 108 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: Yes, why not. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is it only the testimony from the prior record that you want entered or the entire file? MR. ARNOPP: Entire file. I have some more comments but I would like to reserve them for the conclusion, if I may. Nothing further at this time. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this application? MR. BRESSLER: Please. The Board finds itself in an interesting position this afternoon. At the prior hearing it was represented to the Board that essentially the reason why this nonconformity had to be continued was because it would be a great hardship to put another foundation in. That was the reason; that was the stated reason, and it turned out, as noted earlier, that that just wasn't so. And you'll hear testimony today from our experts as to why that never should have been the case, and this Board can reach its own conclusion as to what the real reasons were and what the whys and wherefores were surrounding how it came to be that a foundation was stamped concededly never tested or looked at, and all of a sudden within a week and a half of the plans coming in, it was suddenly determined that the foundation, contrary to the representation, wasn't any good. That that was a departure from accepted engineering standards I think it will be seen is beyond question. Whether it's something other and further than that I think is something for the Board to decide. So now the Board finds itself in the position of having to ask the question, essentially de hove, is this the place where the Board is going to approve a house? Is this the only place that a house can be logically put on this lot? Is there any way that a house can be put on this lot that is conforming? And we think the answer to that is yes. Are there any other ways in which to handle the septic, such that a conforming house can be put on this lot? The answer to that question is yes. So plainly the answer to the ultimate question, which is can the applicant achieve what he is seeking by some other means less intrusive, the answer is yes. The October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Board must also take into account whether, in considering this application, it is going to essentially turn this property into a two residence property. The Board has before it the testimony from the last hearing now, which makes it plain that the applicant was living in modified space for three and a half years, now even longer than that. That's a residence. The Board will also hear testimony concerning the fact that this ether residence is also nonconforming and not built in accordance with permit. So basically, what the Board has to ask itself is whether or not it's going to permit this property to be converted into a property with two residences, each of which are nonconforming when it doesn't have to be so. That's really the question for determination here today. Now, the second hearing draws off the facts in the first hearing. And what we're asking for there is obviously that the building permit that was issued pursuant to the prior decision of this Board be set aside, and that any building permit that be issued, be issued in accordance with what this Board decides today in the re-hearing with respect to what it's going to permit to allow on this piece of property. That having been said, I think that that's adequate for the time being and I think I'd ask Miss Gould to step up and proceed with her presentation of the facts concerning the neighborhood, this particular property, what is on the property. And after that, I'd ask our engineer Mr. O'Brien to get up and address several issues, the first of which is what is the appropriate manner in which to handle foundational issues such as this. Were those steps followed here; can the septic be placed in other places, and most importantly, were the steps or I should say the non-steps taken by the applicant with respect to the whole in compliance with the law and regulation. That being said, Miss Gould. MS. GOULD: Jennifer Gould. I gave Mr. Arnoff a print which I'm now going to hand into the Board but I also wanted to put in some pictures. The first two pictures are the eight by 10's of the front and the back of the accessory building residence. The second set of pictures is 33 photos of the Bollman excavation. They're all 109 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dated on the reverse and numbered between 8/3/2005 and 8/25/2005, 14 photos dated and numbered of the Bellman excavation between 9/4 and 9/28/2005, and the most recent photos, five photos taken October 12th and 13th ef 2005 showing the storm damage along the Gould home and property line. And I ask that all these pictures and the 3% pictures that I submitted en Harch 31st be put in for beth appeals, Number 5680, which is the Bollman appeal, and 5781, which is my subsequent appeal. I also have an original and five copies. MR. BRESSLER: I would like to make clear, Mr. Arneff has just reminded me that it's the understanding ef beth parties here that everything that happened in the prior appeal is made part of {3his appeal the companion appeal, beth appeals. So we need not double this up or burden the record with repeating these statements; is that correct, Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. ARNOPP: We would like an opportunity to review these photographs. MS. GOULD: I can email them all to you. MR. ARNOFF: Before we finish today? MS. GOULD: What I've given Mr. Arnoff and what I'm now giving the Board is the Bellman survey with a proposed building envelope, a copy of the Peretz survey, a copy of the Gould survey, a copy ef John C. Ehlers Land Surveyors certification, September 23, 2005, showing that the peak ef the Bellman accessory building is 25 ~eet, and I've also copied the building permit CO file for the Bollman accessory building. So that's the original and this is five copies. I think it's already done, but I would just like the record to reflect that the neighbor on the eastern side of the Bollman property, that's Jessie Peretz wrote a letter in opposition to the granting of the variances and that his letter be entered into the record. I'm going to try to not repeat myself at all from the first hearing. I want to review the overview from Truman's Path, people who drive down Truman's Path and whose houses are on Truman's Path. There are 21 dwellings by my accounts, two vacant lots and the vast majority of these homes are one story bungalows or one and a half story bungalows. When we get down to the subject 110 October 20, 2005 111 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 property, we have the Bellman lot, a 50 foot lot in the center. I'm to the west. I have a 40 foot lot. My dwelling is 21 feet wide and my accessory is 256 feet, for a total of 1,526 square feet. My side yard on the Bellman side, so my eastern side yard, is 12.2 feet. It conforms to the side yard setback requirements of the code. My overall yard doesn't, 40 feet wide, but on his side it conforms. Then you go to the Peretz property. The Peretz lot is to the east of the Bollmans. it's 50 feet wide. It's recently been renovated. It's 20.2 feet wide. It's a two story dwelling with 2,000 square feet of living space, three bedrooms, three full baths. Both of the Peretz side yards, if you look at the surveys, conform. He has a total of 27.6 feet of side yard and there is only one house on all of Truman's Path that is bigger than the Peretz house and that would be the house formerly owned by Farine, which is at 31-12 16, by reviewing the Building Department file. It's an old file, 1987, the house appears to be 3,000 square feet. It received a variance from the Board for its setbacks from the lake and some side yard setbacks, but the problem with the Peretz house is that it's an illegal two family and that's documented in the Building Department file, and there's correspondence between Frank Yakaboski and Victor Lasard, saying no, you have to make them take the second kitchen out on the second floor. It can only be a one-family dwelling, and that's just that one house. So the point of me giving you this copy of the Bellman survey, there is a reasonable alternative, now that the front cottage is totally demolished, of putting the house in a building envelope which conforms to the code. What I have sketched in there in yellow is the front of the envelope is 75 feet back from the bulkhead, that's from the beach bulkhead. You look at correspondence from the Trustees they measure the bulkhead from the top of the bulkhead because he cut into his bluff and has a triple bulkhead now. So they're measuring from the top of the bulkhead. I measured from the beach going back 75 feet. The side yards I've made 10 on the Peretz side and 15 on mine. Obviously, you can move that envelope either way as long as you can keep a minimum side October 20, 2005 112 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 yard of 25 feet. The rear yard, which is the driveway te Truman's Path, is a 35 foot setback. New, as Mr. Bressler said before, the septic system, the whole septic system, is going te be moved. It can be moved to the side yard along my property. It can also be moved te the proposed driveway area. Might have to get a variance for a cover from the Health Department, but it is de-able. It can be done. Will move the septic around and I guess it has to be 10 feet from my water line, but there appears to be sufficient room there. As you can see, it says two-story frame garage, that's the only building that is now en the Bollman property. That building is 21.3 feet wide. That's wider than my house, and it's wider than the neighbor's house. According to their surveyor's calculations, the total square footage of this second-story building is 1,507. I told you that I counted with my outbuilding mine was 1,526, se the total square footage right new is 1,507 en this Bollman accessory building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Gould, when you were referring te the square footage ef your house, were you taking the second story in? MS. GOULD: Yes, I was. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said the total square footage of your house? MS. GOULD: I'm sorry. We have a eno and a half story. The second floor is 493.5 feet, the bottom is 777. