HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/02/2006 Hearing
1
2
e 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
TOW N
o F
SOU THO L D
Z 0 N I N G
BOA R D
o F
A P PEA L S
--------------------------------------------x
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
March 2, 2006
9:30 a.m.
Board Members Present :
RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
LESLIE WEISMAN, Board Member
LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
'ORIGINAC
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
5
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to call to
order our regularly scheduled meeting of
Wednesday, March 2, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. I'd like a
motion to declare all the following hearings a
Type 2 Action which has no effect on the
environment.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a resolution to
adJourn the meeting of the Orient Fire Department
with the Verizon Nextel Cellular Wireless until
March 30th. At one p.m.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now we can proceed to
our first hearing, which is the Hills on Lake
Drive in Southold, which is to construct a new
house with a garage; is there someone here to
represent them? Yes, sir, would you go to the
mike and state your name and address?
MR. HILL: My name is Charles Hill, and my
address is 665 Lake Drive, Southold.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
tell us?
MR. HILL: Do you want me to go through
the whole thing?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes.
MR. HILL: I'm applying for two variances
and the first variance that I'm applying for has
to do with the front of the house on the north
side, and the specifics, and I'm seeking relief of
2'6" by 11'6", which is about 28 square feet of
addition of the relief of this 10 yard setback.
My second variance request lS I'm seeking relief
of approximately 11'6" by 20 feet of garage of the
front yard setback of 35 feet to the road.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your house will be then
how far from the road? What is the distance from
the house to the road than with your proposed
dwelling?
MR. HILL: From the house to the road or
the garage to the road?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's right. The
garage setback In front of the house, sorry.
MR. HILL: From the garage to the road I'm
41 feet when completed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MR. HILL: If you look in my notes -
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 41 feet to the
other edge of the pavement, but 23.9 to the right
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
3
1
9
of way, right?
MR. HILL: 23 feet to the property line,
right. I have 17 feet of -- I guess it's the area
that's owned by Southold. Visually I'm meeting it
but technically I'm not, so that's why it's such a
big area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Town has about a 50
toot right of way. So you just start at your
property line and your house is very similar to
the one down the road which we looked at. It's
going to be the exact same copy.
MR. HILL: Almost identical. I have
pictures of the Heffernan house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We saw it. We all went
down there and looked at it.
MR. HILL: That's my case, if you have
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have one question,
there is an accessory building pretty close to the
property line which lS not shown in some of the
photographs; are you planning to remove that small
accessory building that's on -- I guess that's the
east side of the property?
MR. HILL: The detached one?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes.
MR. HILL: I had no plans to remove that,
no. That's a fishing storage area.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. But it lS a
nonconforming structure. It's less than -- I
don't know how many feet it is to the property
line but it's quite close to the chain link
fence.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
It's also not shown
19
on the map.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which certainly lS a
problem because when it would come to the time of
getting the certificate of occupancy, and they did
the final inspection, if the property showed a
building on it which was not shown on the site
plan, that could be a problem.
MR. HILL: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
that little shed?
MR. HILL:
CHAIRWOMAN
MR. HILL:
and a half feet by
Do you have a CO for
20
21
22
23
24
No, I don't.
OLIVA: How big is that shed?
That shed is approximately six
10 feet.
.
25
March 2, 2006
4
1
5
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it's less than 100
square feet then?
MR. HILL: I believe so.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you don't need a
permit for it.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it subject to
setback however?
2
.
3
4
9
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
setback yard location.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the front yard.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's subJect to
other zoning requirements, maybe not a permit but
you have to find out if it meets the setback.
MR. HILL: That's a different issue and I
certainly will address it.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
this other map that you have?
bigger than the size that you
wanted to check.
MR. HILL: That's the shed, correct.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's larger than
the size you gave, it looks like it's 16' by 8' or
10' .
MR. HILL: Actually I'm going off the
dimensions of the shed I bought. I actually
constructed two small additions, but they're
detachable, I don't have any problem doing that.
I have two small areas off that, I made two wings
(In that.
It's subject to
6
7
8
10
Is this a shed on
This shed is much
gave us, so I just
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're only one foot
off the side yard, you should be three feet.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: In the future you
may have to correct it or you may want to apply
again in the future to try for a variance.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Hill, are you
referring to this structure (indicating)?
MR. HILL: That's the accessory garage,
the current one.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And this piece In
front of it?
MR. HILL: Yes, that's going to be
18
19
20
21
22
removed.
23
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The shed is off
this one?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The shed is not shown
on the photograph.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Either you move it
three feet off the side yard then you'd be In
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
5
1
9
conformance, or take it down, or come to us aga1n
~nd hope for a variance.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But work it out
with the Building Department first, they may say
you have to move it altogether.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only other
question I have is if we hear that your neighbor's
garage 1S also setback approximately where you're
proposing to have it setback, 1n other words, it
is also nonconforming in terms of setback --
MR. HILL: Are you referring to that
picture I lined up the stakes with?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. HILL: Yes, correct. I mean, I'm not
100 percent sure, but all the investigating that I
did with their town map and lining it up, they're
over eight feet closer than my proposed one.
Obviously they're nonconforming, that's been there
for a long time, so that was just a visual to show
you that I'm not doing anything out of the
ordinary in the area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
reason why you have to put the proposed garage so
close to the property line, the one that's going
to be the name of this application?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To the west property
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
line.
19
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or to the
property line standing in front of the house on
the left-hand side.
MR. HILL: So you're asking me why I'm
putting the garage -- my lot is only 60 feet wide.
If you look at the picture that I took of the
Heffernan house, which is picture number 4, if you
were to take my garage, that's basically exactly
what we're going to be building, if I take that
garage, and I put it to the right side of the
house where my shed is, I'm going to have a
problem with the DEC, my septic field 1S over
t,here.
17
18
20
21
22
23
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the question 1S
to have it moved not to the other side of the
property but closer to the center of the
property.
MR. HILL: What it is we took great
detail, if you look at the elevation to the south
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
6
1
9
of the house and garage, when you come around to
the front of the house, my front door, which is a
focal point -- by the way I'm a landscape
architect, so I'm very in tune to this -- you need
a front door focal point for a home, and so that
is why I am hugging the property line, and I'm not
asking for a variance for that, I'm entitled to go
to three feet there.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, that's true.
The question is is the Heffernan home which you're
comparing to also only 60 feet wide, the property?
MR. HILL: They're a little wider, I think
their lot is 72 feet.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two considerations,
one lS to maintain your front entrance as a focal
point, as you say, not have it blocked by the
garage, and the other is how much room you
actually need to be able to sWlng the cars around
to get into the garage since the entrance --
MR. HILL: That's another great point. If
I were to have that garage moved further east,
which would be to your right, I couldn't make the
[urn into there.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At least we'd have to
look at this more closely to see how much room was
needed.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
.
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hill, if you move
the garage just to the east say two feet, which
would make it five feet off the property, five
teet off the side yard, would that be a problem,
just movlng it two foot further over?
MR. HILL: I've been struggling on these
plans for 12 inches like you wouldn't believe, and
it would be a pretty big problem as half the
house, the pillar couldn't be lined up and it
would be encroaching on the front door, so
visually it would look a little hodgepodge to me
In my opinion.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Hill, the side
yard that you have on your proposed site plan is
19 and a half feet from the other side yard, the
garage would be as proposed three feet side yard,
the house 7.4 foot and the other side yard is
19'511, I understand as an architect what you're
talking about in terms of having enough visual
space around a primary entrance; if you move, if
you simply take your proposal as proposed, and
site it, it's a total demolition; am I correct?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
March 2, 2006
7
1
8
MR. HILL: No. I'm building on my
existing foundation, and I'm using my entire first
tloor existing structure with all the utilities
intact to be economically feasible.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the proposing
moving of the entire siting, the entire thing, two
feet over to give yourself -- it's very difficult
to have a three foot side yard. It's not even
accessible for equipment to get by and so on, so
we're just trying to find a way without
compromising your aesthetic concern to create a
little bit better setback from the garage.
MR. HILL: I'd have to ask you, what would
two feet do.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would give you a
five foot side yard from the garage instead of a
three foot.
MR. HILL: I understand, but what would I
gain with that? I wrestled with that, what can I
do with five feet instead of three?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What would you gain?
It's not so much what you would gain but what the
whole neighborhood would gain by not having it
crowding as close to the west side boundary,
that's the overall question, and I know the next
door neighbor has presumably received notice of
this hearing, whether that person's here or not I
don't know yet.
MR. HILL: Frank Furlough is my neighbor,
and he's 100 percent for the project. He has no
problem with it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me answer
t he question for you. I never grant the three
toot setback, never, never, never. Because you
have to have the ability to at least put a ladder
up there. This is a gambol end garage. I don't
think five feet is unreasonable, and I don't think
two more feet going closer to -- and I realize
aesthetically it causes a little difference, but
that's just my opinion.
The only other question that we were
discussing and that is lot coverage, did you have
lot coverage determined for you, Mr. Hill? Total
lot coverage of the new structure, the dwelling?
MR. HILL: You mean will it fall in the
new square footage? That's been taken under
consideration with Damon down at the Building
Department. I went over that with my engineer.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
8
1
2
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Great, thank
.
you.
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on this application?
Yes/ sir.
MR. RIVERA: Good afternoon, my name is
r;reg Rivera. I'm the Peconic Land Trust reserve
manager at Shelby's Preserve, it's the next
property to the east of Mr. and Mrs. Hill's. I'm
not representing the Land Trust today, and I do
thank you for allowing me to address you.
First I want to say that I think this is a
nice design. It's a beautiful looking structure,
it's no closer to the Peconic Land Trust property
line than the existing structure. However, I do
have some concerns. In his application, Mr. Hill
says that he is sacrificing living space by coming
'lP with a certain design, but yet he has two and a
half times the living space as the existing
structure. He has two baths rather than one, and
1 understand that. My concern is his existing
septic system, which mayor may not get additional
input with more people in the home and two
bathrooms. It's about 40 feet from my well, which
predates his building, I believe, the construction
of his house in general.
I'm also concerned about exterior
Lighting, Raven Shores in general is a very
brightly lit place, I prefer a dark sky. We have
a 14 acre preserve and I feel like I'm in the
middle of suburbia every night.
One other thing, I was kind of surprised
and actually chuckled a little bit when I read
that this, quote, garage, is desperately needed,
unquote, to house a 25 foot aluminum sailboat
mast. I've been sailing since I was 11 years old
and I never realized that a mast, especially an
aluminum one, had to be kept indoors.
That being said, if this variance is
approved, I would hope that you would stipulate
downward shading exterior lights on the new
residence, and I would also hope that you would
ask Mr. and Mrs. Hill to replace the chain link
fence, I can't estimate the number of feet, but
approximately 100 feet of chain link fence that
was removed by Mr. Hill a number of years ago from
Peconic Land Trust property, and he told me it was
unsightly, and he just hacked it down. So I put
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
9
1
8
up a snow fence within a few weeks just to keep
the border there, and I had to remove one of his
boats that he was storing on Land Trust property,
and he has not apparently answered the Land Trust
in the last two years about replacing that fence.
So I would hope that he would have to at least
replace that fence, and the snow fence I put up as
t temporary measure is in the survey and the
photograph that he submitted to you. I would also
hope that if it goes through, you would help me
push for public water down Shellfisher Road
because I'm concerned about my drinking water
quality.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high lS that
fence, sir?
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
MR. RIVERA:
link fence installed
probably 1968.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. HILL: Is he my neighbor? Is the
gentleman my neighbor? I'm not sure.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, he is.
next door neighbor.
MR. HILL: Have I ever met you; have I
ever spoken to you?
MR. RIVERA: Yes, I have your cell phone
uumber in my phone. I met your nephew that is
closer to my home, the house across the street
from you.
MR. HILL:
I talk to you?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hill, you have to
address the Board. You can tell the Board the
same thing, but you have to address the Board.
MR. HILL: I did remove the fence, the
fence had four areas of trees that were falling
down on the fence, the top rail was broken,
rusted, and personally I thought it was my fence.
So I took the liberty of removing that. I have no
problem replacing the fencing. I didn't speak to
this gentleman, but I spoke to a woman at the
Peconic Land Trust. She was very nice to me. She
didn't have a specific problem, I asked her if it
was possible -- she did direct to me that we
wanted to replace the fence. I said can we do
something a little more aesthetic, a SlX foot
chain link fence going down there is a little
barbaric to me given that setting. So she said, I
It's a four foot high
by John Block back ln
chain
11
12
He's the
13
.
14
15
16
I don't ever recall that.
Did
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
10
1
9
respect that, I'll get back to you and maybe we
can come up with a suggestion of a nicer fence,
which I would absolutely be happy to replace. I
have no problem with that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: After this meeting you
~nd Mr. Rivera can get together and solve that
fence problem, which is not within our
jurisdiction but it would be helpful as neighbors
if you could work it out.
MR. RIVERA: I just wanted to let the
Board know that I have spoken to Mr. Hill in the
past. And I don't want to stir up controversy or
lJe a bad neighbor, believe me, I know you're gorng
to be here for a while and I appreciate that. I
do want to say that Mr. Hill did contact me about
putting an osprey pole up at Shellfisher, which I
cesearched, and also about doing something about
where his bulkhead meets the Land Trust property,
so maybe that will jog his memory a little
bit. Thank you. And feel free to speak to me at
any time.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Rivera.
MR. HILL: May I just ask a question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure.
MR. HILL: I only caught a part of that,
did he ask about the bathrooms in the home?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He was afraid because
your septic system is only 40 feet from his well.
So he was concerned with extra water and sewage
that it might affect the quality of the water rn
his well, and he would ask us to try to ask the
Suffolk County Water Authority to bring public
water down to your area so people would not have
to be concerned.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
MR. HILL:
I would
appreciate that too,
bathrooms.
You have one bath room
20
but I'm not increasing any
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
or two?
22
MR. HILL: Excuse me, ma'am, I am
increasing one bathroom in the main house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct, that was his
concern, two bathrooms. Do you have any other
questions of us, sir?
MR. HILL: I don't think so, but the two
feet is critical as coming into the garage, if I
have to, I will make the garage smaller. I will
not move it in front of the front door, that's how
critical it is to me. So now I have a problem
21
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
11
1
9
with not having a work bench on the far side and
not being able to pull a fairly good sized vehicle
into that garage. If you have ever tried to pull
one into an 18 foot garage less approximately 18
inches of stud wall and garage door, that comes
into play. I've been playing with this for a long
time and so that would be a hardship for me.
Currently the gentleman brought up a point about
my mast, if you saw where my mast was, my sailboat
mast, it's off the ground because it has a roping
to it, so I don't want it to rot. So it's hanging
on his fence, if that's not aesthetically a
problem, I don't know what is. I like to hang my
stuff in the garage out of the elements and the
ropes are expensive to replace. And I will hang
my mast in the garage.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are planning
leaders and downspouts, right?
MR. HILL: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Into dry wells?
MR. HILL: Into dry wells.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right. Then I'll
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
.
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Haases at Greenway East, they're building a
new home. Miss Moore and Mr. Haase.
MS. MOORE: I'm here to help out Mr. and
Mrs. Haase, they were a little nervous about this
hearing and then we know each other, so here I am.
I will use them also to help supplement any
additional information that you need.
With respect to the variance application
that we have got before you, the first issue is
that there will be no undesirable change to the
character of the neighborhood. I'll point out
that Green Acres in Orient was developed without
really consideration of rear yards that are in
place today because all the lots are somewhat
narrow; they're all uniform in size, but they
cange anywhere from just under 20,000 to just over
20,000. So they're half acre lots, but they
deviate based on their configuration by a few
thousand feet one way or another, and that makes a
big difference when you're looking at the zoning
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
March 2, 2006
12
1
9
code because unfortunately our nonconform
inspection cuts off at 20. And from this parcel,
which I believe is like 20,300, 21,000, just
brings you unfortunately to the next larger
c'3etback.
There are also covenants and restrictions
i~ this subdivision that require that the front
yard should be 40 feet, and that's why you see
most of the neighborhood, all the neighborhood
that has been developed at 40 foot front yard
setbacks. So they have private covenants, and I
know this Board doesn't really consider the
private covenants, but that certainly has an
impact on the development by every property owner
because they don't have the option of moving
"loser to the road in order to enable a more
comfortable development in the back yard.
