Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/15/2005 HEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN 0 F S OUTHOLD ZONING BOARD O P APPEALS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York December 15, 2005 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present : RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, MICHAEL SIMON, LINDA KOWALSKI, KIERAN CORCORAN, Board Member Board Member Board Secretary Assistant Town Attorney COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning, everybcdy, I'd like to call our Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of December 15, 2005 to order, And I believe our first hearing is for the Redmans, Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. PAZINSKI: My name is Leo Pazinski, I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Redman. Our application here today is to basically to reconstruct a platform and steps that exist en the side of the house as part of an interior alteration. We're also squaring off the house, has a little inset, you can see by the photographs I submitted, we're squaring that off, going in line with the house as it is now. It was recessed at eno time with the original construction. The platform and steps we're rebuilding is going te be smaller than what's there now. It was approved and on the survey in 1991. We're not going any closer to the adjoining neighbors; we're actually scaling down the size of the platform and steps. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there and saw the building there. It's not a big deal at all. Jim, de you have any questions? BOA/~D MEMBER DINIZlO: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My enty question is a little bit whimsical. What is the strongest argument that could not be made for not granting the variance? MR. PAZlNSKI: What happened was when we first searched the records apparently there were violations issued with the original construction, but they didn't knew what the violations were. Maybe the original set of plans had the deer recessed and the stairs coming straight out, but that would have encroached even further into the side yard. Se we're having the least degree of encroachment. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're also doing a little something with the garage? MR. PAZlNSKI: We have a three-car garage. One of the bays being converted into a laundry room and mudroom. We're going to leave the garage door there because it looks nice from the street view, and we're going to build right in front of it. And I submitted that with my drawing. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're not expanding beyond the existing footprint? 2 December 15, 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. PAZINSKI: No. If anything, we're reducing the square footage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Since I have to write this, what is the inset you're saying you're doing other than the steps? MR. PAZINSKI: If you would like I have a photograph I can show you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, you're flushing it off, okay. And that is done, so that is complete the way it is right now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MR. PAZINSKI: No. That's the setback we're going to square it off and flush it now, off. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know the inset is still there, but are you rebuilding the steps or are they staying the way they are? MR. PAZINSKI: They are being rebuilt and reduced. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They will go both ways, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Reduced in size, not in depth or distance from the property line? MR. PAZINSKI: The distance to the proper~y line will remain the same, but front to rear dimensional will be reduced. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What will they be reduced to? I don't want to get yelled at when I write this decision. MR. PAZINSKI: I understand. The platform and steps will be approximately 8' by 4'. Eight feet wide, which will be front to rear, four feet deep. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it will be 32 square feet? MR. PAZINSKI: Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: You were not denied for the garage conversion? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's all part of it because of the Walz decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, so we'll include that too. December 15, 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. PAZINSKI: Excuse me, it's going to be 11' by 4', so it will be 44 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 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 hearing is for Rodriguez, down in Hillcrest North in Orient, a new house. MS. MARTIN: Good morning, Amy Martin here, Fairweather-Brown Associates on behalf of Roy and Susan Rodriguez. What we have here is an application for a swimming pool that 112 feet of which, because of the size of the building lot, 112 square feet ends up being in the side yard. That is the steps into the pool and approximately three feet of the pool itself. Originally I thought the nonconformance was larger, but when I spoke to the Building Department, they wanted to use just the area, not the ow~rhang from the setbacks of the side yard. I got only one of the mailing cards back, but I got two phone calls from the neighbor across the street and the neighbor one lot over concerned about the fact that it was going to be in the side yard, [out they didn't understand the concept that the location of the pool would be the same, it is the only place that it can be, that only the 112 feet tlhat is nonconforming is that little section that runs landward of the house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your highlighted section? MS. MARTIN: The little highlighted section is the only thing we're here for. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And if you move it forward you'll be less than -- MS. MARTIN: 75 feet from the bluff and that's not allowable. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your neighbor was assuming that side yard meant that it had to be directly behind the house? MS. MARTIN: The man across the street had a concern that he was going to see the people in the pool. And I had to explain to him that the pool would be there anyway and that that's the only location it can be; and that there is a hedge December 15, 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 already planted. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And even if the pool was 12 feet shorter -- MS. MARTIN: It's not going to make any difference to him. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you are 75 feet back from the bluff? MS. MARTIN: That's the location of it, yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the coastal erosion line, so he has to be from the top of the bluff ls actually 100 foot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's 112 square feet, right? MS. MARTIN: Yes, 112 square feet including the stairs. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, anything else? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: A quick question, you could eliminate the whole variance by reducing the size of the pool. I mean a 20' by 40' pool is huge. It's a small ranch. It's a huge pool. MS. MARTIN: We did suggest that to the owner; and her concept was she has two young boys, and she wants them to do laps and that's the size of the pool she's asking for. So it's up to you to decide whether or not she could reduce the size of the pool. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many feet would that reduction be? MS. MARTIN: It would be currently, we have 3'11" of pool and five feet of steps, so it would be 8'11" or close to 12 feet shorter, which would make it considerably smaller. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Under 40 feet. MS. MARTIN: Yes, that would make it 20' by 28', it would almost be a square, which would be not too attractive. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Spending the amount of time I have looking at the application, I have no objection to the size of the pool. My question is are the Trustees involved in this? MS. MARTIN: It's a nonjurisdiction issue. December 15, 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 There will be a hay bale line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You will do that during construction? MS. MARTIN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the pool will not be enclosed in any way, manner or form? MS. MARTIN: No, it will not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 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 hearing is for Sonitis. MR. BARTHMAN: Good morning, I'm Cliff Barthman, I represent Mrs. Sonitis for the variance for the inground swimming pool. We wish to put it actually in the side yard, but it's going Jzo be behind the rear setback of the house, 10' off the one side property line and 17 from the rear property line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the one that you're going to put that stockade fence all around the property? MR. BARTHMAN: No, I think she was going to put an estate fence around and do arborvitae in the front so you can't see. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you're going to put some sort of fence around the pool? MR. BARTHMAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The diagram doesn't show any fence. I was down there and then I saw your plans that you were going to put a fence all the way around the house. That's 10 foot off the line? MR. BARTHMAN: Yes, correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's no marks. You just kind of drew this in, and then put a 10 there. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Do you have your affidavit of sign posting? MR. BARTHMAN: I think you have all that in there and there were actually two others. We gave you the receipts now. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Maybe tomorrow we'll fax over another form to you for a sign posting. 6 December 15, 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 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, can I ask a question of this gentleman about the fence? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sir, again, since it's my decision, and I have to write this, the fence, if I write this decision to read an estate fence to code, that would be okay with you? MR. BARTHMAN: Yes. And also I just spoke to Mrs. Sonitis, and where we have the fence completely around the property it's going to go from the front of the house, up the one side, across the back, and even with the side of the house. So it will be completely enclosed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I use the phrase "to code," I'm saying it will not exceed the height the code requires. MR. BARTHMAN: What is the height? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Six foot. MR. BARTHMAN: Six foot front, side and rear, and -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's back up one second. New York state code is four feet. I think you better check with the Building Department to make sure what their determination is before you erect anything more than four feet. That's the reason I'm writing it to code. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry, if you're going to put that in there, you should put in there that this is not a variance for the fence. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you, Jimmy, I couldn't agree with you more. But by saying that embodied within the findings of the decision it is to code, it is not necessarily to the specific code here. We're not concerning about what is architectural, what is nice, we're concerned about the ability of children and animals to get into the pool. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As is the Building Department. But if they see a variance for a pool, and then they see the fence on there, and we mention fence, if we're not clear on that then he's going to think it's a variance for that fence. I just think if we put a sentence in the end to say, this is not a variance for that fence. However you want to do it nicely, at least it's clear to the Building Inspector that we're just granting a setback for the pool and any safety issues have to come from his department. 7 December 15, 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. BARTHMAN: I understand what you're saying. A lot of times when we do this if we approw~ it the way it is and you're saying if your code is four foot and the inspector comes out and says this is not four foot, he's going to say this is wrong. But when we leave here, we're going to go to the Building Department and make sure. She would like to do the safest thing. If they're going to allow a six foot estate fence, if they say five or four, then we'll do it accordingly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some of these fences become extremely expensive. I would hate to see you install something that wouldn't meet the code, then you'd be back here again in February with another application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But again, that's not the issue that's before the Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question, if the proposed pool were rotated 90 degrees, you wouldn't be here today; is that correct? Because you wouldn't require the variance. MR. BARTHMAN: If we turn the thing completely around? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, then it would be entirely in the rear yard. MR. BARTHMAN: Couldn't because I have an old survey that shows there are three cesspools in the back yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's one of the reasons for granting the variance. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Let me see that; can we have that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last question I have is how big is the pool? MR. BARTHMAN: 18 by 34 kidney. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this application? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to call that irregular. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did I hear you correctly, sir, in the beginning, you're going to be placing arborvitaes to the north side and northeast side? MR. BARTHMAN: Yes. Actually the back has hedges and there's some hedges on the one side there. So in the front, for the privacy part. December 15, 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 MS. SONITIS: The part facing Gin Lane, I'd like to camouflage that fence so when you drive up, you won't see it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The same with the neighbor on the northeast side, you'll put arborw[tae or evergreens? MS. SONITIS: Yes, I want to landscape it so you see greenery and prettiness rather than that huge square fence. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you going to put that in, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not part of the variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's not part of the variance. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We can't ask for screening when they come in for a variance on a pool ill a side yard? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure we can. Just fence around the pool, then an estate fence also, correc'5? MS. SONITIS: No. What I want to do is you see the back left-hand corner where the pool is facing the property, right? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MS. SONITIS: I want to enclose the back, the side, which is the north, the front and then along the side of my house. So that's what it's going to look like; is that clear? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We should have something on a map, maybe you could give it to us tomorrow. Do you want to draw it on one of these maps? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Draw it on that. it, so we know you did it, we didn't do Initial it. MS. SONITIS: When you say, are you putting it in the variance that I have to landscape that at any point, or how it has to be? As long as I have my fence, that's okay, right? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean the estate fence? in our involved with saying whether I get the pool or not? That I go to the Building Department and MS. SONITIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's not going to be jurisdiction. MS. SONITIS: So that's not going to be December 15, 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 then can landscape around it at my discretion and the way I'd like it to look, right? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think we are going to ask that she do some screening on the side, at your discretion. We're not going to tell you arborvitae. MS. SONITIS: It will be nice. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What if I make the statement that the applicant has agreed to put screening around the periphery of the pool. We haven't finished the hearing yet; we still don't know if there are people who are going to object to it. So it may be a little premature to say that at this point. But I have to tell you that it's nice of you to offer that. MS. SONITIS: It will look nice. I want it to look pretty. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then it doesn't look like you're trying to barricade yourself in. Is there anyone else in this 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 hearing is Robert and Josephine Corcoran on Nassau Point in Cutchogue. MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, Fairweather-Brown Design Associates, representing Robert Corcoran in this application. The application is to make what is currently a storage area above the garage into an artist's studio. Originally we made the application without any further plumbing other than the utility sink, which is on the main floor already in the garage, and we were advised that if at any future time we would want to possibly put a half-bath in there or another utility sink that we would need to come before you again. So we have amended the application to plumb for those things in the process of putting it in, just making this a larger work space upstairs from the garage. It's been denied on the fact that by design this is not a use that is allowable in the code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. But you're not changing the dimensions? 10 December 15, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 MS. MARTIN: We're not changing the footprint at all. We're adding I think a foot of height to the side wall and we're adding dormers to the room, so there is standing room on the second floor. It's going to look a little bit more like a carriage house than a plain garage when i~z's done. It's a nicer addition to the neighborhood and it shouldn't affect anyone. It's not above any height restrictions or anything that's being asked for. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many square feet are being added of floor space? MS. MARTIN: No square feet. It's just height we're adding. We're adding standing room, so it's not just a storage space. It's a work space for an artist. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will it be heated? MS. MARTIN: Yes -- actually, I think it would have electric heat because currently it's a summer -- the home is a summer home. There is no plan for a heating plant or anything for it. It is just an open space that's usable with another utility sink and a john upstairs. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're talking half-b~th; is that correct? MS. MARTIN: Yes. But actually that's not in the current application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you're throwing it in anyway? MS. MARTIN: Yes. We were advised rather than come before you again. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have to write this decision, but if the decision was written that -- I suspect there will be walls upstairs; I suspect it will be insulated? MS. MARTIN: The only wall there will be is the wall surrounding the bathroom, everything is open. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will be insulated, electrified. MS. MARTIN: Yes. It's to be a usable work space for an art studio, not a retail space. It's not to be misconstrued as anything other than a work space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How would you like the Board to work in the aspect of heat, electric heat only if needed? 