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. GOULD: The dwelling itself, first and second floor is 1,270, the outbuilding 256. If you go back to the Bellman application, what they're asking for, setbacks from the beach, square footage. If they don't need most ef these variance they would need they're asking for side yards and total put it inside here, they variances. The only if they incorporated the accessory building into a house structure, just made it larger, would be a setback variance on the Peretz side because that building is as close as 5.8 - actually it's as close as 3.5 and as far away as 5.8. They will need a minor setback variance along there, and then could jog the structure mere te the center of the property. It's a design issue, but it can be October 20, 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 done. It's not impossible. They may not want to do it, but that's not the legal standard here. The issue is whether there's a reasonable alternative. Now, this building, this garage in the packet, I've given you prior Bollman surveys and you'll see that this two-story accessory building with a brand new building, the permit was 1997. On the older surveys you'll see that there was a ramshackle shed that was there before. So they knocked that down, and they put this up. So as far as I'm concerned, it's a self-created hardship. It's in the middle of their building envelope, but it's certainly do-able they can have a 3,000 square foot house if they incorporate this building into it. It's 250 percent bigger than my house, 50 percent bigger than the Peretz house, and bigger than any other house in the whole neighborhood, but it would only be one house. I've given you other documentation in this packet because I've always been concerned about the height of this accessory structure. I've always felt there was something wrong, it was too high. So I had a surveyor come out and survey it for me, and as you can see, it's 25 feet at the peak. Now our code, we discussed this at the last hearing, it has a rather bizarre way of calculating what the height of the accessory building should be, but I recall Mr. Goehringer saying it could be 22 feet. And I understand now how you get that because you take the eve is at 14, the peak is at 22, you added the two together, that's 36, you divide it by 2 to get the mean height, and that's your 18 foot accessory building. The only problem here is that the eve of the Bollman building is not at 11 feet because that's the only way you could get an accessory building height of 25 feet. If you take the peak at 25 and the eve at 11. If you look at the picture, the eve is about 14 feet. I didn't have a surveyor do it, but from the eye it's about halfway up the building. That's the first issue and a reason also to bring the accessory building, incorporate it into the new house so you don't have to get the variance for the height of a building, for an accessory building being 25 feet high. The second thing I discovered going 113 October 20, 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 through the Building Department file and also looking at this survey, the minimum side yard setback requirement on all structures, whether they are accessory or the main dwelling is supposed to be 25 feet. This was a new building. This is supposed to conform to code, but this deck went on. It's not included in the CO, and it makes the total side yards 21.2 feet. So it needs a variance for the deck that surrounds it. That's not part of the CO. You have the whole file there for the CO. It has plans that were drafted in 1977, there's no deck on it. The plans were then stamped four years later by Warren Sandback who said they were okay. There's no height on those plans. You've got the road sheet in there, you've got the application, you've got the CO, and nowhere does it say that that deck is included on the CO. So it seems to make sense to me to take the deck off and extend the building out, then put that deck back on, wrap it on the front of whatever new building you have. It can't stay on the accessory building as it is. The steps up to that second floor also make the side yards nonconforming by about two feet. Now as to the use of the property, as I understand it - my husband and I have owned the property for 19 years. Ever since we've lived there, the building that is now gone, the cottage, was a summer rental. For the first few years we lived there it was a summer rental and then a year round tenant went in and he told me a week ago, this is Robert Christianson, he left in 1995, so since 1995, 10 years ago, that building has been abandoned; there was never any real maintenance done to it, which is maybe why it's in the poor condition that it was in. It was always an ~yesore in the neighborhood, and once the CO was issued on the accessory building, and if you look at that Building Department file, you'll see he had to put an affidavit of why there had to be heat in this thing, a full-blown heating system. Mr. Bollman has lived there since the spring of 2002. So while he got a CO for an accessory building, his use of the property has not been incidental or subordinate to the principal use of the property, the principal use of the property was the accessory building itself. So this wasn't a temporary thing where he moved out of the 114 October 20, 2005 115 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 cottage into the accessory building. He never lived in the cottage, he's only lived in this accessory building, which makes it a principal residence as far as I'm concerned. So that's why I'm asking, if they want to expand, expand this building rather than building a second dwelling. If you look at the pictures in the record since the beginning of March, all been out there too, as Mr record has been incorporated, admission that he lived there admission that he lived there and I know you've Bressler said, the there was already an He made the I don't think it was quite clear how long he lived there, but I'm telling you it was three and a half years full time. It's get cable, it's get satellite, it's got the barbecue. The whole thing is air conditioned. It's get this generater that gees en once a day, it's auxiliary powered. It might not be a big house, but it's certainly something you can live in, and if there's another separate building, the way I see it, it's two houses, and there's nothing like it in the neighborhood. Shew me something in the neighborhood that's similar to this where you have an accessory building er something that's called an accessory building which is as big er bigger than every ether house in the neighborhood. And it's just net in keeping with the neighborhood, and that's why I ask that the Board consider making him do something in this yellow footprint. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody have any questions of Miss Gould? Jim, Mike, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing I want to say is if it has a CO for an accessory structure, I don't care if it's an elephant, it may be used for a primary residence for a person, be it the person that is the fee owner of the property, Miss Gould, but it is still in the guise of this town as being an accessory building. As you know, there are a lot of people in this town that live in accessory buildings, that is legally er illegally, most of them illegally. So I'm telling you that you're absolutely correct in saying that if somebody's living there, because if you live there you can see people entering and exiting the property, but I'm telling you it can't be a primary structure because it doesn't have a CO for a primary structure. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 MS. GOULD: What I'm suggesting is that the accessory building, which does not conform to cede requirements, because ef its height and the deck, be expanded into a full-blown residence. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: We understand what you're saying. I'm also saying to you if it has a CO, it was incumbent upon whomever granted the CO to deal with that aspect of the height. Secondly, the height of that roof is somewhat higher than the average normal roof that I was referring to when I was referring to that mean of 22 feet, meaning 22 feet to the ridge. This is a very steep roof line, that may have been the reason why the building inspector dealt with it at the time as being conforming in reference to height. That is one of the reasons why the Town Board in their inimitable wisdom have been dealing with the aspect of a pyramid law, because when you use steep roof lines, and it was explained to me in code committee, that you can go as high as 57 feet with our present code, and that's the concern we all have had; that's the concern I have had on this Board and everybody has had in reference to stretching that 35 feet all the way up based upon Victorian Tudor-style roofs. I'm just mentioning it to you. MS. GOULD: If you look to the file, you'll see that there are no measurements for what it was. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand but there was still a CO granted on the building. MS. GOULD: I understand. But what I am suggesting is the applicant is here asking for four substantial variances, and I believe you should take notice of the fact of what is on the property before you decide to grant those variances; that's my point, okay. Thank you. MR. BRBSSLER: Before I ask Mr. O'Brien to come up in here, I'd just like to respond briefly, Mr. Goehringer, to your comment that because there is a CO for an accessory building in the eyes of the Town, it is an accessory building notwithstanding what people are doing. In one sense that may be so, but I think Miss Gould put her finger on it when she said when an applicant comes before this Board and asks for a variance relief, then all the facts and circumstances surrounding the property are in play, and if it is 116 October 20, 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 established before this Board that notwithstanding the CO that was granted there, the use of the property is for something different, then this Board can take that into account in determining whether or not it's going to grant a variance, and I think that was Miss Gould's point. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. But why wasn't that issue brought up at the time of the original hearing? MR. BRESSLER: I can't speak to why it was or why it wasn't except to note that the fact that the applicant had been living there for three and a half years is plainly on the record. Now it may not have been explained as clearly or forcefully as it has been today, but I do know in reviewing the record that that was in there. So I wouldn't say that it wasn't brought up. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have is do the Bollmans own any other property in the town of Southold that reflects a one-family dwelling? MR. BRESSLER: When someone comes before this Board notwithstanding what we all know goes on around town, but when someone comes before this Board and subjects themselves to your discretion in determining what you're going to grant, they lay bare before you whatever it is that's going on on the property, and I don't think that the Board has to say, well, okay, there is a CO for an ~ccessory building, so therefore we're not going to look at it, that's the only point. So that being said, I'd like Mr. O'Brien to address the engineering issues. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say this, okay, I see in this room three officers of the court; one here, one there and one there (indicating). You're representing Miss Gould. Hiss Gould is telling me that this building is being used as a habitable structure regardless of what the CO is on it. Now I can assume that since she is an officer of the court, she is telling me that someone, meaning you don't have to swear to a specific issue, that someone is using this building 24/7 for a habitable structure; is that correct? MR. BRESSLER: The applicant has conceded it, yes. In the last hearing the applicant has conceded they've been living there for three and a 117 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 half years. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: She did concede it. MR. BRESSLER: Those words are in the record. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have is do the Bollmans own another piece of property or other properties in the town of Southold? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That has nothing to do with it, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has nothing to do with it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has everything to do with it; how do you know they're living there? MR. BRESSLER: She lives next door and has been inside. She has so testified. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just to elucidate on Jerry's comment a little more, because I think it's a little backwards. I'm wondering how the building inspector goes on this piece of property and doesn't question the height of that building. In all honesty, the building inspector is the person who passes judgment on this; perhaps he could enlighten us as to the reason why, and perhaps also he can tell us why he can't see a dwelling in there. We have had testimony today .admitting that there's toilet facilities in an accessory structure, which I believe is not allowed in this town. MR. BRESSLER: The fact that he's lived there for three and a half years is conceded. Now people can quibble over the fact as to whether this is a dwelling unit or whether it isn't a dwelling unit. And Mr. Arnoff no doubt will and in most inimitable style, but the fact remains that it is undisputed and remains that someone has lived there for three and a half years, and that's the fact. And I don't care if they own 16 other properties in town, that's where this guy's been living and he's admitted it. So that having been said, I'd like the engineer to come up and complete our case. And if Mr. Dinizio and the rest of the Board wants to hear from the Building Inspector, I see him. He's sitting over there and he's waiting to be questioned, and if he can just hold his breath until Mr. O'Brien is done, I'm sure the Board will have some questions for him. 118 October 20, 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 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. O'Brien. MR. O'BRIEN: Bob O'Brien, 2074 Hain Road in Laurel. I also have a house next to Jenny and the Bollmans out in East Marion. It's my second residence. I'm a professional engineer, licensed in the state of New York for 35 years, and I'm going to address the foundation issue. What is common to the trade and common to myself on an existing foundation, especially on an older structure like this where they normally do have shallow foundations, they could be in disrepair from frost heaves, from settlements, they were basically just thrown up for weekend houses. I would go out and you do test pits around the foundation to determine not only the condition of the foundation, but the test pits would extend at least four foot below the bottom of the footings and see if there are any clay layers or anything else that when you put this additional load of second story, third story, whatever, they're going to reflect up, and you're going to have problems with the new foundation or the existing foundation; that's just common practice. And it also should be addressed on the plans for the house, when you do a renovation, the existing foundation should be shown, of course, with the new hurricane requirements you have to tie into that foundation strapping, that should be shown on the drawings how it's tied in, how it's anchored to the existing foundation, so on and so forth. I don't think that was done in this case. You just don't start excavating and all of a sudden the foundation's only going down 18 inches -- surprise, surprise. That doesn't happen. Do you have any questions? MR. BRESSLER: Could you address the septic issues? MR. O'BRIEN: I want to see if they have any questions. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like you to address the hurricane strapping. Is that required on the building plans? MR. O'BRIEN: Of course. Under the 2001 code, yes. It has to be strapped all the way down to the foundation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're an expert, and you viewed the plans and they were not on 119 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 there? MR. O'BRIEN: I have net seen the plans, but I don't think the foundation was addressed at all on the plans. MS. GOULD: I reviewed the plans in the Building Department file two times because I wanted to make sure that I was seeing what I saw, and there was ne test pit er test hole for the foundation en the plans submitted and stamped. BOARD HEMBER DINIZIO: That wasn't my question, though, Jenny, honestly. My question is because they are new standards, and any time we can get an expert to come and talk, I like to get an idea. MR. O'BRIEN: There has to be in detail. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you didn't see these details and know. We on the Board would not even consider that. It wouldn't be something we were looking for. It's just the concept of putting an addition of a house up. We don't really care how you do it. MR. O'BRIEN: As an engineer, I would have to address that to get a permit. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with that, but you didn't actually see the plans; you can't say -- MR. O'BRIEN: I was told that the foundation wasn't addressed. I could be backed up by people who have seen the plans. I don't think they're lying to me. And it's net the first time I haven't seen it addressed en the plans and it amazes me. I come across that on other builders toe. But again, we're getting back tea structure that was probably built in the '30s, '40s, I don't know. I do ever 250 inspections a year on existing houses. It's very rare that you can use a foundation like that for a two-story structure. It doesn't work out. It doesn't make sense. Why de you want te wind up with structural problems down the road? It's not a costly item. Like somebody pointed out before, you don't have to go for a full foundation either, could have went for a three foot crawl space, something like that too. That's it, I mean test pits are like ABC. It's for the reasons stated. As far as the septic, I do septic design. The Health Department actually prefers having a septic system in the front of the house. In this 120 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 case, you probably would need some sort of variance because it is a driveway. You would have to have a road grading on it, it could take traffic loads and so forth, but given the circumstances, I'm sure that the Health Department would probably approve it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there Town water down there? MR. O'BRIEN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now that I asked the question, I remember seeing the hydrant. Thank you. MR. O'BRIEN: There's no question about setbacks. The only clearance is the required separation between the water line and the septic system, but I think there's only a couple pools involved because we don't have a high water level there. I don't think it's really an issue. Any other questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think so. MR. BRESSLER: Address the hole. MR. O'BRIEN: Oh, the excavation. The excavation, I wrote up an affidavit. There was no sheathing put in when they dug the hole, and they dug it right on the property line. I was an excavation contractor myself. I've done many foundations myself. You just don't do that. You don't do it for two reasons. First off, you're jeopardizing the property next door, and number two, you're jeopardizing your men. OSHA requires anything over five feet to be sheeted. That's an OSHA requirement, you can either sheath it or lay it back on a 2-1 slope. And a 2 on 1 slope is not always a 2 on 1 slope. It has to do with the angle of repose and the materials. Sand has a 32 degree angle of repose and it comes out to a one vertical to two back. So if you go down 10 feet you got to be back 20 feet. In this case, that would be across Jenny's entire lot. With the Raynors and everything else, it's cavatated back under top slope, .so some sheeting was put against it, but the sheeting is not really doing anything, it's holding the top of the slope, and what's going to happen is just the material now is going to slough down behind the sheeting and you're going to have more erosion back, and she's going to lose a piece of her property. So my recommendation at this point is until this thing 121 October 20, 2005 122 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 is resolved is to backfill the hole and tamp each layer of material back so they don't lose the top of the slope. The sheeting actually can't be put in place at this point. That's mandated by OSHA, that sheeting has to go in at five feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Very informative. MR. BRESSLER: At this juncture, we have no further witnesses pending comments from other witnesses that may appear on behalf of Mr. Arnoff or comments from witnesses who may be called by the Board to comment. CHAIRWOMAiq OLIVA: Do we have questions for Mike? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mike, I think we have a few questions. Jim first. MR. VERITY: Sure, Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector, Town of Southold. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hi, Mike. MR. VERITY: Hi, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Listen, I am concerned about this garage, and I think more it has to do with the procedures of the Town and how they work because I can drive downtown from here to Greenport and find probably 20 violations and this is one of them. I'm sure you had to go here at one point in time or you're going to have to go here and inspect the foundation, and at that time, if you look at that building, I'm not going to ask you will you give them a ticket, but do you look at the building and if it seems -- MR. VERITY: I spoke to the Assistant Town Attorney and I said there appeared to be some violations on a number of properties down there. I didn't think it was appropriate for me at the time to go into that. So we're right now, I think we're a little off line with the way they're attacking this -- if you want to call it an attack, it's not an attack, that's a poor word but I'm tired. You're getting way off base here with the accessory building. I will address that; I told the town attorney I will address that. There are other issues on the east property and possibly on the west property that I have concerns with as well, not my concern right now. My concern is to deal with that house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But we are October 20, 2005 123 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concerned. I'm not concerned with you violating somebody. I think what I'm more concerned about is we're looking at a house that doesn't exist any longer. You know all about nonconformities, we've been back and forth about that. MR. VERITY: Yes, I sleep non-conformities BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's only our concern. We're going to be discussing okay, now they got this foundation, and it's not so much money now to move it two feet, five feet, whatever it happens to be. I like personally, I like seeing people who have established setbacks to keep those established setbacks. MR. VERITY: I agree. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I fought the Walz thing all along, this is just part and parcel of that, if you ask me. By the same token, we have to be fair to everybody. This is where it comes in. We're telling people you can't have that stoop because Walz says you can't have it, then we're letting a guy build a brand new house, conforming to the old nonconforming setbacks, I got a little problem with that. To me it looks like on this piece of property we can look at other things when we grant this guy relief, and that is one of them. I'm wondering if we can maybe look at their application for this. MR. VERITY: For the garage? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the garage. MR. VERITY: If you feel it's necessary. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If the Building Department has a file that has -- I mean, how is the setback for this garage established? Was there an old garage there? MR. VERITY: From what I recall there was a one story garage, I'm not sure, I'd have to look at the '97 file. Jenny, did you give them a copy of that information? I think it's all there to be honest with you. Again, right now that's on the back burner for me. My bigger concern, this is really an unorthodox piece of property as Mr. O'Brien stated. It's unusual and I felt it needed to be dealt with right away. That's why I did what I did in reference to paperwork and so on and so forth. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is my next question, which is, I understand because I think I October 20, 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 got a call that day tee, that evidently John came down to you and said look, it's crumbling, and we can't do anything with it, and what do you want us to do? HR. VERITY: He made a key point that everybody just overlooked. He was moving an excavator in there or a machine in there, I don't remember exactly what he said, the foundation started te move. He would net have known that, you would net have known that, and if there was any concern at that time with this foundation with what was left there, you should have said, you knew what, let's pull this back. I don't need to tell you your business, but again, Mr. O'Brien said at that point it's not a big money item. It should have been addressed at that point in time. BOARD MEHBER DINIZIO: I'm confused. MR. VERITY: Heaning everybody's hinging the decision en that the whole reason why they allowed this te stay was because it would be a hardship for that foundation, I disagree. At that point in time, if you had a real concern about that, if the Beard had a real concern, you should have said listen, we're not going te allow this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, no, no - BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We asked a question, Mike: Are you going to build this on the foundation? That's all we need to know. We're not -- MR. VERITY: If that was such a big concern in conditions, why wouldn't you condition that, that this foundation could not be removed? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We didn't have to. MR. VERITY: See, when we make our decision you're granting a setback for a distance to the setback, a side yard, I think there were two others, right, there was lot coverage -- at that point in time we're not looking at minutes, we don't know what the key points were, you're granted all of those. You stayed within those boundaries to the Building Department, I would do this 10 times out of 10. If someone else came in and said the same thing, you know what, you were granted that setback with the side yard BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on, this is key. You're saying that we should have put in our decision we're granting you this relief because you told us it was too expensive to move the 124 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 foundation or whatever? MR. VERITY: No, what I'm saying is, Jimmy, you condition things open to the sky for decks, same thing, using the existing foundation. When you see a demolition, at that point, you're allowing 90 percent of the value maybe even more nf that house to come down. You see what I'm saying? At that point in time you should have said BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At the point when the question was asked and answered regarding the continuation of the existing foundation, you're saying we should have said, give us evidence that the foundation is as secure as we all seem to be assuming it is. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't think we need to ask for that. I think it's the opposite. That's what he's asking us, but I think it's the opposite is that we always assume that the expert is expert. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did ask if the foundation was okay. We had it in the record that the foundation was fine. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We didn't conduct an investigation. MR. VERITY: That's the thing. I don't want to rehash -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the crux of this argument, Mike. MR. VERITY: My point to the Board is the way the decision was made, and I wasn't going to bring up the discussion with Ruth, because I even said to Linda and to Ruth and to the Town Attorney, the letter means nothing to me. To the permits examiner it meant the world. But to me, I would have made the same decision with or without, and I would not have gone to Ruth for that letter and I didn't care about that letter. Because of the relief that was given, I felt that it was okay to continue, whether it was a totally brand new foundation or a partial, which that's the way the permit was written, or like I said the totally new foundation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can turn it around. Didn't it dawn on you that he was asking for a partial foundation and now he wants a new one? That we would not have heard that evidence? MR. VERITY: But even so what I'm getting 125 October 20, 2005 126 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 at, you can make the argument either way, Jimmy, I'm not trying to make an argument fer either team here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand, because I didn't see your point ef view until what you just said. MR. VERITY: I feel what the Building Department did was right, and the Building Department centinued to do that until etherwise. Once variances are granted, I don't care what was discussed for dinner; I den't care what was discussed about the brick feundatien. It's what I see in the language of the disapproval. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let's say that the Building Department bears ne respensibility for this. MR. VERITY: That's cerrect. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That is for the mement. Dees it fellow that we somehow are responsible for not having asked the questiens that yeu felt yeu were net legally ebligated te ask? We're net a building department. We're a board ef appeals. MR. VERITY: I'm not saying anybody's responsible. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're saying the Building Department is net respensible. Maybe that's the case, but who is? HR. VERITY: I've got a broad set of sheulders, I'll take all the respensibility, that's net the questien. The question is why is this hinging so much on this decision? This is away frem the Building Department, I persenally cannot understand it. It makes abselutely ne sense to me at all. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeu're abselutely correct, Mike. And let me have the fleor for one secend. Yeu are absolutely, 100 percent correct because when I asked if that foundatien was in the same feetprint, meaning the footings for the new feundatien, I was teld they were. In fact, I was teld that they were even breught back. MR. VERITY: Cerrect, it's less noncenforming. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Farther away from the CZM line. I'll tell yeu where the problem came here. I will stand en this ferever, Octeber 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 and that is, that the representation of this particular application was done by a builder and not necessarily by an attorney. And this builder is the most wonderful builder of anybody I've ever seen. I've seen the stuff that John and Linda have constructed, it's the greatest stuff in the world, bar none. Ail it would have had to have said was that if the foundation is deemed to be not usable, we may have to trash the foundation, within the embodiment of this decision. That's all that had to be done. And for some strange reason we failed to do that or he failed to do that, meaning he failed to do that, or it failed to be done, either from our standpoint or their standpoint. MR. VERITY: I think somebody here is hanging their hat on something that's not worth hanging their hat on is the point I'm trying to make. Again, just pointing out, Jimmy, we're attacking an accessory garage, it makes no sense at all. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Let's talk about this foundation, that's why we're here. We make a decision based on the evidence before us. It says: Mr. Orlando: Any thought about removing that we're talking about the block foundation yes, it is. Then, any thought about removing that since you're demo-ing it anyway, just to come into conformity with the side yards? Important, because we would not grant the variance if we felt he could come into conformity easily, okay, that it was not a hardship for him. Then Mr. Bertani says, the only problem is expense, it's too expensive? Orlando: Is the foundation structural? Yes, it is. I can go on forever. MR. VERITY: That was it, you only spoke about the foundation, you didn't hinge your decision on anything else at all? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. We do in the end we say this action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that my violate the zoning code other than such use of setbacks and other features that are expressly addressed in this action. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, the foundation is the cost and expense that I know that we all considered because that's the crux of 127 October 20, 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 everything. No one wants to move the foundation; it's very expensive. We realized that. When Vinnie asked that question it's because if it's possible, let's do it and let's get a little more conforming; that's what we're supposed to do. That's near the end of the meeting and that's what everybody based their decision on, I'm not saying that right or wrong. MR. VERITY: First of all, Jimmy, understand, I'm not here to argue with you or anybody else. I'm not here to argue in favor of the Bollmans or in favor of Miss Gould. I'm trying to make a point of this, you made a statement just a second ago that you can make it more conforming. You can probably make people take down and move and make 95 percent of the applicants conforming. To make this person 100 percent conforming at this point in time -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I never said that. I just said we can make it more conforming. MR. VERITY: No. You said make it conforming. But they already made it more conforming by what they did. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We granted them a variance based on Walz. MR. VERITY: On the first floor they made it more conforming. Jimmy, there's a way I could have presented this, you gave relief for four, I could have presented it so I could only ask for relief for three, but I'm not going to go into that, and I'm really surprised that that was overlooked. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, I'm not concerned about -- what I'm concerned about what we hear and what went on. We had testimony based on we have a nonconforming setback. We're supposed to deal with that, that's why they come to us, and we base it on the testimony that's presented to us, and then we grant it accordingly. I'm not concerned about what you think, because it's not what you think; you already told us what you think. You told us that it was nonconforming, you have to go see the ZBA. Okay, and we tell you what the Town, we as a Board will let them have. MR. VERITY: I understand, you don't want to hear what I think, but you're asking about an accessory building that has nothing to do with it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, we know what 128 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 you think already. And we know what you don't think. We know only what was written on that piece of paper. We grant based on that piece of paper. That's your thoughts, that's what you think the code says. MR. VERITY: The point I'm making, Jimmy, with the granting of that how would Joe Public know that your decision was hinged, unless you went into the minutes, if you had that final ZBA petition number 5-5-0 -- whatever it was, if you had that appeal number, how would you know that your decision was hinged on that existing foundation? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I can answer because I drafted that; it's based on the whole record, the hearing record, the entire record. MR. VERITY: I said how would you know on your two-page document that it was hinged on that? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You would have to read the whole record. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You would have to read the whole record. MR. BRESSLER: With all due respect, that's not true, it's right at the beginning of your decision. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's what I'm trying to say. MR. BRESSLER: Yes, Linda, I know you don't have it in front of you, but my brief readings of the finding of facts, the applicants propose to retain the existing foundation. You don't have to search the records. MR. VERITY: That's telling me that they want to retain it. MR. BRESSLER: You don't like the answer but that's the answer. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you would be asking for with every statement of finding has to be researched and verified and sworn by affidavit, this is absurd. We're saying that we cannot write a report that takes into the record something that has been entered into evidence, and we say if that turns out to be false, or in some cases maybe an out and out lie, that's just too bad? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on, let me ask you one more question. A gentleman came to you, and said, hey look, I can't do it the way the ZBA wants me to do it. I have to do it differently, 129 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 did he or did he not? MR. VERITY: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then why would he ask you to put that foundation in? Why would you write a letter saying so? MR. VERITY: Ask the question again, Jimmy, I don't understand the question. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. Bertani came to you after he found out that the foundation wasn't good. MR. VERITY: That's right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And said, listen, I can't do it the way the ZBA wanted me to do it, I need permission from you to pour the foundation. MR. VERITY: That's not the way the question was proposed to the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Obviously you have to read our decision to find that out. I agree with you. But Mr. Bertani did the absolute right thing in stopping, because he knew if you came in and saw a new foundation there that you could stop him because of what the Zoning Board had said. So that must have raised at least a little flag, Mike, that said our decision had something to do with the foundation. MR. VERITY: That's correct. We reviewed that and felt that the reliefs were given. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Did you read the transcripts? MR. VERITY: No, I didn't read the transcripts. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He came to you in good faith, as I understand it, for an answer to a hard question, and you gave what seemed like a reasonable answer by examining a limited number of documents questions, far fewer than what actually exist, and you said, well, look, you did what was expected of you, and then you come to us and say we should somehow have researched the facts that you were assuming when you gave him an -- MR. VERITY: I said in your conditions you should just put that in there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We did, Mike, it's in the decision. MR. VERITY: Does it state that in this decision? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It did, it really actually doesn't have to. The fact that Mr. 130 October 20, 2005 131 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bertani came to you -- MR. VERITY: Okay, it did, but it doesn't have to. I understand that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, listen, I'm not going to take your glib answers too much longer. I understand that you're under pressure here MR. VERITY: Jimmy, I'm not under pressure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just answer the questions that we ask you, don't go any further than that. Your sly comments don't make any sense to anybody. MR. VERITY: They make a lot of sense. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They make a lot of sense to me. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We got two people fighting over the fact that they want to build a house, we're trying to get to the bottom of it. My personal view is I could care less if they wanted to build a house five stories. MR. VERITY: This is not personal views, Jimmy. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then don't give me personal comments. MR. VERITY: This is not personal comments. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're taking them personally, Jimmy, that's the problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I am taking them personally because I know when someone's BS-ing me. I can see it. MR. VERITY: Jimmy, I'm asked to read transcripts, but yet the Board can make the statement that we don't know a thing about building plans? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We don't, Mike, we don't have to. MR. VERITY: Then why should I know about transcripts, come on, Jimmy, use a little common sense, you're smarter than that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jimmy, enough. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. In this application, Mike, you identified a problem. When he came in and asked you for a building permit, did you or did not? He was a nonconforming house and he wanted to go up. You had all this stuff about Walz, blah, blah, blah, that was all fine October 20, 2005 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 and dandy. They came to us. We granted him relief, shouldn't you just look at that application? MR. VERITY: I felt that he was still within the guidelines, and that's why he was allowed to continue. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With the first sentence in our decision referencing that we based it on the foundation, you can say that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course. MR. VERITY: Why not? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. Why not is a good answer. MR. VERITY: My recommendation too is you should probably look back at some previous decisions because you have made a decision like this before. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, what does that have to do with this? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jim, we also have to realize that the Building Department went to the Zoning Board and to the Trustees and told them what was going on and the response back was MR. VERITY: This wasn't hidden. I went to the town attorney. I actually went to Mrs. Gould who advised me to go to Mr. Bressler on this. I didn't have to do that, Jimmy. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not saying -- you didn't have to do a thing, but don't say that you didn't know that there was a problem. MR. VERITY: Jimmy, if I thought there was a problem, they would be back here right now because of me. They're not back here because of me. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is where they should have been. MR. VERITY: I disagree, that's why they were allowed to continue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Agree to disagree. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You have to decide what to do now. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I built my record. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: New foundation plan is that in your file? MR. VERITY: You have the files, I can't say. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Does the new foundation plan have all the information on it October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 that was required? Does it need anymore information? MR. VERITY: I can take a peak and tell you that. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Mike, what is your view of the current condition of the property pending this decision? MR. VERITY: I'm concerned about the property as Mr. O'Brien. His techniques and procedure, I appreciate his 35 years of experience, but that's more of a commercial review, or application, that's not a residential application. I would love to see that. I have not seen that in 25 years that I have been either in business or in working in the Town of Southold. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You're talking about the sheathings? MR. VERITY: Sheathing on a residential. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or the test holes? MR. VERITY: Or the test holes. Actually the test holes, it depends on the engineer. If an engineer's willing to do a visual inspection, that's fine. Mr. O'Brien, and I'm not blowing smoke up your skirt, Mr. O'Brien, he's very good, he's very thorough. Some don't choose to do that. Is it required to do that? The survey shows a test hole. They know what the soil conditions are. They're making a decision based on that and the visual inspection. Does everybody do it? No. Can everybody afford to have it done? No. What was done was probably to the minimum, as the state code is to the minimum standard, and that's what they did. That's all that's required to get a building permit from the Town of Southold. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What about your view as to what, if anything, can be done to shore up the property or mitigate the current condition? HR. VERITY: If it was an open farm field, obviously we wouldn't have that problem. Right new for them te mitigate the problem, they would either have te ge on the property ef the Goulds, er they would have te access that from the water, and it would probably cost them -- it would be a hardship. In my guesstimate, in my knowledge ef the construction field, they would have te bring a barge in, need te lay sheathing in there, and it's net necessary at this point in time. What's 133 October 20, 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 necessary is for -- and I'm not telling the Board what to do - but it's necessary for this to move forward. Allow them to either put the foundation in or not put it in. If they can't put the foundation in, the property has to be filled. If they can put the foundation in in a timely fashion, that can be backfilled, prior to backfilling, they would most likely put the first floor flooring on it, which would support that, and then they could backfill it, and then we no longer have an issue. That was my way of handling it way back when. If this was in the middle of farm field, we would have said, you know what, duke it out, two months later because I don't care, because nothing's going to happen to the Gould property or the property to the east. Carry on, wait two months, wait four months, whatever you have to do to get on the ZBA calendar. As you can see from the report that I submitted, this is unusual. It's unique. I thought that it was a problem that needed to be addressed right away. Now, allowing this to go to the end of October, we've been very fortunate with all this rain, we could have had a California situation on our hands, and Mrs. Gould's fence, hedge and maybe even the corner of her house could be in jeopardy. So my opinion is it needs to move quickly, whatever the decision is, and then we can address, the Building Department, address the accessory buildings and all that other stuff. I think we're totally missing, and I promised myself that I wouldn't get in an argument with Jimmy, don't know why I thought of Jim. It's beyond me. I just think it needs to be taken care of, and I have been around the block a few times. I know I'm young but I've been in the business for over 25 years, between eight years for the Town and 17 on my own, and I know what needs to be done, otherwise I wouldn't have put it in writing. I think it needs to be pushed forward, both sides need to work together. We have to work together and move this along yesterday. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Does the Board want to hear from anybody else? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. Mr. Arnoff? MR. ARNOFF: Curiouser and curiouser is the language I think comes to mind. But I'm not going to dwell on that. I thank Mr. Orlando for 134 October 20, 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 taking the comment that I wanted to take away of Mr. Verity's discussion with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Verity did, in fact, discuss the matter and the record is very clear that he addressed the matter with both the Trustees and the Zoning Board as to what to do. And we now have before this Board something that's being built in the exact same footprint, less than what you approved. The first question was what was the applicant going to do, stop everything when this happened? And do what, go where? The applicant did what the applicant should have done. They came to the Building Department. The Building Department told them what to do after discussing it with the various boards. Then what happened? Well, then what happened is we had a crumbling foundation, had to be removed. We didn't have a choice. Now, it is true that the cost of a new foundation is substantially more than the Bollmans ever bargained for. They didn't want to do this any more than they wanted to put it somewhere else on the property. They couldn't help this; this is an unavoidable thing that happened to them. Now, the underlying question that I think the Board should ask itself is what possible different result will happen if this application goes forward to the application you already approved? And the answer to that question is there is none. You have approved a house according to certain specs, according to certain setbacks, according to all these variances that's going to be placed on this site in the same spot. Why are we here? We're here because Miss Gould found an opportunity to avoid the time that had elapsed from any appeal from any prior order of this Board to find a way to say, you know, really didn't like it the first time, but I want a second bite of the same apple. And that's what we're here for, a second bite of the same apple before Board, nothing more, nothing less. She knew Mr. Bollman was living in the garage apartment, living there. There were attorneys in this town that have lived in garages while houses are under construction with the tacit or direct approval of this Board. We ask for nothing more, nothing less. One thing more I wanted to bring up. My clients have acted in good faith. They have acted 135 October 20, 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 in reliance ef your well thought out determination. They have incurred incredible costs before today. Ail they want te de is de what you told them te do. Unfortunately, they couldn't do a certain portion of it because factors beyond their control prevented it. So what did they do? They did what any reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. This is not a self-created hardship. This is something that happened that was unanticipated. We're here, we need your help. We really didn't think we needed your help; we thought we already got it. We thought we were going to go forward and probably have the house enclosed by this time, were it not for the fact that all of this has gone on. I don't think there's anything any different. Mr. O'Brien's comments are certainly interesting, but I don't think he speaks for the Health Department, and I don't know how many of you have made applications in the issues of sewers and septic systems and before the Health Department lately and see how easily variances go through because my experience is they don't go through after passages of months and months and perhaps years and perhaps never. We really need to address this problem. I agree with Mr. Verity. We need a decision from this Board. I think it's clear that there is no -- there's nothing else -- I think this Board really has no choice. Sure they have choices, we could put the foundation somewhere else, we could tear down all the buildings on the property and leave it vacant, which is ultimately probably what Hiss Gould would like to have happen. Unfortunately, my clients have a right to use their property, just like Miss Gould uses the garage on her property for housing other people when there are guests there. There's no garage door on her garage. But it's okay for her, nobody's complaining about that. But all they want to do is be left alone. Let them build the property. Doesn't impede her view, they've brought back the sides, they have reduced the height. The only thing left is for them to go away. She didn't get that the first time, and I submit this Board should not allow her to get it the second time. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 136 October 20, 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 MR. BRESSLER: If I may briefly now that I've heard Mr. Arnoff in his entirety, I have several remarks. First of all vis-a-vis Mr. Verity's comments, I found them interesting, and I found his answers not terribly on point to the questions put by the Board. But with respect to his experience and OSHA, I have only to refer the Board to OSHA regulations that Mr. O'Brien cited and pointed out that they are regulations for the home building industry, not commercial construction, the home building industry, and if Mr. Verity doesn't enforce them, that's another issue. But to say that they don't apply that's just not so. He raised an interesting question, why use the existing foundation after the Board has heard about an hour and a half of this, the answer to the question is obvious, why use the existing foundation? Because, as the Board has recognized, because it was the entry ticket. It was the ticket to admission. It was the hardship ticket. That's what got them in. We want to use the existing foundation. Mr. Verity says it's not that expensive. Mr. Arnoff, to his credit candidly says, yeah, it would have been expensive, he's right, we all know that. It would have been expensive. That was their ticket, that was their plea to this Board. That's how they got the relief. And I think when Mr. Dinizio says, well, if that weren't the case, we certainly could have examined whether a less intrusive -- to paraphrase -- whether less intrusive alternatives were available, is the issue before this Board. If there were no house there at all, which is the case now, and the applicant had come to you and said I want to put this house here, I want all these variances, would this Board have granted it? That's the question before you. Or would this Board have said, as we're suggesting, wait a minute, you