The property, also if you noticed on the
survey, and this had them stumped a little bit
because John Metzgar had originally proposed a
building envelope, and when we looked at the
survey very carefully, it has a slight indentation
along Greenway East, and the lot in the center
narrows down in depth to 128 feet. Most of the
lot lS at 130, one side is 134, the other side is
132, but the center is 128, and that certainly
creates a practical problem in designing a house,
we don't have houses that are generally --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It says 132 on one side
on the map which would be the north.
MS. MOORE: No, 128 in the center, see
where the road cuts down in Greenway? That
measurement we had John Metzgar verify to make
sure we were precise in our rear yard setback
actually measured at 128. You wouldn't catch that
if you didn't have real good strong eyes.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That deck is not
going in that center point, it's to the side of
the larger --
MS. MOORE: We took the most narrow
measurement, so we would be protected.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But those setbacks
are accurate that he has on the survey, right?
MS. MOORE: Yes, the survey we have now is
accurate. As you know, the nonconforming section
of the code, if this lot were under 20, would
requlre a 35 year rear yard setback rather than
the 50 that the code requires In this instance.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
13
1
9
We also want to point out that this
property will be developed in character with the
rest of the neighborhood, Greenway or Orient, call
it Green Acres, has been very slow to develop
partly because they were second home lots. In
~his instance, we have Mr. and Mrs. Haase, who are
year-round homeowners. They have a growing
[amily, three children. Certainly I know Donna
very well, she's a second generation school
teacher. Mr. Haase owns the Orient by the Sea
estaurant, and so they are very community-minded.
They are typical of what we want to try to
preserve in this town is the community that stays
here and provides services to the rest of us in
the future. His son is in the fire department, so
that's carrying on to the third generation now,
'md we have to encourage that. This lot is a
modest lot. The house is good for this family,
but not extreme in its size, it's modest in its
size. So we hope that you'll consider that in our
cequest. Again, with a growing family, they have
all the amenities of the pool and the decking in
the back.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The deck and pool in
the back will be just six feet from the rear yard?
MS. MOORE: Yes. The pool is considered
detached by the Building Department, so we don't
have any issues with its placement that wasn't
part of the variance. So that was a question that
I had early on.
The house, when we speak of the benefits
sought by the applicant, cannot be achieved by
some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than an area variance. I pointed out that
the size of their family with three children needs
a certain number of bedrooms and bathrooms, the
house is 42 foot in total depth at its widest
point. It does jog in and out but that being its
widest point, and as I pointed out the pool is
conforming. Because we consider pool area in the
lot coverage calculation, we are just slightly
CJver 20 percent, we're at 21.7 percent lot
coverage, so that also has been included in the
variance application.
This property has no environmental
constraints. The Health Department has approved
this construction, and they were ready to build,
they had the plans, they had everything, and
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
14
1
5
Mr. Haase, when he saw the assessor's records,
certainly not knowing the code is not a defense
but he was under the impression that because he
was just under a half acre, that he would meet all
l.he requirements. Unfortunately, when the survey
was ultimately prepared, he was just slightly
Dver.
2
e
3
4
8
CHAIRWOMAN
thing, Pat? Where
the proposed steps
side, just for our
MS. MOORE:
deck yet?
MR. HAASE:
OLIVA: Can I ask you one
are the steps from the deck,
down to the pool or on the
own information?
Do you have a design for the
6
7
No.
Stopped when we found out
9
we needed a variance.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I have a question,
I'm a little confused, 35 feet for the rear yard,
they're proposing 26 feet, so they would still
need a variance?
MS. MOORE: They still would need, but not
for the house. I'm saying that the house itself,
if it had a 35 foot rear yard setback, would not
be the subject of an application or the deck.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The decking would
be here.
MS. MOORE: The decking either way it
would be here.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions, it's very clear what the request is.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, this
is my application to write the findings on. My
only concern is that I know Bobby and Donna also,
and it's specifically important for them to
understand that if they link this pool to this
deck, they're going to be back here. So the pool
cannot be linked in any way to that deck, and if
it is, it should be moved over to whatever side
they refer to it as.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry. I
believe the Building Department will allow them to
connect it. It's because there's no wraparound
deck that they're saying it's an accessory.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
mean.
.
25
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But they will allow
them to link it physically from the deck to the
March 2, 2006
15
1
9
hack of the house.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's not what
I gathered when I spoke to them.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I also spoke to
them today.
MS. MOORE: I agree with Linda, I think
that's how they were interpreting it, that once
the pool becomes an integral part of the decking,
as in surrounded by decking in some way, it's
considered part of the full structure; however,
~here's a recognition that you have to get to the
pool from the deck one way or another and they
allow it to touch, it would be kind of a crazy
distinction.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it
depends upon if it's the difference between cement
wood.
MS. MOORE: The pool is going to be on
some kind of cement, it's not going to be wood
surround. Put it this way, if it isn't, we don't
have a problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want them
to be on notice for that because this is an issue
that they should work out with the Building
Department and the pool builder.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's going to be
above-ground or an in-ground pool?
MR. HAASE: In-ground eventually, we
figured we're here we might as well go.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a good idea.
Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the pool is 20 by
40, correct?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How much smaller a
pool would be required in order not to require the
variance for the increased lot coverage, we're
talking about 1.7 percent lot coverage, and the
culprit, if you will, is the size of the pool;
have you thought about as a plan B?
MR. HAASE: Smaller pool, yes.
MS. MOORE: Sort of the decking to the
family is much more important than a few feet of
the pool, but it's not a significant increase in
the lot coverage.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on this
application? Yes, sir?
2
tit
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
16
1
9
MR. LOWRY: My name is Chris Lowry. My
wife and I are the owners of the house directly
behind this lot in question. And we hope to be
good neighbors and welcome you to Orient by the
Sea. We're not yet full time residents but we
nspire to be in a fairly short time. I have -- we
have, my wife gave me one of the rare
opportunities to speak on her behalf this time.
We have no objection to the excess lot coverage,
that's diminimus and really has no material effect
em us. We do have concerns regarding the
encroachment on the rear setbacks however, and
believe that that will affect us. I believe that
any objective third party would observe that any
time that you're getting structures closer to one
nnother than the regulations would ordinarily
imply that that's going to have an impact. We are
much more concerned about the pool, as I
understand it, that mayor may not be in
conformance with the zoning requirements and may
or may not come within the setback requirements,
but certainly putting it within six feet of our
lot line is going to be an impact on us.
The lot is vacant right now. It's heavily
covered with brush and that's fine, people buy it
iHld have a right to build on it. And we will be
very happy to have three children behind us, we
have five grandchildren who visit us, and we'll
see who's making the most noise in a fairly short
time, but we do have some concerns about that
.setback.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would it satisfy you if
~hey really heavily vegetated that border?
MR. LOWRY: That would certainly mitigate
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
it.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
That would satisfy you
20
then?
22
MR. LOWRY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can make that a
condition then.
MR. HAASE: We were planning on putting up
c;hrubs anyway, but isn't a pool allowed to be
three feet from a property line?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Side yard, but not rear
21
23
24
yard.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
At least three
.
25
feet.
MS. MOORE:
Depending on the size of the
March 2, 2006
17
1
9
yard. So we're actually a little over what we
would have to be. I might suggest that we're
going to need a fence for a pool anyway, would it
be preferred a solid fence in the rear; would you
have any objection to that?
MR. LOWRY: No.
MS. MOORE: I mean evergreens are nice but
we have to put a fence in the code. So I don't
know one over the other, if we can put both we
wlll, but I think that's tight.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Still might be able to
put some sort of shrub back there.
MR. LOWRY: Shrubbery would be
preferred.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At least it's a break,
even if you have the fence there, if you have the
shrubbery in front of the fence it's less
intrusive.
MS. MOORE: Okay, we have no problem with
that. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
that wishes to speak on this application?
(See minutes for resolution.)
MS. MOORE: Because they are getting ready
to start construction, if the Board could get the
decision out sooner than later, we'd appreciate
it. Thank you, Mr. Goehringer, since you're
writing it.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
-------------------------------------------------
.
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
for the Speyers at 2100 Jackson Street and Fourth
Street in New Suffolk, who wish to demolish part
of their house and reconstruct a new portion of
their house. Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of the Speyers? Mr. Samuels?
MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom Samuels, I'm
the architect for Jim and Karen Speyer.
Just a little bit of background on this
project, the original portion of the house in New
Suffolk was built probably in the mid 1840s, it's
very close to Jackson Street and Fourth street,
it maybe was a boat captain or somebody. It's a
local landmark, although, it's not a registered
landmark.
Around the turn of the century, maybe up
to the 1920s or '30s relatively significant two
story additions were placed around the house on
che south and east sides. It may have been used
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
March 2, 2006
18
1
9
as a boarding house for local fishermen, as were a
lot of houses in New Suffolk at that time.
Unfortunately they didn't put a proper foundation
on it at that time, neither did they build a
~pcond floor with ceiling heights, which are
generally considered acceptable these days. It's
maybe about seven foot ceiling height on the
second floor. Jim and Karen Speyer have owned the
house for about 10 years, and now would like to
basically make some internal changes as the
project started out, but when it was clear that
there was no foundation and that there were other
structural issues, it was decided instead of
renovating that we would replace in a sense in
kind. It's two story additions that were done in
'.he back; we would like to replace those two story
additions with new two story additions with the
proper foundation and proper head room, ceiling
heights and a different room layout of course, not
increasing the number of bedrooms, are lncreasing
Lhe number of bathrooms because it was so
insufficient before. We're trying to do all this
in a way that is a little more sympathetic to the
style of the house of the original house. The
original additions were flat-roofed and that gave
che previous owners a lot of trouble, and so they
put a kind of mansard roof on the house, which lS
still flat roofed but it's a little ungamely
looking so we're replacing that concept with a
proper gable roof around the whole, and in any
other way trying to keep in the style that's
I,revalent in the existing house and in New
Suffolk.
We're also looking for a very small
addition to that envelope, which is also partly
not conforming, on the water side just to sort of
[ill out and rationalize the footprint a little
bit and add a covered porch on that side. These
are sides away from the road but are technically
nonconforming because of the setback. Of course
the original house made no accommodation for
,'3etbacks, it's maybe 10 feet off the property
lines. We're as far away from those property
lines as we can be but effectively trying to build
in the footprint of the original house. I just
also want to add that I got a copy, thanks to
Linda, from some neighbors that own a vacant lot
across the street a Miss Price and Herfeld, and
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
19
1
9
they make reference to increasing the Slze of the
house. I just want to point out, we're not
increasing the size of the house except for
modestly, and even though they make reference to
modern, it's not; it's a traditional style house,
1nd we're not increasing the number of bedrooms
dnd we don't believe we're changing the character
of the hamlet.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The only thing that
I've heard in comments is that you're close to the
side yard on Fourth Street but it's there now.
MR. SAMUELS: We are. And the one story
portion along the Fourth Street side, you notice
Lhat maybe it does stick out along that side, that
is staying as a one story, we're not making a two
story addition on that side, In deference to
exactly that point, but we are replacing it
in-kindjin-place -- actually a part of that
one-story addition we're going to keep because
Lhere is a foundation and some nice flooring
Lnere, so we don't want to totally demolish it.
But it's just one of these accommodations when you
have old houses that are not properly built to
begin with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They just added onto.
MR. SAMUELS: Added onto and it's a little
worn inside and Speyers have kids of their own,
they have a fairly large family, and according to
Karen Speyer, they need those -- I know you say
six bedrooms, but that's what's there now and
Lhat's what they would like to end up with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A question and a
comment, they're both questions, I suppose.
side of the house where there are the small
setbacks, namely the west side and the north side,
everything that is built will be in that same
footprint, in other words, the only expansion will
be on the water side?
MR. SAMUELS: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the other lS, lS
the person who owns the vacant lot across the way
suggested that had it might be a contemporary
house, is that neighbor familiar with the
architectural work with Samuels and Steelman?
'3eems an implausible question.
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. But we
LO that neighbor and to all the abutting
The
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
It
.
25
did send
neighbors
March 2, 2006
20
1
5
not only the site plan, which is required, but
also elevations of the building; so I don't
\Elderstand that comment. We're not trying to
lI\imic the original house, but we're trying to be
'ympathetic, it's traditional six over six windows
and shutters, and I don't really understand that
('omment.
2
e
3
4
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you say
that you can't really move away from the road,
then I guess we'll have to go with it. Is it
shown as 9.8, or I thought it was less than that
in the notice of disapproval? I was just about
I cady to read it.
MR. SAMUELS: The setback?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 12 and 4, Jerry.
MR. SAMUELS: That is a topographic
contour, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, I was
looking at 9.8 again, I apologize, 4.2.
MR. SAMUELS: Right, 4.2 is existing
behind that picket fence there, which I suppose is
a little bit in the road it looks like. That part
wpre actually more keeping, that little one-story
wing there, we're more keeping it because of the
flooring that was in it. I kind of recommended
replacing it, but there is a reasonable stone
foundation under it, and we're going to just save
that little wing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the
whole wing, Tom?
MR. SAMUELS: That whole jog out there is
a one-story addition. I don't know when it was
'lone, but anyway, there's reasonable flooring
there.
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you confirm for
me, please, the existing median roof height and
I:he proposed?
MR. SAMUELS: They are equal. So the
existing roof height, we dimension from the point,
It'S sort of, well, it doesn't exactly match up
with that front, it's 28'6" is the existing
maXlmum roof height, and that will be maintained.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the square
Footage of the proposed one-story porch addition,
what is additional square footage you're
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
21
1
5
L~equesting?
MR. SAMUELS: 262 square foot open porch
that is additional to the footprint, but, you know
what, that doesn't account for a part of an
existing demolished deck on the other side. So
that's actually only the increase of the footprint
in that area.
2
e
3
4
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
It's a covered
6
Dorch?
8
MR. SAMUELS: Right, open covered porch.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you saying that
there's no additional square footage on the first
en second floor other than that porch, you
maintain the same building envelope?
MR. SAMUELS: Except for if you look at
that first floor plan, you will see that there's a
living room, and the lower part of that living
room is shaded at a heavier tone than the rest,
that is in addition to the square footage of the
house.
7
9
10
11
13
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the porch?
MR. SAMUELS: No, that's the living
room. The porch, the wall is shown black and
there's a little bit inside there, I would say
less than 100 square feet.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 98 square feet.
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 until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
12
e
14
15
16
17
18
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
for Mr. and Mrs. Sioras on
Cutchogue. They just want
remember.
MR. SIORAS: My name is Dean Sioras, the
son of Mr. and Mrs. Sioras.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon.
MR. SIORAS: Here is the green card and
the affidavit of posting as well (handing).
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you very
Our next application is
pequash Avenue in
a small addition, if I
19
20
21
22
23
much.
24
MR. SIORAS: So this project was called
for a variance based on the fact that an existing
setback, while increasing the bulk of the house
would now call that setback into a variance.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just putting on
.
25
March 2, 2006
22
1
9
o second floor addition?
MR. SIORAS: That's correct, just
expansion of the existing attic space.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just one of the top,
comes under the Walz decision; in other words,
i'ven though you're going up it's still expanding
the degree of nonconformance.
MR. SIORAS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have any
problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What about the
new deck? Can I ask a question on that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The deck is beyond
the 35 feet, I'm not sure.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No way, the
whole lot is only 65 feet.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It looks like it's
22 and 14, that's 36, so the deck is past the 35
Coot setback.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a road.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Southern Cross, so
14 feet from Southern Cross is the second story
addition, then 36 feet back is the new deck, which
lS not within the front yard setback area. That's
U1e side yard, Jerry, that you see, because it's
the corner lot.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So therefore,
they are choosing the other side yard to be --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Building
Department made that determination for them.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what my
problem was, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So other than the
new deck, you are simply adding a second story?
MR. SIORAS: Correct, there's no other
change to the footprint. The deck mayor may not
happen, depending on the cost.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's the most
feasible place to put it.
MR. SIORAS: It's also the most private
place on the lot.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no other
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anyone else in
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
23
1
.
3
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.)
2
4
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
Mrs. Kathleen Fraleigh about a waiver of merger
down on West Road. Miss Wickham.
MS. WICKHAM: Good afternoon, my name is
Abigail Wickham, I'm representing the applicant.
