HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/27/2006 Hearing
1
2
e 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-- 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- 25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STATE OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________x
TOW N
SOU THO L D
o F
Z 0 N I N G
BOA R D
A P PEA L S
o F
____________________________________________x
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
April 27. 2006
9:30 a.m.
Board Members Present
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member
LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
Board Members Absent:
RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
RECEIVED
JUL 1 1 2006
Souil.vid T(,\";n Clerk
~, ",,--
?l g
'''''''. C'J
r$-'
l'"~.it:>, ,...,
IJ",. ....
{I:
W
a.:
".
.~
'"
ii
o.
...
...
o
"
"'
...
o
'"
Cl
Z
Z
o
N
-J
:::>
-.
COlJRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
It
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ladies and
gentlemen, we'd like to welcome everybody here,
this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. The chairperson
is out of the state and I'm going to make the
motion stating that all the applications that are
before us are Type 2 Actions.
(See minutes for resolution.).
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are going to
hold II over, we have one deliberation we need to
do, that is that piece in Peconic. We have the
square footage from the gentleman, we'll hold that
to the end so if they want to get going we can
vote on that.
III. The first hearing on the agenda is
Rose Hajek, Appeal Number 5877.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Agatha Drozdowska, we are
the agent.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
like to tell us, I'll get right to the chase.
What happened here and what caused this whole
situation on to come back to us?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: We had gotten an approval
on reconstruction when we had submitted the plans
after we received our approval from the Zoning
Board for the setback of 31'7" for the front yard,
we had submitted demolition plans along with
proposed construction plans to the Building
Department clearly stating what was to be demoed.
We had proposed a front new entry and two bay
windows coming in on either side of the entry
within the existing footprint of the existing
home. The contractor went beyond demolition of
the existing studs. We had specifically asked for
the studs to remain in place, new studs to be
sistered to them, creating a nine foot ceiling,
which was specified in the building permit.
Unfortunately, the scope of work did go
beyond that, but it did remain within the existing
footprint per se and the proposed additions that
we had proposed. Any work that was performed was
performed still within the approved per se
setbacks. I don't mean to -- you know what I'm
saying.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
referring to the studs around the
the entire house?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Well, the bay window was
Are you
bay windows
or
COUj(:" REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) [178-8047
2
1
2
to be new.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There was no
intention to demolish the entire first floor which
is what happened.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Exactly.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can you tell us in
more detail how this happened? I wrote the
opinion last time and I happen to live about less
than half a mile from there and suddenly this
house is flat and being rebuilt from scratch. Why
did it take until the building inspector came to
yive a routine approval before anybody discovered
that this was drastic? Anyone who was within 100
feet of the property would see that this had been
totally flattened.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Unfortunately for our
office, we are not -- we are responsible to
provide the client and then the Building
Department and the other authorities with the
specific documentation that we have, which we have
done with our construction drawing. From that
moment on it is the responsibility of the
contractor to continue on and follow every step of
that document. Unfortunately, we had received the
phone call and we acted upon it as soon as we
i,eard. I personally have gone to make a field
inspection right after the inspector to justify
basically what was told to us. It came as a shock
to us. The client was not aware of the complete
reconstruction. Some of the studs did remain,
unfortunately not on the front of the wall. It
was on the side wall, which it was not a matter of
a setback, it was not in question, ever. He
should have. The only thing I can explain and I'm
speaking for a contractor. So just what I can
think of happening is it is a difficult task to
sister to existing studs. He has left the
existing sill plate and basically reconstructed,
yes, that's a given. Is it a difficult thing to
do, to sister? Yes. We build as well and we know
what we get from our contractors, but we do have
to follow the rules.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there any
consequences to the contractor for this?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: I don't think so.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He did this with
impunity?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: He did it based on
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
April 27, 2006
3
1
6
judgment.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So he could do the
same thing every time he gets another project.
could simply ignore the plans and the building
permit and do as he sees fit without any
consequences.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: I don't think there's
anything that can be stated besides what asks our
architectural office can put on as notes stating
to notify us of any changes made in the field,
which is a responsibility, but is there anything
we will ever do about these things; is there
anything we can do about it?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is an
enforcement problem for the Town.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: It comes to us when a
ilouse is 70 percent under completion of new work
construction for our office to get a phone call as
such is not appreciated. It is not something that
I anticipate standing in front of a board and
explaining.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I remember when you
came here, it was hard for me to imagine that you
had any idea that you would be back here again.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Neither did the client.
They have windows waiting to be installed. As I
say, it is water under the bridge, unfortunately.
Fortunately, they did not go beyond the setbacks
that were approved, which in our minds to some
point it is somewhat of a relief to the code, and
respect to it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So your
architectural contract does not include site
supervision; you're just providing the working
drawings?
MS. DROZDOWSKA:
whether they want us to
point. It's a separate
basically.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
He
2
.
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
It's up to the client
get involved at some
fee. It is their choice
21
It's not in your
24
contract?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: No.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As the house is
currently framed, is that according to your
specific set of drawings?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: It is exactly to our
specific specifications. We were sistering too,
so in that respect they've done everything we
22
23
.
25
April 27, 2006
1
2
tit
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
4
asked them to do.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But that they did
in fact build the residence as per your working
drawings?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Definitely, 100 percent,
and we have both Frank Notaro, the architect and
myself have gone through the house and everything
that was constructed was constructed as per our
plans.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I don't know,
I think if you have -- if you're going to give
some restriction to applicants, they should follow
them, in all honesty. While you're here, you did
get the variance, the person who made the mistake
is not. And I don't think your explanation is,
quite honestly, good enough. I prefer to hear
from the horse's mouth, and if we're going to put
restrictions on places, I think they should be
followed. And there should be ramifications. And
I don't know what that is, if it's a loss of a
day's work because he has to come in here, then
maybe so be it. That's the way I feel about it.
I understand why it was done. I probably
understand the difficulty even trying to restrict
you to that, and that if you're sistering
something, you're replacing it, really. Let's
face it.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: That's exactly it and I
think that's how he saw it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In all honesty, we
did make that decision. We do make restrictions
on a lot of things and I'd like to see them
,upheld. I'd like to have a more compelling
argument than we tried to sister them and we
couldn't. If you agreed to this application and
you agreed to our decision, it should be followed.
That's really all I have to say. I don't know
what we do, we make you not do it. Do we not give
you the setbacks now? I don't know. But I think
more has to be done then just having a person come
before us. And I understand, you were the one
that applied for it, and you're telling us now
you're not responsible for what they did, right?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would personally
like to speak to the person responsible for that,
but I'm only one vote on the Board.
April 27, 2006
5
1
9
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lastly, I just
want to say that -- and I don't know if I
completely understand and I'm going to leave it at
this particular point -- did the contractor
contact your office to tell you that they were
actually replacing the entire first floor?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As Ms. Weisman
~ays or stated -- and she's here, if I'm doing
chis incorrectly also -- you were not hired by the
<contractor in any way to do anything on this
property other than for the owner of the property
to do the plans and so on and so forth and to
certify those plans which necessitated you to do
so to get the building permit, which you were then
successfully able to do.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
saying she was not hired by
supervise the construction?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. We'll
see if anybody else in the audience would like to
speak either for or against this application? Is
there anybody in the Board that would like to hear
any further testimony?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I believe, Jim,
without being able to talk to the contractors
one could make suppositions about why this was
done, simply because this is efficacious way of
practicing, and the contractor mayor may not have
been informed of -- I would assume the contractor
was informed that per your plans he was
responsible for constructing in a way that was
part renovation and not full demo, but without
that individual here to testify, we have no
further information.
I think you were
the applicant to
2
It
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.
25
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you suggesting
that maybe the hearing should be kept open so we
can get a fuller account of this?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's my
question.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I talk?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we had an
application in East Marion where we brought the
building inspector in; we had this whole big to do
about a contractor coming to the building
21
22
23
24
ApriL 27, :2006
6
1
9
inspector and basically saying, listen, here's
what I have to do before he did it, and he was
left months really trying to figure out what to do
because we were taking our time, and now it's
currently involved in a lawsuit. And I think if
the man made a mistake, then he needs to come
before this Board and testify to the fact. If
perhaps the restriction was not -- the task
c:ouldn't be held because we maybe were too strict,
or it wasn't something he could actually complete,
chen maybe this Board learns from that. Maybe we
shouldn't say a wall could be left if it can't be
left. I don't know what he's going to say to us,
but I do know if we did something that was not
workable, we'll learn from that too. I'd like to
hear what he has to say.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's a further
point, it's not the contractor who is ultimately
accountable, it's the applicant and you're saying
you're not representing the applicant on these
kinds of matters, either the applicant or with
somebody else would have to be representing this
because the contractor is answerable to the
applicant and not directly to the Board. So the
person who ought to be here is not just the
contractor but the applicant herself or some
representative who is authorized to do that. She
may decide to extend your authority to that but I
chink that's what we need.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She could extend
chat authority to the contractor. He would
represent her.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's more
complicated but okay, but it looks like we need to
hear more.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I'm just
throwing it out to you, and that's the way we
should discuss it in these situations. This is a
learning experience for everybody as always. I
don't have about any particular problem -- I have
d problem with the aspect of what he did. But I
have to understand the absolute construction
aspect of what the sistering does to a particular
project, that is the studs are all different sizes
today, everything is different. It's a very
difficult process.
MS. DROZDOWSKA:
negated anything in the
If I may, they have not
construction. Everything
20
21
22
23
e
25
April 27, 2006
7
1
9
that he has done, if I have come in front of you a
few months back and told you that we were
reconstructing this whole entire wall it's a
benefit. Is it a benefit to the code? Yes, it
is. It's a new 2 by 6 wall that is going to get
new insulation. It's all for the better, but the
matter of fact was we were asking for a
nonconforming setback approval. So, yeah, I give
you this and you give me that, that's how it
works. That's being plain honest.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not sure that
had I been on the Board as an architect that I
would recommend sistering studs.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: We have done it on
numerous occasionse
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It can be done, but
I would have had to have seen the documentation to
really look at the structural soundness what the
benefits opposed to the losses, if, in fact, the
final end result is as per permit what we're
talking about -- according to variance -- is
enforcement. We're talking about the fact that a
judgment by this Board was rendered and whether it
was the most appropriate way to proceed or not, it
was nevertheless done, and it was violated, not by
you, not by the applicant, but by the contractor.
The consequences are that to proceed as though
nothing happened, in some way sets a precedent for
the allowability of future inappropriate actions
by a contractor. However, I also see the problem
by the homeowner, and to delay construction is
costly and inconvenient and the end result is
going to be the same regardless. So there's a
real balance between what the right way is to go.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't want to
belabor this topic, but I do want to say this. We
uo have a time slot for about 10 minutes, maybe
you could let us know by lunch time either by
calling the supervisor's office or by coming down
personally and asking us if you could get the
contractor to come in here. Our schedule is so
backlogged -- it's not backlogged, we're backed
up. It's tight. We want to get this matter
rectified, and as you can see, the Board members
do have specific questions, and we're not going to
lay anybody out on the carpet. I'm not going to
let that happen. Nor are the professional people
on this Board ever going to do that. We just want
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
April 2'/, 2006
8
1
5
to find out what caused him to do what he did.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: I respect that decision.
I'll try and get in touch with the homeowner and
"he contractor. Thank you very much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like to make
a resolution to adjourn the hearing until 1:20
this afternoon.
(See minutes for resolution.)
2
e
3
4
6
9
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next application
is for Mr. and Mrs. Monaco. Good afternoon, sir?
'.'vould you like to tell us about your pond?
MR. MONACO: My fish pond was built when
che original house was built. It's on my final
survey that I presented to the Building Department
for my CO. So it's been there since day one.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long ago was
that, sir?
MR. MONACO: Approximately four years ago.
Last year we completed a small extension on the
back of the house, and the problem arose that they
said I needed approval for that fish pond that's
been there since day one. So that's why I'm here
coday.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have not asked
you personally, this happens to be my file so I
have to write the decision on it, which we do by
alpha basis. Do you know what the approximate
circumference is?
MR. MONACO: It's approximately 10 by 12
fish pond.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
maximum depth?
MR. MONACO: Approximately three feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You leave the
fish in there in the winter time?
MR. MONACO: Yes, if the depth were any
less, the fish would freeze and they would die.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that
specifically in the middle of the fish pond?
MR. MONACO: At the deepest point.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the maximum
portion of the fish pond may be only a foot or a
foot and a half?
MR. MONACO: Yes. And the fish pond is
completely fenced in with self-closing gates.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have seen it.
You may not have seen my face down there but --
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
9
1
2
MR. MONACO:
That's why my dog wrecked the
e
house.
6
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We've all seen it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question was
or a comment. Is this whole appearance before us
is because the Town code in its virtue has decided
co classify a fish pond as a swimming pool?
MR. MONACO: Unless you're dead you
"ouldn't swim with the fish.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know.
~wimming in it, that seems to be the
'.ve I re here.
The
only
fish are
3
4
5
7
reason
8
9
MR. MONACO: You cannot misconstrue this
dS a swimming pool, with the landscaping I
submitted pictures with the landscaping, you can't
used it to swim.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it was a
ceflecting pool 4 by 4 -- actually, I don't know
"hat the code says is the minimum size of a
swimming pool, it seems to me that this is not a
hard case for us.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's a very
small percentage of this fish pond which
technically goes from your rear yard extending out
the shallow part into technically your side yard.
It's an accessory structure that supposed to be in
the rear yard.
MR. MONACO: I'm a little confused because
I'm on a corner, and they're telling me I have two
front yards. What I consider property in the back
of a house is always considered a rear yard to my
way of thinking. I just don't know how this
ruling goes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My comment is that
your landscaping is very attractive.
MR. MONACO: We try to make it -- and also
protect it from outsiders.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's well screened
dnd well fenced.
MR. MONACO: And we even have netting over
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
it.
23
BOARD MEMBER
visible, by the way.
are close to it.
MR. MONACO:
WEISMAN: And it is not
It's only visible when
you
24
You can't see it from either
e
25
front.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I want to say
April 27, :2006
10
1
5
for the record and for Mr. Simon's benefit, the
issue is not is it a swimming pool, the issue here
is it is a structure.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. And my follow
up question is then what is a structure is whether
a bird bath is a structure, I don't know.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it's a lake
(Jr a huge pond, in my particular opinion, it' s a
cotructure, man-made. In this particular case, in
lilY particular opinion it is not a structure.
Hr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: After an hour on
the phone with Pat Conklin, I finally deduced
exactly what the problem is. And the problem is
that it's deeper than a pond that you would
normally have. In other words, a kid could drown
in it basically, that's why Gary Fish denied it.
It's really a safety concern with the building
inspectors. Yeah, it's all fenced in and that's
well and good, and I think you're probably just
going to need to put a self-closing door that
faces that.
MR. MONACO: He did tell me how to remedy
chat problem.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you'll be well
within Gary's concerns, the Building Inspector's,
concerns. I just wish he had told you to do that
and walked away because now we're faced with every
fish pond in town being --
MR. MONACO: I'm sorry if I opened up a
can of worms.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the record, Joe
and I are pretty good friends, and he's actually a
customer of my company but has no financial
concern. I feel no compulsion one way or the
other how this goes, the decision. But that's
what got you here. Mr. Fish saw the definition of
a swimming pool, deep, a child could drown in it
and that's what started the whole situation.