have a building envelope. There are things you can do, and maybe we can't bring you into total conformance, but maybe there are things we can do. That's not the place where this house belongs; we're going to try to move you back and minimize the variances that are required. And with all due respect to Member Goehringer, I think I respectfully disagree the issue is not the fact that now they're building where they said they 137 October 20, 2005 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 were going to build. I think the issue before the Board is because the predicate upon which they came before the Board turned out not to be true, and I think it's plain from the testimony, it turned out not to be true at a minimum because nobody even looked at whether or not this was a buildable foundation, because that turned out to be true, and all you have now is essentially a hole. Are there less intrusive alternatives that are available to the applicant? And I think the answer to that questions is clearly yes. The admission ticket that they used, the foundation, is no longer available, and now we're looking at this thing de novo. The purpose of the Town code of the nonconforming regulations is to eventually eliminate nonconformance. And to say that because their ticket's gone, and they come to you essentially de novo that you're going to give them exactly the same nonconformity when you don't have to do, that runs afoul of that policy. I think the Board has to take a hard look, and I invite you all to take a hard look at what can be done here and whether or not the variances that are requested are necessary, or indeed, whether they can be minimized. You've heard expert testimony that they can be, you've seen a building envelope. We think that they can, and I'm not going to characterize the series of events that led us to this, the Board can arrive at its own conclusion as to how that happened. But at a minimum, that which should have been done was not done, and now the applicant comes before you in that position. Move the foundation, put it closer to where it belongs, bring the lot closer into conformance, no harm no foul; you fill the hole and you re-dig it. It's no longer a question of hardship and money, because the applicant's plan no longer works. The foundation was crumbling at the beginning, it's no longer there now, and I think this Board has to look real hard at what they would grant someone coming in here de novo. That's my plea. I hope you consider it. Thanks for your attention. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would the applicants consider alternate relief? MS. BOLLM~iq: I don't understand what that means, Miss Oliva. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l~i 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, something that Mr. Bressler has suggested, moving it further away from the Gould property, maybe a little closer to the Peretz property, perhaps moving it back further slightly, or not at all. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Could be two feet. MRS. BOLLMAN: Mary Ann Bollman. What I don't understand is the last time we were here Miss Gould wasn't happy with the height, she wasn't happy with the size. You advised us and asked us if we would meet with her or have John meet with her, talked about lowering the roofline and making the house smaller, we did that. And now, according to the testimony, they want us to expand on the garage, they want to design our house. I don't think that's right, and I don't think that's fair. We will certainly talk to John, and we will more than likely work things out. But I don't think it's fair for someone to tell me how I should live, and in what style I should live, or whether or not I can or can't live on a piece of property that's been in my husband's family since the 1940s. MR. BERTANI: Maybe you can ask Mike to verify this, but we had every intention of keeping this foundation and not being in this predicament. We thought we did everything right. The other thing we could have jacked the house up, put a cold foundation underneath it and then gone to the Town and asked for a demolition permit. We were honestly trying to do the right thing. I apologized to the Bollmans. Maybe I should have said, look, hire an engineer, get yourselves an architect. They went to the lumberyard to save some money to put into the house, the extra money. I thought I was helping them out. Apparently I gave them wrong information. I thought it was okay. Maybe we should have ripped the bushes out, and hired somebody to dig holes all around it. Ail I can do is apologize to them for that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I can explain to Mrs. Bollman alternative relief does not mean that anyone is going to tell you how to build your house. Alternate relief is a positive recommendation, a suggestion, that if it turns out that the Board decides that you're not going to be permitted to do it precisely the way you want, there a number of other possible ways which you 139 October 20, 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 could choose, and very unlimited way, and it still would be your choice and your house. The worst that can happen is that the Board will block the one way that you had hoped to do it because of circumstances which were, to some degree, beyond anybody's control, namely the collapse of the foundation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would offer this as an alternate relief because it goes against my grain to even make you move that house. You've got the hole, if you move that foundation to 10 feet away from the other house, and you keep the house the same width, and we let you go over another whatever that is - 3.5 on the other side, okay, so you now have 10 feet on both sides of your house, same size house, same basic location, you don't need a variance on Miss Gould's side, maybe that's the way to go. MR. BERTANI: I think we only have 12.6 on Mr. Bressler's side. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say we make it 10 feet on the other side. MR. BERTANI: So moving it two feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just offering it. It's not possible to give her 10 feet and MR. BERTANI: I'm just saying that's possible. It's not possible to give her 10 feet and then he'd have eight -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'm looking at your map here. I see the 10 foot line. It looks to me like three feet or four feet I guess it is. MR. BERTANI: 5.9, which is nine-tenths of a foot, and the other six. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say we split the difference. MR. BERTANI: It would be ten then you have eight and a half. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be acceptable? MR. ARNOPF: That's fine. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have is where do we go from here? Have we concluded both of these hearings? MR. ARNOFF: I think we agreed when we started that when we finally sat down CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Both have been merged. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Approximately eight 140 October 20, 2005 141 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 and-a-half on each side, same house. MR. BRESSLER: We've made our record in both hearings. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to know if it's acceptable to them. MR. VERITY: Just in response to I guess that was Mr. O'Brien's question, there is a foundation plan here, just for the record, that was stamped in and amended, August 9, 2005 and on the Penny Lumber drawing, there is a detail on here for connections. We can't approve a plan without it. So it is on here. It's on the last page, page 10 of 10. So that information is there. I don't think he looked at the plan, he was just making a statement based on someone's information. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't let that go, count that in my favor. Honestly, someone made a statement and they do that all the time to US. MR. VERITY: I appreciate you picking that up, and not to argue any more about it, or argue back and forth with Mr. Bressler and Mr. O'Brien, just the statement that I made in reference to the sheathing, it is not common practice here. I didn't say that it didn't exist, I just said it was not common practice. And I did say if you could show me someone who is doing it, I would love to see it because I've never seen it in 25 years, and you can take a look at the record because that's exactly what I did. MR. ARNOFF: Mr. Dinizio, just so you know, I have spoken to both of the Bollmans. They would be, if what you're talking about situating the quote, approved structure, so it's equidistant between the Gould property and the Peretz on the other side, that would be acceptable, and we certainly -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We have the power, Harvey, to move that house the other way. Sure if Jenny objects to it being nine feet, we might move it ten feet. But as long as the house is the same width, what do you care? MR. ARNOFF: As long as we're not within the 1.3 that the Raynors and the Olsens are. We're fine. MR. VERITY: Just my recommendation, Jimmy, just please have the surveyor and the October 20, 2005 142 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 builder review the coastal erosion line. You have te be concerned about that as well. You don't want te send them through the Trustee process. Just a question of the 5781, is that a dead issue now or is that going to come up in reference to the height ef the building? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Net this building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everything else is the same. MR. VERITY: The second meeting was in reference to the building was proposed and approved by the Building Department at the wrong height; is that going to be addressed? BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: It's up to Mrs. Gould. MR. VERITY: BOARD SECY. We haven't had that MR. VERITY: If I could just make a point. KOWALSKI: The second appeal. hearing yet. That's what I'm talking about, are we done or are we going to bring that up? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Raise whatever points you have. MR. BRESSLER: In terms of the height, if the height doesn't comply, then the height doesn't comply. And they're going to have to design something that complies. MR. BERTANI: Talking about the house height. On the old permit it was at 30 feet, and then you asked us to reduce it, it went to 27. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's great. MR. BERTANI: We did not fill out a new application. We brought your ZBA paperwork, went in there, which stated 27 feet, which we know. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Agreed to a height. MR. BERTANI: Right. They're saying we had the wrong height on the plan, but that plan was from 2004 -- on the application, I'm sorry. MR. ARNOFF: Miss Gould's comments were well taken, to the extent that the ultimate permit for this house should have said in accordance with the ZBA decision. For some reason -- our intention was te build it in accordance with whatever you people tell us to build it in accordance with, and hopefully, Mr. Verity won't find something wrong. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They'll monitor it. October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARNOFF: That's correct. MR. BRESSLER: To that extent there is no doubt that there has to be an order issued amending or redirecting that height. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correcting the permits. MR. BERTANI: It's in the paperwork. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Wait a minute. What's the permit going to say? MR. VERITY: Can I clear this up in like ].ess than 30 seconds? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Please do, Mike. MR. VERITY: Again, net te point fingers with anybody, but it's a very silly, silly argument. When they originally applied to us, they told us the height ef the building was 30 feet. We have to disapprove them for X, Y and Z; you ge across with the same application, you come back after you get your approval or not get your approval from the ZBA and you get your building permit. We de net have every applicant at that point in time change the width of your building, change the height because when we write the building permit it states en there as per ZBA conditions. And you can pull it out ef the file and you can see that. It would be a paper nightmare to try and de that for every application. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What de you mean, resubmit their plans? MR. VERITY: Exactly. Then we have te send them out to fill in a new application. You use the same application, on there the proposed height was 30 feet, two stories. It came back from the ZBA at 27 feet, you de net at that point in time make the application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do you knew, when you ge out there, hew does the guy know it's supposed to be 27? MR. VERITY: Because we will have that certified, as you see there are some affidavits for the accessory building, but I don't recall this eno exactly, but in reference te that, if we have any questions in reference te either height there are certifications in there. There's probably a very good possibility for that there's a certification in there as well, the height of 143 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 that building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't doubt it, but I would not know where to look. MR. VERITY: Same thing, Jimmy, whenever there are conditions set by the Zoning Board, by the Planning Board, whatever other agencies, we will require a certification if we cannot make the determination ourselves from a licensed professional. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don't think it would be a good thing to make sure that the building permit, a copy of which is issued to the client, has the correct height written in? MR. VERITY: What we do at that point in time, the plans come back with the correct height, so an application at that point in time -- if the Board thinks that that's a good idea, say, hey, Mike, you know what, you should probably direct your people to do so, I will do that. But I think it's a little silly when you have the ZBA decision stating you can only be at 27 feet, you have an approved set of plans from the Building Department showing 27 feet, and then we can make a statement like this because the application actually said 30, which was an original application, possibly a year or two old, it just doesn't make sense that we could hang our hat on stopping a project because of that. Again, we had other documentation that would rule that out and shows otherwise. Your decision, a filed set of plans by a New York State licensed professional would rule that out. Again, we don't look at every line of that application. There could be a number of errors, somebody said the building is 27.5 feet and it's actually 27.9 feet, and it's not in the zoning conflict, we're not going to question that at that point in time. It's immaterial to us. You have other documentation which I feel and the building department feels and has always felt overruled it; that's the way it's been since I have been here and prior to. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the engineer's stamp? That's the plan, here's the house, here's how it's built? MR. VERITY: That's correct, as per ZBA request, even a lot of times you put on there your decision is based as per Mr. So and So's plans, and that's what we have. 144 October 20, 2005 145 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 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's correct. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: And, Mike, your permit will only approve what's reflected in that plan? MR. VERITY: That's correct. A lot of times as much as we can fit on a building permit, we will put on there as per ZBA appeal number, and if we have enough room we will put an engineer's or architect's name on there and even date. And I don't know what more you could ask for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you get the CO, you have plans that are what we said it should be, right? MR. VERITY: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And they're signed by somebody. MR. VERITY: That's correct, and if they're not then they have to address that with you or whatever agency has to come into. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you would deny it. MR. VERITY: Correct. We would deny it and they would have to go back if they didn't build it in compliance with your conditions. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So your reliance is on that engineer? MR. VERITY: That's correct, or architect, licensed professional. MR. BRESSLER: Chairwoman, let me finish up with one point on that issue. We would like that corrected, and let me just say I've never heard more double-talk in my entire life. The permit was issued, it's wrong. We brought this in good faith. Mr. Verity tells Mr. Dinizio that he can't be expected to look behind and look through the decision and read the minutes; can Miss Gould be expected to look behind the building permit that had the wrong number on it and go through Mr. Verity's records and satisfy herself that Mr. Verity was going to do the right thing? Everybody has conceded that that permit was in error and it needs to be corrected. And quite frankly, I don't want to hear a bunch of double talk about how you go into the files and you look at 30 other documents. The building permit is the operative document, we've all agreed that it's going to be fixed, let's fix it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. October 20, 2005 1~6 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VERITY: Kieran, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but unless I'm told to by a court, I am not going to correct that. And I am not double-talking. I beg to differ on that. This is the way it's done, this is the way it will continue to be done, and if there is ever a question by an attorney, by an applicant, by a neighbor of an applicant, I would appreciate if that person would come to me. It's easily clarified, instead of hanging up an entire hearing for something that's actually not even worth talking about. MS. GOULD: I did that. MR. VERITY: I don't remember you speaking to me, Jenny. MS. GOULD: I went through the file with Damon. There was no height on the building. How am I supposed to know what the height of the building was? After I filed my appeal, their engineer then put in a piece of paper on August 25th saying it was going to be 27 feet high. There's no way for me to -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm not going to touch that issue. I think we are all in agreement, and I think the Board feels there should be a permit that incorporates a set of plans that is in accordance with the Board's decision. And that's how the house should be built, and then that's how a CO should be issued. MR. VERITY: Which it does. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybody's agreed that both have been settled, then I would like to make a motion to close the hearing, reserve decision MR. BRESSLER: We're done waiting for your decision. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have a meeting next Thursday. It's only a week. So we can word it properly that everybody's satisfied. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Let's clarify, I don't think that Miss Gould has agreed to anything, has she? MR. BRESSLER: No. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So it's not really a settlement. I think the Board has explored alternative relief with the applicant/builder, and the Board will make its decision. October 20, 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 MR. BRESSLER: That's correct. By no means do we agree to that. We weren't consulted. We don't agree. You'll make your decision. We think there are less intrusive alternatives, and I think the Board can consider movement in both directions. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Thank you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's a resolution on the floor to close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just ask one more question? What do we do about the hole in the ground? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Address it after next Thursday. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: After Thursday, they'll have the decision. MR. BRESSLER: What I heard is we're going to live with it for a week. So Bollman does it at his own risk. We've lost subjacent support and Mr. Arnoff is aware of what the law about subjacent support is, and if something occurs, then they can do whatever they are advised to do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned about Jenny's house. MR. BRESSLER: That's what I'm talking ebout. They have cut away our subjacent support. Mr. Arnoff is well aware ef what an adjoining property owner can do and cannot de, and he can do whatever he's advised to de. MR. ARNOFF: I just have eno comment to make and it's net glib. I resent Mr. Bressler usurping the function ef this Board and telling me what is the law as he sees it or whatever, and telling the Board that I've had enough and words of that language that I don't want to hear because that's the province, most respectfully of you. Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second that motion. CHAIRWOM~kN OLIVA: Ail in favor? (See minutes for details.) 147 October 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 ¥ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 CERTIFICATION I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related by blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of October, 2005. 148 October 20, 2005