I just want to add a few things or reiterate a few
things from the application. Miss Fraleigh and
her husband are both retired, and they bought this
property, the lot in 1976 viewing it as an
investment or a nest egg for their retirement.
They bought it just after they had obtained a
vacant land CO from Howard Terry; so they had
always thought that it was a separate lot. They
have a combined savings of about $65,000, so in
order to aid in their retirement, she put it on
the market, and this past summer found a buyer,
went to Bill Price to draw up a contract, who, for
Lhe first time, advised her that this was merged
with her own house, she had no idea. Given the
financial and personal situation of the applicant,
the fact that the size of the lot is appropriate,
r think to others in the neighborhood, that there
are relatively few perhaps only one lot in the
area which might benefit from a precedent, if this
application is granted, I think this situation
appears to be exactly what the waiver of merger
law was enacted for, and we would ask that you
approve it. Mrs. Fraleigh is here to confirm any
of the statements that I made or that appear in
the application and to answer any questions that
you might have.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Her brother passed on
about 1992 or '93 was it?
MS. WICKHAM: No, 2000.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry, I'm still in
the '90s.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A question, my
understanding is that the existing house is
approached from Southern Cross Road.
MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I meant to mention
Lhat. In the legal notice, I think there is a
mistake which I have corrected with the two
neighbors to the north that were concerned about
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
24
1
9
it, and I'd like to confirm it on the record. Her
residence, Tax Lot 43, is accessed from a right of
way to the north. This lot, Tax Lot 43, will be
dccessed only from West Road.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Walking around it it
sort of struck me whether this was the kind of
merger which was intended to be captured by the
merger law when it was originally passed because
these houses seem to be -- properties seem to be
quite unrelated, that is their approach from
different sides; choose to comment on that?
MS. WICKHAM: Actually there were six
:iifferent lots carved out originally and they went
-0 various people.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But they were divided
between the two streets?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes. That was before the
inception of the Planning Board and the rationed
approach to subdivision and access.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this is a curious
case where you had lots that fronted on two
streets and because they were double sized lots,
they fell under the merger law, and an argument
(:ould be made, which I think you are making, is
i-hat if there were any kinds of properties that
were not intended to be merged under this law,
this would be one of them.
MS. WICKHAM: That's what I said earlier.
I think it's a classic case of what a waiver of
merger law should approach. Again, one goes one
one way and one goes the other way, they don't
even face each other technically.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to speak on this application?
(See minutes for resolution.)
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
! he O'Connells for a swimming pool on Marlene Lane
in Mattituck. Hello, my only question, you want
10 put the pool in the back there, can you move it
closer to the house or do you have septic systems
.
25
March 2, 2006
25
1
9
back there?
MS. QUIGLEY: I'm representing the pool
company, Ann O'Connell is on her way here. I
believe there is some sort of a septic system
there, we will maintain the setback, we won't be
closer to the property line than the required
setback. And they are installing the smallest
cree form pool that they can, which lS less square
~ootage than a rectangle.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How big is it?
MS. QUIGLEY: I believe it's 20 by 32.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it lS, it's 20
by 32 and the cesspool, by the way, the septic
systems are in the front yard.
MS. QUIGLEY: Oh, they are in the front?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, they are in
the front yard, they're not in the back.
MS. QUIGLEY: The pool is placed ln the
corner. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Diagonally
lD the corner with a 12 foot and a nlne foot and a
48 foot setback from property line. So what
you're really talking about is an additional one
and a half percent lot coverage increase for your
relief?
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
22
MS. QUIGLEY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that based upon
the standard size free form pool?
MS. QUIGLEY: That's based on that
particular pool. I think it lncreases the lot
coverage to 21.9 according to the surveyor.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 21.5 actually.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course the applicant
isn't here, but I don't see why you can't move the
pool just a bit closer to the house to give you
more side yard.
MS. QUIGLEY:
BOARD MEMBER
over, a 10 foot side
MS. QUIGLEY:
foot side yard?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 or 12.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want it
closer to the house, make the 12, 21.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Make the side yard
How far
WEISMAN:
yard.
You want
towards the house?
At least a foot
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
to maintain a 10
23
24
10.
e
25
MS. QUIGLEY: I think the reasoning for
that placement was she wanted to provide some sort
of play area and keep the pool as separate as she
March 2, 2006
26
1
9
could from the grass area because I believe they
want to fence the pool area in to keep that a
,';eparate --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have to.
MS. QUIGLEY: For the children.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But there's still 48
teet to the other edge. I know you can't speak
for her.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we
hold off for a little while.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you think she's
gOlng to get here? We'll just adjourn it for a
~ittle while. Because we'd like to see the pool
moved closer to the house.
MS. QUIGLEY: Closer from the back?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Back and side.
MS, QUIGLEY: By two feet?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 21 feet, instead of 12
[oat from the rear yard 21 feet, and nine feet, at
least 10 to 12 feet
MS. QUIGLEY: On the side?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right.
MS. QUIGLEY: Would that be moving it like
into the middle of the property?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, you could still
keep it diagonal. Because you're only moving it
[rom the side yard just a little.
MS. QUIGLEY: I'm sure that would be
acceptable to them.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's a sketch
here that shows the trees being proposed; do you
know if there are plans for any kind of
Landscaping around the pool?
MS, QUIGLEY: Yes, they definitely have
landscape plans.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We weren't provided
with anything.
MS. QUIGLEY: I don't think they have
anything concrete yet. I think the whole lot it's
only a 10,000 square foot lot. It's a small
lot.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's small but it's a
nice sized back yard. We were all down there. Do
you want to hold it open or should we close it and
do you think they would agree to --
MS, QUIGLEY: I think they would agree to
I hat, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
27
1
e
3
any comment?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No comment.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then I'll make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision until
Later.
2
4
(See minutes for resolution.)
5
6
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
t he Rennas on Hedge Street in Fishers Island.
Yes I sir?
MR. RENNA: Good afternoon, my name lS
Angelo Renna, my wife Susan and I own the
property. We are the applicants today.
As we see it, what we're trying to
accomplish is two things, each is in regard to a
porch, one is facing north towards Connecticut,
where the porch in question had a flat roof and
"ur intent is to replace with a pergola to allow
light into the home and to get rid of the roof
that was in disrepair. So that's on one side
lacing north, same footprint in all aspects,
height, width and length, no increase in the
footprint in any dimensions.
The other porch faces east, and our intent
there also is to have the exact same footprint in
all three dimensions. It's a porch that had a
screened in capability, none of which worked, and
lrankly, with two daughters and some grandkids, we
weren't comfortable with the state of that porch
to begin with because of its age. So o~r intent
there basically is to replace the screens with
windows, and it does become for our family more
livable space.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It becomes more of a
t3Un porch?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: An interior space?
MR. RENNA: Yes. We're sort of 'tweeners.
We go there summers as well as year round. It
does have a heating system. We're not full time
people there, but our family tends to use it
tchroughout the year. So that's a manner of
eXplaining somewhat why we want to put the windows
in on that side and have a little more space for
us, not a lot more space, but again, it's the same
dimensions; there's no increase in the size of
(.ither porch. And I think I understand, although
l'm certainly not a lawyer, I understand the
technicality of historic offsets. It's a very old
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
28
1
e
3
home. Some people claim it goes back to
sheepherders I don't know if it goes back that
tar.
2
7
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
~sk you to approach here and tell
LS which on the original survey?
MR. RENNA: This is where the pergola's
gOlng to go. This one 1S where the windows are
gOlng to go.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
~udience that wishes to speak on this application?
MR. RENNA: Just one final comment, I hope
you received the letters from our neighbors?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we did.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to close
the hearing reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
Mr. Renna, can I
me which porch
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Paul Long for the complete renovation for the
house on Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck. And
Bruce Anderson, I believe you're representing
them?
13
.
14
15
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Snvironmental Consulting here on behalf of the
~pplicant, Paul Long. This is an application this
is a project where it is proposed to remove a one
'"tory dwelling on Camp Mineola Road, also known as
Howell Avenue, in Mattituck, and replace it with a
two story dwelling.
The one story dwelling currently 1S
located at 22 and a half feet from the bulkhead.
It's located eight and a half feet from the
eastern side lot line. It features a roofed-over
portion, which is a concrete pad with a roof over
it, and that dimension from that to the side lot
line is 6 and a half feet. The property is a
waterfront property. It also has a detached
tramed garage. It's in an R40 zone, pre-existing,
nonconforming lot with respect to lot area and lot
width.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
We handed you out a neighborhood character
analysis for Long which shows on the cover how the
new house sits in relationship to the existing
house, and it gives you an aerial shot of the
l1eighborhood, and what you would immediately
.
25
March 2, 2006
29
1
9
conclude is that all lots and nearly all
structures are nonconforming with respect to
dimensional setbacks.
We also have included in the file varlOUS
coverage calculations prepared by the surveyor,
Joseph Ingegno, and essentially with respect to
hard surfaces, they would increase from 27.1
~ercent to 24.4 percent. We submit that we meet
the criterion for granting the area varlance In
that our analysis would show that the dwelling,
its location, its size, its scale would comport
with the neighborhood, that we cannot move forward
un this project without benefit of the variance
due to the nonconforming nature of the lot, that
the relief we seek is not substantial glven agaln,
the constraints that we're operating in and glven
the character of the neighborhood, and that would
lctually advance many of the environmental
urotection goals of this Town and other agencies,
specifically including a new and upgraded septic
system that's served by an existing cesspool
that's undoubtedly In ground water and inadequate
for a dwelling of any size, that the project would
include full runoff control via dry wells and also
d French drain that surrounds the perimeter of the
property. And that the relative setbacks to the
side yard would be increased to 10 feet. So this
house would be centered on the lot where the
existing house is not, and that the setback
between the house and the bulkhead would also be
increased from where it lS today. If you take a
close look at your survey, you will see the
footprints of the houses on either side, and
you'll see that this is actually somewhat tucked
back between a line drawn between those two
houses. So we think the house is appropriately
sited. We have placed the septic system as far
landward as we could while preserving the gravel
parking area, and we have also provided the proper
dimensions. And we have been able to build this
type of septic system without building retaining
walls and the like so that it's low. The wall
that surrounds the one property is literally one
foot above, it/s more like a curve. I think our
analysis speaks for itself. I welcome you to page
through it if you like, and I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your height to the
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
30
1
9
cidge is 28 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: It's 28 feet shown on the
I,lan, the actual, but it will sit about two feet
above where existing grade is, and that's for
things like pile caps, termite control, et
cetera. The overall height would be about 30 foot
G inches above existing natural grade in front of
the house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How does that compare
ro the other homes in the area?
MR. ANDERSON: I think it's a little lower
~han many of the homes because many of those homes
it higher. We do show some of the photographs of
those homes and, of course, I'm speaking to second
story houses. I believe this will be lower than
most of the houses we see that are two stories.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I think the
presentation is very complete, very clear,
documentation is very thorough. I don't really
have any questions at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know, Mr.
Anderson, we're always concerned about the closing
I~ of any side yards in the future. It appears
that the westerly side yard is the most clear
apart from, I don't know what that is in the back
there.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
20
MR. ANDERSON: You mean the distance
between the two houses?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The distance
between the side yard and the property line,
]0'1". What is this? Is this a brick walk? I
:lon't know what it is.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's denoted as
brick; actually, could you approach?
MR. ANDERSON: It's a platform, like a
16
17
18
19
patio.
24
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not an
outside fireplace or anything like that in the
making?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the concern
em my part is that that side yard continuously
~emain open, and I would like to put a condition
in that that side yard remain open?
MR. ANDERSON: That's acceptable.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's it.
21
22
23
.
25
March 2, 2006
31
1
2
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to repeat that
point. The condition of keeping the side yard
upen would be important, as seemed to be a more
attractive alternative to the applicant than
making the house smaller, which would, of course,
be a more elaborate way of solving the same
problem. But if the side yard could be kept open
to the satisfaction of Mr. Goehringer and the
Board, that would be the more economical solution.
MR. ANDERSON: That's acceptable.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak on this
dpplication? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-------------------------------------------------
10
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
d swimming pool for Carol Festa and Thomas Geppel
un Harborview Avenue in Mattituck.
MS. FESTA: I'm here to request a variance
t.u put a pool in an area other than my rear yard.
The issues currently with locating the pool in the
cear yard first and foremost are the location of
t.he septic system, which is in the rear yard. In
addition, the rear yard also includes a sizable
area that's 20 by 30 feet, as well as a fenced in
vegetable garden which is 20 by 30 feet as
well. So putting in a pool would probably mean
moving those at considerable expense and time,
which preference is not to do that.
As far as setback, where we're proposing
to put the pool currently, we're basically 120 and
122 feet respectively from the road and 48 feet
from our nearest neighbor. The pool will be
tastefully done. We will have plantings
surrounding the pool to camouflage it as much as
possible into the landscape. And essentially
t.hat's what I'm requesting today.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a little bit
of a slope there?
MS. FESTA: Right, and basically the pool
would be put in where the slope levels off.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So in fact the
siting will create a location for the pool that
will be below the grade of the road?
MS. FESTA: Right. The side road.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From Harborview.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a curious
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
32
1
9
property because it's quite large with enormous
setbacks from the two roads; was the house located
ot the time in order to make it higher than the
rest of the property?
MS. FESTA: I feel we were restricted
because we have a massive glacial rock on our
property, and so because of that rock, we really
had limited places to put the home. So basically
our location was based on where that rock was
located on the property.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you're the
original owner of the home?
MS. FESTA: Yes, we built the home.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern
1 had was I was there on a very cold day, and I do
realize it's winter, but I didn't see any stakes
where the pool was going; are they there now?
MS. FESTA: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess that's
not really an issue at this point. Is there any
landscape plan that you're anticipating in
reference to landscaping around the pool that you
would like to offer to the Board?
MS. FESTA: It lS my desire to, as I said,
camouflage it. I don't want to be looking at a
fence. The area itself is very nicely treed, and
1 want to preserve that feeling of nature, and
~galn, have it be aesthetically pleasing. The
last thing I want is looking at a metal fence or
what have you.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It wouldn't be in
keeping with your home anyway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
say, however, if someone did object to it at this
hearing, then we may ask for a landscaping plan.
I mean, I may ask for a landscaping plan, I don't
know about the rest of the Board.
MS. FESTA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it's very
clear, the septic system in the rear yard does
create a very narrow condition, not really
~ppropriate for a location of this sort of pool,
particularly of that size. So I'd be interested
to see in how you want to propose developing the
screening around it, but short of that I have no
question.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
33
1
4
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on
chis application? If not, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
lat:.er.
2
.
3
(See minutes for resolution.)
5
----------------------
-----------------------
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
,Jonathan Zang on Takaposha Road in Southold.
MS. MOORE: I have Nancy Steelman with me
'.oday, Mr. Zang couldn't be here because of the
weat:.her so he apologizes.
For those of you who have gotten down
6
7
there
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, we did.
MS. MOORE: Good, I'm very glad you did
because I don't think anybody could appreciate
this road unless you went down it. So you know
that Takaposha is a private road with only five
homes on this road. The property is surrounded by
45 acres, one parcel is 45 acres, this house I
believe was built in the '60s. It's been owned in
the same family since that time. Mr. Zang I
believe is the son, the second generation and time
has come to invest:. in the house and really bring
it:. to current standards.
The renovation of any of these houses, and
you saw the one that you first approach as you're
heading toward the Zang property, you saw that on
the only other waterfront house must have gotten
renovated in the last 10 years because it had to
comply with the FEMA standards, that generally is
the reason why some of these homes require such
significant renovations, because you have to bring
them into compliance not only for hurricane and
stat:.e code st:.andards but:. t:.he FEMA regulat:.ions. So
when t:.hey discussed t:.he degree of improvement:.s, it:.
became very obvious t:.hat:. t:.here was going t:.o be a
need for significant change t:.o the house, bringing
the finished floor elevation to the appropriate
height.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What elevation are
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
they?
25
MS. MOORE: Actually
right on the plans, it's 9.8
finished floor elevation.
MS. STEELMAN: 9.8 is what we're
the, the elevation required is elevation
the finished floor
is the top of the
is
24
.
proposing
8 . Thi s
March 2, 2006
34
1
9
9.8 lS based on the sanitary system which we had
'0 raise above groundwater.