Beyond that, beyond whether this is a structure or
not, he was talking about having to build a deck
all the way around it, make it part of the house.
No, Joe, just want you to know, I don't think this
Board's going to go that way. I'm hoping that
"omehow just grant the pond and just restrict it
co have the doors and gates be self-closing, which
[ know you did because I've been in there plenty
of times, and not go beyond the scope of trying to
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
Apri~ 27,DOG
11
1
e
3
find this other than just this is some water in
"he ground.
MR. MONACO: I told him I would put the
~elf-closing latches on the extension doors.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just like a
:3wimming pool. If you made it shallower, I was
trying to --
MR. MONACO: To protect the fish in the
~inter time it has to be a certain depth.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I
asked the question.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the reason
why the building inspector denied it because he
:3aw a swimming pool and the fact that a child
could go out and -- everybody needs these
self-closing doors.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
!1onaco. I s there anyone here to
particular application?
MS. NORTON: Angela Norton, Southold. I'm
Joe's neighbor and I have to say that I have not
seen in a very long time such a beautiful piece of
property with care taken to everything, and I just
~m not in opposition to what he's done. I didn't
hear the beginning of the meeting so I can't state
what it is, but I'm in favor of what he's done and
if he has to change it, I'm sure he will.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is
chere anybody else that would like to speak for or
against this application?
MS. MOORE: I'm going to agree with you,
please don't define this as a structure, please
don't define this as a pool. The code
specifically says what a pool is, and it's based
on the angle, the depth and so on. I'd hate to
see people coming to the Zoning Board for
variances for landscaping, which is what this is.
The Building Department would have had the
authority I think under the state building code,
,f you think it needs some safety features like
fencing, they could have done it; it doesn't need
LO come before this Board to get interpretations
beyond what the code says. As far as structure
goes, I know when Bill was on the Board they
specifically redefined the term "structure" so
Lhat things that are common sense, a building that
is being supported, that's a structure. You don't
make everything a structure, which was the old
Thank you, Mr.
speak on this
2
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
12
1
e
3
definition, just a combination of materials. Now
it's beyond that. It has to be some kind of -- I
bate to use that same word -- but a structure that
,natches more the building code definition of what
d structure is.
So I'm glad that at least the two that
~xpressed an opinion here that you're not morphing
chis into -- as much as I love coming before you
lnd lots of business that it generates -- I hate
to see the code grow into anything that it isn't.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands,
['d like to make a motion to close the hearing and
,'eserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
2
4
5
6
7
R
9
10
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
for Mr. and Mrs. Sinopoli, Appeal
How are you, sir? Could you tell
doing?
Next appeal is
Number 5876.
us what you're
11
12
MR. SINOPOLI: Attaching my house to my
garage, and we had a setbacks variance because
Lt's under 50 feet if I'm not mistaken,
approximately 37 feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is also my
application. So I'm going to let the Board speak
first and then if I have any questions,
Ms. Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good morning, sir.
i'Jo, I really don't have a question because it's
Iery clear that the connection that you're making
with this, it makes the garage instead of being
accessory where the setback would have been fine,
dil attached structure. So you need a variance for
:~hat rear yard, which is a very large rear yard
"nd there's virtually no consequential difference
in terms of impact between it being attached and
connected. It's a very straightforward situation
where, in my opinion, a variance is well within
reason.
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Me too, that's all
1 have to say.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
,"lse who would like to speak for or against this
application? I'd like to make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
23
24
.
25
April 27, '006
13
1
2
(See minutes for resolution.)
.
3
5
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
tor Henry Galizia, Appeal Number 5871. What would
you like to tell us?
MR. GALIZIA: My name is Henry Galizia. I
live at 1 Bay Club Drive in Bayside, New York, and
I'm also the owner of the subject property, which
is 190 Gillette Drive in East Marion. I'm here
today to seek two variances. The first one is for
a front yard variance from a 35 foot required
setback to a proposed 31.8 setback to construct a
new eight foot wide by five foot deep covered
~ntry stoop; and the second one is for a rear yard
variance from a 35 foot required setback to a
proposed 30.36 foot proposed setback. This is in
order to construct a new 15' by 8" wide and 12' by
4" deep rear dining room that's off the existing
kitchen. Would you like to know more about the
property itself?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MR. GALIZIA: The subject property has a
one story dwelling with three bedrooms and an
attached two car garage. I propose to extend
approximately three feet of the first floor to
square off the existing living room and add a new
~ight foot wide by five foot deep covered entry.
Out the rear I propose to add a 15 by 8 and 12 by
4 dining room, since the existing dining room is
~liminated with the increased size of the living
room. The existing master bedroom will be
relocated to a new second floor rear addition with
a new master bathroom. I really believe that the
improvement I propose will not only increase the
value of my home but the neighboring houses on
Gillette Drive. It's being very tastefully done.
I work in an architectural firm and the architect
that will be working on it has a very keen eye and
, respectfully request the variance be granted.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I
uon't have any objection to the application, as
you know, and as you ride up and down Gillette
Drive west and east you will see there are a
garden variety of signs for this Board because of
the depth of the properties that exist on that
block, pretty shallow, but that has no bearing on
this application in my opinion. Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
tit
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
tit
25
April 27, :2006
14
1
2
just to ask for a reiteration of this, the reason
[or the reduction of the rear setback is simply
because the property is only just over 100 feet
deep.
e
3
5
MR. GALIZIA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is behind your
property, another property, right?
MR. GALIZIA: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they presumably
nave been notified?
MR. GALIZIA: They have been notified
.md I spoke to the neighbor and he didn't indicate
U1Y problems. I described what I was doing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Great, no further
questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No further
questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We were there, it's
very clear what your intentions are, and what's
important to note is your existing lot coverage is
only 15 percent and when you add the additional,
~ccording to the building envelope, you're still
at only 17 percent lot coverage, so it's quite a
Inodest proposition. I have no objection.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
else in the audience that would like to speak in
favor or against this application?
I'd like to make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
Lor Cheryl Feld and Jon Margolis, Number 5875.
Would you kindly state your name for the
20
record?
21
MR. MARGOLIS: Jon Margolis.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What could you
tell us?
22
MR. MARGOLIS: Essentially, we don't have
a fish pond, but we are hoping to put a pool in in
I guess our side yard. We don't have a rear yard
~ccording to the code, four front yards.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You actually
have three front yards.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Four it says here.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Four, you're
23
24
.
25
ApriJ 27, ;!006
15
1
2
right.
5
MR. MARGOLIS: Given the wooded nature of
the rest of the property, we chose to put the pool
where we could put the pool.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have not been
a great supporter, I have to be honest with you,
)f pools this close to the road; however, I did go
'lown, I've been down there twice, and it's a very
dnique piece of property, there's no question
dbout it. Secondly, the turning radius off the
road would not mean that a car would end up in
chat pool assuming a car became awry in some way,
manner or form. So therefore, I'll just go to my
colleagues. Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually walk by
your house all the time down Soundview, we're
neighbors. You've done a lot of nice
improvements. It was not staked out so I
requested our office to contact Swim King, and it
really just -- we were looking at it in terms of
where the guide wires were from the telephone pole
LO get a sense of where you were proposing to do
it. And as I looked at the property I realized, I
'..muld prefer to have it a little closer, on the
other hand, when I look at the terrain and see
that you're beginning to enter into a very sloping
condition, additional grading that creates more
problems that it solves, which is the case, it
~eems reasonable. However, I have to say that I
took a tape with me, and in the stake out that I
did see, it really wasn't exactly the way the
drawing is on your survey. One end was way
narrower than the other end. But nevertheless,
it does indicate precisely where it's going to
be. And given the fact that I imagine you're
going to extend some forsythia or whatever you're
going to put there for screening, there's a
minimum number of trees that would have to come
down on this site, and it seems a reasonable place
tor it in my opinion.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would have a
question/comment. When I saw the property it
hadn't yet been staked out, and quite frankly, it
wasn't clear to me what the best place for that
pool would be because the terrain is somewhat
uneven and I guess there is an assumption I shared
this with Mr. Goehringer is, other things being
equal, pools that are close to the front yard are
.
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, ~!006
16
1
5
not as desirable as pools that are farther from
the front yard. I would personally be a lot
l1appier if somehow when it is staked out, it would
not be so close to the road partly for reasons of
simply the precedent. More and more people are
"pplying to have pools in the front yard rather
chan the traditional back yard place, and even
.]creening alone may not be sufficient in some
veople's judgment. So I would be inclined to want
Lo ask further whether it would be possible to
move the pool farther away from the road and still
'onsistent with the tree cutting and grading and
.'0 forth that would be necessary for the project?
MR. MARGOLIS: We also looked at the
property to get the pool farther away because we
didn't want to be so close to the road. But there
LS the slope right a few feet away from the road,
~way from where the pool is now placed, and it
yoes down and then we would have to put a
retaining wall in or something to move the pool
there. Just that where it is sited, there are no
houses across the street from it. They're
slightly on either side so there's not someone
Jirectly across the street from it. And it is set
back on a little slope, so when we do the
plantings around the property and around the pool,
which we're going to be doing, it really, I hope
ror my sake it won't be visible to passersby.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think if you go
back, it's because we were there the same day it's
because I live so close it's easy for me to go
back. I think now there's some orange paint, it's
farther away than what it looked like it was going
LO be. However, Mr. Goehringer just pointed out a
possibility that seems reasonable, I don't have
the contra intervals, the corner of your house
dlong Birch is set back 22'8"; is it possible to
scoot the pool over another two feet or so? So
Lt's set back the same as the house.
MR. MARGOLIS: Rather than the 18?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. If that would
not be a problem for you, so it would conform to
ehe house setback is on that one of the four front
yards; is that sensible?
MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
l1:uestions.
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
Apri~ 27, .2006
17
1
9
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you are
going to put some plantings in front of the pool?
I know you had a discussion with Mr. Simon.
MR. MARGOLIS: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool will
never be enclosed. It will not be a creation of
.my other type of structure that you may come
before this Board?
MR. MARGOLIS: No, just the standard
fencing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We
do have a hand up over here.
MS. GLUCK: Hi, my name is Lisa Gluck and
1 live at 445 Weslyn Road, which is on the corner
of Birch and Weslyn, so I am one of the houses
across from you. My concerns are simply what you
stated. My husband and I we went out, we
measured. I feel it's too close to the road, and
1 did have some questions about plantings and
privacy. If it was set back a bit, I'd feel a
little more comfortable. We have been there nine
years and we have been spoiled, and I do
understand it is your property and they should be
able to do what they want to do with it, I just
think it's too close to the road. My kids play
there, and I can see the ball going over. So that
would be fine with me screening and further from
the road.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you,
anyone else like to speak? Seeing no hands, I'd
like to 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
16
17
18
-------------------------------------------------
e
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
tor the Sweeneys. Number 5865.
MR. LENHERT: Rob Lenhert. What we're
proposing here is to construct a second story
addition with covered porches and open porches
over an existing house. There's an existing
one-story residence on the site. It's
approximately 1,384 square feet. We're proposing
to build second story additions of approximately
903 square feet on the main portion of the house.
With that we have another approximately 125 square
toot covered porch and 147 square foot open porch
on top of the existing dwelling. The only
addition we're putting on the existing dwelling
19
20
21
22
23
24
April 27, ~;006
18
1
9
outside the footprint is a proposed open portico
un the front door that's in the front yard. But
other than that we propose always to remain open,
we're basically building on top of the existing
house. That's one of the reasons we're here. The
lot's small, the house is where it is.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a
tear-down also?
MR. LENHERT: No, the existing house.
We're just taking the roof off. The first floor
,,,as renovated about three years ago. So the roof
cs the only thing coming off.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That 10'6" that
exists on the what we're referring to as the
southeasterly property line will remain in effect
and will remain open?
MR. LENHERT: Yes. The screen porch below
lS still to remain; the screen porch and above it
chat's going to be the covered porch.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the cover
over the porch would be the four foot -- you said
that's four foot, right; it's a four foot
reduction?
MR. LENHERT: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any
questions. Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have any
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
remaining virtually the same just
MR. LENHERT: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question is more a
cechnical question for Mr. Goehringer. Since the
structure is 44 feet from the bulkhead and will
continue to be is that more of a burden on that
reduced setbacks by having a second story on that
size of the house, that is, increasing the size
and weight of the building upward, whether that is
an issue or not.
Miss Weisman?
Footprint is
going up?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR. LENHERT: You mean the weight on the
building itself?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The weight on the
building itself. Clearly, if you were 10 feet
back on the bulkhead nonconforming, and you put a
second story on it, that would be a problem. And
whether 40 feet makes it exempt from that kind of
24
e
25
April 27, .!006
19
1
e
3
consideration is my only question. It's an
~ngineering question.
MR. LENHERT: Engineering-wise it's far
enough back that we're not going to disturb any of
that up there.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The load is
,ccraight down anyway and since you're not
,iisrupting the existing foundation I can't see
there's a substantial amount of difference. I'm
not an engineer.
MR. LENHERT: We dug around the foundation
co see if it was there; and there is a foundation
under the house.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Architecturally
there should be no greater burden. The foundation
is sound enough to build a second story, there's
no impact, other than a visual impact on the
neighbors, bulk, but there's no structure.
MR. LENHERT: The bulkhead is rather new
also, I think four years ago. And usually when
chey put those new bulkheads in, if it's going to
settle, it would have happened already. And if
you look in the back yard, you see no evidence of
chat.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Were the current
applicants in the house before the bulkhead was
built?
15
16
MR. LENHERT: No. They bought the house
dud then had the bulkhead built.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
Anybody else like to speak in favor or against
chis application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
17
18
19
20
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
for Biel Associates and Gaton Criblez, Number
S855. The next appeal was an appeal that was
recessed from the prior regularly scheduled
meeting. I guess we would like to call on the
attorney, Mr. Cuddy. Good morning Mr. Cuddy, how
are you?
MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy for the
applicant. You have some new surveys and I'll
give you some additional ones, if I may. I
~pologize for the delay. I didn't realize that
\'OU were moving forward at this rate. I was here
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 7006
20
1
9
on March 30 for the applicant and at that time we
,;ere asked on this 16,000 square foot lot to move
the house, if we could, to move the envelope for
the house and also to make it a little bit
smaller. I think we have accomplished both of
those matters. Made the house from 50 to 30 in
uimension to 40 to 30, so we have cut off 10 feet
crom the house. We have moved the house so it
virtually is on the west side of the property as a
"ide yard, that's correct; it now is 75 feet back
trom the bulkhead. So we don't need that
iariance, which was one of the two variances that
we originally requested. So the only variance
we're asking for now is in the rear yard, which is
31 feet instead of 35 feet. In fact, that
variance doesn't go the whole length of the house,
it only goes for about 20 feet because the house
c~ on an angle. So we're really asking not simply
an 11 percent variance but we're asking even for
less because it's roughly 80 square feet that's in
Lhat area that's 31 foot from the back line. So
it's a fairly small variance.
We believe that we have complied with the
request of the Board. We have moved the house.