11 December 15, 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 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What was your question, Jerry, I'm sorry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not putting this nice lady on the spot here, but if they want some sort of alternative heating plan, when I say alternative, supplemental is probably a better word, if they intend to use it in the fall or in the spring. MS. MARTIN: I suppose there is room on the main floor of the two-car garage, because there's that entry area on the side that they could ]put a small oil burner or something in. wouldn't want to restrict it to being electric heat, 10ut at this point they haven't proposed any heating. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If there's water there should be heat. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is an artist's studio. She's not requesting heat, and we shouldn't be granting them heat. That's how we restrict most of the people that have accessories, is we don't want them to heat it. If she's not requesting it, I'm not for making any provision for it. They can drain the thing down in the winter and that's their responsibility. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm fine with that, with tlhe condition of no heat then. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have to write this decision. I'll put it in there it's not to be heated. If you're not requesting that then that's what's going to be in there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What kind of changes would ibe needed if this were subsequently to be turned into an accessory apartment? MS. MARTIN: It can't be. It has no kitchen; it has no shower or bath. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You have plumbing. You would have a sink, you would have a half bath. MS. MARTIN: You would have no shower. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't imagine you have 450 square feet of living space either. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also Amy, you're going to need something, give us a plan that shows the half bath. MS. MARTIN: I have submitted that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I guess you confused us when you said it wasn't part of it in the beginning. It is on the plans? 12 December 15, 2005 13 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. MARTIN: It was on the plans. I submitted it, and then you asked me to amend it. It is there. It shows the room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The thing says receiwed November 3, 2005. And it's stamped by Rob Brown. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Up on the second floor, right, half bath? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is there it is signed by, stamped Mr. Brown on October 31, 2005. MS. MARTIN: The building is 18' by 32' Not all of that is usable space, that includes the stairway. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's certainly over 450 square feet. MS. MARTIN: Yes, it is. It is a two-car garage with a little bump-out on the side for entry, which exists. And it is larger than 450 square feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a comfortable sized studio? MS. MARTIN: It is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask a question to the clerk of the Board. Would we have to readvertise this, if these people wanted heat in this building? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If they're not asking for heat and you have that restriction on it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should give Amy time to go over and call her client to ask if they want heat or not. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's better to handle it separately. I would have to readvertise it. MS. MARTIN: We didn't ask for heat but the determination would say no heat? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're granted a variance, it would be that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mainly because it's an accessory structure. MS. MARTIN: Understood. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, if it were connected to the house it would be a different situation, but it's not. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If they wanted to December 15, 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 add electric heat to a section of the building later they could reapply it with a separate variance. MS. MARTIN: Okay, understood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here 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 hearing is for Hedgecock on Stanley Road in Mattituck. MR. JORDAN: Good morning, my name is Tim Jordan. I'm representing Tom and Judith Hedgecock of 745 Stanley Road in Mattituck. The variance is for an as-built deck, approximately 705 square feet. By him doing so, he put the pool in violation of his side yard. It's currently holding 20 feet, and the deck up to the steps is about 21 feet. We would hope that the Board would find this variance to have no significant impact on the environment or the adjacent properties and grant it upon that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My question was when looking at it, are you required to put a fence or something around that above-ground pool? It's sitting practically at deck level. I was concerned if children are there without a fence there, they can just plop right in. MR. JORDAN: There's actually no -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't think there's a code for above-ground pool. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There is. And the deck should probably, I'm sure the Building Inspector is going to make you put a gate on the deck and also the doors. MR. JORDAN: Absolutely, it will be up to code. If that could be left to the Building Inspector's discretion, that would be great. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When I saw it at the deck level, having grandchildren -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can leave it open on the deck, they can, going to have to put a gate part of that deck, and like to be self-closing. MR. JORDAN: I have totally understand that. but they're probably at the steps at each I said, the doors have an 18 month old, I The Hedgecocks children 14 December 15, 2005 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 are grown, so they may be overlooking that kind of safety feature. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Once you have grandc[aildren, it doesn't matter how many times you tell them something. Jim, do you have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, what year was the pool built because obviously the pool came first? MR. JORDAN: I couldn't see it being more than five years old. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there's a permit? MR. JORDAN: I believe there's a permit for the pool. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the deck is illegal? MR. JORDAN: Correct. The pool was granted, and I don't understand this, but by attaching the deck to it put the pool in violation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They got the permit for the deck but the pool was still there, they didn't notice it? MR. JORDAN: They put the pool in, then they built the deck. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At the time they got the permit for the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn't get the permit. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The reason why they put that pool in the side yard. MR. JORDAN: Just for my own -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Don't try to discover that logic, we just need to grant the variance that allows that pool in that side yard. MR. JORDAN: And bring it up to code if need be. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I ask, if the deck was built without a permit and now it turns out that in order to get a permit for the as-built, how has it happened that they're applying for a permit now in any case; are they selling the property? December 15, 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. JORDAN: They have got their eyes on a nice new house still in the town of Southold and they want to make sure that their backyard is cleaned up. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then it introduces the relevance of protecting the pool. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: Ne, it doesn't. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the next owner may have small children. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They're net going te get a CO for this unless they de what the state code s~ys. We're not going to grant a variance for the deck with no gates en it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you know hew long ago they built the deck? MR. JORDAN: The deck looks te me like it's about a year to two years eld. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: I have ne ether questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone 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 hearing is for Christos Mitsas on Harvest Lane in Mattituck. MR. MITSAS: I'm George and this is my dad Chris, he's the owner of the house. We're here to apply for a variance for an in ground swimming peel. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're right on the corner there, it makes it a little awkward. MR. MITSAS: That's our main problem. The concern is that the house is located, although it's on an acre property or just under it, it's a corner property and it has what is considered two front yards. We had the survey made up, and it's depicted on the survey here exactly where we want to put the pool. Pictures were submitted and diagrams were drawn. The pool for the specific reasons of we wanting it te be there are just a few of them. Myself and my sister, we each have two small children, and we want to keep the pool furthest away from the house as possible; that way if we're either in the house or in the immediate back yard, we can have a direct line ef sight of the children and net having the pool behind the 16 December 15, 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 house would help that. The other reason is there's some existing trees on what's considered the baekyard now, and we'd like to leave them there and not have to take them down and remove them. The third reason is there's a water well for the house that's located in the back left corner of the property and there's piping that's run underneath the ground from the well to the house to supply water. So that would be affected as well. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: So you would have your own well? MR. MITSAS: We currently have well water, and it's located in the back left corner of the property. And the piping is run underneath the property and that would be affected if we were to put a ]pool there. And the final reason again, being we're on a corner property, we're really restricted as to where we can install a pool. I know the code says it has to be in what's considered your back yard, but being we have two front yards, it's difficult to put it where code says. The survey depicts it's going to be 65 feet from the edge of the property on the side of the house, and at least 100 feet back from the front of the house or from the front street of the property. There was some pictures taken and submitted. It was staked out as to where we would install the pool. I also took some supplemental pictures as to where the pool would be installed and show how the trees would block the view from the neighbors, and where the existing trees are so we wouldn't have to take them down. We spoke to the neighbors, three out of the five neighbors have pools themselves so they're all for it. And the other reason is that where we want to install a pool is also the furthest away from our closest neighbor, which is directly to the left of the house. And if we install it there, it's furthest away from any inconvenience to them. I can submit these pictures (handing). If you look at picture one, that's exactly where we want to put the pool. And if you notice, there's existing trees that covers the whole edge -- well, not exactly where we want to put it but five feet before that. So the trees actually block the view from the neighbors. And right 17 December 15, 2005 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 below 'shat trees is a chain link fence, and we're going ~5o install the privacy tubes into the fence. So between the trees and the privacy fence being installed, there won't be any view coming in from any of the neighbors, that's picture one. Picture two is the direct opposite view of where we want to put it. This is behind the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The west? MR. MITSAS: Right. That's where there are three existing trees and we would have to remove them and so on and so forth to have the pool installed there. Picture three is taken from the street on the east side of the property, the Farmvue Road street. Again, that's showing the trees there and below the trees is the fence, and how it would be blocking the inside part of where the pool would be installed. Last but not least, picture four is showing from the driveway the front of the house back, where there are existing shrubs and would block the view from the front of the house back, so the pool would be virtually, you wouldn't be able to see it from either street that the house across crosses on. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A comment, it strikes me that the reason you're here is simply because there's a glitch in the code. MR. MITSAS: That's correct, sir. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand it, there is no back yard to put a pool in as the code describes it, since there are two front yards and the only other one is the side yard, and the pool would have to be in a side yard no matter where it is put. MR. MITSAS: That's correct, sir. The way it was explained to me by the Building Department is wherever your house ends, 90 degrees to the left and 90 degrees to the right of your house, wherever outside of that house property or where the house is is considered your front yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is even to the west would be a side yard. MR. MITSAS: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The west is a rear yard behind the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even though it's a side yard relative to the neighbor. Right, so December 15, 2005 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's a glitch in the code. The problem of applying the rear yard requirement of the pool to this rule that says you've got two front yards if you are in the corner. They don't fit well together. MR. MITSAS: No, they don't. It's very difficult to install a pool on a corner property house. What we would consider the side of your house, and what is considered the front of your house, they consider it all as your front proper'sy. And you can't have a pool in your front properzy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool will remain unenclosed; there is no attempt to enclose it in any way; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: By putting a roof over it? MR. MITSAS: Absolutely not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the he,ring and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Dennis Roses on Cardinal Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LEHNERT: Good morning, Rob Lehnert. What we're proposing here is approximately 325 square foot deck to the rear of the house. The reason we need the variance, again, we're on a corner lot. The existing house was built to approximately 51 foot setbacks on a 50 foot rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When I was down there it wasn't posted. Is it posted? MR. LEHNERT: It's been posted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This was a week ago. Thursday I didn't see any posting. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was there on Sunday it wasn't posted. 19 December 15, 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. LEHNERT: They're there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You posted it? MR. LEHNERT: I posted it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where did you post it? MR. LEHNERT: I posted it on a telephone pole on the Main Road and a tree fight in front of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Maybe someone took them down. I looked on the Main Road too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not on Cardinal Drive? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I saw the posting. MR. LEHNERT: The tree is right next to the mailbox, it's right next to the driveway. MR. LEHNERT: If someone took it down on the Main Road, that wouldn't surprise me. Basically all we're looking to do is reliewe from the 50 foot setbacks for an open deck on the rear of the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It leaves a setback -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 37'4". BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 37'1". MR. LEHNERT: 37'1". CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, 37'1". Jerry, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions, assuming the deck remains open to the sky. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience have any comments to make? MR. EDLER: Am I understanding that the only notification on a variance is the sign in the lot; does it have to be by mail? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it has to be by certified mail to the adjacent owners. MR. EDLER: So in this case did he already do this? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, he should have. MR. EDLER: My name is John Edler, I 2O December 15, 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 reside in East Marion, in Marion Manor on 130 Cleaves Point Road. I just wanted to understand the process because there are tendencies of some people, as I witness, to do it and then ask forgiweness, that is after the fact. So that is I wanted to make sure. Another thing I observed was that so far in all pool discussions, and is this correc~z, that you didn't seem to consider depth or its relationship to the water table, or it's taking away the surface percolation in areas where there are septics or evaporation; or you didn't consider foliage in some of the cases it's for hiding, but what about retention of water and evaporation so that you don't overload a water table ~hat might have been originally only based on precipitation but now has the added ingredient of public water without sewage release? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don't have any jurisdiction over the depth of a pool. MR. EDLER: Who then affects the decision that's going to affect the water table? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The applicant, and we try to make sure that the pool is placed in an area t[hat does not interfere with the septic system or water system. MR. EDLER: That's only as far as the well. CHAIRWOMA/q OLIVA: Even when Suffolk County Water comes in, which they do, you wouldn't want to place a pool over the pipe that leads to the house. MR. EDLER: You are only worrying about the pipe, you're not worrying about the hydraulics. There's a whole system there, that's why you're running into a problem. Slowly in the time that you don't know about, that's why I came. The water keeps going into the water table, rising it, and the less you take away from the evaporation, you have to figure the perk of the soil that's around the pool, you have to worry about runoff, what about the weight that's pressured on the weight of the pool and the water? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with you. I know in certain states, I think even in Connecticut, that is taken into account when the building permit for a pool is given. We do not have anything in our code that I know about. MR. EDLER: Why shouldn't we? Why wait 21 December 15, 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 until the cat is out of the bag and we're all suffering? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would suggest that you come to the Town Board meeting and make that sugges5ion to the Town Board. MR. EDLER: This is why I do all the research so I know all the parts. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Come to a Town Board meeting and either in the afternoon or evening, and why don't you suggest that to the Town Board to look into that subject, or the Trustees, and take that and perhaps amending the code. But everybody is informed as far as if something is coming here for a variance. They have to notify all the adjacent owners. It is posted on the property, and we make sure that it's on certified mail and have a return receipt. And they have to hand those in. And it's advertised in the paper in the legal notices. MR. EDLER: But that will prevent them doing it and coming for forgiveness. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sometimes we don't forgive. MR. EDLER: That's good to know. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I support your efforts, and I think if you look at this statement for a presentation to the Town Board because that is the agency that can respond to the needs you're pointing out. MR. EDLER: Why I'm concerned is because my past record was after six years of dealing with the Trustees I found out and proved to them that the DEC did not have power over the coastal areas as of August 8, 1984. So I just want to with that research and Krupski moving up, he knows my background. I don't want to do it wrong, but I do want to make a lasting impact. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's going to be on the Board as of January 1st. So I suggest you make your appearance at the next Board meeting after that. MR. EDLER: And to explain what my reasoning is because you're creating a monster underneath in the water table. I know I suffered for 38 hours pumping 600 gallons of water an hour because of the mixture, a litmus understanding of hydraulics of the water system and a water table. So thank you. 22 December 15, 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 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for coming in. 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 reserwe decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Matrons at Wells Avenue in Southold. MR. STRANG: Good evening, Garrett Strang, architect, Southold, representing the Marrons in this m~tter. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you like to explain what you want to do? MR. STRANG: First off, I'll submit two of the three return receipts we have gotten on the legal notices. To give the Board a quick overview of this particular application, this particular home was owned, was built in the '50s and was previously owned by my client's mother who, upon her passing, it became the home of my client. It's presently too small for their present family needs, and what we're proposing to do as shown on the site plan is push out the living area to align with the existing porch, and by push out, I'm saying towards the water, and to push out the deck or to add a deck pushing it out to align with the existing deck, both of which will maintain the existing setbacks to the rock revetment of 46 feet to the deck and 60 feet to the house. We will not be getting any closer than the already established setbacks. We have received a Trustees permit for this work, and we're awaiting the DEC's response. With respect to the garage, we're adding a new garage forward of the existing one, and the reason for that is the existing garage is going to be converted into a new kitchen and dining area that they need. And the garage placement as shown on the site plan is really the only practical place to do to put it there by putting it in front of the existing garage. The house was, as I said, relatively small; it's a small three bedroom, two bath ranch. And my client does need additional space for their growing family. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You will be 10 foot then from the one side yard and 15'6" from the other side yard, total 35. MR. STRANG: Total of 35, yes. 23 December 15, 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: Jerry, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But in reality, Mr. Strang, you are not changing the house itself, it's really a proposed garage addition that's going to be 10. The house itself is going to remain at 127 MR. STRANG: That is correct. As you can see on the site plan, I pulled the garage, stepped it in to try to maintain at least that 10 feet on that side. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: And you almost have to do it. MR. STRANG: Because the property line is on an angle unfortunately, and the house is askew to the property line. And we can't shift it over any further because then we'd be encroaching on living space and the like. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: It's still going to remain a ranch house? MR. STRANG: It's a story and a half. We're going to raise some dormers, as shown on the sketch, overlay, the diagram. It sort of indicated we're going to raise some dormers on the water side, and on that one element that isn't part of this particular application on, I guess it would be considered, the east side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My only concern is you have a small you nonconforming existing deck, which is about 300 square feet, and you're going to create an additional non-conforming probably 800 square feet additional deck, very big, and we are 46 feet to the bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Revetment. MR. STRANG: Right, revetment. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're the only one that is not bulkheaded. MR. STRANG: It's one of the few that unfortunately we're not able to continue to bulkhead. This rock revetment has been installed recently under a permit granted by both the Trustees and the DEC. They applied for a bulkhead, I was not a party to that, this was prior to my involvement with the client, and both the DEC and the Trustees said we don't want any more bulkheading but you have can have a rock revetment, which is what the permit was granted 24 December 15, 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 for. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have a problem with the additions for the existing side yard, ]out is your client willing to get a little further back? MR. STRANG: To scale back the deck somewhat? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Probably have about 1,300 square foot of deck there. MR. STRANG: There's a fair amount. guess if we did the aritmetic, it's 14 by 60-70 feet in total. They do a lot of outdoor living. It is a summer home with grand kids and whatever. I guess they feel like they can have a playpen to keep tlhe kids contained and not run down to the water. But I'm sure they would be receptive if this Board requested that they scale that back somewhat. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the steps going to be from the deck? MR. STRANG: Off on the side because a flagstone path that goes down to the there's dock. side. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Only on the west MR. STPJING: Only on the west side. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To follow-up Vincent's question, is that this existing deck is going to be expanded, but there's also a rather large deck being built brand new, and I'm not convinced yet why there needs to be an expansion towards the side property line of the smaller deck when the new deck is being built, which would be quite large, four or five playpens or whatever. Why do we need depth across the entire rear of the house? MR. STRANG: The reason was to make it sort of clean and have everything line up. So aesthetically we didn't have a lot of jogging going on. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's not the extra space, it's aesthetics? MR. STRANG: Part of it is aesthetics. That square footage of space, if what you're referring to there to the left of the proposed deck or if we use the orientation here, I guess it would be considered the southwest corner there, it wouldn't have an adverse impact on their use of 25 December 15, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the deck but aesthetically it would impact. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 12 foot would be acceptable, I would take it, the width of the -- the de?th of the deck 12 foot instead of 14. MR. STRANG: The deck is 14 now. I think that's a comfortably sized deck. Again, I didn't want to come any closer, that's why I held the line with the existing. If I understand the code correctly, and the way the Building Inspector described it to me, if that deck were 13 feet deep it wouldn't be before this Board because we're behind the existing structure. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't believe so. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Regarding the new garage, which is going to have a 10 foot setback, are there reasons, if this were not to be found acceptable, where else would that garage go; would it go over behind the proposed addition on the east side of the property, which would of course mean shifting the driveway as well? MR. STRANG: We are relocating the driveway as you can see on the site plan because right now it comes straight in to the existing garage, and we're proposing to shift it over to the other side where we can bring it through a vegetated landscaped screened area, so people look up the driveway and not looking at garage doors. But to answer your question, that is the most practical location for the garage because with the garage in that location, when you exit the garage, you'll be able to come right into a proposed kitchen and laundry area, otherwise you'll be coming into the bedroom element if it was on the other side of the house. It's the most practical location for it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang, this is open to the sky? MR. STRANG: Yes, unroofed open, yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You didn't give an answer on the 12 foot. MR. STRANG: I'm sorry, go ahead? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can the deck be instead of 14, can it be 127 MR. STRANG: My answer to that is such that as I started to mention, which I guess the 26 December 15, 2005 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board 'zakes exception to, when speaking with the Building Department they said the way the code is written -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You'd still fall under the Walz. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's a nonconforming setback right now 46, what's it supposed to be? MR. STRANG: 75. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Anything you do in that nonconforming area according to Walz is before us then. MR. STRANG: He showed me a portion in the code t[hat's the exceptions to that particular 75 foot rule that says you are excepted if you are behind and an already established structure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MR. STRANG: So, his position was if you brought if back a foot -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Who said that? MR. STRANG: The Building Inspector. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Garrett, they refer it to the Zoning Board. Once you're here with the variance, they leave it up to the Zoning Board. You can withdraw that, if you want and go back and get your permits without a variance if you don't want the Board to deny the 14 feet. But if you want the Board to rule on the deck, it sounds like they're going to give you 12 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're going to have a discussion, Garrett. The thing is I have to write this decision, and I just don't like to be told no. So if we could get a 12 foot out of you, I think that would make us all pretty happy. MR. STRANG: I'll say two things, one I can live with the 12 feet, the second thing being somewhere everybody's got to get on the same page with the zoning, because I can relate totally with this Board and the intent of the zoning to go to the Building Department and say there's an existing nonconforming setback, I don't want to cut it back six inches or my new construction's going to be back six inches or a foot, so I can eliminate coming before the Zoning Board is utterly ridiculous. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're absolutely right, and the solution to the problem is alas not entirely in the hands of the people in this room. 27 December 15, 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: Garrett, you're 46 feet to the bulkhead and you're supposed to be 75, so you still have to come here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On the disapproval they say additions with an "S". They're saying all of your new additions are less than 75 feet. MR. STRANG: Correct. But had my application initially been for a 13 foot deck so it was a foot behind the existing deck. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If they said you only needed a one foot variance? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, Garrett's saying he wouldn't be before us if he asked for 47 feet. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But the Building Department's disapproval doesn't say any of that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MR. STRANG: No, it doesn't say that. But had I made the application to the Building Department, they would have said, okay, you need a variance for the garage, but the deck is okay. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They would clarify that for you if you asked them to. MR. STRANG: Not to belabor the issue and not to waste the Board's time, I will accept the 12 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good. Is there anyone else who would like 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: I'll make a resolution to recess for five minutes. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Hommel at Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck for a waiver of merger, Miss Moore? MS. MOORE: Good morning, I have with me today is Mrs. Hommel, who is the original owner on both properties, and Mr. and Mrs. Righi who are now the owners of the vacant parcel. You have the history that I have given to you in writing here, but very briefly, I'll go through it. With respect to the waiver, which will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood, these properties are two of a 28 December 15, 2005 29 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 four lot subdivision on this road. The lots were created in the 1969 map of Howell. You are very familiar with this street because I know with my own previous applications before this Board you have granted variances for a waterfront house to enable it to give a little bit of property to an adjacent property; and in 1979 there were variances granted for a rear yard for one of the parcels that ultimately Mr. Stefano purchased, which we didn't realize there was a variance already on record, we applied and you notified us that there had been a variance. So there's history and there are findings in both those files with respect to the character of the neighborhood, and the fact that these lots have been established, have been developed all very consistently. The situation of the merger occurred strictly by death. Mrs. Hommel and her husband purchased the property that the house is on, that is 12.2, in 1975. They received independent tax bills since. In 1979 the property to the south, 12.3 became available, and she bought it just in her name in order to keep the single and separate nature of it. Unfortunately in 2003 Mr. Hommel passed away and by virtue of the deed, she was the heir, the standard husband and wife deed gives everything into the spouse. And at that time unknowing the estate transferred the house -- they did some estate planning -- the house itself is in Mrs. Hommel's name as life tenant with the two daughters that have the property, and then the lot was deeded over to Mr. and Mrs. Righi, who is Mrs. Hommel's granddaughter. Mrs. Hommel is reaching a certain age where she lives independently in the house, however that at her age every year is at risk and so they decided that with the lot being empty and being able to be developed that the granddaughter was going to build a house for her family, and she has actually been the caretaker for Mrs. Hommel, daily caretaker, she been traveling every day from Rocky Point since Mr. Hommel passed away, and has been the caretaker helping Mrs. Hommel. So this merger is causing two problems or two significant issues here. One is obviously the financial hardship, which I have testimony I will give you; secondly, it's the problem of an elderly December 15, 2005 30 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 person with a caretaker the lot was preserved separately, the house was developed independently with the setbacks of the individual lot, and the lot was anticipated for future needs, now the future need came, and it's merged. I know you're well aware with the problems with the merger law, and the problems it's been creating and there have been lots of cases lately on it, I know. With respect to the lot being consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood, again, I refer you back to your own findings in ZBA decision 4404 and 4405, which already set forth a finding that these lots are consistent, the size of the lots are consistent with the neighborhood. The waiver will avoid economic hardship. I tell you there are two issues of economic hardship; certainly economic hardship on a person who owns a house who will face, as her age progresses, only the option if she cannot have her granddaughter live next door as her caretaker, the only option may be to sell the house and find an alternate home. This is a house that she's lived in with her husband before his passing for 30 years. So it does create not only a financial/economic hardship but an emotional hardship. I do have opinion letters from Mr. Uhlenger who has provided me with financial opinions with respect to the property. I have seven of these, I'll distribute them. Very quickly, the house and the lot if treated as one parcel is valued at $725,000. The house independently has a value of $635,000 and the lot independently has a value of $325,000. So if we were to compare the two, if we were to lose the independent nature of the lot, there would be the difference of being able to sell each independently, if there was ever a need to sell, they each could sell for $960,000 versus what they would sell as one parcel of $725,000. So that's your financial hardship with respect to the values of the properties merged versus independently. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could you go over those numbers again? MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll hand those to you right now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, you said December 15, 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. Hommel died when? MS. MOORE: '03. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Would you have the date of death, month and day? MS. MOORE: August of 2003. The first letter that's among the packet is if this is considered one parcel, the parcel would be valued at $725,000. When I was speaking with Mr. Uhlenger, he said a long piece of property with a large side yard, the value of the property is not significantly more than the house in and of itself. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean the house just on the half lot? MS. MOORE: Just on its own parcel is the second letter in your packet, and that is based on appraisals at $635,000. So he does a letter opinion based on valuation of comparables and conditions of the property. Then the third letter is the value of the lot independently, and that if it were to be sold to you or me and certainly Mr. and Mrs. Righi, it would be valued at $325,000. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did I understand you say the granddaughter wants to build on that lot? MS. MOORE: Yes, the granddaughter is Mr. and Mrs. Righi. She is the granddaughter and also the caretaker. I will have her stand and testify with respect to that she is in fact the caretaker for Mrs. Hommel. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat, can we briefly go through the circumstances of the merger, because I'm having a hard time in the file tracing the deeds. Do you know whether you have provided us with the original deed that had the right of survivorship? MS. MOORE: No. There is the one deed, you have a single and separate that actually has the ownership. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It doesn't provide the details. MS. MOORE: I can explain it to you, no problem. The husband and wife bought the one parcel that is in standard husband and wife -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOR3~N: They had a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship? MS. MOORE: Exactly. The other parcel was bought by Mrs. Hommel independently with no 31 December 15, 2005 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 husband. When Mr. Hommel passed away - ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORA/q: In 2003 by operation of law not through the estate, because you said a couple of things, it didn't pass through the estate? MS. MOORE: It actually would have happened in either case. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It would have happened in deed? So she took over survivorship of the property, she owns it? MS. MOORE: Yes. That's true, thank you for clarifying. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So then what happens? MS. MOORE: Then they did the estate planning, within five months they're getting their affairs in order, she deeds to her daughter the house, the two daughters, one is her mother, the other is her aunt; the two daughters take title and reserve in Mrs. Hommel a life estate, which is a standard way of handling the affairs. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On which property? MS. MOORE: Just the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Leaving aside the second parcel because no one knew that it had merged to begin with. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They thought it was just the one lot? MS. MOORE: Just the one lot, yes. The second, the independent lot was deeded to Mr. and Mrs. Righi. They are in fact the title owners now, Mr. and Mrs. Righi. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was as of '03? MS. MOORE: When did you take title? MRS. RIGHI: '05. MS. MOORE: '05. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this was been done, this second lot was transferred subsequent to the death of Mr. Hommel? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just simply as -- MS. MOORE: As a standard transfer to a family member. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then it turned out they couldn't sell it because it had been merged. MS. MOORE: They didn't intend to sell it. The only reason they found out it merged -- is there an issue you want me to address? December 15, 2005 33 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, these things are obtuse to me sometimes. The properties merged by death. The vacant property came into -- MS. MOORE: Common ownership with the house. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, upon the death of the husband, and a period of five months or some such later, it was devised, so the merger only existed for that intervening period, five or six months, something like that that was caused by death? MS. MOORE: Yes. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's up to this Board whether it wants to continue or not to continue to view those circumstances as relevant to the waiver of merger issue. MS. MOORE: I give you all the facts. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Were there still separate tax bills? MS. MOORE: Yes. There are still separate tax bills today. Since the beginning there were separate tax bills. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Another issue I want to bring to the Board's attention is that Miss Moore has presented evidence that the two properties would be worth more separately than together. In the past this Board has taken the position that that's not necessarily proof of economic hardship, and that's been affirmed by two courts, a supreme court and the appellate division, but that's up to this Board what position it wants to take as to a showing of hardship. MS. MOORE: I am going by virtue of the law as it's written and I'm trying to address the issues. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCOPJIN: I understand. I'm trying to present to the Board. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The law identifies what counts as economic hardship is, and the court has already ruled on that question, that the loss of economic opportunity comes from dividing a property doesn't count as economic hardship according to the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board first took the position of interpreting the December 15, 2005 34 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 statute that it was not sufficient to show that the property is worth more as two pieces than as one, and the Supreme Court and Appellate Division said we will leave that to this Board to decide; we will uphold that decision. MS. MOORE: I don't think the court has made a determination one way or another, what is economic hardship. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They said it's going to leave it to this Board to figure that out and affirm that decision. MS. MOORE: Was there a question you were asking? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That was related. MS. MOORE: You were asking about the time frame of when the merger was discovered. Okay. Mrs. Righi had already been in touch with the builder, had started plans, had gone into the Health Department to make applications. She had an expeditor who was working on it. When she retained me it occurred that she met with one of the builders, who is a local builder, and he said, oh, you better check this out. So that's when we got the single and separate because at the time she was the owner. I didn't know the history. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How could she be the owner? MS. MOORE: She thought she was the owner. She was actually the title owner. The deed was already there. She was the owner in '05 when the waiver merger was discovered. We did the single and separate, found the period of common ownership and that's when we went to the Building Department and found we had to come to this Board. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This may not be a fatal problem, but the idea that one of the things you hope would be uncovered in title searches prior to ownership, is to find out whether there actually is a legally separate property that is being transferred. MS. MOORE: Unfortunately when you're dealing with family transfers, there's often no title, particularly when it's done through an estate, an estate attorney is not a zoning attorney. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But this was done after -- MS. MOORE: The estate attorney who was December 15, 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 transferring and doing deeds, so it's the family attorney doing this. I treat things differently, I have estates right now, when I know there are two properties, and I'm very careful to make sure I don't put them in the same name, not every attorney knows that, so. That was the last point I wanted to raise. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a deed to the second property? MS. MOORE: Yes. There is a deed recorded. Mr. and Mrs. Righi are the owners. The application before you is done by both of them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. But this is the situation we find ourselves in. And you know, this problem just has not been corrected. And this poor lady shouldn't be before us, in all honesty, that's the way I feel, but we're ~alking about $200,000 difference here approximately. MS. MOORE: And also the effect of a caretaker family and an elderly person being able to liw~ in their home. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's another thing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, that's important but it's not in the code. MS. MOORE: A lot of things, the interpretations I've been getting are not in the code BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. But if we base our decision, I have to write this. So I'm thinking if I base this unmerger on the fact that there's a caretaker going to build a house next to it, what happens 15 years from now? MS. MOORE: That's one aspect of why it stayed in the family rather than it got sold to another party. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly, you went to length in your first paragraph for just that reason explaining as a reason for granting the merger would be because there's a caretaker going to be built. We're going to base our decision based on if we granted it more than on that one MS. MOORE: I would not recommend that you base it all on that reason. 35 December 15, 2005 36 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, but it's going to be in there. MS. MOORE: I think I actually addressed all of the points that are in the waiver of merger law, and your prior rulings on the community on the number of lots it's creating and so on and so forth, but one additional factor which is unique on this application versus other applications you have seen is that there is that extra element of an elderly person who the merger occurs through a death and that you're getting more often than not -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You know this is not the first time we have been faced with precisely that situation even in the last six months. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We just had it right across the street, Donna Wexler. MS. MOORE: That's on appeal, we'll see. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, I'm glad someone has a wherewithal. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That wasn't merged by death. That was merged by deed not by death. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Totally different. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Totally different. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The caretaker argument has been used before, and sometimes with considerable effect, but it's not part of the code. MS. MOORE: I haven't used it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can't think of anyplace where we have granted for that reason. I can't think of anyplace where we granted an unmerger by death, can you? MS. MOORE: Yes. I don't remember which one it was, but I think it was one of my applications. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can go to John McNulty's property in Laurel; we can go to Anchor Lane in East Marion. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to see a copy of those. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They're all in the file. MS. MOORE: Up until recently, I would have said, no, I didn't think I needed to go into this financial hardship because of the way that it occurred by death but given the status of the law December 15, 2005 37 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 right now, I'm doing that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree with you. If you look at the property and the family situation and so forth, independent of what the code actually says, it makes perfectly good sense that the Righis should have the property and be able to develop it. We're kind of hamstrung by the need to interpret the code as written in a way that allows that, and if the economic hardship argument doesn't work, and this Board is on the record for saying it doesn't, it's going to be a little tricky. MRS. HOMMEL: Excuse me, may I say something? My husband and I bought this piece of property, our house property 30 years ago or more. About 10 or 15 years later the piece of property next to me went up to for sale and we bought it. We put that in my name so in case anything like this came up, we wouldn't have a problem. Now, I'm going to read this letter to you. My granddaughter wants to build a house on that piece of property, and I'm going to tell you, I want her to build this house, and I don't know what all this commotion is all about. I'm going to reat the letter to you that I wrote. "My name is Anna Hommel and I'm almost 85 years old. Thirty years ago my husband and I bought the property next to us with the expectation of having my family build a home next to me so I could live out my life in my home without any worries of needing strangers to take care of me, or worse, to have to sell my home and be put into a nursing home. "After 62 years of marriage due to unforeseen tragic events, my husband was recently taken from me. Since my husband's passing, my granddaughter, Nancy Righi, is the only family I have to take care of me in New York. My two wonderful daughters are both in Florida and I visit them very frequently. "Lately we have had some unexpected medical emergencies that I needed Nancy's help with. With them next to me, I will have peace of mind, I would have company. Therefore, we have decidet to go ahead with our lifetime plans we made almost 30 years ago. I was unaware that the Town merged my property to one piece. I never knew they could do that without my knowledge. So December 15, 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 now, I would like to undo that and let my granddaughter and her family build next to me. It's been so lonely here without my husband, I can't wait for the day that I look out the window and I see my two great grandchildren playing in the yard. My granddaughter practically grew up out here with so many happy and wonderful memories. A1 and Nancy are so happy and excited about building a home next to me, as I am to have them live here. "For 30 years my husband and I have loved and fully supported this community. Now I am asking for you to support my wishes. Sincerely, Ann Hommel." CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I read that very moving letter that you wrote last night again, and I thank you for sharing that with us. I think we have asked enough questions. MRS. HOMMEL: I don't know what the problem is. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a technical problem. We'll see what we can do. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this application? We also received all the petitions from your neighbors I might add. Mrs. Hommel aware of that? MS. MOORE: Yes. I'll remind you that before he speaks, he's on our side. MR. TUFANO: William J. Tufano, 2482 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. I was given a waterfront piece of property 40 years ago. I've been there for 40 years, I've been summering. I came before the ZBA to build my new home, which we now live permanently. While we were living in Camp Mineola, with the piece of property that we were gifted and built a house, the property next door became available, we purchased it. We put it in our -- when I say we, my partner and I who was my brother-in-law -- we put that second lot in our wives' name. We get a tax bill, I don't remember what year, we were getting two tax bills, one for Lot A and one for Lot B, where the house is. We got a bill one year for one, they merged the two lots. Way back when, I don't know what year. I went to my lawyer he said, Bill, you didn't pay the bill, did you? He said no, he said don't pay the bill. He got in touch with the Town, and the decision was legally two lots. Time went on, we 38 December 15, 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 sold the lot, there were two different houses. Okay. His theory was, you didn't pay the bill on one, you were getting two bills, now you're getting only one and they merged it; that took place. What Ann's situation is, she bought the house, the lot and built the house, there was three other lots there, one, two, three. Ten years later, she bought the second lot. It all came about when Charlie died and for what legal reasons, now she's in this position. I don't know what that is, and I think it's just -- and like you say, people, and I respect you, I've been before here and you're very familiar with me, and it's fine, but what you're trying to do is protect your -- there's only one way to say it in Brooklyn, you're looking to protect your A-S-S, and I don't think you have a leg to stand on. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Sir, how do you feel about this house being built on this vacant piece of property? MR. TUFANO: Here's how I look at it: Is it legal to put this house on that lot? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But one of the things we'd like to know is how the neighborhood feels. MR. TUFANO: Our neighborhood with the real estate, with the way things are going, there are new words that are coming out in their advertisements, "winter water view." Right, this argument of financial hardship, I don't want to use the word it's none of your business, that she wants to pursue it. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: At the same time you're asking whether it's legal, and that's one of the legal requirements, so we have to -- MR. TUPANO: How do I feel about it? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes? MR. TUPANO: We also have a designation down there of "postage stamp lots." The lots are so small that the little bungalows that it was serving, it's gone. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: feel about it? MR. TUFANO: there. MS. MOORE: application? How do you Definitely I want a house Are you in support of the 39 December 15, 2005 4O 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUFANO: One hundred percent. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish to spe~k on the application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Baker, at 920 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. Miss Baker? MS. BAKER: Good morning my name is Christine Baker, and I'm one of the owners of the property. And simply stated, we want to build a deck in the back of the house, and it is encroaching on the side property line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That deck is going to be to the second floor there, because it really drops off? MS. BAKER: Yes, second floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it's very close because there are all shrubs and a fair, substantial grade. MS. BAKER: We call the house chez terre, the topography is such that it looks as if it were all cut out of the earth and there is all earth wall that are, I'm going to guess, 20 feet high. So it is unlikely that this deck would in any way impede anyone's view or quality of life. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll ask Jerry because he lives down there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been there twice, and I have no objection to it. It is an extremely unique piece of property, there's no question about it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just an observation since I'm writing this. Just the fact that property is uniquely shaped, topographically unidentifiable, that it's the kind of lot for which this particular setback rule wasn't meant to cover. I mean, this is the whole idea because the setbacks, there are situations in which the enforcement of the setback is important, this doesn't seem to be one of them. MS. BAKER: I agree. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And this is one of December 15, 2005 41 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 cases where an argument can be made that because of the unique topographical features of that lot, the fact that this could not be reasonably be objected to by any neighbor, it sounds as though this may very well appropriately be granted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think Michael's reasoning is quite sound especially on this particular lot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree. 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 Dr. Miller on Fishers Island. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who is representing him? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No one. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: He's not able to make it, and it was authorized to be put on the calendar without appearance, and Ruth was going to speak 'with Lousia, I don't know if she had a chance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn't, but it's just a matter of just putting dormers on. It's not a big deal. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's over the existing footprint, letter confirms the setbacks of the existing house, there are plans that descrilbe the dormers and the height. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're unwilling to make a decision without anybody seeing it, I'm certainly willing to go over there and take a look at it on Sunday. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have a problem with it, he put the sketch in there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Looks like one dormer. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Photographs in the file also. We also have a letter, there are letters from Dr. Miller in the file explaining why he needs is it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there's an existing dormer -- I wouldn't call it a dormer, it December 15, 2005 1 2 3 R 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looks more like a dog house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, to me it's not a very big deal. I don't have any problem with it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ail right, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 42 December 15, 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 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 15th day of December, 2005. Florence V Wiles December 15, 2005