MS. MOORE: For obvious reasons water
doesn't run uphill. The existing house has
maintained a certain setback to the bulkhead,
which is the variance we require. We have
Inaintained that setback to the greatest extent
possible. The only encroachment into that is that
bay window that's shown. So the existing house,
as you can see, is at 65.7 and the closest point
IS 63. As Nancy pointed out, as soon as you do
~cnovations of this nature, you need sanitary
lpproval and the sanitary has to comply. When
this house was designed, it actually got designed
around the sanitary system since that was the
biggest environmental obstacle as far as meeting
all the regulatory requirements. We have complied
with all the regulatory agencies. We have
obtained Trustee approval, the DEC is right now
pending because of a side distance, although we
are bulkheaded and I have shown the DEC that we
preexist the 77 regulations, they take the
position that if you have wetlands that come from
a diagonal source, even though you're bulkheaded,
you still need to go through a permit process, so
we are still proceeding in that and DEC always
takes the longest. The garage is presently
proposed as detached. The other area variance we
lleed lS a garage that's slightly In the side yard
because of its location. As you can notice that
on the plans the garage actually does not have to
be FEMA compliant, so that obviously you can bring
" car in without going up a ramp, it is at
, levation 6.1. So the garage will be lower In
stature than the house. It is conforming with
respect to setback to the sides. With respect to
the front yard setback, we did, and would like to
point out that the Nancy, and in your file I
believe you have this because it wasn't an issue,
you have here, if you need it, the average setback
was calculated in determining the setback of the
house. The houses that are along this street --
MS. STEELMAN: We took the average
structure with the three existing structures along
Lhe road, and our setback is 26'3". Now, the
garage is 19 feet so we're really looking for
celief on about seven feet or so on that. We
wouldn't be required to meet the 35 feet because
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
35
1
5
we're using the average setback.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's also because
the garage is also partly in the side yard?
MS. MOORE: Right. We needed that
variance as well.
MS. STEELMAN: Which does meet code,
doesn1t it?
2
e
3
4
9
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
part it doesn't.
MS. MOORE: It can't be completely within
the setbacks because it would actually bring our
variance on the house, if we were to make it part
part of the house, it would make our request for a
variance before this Board for the house much
'-jreater.
MS. STEELMAN: Our first phase of this
design process was actually to use the existing
structure, and we actually went down and looked at
the existing foundation and it wasn't a footing,
and through further structural analysis we
couldn't add anything to it. We had to raise it,
we had to do so many things, even just to raise
actually several concrete blocks onto this
foundation would have been a real problem. So I
just want to make that point, that's why we
decided to go with a new house and tear down the
,>xisting.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question? This is not on pilings, this is a
breakaway foundation?
MS. STEELMAN: This is on pilings as
proposed. Currently it's on a concrete block
foundation with no footings.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I think your
site strategy is very clear and visible. You
don't have much choice really.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice spot, if you can
get down there.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Last question,
all of that depression area and the rear yard area
lS all going to be changed; the elevation is going
to be brought up to grade toward the water?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MS. STEELMAN: That is, and that has been
,II approved and with the Trustees, we're raising
that, and we're also raising the bulkhead because
the bulkhead is very low. We're going 18 inches
It does in part, In
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
36
1
5
nn the bulkhead that's all been approved. What
we're trying to do is trying to minimize this
house sitting up on the pilings. So we're
bringing the grade as up as close as we can around
Lhe house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Softens the whole
pffect. How about that road?
MS. MOORE: We don't own the road.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who owns the road?
MS. STEELMAN: I believe what I have
lathered it's a right of way over the 45 acres of
Land. But the way they have used it, and it's
I lcen named as a road, but I think it's a right of
way.
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
brought up to some standard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You couldn't get fire
"quipment down there or anything.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's possible that
the Board will put conditions on that will require
specs and it will be part of the building permit
Lt you can get a CO.
MS. MOORE: I'm glad you're mentioning
these things because I think the owner of the 45
acres is this gentleman that's about to stand up.
So you might discuss with him the condition of the
road. To the extent that a property owner can do
some patchwork, but how much they can do on the
land that doesn't belong to them, we don't want to
end up in litigation over that issue. The worst
parts are further down closer to Bay Avenue. I
saw there were some gullies that were created.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Actually some of
areas are as you come over the little
It's got to be
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
\ he bad
bridge.
20
MS. MOORE: But it's very tricky to put
fill, particularly with the Trustees and so on,
you'd have to be very cautious about making this
application conditioned on anything like that
because common sense you do a little packing, a
little filling, but you start getting involved
with any extensive work the DEC and the Trustees
would have a very long process to make you go
t. hrough.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is it about eight
teet wide?
MS. MOORE: The road right now is about
I.wo car widths, that could pass.
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
37
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Barely.
MS. MOORE: In various parts, but as I
said, it only gives access to five homes, really
three homes on this side, two homes on the
opposite side. So there's really very little
cross traffic. I think everybody that lives on
one side of the road and comes in and out the one
end, and the people that live off the pond go ln
dnd out from the other.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that would like to speak on this application? Sir?
MR. FALLON: My name is James V. Fallon,
Jr. I am an attorney with Fallon and Fallon LLP,
53 Main Street, Sayville, New York.
My former neighbor is Julius Blocker, and
['m representing Julius Blocker; he is the owner
of those 45 acres they talked about. And he's the
one directly affected. He owns the property to
the west, to the east and to the north. He wants
to be reasonable. He actually put water in
through a right of way, which they all have the
benefit of, which he didn't have to do, and he has
lID objection to the part of the relief from the
bulkhead, the 75 feet, it only improves the
property, and there's an existing structure there
anyhow, but the garage part, that we object to.
It is the only property that's going to
have a detached garage, there is no reason for a
detached garage. I believe if you check your code
they may need to be 35 feet back for the garage as
an accessory structure, not a main structure, you
oan perhaps check that out, and all you have to
do -- there's no necessity for this application,
it's one of convenience more than necessity. All
you have to do is push the garage back a little
bit. I mean, I ran some square footages, if you
push the garage back and attach it to the house,
those two variances disappear. You would end up
maybe one foot more into the house as you go from
the north to south, towards the water, and maybe
:Jix to eight feet or so into the house. You lose
very little square footage, and he could increase
that square footage, simply by having the 18'4"
setback, which he shows on the west, he could
increase it to the 15 foot side, no problem. He
could go over the garage if you wanted to build
0xtra space; in other words, he doesn't need to
have a separate garage to get all the square
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-
25
--
March 2, 2006
38
1
9
footage that he wants. That is an objection that
my client has. There's no necessity for this.
It's convenience, and there's no good grounds for
this application -- that part of the variance.
with respect to the distance from the
[,ittle peconic Bay, that's not an issue. My
client has owned the property since 1967 so he
predates everything. He himself will have some
difficulty. He tried to put a house up a little
hit to the west, had some objections, withdrew all
~pplications. He'll be looking to do something
with it, and now with all these new codes and
everything else he has to deal with, which I'm
trying to figure out and really haven't gotten
through, it will be difficult enough. I figure at
:,;ome point as always, he will end up gOlng through
che Planning Department, they always look at it,
and they will probably want some sort of
clustering, depending on how we do it, and a
couple of pieces I think might be prime for that
are the pieces right next to Mr. Zang. So we're
concerned about having something that might impact
us. We don't want something too close to the
trant, and that's an issue that we do have.
I don't know about the front yard setback,
the average front yard setbacks. I don't know,
did they include Mr. Zang's existing structure ln
that or not? I have no way of telling, I haven't
:c3een that part.
MS. MOORE: We did.
MR. FALLON: So if they did that's not
really concern there. But the garage there, I can
see no absolute necessity for the garage, just
connect it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is your objection,
Slr, based on aesthetic grounds or some other?
MR. FALLON: No. Under the law as I
understand it, they have to show that they have a
real need for it, that it can't be handled in some
other manner, that they really have a need for a
variance, and they don't have any need for the
variance. All they have to do is connect the
~arage, change the structure so it fits. There's
no necessity for that.
MS. MOORE: We have an answer for you. I
think they need to bring out their drawing. If
you have four in your file. If you want, I'll
just come up and show you as well.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
39
1
9
MR. FALLON: They show it as a terrace,
but it's an above-ground terrace In the front
connecting. I think under your code that probably
means that those two structures are attached
~lready. It's not a separate garage.
MS. MOORE: They can be independent and
separate foundation, it is parallel to each other.
MR. FALLON: If you had ground level, yes,
but that's not a terrace, that's a deck.
MS. MOORE: That's subject of the Building
Department, and they have reviewed it and it's
permissible the way we have it. But I want to
point out a very important issue here. Remember I
started off by saying we designed this house
"round the sanitary. If you notice that the
sanitary -- there is a wall that's surrounds the
sanitary, that wall is the east side of the
proposed garage. The reason that you can see that
there are steps that go up over the mounded system
behind the wall, then it terraces up; the house lS
on piles, so it's going to be a visual break,
that's why there is a terrace there. Remember the
qarage can be set back further down without FEMA
compliance because it's a detached garage. You
start attaching it you may have FEMA issues, as I
Inderstand the Building Department will impose the
:oame FEMA requirements on the garage portion,
because it's attached. So it really actually
benefits this client because the garage will
remaln low, it will remain as an entrance without
it being significantly impacted by the FEMA
regulations. Keep In mind that right now, think
about it three dimensionally, the garage lS low,
coming in it's very close to the road, then you
have the terrace up above the mounded system. So
it's not so clear in the photocopy of this plan,
but the garage is actually attached more to the
sanitary wall than it is to the house.
MR. FALLON: I haven't seen that FEMA
regulation, but I noticed that house without the
garage lS roughly 2,200 square feet ground floor
alone. Before including it, you were talking
1,387, you haven't even put the second -- you can
put that garage back in compliance and still have
a very large house. You're overbuilding the
lot.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
MS. STEELMAN: I'd also like to make a
little bit of a clarification here. The other
March 2, 2006
40
1
9
concern that we have in terms of the sanitary
systems, we need to maintain a 10 feet off of the
garage to the first pools there. So that's also
setting the location further to the west because
of that. So that was one criteria we had to
really respect. The other rssue that we felt
instead of having an attached garage, would just
make the massing of the house that much larger.
We thought by doing a separate structure that was
.ower than the main part of the house that it
would be more visibly appealing. So I understand
I;is concern but I think the overall feeling of the
property is going to look a lot nicer with a
separate detached garage.
MR. FALLON: Mr. Blocker doesn't share
that because that garage is going to be within
four feet of his property in the front yard area,
which concerns him. If it was with the house it
could be 15 feet; that's a big difference. And we
still don't see any reason for that. You built up
I.he house very big, no problem with rebuilding the
house, it's not an issue, happy that he's doing
it. The question of the garage.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What your client
would like is that the garage be placed further to
the east, would not care that it was further to
the south; is that correct?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it's adjoining the
house it could be moved to the south and adjoin
the house at that point, but would that satisfy
any of your client's concerns?
MR. FALLON: We would like it back away
[rom the street and further away from his
property.
MS. MOORE: We cannot move it easterly
because of the sanitary wall. You must maintain
the 10 foot separation between any wall -- any
structure and the sanitary rrng. The garage,
agarn, attaching it to the house, you're gorng to
bring the volume of this house significantly.
You're gorng to be entering from the side possibly
but the whole house is going to be raised,
[l1cluding the garage, I don't know physically how
you would do that because you wouldn't have
sufficient area for a slope to go up into the
garage. Remember you have the garage and the
house now elevated finished floor at nrne, and
you've got the ground, you have to bring your way
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
41
1
e
3
It's going to look ridiculous.
MR. FALLON: Three feet.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you make the
garage any smaller?
MS. STEELMAN:
2
up.
5
t-WQ car garage now,
(Juess.
we
We have a relatively small
could go with a one car I
4
6
MS. MOORE: One and a half car, maybe.
MS. STEELMAN: Potentially I have to talk
with my client. I'm sure he would prefer the two
7
(';3.r.
9
MS. MOORE: We have a compliant three foot
side yard. Keeping in mind he's concerned as a
neighbor on the west, but the parcel that he owns
on the west, I think if he goes to get Planning
Board approval, he's going to have issues from the
DEC about placement of any house on this property.
Remember, we are dealing with setbacks of his
wetlands from our existing house on a diagonal
certain distance. I think when he goes to build
in this particular spot, he's going to find
himself with very little building envelope. It
may not be worth his while to put the house over
there. I think realistically, we're dealing with
parcels on either side of this piece that probably
"lre not going to be developed because when you're
looking at these 45 acres -- if he were to take
one lot, the 45 acres, he would have to comply
with front, rear, side setbacks that would be
tremendous in size because that's what the code
requires for anything over 600,000 square feet.
He wouldn't make it. He would need a tremendous
variance to put a little house right on this
little piece, and when you have 45 acres that just
doesn't make sense. If I was talking to him about
placement of the house that would not be -- he
would be giving up a tremendous amount to try to
squeeze a house there. I think at one time he
wanted to put a house at the center of all the
eight of ways, and I think that was objectionable
because he had so much acreage he could choose
[rom, rather than putting it in the center of the
i.oop, I remember that application being before
this Board. But aside from that, down the line
what he does with his property obviously he has to
talk to planners about it.
MR. FALLON: If I may just address that.
The problem is we have all sorts of new
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
42
1
e
3
regulations. I've got to worry about him having
to pay $200,000 if he wants to develop a
subdivision, $200,000 for two lots to take care of
that affordable housing issue, plus develop two
more lots of it, and have to sell them for I think
maybe $350,000, that's at a loss. If we don't do
that, we have to go the other way, maybe
conservation easements. Whatever happens, we end
IIp at the Planning Department. They are going to
require clustering if we go through them. We
oon't know where we're going to end up. All I
know is that if I look at this, where am I going
10 look? Where am I going to be able to put --
give up some? I'm looking at Mr. Zang's property,
that's one that appears to be not environmentally
Hensitive; they have got a house on each side. I
Jllst don't want anything to effect what Mr. Block
i.s going to have to do in the future. And
correct, there was an application brought before
,ll1d he tried to build one house there, and he had
(~jections, and he tried to move it that way to
protect the wetlands. So it's very important to
llS to try to preserve it, not have a garage
lleighbor what is going to be our look-out window
on the front. They can redesign this. This house
is over 2,000 square feet ground floor already
without even talking second floor. The lot is
only so big. You can only do so much with it, and
that's his point. Again, from Little peconic Bay,
God bless them, build the house, make it look
better, fine, no problem with that. But you start
putting structures towards his area, then we have
a problem because we don't know what's going to
happen with our application before the Town. I
thank you so much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before you
leave, we have to discuss the condition of the
road.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR. FALLON: That road is a right of way,
dnd I'm looking to find out whether we own the bed
of the street or not. If we own the bed of the
street, we can do things; actually we can change
the right of way if we own it, regardless of what
the neighbors want. But I haven't determined
that. If it's only a right of way, we can't do
much with that. Anyone can on a right of way --
dS I understand the law and I could be
incorrect -- when you have a right of way, anyone
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
43
1
9
lS entitled to maintain the right of way to the
extent necessary to make access and this lS
clearly an access type right of way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 280A.
MR. FALLON: So anyone who has a right of
way lS entitled to maintain it. If the right of
way was 50 feet, they would only be able to under
the current laws as I understand it, eight feet,
~o feet, you can limit it to a certain Slze, but
any owner who has the right to use a right of way
can take care of it. But I haven't finished
researching it, that's a complicated issue. So
~t's not only my client that can take care of
It. My client doesn't have a house there, he
tried to get a house there and he got stymied, but
rhe others can fill pot holes. But again, this
~ady is absolutely correct, you always worry about
the DEC. They come In you put fill on an area
they think is environmentally sensitive, all of a
sudden you have a fine, they bring proceedings and
they're very difficult.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ours lS a little
different over the years and I'm not speaking for
the Board, again, I'm speaking for myself. That
lS, if you don't get a 280A, you don't get the
building permit, and that's the story, because you
have to have approved access to the site, sir, and
I don't care what the situation lS. I don't care
'Nho has fee, and I don' t care very simply who has
the right of way over it. If I have a right of
way over it, and I'm looking for the building
permit, and this Board is so inclined to requlre
improvements then those are going to be done, and
I don't mean that In a sarcastic manner.