We have made it smaller. We have lessened the
variance requirement. We don't think we have any
more alternatives that we could bring to play. We
believe that certainly this is not a self-created
situation. The lot's been in existence for more
than 60 years. We think again it's not a
substantial variance. We don't think that the
impact on the neighbors has significance at this
point, and we ask the Board to approve this
variance that we ask for, which is simply the four
feet in the back yard.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We thank you for
doing that Mr. Cuddy. Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The response to the
questions raised last time is substantial. I
mean, this is not a trivial alteration. And it
certainly from our point of view is a move in the
eight direction.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think this is
really substantial improvement and I appreciate it
very much. It seems like a real level of
cooperation and understanding on the impact of the
neighbors. Mr. Cuddy, did you in any way consult
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
ApriL 27, )(J06
21
1
2
with the neighbors in doing this?
MR. CUDDY: We sent them a copy and I
understand they have a response.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They received an
e
3
4
update?
5
MR. CUDDY:
BOARD MEMBER
somebody to speak to
BOARD MEMBER
BOARD MEMBER
Yes.
WEISMAN: I'll wait for
see if I have any questions.
GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
DINIZIO: I have no
6
7
(lUestions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know,
Mr. Cuddy, in these situations in an established
community, you've been before this Board for many,
many years and we appreciate your assistance in
dll situations that you're always willing to do.
However, in taking care of one thing,
unfortunately other things crop up, and that is
the ability of water view, and that's a very
difficult thing to deal with in this day and age
and we do share those problems with the specific
neighbors. However, it's difficult to prevail on
all situations.
MR. CUDDY: We have tried to mitigate the
problem as best we could.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'll see what
develops. Is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor or against this application?
MS. MOORE: Thank you, on behalf of
Ms. Breen, we also want to thank the owner and
Mr. Cuddy. This is a far improved plan that we
just have some comments on, but for the most part,
it is a good plan.
The one concern that we had -- there are a
couple of concerns and I'll go over them item by
item, but this is a very good plan with respect to
the location of the house. But we suspect that we
may have created some animosity with the owner and
therefore he might be inclined to put up a spite
fence or a hedge that would essentially cut off
any open space that has been enjoyed and really
the neighborhood honors that is open space that
people do not -- they treat each other
respectfully, and they try to keep fences to a
minimum and high shrubs to a minimum so that it
keeps that feel in the community; that has been
voluntarily imposed throughout this community but
uur concern is that in this instance Mr. Dinizio
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
22
1
e
3
~aised it the last time, we were here and it
caused some acida to my client, is that all he
needs to do is put up a spite fence, and now we're
back where we started.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I stop you
here? Are there any C and Rs in the subdivision?
MS. BREEN: My name is Paula Breen.
Originally by William Wells the builder, and those
C and Rs expired in 1978. They were for the
:original development of the neighborhood and what
they could and couldn't do in terms of height of
!IOUSe and clothes lines and things like that,
:"hrubbery, up until 1978 it was a 20 year thing
crom the time the buildings were built.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there an
dssociation?
MS. BREEN: Yes, there is.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That association
never attempted to adopt or to further extend
them?
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MS. MOORE: So that's one issue, certainly
you have that authority given they're getting a
variance to try to keep the goal in mind on
placement of the house. We don't want to undo it
with respect to fencing and shrubs.
Another point that the survey doesn't
show, and I don't know if he has another survey
that does, there's no indication of where the
driveway or where the car's going to be. We
understand, at least my question to Mr. Cuddy is
LS there decking or a garage here other than what
is shown, and he advised me that there isn't. So
we have this plan, and as long as that's what the
owner is asking for, that's fine.
Another issue that came up last time,
there is no 280A with respect to this application.
Specifically, the sanitary system, my client's
sanitary system is right on the edge of the right
or way. Also the driveway is serving the two
llouses, there's no indication of what kind of
improvements and how during construction or post
construction my client's property is going to be
cestored. So through the 280A process, I'm hoping
there can be some consideration of restoration
here because construction sites are generally very
aggressive, and this is at the end, this right of
way is somewhat blocked on the end, and the trucks
are going to have a real hard time making the
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27,,006
23
1
2
~ngle for delivery of materials. So the reality
is they're going to be, they're probably going to
cut the corner on my client's property and most
likely damaging the sanitary. And we want to have
some protection, God forbid that they crush the
sanitary and we have effluent now outside of the
,]anitary. So that's a serious concern my client
has raised.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think, and I
!lave to tell you, Pat, that I have never, ever
~sked this to be done. It's really quite amazing
that you raise this issue, and I know you did
before, but you need to stake the most farthest
corner of those sanitary systems as they perceive
to be either on your client's property or in the
right of way. That's not a sarcastic statement.
MS. MOORE: Actually there's a flower pot
on top of it to protect it physically.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You need to
stake the farthest most point, the edge of that
system.
MS. MOORE: Given the fact that this
property owner has to make sure that he doesn't
damage it, I would think his surveyor should be
identifying where it is so his contractors don't
damage it. So it seems to be a burden that that
property owner should undertake to protect the
site, and to make sure that his agents don't
damage it for his own liability's sake. Whoever
does it, it should be staked. I agree with you
with respect to that. But generally, it's the
contractor, the builder who wants to make sure
he's using the right property lines when he's
clearing and cutting driveways and the rest.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know my
opinions and we have discussed this in prior
dpplications, I don't care who has title to the
property, that doesn't mean that I don't feel
'30rry for them and I'm not concerned about them.
In this particular case we haven't determined what
the 280A requirements are going to be and they
have not been denied for 280A this particular
plan; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: I don't know what the Building
Department is going to determine here.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If it's a
matter of we're concerned that they may come onto
uur property and damage it, that's a little
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
April 27, :'006
24
1
2
3peculative and anticipatory. You might want to
do whatever it is you need to do to protect your
property and talk to the applicant about
cooperating in that regard. I don't know that
this Board is going to anticipate that they're
going to come onto your property and damage it,
and that we should do anything to prophylactically
prevent that?
MS. MOORE. If you end up with a 280A
application, I know it will be addressed. If it
csn't through a 280A, I'm hoping through their
~ttorney that he will advise his client.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can work
it out together, perhaps.
MS. MOORE: That's fine, but we're raising
that issue because we're pointing out that we have
a situation here.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, if
Mr. Cuddy will accept 280A requirements, and I
usually do the requirements for the Board, those
will be minimum requirements for a driveway, I am
not big on macadam anywhere near the water, I have
to tell you that, I have never been and never will
be. So we could incorporate that in this
application. And I'm seeing a nod.
MR. CUDDY: The answer is yes.
MS. MOORE: That's great. So if that's a
part of this application then you can protect the
sanitary.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. And those
specifications will be for one house and one house
only so they will not be extensive, lavish.
MS. MOORE: It should be a driveway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what it
will be.
MS. MOORE: This plan doesn't show the dry
'vells. I'm assuming that the Trustees condition
of dry wells was imposed, typically they are.
MR. CUDDY: No.
MS. MOORE: Given that you end up with
water runoff issues, I would ask that the Board
consider placing conditions that the roof runoff
Lssues will be addressed with dry wells. I think
that is generally required by the water and given
the proximity of the properties and their room,
you can end up with water that goes onto the
neighbor's property. Probably a good idea to have
anyway, but we would ask that you put it in the
.
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
April 27, 2006
25
1
2
decision.
We also want to point out that we tried to
work something out with Mr. Cuddy, but I'm not
sure that it will be. There is an aerial
~hotograph of this property, and we do have, as
~ell as some other property owners in the area,
ilave prescriptive rights that we have
historically -- this owner and prior owners, as
'dell as some other property owners in this area
~ave been using an access to the beach, to Peconic
Gay, through a -- previously it was a right of way
chat was mapped as part of the road system, and
then the road system when Gin Lane was built out,
the road was relocated, extinguished and relocated
but the access remained for recreational
~urposes. We have claimed it; we want to make
sure you're aware of it again with the placement
of the house, it becomes your decision, it's 10
feet off the property line, which I believe is
compliant anyway. We just want to make sure
you're aware of it. The photograph will be part
of your file.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Asking Mr. Cuddy
a question. Mr. Cuddy does your client's deed
reflect any cloud on it to reflect this right of
way?
It
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
MR. CUDDY: It doesn't.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: A prescriptive
easement wouldn't be reflected in any document
ocher than a court decision. Pat, what exactly
are you asking for?
MS. MOORE: We just want to make sure that
you have knowledge that we have that claim that we
have a prescriptive right. with respect to the
location of the house you have 10 feet off the
property line there will be continued pedestrian
access down to the water. We have tried to work
something out that it will be on record since we
have the right of way -- they're relying on the
water line through the right of way, kind of
issues whether the right of way allows a water
line to be run and we have a proscriptive right
chat we try to enforce.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN:
that the applicant is conceding any
rights?
I don't expect
prescriptive
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
MR. CUDDY:
MS. MOORE:
Absolutely right.
Probably no. But we are
Aprii 27, ""'1I06
26
1
2
putting it on record for the purposes of at least
putting the owner on notice.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board
can, if it wishes, 'can consider that issue but
it's by no means required to acknowledge that sort
of claim.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Since it's not
indicated, obviously, a prescriptive easement, is
It to the east or west?
MS. MOORE: Left side.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: West.
MS. MOORE: A prior survey, I think the
~urvey submitted to the Trustees, had a right of
way showing on that survey, but it was eliminated.
So I think they came to the conclusion, well, we
"an take it off.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They can.
There's nothing requiring them to show it unless
it's documented anywhere, which apparently it
Lsn't.
e
3
4
,-
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore,
before you sit down is there anything else that
you in representing your client has spoken to
Mr. Cuddy about that we should know about that we
could incorporate within this decision that was
agreed upon? The fencing aspect is still the
issue that's up in the air. The question is was
there any agreement, any feelings regarding that
in discussing that with Counsel, who is present
with us today?
MS. MOORE: I don't know. He hasn't
stated that his client is willing not to put up a
fence or shrubs. Any other questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. You raised a
couple things. Number one, I'm trying to wonder,
what is an existing sanitary system doing in the
right of way, and how does that affect in
~entleman's access to his property?
MS. MOORE: That's a legal opinion. With
respect to my opinion on this is that this house
was built and the aerial will show it, it was
built 1958 or so, that right of way was there but
it was more of a driveway. They created a 20 foot
l-ight of way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it is a right
13
e
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
of way?
25
MS. MOORE:
with the use of the
Yeah.
right
It's not interfering
of way with respect to
April 27, :,006
27
1
2
nim being able to go over it. Realistically, you
don't generally open up a right of way 20 feet in
width. The placement of the sanitary back in the
u1d days, it may have been the surveyor, or it may
llave been off, who knows. I'm not even sure the
Health Department had any review with respect to
the sanitary at the time, it was placed.
Eyeballing at the time in '58 things were done
differently. That's where it is. At least it was
located by this surveyor, probably for Health
~epartment purposes you usually have to show where
lour neighboring sanitary, and in this case it's
public water but prior to the extension of public
water, had you wells and sanitary that were shown.
We don't have an obligation to relocate it. The
property is my client's property, that they have a
right to cross over it to get to theirs but the
property remains my client's.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With respect to
your question that the applicant do something
extraordinary --
MS. MOORE: In what respect is that
extraordinary?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO. No. I'm wondering
if the applicant couldn't ask you to relocate it.
lou're asking him to take preventative measures,
ur we would restrict him to take preventative
measures to get on his right of way because you
llave a septic system there on his right of way.
MS. BREEN: It's not on the right of way.
It's on the edge of the right of way, sorry.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we don't have to
restrict this gentleman to anything, if someone
trespasses on your property, you have to deal with
chat.
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MS. MOORE: It remains our property.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say the sheetrock
truck comes in and falls into their cesspool
because he went on their property off the right of
way. That's a problem.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not a
problem for this Board to solve.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correct.
MS. MOORE: That will be a private action,
21
22
23
24
e
yes.
25
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
that you would like to ask the
But I heard you say
applicant to take
April 27, ~!l1l16
28
1
2
some measure to guard against that?
MS. MOORE: Identifying for his
contractors, we have a flower pot on it. We're
hoping the contractors won't go over a flower pot,
but we don't know, if it's covered in three feet
of snow, they may not see it. So they may truck
right over everything. It's just protective for a
contractor to know where things are. If there's a
tree there, it's whatever. They are going to
'clear a path hopefully that's going to be adequate
cor their contractors to use, but we're hoping
that everybody that works on this house is mindful
of the fact that there is a sanitary ring right on
the edge of that right of way. And again, 280A,
when you're looking at access and you're looking
at what kind of improvements to make, if he were
crying to put Belgian blocks over that ring, I
don't think that would go very well. They have a
right to use the right of way, but at the same
time, they're not supposed to damage our property.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I be perfectly
honest here?
MS. MOORE: Never have to worry about
that, yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see a person who
has a sanitary system on the right of way,
standing on their front yard with their arms
crossed, refusing to mark it in any way so
something can happen. So why can't you just take
a yellow ribbon tape out there. They know what
they want to protect. I don't think the guy who's
building the house or Riverhead Building Supply or
whoever comes in there needs to be worried about
this sanitary system. So take some yellow tape.
MS. MOORE: That's a wonderful suggestion.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's their
responsibility. I don't see where we should be
requiring him because he wants to move his house
10 feet from a property line to go 300 feet away
and mark something that quite honestly he has a
right to go on.
MS. MOORE: He's got a surveyor to come
out and do footings throughout the whole
construction period, a surveyor's going to be out.
Particularly when you have zoning variances, a
surveyor is out there day one, if any contractor
knows what he's doing, he's going to mark out the
footprint they can work with so he doesn't build
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
April 27, 2006
29
1
2
che house in violation of the zoning variance.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't quite
understand why this is a concern of the Board, why
we're talking about it this morning.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We need to
.
3
4
Hlove on.
5
MS. MOORE: You can choose to incorporate
whatever you feel is reasonable in your
decision. One of the things is the restoration of
the client's property, to make sure that the
driveway isn't left a big mud pie, okay. Those
,ire the kinds of things that you have to worry
~bout and the Building Department would look to.
30 I'm asking you to use a little bit of cornmon
,cense when you're writing the decision that gives
protection to everybody, both the owner knows what
his limitations, requirements are and that
Ms. Breen knows, hey, they're going to be
careful. I think that's normal cornmon sense and
you incorporate it into decisions all the time.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's always been
~ lot of cornmon sense in the decisions that I've
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
seen.
.
14
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think asking this
80ard to require that I think is just a little too
much, when honestly, they could park their car
[here so no one could go. There's plenty of ways
to mark that if they're concerned about their
system, and I think that would be a neighborly
thing to do. What if a surveyor makes a mistake.
A lot of things can go wrong when the person that
~s building this house and the --
MS. MOORE: We'll stake it and then his
surveyor can verify it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Stake it out. My
God, if a truck runs it over then you can say
didn't you see the yellow tape?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A number of issues
that have been raised are essentially what are
part and parcel of what it means to be a
respectful neighbor. And I have every reason to
believe based on the reasonableness of this
changed survey, reduction in size, reduction in
variance requested and so on, that this applicant
and Counsel are extremely reasonable people and
~re making very good faith efforts to have the
least impact possible on a very difficult site for
the neighbors. I don't see any reason why that
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
30
1
2
show of good faith shouldn't continue.
MS. MOORE: I hope that's the case.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason you're a
lawyer is because lawyers try to put in writing
things to make sure that good faith is well
cepresented and respected. So I think we'll take
chat as advice --
e
3
4
5
6
BOARD
'Jne ques tion.
casement?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
My other one is
Beyond that,
prescriptive
that's
7
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
writing? Is there anything in
we have the right?
MS. MOORE: The history of this property
"s that the property was originally conveyed by
will to the family and that will set forth that
the right of ways were actually specifically
identified before Gin Lane was built out. That
camily went and developed the property. I think
LC was Dickerson that was the developer of this
whole property, I'm sorry, Wells. When Wells
built out the subdivision, when he built Gin Lane,
there was another document that said we can
eliminate these right of ways to a limited extent,
:3ome were still required like the one that gave
access to these two lots. That right of way the
road system was extinguished and relocated to Gin
Lane. From prior to that relocation there was use
and from the photographs you can see it because
there was a little fishing shack at the end of it,
there was use of this access to the water for
recreational purposes and the rest. That
continued over time and has continued through my
clientls prior owner and this owner because
obviously you get to the water between the
property lines. My client could go through the
property to the water because there was no house
there, but for the most part the others that used
it pretty much stayed on the edge of the access
where it has historically been, so that's the
prescriptive right we've claimed and we're just
informing you that that's where it is so when you
look at the location of the house, location's fine
~s far as you're concerned given that there's a
pedestrian right for people to walk, not a car,
nothing, The old right of way had for cars any
and all purposes, that's the title history here.
There's
writing
nothing in
that says
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, :'006
31
1
2
So that's the historic.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're claiming
something but I have nothing in writing.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If I can
explain very quickly. They have a claim to a
prescriptive easement, they don't have any
easement that's documented or held up by any
court. It's by use. If I walk over your property
for 20 years, I may claim that I had have a
continual right to do so. You can dispute it and
it's never resolved unless a court says, yes, I
do. So they're claiming they do. The applicant
lS probably not agreeing to that and this Board is
[jot empowered to resolve that dispute.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not offering
chat as --
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN:
you to consider it.
MS. MOORE: Just keep in mind that that's
the position we've taken and we're putting them on
notice.
She's asking
11
12
13
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
do with our decision.
MS. MOORE: It's part of a fact pattern
that you look at when you're considering
clpplication.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Making it part of
It has nothing to
e
14
15
16
the record?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, we'll
wrap up with you, can I go and see if there's
clnybody that would like to speak on this
clpplication? Seeing no hands, Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY: I can appreciate advocacy on
uehalf of a client, and I've been doing this for
more than 25 years, but I have never heard so many
irrelevancies having to do with an area variance.
We're asking for a four foot area variance. We
were before the Town Trustees last year. The same
woman appeared before the Town Trustees. We were
before you on March 30th; they appeared then. No
Loention was ever made of a prescriptive easement,
for the record. In fact, until 10 minutes before
this hearing, no mention was made. It was made to
me in the hall for the first time. I'm troubled
by that. I am also letting you know on the record
that this lot is shown as a lot on the filed map,
the lot in back of us we're talking about. This
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, :,006
32
1
2
lot is not shown as part of the filed map. It was
created by Wells prior in time to the filed map,
which was 1959. On the filed map it shows this
easement coming right to the northerly line of our
vroperty, just as it shows on the survey. And I'm
tcroubled a great deal by talking about
prescriptive easements, by talking about us going
over cesspools or sanitary systems. There has
Deen nothing that my client has done that shows
chat he has an animus towards her in any fashion.
And I'm troubled by them creating facts to you --
and I think they're creating facts -- that really
shouldn't be part of your decision. And I don't
know why it's being done, and I'm upset as a
lawyer that time is being taken. So I'm not going
co take any more time. But I'm troubled by your
being asked to I think put things in a decision
that have no bearing on an area variance at all,
and I just ask that you consider that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, I am
aware of the fact that several issues have come up
that are not germane to this area variance, and
you are absolutely correct. However, specific
legal statements were made in reference to this
prescriptive easement and Board members had
questions. That's the reason we continued and
that's the reason why you saw me get up and
discuss it with the Town attorney. Hearing no
further comment, I'd like to make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
e
3
<1
,~
::>
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
(See minutes for resolution.)
18
-------------------------------------------------
19
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next appeal
is for Chapman 5857.
MR. ANGEL: Members of the Board, Ladies
and Gentlemen, good morning, Ted Angel from Alpha
Consulting on behalf of John Chapman.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
like to tell us, Mr. Angel?
MR. ANGEL: Mr. Chapman was ready to build
this pool about two years ago and we did acquire
the permit from the DEC, we did acquire the permit
from the Town Trustees and on application to the
Building Department, it turned out that two owners
prior, about 33 years ago, it was determined where
the rear yard was on this particular property.
The property is situated on Arrowhead Lane, it's a
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
33
1
2
private road it's at the end of Arrowhead Lane and
chere's a significant marsh in front of it as it
approaches Little Creek. It appears and this was
per Pat Conklin, that that decision prevented
cheir approval of the pool to be installed where
che Trustees approved it and where the DEC
approved it. This is why it's before this
lloard.
e
3
4
5
6
It's an in-ground pool. It does not have
c1n effect on the wetlands. It complies with all
"etback requirements, both the DEC and the Town.
The property has been improved substantially by
the Chapmans. It cannot be put in the yard that
would be the side yard because that is the
ccntrance to the property that is a wetlands. And
It has a circular driveway. The front of the
property as it's being used now, looking out on
~he marsh and the waterway, to put the pool there
it comes up short with respect to the DEC setbacks
requirement, and I did apply to the DEC for a five
foot variance, but they declined it because there
was adequate space elsewhere, which was the
original application to both the DEC and the
Trustees. As I have previously said, it is on a
private road; it's on the end of the road. There
is no objection by anyone. The pool itself would
not be visible generally by anyone in the public
and there is a sloping terrain. We did have
Peconic Surveyors do a contour survey. That
survey has been completed except that when I
stopped in there today, the secretary who left me
the message that it was ready put it somewhere and
Mr. Metzgar could not find it, and on my departure
from Town Hall, I will stop there again and ask
tor it. It has been done. It's basically a
cechnical matter of the placement of the pool.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'll close the
hearing pending the receipt of that, Mr. Angel. I
just want to say that uniquely having worked on
this because I've been to this property before and
I think it was held up for that particular reason,
and it's always a joy to go down there anyway,
it's a beautiful road. In the area of the
driveway, which is circular, there was no attempt
co place the pool over on that side rather than in
the particular spot that it's in at this point?
MR. ANGEL: It would be in the front of
the entrance because that's where they're using
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, )006
34
1
2
the property as an entryway for the garage and
driving onto the property where they would have
guests, et cetera. Since that's already in stone,
they couldn't basically see having to put a pool
there because it would interfere with their
present use. And being that it is situated the
way it is on a private road and there is no
traffic, there is no transiency past that, and it
ioes comply with the setbacks from the road, just
co satisfy this technicality and as was explained
to me by the Building Department, it is a
technicality, otherwise, they would have seen
clear, except for that agreement 35 years ago,
they would have seen clear to approve that
location.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that
because it's a private road certain things are
allowed would otherwise not be allowed?
MR. ANGEL: No, sir, I'm not suggesting
that. I'm bringing up for the record that it is a
private road and that it's not a common
thoroughfare that maybe would set kind of a
precedent.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So setbacks apply to
private roads as well?
MR. ANGEL: Certainly.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I was puzzled
about, and I've been there twice, and I appreciate
the problem with distances from the wetlands.
MR. ANGEL: May I interject, I'm not a
Lawyer and I'm not holding myself out as one. I'm
doing this as an accommodation to the Chapmans
because I simply do permits, but because of this
quirk, it has caused them some distress because
they do want to use the property.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine, understood.
But what was not clear to me was why the pool
would be any closer to the wetlands if it were
built closer to what looks to most of us like the
rear of the house rather than closer to the
road. It's 20 feet or so from the road, right?
MR. ANGEL: Thirty-five feet.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It is a setback
because I didn't see it staked out.
MR. ANGEL: There are flags in there
showing where it is.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the reason
why it couldn't be further to I guess it's the
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
35
1
2
west, in other words, behind that porch?
MR. ANGEL: The DEC wants no less than 75
feet from the edge of the wetlands, which was
delineated.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in the plan
location it's farther than that?
MR. ANGEL: Yes, it is. It satisfies the
75 foot requirement.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And closer to being
directly behind the house would not do so.
MR. ANGEL: In the area looking out on the
wetlands, no, it would be too short.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless it were closer
to the house?
MR. ANGEL: And then it wouldn't make much
sense because it would interfere with that lawn
area as it approaches the wetlands and the view to
che waterway. So this is actually the most
logical place, and that's why the DEC approved it
~nd the Trustees approved it initially, but then
we tried to move it to satisfy the requirements of
the Building Department, and the fact that the
road which curves there and basically I worked
from the stakes, from the monuments that were
there. It's a logical place and it has no
material disadvantage to anybody or anything but
it's a matter of a technicality. I'm an owner of
property too, and I have three front yards on a
~arcel on the south fork because I have a corner,
it's on the water, and two roads, and I have three
front yards, and I had to put a swimming pool in
myself, and it gets a bit dicey sometimes because
you have a lot of requirements to satisfy for
technical reasons. So in this particular case, by
virtue of its location, and I don't mean that
chat's the basis for an exception, but by virtue
of its location, and the fact that it would not
set any kind of particular precedent, the Chapmans
would be appreciative if this Board would find
that the placement would be approved.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. It would
appear that the slope -- that's why I want to see
the contour map -- the slope is towards the
wetlands. So certainly I see you have just now
received a cross-section that indicates an upland
dry well for the pool?
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
ApriJ 27, :~006
36
1
2
MR. ANGEL: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My concern is
that's really an extraordinary piece of property,
very privileged to live in such a beautiful place,
and it will require some tree removal, minimal but
some tree removal, and that too impacts in terms
of soil and runoff, and reduction of root
:::;tructure.
MR. ANGEL: It's the immediate trees, so
chere are other trees, the Chapmans are very
careful in what they did there.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I see it's been
carefully staked and carefully considered, and if
it meets DEC and Trustee approval, fine as long as
there's protection from runoff to the wetlands,
which are my concern, it's a difficult place to
locate, it's a very fragile piece of property.
Just want to make sure it's protected.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
landscaping plan you could submit to us that would
allow us to be more rested with the fact that this
project is in the front yard area?
MR. ANGEL: Actually, I think whatever
your recommendations would be, the Chapmans would
be happy to follow. This has taken such a long
time that no decisions were made with regard to
chat other than basically installing the pool, and
whatever recommendations you have, I'm sure they
would be very happy to follow.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would they also
be happy to follow any further enhancement if more
enhancement was needed after they dealt with our
recommendations? In other words, this is a
difficult statement to make, we felt a couple more
evergreens needed to placed in strategic
positions?
MR. ANGEL: No problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
else who would like to speak for or against this
application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing pending the receipt of the
contour from Mr. Metzgar and we will reserve
decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
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
-------------------------------------------------
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Next hearing on
April 27, ;W06
37
1
.
3
the agenda is 5873 for Campbell.
MS. CAMPBELL: Good morning my name is
Loretta Campbell, I'm the petitioner, this is my
nusband, Jack Campbell. I do have this, and I'll
give you a copy. This is the elevations, and we
are above the FEMA flood plain, and I understand
chat I have to have an application to FEMA for an
amendment, and I just obtained that from the
surveyor.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I just want to
mention that the site map outlines the proposed
additions, and we'll pass it down. Doesn't show
~levations but it does show site elevation.
MS. CAMPBELL: Correct, thank you. I can
say I'm not a lawyer, I'm representing myself.
The existing house is 1,259 square foot, there's a
little shed which is 86 square foot, and the deck
on the south side of the house is 95 square foot,
total 1,440 or 14.4 percent.
Our petition is to add a garage to the
ground floor and a master bedroom in the back, and
the purpose of this is my husband and I are
planning to have handicapped facilities. We want
dS you saw on the plan, a handicapped ramp in the
garage, and then there is a second story, which
would be a bedroom, a loft room and a bathroom.
~e have custody of our grandchild who is 14, we
have him four years; he will be with us hopefully
for four years of high school and four years of
college, so we feel we need that space for
him. The purpose of the deck is to be able to
have access for the master bedroom onto the deck
and then an access from -- which would be a great
~oom or, which is combined living room/kitchen,
out into the deck again. That was the purpose for
the petition and the addition.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Campbell, I
have to tell you in the history of my being on the
Board, I need to discuss with you the availability
or the need for the handicapped aspect, and I
uon't like to be the bidder of bad news but this
has been the highest lot coverage I have ever
seen.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. CAMPBELL: I have to say I went along
with what the architectural services did. I
really didn't have a great deal of knowledge. I
relied on our architectural services. I have to
say, I don't think they served me well, and that
.
25
Apri.i 27, ;W06
38
1
5
was probably the reason for this. I decided to go
ahead and then allow this Board, these Trustees,
to make the adjustments as needed. I'm hoping
it's going to fall under some of the plans. I can
tell you why we are asking for some of this. I
chink as far as having the handicapped ramp in the
0arage, I thought that was a unique idea coming
out of the house, saving bad weather conditions,
jetting into a car and being able to do that, that
Nas that reason. The deck was so that out of the
master bedroom you could bring a wheelchair out to
Lhe back also from the living room area. So, I'm
certainly not entrenched, but I will accommodate
dS necessary.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just say
this to you, the individuals and my fellow
colleagues on this Board are well-versed in all of
the aspects of what it means to cut here or cut
there, but I am asking you to look at frankly the
availability to reducing the deck to a ground
level deck and thereby taking off an entire 10'8"
by 56 or reducing it to some point that it can be
reduced to a ground level deck so that that square
footage can be taken off; do you understand what
I'm saying? I don't really want you to take
anything off the house if that's what you feel you
absolutely need at this juncture of your lives. I
would much rather see 10 feet rather than 7.7 on
che northerly property line but we'll see how my
colleagues feel about that. But the deck is an
easy one or some fragmentation of that deck.
MS. CAMPBELL: I'm certainly willing but
my only concern would be that it be handicapped
~ccessible, wheelchair accessible.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you can take
that and bring that down on to a ground level deck
at some point with a ramp, and that's the easiest
way to do it; doesn't disrupt the function of the
house, doesn't disrupt anything. That's just my
upinion and I'll go to Mr. Simon.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This a very small
lot, quarter of an acre, and your needs are
important and credible and so on. It's a
situation which calls for a great deal of
imagination as to how to a build a house or to
rebuild a house which will suit your legitimate
needs and also the constraints of working on a
10,000 square foot lot. I don't really know how
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
April 27, /,006
39
1
.
3
~~ the deck is a good idea, but I don't know how
".,e can redesign your plan so it will do
chat. There is one architect on the Board but the
Board doesn't usually get involved in the
redrawing of plans.
MS. CAMPBELL: I don't expect you would.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm somewhat stymied
with this because it looks like it's pretty
massive, and I would think an imagination and a
recognition at the outset of the kind of
constraints, such as a 20 percent coverage, might
nave been employed, and might still be employed to
;cake something that we would be happier approving.
So I guess I'm saying -- it's not really a
question, it's a plea to try to make it look a
little bit more plausible to us because of the
problems with this. Maybe it's impossible, I
don't know.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm the architect.
And there are a number of other -- while the idea
of a ramp is an excellent idea in the interior of
the garage, what it does by running it parallel to
[he exterior wall rather than perpendicular on the
interior wall, you have to look at the ratio
between riser and run, there's a maximum slope
that's to code for wheelchair access. So you have
to see within 14 feet, if we moved over -- in
other words, if we made your garage slightly
narrower to provide a better side yard setback,
you could still get a ramp in there. You'd have
co change the orientation.