MR. FALLON: In other words, if they want
',0 get their permit, they have got to do something
with it. My point is it's just not Julius, any
one of the people that have use of the right of
way can maintain it. That's as I understand the
law. I may be wrong on that.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what
Mr. Goehringer's trying to say lS if the Board
lequires an improvement of the right of way of the
applicant in order to grant the variance, then
that invokes -- I suspect that the lot owners
can't just go and lmprove the right of way beyond
] )are maintenance, I don' t think they can go pave
Lt or whatever the Board would require of them
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
44
1
2
without approval of the owner of the land
underlying the right of way.
MR. FALLON: I see. I don't know I'd have
to check that with Mr. Block. He's in Florida or
he would be here too, so I'm covering for him.
MS. MOORE: I think the Building
Department, common sense, the Building Department
generally goes out and asks the owners that are
there to do some patching voluntarily rather
than -- but again, this is all so sensitive, that
area, that I'd be concerned that the Trustees,
everybody was on board keeping a safe -- you know,
putting a little bit of patch some of the dips in
: he road doesn't trigger $2,000 fines from other
agencies. That's always a concern. You can have
contractors I think they're sensitive to that as
well.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just going
to make a statement and that is a very simple
ctatement. I've been 1n rescue and fire for 38
years. I've been on this Board for 27 years, and
I would not go down that right of way unless it
was frozen, and I did not go down that right of
way unless it was frozen, and to this date I will
not go down that right of way unless the ground 1S
frozen. So therefore the road is determined by me
as one member of this Board to be impassable when
it is thawing.
MS. MOORE: For the record, we were there
during this very mild winter, it was passable. We
did not get stuck, even despite I have the Volvo
with the four wheel drive, you can get in there.
Yes, there are ruts in the road, but it's
certainly passable. All of these homes, people
are there, their cars, and I think Mr. Zang has a
little sedan that's not a four wheel drive sedan.
So it is passable and we welcome you to go down
there. So don't be afraid to go there, you won't
qet stuck, it 1S passable.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: According to your
drawing of the building, the garage looks as
though it 1S attached on that last sheet.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Where it says 3D
effect on that.
MS. STEELMAN: No, that's further behind;
that, the little sun room is way in the back.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The garage, does it
have a floor area on the second floor of the
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
45
1
2
qarage?
.
3
MS. STEELMAN: It has storage, there's
storage there primarily because with the piling
'oundation we don't have any additional storage.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And the square
~ootages of the floors because there were no
dimensions on any of these plans.
MS. STEELMAN: The existing footprint of
the existing house is around 1,900 square feet;
that does include a one car garage. The footprint
of the house only is 2,000 square feet, and the
garage 1S approximately 380 square feet.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You said the
proposed house is 2,000 on the first floor.
MS. STEELMAN: And then the garage is a
little less than 400.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then the second
floor of the house is?
MS. STEELMAN: I think 1,500.
MR. FALLON: Could I ask how high that
garage is; does that have a second story to it?
MS. MOORE: It has storage space above it.
It's under 18.
MR. FALLON: So it's got extra height
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
.Cll1yhow?
15
MS. MOORE: The second floor 1S 1,550
square feet. Somebody want that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is the house
to the ridge?
MS. MOORE: That I know 1S on the plans.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The height to the
top of the ridge on the garage 1S 23'3", and the
house to the top of the ridge is?
MS. STEELMAN: I don't have the dimensions
with me, it's probably close to 26, 27.
MR. FALLON: I know you have a busy
schedule, so I'm going to sit down. Just one
thing, I think if you check, regardless of what
you say, that terrace is stone on sand and is
elevated; I think that constitutes a structure
under your code. It is a deck, not a terrace and
it attaches to two buildings.
MS. STEELMAN: It's built on sand so it's
not a structure.
MR. FALLON: It's not a structure if
there's any materials elevated. It's certainly
not a patio. That's the way I read the code. I
Just make mention. Thank you so much.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
46
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on this
"pplication? I make a motion to close the hearing
~nd reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
e
3
4
5
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
[or Shinn Vineyard and Barbara Shinn for a bed and
hreakfast.
MS. DOTY: Barb Shinn and her husband
[)avid Page are here with me today. And I've been
representing them since 1999 when they purchased
the property, and I have a distinct recollection
of standing outside the closing; they were so
knighted because they were taking the first steps
of realizing their dream, which was to buy an old
farmhouse with lots of acres, to plant grape vines
~nd to open a B & B. And now we're at that last
,:l.age of trying to get the B & B open.
You have the application. We have two
parts of the application, one is for a special
oxception for a B & B if with four guest rooms for
the part of the house that's more than 100 years
old, and the second is a front yard setback of
about three and a half feet.
I'm not going to go through each of the
criteria on the special exception unless you wish
me to, but I think the key here is that they're
preserving and restoring an old farmhouse that's
lJeen there. It's the old Tuthill farmhouse. It's
been there for about 100 years. It's that portion
of the house that's going to have the four guest
bedrooms. They're going to add an addition onto
the back of the house that is not part of this
application at all. And as part of the
"pplication here before this Board we need
we're requesting a variance of about three and a
half feet off the front of the house.
There's adequate parking that's being
provided on the site plan, the road frontage
,lccess for emergency vehicles is not a problem as
we all know, it will be a rural, country B & B
with to die-for views as far as I'm concerned.
And all the surrounding properties or virtually
all the surrounding properties are open farm
fields. Nursery stock, vineyards, potatoes, what
have you.
The reason for the request for the
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
47
1
5
variance is that this is a 100 year old farmhouse
and about a hundred years ago they were putting
!IOUSeS real close to the road, made it easier t:o
get in and get out. And the house 1S now located
39 feet from the road. And as part of our design
lor the B & B, Barbara wishes to put a gazebo on
nn the northwest corner, which means we're
,xtending about three and a half feet into the
front yard. So we're only going to have about 36
dnd a half feet setback. It's not a large bump
out, and it's not a space that's going to be used
for living quarters. Rather, it's going to be
part of a screen porch for the guests to use to go
!;it on a summer even1ng drinking a little bit of
the wine from the vineyard and looking at sunsets.
Lt's not self-created because we know where the
sun sets, and it's the northwest corner of the
house that gazebo is going to be located. There
will be no adverse change in the neighborhood.
The lots up there are all very large. The one to
the west is now nursery stock, development rights
have been sold on that, and the buildings are
clustered 1n the southwest corner of that
lot. Behind our lot 1S a vineyard, it's a
vineyard, I couldn't get up there, it's a vineyard
on which development rights are sold, that's the
!30uthern lot. To the east 1S a huge working farm,
and to the north is a large I think it's 58 acres,
[arm field. So there's not going to be a huge
impact by adding a B & B or giving a three and a
half foot variance for a gazebo. As I said,
there's really no other way of achieving that
gazebo on that corner given where the sun sets and
111 of that. So I'm going to request that you
grant this special exception.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
question because I have to write it? I just need
to refer to some of the feelings that I have. By
the way I can tell you that my first meeting with
the Shinns was wonderful and it will always remain
that way, and they're wonderful people and we were
discussing the magnificent job they did 1n the
reconstruction of the barn at one time.
Can we just define the uses on the
property for a minute? Can we call this property
a winery, or can we call this property just a
vineyard; do they have a tasting room now at this
point?
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
48
1
2
MS. DOTY: Yes, they do have a tasting
room in the back.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a farm winery.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Depending upon
Lf they make the wine there or not, which has no
bearing, it's their own grapes or whatever the
case may be, can we still call it a winery? Are
we still going to call it a winery?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Shinn says
.
3
4
5
6
7
no.
MS. DOTY:
Mr. Shinn is actually David
8
Page.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
You're right,
9
1'm sorry, David.
MR. PAGE: The state of New York and the
federal government regulate the name "winery" and
" winery is a bonded winery. The only part of our
property that is considered a winery by the state
of New York or the federal government is the
building where the tasting room is or where the
winery is.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that is one
of the uses on the property? That's all I'm
interested, I'm just trying to define the uses on
the property.
MS. DOTY: There's also a vineyard.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then we
'eventually will have a bed and breakfast as an
~ccessory use, but it's still a permit which is a
use.
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's not a
permitted principal use.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not asking
[or principal use.
MS. DOTY: It's only for one year at a
time and they have to live there.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. And all
the out buildings are used by yourself and the
~hinn family, right?
MS. DOTY: Actually, no. One right now,
the potato barn is rented out.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one on the
west side?
MS. DOTY: Yes, but my understanding lS
t he lease is up, and they're taking back over that
building, otherwise everything is used in
connection with the vineyard, and that is
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
49
1
2
literally in the process of happening, meaning the
lease is over and the trucks are being removed.
The tenant will be leaving, although everybody has
Gort of sad feelings about that, but in any
event --
.
3
4
5
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
~sk that question, Miss Doty, is because under the
standards of a special exception it's interesting
to know exactly what are the uses on the property,
and although we have a large piece of property
here, it's not site specific to a 20,000 square
foot lot, it's site specific to an entire parcel.
.':,) that's why I just asked the uses, I have to
lvrite this.
MS. DOTY: The uses are confined also to a
very small area because of the fact that --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The grapes are
out there?
MS.
DOTY: Not only that, but the
rights were sold for the balance
of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
development
the land.
CHAIRWOMAN
OLIVA:
Just took out that one
13
pdrcel.
.
14
MS. DOTY: We love that lot so we can't
put the B & B anyplace else.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why would you want
to anyway. I finally got into the old building
this week.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to put on
the record that I was there on Tuesday
dfternoon. I inspected the house and I'm sure the
B & B will be quite lovely, and I wish them well
doing it. I think it's a great idea.
MR. PAGE: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a minor
theoretical question, the gazebo in principal
could be applied for even if there were no B & B
rind vice versa.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
legally or logically,
MS. DOTY: Correct. The special exception
is a separate thing and we could very well be here
just for the three and a half variance for the
gazebo but because we wanted to do it all at
Sure.
They're
unrelated
22
23
24
.
once --
25
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
It's a while you're
at it.
March 2, 2006
50
1
2
MS. DOTY: Right. I love being here but I
don't want to be here again.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Architecturally in
addition to prevailing views, it's also related to
the elevation with the bow windows on the sides.
rompositionally a reasonable thing to do.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
,iudience 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.)
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
tor Anthony and Susan Napolitano on Cleaves Point
Road for a swimming pool.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Good afternoon, me and my
wife Susan Napolitano, 200 Cleaves Point Road,
I'~ast Marion, New York are requesting a rear yard
variance.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. We were there
for your swimming pool. Miss Weisman and I were
there the other day. It was just one corner we
were talking about. You're really keeping the
pool next to the house?
MR. NAPOLITANO: I'm doing my best trying
to work within all the different regulations,
setbacks. The front yard has cesspools in it,
and --
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're rather limited?
MR. NAPOLITANO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the questions
we commonly ask is could the swimming pool be
located someplace else or closer to the house, and
the answer is, no, this is the best place.
MR. NAPOLITANO: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it's
certainly a beautiful piece of property. I'm
going to give you the same lip service we were
talking about in Mattituck, and that is that you
have one side yard that looks like it should
remain open, and we need to keep it remaining
upen, which is that 10 foot area over on that one
f: ide. So in granting this, if you want my vote,
you need to put a restriction on it.
MR. NAPOLITANO: That's not a problem, I
intended to keep that open.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great, thank
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
51
1
2
you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
q:uestions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 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.)
e
3
4
5
6
7
---------------------------------------------
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Cacioppo on Inlet Way in Southold, and I believe
we were here before. Mr. Fitzgerald, how nice to
~:;ee you.
MR. FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. When
last we talked about this and when last you saw
the survey, the proposed addition was four feet
larger, it was 24' by 24', and the connecting
hallway was four feet longer. It was reduced this
way because the Trustees needed us to be further
from the wetlands, but the property, of course --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't really have
that much room to put the garage in that area.
MR. FITZGERALD: No. And it's the
universal problem of first the triangular lot,
and, secondly, it's a triangular corner lot with
wetlands on the other side.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know.
MR. FITZGERALD: So the proposed location
of the garage will use up some of the existing
deck surrounding the pool, and we cut it back as
tar as Mr. Cacioppo, who is a designer, felt that
it couldn't go any further back without seriously
compromising the aesthetic appeal of the house.
For what it's worth, the proposed garage
is 42 feet from the road, although it's only 20
feet from the front property line. And those of
you that were there to inspect it know that it's
unlikely that passersby on that road are going to
be offended by or probably even see the new
construction if we are able to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see though that In
your driveway you have a timber wall that's going
out into actually part of the Cedar Point Drive
East.
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
MR. FITZGERALD:
Yes, all that
March 2, 2006
52
1
9
construction including the driveway and those
retaining walls is something that apparently from
the property card had been there for essentially
forever. The house was built before 1973, and
Lhen it was built in this location on that
~elatively steep front yard slope and necessitated
.11 these gyrations.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald,
I don't think I was part of the first hearing. I
looked at it originally in its original site, but
what is the purpose of the second story?
MR. FITZGERALD: It's going to be living
:;pace, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
live in the garage?
MR. FITZGERALD:
,;econd floor.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
hallway, right?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. And that's why the
terminology "hallway" is used, and the Building
Department says as long as it's completely
enclosed and completely conditioned, it makes it
part of the main building.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the stone driveway
will have to be slightly redesigned in order to
make room for that jog?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think that's
but we're not quite sure about that. We're
that it will not be a significant change.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No further
You're gOlng to
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Living space on the
11
It's a proposed
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
right,
hoping
18
19
22
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
,udience 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.)
20
21
------------------------------------------------
e
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Terry McLaughlin on Old Salt Road, Mattituck, for
a pool. Hello again.
MS. QUIGLEY: I'm representing the
McLoughlins on I believe it's a front yard
variance technically, they back onto Bay Avenue
23
24
March 2, 2006
53
1
9
and the pool will be approximately I believe 180
teet from Bay Avenue into their back yard. We
have a considerable amount of property
there. We're placing it 11 feet off the garage
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's really kind of
keeplng it all in their back yard.
MS. QUIGLEY: Right into the front part of
t~heir back yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. Michael, do you
have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. I just was sort
nf puzzled. The reason for this application is
that this huge back lawn is technically a second
front yard because it fronts on another street;
was that ever a buildable lot or it's very narrow
1 guess?
MS. QUIGLEY: It's very narrow, I don't
I~hink it would be buildable, no.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's essentially a
huge back yard which technically fronts on what's
now a portion of the next street. I don't have a
problem with that
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I live in the
area, I have no problems.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The plans are not
Lo move any of the small parapet walls, just to
install the pool around it?
MS. QUIGLEY: Right.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
,ludience 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.)
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Ovlasid Reality, LLC on Cedar Beach Road in
Southold. Miss Moore.
MS. MOORE: I have Mr. DiSalvo here, Tom
Cramer, I know you all know from Cramer
Consulting. I don't know if there are people here
in the audience, because I know you've been
getting lots of letters, and the problem is I
don't think they understand what we have as a
permitted use here. We have a hamlet business
21
22
23
.
25
March 2, 2006
54
1
2
~oned parcel, half hamlet business, half AC, with
the General Wayne on it, which has a CO for a
restaurant and hotel. We also have what
Mr. DiSalvo proposed to do was do a residential
subdivision, and the reason it comes before this
Board is that rather than have three hamlet
business sized lots that are conforming, all on
Cedar Beach Road and the one AC lot, which is Lot
1, it made more sense, and we really thought the
Planning Board should be tickled pink that we were
coming in with this type of application, is to
make four equally sized parcels that are actually
in excess of the sizes of the lots in this area.
Essentially Mr. DiSalvo is coming and voluntarily
upzoning his own property, and eliminating a use
that has historically been a problem for the
community because the restaurant and the bar and
the dancing and the noise, just the historic use
of the General Wayne Inn has been a sore point in
this community. So I was quite surprised when I
saw a recommendation from the Planning Board that
that seemed completely inconsistent with good
planning. But nonetheless, I have Mr. Cramer
here, who is a planner, and who can provide some
information, and we hope will persuade you
otherwise.