The other thing I might point out to you
is there is no necessity whatsoever for not having
cl zero threshold to your front door. You have a
~tep there that is not necessary on your portico;
that can be done by grading. You can grade up
slightly so you can come in flush, it doesn't have
to be a ramp, you simply have a path.
MS. CAMPBELL: Do you mean outdoors into
the front?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. You can do
that without a step, so it's fully accessible,
"imply changing the landscaping. You can create a
~loping grade so that you can come straight in
without having to go onto a step. There are a
number of measures that can be taken to
essentially accomplish what you need, especially
in terms of a turning radius, you need to have
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, )006
40
1
5
that master bedroom properly laid out with
furniture. In order to understand the turning
radius that's required for wheelchairs, but you
may be able to shrink that down a little bit and
still have access. Have your three foot doors
throughout, which is very good, 32 is allowable
:Jut 36 is better. So I think what you need to do
uecause it is extensive lot coverage. I have no
0bjection to the second story at all, that's
"dditional square footage that you can build as of
right, without a variance, provided the setbacks
dre right and you're meeting the bulk schedule,
che bulk schedule refers to the height of the
ooecond story.
MS. CAMPBELL: Is the height all right?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is. As
you've got it drawn, all right. I've been a
proponent of Universal Design and worked in the
drea of ADA in regard to Disability Act compliance
guidelines for a long long time, and I actually
believe most houses ought to be designed from the
get go with this instead of having to deal with it
down the line as people age and life happens. You
may be absolutely perfect in terms of health but
suppose you have a friend who has mobility issues.
MS. CAMPBELL: We have two young friends
in wheelchairs, and they come to have --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Or if you want to
Jrag some wood into your fireplace, not everybody
should have to hoist it up, if you have something
dt grade, it's easy to wheel anything in and
out.
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
19
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just
suggest to you that in the past -- and I'm not
suggesting that we proceed with that -- we usually
give nice people like these a max, and I think the
purpose of this hearing would be to give them a
maximum lot coverage that this Board could live
with. Is the number 25 percent, is the number
25.5 percent, and they then can make the cuts the
way they perceive them after they discuss them
with an architect.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you understand?
MS. CAMPBELL: Yes, I do. We do lot
coverage up to 25.5, I think that's what you said.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's my
18
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
opinion.
MS. CAMPBELL:
Then I could come back to
April 27, :W06
41
1
6
the architectural services and have them make
those adjustments.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. But I
think the perception and the overall skill that
Miss Weisman is bringing to the floor or to the
record and that aspect of narrowing the garage a
little bit and changing that front portico are
important ones for you to use as a concept.
Although I don't think they take a substantial
amount off the lot coverage, I think what you need
to do is address that issue of the deck and then
drop it down to a ground level deck later, by the
use of a ramp. And that ground level is not
calculated in lot coverage.
MS. CAMPBELL: I am aware
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
cement, it can be slate, any type
material. It can also be wood, I
wood. It's pressure treated wood
on the ground.
MS. CAMPBELL: I just wanted to be sure
that I would have access from the house, the
bedroom sliding door with a wheelchair to the
outside and the same is the living room, so that
we wouldn't be limited to wheelchair access only
at one exit.
of that.
It can be
of composite
have one that's
and it's built
2
e
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That makes sense.
MS. CAMPBELL: May I write this down and
have this all clear, it's the deck --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's my
suggestion, it doesn't have to be the deck.
MS. CAMPBELL: But from the bedroom and
the width of the garage do you want that side
variance to be just 10 feet?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We would like it
to be increased, it doesn't necessarily have to be
10 feet; that would be one variance you wouldn't
have to deal with.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would
eliminate the side yard variance, that's doable.
MS. CAMPBELL: I think I showed some
pictures right in the neighborhood that are not
even 7.7.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand.
MS. CAMPBELL: I did check the
neighborhood.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Apart from the
Disabilities Act and as it pertains to lot
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
42
1
9
coverage in general, we do this all the time with
swimming pools, all the time, and that is we tell
the people to build the house first, knowing right
well, what they're going to exceed the lot
coverage on based on variance we inform that after
that that whatever other accessory structures they
want to put on, they have to be aware that
sometimes they may have to eliminate this. So in
this particular case it's good you did come in and
we did discuss this with you. And we still have
Mr. Dinizio's feelings regarding this matter and
let's go with that right now. Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Having known
Mr. and Mrs. Campbell probably all my life, I
never thought I would hear surveyor FEMA from her
mouth. It looks like you got pretty involved in
this. You probably can get away with that front
porch, I think you really can if you talk to the
architect and have him just lower it probably just
six inches and have it graded it properly. We
look at that all the time. I mean, that
eliminates a lot, and maybe you'll have to deal
with a ramp from each door, but there's no reason
why you can't have access to that location from
any door in the house. But you may have to have a
six inch ramp or something that allows you to come
down instead of a step. Beyond that, you could
even make it not permanent. Build a ramp and just
let it stay there, that doesn't count against your
lot coverage in any way. You could build a ramp
and just lay it against the door as long as it's
not permanent it doesn't count as your lot
coverage. I'm not sure that you can get away with
less than the seven foot. We can't cut them back
any more than that. I understand the reason for
having the ramp inside. That's a darned good
idea.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
MS. CAMPBELL: I thought it was unique and
very helpful being we are year round residents.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You intend to stay
there. I think you're going to need to work on
that, 29 percent, to my mind 29 percent and 25
percent doesn't make too much difference over
there. I think you can gain something and make
the people on the Board a little more amenable,
which I think it's something you really need.
MS. CAMPBELL: The purpose for that large
bedroom is I wanted that to be our bedroom and
21
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
"---m~,,~:>::~'---
1
2
like a sitting area because we do have our
grandson, and it would be some privacy for us or
if someone is ill, I thought that having a room
that size would make it easier to do care and
things like that, and since I am a nurse, I really
feel I'm very aware of this. And my husband's
parents both had dementia, and we took care of my
husband's father in the house, 1445, and he had
his hospital bed in the living room and was never
really had the light of day once we were in there
because we could not get out. We did not have
access because he was in bed. So, I feel I
brought some experience to these plans, but I'm
certainly very willing to make the changes that
would make this acceptable.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I
right. We should really look at
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
think you're
lot coverage.
Let's give her a
11
maximum.
12
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am not a big
proponent of ramps allover the place. They can
be done beautifully. You don't want something to
look prosthetic, it's your home. You're not
creating some institutional appearance. There's
enough room in your toilet, in the master bedroom
bathroom for a lateral transfer with grab bars
onto the toilet. But it doesn't indicate that the
shower is a rolling shower.
MS. CAMPBELL: Actually there is no lip on
that shower, bring a wheelchair right in, I have
seen it in someone else's home and I was enamored
by it.
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it works fine.
You just want to make sure that you get what you
need in this dwelling without compromise because
there's no need. You should look at the kitchen
as well, there's a couple of possible problems.
MS. CAMPBELL: I'm unhappy with that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not a
practicing architect, I'm a professor of
architecture, I preach. What I want to do with my
colleagues is find a way of helping you accomplish
what you need, but the architect really has to be
consulted.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have
to do two things. Is everybody on this Board with
a 7.7? We haven't discussed it with the neighbors
who may be here. We need to hear from this
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
",.;-,';:,cc''':.s::r
43
44
1
7
neighbor and see what he would like to say. Yes,
sir.
MR. HERMANN: I'm Phil Hermann, adjacent
neighbor on the south side of the house. None of
the neighbors have any objection related to the
setbacks. On the north side the setback, which is
the smallest one, I think it's eight foot that's
being proposed, to the next house must be about 35
feet. So we don't see, even if they expanded a
little bit, they would have a 10 foot setback
where they could come 15 feet. We don't see any
problem with setbacks. We have more of a problem
with setbacks with the old Fire Road behind on
Cedar in Gardiner Bay Estates because some of the
people in Gardiner's Bay are misusing their
property lines.
So as far as I'm concerned, I think it
would be a wonderful addition to the house, an
expansion, it's definitely needed for the
facilities that Deedee and Jack want. And I am
100 percent behind them. I used to be
architectural. Listening to some of their
suggestions I'd be very happy to sit down with
Deedee and help her out. I won't charge her much.
But I'm very much in favor of the plans, and I'm
very comfortable with the setbacks. I agree maybe
the back porch could go down a grade and it's no
longer a part of the occupancy of the square
footage, I think it's a good suggestion by the
Board.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're going to
do that, you need to talk to Pat Conklin and find
out exactly what they consider a deck on grade
because it's not up to the dirt. There's a step
there that you can have, you can raise it up some.
MR. HERMANN: It's based on what's laying
on the earth.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I had a discussion
with her about the pond, it's not just level with
the grade, there's a step that you could actually
take and still be considered ground level, which
would allow you to get that up a little higher, a
little less ramp, and maybe I'll talk to her about
that too.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you're willing
to work for food, try shoveling some dirt around
because if you change the topography minimally and
you are above the flood plain, that can do a great
2
e
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
..-...,
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
';t.'
45
deal.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
else who would like to speak in favor of or
against this application? Then the next question
is is the Board comfortable with a specific figure
or discuss that at a deliberation session?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think we need to
deliberate.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will come
back to you with a maximum coverage figure and
we'll get that back to you in two weeks or the
architect or engineer or the gentleman in the
back.
MS. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
on behalf of Rallis, Number 5861. Mr. Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for
Dr. Rallis. As you know from looking at the
application, the problem is the two roads, the
usual. They would like to install an in-ground
pool in what is the architectural rear yard of the
house, the property. However, there's another
road that has to be contended with in the rear
yard making it a front yard. The good news is
that the rear yard road is 200 feet away and 100
feet lower in elevation than the area we're
proposing the in-ground pool.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald,
I was up there over the weekend actually, and I
think the good thing is that you're attempting to
place this pool in a proposed location, and it's
close to the house because the property does fall
away towards the bluff, we'll refer to that as a
bluff, it's not really a bluff because there's a
road down below. But in reality it's sand-ridden
and it appears to be a bluff, even though under
the normal terms, so that's a good thing. And any
attempt to stabilize that in any way would be
greatly appreciated.
MR. FITZGERALD: stabilize the --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The bluff after
the pool, whatever needed to be done would be
greatly appreciated also.
April 27, 2006
46
1
8
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure because it's to
their advantage.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far is the
swimming pool to the edge of the bluff, it's a
good 30 feet?
MR. FITZGERALD: I've shown in effect a
building envelope on the plan, and they had Jim
Deerkoski look at the site from that standpoint,
and it was his feeling that that would not be a
particular problem as long as we stayed back, at
least the 10 or 15 feet as shown in the plan. And
that is easily doable because as Mr. Goehringer
said, we're interested in having it pretty close
to the house because it can surround it at grade
level patio area.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It really is a
waterfront piece of property without the
waterfront.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But on top of a
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
bluff.
23
MR. FITZGERALD: When you come up, as you
did I guess, in the driveway and park there and
look out you're absolutely convinced it's on the
waterfront.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is unique
also is that the house is setback to make it look
beautiful, it sits on top of that little parapet
that makes it nice. Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the building
envelope is at least -- it's a level plateau so
that the amount of runoff is mitigated by the fact
that there's no contour until you reach the actual
edge of this very steep slope. My concern as with
Mr. Goehringer is with runoff as long as dry wells
are installed and it's as close to the house as
possible. Groundwater runoff and even from the
pool, just make sure there's a dry well in there
that takes care of that.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there will be a dry
well at least for use during back wash and the
filter.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is
vegetated, it's quite a large pool and keep it as
close to the house as possible. I have no problem
at all with considering that as a rear yard
setback. It has virtually no visual impact
whatsoever except to the neighbors on both sides
but that's allowable.
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
47
1
5
MR. FITZGERALD: Right.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
else that would like to speak in favor or against
this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
2
e
3
4
6
9
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a
motion to recess for lunch.
(See minutes for resolution.)
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a
motion to reconvene.
(See minutes for resolution.)
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
on behalf of J.W. Guild, Number 5866.
MR. GUILD: Jay Guild.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us,
Mr. Guild, what you are planning to do?
MR. GUILD: I'm on the north side of the
road on County Road 48, and what we're trying to
do is I want to cover over 20 percent of my
property with a greenhouse. I have never run into
this before.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you clear up
with me at least on one specific statement that I
read something about open permits on the original
building?
MR. GUILD: There's a greenhouse there
that I had a permit on and I never closed it out.
They never came and checked it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a
possibility that you could do that so we can start
from square one at that particular point?
MR. GUILD: They told me to let everything
go through the appeals court because I'm 19'9",
and I'm supposed to be 20. But at the time I
first applied for the permit years and years ago,
you could be as close to the property line as you
wanted to be.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's go into
the present situation. We have Architectural
Review Board issues. We have issues with other
situations, the Planning Board, you have an open
site plan approval up for site plan application;
is that correct?
MR. GUILD: Yes. They said there was no
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
~-,,,
?T'~\'rl)J
48
1
6
problem with the greenhouse.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is that
going at this point; how far along are you at this
point; is that done?
MR. GUILD: That's done I think.
said it's no problem with the greenhouse.
problem was with the setbacks.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next issue,
I'm not even reading from the notice of
disapproval, I'm trying to just get some spiritual
thought about where we're going at this particular
point and please, no way is this meant to be
anything other than pragmatic. The last issue is
the issue of --
They
The
2
e
3
4
5
7
8
9
MR. GUILD: The setbacks from the property
line?
e
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I'm aware of
those, something about the connector?
MR. GUILD: Yes. We're connecting the two
greenhouses together, the original one that we
built and the new one.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lot coverage.
Where do we stand with that?
MR. GUILD: I want to cover over 20
percent. They said I'm only allowed to cover 20
percent. It's an agricultural building, if a
farmer went out here and put vegetables on his
land, he's only going to be allowed to cover 20
percent of his property?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think a
building and vegetables are a little different.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a structure.
MR. GUILD: But a vineyard can cover more
than 20 percent too. The greenhouse I'm building
is like a big erector set. I can take it down any
time.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you building
another modular exactly the same structure as
what's on the site?
MR. GUILD: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a permanent
frame with removable translucent --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is an important
issue because there are a lot of greenhouses
around the country, and the question is you would
like a greenhouse to be treated like a grape arbor
rather than like a
MR. GUILD: To me it's an agricultural
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
April 27, 2006
-;'j:ffl~
-;----ij'
,"~
49
1
9
building. I'm growing flowers inside.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is it's a
structure, and the question is whether it's a
special type of structure and whether it deserves
to be treated like a crop, forgetting the fact
that there's a roof over it or whether it goes as
a structure, in which case you're subject to the
20 percent requirement. I don't know what the
precedent is, that's something worth researching.
You cannot be the first greenhouse operator who
has come up against this problem, I assume. Does
anyone know anything about that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean has it
come before this Board?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Or any Board. Can
greenhouses occupy more than 20 percent?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The 20 percent
rule is our rule.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Town code.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When there are lot
coverage codes, we're not the only town that has a
lot coverage code, does that or does that not
include greenhouses?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to
make this real easy, okay, we discussed a pond
this morning, I'm going to tell you that this
Board dealt with tennis courts, swimming pools,
all types of agricultural buildings over the
years, and everyone of them were deemed to be
structures, and that was the word that I used this
morning, structure, and even though a swimming
pool is mostly a ball ground, it is still deemed
to be a structure. Some people may not agree with
that, but I am telling you the same situation,
that they are all structures, and therefore fall
within the confines of the 20 percent rule. I
don't know if that has answered your question.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It does. It
certainly goes some distance towards answering it.
MR. GUILD: I know in New York state, you
got Southold code and you got New York state code,
and according to this it's an agricultural
building in New York state, but you got to abide
by Southold codes. That's what I've been told.
According to New York state it's a greenhouse,
it's an agricultural building and according to
them they don't need permits. However, Southold
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
April 27, 2006
50
1
9
has their own code, and I have to abide by
Southold code.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And Southold code is
so far quiet on greenhouses as such?
MR. GUILD: Very quiet. Makes it very
difficult. I had no problems with the first
greenhouse. I came down and got my permit, said
sure, go put it up.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the first
permit clearly didn't -- there would be no reason
to deny it. It's an appropriate structure,
appropriate zone without any variances necessary
although there was an error clearly of a couple of
inches.
MR. GUILD: Couple of inches but according
to them I could be closer than 20 feet to the
property line, now it's changed. So now I have to
abide by the current codes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fact that you
needed a permit at all for your first greenhouse
suggests that it was regarded as a structure. You
don't need a permit for a vegetable garden.
MR. GUILD: I came down and got it, that's
all I did.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you knew you
needed to have one and that's fine. There is a
memo from the Planning Board that says the site
plan application incomplete.
MR. GUILD: Yes, we know that. I talked
to them. I have to go to the Planning Board, and
I have show them where I'm going to park a truck,
okay, where is my dumpster on the property, stupid
things like that which I didn't put in for the
first time.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They informed
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
you.
e
25
MR. GUILD: I know they informed me.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: September 12th of
last year.
MR. GUILD: I took another copy down and
said this is fine for now. They just informed me
that I got to come back to the Planning Board and
tell them where I'm going to park a truck.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because that's
their legal obligation. They have to know where
parking for any kind of --
MR. GUILD: Basically I just put the truck
there pick up the plans and leave. The guys that
20
21
22
23
24
April 27, 2006
51
1
9
work for me don't drive at all, they ride their
bicycles.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I have before
me is a survey of your property with a hand-drawn
dotted line in magic marker.
MR. GUILD: That's where the new
greenhouse is going to be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why is it done in
such a casual way; why is it not a survey?
MR. GUILD: I put down where the
greenhouse is going to be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You put it down?
MR. GUILD: Yes, I did, that's exactly
where it's going to be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you realize that
if you're presenting a legal document, I mean this
is stamped received, but it looks like you took a
survey that you already had from 1996 and then
just yourself drew it in.
MR. GUILD: They resurveyed it all for me,
they put the greenhouse where it shows 19'9", and
we put it where it's going to be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Did the surveyor do
that or did you put that in, Ingegno?
MR. GUILD: I put the dotted lines.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because I see
Joseph Ingegno did the original survey.
MR. GUILD: Correct, then he updated this
past fall.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have never seen a
survey by Mr. Ingegno that was drawn this way.
I'm sure you're accurate in terms of where you
have located this. I'm sure you know where you
want it, but legally I believe the survey has to
be updated by a surveyor.
MR. GUILD: I updated the survey.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You did, but he's
supposed to do that.
MR. GUILD: Ingegno updated the survey.
The dotted lines I put on there to tell you where
we're going to put the greenhouse.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But he's supposed
to do that.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. I think
you're comparing apples to oranges. This is an
agricultural building and the survey deals with
the property lines. Now, when this gentleman
builds this, he has to get a survey after that 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
April 27, 2006
52
1
e
3
insure that the setbacks on those property lines
are proper. But he doesn't have to submit an
updated survey for something he doesn't have yet.
So it's just a little bit of confusion there as to
when it's required. He is proposing setbacks.
When and if he goes to get a CO, he will be
required to have that property surveyed to insure
that the setbacks meet the requirements. If they
don't, then that survey is the survey, the updated
one will be the one that's subject to a hearing.
Right now he's not required to have anybody update
a survey he's just asking us for some setbacks and
he's going to be required to build to those
setbacks.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But, Jimmy, this
is the problem, what if he makes a mistake on the
survey?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's his problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. That's our
problem because he's the one that built the
building in that location.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then it's a
hardship.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem is the
survey which is signed by a licensed surveyor is a
legal document and when it's modified by anybody
else, the changes have no legal significance.
It's like changing the number on a $100 bill to
$1,000 bill.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think I have to
say that the reason it was done that way is
because I wasn't sure it was clear in the code
about the lot coverage and how much of a variance
the Board might give, and I wasn't sure if a full
site plan map was required for the variance, and I
thought with this survey there was enough property
line information -- he was so exact on where he
wanted his greenhouses, it seemed to be an easy
one to show setbacks on, that we accepted that for
final whether to leave it up to the Board to
decide if they wanted more than that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Guild, you
have 132 foot separation where you're attaching or
proposing to attach by some sort of a corridor at
the end; is that distance a requirement of
ventilation?
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
MR. GUILD:
Yes, the reason why we're
April 27, 2006
-,.--~"--~--<'
''''--'--''-'''''~"'
1
2
asking to be closer to the end of the property, I
think it's supposed to be 75 feet and we're asking
for 56 feet because it's natural air cool
greenhouses, we don't have any electric fans in
there. You're exactly right. We have to have a
certain amount of feet in there to have natural
cooler.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's air flow?
MR. GUILD: Yes, I can move it 75 feet
closer, I can move it closer then I won't need a
variance then I'm going to need electric fans.
I'm trying to be economical about this.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And I presume the
reason the structure is as large as it is is
because it's basically a repetition of a
pre-existing modular -- you purchased a kit?
MR. GUILD: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are there posts in
place for the frame?
MR. GUILD: You have to put a two foot
anchor in.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's permanently
in the ground.
MR. GUILD: You can take it out.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have to take
out the footings.
MR. GUILD: Basically it's all ready to
go, we have no excavation to do, we did it when we
did the first greenhouse.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The good news is as
far as I'm concerned is because it's already
behind an existing one and the adjacent properties
will have no visual impact really, it's protected
from a greater impact on the scenic corridor, 48.
That view shed is well protected by existing
buildings. So as far as I'm concerned, that's not
an issue. The real issue is the lot coverage.
You're going from 20 percent to 32 percent, that's
12 percent more. That's a substantial increase in
lot coverage because it is a building. It's not
an open field, it's a building, that's why we're
looking at it. If it weren't a building it
wouldn't be before us. That's the real
consideration, the extent of the lot coverage.
In terms of farming, if you need that
amount of separation between the two of them, I'm
not proposing anyone add to their electric bill,
any way you can conserve energy I think it's
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
April 27, 2006
.;"7r:---;"--;::;>r
53
"'~,'
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
"f~_~:iV'
''''/'''7
54
important. If that's what you say you absolutely
have to have for your business to be effective in
terms of air flow, ventilation, then at least I
understand why that setback is required, there's a
rational reason for it.
MR. GUILD: Yes. And I have to say the
19.9 feet on the other greenhouse, if we had known
it was going to be 20 it would have been 20.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nobody's
quibbling over inches. That's why I said to you
all we're trying to do is understand the project.
Okay, so where do we go from here? Jim, do you
have anything to say?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. This space in
between the two buildings, would you have any
objection to any restrictions in there?
MR. GUILD: As far as what?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No more building.
MR. GUILD: I wouldn't want to put another
building in between because it's going to restrict
the air flow.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not asking
would you want it. I'm asking would you be
amenable to us saying if we give you this building
where you want it, you don't get to ask for a
building in between these two.
MR. GUILD: I wouldn't see where I would
want to put another building in between because
it's going to defeat the purpose of what I'm doing
now.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not
answering my question. Let me tell you why,
because we can meet on this two weeks from now and
three of us can say, no, I don't want him to have
it, and two of us can say, well, listen, how about
if we restrict the middle of the building or he's
agreed to that --
MR. GUILD:
protect myself. I'm
building in between,
want to put a Morton
my long range plan.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I'll say one thing, I'll
not going to put another
however, in the front I may
building up one year. That's
We're worried about
this.
MR. GUILD: I'm not putting another
building in between.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He just answered
that, he said the separation is the consequence of
April 27, 2006
55
1
6
the amount of opening, kind of vent at the top of
the structure
MR. GUILD: The vents are going to go up
and down.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But 132 feet?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not an expert in
this sort of greenhouse enclosure.
MR. GUILD: You got two greenhouses and
you got to have air for that greenhouse and you
got to have air for that greenhouse. You got two
greenhouses, you got the same system.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The greenhouse
is in a bunker already, is it the fact that it's
in the bunker that's creating the necessitation of
132 feet?
MR. GUILD: No, I kind of like 132 feet in
2
.
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
between.
11
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is there anything
you can supply us with from sort of the
manufacturer of such buildings or any source that
makes sense other than your own opinion that could
provide us with the information that says that 132
feet is the optimum or the necessary --
MR. GUILD: I could go research it for you
but I know we like big distances between the
greenhouses.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm trying to be
cooperative, but I'm trying to say --
MR. GUILD: I could be closer but I want
to be optimum.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
This is just based
is your business?
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
on your expertise because this
MR. GUILD: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So is there some
way that you can provide us with that research
that says that this is what I have to do to run my
business properly?
MR. GUILD: I wish I had known this
before, I would have brought the information.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's essentially
one of the things we look at.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the things.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One of many things
but to the extent that you -- if you have
compelling evidence as to why, then that makes a
very strong case, of saying, yeah, grant them rear
yard setback variance, keep them 132 feet apart,
he needs it. There's a difference between need
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
"l;~,q
56
1
5
and want.
MR. GUILD: I also want to put outside
crops in between those two houses; would that
help?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're saying
you want to useless space in between?
MR. GUILD: For outside crops such as
hearty mums, you can put hearty petunias outside,
you can put proven winners outside and harden them
off.
2
e
3
4
6
7
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what you really
want to do in addition to create optional air flow
is to do additional planting between them and
that's the acreage that you envision or that's the
amount of property that you feel you would like to
have available for additional plants?
MR. GUILD: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me go back
and be the devil's advocate because I usually am.
If we were not to grant you on the rear yard
setback but we were to grant you similar lot
coverage say in the 30 percent range, and we were
to grant you but not the rear yard setbacks, could
you still build these greenhouses so that you had
to go not at 56 but at 75 from the rear property
line?
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
MR. GUILD: Then I would like to have the
air flow, 'cause then what you're doing is you're
putting 100 feet between the houses, I'd rather
have the most I can do.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that, but just remember that it's important for us
to know it's not just you it's any other future
application. And I have no objection to you, I
think you're a very nice man, I'm just trying to
understand this situation as Miss Weisman asked
the question, is there some rule of thumb. She's
more theoretical than I am because she's a
professional, she's worked in the business, not in
the greenhouse business, she's an architect. But
I'm not speaking for her, she's sitting right next
to me and can speak for herself. I think what you
need to tell us is, tell me, is not the fact, yes,
the 132 feet is important, but what is the
absolute minimum that you could possibly live with
between these two greenhouses? If you need some
time, make a couple telephone calls, whatever the
case may be, I'd be happy to give you that time
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
~.ro-o;:..,~".:,-
57
1
5
assuming the Board would go along with me.
MR. GUILD: I didn't think I was asking
too much to be 56 feet from the end of the
property and put 132 in between; am I missing
something?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have to give
something, if you have to choose, how much could
you, if required, decrease the distance between
the greenhouses because you are obliged to
increase the setbacks, or could you say that
without a setback variance, you could not build
your greenhouse there?
MR. GUILD: We went at the optimum, if we
put the maximum, I could move close to the
property line, that's what I did. I can move
closer, but I would like --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not the question
of closer to the property line it's how far can
you get from the property line and have enough air
space between your greenhouses. 132 feet is what
you have here, if 125 feet, for example, would be
fatal to your business --
MR. GUILD: I could go 125 feet. See, the
greenhouse is sold in increments of 12 feet, so I
have to pick a multiple of 12 feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that 12
divided into 108 is the sections?
MR. GUILD: Yes, it's every 12 feet, and
132 is divisible by 12. If you want me to go 120
feet, we could probably live with that, I really
don't want to go anything less.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But 120 feet would
give you 12 feet more setback.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I ask why the
connecting corridor, let's call it, which I
presume will be treated similarly.
MR. GUILD: Basically we're connecting to
the greenhouse, so when we go between the
greenhouses we don't get wet and if there's
inclement weather we don't have to take and move
the stuff back outside, we can just go through a
corridor.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand. Any
reason why it has to be on the end and can't be
anywhere else?
MR. GUILD: Don't want it in the middle
because they're going to restrict the air flow
between the greenhouses. If you put it in the
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
April 27, 2006
-'W"','-'!'o/':T','
-'~,~'"f7 ,~
58
1
6
middle, then you got no clear
across. And we put it on that
basically we're coming in from
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
MR. GUILD: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's closer to
the north side anyway.
MR. GUILD: It's on the east side of the
greenhouse, northeast side.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the plantings
that you want to grow in between wouldn't make
much sense to grow them in the back of this
building because you have to have the space for
the air flow.
MR. GUILD:
to the ground.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm sure that has
some dimensions to it too. The tables or whatever
you would grow on the ground, those mats, they
probably have some kind of dimension, they're
probably 4 by 4 so you could make a row.
MR. GUILD: They're multiples of 12,
multiples of 10.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That way you could
reach in and water them, weed them, whatever you
had to do.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess we are
to the point where we ask if anybody in the
audience has any objection to this application or
anybody would like to support the application?
Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I will be writing
the draft deliberations in this case, which is why
I asked so many questions, I want to make sure.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We won't make any
air flow right
side because
the other side.
With your truck?
2
e
3
4
5
7
8
9
Correct, but the crops are low
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
more testimony.
21
22
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need to
reconvene a hearing from this morning, which was
Appeal Number 5877, the first one on the docket
for the day in the name of Hajek. State your name
for the record, please.
MR. HAJEK: Frank Hajek, I am the owner of
the property in question in New Suffolk.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are you,
sir? The Board had some specific questions, sir,
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
--~'F'-,,--
'_~":'''''''''_C_ --~....,.~.-
59
1
9
regarding the nature of the change of
construction, not in reference to anything out of
the normal decisions that we had made on this
application, but some members of the Board had
questions of how you got to this point, where we
are today and the nature of this new application,
and I'll leave it open for them, Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just to clarify, we
are very aware of your architect explained that
the contractor rather than sistering new studs to
existing studs for some reason simply decided to
do a demolition and build literally the same plan,
the working drawings as they were permitted, with
the same setbacks; we were just trying to find out
from you or from the contractor you hired why the
contractor decided to take that action rather than
to comply with what the previous Zoning Board of
Appeals decision was, which was to leave some of
those studs.
MR. HAJEK: I would like to defer that
question to the contractor because I'm not sure of
the reason either.
MR. FADE: My name is Bob Fade, F-A-D-E.