The first issue is whether there will be
an undesirable change to the character of the
community. Again, we point out that this is
hamlet business zoned property, which can have
several very intense commercial uses on it. The
lots as we -- the yield map that we provided that
showed where the lots as conforming HB lots would
be, would be three 20,000 square foot lots along
Cedar Beach Road. We also have a zoning line that
falls outside the minimum lot sizes and the extra
dcreage that actually falls in Hamlet Business is
4,440 square feet. So we have excess Hamlet
Business zoned parcel, which arguably is at four
times the density of AC because HB is obviously
much more intensive than AC.
We have Lot 4, which is the 4,440 square
feet plus the 69,936 square feet, that comprises
uf what would be the Lot 4. The only reason we're
under the AC -- the 80,000 square foot requirement
is because the client owns to the halfway point of
clearview Road, and that area is not calculated
into the lot coverage requirement. However, he
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
55
1
9
brought for me this evening, because I needed a
copy of the deed to prove that we, in fact, do own
the road, and he provided very interesting
analysis from First American, which I will submit
to the Board and have it In the record which shows
the title history here. It shows that back from
1926, when this parcel was an out parcel of the
subdivision, it actually included Cedar Beach
Drive, Cedar Beach Road, Orient Lane, and
Clearview Road, which adjoined the premlses and to
the center line thereof. So in 1926, when this
parcel was created, it actually owned to the
halfway point of all the roads, Clearview,
orchard, Cedar and the other one -- in any case,
the surrounding parcels, they actually owned to
the halfway point.
So this could have been done as a two-step
application. It didn't make sense to do it that
way, but you have to think of it in those terms.
We have three conforming HB lots, we don't need to
Louch. We have the one AC lot, which is just
tmder because of the current definition in the
'ode, but not from the 1926 deeds and presently he
owns and has actual acreage so that the Lot 4, In
tact, is excess of the two acre lot requirement.
That application, Application Number 1, would have
been for an area variance for Lot 4. What we
don't agree with is when we asked the Planning
Board, instead of having this configuration with
an area variance for one over-sized lot, and I'll
have Tom speak In a moment with respect to the
surrounding properties, instead of doing it that
way, Planning Board, use your planning policies,
t1Se your subdivision authority and let's move the
lot and configure the parcel In such a way that
it's a best plan development, taking it as one
large piece of property and configuring the lots
around it.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The only
problem here, Pat, is that the Planning Board does
not have the legal authority to create undersized
lots in the zoning districts. That's why we're
here. We're here so let's not sort of re-argue
what the Planning Board should have done.
MS. MOORE: May I finish?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Of course.
MS. MOORE: Step 2 is saying Planning
Goard, we want to move one of the HB lots into the
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
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
56
AC zoning district. Because of the interpretation
the attorney has given and the Building Department
has taken, we need a second variance because we're
moving what would otherwise be a 20,000 conforming
lot into the AC, and we're asking for a variance
tecause now we want to create two lots in the AC
I hat are not two acres in size.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that
you're asking for a variance in order to push the
lemaining HB area into AC's area; you need a
variance in order to upzone?
MS. MOORE: No, no, no. We have three HB
I.ots.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: She's asking
to take density from one zone and move it into
another zone, an adjoining zone.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You have one lot
IJOW, right? It's split zoned, and the yield on it
might be three lots as a maximum, not four. So
you're here because you want to increase it from
the three lots that you might be allowed to four.
You're asking for an extra lot. And that's where
you start from at the Zoning Board.
MS. MOORE: I think that we need to
pstablish at least on the record.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Maybe you misspoke,
but I think you originally talked about four
equal-sized properties. You're talking about one
CJig one and three otherwise. If you already had
four equal-sized properties, we wouldn't be here.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I'm assuming that
you've seen the subdivision map. This is the
yield map that we have provided to the Planning
Board. You can see the three 20,000 square foot
lots with the one Lot 4, which is the AC. And the
AC, as you point out, because the road is deducted
trom the acreage, brings it just under the 80,000.
What we want to do is take what were the three
lots over here, make these two lots larger,
otherwise the yield that you would have in the HB
and move it so you would have three -- four evenly
sized parcels. It's probably basic planning to do
that.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The point that
was raised, though, you start from a premise that
your yield allows three conforming lots and the
tourth one isn't conforming, so you don't have as
of right to the fourth lot. You have as of right
March 2, 2006
57
1
9
\0 three lots, and you're seeking four lots.
MS. MOORE: We are seeking four lots,
there is no doubt. The interpretation the
Planning Board gave us as to whether or not we
have a yield lS a very, very strict interpretation
of whether or not we have the ability to put In --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We would be here even
Lf the Planning Board hadn't announced anything.
MS. MOORE: Yes. We would still need to
come to you for at least one lot.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's not really
,lseful to address what the Planning Board said
when you're addressing this Board.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In fairness,
the Zoning Board did ask the Planning Board for
its input, which it gave.
MS. MOORE: Yes, and I received that
recommendation, which I'm assuming you have In
your file and you read, and we don't necessar~ly
agree with it.
Tom, maybe we can provide some information
with respect to the surrounding property at this
point.
MR. CRAMER: For the record, my name lS
Thomas Cramer, principal of Cramer Consulting
Group, offices at 54 North Country Road, Miller
Place.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
Mr. DiSalvo came to me a couple of years
ago and discussed this as far as the opportunities
that he might have in developing this property,
looking at the existing zoning, the HB and the AC
on the side. We went through several different
concept sketches, and I know Mr. DiSalvo has also
been approached by several developers and people
interested In the property that were suggesting
other types of layouts and utilizations of the
site. Most of them looking at multi-family or
].copening the General Wayne or doing something
like that.
Mr. DiSalvo wishes to preserve the
lesidential character on the site, particularly
'oncerned with a number of large trees on the
property that exists, many of them that are In
excess of 100 years old.
We sat down and we worked out this concept
that we have here before you of the four lots.
Again, we're recognizing that there are three
conforming lots that conform to the zoning under
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
58
1
9
;~he HE zoning, and then the one, the AC, would be
just slightly under the zoning requirements if you
have to exclude the area of the roadway, which he
cloes own.
If you take a look at the lots in the
liurrounding area, there's some 28 lots in the area
)f the site~ Three of these are large and could
be further subdivided~ The majority of them have
already been subdivided and wouldn't be able to be
:::ubdivided anymore ~ If you consider the smallest
lot that we're proposing in the subdivision at
is,993 square feet, with the average lot size of
16,177 square feet, within the area, there are 12
lots that are smaller than our smallest parcel and
13 lots that are smaller than the average sized
Lots~ I think that equals approximately 52
percent conformity to the area~
If you look at the site and propose a
layout that conforms to the zoning, which is the
three lots and we have to seek a variance on the
AC lot, we then come up with 21 lots that are
larger than the 20,000 square foot lots that are
proposed, or 85 percent of the lots~ So these
three lots would be out of character with the
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
area.
19
If you look at the AC lot that we're
proposing, there are 22 lots that are smaller than
the AC lot, or 88 percent. So both the small lot
and the large lot are out of character with the
area. And what we're proposing with the four lots
of approximately equal size fit more into the
character of the area of the site. They also
allow us to better locate houses on the site to
preserve the large, historic trees that are on the
:;ite.
15
16
17
18
24
If you look at the HE zoning, we could
theoretically, rather than individual lots, we
('ould place and obtain at least six units of
multi-family on that as well as seek a variance
for the AC. Again, the AC, as stated before, the
variance that would be necessary for that would be
extremely low, it would not be substantial and it
would be in conformance with the area; in fact, it
would be one of the largest lots in the area if it
was subdivided by itself. We would be able to
!neet all Health Department requirements even with
-he multi-family of six acres under the existing
zoning considering the overall density.
20
21
22
23
.
25
March 2, 2006
59
1
9
So what we're proposing is something that
would have far significant less of an impact from
the community, from an environmental standpoint
md also the character of the community. As Pat
said, we could have come in in a two-step process.
Come in first showing a subdivision of three lots
nn the HB and ask for a variance on the AC. Then
come back once that was established, then come
back either to this Board or look to Planning for
possible interpretation under clustered
::ubdivision to configure the lots how we really
want them. We chose to move this way from the
planning standpoint and also from the reV1ew
f]tandpoint.
That pretty much sums it up. If the Board
has any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer
the thought process that went into this.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have one question,
maybe I missed this. If you had gone through the
two-step process where you first were carv1ng out
chose three lots in hamlet business, according to
some arguments, why would you need a var1ance at
all ?
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
17
MR. CRAMER: You wouldn't need a variance
for the three lots.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the one stage
would not involve you coming before the Board at
all. As a matter of right, you could take those
three lots in the front half of the property and
put up small buildings on them?
MR. CRAMER: For those three lots, but the
problem 1S if we --
.
14
15
16
.
25
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
problem is --
MR. CRAMER: You still have one lot that
doesn't conform to the AC zoning. It would be a
very minor variance that would be needed.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then you would merely
be asking for a variance on Lot 4?
MR. CRAMER: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then according to
this argument, this Board has nothing to do with
turning the first half, the HB part of that, into
three small lots.
MR. CRAMER: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If that's true, then
the argument which Miss Moore made was that it
would not change the character of the
I understand what the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
March 2, 2Cl06
60
1
9
neighborhood, which is questionable, Slnce
changing from one large building that's falling
down into three small buildings would be
unnecessary and inappropriate, you wouldn't need
that argument at all.
MR. CRAMER: That's correct. That's why
we chose to come directly to the four lot, rather
than come in and be three lots that didn't conform
to the character of the community and one large
lut that also doesn't conform to the character of
the community, we chose to come in with the four
luts, rather than seeking one variance tor the
large lot that even though it's large, it still
doesn't come up --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. As a matter
of strategy -- I guess we could all guess what
would be the better strategy -- one of the reasons
you're running into trouble right now is combining
Lhese two steps into one. Maybe from a legal
point of view you wouldn't have any such problem
if you had taken the first step of getting ready
to build on those three lots and then say, oh, by
the way, we would like a variance on the other
property and then move all this around.
MR. CRAMER: I agree with you as far as
::hat goes. Again, we were looking at this from
::lore of a practical planning standpoint, and
.lssuming the Planning Board went along with us, as
cl matter of fact, I wasn't planning to be here
today, it was just yesterday that Pat informed me
of the concern by the Planning Board and the
Letter came in and she asked me to come. Because
,t was her opinion that she felt this was kind of
2
e
3
1
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
22
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. Then if you
were wrong about what you could expect the
Planning Board to say, and your prediction for
practical planning purposes depended on their
making a very different decision, it's not quite
clear why we're having this hearing at all. Maybe
you should go back and re-argue that before the
Planning Board because they haven't asked as to
what they think; and they haven't given you what
you wanted.
MR. CRAMER: We cannot go back to the
Planning Board because we would still have to come
here no matter which way we went.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless you just went
19
20
21
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
61
1
9
for three lots and then waited until later on to
see what could be done with the larger lot.
MR. CRAMER: What we would do is submit a
land division application to you with three lots
conforming and one lot non-conforming.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They can't go
hack and create the three small HB lots because --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you had a choice
between having three small lots and having no use
[or the time being of the larger fourth lot, or
nmning into a problem where the whole plan 1S at
risk, if you had known what the Planning Board was
going to recommend, and if you had anticipate that
we would follow what they say, we're certainly not
committed to that necessarily, then you probably
would not have been before us at all. You would
have just gone with the three lots and seen what
you could do later on.
MR. CRAMER: Well, my client wishes to
develop the property --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand, but the
thing 1S your argument -- and I think it's a good
argument -- is to say based upon principles of
technical good planning, it might be a good idea
to approach what you want. Unfortunately, the
Planning Board didn't happen to agree with you.
MS. MOORE: I have been at all the work
sessions and never talked about it. What they did
or not is what you got from them.
MR. CRAMER: If you read the letter from
the Planning Board, they are presenting it 1n the
strictest interpretation of the law, essentially
r;aY1ng the zoning is such, and the zoning allows
tor three lots that conform; the fourth lot, even
though the variance is very m1nor, does not
conform. So their letter to you is saying there's
three lots that conform to the area. Therefore,
~ccording to the code, you have three lots.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So your client has a
choice, either ask for what the Planning Board has
clearly given approval of, namely need three lots,
or to try to persuade the Zoning Board to 19nore
the Planning Board. Those are the only two
possibilities.
MR. CRAMER:
persuade --
ASST.
And right now we're trying to
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
best argument
TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think your
is that you could be here before us
March 2, 2006
62
1
5
with three lots guaranteed and only needing a very
small variance for a fourth lot. And you think
the plan you have is more palatable to the
community to create those four lots, but they
V/ould all be slightly larger than those small HB
Lots.
MR. CRAMER: But have three small lots out
In the front that don't conform to the community.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You're In the
unfortunate position of that plan requlres a
qreater variance than the other one you might see.
MR. CRAMER: It requires two varlances.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. And
it's the more substantial variance.
MR. CRAMER: If the Board would consider
LL, granting the variance for the AC lot then In
turn granting the other variance, then that's
certainly, just as far as procedure goes, that
V/ould make sense also.
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
What other
12
variance?
MR. CRAMER: The variance for the AC lot,
then the trading, the moving around of the lot
lines to have the --
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You would
:;till need to have the variance on the two AC
Lots.
13
e
14
15
16
MR. CRAMER: We would still ultimately
need it. The only difference is that it would,
dgain, be a two-step process; we would still be
before this Board for two hearings and In
discussions, it was decided we would come in for
Just the one hearing and present our case to show
how we could accomplish what we were trying to do
:ust through one hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd like to see if
[ could summarize your essential approach to this.
The creation of four larger approximately
Gimilarly sized lots will not only preserve more
of the natural topography and landscape because it
provides greater flexibility for siting buildings
than on smaller lots, but it will also be more
conforming relative to other lot sizes in the
neighborhood.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
comment at this time because I'm still
understanding it.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
63
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
iludience that wishes to comment on this
ilpplication? Yes, sir.
MR. AKSIN: My name is Raymond J. Aksin, I
live at 1800 Cedar Beach Road. I'm here
representing my father, who lives there also,
Raymond Aksin. And the following people that were
uur neighbors and were unable to attend this
:neeting because they're either on vacation or have
uther plans, Melanie Belkin, Frank and Marie
Lacarie, Brad Winston and Sandra Powers. We would
request to have this appeal denied for the
following reasons: that all these people that
~ive next to or within 200 feet of this property
subdivision will be directly affected by it were
Ilot all notified. That all affected current
landowners -- not previous landowners, that I
believe has happened in at least one case -- be
given at least 30 days notice of such action, not
the 10 days of this notice. To give you an
~xample, the notice was mailed out Friday the
17th; the notice was received Saturday afternoon
too late to go to the post office to sign for
~his. Sunday the post office is closed, Monday
was President's Day, post office was closed,
Tuesday was the first day able to retrieve the
registered mail, that's February 21st. That left
10 days total for this hearing. So a lot of
people were unable to reply either in writing or
in person. Also, on the file that 90 Cedar Beach
property dated 1927 or '26, this shows the General
Wayne property as one lot, not two. The front
half may have a different zoning on it but no line
divides this into two properties, so I can't see
how you can call it two lots. If it was a legal
subdivision of two lots, be it noted that they are
both substandard in size and should not be
subdivided again.
I'd like to read the following letter of
Sandra Powers for the record because it sums up a
lot of the feelings of the people aforementioned,
the neighbors. It says: "Dear Miss Oliva and
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are
writing in response to a legal notice received by
our neighbors, Jay and Stella Aksin, wherein we
dre advised the Board of Appeals will hear all
persons and/or their representatives desiring to
be heard at such hearing and/or desiring to submit
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
64
1
8
written statements before the conclusion of each
hearing. We are also submitting this written
C3tatement in opposition to the proposal requested
[or a variance and change in zoning. We are also
advising you that Jay Aksin represents us in our
opposition to our request in person at the
hearing.
"We are property owners at 485 Breezy
Path, which abuts 485 Orchard Lane, in which we
believe is within 200 feet of the General Wayne
oroperty. We did not receive notice of the
l]earing in the mail, and we understand as lS
requirement for a variance.!1 I'm not sure about
that, but this lS what they felt. This directly
affects them because they have to pass this every
Jay on the way to their residence. "We
fortunately just saw the notice posted on an out
building on the property on the side of Orchard
:.ane, but not particularly conspicuously. We are
not in favor of the change In zoning to provide
four lots instead of one as we understand it that
it lS in existence now.