At the time the way the house was built originally
was that we had a double roof on it, and we had
double siding and it was really kind of a
hodgepodge problem there regarding the siding and
matching it up and this and that. It was really,
I believe Mr. Hajek's dad owned it before and
obviously he did some work on the siding and it
was quite a bit more involved than we originally
thought. It wasn't just a 2 by 4 and sheathing
and then your siding. There was some homosote on
it or a similar product to the homosote, then he
had plywood on top of that, and it was just a
problem to try and match it up and whatever. I
didn't purposely, we weren't going through
purposely just taking down walls. It was an area
there of garage doors, and we had to frame over
those, the doors were being moved around to the
side, in order just to frame it in, structurally
it wouldn't be so sound, so we took the headers
down and then reframed that completely because it
was a window, and whatever going in there. It
wasn't -- there was nothing malicious about it or
that we just went and we just did what we wanted
to do, we didn't feel we did. But that's the
bottom line.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
=~J"'"
'ilr~'r'-
60
1
7
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Were you aware of
the conditional variance that you received? In
other words, your client received from this Board
a variance setback which you maintained, but with
the condition that some of the ground floor
structure remain and be shored up; were you aware
of the conditions?
MR. FADE: Yes, I was told some walls that
were to remain, exactly which ones at this point I
don't remember, and I tried to do that, I really
did. I did not want to do any more work than I
had to do. There wasn't a profit motive or
anything like that involved in this at all. I do
about three or four of these a week. I have quite
a few people, carpenters and I come into this
problem a lot as far as rot or whatever was
involved. But in this particular case, it was a
problem.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Have you had other
cases in which you had to do a demolition in order
to do what you expected to do?
MR. FADE: Yes. In Nassau County it does
become a problem.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What happens when you
discover that in order to build the second floor
on top of the first floor, which is what this is
about, you had to demolish the first floor?
MR. FADE: This wasn't previously known
before the fact?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At least it was
assumed not to be the case in the variance you got
in the first place where you clearly had
authorization to build a second floor, then you
found once you got inside that you needed to
demolish what was there. Has that happened in
Nassau County?
MR. FADE: Yes, sure that
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What
that happens?
MR. FADE: Town of Hempstead, if I can
show them there was a good reason for it, they
usually go along with it, and it depends on the
inspector also, obviously.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When you say show
them a good reason, do you mean you assume that
the building inspector will be the one to say,
hey, you better go back and get more
authorization, and if that doesn't happen that
happens.
do they do
when
2
.
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
"1",T"'-;
1
2
doesn't happen.
MR. FADE: That's the person I come in
contact with is the building inspector.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But were it not for a
building inspector who is conscientious enough to
notice this then it would be simply rebuilt as you
find you need to do given the circumstances?
MR. FADE: No. I try to go whatever is
specified for me to do. I'm not looking to do
more work for the same cost or whatever. I'm in
business, there isn't more cost involved in this,
what I'm trying to do the best I can structurally.
In this particular case there were 2 by 6's put
next to the 2 by 4's, I guess you're aware of
that, which was quite an idea, quite honestly, and
we did that on all the walls and we were
rebuilding them. But if I had the same situation
in Nassau County and it's brought up, I would
explain to them why. Would I bring it to their
attention? Quite often I'm not even sure what
walls they're asking to remain, sometimes they're
obvious, they're put on the plans themselves,
they're darkened or whatever; does that answer
your question? I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It helps.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just recap a
little bit for a second. You started out by
saying that the reason there was a tear down
rather than sistering up new studs to old studs
was because it was a hodgepodge of materials? The
roofing is not an issue, the double roof is not an
issue that's off and it's not load-bearing. The
siding, how did the double siding or hodgepodge of
siding materials impact your decision to say, I'm
just going to take these out and put new. You
said usually you have a good reason; I'd like to
hear as clearly as you're going to say what reason
you have to say that these have to go.
MR. FADE: Again, for instance, the
garage door, we'd have to take section by section,
but the actual garage doors had headers on it, and
we had to go through the headers to set our own
headers because the one window was set right in
the middle of the two doors -- of the door. So we
had to take that out to reframe it, and then in
that process, part of it came down. It was --
some of it was a structural thing, sure. But I
felt I didn't deviate that much from the original
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
April 27, 2006
.
!;2;;t'
61
62
1
6
but I guess I did. I don't even remember, was it
specified on the plan what had to be taken down;
was it?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I believe so, the
architect is here, but I believe so.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: If I may, just I think
when I have resubmitted the plans I did submit two
very simple plans other than the demolition plans,
so the Board is aware of how little of the
demolition had been affected. I don't think I
mentioned that earlier where we had anything
that's not a dashed in line, you see all the solid
lines which is not that much in the front. This
is the plan which was submitted to the Building
Department for its approval, which was approved
for demolition. All the walls that are dashed in
are to be demoed, only these were to remain.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Very small
fragments.
MS.
2
e
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
so it is in
be honest.
Thank you.
BOARD
DROZDOWSKA: I wanted to clarify that
the record. It wasn't much, I have to
It's not that much of a salvage.
13
e
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Any other
14
questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I looked over our
decision, I didn't see any place where we
restricted that, where we said those walls had to
remain. I don't see in our decision where it
said -- it's just in your plans, right?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: That is how it was
submitted to the Zoning Board originally and then
to the Building Department. Again, to contain, as
I said earlier this morning some of the building
envelope. We did keep all the foundation work of
the existing floor and the existing bottom plate,
but regarding those walls, yes, we try to keep
some of them, we normally do, and we know it's not
a complete demolition and it's not a necessity,
especially when we are asking for zoning relief.
It is obviously to the benefit of us and to the
client and to the Town I presume, even though
we're sistering, as we said before we're still
keeping intact some of the existing home. So it
was to benefit, which is now unfortunately.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What does that help
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
63
1
5
you avoid, taking down the wall or leaving the
wall up?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: To be honest with you,
our decision was based purely on the fact that it
may help us get the relief we requested.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words you
could say to us, we're not demolishing it, we're
leaving up four 2 by 4's?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Yes, we did say it. We
were clear on that. So in respect to the Board
and respect to the Town, I think we try also as
architects to be environmentally --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would any of those
pieces that you left up be a supporting member?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: No, they were sister to.
It was an existing eight foot ceiling, which was
evident, now it had become as per the drawings a
nine foot ceiling on the first floor. So was any
structural left behind? Not at all.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you didn't in
advance determine -- I'm trying to get this in my
mind -- you didn't determine that the structure
that you were going to leave would have to be
modified to the point of demolition?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: No.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, he
had to cut to a header to put a board up.
MS. DROZDOWSKA: If I may, when we design
structure in our office, we design for the homes.
We don't design to anticipate what is left behind
so much. We design for the brand new structure
being put in place.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the trick
then; is the trick then taking the board down and
putting it up and sistering it before the building
inspector can see it, or does that actually stay
in place?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: Well, that's never
happened to us before, no, where something's been
taken down and put back in place.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That has not
happened?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: No, not under our
supervision, no.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the builder is
actually expected to leave this structure up and
build around it?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: By all means, yes, in
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
April 27, 2006
~1
64
1
6
respect it our plans, yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Even though it has
no supporting members?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: We have built this way,
where we did have to contain some of the existing
loads, and honestly, it was purely speaking with
both building department and other departments and
finding out well, let's say we want to demo this
well, you can't remove the whole entire structure
because all of a sudden it's becoming a completely
nonconforming building. So now we have to keep
something intact to make it more in conformance.
So we are following the rules of the code, and I'm
sorry for not having specific sections, but it's
all been brought up and will be brought home one
way or another, you know, let's leave these two
studs and it's going to benefit our building, by
no means.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not done?
MS. DROZDOWSKA: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we wrap this
2
e
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
up?
13
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's clearly Walz
decision, you're trying to create a conforming
with the least degree of nonconformity as you can
by retaining and building on a second story, it's
very clear.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the obvious
situation that you want to replace anything that's
bad that would be construed to be non-structural,
and that I think is was the testimony from the
builder. Thank you. Hearing no further comment,
I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
for Fischer, Number 5833. Miss Moore?
MS. MOORE: Good afternoon, I have Mr. and
Mrs. Fischer with me this afternoon. We have an
application at the Planning Board to subdivide
this property. You can see from the map that what
we want to do is subdivide with a line that
preserves the existing structures. Lot 1 is 1,687
square feet over the 40,000 required but it made
sense to put the lines where they were where they
have been proposed. That is preserving a
beautiful Victorian home that I'm sure you have
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
't,'" ;;,{'
65
1
5
all gone by and seen. It was renovated by my
client and it's to be preserved where it is. The
line that was drawn was in such a location where
it retained its conformity with a 20 foot side
yard.
Lot Number 2 is proposed with 30,978
square feet. Again, the square footage was done
in such a way that it made straight lines rather
than having lines that created nonconformity with
the existing Victorian home.
The barn has quite a history to it.
was there since the 1930s. It was relocated
there. It had been the congregational horse shed
at one time. Then over the years in the 1930s
through the 1940s additions were added to it; it
became a potato barn. It then got converted to
labor worker housing for the old farm. Then in
the late 1950s, the property was acquired and the
subdivision of Orient by the Sea was undertaken in
two phases. Phase 1, which is the westerly
section of Orient by the Sea. Those lots, they
range in size between just under an acre and an
acre in size, then Orient by the Sea, the first
phase ranged from a quarter acre to half acre
lots, and the second phase ranged from just under
an acre to an acre in size. So this area has
historically been developed as one acre lots, and
as I said earlier, subdivisions have half that.
So character of the neighborhood is anywhere from
half acre to one acre in size.
My client had gone to the state and gotten
his own curb cut approval, so at the time I
submitted this application I wasn't aware, I
thought I had to do it and was waiting. He had
already gone and done it. He has a curb cut for
the Victorian home, which is in your file. D.O.T.
has approved that residential curb cut. They were
very happy with where it was proposed and how it
was proposed. He had no problems getting it. And
the Planning Board I know just sent over a
recommendation today. They weren't aware that the
state had issued a curb cut until I let them know
at the same time you received the notice, but by
then they had already drafted the memo, they said
fine, no problem, we are satisfying the
requirement anyway.
The only variance
the structure, is that we
It
2
.
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
with respect to Lot 2,
want to preserve the
April 27, 2006
~~:~~~,.
~~
66
1
e
3
barn. It's been renovated. The goal would be to
make that the single-family dwelling for the
property. It's a beautiful structure. At this
point it would be where Mr. Fischer hopes to live,
and stay on the property, and the existing
setbacks have been established. Our neighbor is
the Town of Southold, a sump. The Town has not
been a very good neighbor because the sump had
caused in 2000 some degradation. When they were
building the sump they put the fill on my client's
property and right on the border and it caused
some problems to my client's foundation. He
didn't deal with the Town in any way. He just
took care of it, cleaned it up and has been
maintaining the sump area with cutting the grass
and so on. So he's been a good neighbor to the
Town and he has been a quiet neighbor.
I think that's it. It's a pretty
self-explanatory application. And I'd be happy to
address any questions that you may have.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The barn is now
a house; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: It is not, it doesn't have a
CO for the house. That would be the goal is to
get a CO for it for a house. It has had various
histories throughout as a workshop, as a barn, but
we want to legalize, and make it a single-family
dwelling.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that
this is now an accessory building and you're
asking for the approval for the setbacks as though
it were a house, which you hope it will be.
MS. MOORE: Yes. The area variance for
Lot 2, we also have included a variance to keep
the building just as it is, not make any changes
to it and convert it from an accessory building to
a principal building.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you only wanted to
keep it as an accessory building you wouldn't be
here for a variance.
MS. MOORE: Yes. That variance would not
be necessary, but we have to build another
dwelling on Lot 2.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there were no barn
that's --
MS. MOORE: Right. Then we could build
that house anywhere.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
:"":1;,<7;"'-
. """~",,i:f'.q..
67
1
2
e
3
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And then you would
just simply be applying to the Planning Board for
a subdivision for a three-quarter acre lot and
then asking for a building permit to build on
this. But since there's already a house on this
building, which has accessory building setbacks,
you would like to have variances so that they
become principal building setbacks when and if it
becomes two properties, I'm just summarizing.
MS. MOORE: You got it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Lot 2 will be a
nonconforming lot, it will be 30,978 square feet,
in the allowable 40,000.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The barn has been
used as habitable principal dwelling for some
time.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MS. MOORE: I can't say that and nor would
I make that statement. That would be a violation.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is a dwelling
and has been used as a dwelling.
MS. MOORE: It has a CO for being an
accessory structure. It had history --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is someone living
in this now?
MS. MOORE: I can't say that. That's not
an appropriate answer that I can make because from
here if this transcript went to criminal court and
we'd end up in justice court over whether or not
it's habitable or non-habitable. So those are the
kind of statements against penal interest that I
wouldn't --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I'm actually
getting at is it's pretty clear what you are
requesting to do, two lots instead of one, use an
area variance, which would then allow the
principal dwelling that's there already to have a
side yard variance so it can get a CO and be
deemed to be a principal dwelling rather than an
accessory dwelling?
MS. MOORE: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you would have
two lots with two dwellings, one dwelling per lot,
and now you've got a curb cut?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I understand in
a sense, I understand the logic behind it very
well, but it would appear to me that the barn has
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
',(:-
68
1
9
been used as a dwelling, and that would have been
a nonconforming use on this one lot for some time.
MS. MOORE: The alternative to this
application would have been to convert it as a
cottage, a second dwelling on a property, and the
Town prefers not to see those, so given the size
of the property, it made sense to make an
application to subdivide, and then have two
conforming principal uses.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think the
Board needs to -- they should know all the facts
and ask any questions it wants, but the applicant
would certainly have a right to seek this
subdivision and this variance irrespective of
whether there was even another structure on the
proposed second lot. So I think the Board should
be making a decision in consideration of the area
variance standards, among those the nature of the
variance, the extent of the variance, its impact
on the surrounding neighborhood. Does the Board
wish to see a second lot and a second home?
Because if there was nothing on this area where
the barn is now, they could seek to subdivide it
and then they would have a right to build the
house. So I will concede that if there were an
existing house already and it were legal and
people were living there already, that would be a
strong argument to say there's no impact on the
neighborhood because there's already two houses,
but I think they're not willing to say there's two
legal houses there, so you have to go by the
variance standards and whether you want to
increase the density from one to two.
MS. MOORE: Although, I would point out
with respect to that, the uses of this property,
there had been -- and Mr. Fischer you had a
drawing and we can provide it -- which is that
there is a CO history that there had been a second
dwelling, a cottage, on this property that when
Mr. Fischer purchased the property, he agreed with
the Building Department because it was in very
poor, dilapidated condition, to remove it. So he
demolished what had been a third structure on this
property, that had been a separate dwelling.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How does that have
bearing on today's proceeding?
MS. MOORE: To the extent that this
property as a larger piece had three structures on
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
April 27, 2006
~._._-~c.
69
1
2
it. Remember this predates the subdivisions
behind it. With respect to the impact on the
community, there had been as many as three
structures, one of these structures, be it the
barn, had been worker housing. So there were farm
tenants in there and the community hasn't really
changed.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I want to give you a
hypothetical, suppose, somewhat unlike what we
have now, we actually had two families living in
the two buildings quite openly; so you have a
nonconforming second home on that property, and
realizing that that is not a legal situation, one
would apply for a variance first to subdivide, so
you would no longer have two houses on one
property, then it would go to the Planning Board
and then except for the variances it wouldn't come
before us at all.