"We purchased land there that was divided
into three lots and then combined all of them due
to restrictions in order to build one house, and
these were all waterfront lots. Why should this
developer be able to make four lots out of one or
two? We have invested a lot of time, effort and
additional money to build within the rules that
were in effect when we purchased. We were aware
of these when we purchased as we are sure the
cieveloper who purchased the General Wayne property
was aware of the zoning when he purchased. We
bought and built based on the known zoning
J"estrictions in place for the General Wayne
property. This was after the current owner of the
General Wayne property bought it.
"We value the reasons that Southold town
has two acre zoning and can see no reason for
requesting change other than increased property.
The additional housing would be environmentally
stressed to the Small Point and Cedar Beach area,
dnd would increase traffic on Orchard Lane and
Clearview Road by approximately 30 percent, which
can only be detrimental and In conflict for the
purpose of the two acre zonlng. The additional
housing would presumably increase the load on the
,"chool system.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
65
1
2
"We got a copy of the plan from the
lleighbor this weekend and added up the square
rootage of the four proposed lots, each less than
an acre which totals to 144,701. This is not even
the 160,000 square footage that is required for
two acre sites. There is a new project underway
':m North Bayview Road within less than two miles
of this location called Bayview Gardens, which is
heing done within the two acre restriction. We
~nnot perceive any reason Dan, the developer of
the General Wayne property, should receive
preferential treatment over that one. By the same
measure, the development of Bayview Gardens would
have to be building 11 houses instead of the
allowed five, quite a difference environmentally
and aesthetically.
"In our opinion, allowing any more than
approved zoning would set a bad precedent for
,'urrent and future development in our area of
Southold town. This is a voracious and litigious
society that we live in and we think that the
Town's future would be filled with developer's
lawsuits should they be denied equal treatment
when requesting variances.
"We moved to Southold town because of its
open spaces. We love Southold town because of its
open spaces, and we hope that the Zoning Board
values this rare asset as much or more than we do.
rn a town that wisely preserves its open spacing
hy buying the development rights of large tracts
uf land it would be counterproductive to turn
around and increase development in other areas.
"We submit that the request for the
variance be denied or in the very least, that the
hearing be rescheduled to a more appropriate time
of the year when residents are actually in town
and have received notices of hearing. We should
be aware of at least one of our neighbors, the
Powers, are not able to attend because they are in
Plorida. We aren't able to attend due to untimely
lack of notices."
They would like to thank you for your
ccfforts in keeping Southold beautiful. It's
signed Sandra Powers and Brad Winston.
Also, one point I would like to make, I
uwn a lot that's over four acres and it's within
200 yards of the General Wayne property. I was
considering only one house, but if they can get
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
66
1
8
four, why shouldn't I get four?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Would you be able
to give us a signed letter that you were reading?
MR. AKSIN: Yes. I can give you this one.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Maybe we have it
dlready.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that would like to speak?
MS. ST. JOHN: My name is Mickey St. John,
and I'm here to represent the Angel Shores
Homeowners Association. I have a letter here, I
don't know if you have it from Jim Federal to Mrs.
Moore. I also have a copy of that 1926 map that
pverybody is speaking about. I don't know if you
would like to see that; it looks like one lot.
And I have a copy of the deed describing, they
don't refer to it as the reserved area on that
map, but if you would like to look at that, of
course it's a very old map, and this is in
question where they showed the Cedar Beach Inn
within the reserved area. And that is a lot of
reserved area lot on the filed map.
I'm just here to say that the Angel Shores
Homeowners Association does oppose the four lot
subdivision, if it was two or even three, we would
love to see a high end subdivision there, but of
course, the four lot subdivision doesn't meet with
code. The other thing I don't understand, they
keep saying how they own half the street, that is
I.he case but whether or not they can consider that
part of their property, on the tax map they do,
but I see only in the deed there's a meets and
bounds description which goes along that dotted
line and doesn't take in half the street. I don't
know if you can see that on the map, the meets and
bounds goes all the way around, and I don't think
you can block off all these lots from using that
without an abandonment. So that's the other
concern I would have. Now maybe there is an
abandonment that I don't know of, and maybe it was
turned up in I think it's First American Title
report.
Again, I would agree with Mr. Aksin as far
as everything he said about Southold town, we are
d historic district. Again, I am not opposed to
lruilding there, but just not so many buildings in
that area. Thank you for your time.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
67
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir.
MR. KINSKY: Good afternoon, my name lS
Fletcher Kinsky, and I live at 720 Orchard Lane.
L came from Connecticut with a nice speech
prepared but after hearing Mr. Aksin talk this
afternoon, I think all I have to do is say that I
am in total agreement with what he has said.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there someone else
who would like to speak? Yes, sir.
MR. WISMAN: My name lS John Wisman, I
Live at 650 Orchard Lane and I am here at the
request of my immediate neighbors, the name of
Perry, they live directly in back of the inn, and
they are very much against these four houses.
They would very much like to see three. Mr. Aksin
said almost everything I would like to say. I
must admit, I have mixed feelings. I have lived
there Slnce 1957, and for 45 years the inn has
0ither been a terrific nuisance or a terrific
pyesore. It's been dreadful living there, so I
was glad to see it's going to become residential,
but I still would prefer to see three. If you
walk In the immediate area, it seems like three
Ilouses would be much more conforming than four.
Even though many of those lots there were too
small and were built on, there's no sense on
continuing to build on lots that are too small.
It has changed the area tremendously by people
doing this. I have come to many meetings and have
actually signed some variances for neighbors and
am sorry I did it because some of those people
were dishonest about what they were doing.
The area, I originally decided to build
there because there were a lot of big lots, which
many people bought and did cut them up, so it has
changed the area. Any more continuing doing that
just deteriorates the whole thing down there. I'm
here because the family, my neighbors, asked me to
come, they couldn't be here. They feel very
;;trongly since they were the ones the most
immediately affected, they're directly In back of
the inn. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Wisman.
MS. MOORE: You want to put in your file a
copy of the deed and the title report that shows
Lhe ownership.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On LOLs 1 and 2, Mrs.
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
68
1
2
Moore, that was just for residential or other
uses, what?
MS. MOORE: No. This proposal actually
had us offering to covenant with the Town that
this would be for single-family dwelling only. So
we were, again, we were willing to voluntarily
give up rights that the owner has. There was no
pfforts to change of zone. The maximum
development of this property as Tom has mentioned
is in the Hamlet Business zoning or six units.
So, he was willing to covenant that it would be
..:;ingle-family dwelling if the town on its own
l!lotion later re-zoned it to one acre, there would
he pre-existing non-conforming lots, or it could
stay the way it is because it wouldn't matter the
covenants were already imposed on the property
voluntarily upzoning this piece. So the community
would benefit by as Mr. Wisman mentioned, you
would be eliminating a very heavy existing
commercial use, and voluntarily giving up the
potential for a multitude of very intensive
commercial uses. You could do all kinds of things
here as you know from Hamlet Business, from retail
to car, bowling alleys, the whole use of permitted
uses in Hamlet Business.
So the proposal that we offered through
this Board through two variances was to create
pvenly, well-developed, nice parcels that would
preserve in particular the area that we have as
IIamlet Business with the three lots that would as
of right be able to be developed, would require us
to eliminate four or five beautiful 100 year old
trees. So this plan we thought was a very good
llternative and something the community should
embrace. He is giving up a great deal of economic
value in a Hamlet Business zoned parcel. But you
weigh the benefits and certainly the homes he can
build here are going to be valuable on their own.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the other hand, Mrs.
Moore, even if it were Hamlet Business, he would
have probably a great deal of trouble trying to
'jet Health Department approval for those more
MR. CRAMER: No. In this area we're
required 20,000 square foot lot size.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand that.
MS. MOORE: You have public water.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you have public
water, but I think you would find some difficulty.
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
.
.
.
69
1
2
MS. MOORE: But you also have a restaurant
sanitary system with historic use there that has a
qreat deal of --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For one lot.
MR. CRAMER: For one lot if we were
looking to bring in another commercial facility.
We would have no problem at all, and we discussed
this with the Health Department already for doing
~hree 20,000 square foot lots and one large lot
,Iso. We have also discussed the possibility of
doing six units, one multi-family on the HB, and
.,ven those six lots with the single-family house
on the AC portion of it, we would still be able to
accomplish that since we have public water and the
overall density would be less than 20,000 square
feet. So we would be able to do multi-family as
well as an additional single-family house and
,;till conform.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Still comply with your
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
cesspools?
MR. CRAMER:
cesspool requirement.
foot density overall.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Still need a
variance on that other single-family home.
MR. CRAMER: However, we would be able to
conform to the Health Department.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you're saying if
you were to build say six houses on Hamlet
Business District that your client would stand to
make more money?
MR. CRAMER: It wouldn't be six houses, it
would be six multi-family units.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They wouldn't have to
be multi-family units, they could be
single-family. Hamlet Business doesn't say it has
to be --
MS. MOORE:
multi-family.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN:
have one detached house per lot.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there could be six
one-family houses as well as six two-family
houses.
13
Still comply with the
Again, it's 20,000 square
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Row house,
townhouse,
21
22
You can only
23
24
MS. MOORE: No. They have to be attached.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On Hamlet Business?
MR. CRAMER: Yes. We could have three
20,000 square foot lots, or if we attach them we
25
March 2, 2006
70
1
2
could have six units.
MS. MOORE: With a 30 or 40 percent lot
coverage.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In any case, you're
e:aying that would clearly make more money for your
client and his reason for not wanting to go that
way is he loves the environment of Southold; is
that it?
MS. MOORE: He lives here. He used to
live actually across the street. When he bought
this property, he was one of the property owners
on Orchard Street.
MR. CRAMER: And he's spent a lot of time
cilld money trying to preserve the existing trees.
Hc's had tree surgeons there maintaining the
historic trees on the site. I've seen some of the
other properties he's developed in the area, and
he's taken a great deal of concern and a great
rical of respect for the area and the character of
Ihe area. There were a couple things mentioned
!lere, talked about two lots, this lS only one lot,
there's two zonlngs, as I'm sure the Board's
aware. A lot of the people in the area,
oarticularly like Angel Shores, most of those lots
are smaller than what we're proposing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But that's a clustered
subdivision too.
MS. MOORE: Yes, and I was the attorney on
that one. And that took actually 15 years to
develop because of opposition. And it was at one
acre zoning. So the lots are clustered because
the Planning Board chose to do it the way they
did. But those lots are based on one-acre zonlng.
MR. CRAMER: And it's the house developed
that's the character of the area.
MS. MOORE: I also wanted to put in your
file. I had gotten the letters from the
neighbors, and what I did I attached the tax map
to describe for you and for the file the area that
they are living In, the area and how it's
developed. You have Cedar Beach, which obviously
has very small lots, I think most of them are less
than an acre. Many of them are impacted by
wetlands and those limitations. There was also
[he letter sent by Mr. Licari and also -- I'm
sorry, Winston and Powers. I noticed Winston and
Powers, yes, they did have to combine some
parcels, but I know because I tried to do
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
71
1
2
development for clients along Dryatt's Basin, and
those lots are significantly impacted by wetlands
~nd most of these lots have about 50 to 75 percent
of the lots that are covered in wetlands. So
those are very difficult to develop and while the
Lots, as the tax map shows are of a certain Slze,
t he actual development potential of them is very
j"estricted.
Mr. Aksin himself had to come before this
110ard because I know I represented one of the
property owners that was going to buy one of the
lots that you denied a waiver of merger because of
the environmental constraints of the one lot that
my client was In contract to purchase. So this
rlrea, the objections that are being made, in a
sense, we're providing something that is much
larger, much more environmentally appropriate, and
we hope that the Board will take that into
,onsideration In approvlng the area variances.
We have the option, and we will put on the
table, the option of withdrawing the area varlance
[or the two lots and do the three as of right
Hamlet Business parcels with the one request for
~n area variance on the one AC lot, which requires
the difference between 74,376 and 80,000; that's a
very small area variance glven the character of
the community and the size of the surrounding
parcels. But again, we hope that you don't choose
t hat option, we'll do this as two steps because it
really lS not the best for the community. The
;lest plan development here would be four equally
sized parcels, and Tom has already put on the
record the reasons for it.
MR. AKSIN: I'd like to say that I don't
believe that two wrongs make a right. If it was
wrong to do it before, you can't do it again. My
tather has owned the property since the early
'50s, family's been In Bayview since 1900. We
,;acrificed to keep it the way we like it. I don't
know if they're aware of this, several years ago
lilY father resisted but had to go to Town water
because his well was all the way up on Orchard
Lane and it had saltwater intrusion. So I would
Guspect they have saltwater intrusion underneath
the General Wayne in large areas. I don't know
how this lS going to affect the septic system.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone else
wish to comment on this application? If not, I'll
.
3
4
,-
J
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
72
1
2
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. (
MS. MOORE: If you would like a written
submission of Mr. Cramer's presentation?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I think we heard
it. Thank you.
e
3
4
5
.------------------------------------------------
6
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
Mr. Aliano on Duck Pond Road, in Cutchogue. Miss
Moore, I think you're up.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to say in
the outset that we're going to hold this hearing
open because we, the Board, have not received
"nough information from various people that we
want to get information from to make a concerted
opinion.
MS. MOORE:
that decision when
Why don't you reserve making
you have had all the experts
7
8
9
10
11
12
here.
13
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't care what
"xperts you have here, Pat, the hearing is staying
open because we have real grave concerns about
this whole area. That's it.
MS. MOORE: That's your decision. Keeping
in mind your decision to hold it open certainly
i~mpacts our the plan because you're jeopardizing
the stability of the property. We appreciate the
fact that you allowed us to come before this Board
right away so we do appreciate that because, as
you know, we had a building permit and they
started construction, whether or not whatever,
nobody's going to point fingers, but they have
already started the work, and we are very
carefully trying not to lose the property. We
have a very valuable property here.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As you said, two wrongs
don't make a right.
MS. MOORE: I didn't say that, somebody
olse said that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, continue.
MS. MOORE: As I stated, we do have
Trustees, Health Department, DEC determination and
we had a building permit. The building permit, as
we all know1 was issued in error, and that's when
the work stopped. In fact, the Building
Department offered to have us put some of the
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
73
1
2
cetaining walls in, but we felt that given what we
needed from you, it would be best -- the retaining
walls which ultimately were for the purposes of
the sanitary system it made sense that we needed
Lo know where the house was going to go before we
actually constructed the retaining walls. So
everything is just as it was when they asked us to
'otop. So keeping In mind that even the Building
Department recognized that there was a need to put
the retaining walls in at one point or another.
So it's really crucial that we act on this
~pplication quickly.
This lot is a map on Vista Bluff, which
was filed in the county clerk's office in 1968.
The lot lS adjacent to the bluff on the Long
Island Sound and the proposed house and retaining
walls were reviewed and approved by the Trustees.
The only reason we got a coastal erosion hazard
permit in that application was because of the
retaining wall being inside the line. The house
was outside the CZM line, and, In fact, I did
submit to this Board this afternoon what we'll
call Plan B for your records as you have Plan A as
Lhe survey that shows 42 feet from the bluff and
Plan B has the 30 foot front with the 50 foot
setbacks from the bluff.
When Mr. Aliano first came to me and I
looked at the plan, I said we better have an
alternative plan before this Board so we didn't
Lie your hands and tie up this property in such a
way that we could act on things quickly. We
actually asked for a variance that obviously none
of us want. We would like to keep everything the
way it is, and where it's been proposed but the
varlance lS before this Board so we have an option
of where this house could be moved. The only
location that's reasonable to move this house
would be towards Glen Court. You also see that
Glen Court, this parcel has only 45 feet as an
opening on Glen Court. The house where it's
proposed now or if it were to be moved closer to
Glen Court is almost the equivalent of a side yard
lD its visual because Glen Court has an opening
that has a slope on one side and then it really lS
developed in such a way so it is built behind or
next to Lot 4, the adjacent parcel, Lot 4. So
visually you could take a look at this and say it
could be considered the equivalent of what a side
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
74
1
2
yard might be. The benefit to the applicant
ronnot be achieved with any other method feasible
without -- certainly this lot has restrictions,
has slopes all throughout. There is a flat area
where the house 1S to go. It's placement where
the foundation is now was done with the thought of
having conforming front and side yards and the
house is not a large size house; it's actually
quite modest in its square footage.
It is quite valuable, and I do have for
"he Board an appraisal by James Pace, Sr.,
11censed real estate appraiser, the value of the
property right now as it is as a vacant lot 1S
S975,000. SO I'd like to put that in your file.
Tt 1S a very valuable p1ece of property. There
has also been a significant amount of investment
already in this property. As I said, everything
stopped at one point, but even at the point that
the building permit -- a stop work order was
issued, there was already $66,700 already invested
in the site. So to the extent that we can
preserve what is there, we are trying to preserve
the investment that's already been made. We are
trying to preserve the investment that's already
been made, so I will also provide for you the copy
of the contract.
As you know, this lot when it was created
actually predates all the zoning ordinances, all
the setbacks regulations; so the imposition of the
setbacks to the bluff is a difficult practical __
I use the wrong word, practical difficulty -- it's
on old term, but it is difficult to place the
],ouse without a need for the variance.
We have the existing footings are at 42
teet but that's the closest point. The majority
of this house is at 50 feet. You can see that on
Plan B, the survey that I submitted to this Board
when you sat down. You can see where proposed, if
we were to move this house closer to the street,
however, John Metzgar did provide -- he shows an
overlap of where the existing foundation is, the
footings are in relation to the proposed 50 foot
setbacks. So you can see that even if the Board
were to determine that because of the situation we
must push the location of the house back to the 50
foot line, there's not a lot that has been pushed
beyond that. We have most of the house within the
50 feet, you can see that from the drawing of John
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
75
1
2
Metzgar.
This parcel, if you look down Glen Court,
you'll see that the homes that are all developed
along Glen Court are similarly situated. They
have been built at different periods of time, but
probably prior to the 100 foot regulations because
many of them do not have 100 foot setbacks to the
bluff. In fact, the house to the west of us, Lot
4, probably has even less distance to the top of
the bluff. It's all grass and the house there is
probably about 30 feet I would say. It's about 30
feet to the top of the bluff. That's the way this
area has been developed because, as I said, it's
an older subdivision and the regulations
unfortunately didn't provide for nonconforming
lots.
At this point, you have my written
submission, which I don't want to go over and
reread everything you already have in your
file. I think it's important to have our experts
here and people involved in the project, so why
don't we have -- Tom, why don't you -- is there
any particular issue you want me to have discussed
first?
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MR. KRAMER: Thomas Kramer. I'll just go
through quickly or try to go through quickly as
possible. I won't try to repeat anything that Pat
has put on the record already.
The new layout does show all activity
taking place outside the coastal erosion hazard
area. The original Trustees permit was because of
a retaining wall in there shifting the house back,
moving things around, we were able to pull
everything outside of the coastal erosion hazard
area. There are a couple letters that I have been
just given, one this morning and another one at
this meeting, and I would just like to run through
them quickly and explain a little in response to
some of those comments that are provided in those
letters as well as provide the Board with some
additional information. There's one letter from a
Polly Weigand, she's a soil district technician,
there's no letterhead.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have just received
it and we have not had time to read it.
MR. KRAMER: I just received it also and I
had an opportunity to read down through it, and I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
76
1
2
would like to put a few things on the record in
response to some of her comments. Since the
hearing is being held open, I'll prepare a more
detailed report on each one of these documents.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's fine.
MR. KRAMER: First page essentially talks
about the bluff face itself and goes through -- I
do have some pictures taken from July of the bluff
~nd I'll present a copy of that to the Board. And
I visited the site several times through the
construction of the site, and I was just out there
again this morning and the bluff itself does
appear to be essentially the same, although, if
you look at this photo that I'm going to hand in
there's some beach grass at the bottom, some of
the beach grass at the bottom has eroded back
maybe about a foot or so high.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do have pictures
ourselves.
MR. KRAMER: This is from July. Again,
that's still essentially the same as what the
conditions are there today.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wouldn't say so,
Mr. Cramer. This is not the same bluff that I
saw. I have pictures. In other words, this thing
was stripped.
MR. KRAMER: This is on the sound side.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know it was on the
sound side and it's still been stripped.
MR. KRAMER: No. There's nothing been
touched on the sound side. There's a buffer been
maintained along the entire bluff from the top of
the bluff as shown on the survey to the clearing.
The Duck Pond Road side has been --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not going to
comment on that.
MR. KRAMER: -- has been graded. There's
also reference made to the need for the storm
water runoff regulations. This site is less than
one acre in size and therefore is exempt from that
provision in the state SPEDES permit, and I'll
provide the Board with a copy of the flow chart on
the permitting process, and I've highlighted in
yellow start, and then it's a yes or no is
disturbance greater than one acre. If it's yes
then you develop a soil water control plan; if no
has DEC determined that the need for a SPEDES
permit on this, which they have not, and if that
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
77
1
2
lS no, then you go no coverage is required. So
under this provision there's no coverage required.
However, recognizing that the Board does have
concern, we did choose to prepare an erosion
sediment control plan, which I would like to hand
into the Board at this time.
What this document provides lS a structure
of erosion control and sediment protection devices
for the property and the use of various erosion
control techniques. Some of them have been
implemented to a certain extent out on the site as
far as hay bales and silt fencing have been
installed, and I note for the record that I
visited the site on several occasions, again this
morning, I visited before the snow. I made a
'"pecial trip out here just to see the latest, and
I did not see any visual erosion coming down
through the hay bales, although these hay bales
should be installed according to the plan that I
have provided with the Board as far as trenching
them In, staking and the same as the silt fence
and that's what will be done.
There's also provisions in the back of the
plan for each one of the contractors and
subcontractors to sign and certify that they have
reviewed this plan and that they will comply with
the town codes and comply with the contents of
this plan as well as all the other applicable
codes of the town and state and county. Then she
continues on through here, most of the discussion
revolves around the need for installing indigenous
plant materials and stabilizing the area as soon
as possible. The planting plan that I have
prepared for this project, and I have extra copies
here for the Board's record, it shows indigenous
species to be installed on the property as well as
we're suggesting the use of hydroseeding as soon
as possible after the grading is done to aid in
the quick establishment of the vegetation cover to
stem any erosion. Again, these erosion control
techniques will remain in place until the site lS
fully stabilized. As I said, most of her comments
deal with the needs of different types of the
plant materials, which is what we have included in
the project. There's some statements In here that
are, well, they're suggesting things like cutting
back the face of the bluff and clearing the
vegetation on the top of the bluff to reduce
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
78
1
2
stresses on there. Again, yes, from a strictly
engineering standpoint that reduces the stresses
on it. However, there's other considerations that
go into that as far as the visual impacts and
whether indeed some of the regulatory agencies
would allow something like that. It's been my
experience in the past that they would not allow
you to go in and do some of this as proposed.
I was also glven a copy of the local
Waterfront Revitalization consistency report that
was prepared by Mr. Terry. I just looked at this
quickly.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, we have only
received it, we have not read it.
MR. KRAMER: There's a couple of things,
some of the policies as far as keeping activity
outside of the coastal erosion hazard area, the
original plan included it In there, although we
did have a permit from the Trustees, the new plan
removes all activity from within that boundary.
stabilization of the bluff is recommended. Again,
we would stabilize the bluff itself by plantings.
There's also discussions on armoring the toe of
the bluff, and that was also a recommendation made
by the soil water conservation service. We could
certainly apply to the DEC for the construction of
the bulkhead at the bottom, and toe armor the toe
of this slope, whether or not they would approve
such an application, but we would certainly be
willing to make that attempt.
I'll be glad to go through and provide a
written comment to all this. There's one thing as
far as the visual impact, note protect and provide
public vista access to coastal lands and waters
from public sites and transportation routes where
physically practical. Avoid loss of existing
visual access. The main visual access point on
this property lS from Duck Pond Road. We are not
changing the visual impacts of the water from Duck
Pond Road, although there will be changes In the
character as a result of the construction on the
site. There's reference made to Glen Road as far
as being a public road, but as Miss Moore pointed
out, our frontage on Glen Road is extremely
limited. If you look at the aerial photo that was
provided in the back of the consistency report, I
think it clearly illustrates how there lS no
visual opportunities from our site or from the end
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
March 2, 2006
79
1
2
of Glen Road over our site. Because of the
configuration of the property, you're essentially
looking at the existing house already. So we're
not eliminating it, but agaln, the policy talks
about where practical. In that this is a
residentially zoned piece of property, it's part
of a residential lot, and we have to locate the
house as far away as possible. It becomes
impractical to also provide the visual or visual
"pportunity In this location.
Again, I'd be glad to provide the Board
with detailed analysis on each one of these
letters since you're holding the hearing open.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's fine.
MS. MOORE: You also had in your file a
report from the engineer, Mr. William Jaeger, he
is just gOlng to recap for this Board the
stability of the slope and the stability of the
site. How the construction will not impact and
deteriorate the stability of the site. Thank you.
MR. JAEGER: My name lS Bill Jaeger, from
the firm of Hawkins, Web, Jaeger, PLLC, the firm
has offices in Medford. I am a licensed
professional engineer and land surveyor. I was
asked to investigate just a few things relative to
this application. The first was the structural
integrity of the foundation. If you reVlew that
report you'll see that basically the foundation as
installed will not have a structural impact on the
slope itself. When we do an evaluation of the
theoretical slope from the toe or base of the
footing of the foundation to the toe of the slope,
we have a slope of some 1 on 2.1, typically, the
radiating load comlng up the base of the
foundation comes up at 60 degrees. This would be
far in excess of that. So there lS no impacting
on the slope due to the structure.
Secondly, I was asked just to take a look
at the building height. There were some concerns
relative to the height of the building and that
was evaluated, and if you follow it in the report,
you'll note that the existing dwelling will be at
a code designated height of 34.05 feet with 35
feet permitted.
Last thing I did was just examine the
slope from the standpoint of its stability. My
conclusions were the same as your soils
consultant, whose report I read briefly just a few
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
80
1
2
minutes ago, and that is basically you need to
provide toe erosion control on the bluff itself.
Normally, and these days the standards would be
some type of in lock type of installation be it a
sambian type cement or else a rock revetment.
',hen a revegetation which may be done by the soils
consultant to stabilize the slope. There was a
lot of reference in there to the type of
vegetation, and, of course, I would leave that to
the experts.
Beyond that, I will answer any questions
that you have. I would also give you a copy of
the report if you don't have it in your file.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many coastal
pngineering projects have you been involved in?
MR. JAEGER: I don't know, six or ten,
something like that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is that it,
Pat? There might be somebody else in the audience
that would like to speak on this application.
Yes, Mr. Terry.
MR. TERRY: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator.
My report references an inconsistency between the
Trustees map and the DEC's map and the map
submitted to the ZBA. It appears that the map
that I referenced or the dated map that I
referenced in the report will be revised. It's
August 31, 2005. I referenced the map that was
before that as I think August 16th or a September
map, so I will be doing that.
As far as the concerns about erosion, as
this Board makes its decision, I would recommend
that maybe the applicant seek an emergency erosion
management permit from the Trustees to maybe
mitigate or help control some of the erosion that
could potentially be going into Duck Pond Road, so
that would be my recommendation. Any questions of
me?
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not at this time.
Anybody, Members of the Board, have any comment at
this time? I just don't feel at this time that I
am fully enough informed into shooting off my
mouth, it's not the way to go. I want to have
some expert background before I do. As you know,
Pat, I will say this, I am very itchy when it
comes to bluffs, extremely, because our bluffs are
moving they are eroding terribly. The condition
of the bluffs all along Southold town are not in
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
81
1
2
good shape and you start barricading them, and
they become worse, you lose your beach after a
while. So I am extremely concerned about this
project.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: According to Plan B
there will be 50 foot setback from the top of the
bluff to the edge of the house. Whereas the code
says 100 feet, and the question is: Is that a
reasonable difference for a variance given the
fragility of the bluffs, and whatever we get from
pxperts on various sides. There's certainly
nothing automatic about a 50 percent variance, and
presumably somewhere in this world 98 feet would
be required. In some places in this world maybe
10 feet would be required. So that's a matter of
requiring further scrutiny.
MS. MOORE: I think what we are attempting
to do today, you have gotten Tom Kramer's
recommendation, you have also gotten the
pngineer's recommendation, they both have found
that the slope is stable. What they are
recommending is for as far as the future
protection of this slope, it makes sense to ask
the DEC for some type of toe protective structure.
We noticed and that and you will go and notice
yourself that on the beach there are huge
boulders. Those boulders themselves have provided
some natural protective feature.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where did those
boulders come from?
MS. MOORE: Connecticut. We would suggest
adding a couple more that are a lot more
expensive -- we don't suggest another glacial
event. You notice that the property owners to the
west have benefited from wooden bulkheads, and to
the extent that your property ends without a wood
bulkhead, you have to think that ultimately
there's going to be a need for that. There's also
Duck Pond Road, that is a town road that has
caused some erosion on its own, and the water
runoff, the town is creating somewhat of an
erosion problem down at the end of Duck Pond, it's
affecting our property as well. My client is
given the appraisal that you have in your file
that the property is worth $975,000. It's in
pveryone's best interest to make sure that this
property is well protected.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's worth $975,000
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
March 2, 2006
82
1
2
un the assumption that it's buildable.
MS. MOORE: It got a building permit.
Whether or not it has a variance from this Board
will be for someone to decide. But understand --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your building permit
was withdrawn, right?
MS. MOORE: But understand that this Board
has glven variances in the past on setbacks to the
bluff.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The $975,000 has
certain contingencies to support it and those
contingencies are ones that we have to address.
MS. MOORE: But we are prepared to do what
1S necessary to make this Board satisfied that the
property 1S stable and protected. Keeping in mind
that now it looks -- it's worse because we were
prepar1ng to put the sanitary system 1n and once
the sanitary system went in, the retaining walls
would be put in place and that automatically would
stabilize at least the slope along Duck Pond, the
land. So the stop to our construction process has
stopped what would be a normal course of very
quick time frames, so that this property would not
be jeopardized. So we are all very anxious to see
that move forward.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, you have --
MS. MOORE: In fact, what they're pointing
out to me 1S that the sanitary and the retaining
walls, which are wood retaining walls, I think
Mr. Terry thought they might be cement retaining
walls, they're wood, that would have been done by
now. So we're very anxious about having this
progress.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'd like to have the
survey from January 13, 2004.
MS. MOORE: The original, the one that was
submitted originally with the impact.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: January 13, 2004.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Before all the
revisions, Pat.
MS. MOORE: The one that had the retaining
wall inside the coastal zone?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The one before all
the revisions, just the plain survey dated January
13, 2004.
MS. MOORE:
That would have been a vacant
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
land survey.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Then we would like to
March 2, 2006
83
1
5
have it.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
say something?
MS. MCGILL: My name is Laurie McGill, and
[ live opposite where they're planning on
building. The only thing I'm wondering about is
that the other neighbors in front of me have
bulkheading. Would they be allowed to put
bulkheading in in order to save the bluff?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can't answer that at
this point. I know the neighbor right next to
there has bulkheading, but he doesn't have it up
Lo the end of his property. If you notice there's
d gully that's forming right there, and the bluff
is eroding where it's not vegetated.
MS. MCGILL: The only thing that seems to
protect it is the bulkheading.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have also been
able to vegetate it properly and probably
backfilled a lot of that to have some decent soil
Lo put something in.
MS. MCGILL: They have also taken the time
to go down there and plant.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. Pat, I think we
can call a close to this at this point. We'll
adjourn this.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question. It's
not described in any of the documents that I have.
The retaining walls that are being proposed for
the site, can someone explain the way in which
chose wood timbers are anchored to the soil?
MS. MOORE: Sure.
MR. KRAMER: The plan that was
prepared by my office, but which I did
shows fully cribbed wood railroad tie
walls.
Ma'am, you wanted to
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
not
observe,
retaining
20
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Thank you
all for coming in and we'll see you again.
MS. MOORE: Do we have a date for the next
hearing?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 30th at 2:30.
(See minutes for resolution.)
22
23
24
e 25
March 2, 2006
84
1
2
.
C E R T I FIe A T ION
3
5
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 2nd day of March, 2006.
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
March 2, 2006