MS. MOORE: Are you saying that the two
structures with two families in each structure had
COs as two families?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. Only one had a
CO, but both of them are occupied, and suppose the
one that's a former barn had COs appropriate for a
principal residence, but alas, here you have got
two houses on the same property and you can't get
a CO for the smaller one, so you apply for a
subdivision, then you can make that into a legal
house; would that be different at all from what
we're doing now except for the order of things and
the need for the variance?
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that I'm
following that hypothetical.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think
Michael's saying if the barn were indeed a house
and people were living in it, and it didn't have
the appropriate CO, the subdivision and variance
route would be the same as followed today, and it
would be a way of legitimizing the arrangement.
MS. MOORE: That scenario is you would
have to admit to illegality and risk whether or
not the Zoning Board would grant the subdivision
and then legalize it without creating this
situation where now you're in a code enforcement
scenario.
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
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
wouldn't be the Zoning Board
subdivision, it would be the
First of
granting
Planning
all, it
the legal
Board.
April 27, 2006
~F-
"..','l\'''I;.~,
-If.'~'""-.
70
1
2
MS. MOORE: You need a variance first to
split the property, the variance is to go to the
subdivision.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We don't grant
subdivisions. I could imagine a situation in
which the family living in the smaller house was
living there openly for years and receiving mail
and having telephone service and just not having
to do to now. This would be a classic as-built
case.
e
3
4
5
6
7
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's not. With
this particular application, Mike, you are
assuming that because it looks like a duck, it
walks like a duck, that it is a duck, i.e., a
house, it is not. It doesn't have a CO for a
house. It never existed as a dwelling in the
Town's eyes. I understand that you see cars there
and curtains and all that stuff, but it is a barn
for all intents and purposes. That's what it has
always been. It's not nonconforming, it's not any
of that. All this is is they need a variance
because of the lot size. They want to subdivide;
that's not unusual, and the fact that there's a
barn on this property that will become the
principal structure after this subdivision, needs
a variance because it's not 15 feet away from the
property line. That's all we need to discuss on
this, anything else is superfluous and really not
subject to any of what we're needing to discuss
here.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Because hypothetically
let's assume that you have this, had 20 years of
use without a CO as a --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If it pre-existed
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
zoning.
MS. MOORE: Then we wouldn't have an issue
20
at all.
21
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Even if there
were -- and I'm not in any way suggesting there
is -- an illegal use, you would still have the
right to come in and try to subdivide and try to
make it legal. So the point should be whether
this meets the variance criteria or not.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to be clear,
this is not a nonconforming use on this property.
It's an illegal use, if you want to look at it.
There's two completely different definitions.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. And
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
'~<1;._'
--~~-----:-
1
2
that's not what's appropriately before
you. What's appropriately before you is whether
this lot is big enough and whether the setback is
appropriate given the neighborhood and
circumstances.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we move on?
MS. MOORE: I had presented all the facts
in writing, I'm here to answer your questions not
to regurgitate what's already in writing before
this Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anybody else
would like to speak for or against this
application?
MR. KELLERMAN: My name is Steven
Kellerman, I sent an email about the application,
and I'm here really to sort of learn what this is
about.
It seems like on my email I said -- I
didn't say this part I think it's a really good
deal to do this. It sounds like a good deal to
cut your property in half and ask for a variance
and have two houses, one of which could be sold
and one of which you can live in -- or two of
which could be sold eventually -- and I certainly
don't wish the Fischers any ill will, I think it's
a really good deal. But I thought it's not in
accordance with the way that I see Orient
developing and the way it used to be. It just
seems to be me it's kind of an oddity. If you
agree with that then it's fine. I wrote also that
it would lay the groundwork for a lot of other
possible subdivisions, it would seem to me. You
made it clear that obviously, when I was talking
about that there were other barns and out
buildings that could be used, I guess that's not
even a question now because really it's a question
of whether or not it has to do with the setbacks
and has to do with the 10,000 square foot.
MS. MOORE: 9,130.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Talking about the
size of the lots, which are average for the size
of the lots even when they're separated, they're
average. I read your email and I read Pat's
application, that's the only reason why I could
explain that to you that clearly. And I
understand your not wanting to see another
residence in that neighborhood, I understand that,
but I cannot think of too many other places where
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
April 27, 2006
~. ':,-~.i>;C~.:-'}7
71
"'"
- --"''''~ ~ ... ,~
-~
72
1
It
3
this would actually
probably some older
may be able to meet
much larger lots.
MR. KELLERMAN:
subdivided the same.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Of course, another
10,000 feet this one wouldn't even be a subject
for a hearing. We're just looking for ways to try
to make them meet the application of the law.
They have kind of proven that they can live there,
even though they're not going to say so.
Certainly everything has to be brought up to code,
septic system, and that would all have to be
upgraded. I understand your concern, I understand
that there may be other places. We're trying one
application at a time. I for one prefer that we
not pigeon hole ourselves to this application in
denying it, that this is not so egregious that it
can't be had, and I wanted to get all information
I could and I did. I understand your concerns but
I'd like to see this happen if it could. Put up
with it, it would be nice, if not, I don't know
what more, how far you go with it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
else? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion
the hearing and reserving decision until
come about. There are
houses-in Orient that would
that, but I think they're on
2
4
The larger lots could be
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
Anybody
closing
later.
16
(See minutes for resolution.)
17
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next one is
Bendick, Number 5881.
MS. MOORE: Mr. and Mrs. Bendick are here.
This is pretty straightforward. The plans I
submitted, and they just told me the change on how
you deal with the first floor when -- you're
keeping a basement, how you deal with the first
floor when you're adding a second floor. Their
plan and continue to be their plan would be to
continue to keep the walls of the first floor,
but -- back up, they were going to live in the
house while they're doing the renovation, so the
walls were going to remain, working on the garage
addition first, kind of squeeze into the garage
then work their way into the building. They got
smart, and they decided not to do that so they
will make everybody's life including their own
better by not living there. At this point the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
~C-<~-'-''''''-'''CV''',!,,_..--,~.~,.
~"","'-
1
2
architect said, if you took the first floor down
and used new wood, you'd save 20 to 25 percent of
the cost of construction. Nobody mentioned at one
of your previous hearings, what the true reason
that somewhere along the line your plans change
because when you take down walls, or you take down
sheetrock, you don't necessarily know how the
builder before you built. In this instance, they
haven't taken down the sheetrock, they can work
with the walls they have because that was their
plan initially, and if the Board wants us to do it
that way, they're prepared to do it, but since
they just mentioned it to me, and we could submit
drawings identical drawings but instead of the
walls that are replaced versus remaining as shown
on the plans, it would be the basement staying the
same, the design of the house staying exactly the
same, the only difference for the Building
Department would be for the framing detail, if I
know correctly about the Building Department
request, it would just be a framing detail
difference between this plan and construction
drawings.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You mean for the
first floor?
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
tit
14
MS. MOORE: Everything is staying the same
the only difference is the walls for the first
floor, the drawings you have there show the
existing pretty much without hatch mark, only the
additions with hatch mark that's on the first set
of plans, AI, if you want to give them the
opportunity to save 20 percent on construction
cost, then they show plans that show the new walls
with new framing, and that construction cost
generally run around no less than $200,000 for a
renovation, so 20 percent of a $200,000 is a
significant dollar figure. So I think that's why
you're getting the type of applications you are
because when people come in they have certain
ideas in mind, no problem, just add a second
floor. Then all of a sudden when the builders
come in, they say, if I do it your way, add
another $50,000, $60,000 to the price tag, and not
realizing the impact of what the answer they're
giving the builder.
BOARD SECY.
for the first floor
MS. MOORE:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
tit
KOWALSKI: Are
that you have?
No. They just
told me about
there new plans
25
April 27, 2006
""~W,
73
..~
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
!r~f,'-'i..-~;::C-~;;'>;:-- .
'.ci;;';,-
,...~".:c- --:-.---.~R.-::-'c-
.
74
it in the hallway. I said, no, you can't tell me
that without at least alerting the Zoning Board
that we're going to have possible reconstruction
of the first floor because my application and the
architect's drawing show proposed second story to
existing one-story dwelling.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So you're going to
get us a new first floor plan?
MS. MOORE: I can, if it's not an
objection by this Board, it's identical, and if
the Board has no objection to us replacing an
architect's drawing with really, if they did it by
CAT it will be easy.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are talking
about everything from the first floor up.
MS. MOORE: The basement stays. The only
new basement portion was going to be that covered
porch because it doesn't have footings, that's
new.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was the front
yard variance that we needed.
MS. MOORE: Just the front yard, and
that's a nice feature with stone porch, that gave
a nice style to the house.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What year is this
house?
MS. MOORE: 1960s.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
the existing condition of the
more feasible structurally to
to try to --
MS. MOORE: But keep the foundation.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Keep the first
floor, meaning when I'm referring to the floor
itself.
MS. MOORE: Keep the sill.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Keep the deck and
everything.
MS. MOORE: My construction terms are
the flooring, yes.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is what I was
getting at last hearing, we're requiring people to
keep 2 by 4s up, when is all the building codes
say you have to have 2 by 6's anyway, and all your
windows are made by 2 by 6 construction, they're
six inches now, everything is geared towards that,
and we're allowing that to get around some kind of
nonexistent kind of law that we have that says
Given the age and
house, it's probably
do a tear down then
April 27, 2006
<'~'~:'--'" c-""".'''''1Il'''~'<
---
'"m""'\""
.,
75
1
5
it's not demolition it's renovation, whatever.
And I see people coming in, now this person may
come in and they're telling us what they want to
do
MS. MOORE: Only because they mentioned it
in passing out in the hallway. Had the architect
convinced them after this hearing to do it that
way, I could have potentially been facing coming
back here because you would have said we thought
the first floor was staying.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
I agree.
Much better to do
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
it now.
9
MS. MOORE: It's based on Walz.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No, it's not only
the interpretation. It's based on the architect's
opinions on the plans, what he submits to the
Building Department, that's what starts the whole
review.
10
11
e
14
MS. MOORE: I'm backing beyond that. Once
the architect has a certain mindset but doesn't
know what's behind walls.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But to look at the
house for the first floor to see what's needed out
there.
MS. MOORE: Many times they don't take
down sheetrock. I don't know any architect that
would do a drawing without going to a property,
but the reality is that sometimes, just as you
said, you don't take down sheetrock to know how
good the framer was that did the work, some are
very good and some were fly by night that didn't
do a thorough job. Victor LaSarde, it hasn't been
that long since he was here, he would look at the
preexisting setbacks, and the code itself says
that there's nothing that stops you from
remodeling, renovating, reconstructing preexisting
nonconformity. Where you guys and the
interpretation that has derived from Walz is --
let's take the first floor, you can reconstruct
the first floor, which was a nonconformity, when
you add the second floor is what the Walz decision
dealt with. So to the extent that somebody
changes the plan and you've given a variance for
the second floor and looked at it, the fact they
you removed the first floor, I think you could go
back and look at that interpretation and, say, no,
we didn't mean when you take down the first floor
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
:'1""'.,
'{;ll';f!,f\"
,,-:,".\!.-.~;,~,'1~ ~
"", '9""
76
1
5
that was pre-existing nonconforming and was
allowed to be reconstructed. We looked at the
second floor, and again, as long as the volumes of
your house had been reviewed on your appeal, it's
a very strict interpretation that now you're
sending to the Building Department saying you
change your drawings, you change your plans, you
got to come back to us. Rather than saying, hey,
if you're substantially complying with everything,
listen, the first floor, take down a wall, you
leave a wall, there's really no difference. In
fact, the state building code and your policy
should be you shouldn't keep that garbage there,
you should really rebuild it and make it conform.
In this instance, we're addressing it now and I
know you've had several applications already where
the Building Department said, that's really you
took down the first floor that was part of the
application and now you have to start over, and
that's really Draconian.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: For the
applicant to be open and honest, upfront, the
Board knows what it's approving and what it's not
approving. I think the only hitch is there are
probably some minority of instances where the
Board may only allow the addition based on the
hardship of the existing building or structure and
it's conceivable that if they knew that the whole
thing was being torn down they might grant
different relief than if they thought it was being
left intact.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is
absolutely correct based upon the very small
unique circumstances of real nonconforming
setbacks.
MS. MOORE: There are some that are
significant nonconforming.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But there are
probably loads of them that the Board has no
desire to keep the old construction and would
grant the variance irrespective of whether it was
a tear down or whether you were keeping the first
floor.
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. MOORE: What's the difference between
keeping a foundation --
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm not saying
anything against this application, I'm just
explaining why it's relevant to the Board to know
.
25
April 27, 2006
,:,~;j~&'J:~':'
.-7,__--';-":"iWi~,r-
77
1
2
whether it's going to stay or go.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And also the
Building Department because they're looking at it
when the architect applies with those plans, if
he's not showing everything on there that may need
to be replaced, you know, a substantial part of
the renovation, when are you going to find out?
Then the applicant has to tell us when they get
before the Zoning Board at a public hearing and
say, oh, by the way, we now find out that some of
the lumber has to be replaced and we have to redo
the first floor, why couldn't that be done earlier
through the architect's opinion, like an expert
visit to the site.
MS. MOORE: I don't know that there's any
solution.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It seems to me what
you need to do is simply change the cross hatches,
proposed two-story dwelling on existing footprint
and foundation. That's it. You're not
effectively changing anything. It's the case we
just heard is exactly the same. You're rebuilding
exactly what was on the first floor to code,
structurally sound what may well be previous
construction. I think you just need to make it
clear.
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands,
I just want to wrap this up.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The point of this
advanced knowledge is we want to avoid bait and
switch, which happens occasionally and not very
commonly, but we don't have to spend a lot of time
deciding whether it's a bait and switch or good
faith miscalculation.
MS. MOORE: For this application what do
you need me to do?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly what
Miss Weisman --
MS. MOORE: You want me to tell you by
letter --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to
have to submit plans to the Building Inspector.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Call them and tell
them to change the label so it's very clear that
it's new construction throughout on the existing
foundation.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I know the
Building Department and they're going to say, what
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
..\
c;gR"~'I'-
",~"
-"";-"~~'~;'.~:~:'
-'<""',
78
1
2
did you approve.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Our resolution is
based on the plans and that's why I keep going
back to that, if you don't give us the right
plans, you're not getting the right approval.
MS. MOORE: We give you the best plans we
e
3
4
5
can.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Upgrade the plans
6
and
9
MS. MOORE: I'm going to give them to you
and before you write your decision, that's not a
problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anyone have any
objections to this application; anybody want to
support the application? Nobody's here. Hearing
no further comment, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
7
8
10
11
-------------------------------------------------
e
14
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
it Baner it's 5874. Good afternoon, sir?
MR. BANER: My name is John Baner, and
this is my very nervous wife Denise, and we're
applying for a variance for 10 feet to build a new
house for us out in Orient.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to
tell us why you need that 10 feet?
MR. BANER: Based upon the house we're
living at now in Nassau County and the amount of
stuff we have accumulated, we feel that this is
the house we want to spend the rest of our lives
in.
12
13
15
16
17
18
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, we'll
start with Mr. Dinizio, we've kind of gone to him
last, we'll let him start.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You got a
wraparound porch, right?
MR. BANER: Right.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you cut that
off, you would only need a four foot?
MR. BANER: That is correct but either way
I would still need a variance.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not inside
livable space where you can store stuff, like the
explanation you just gave us. The house is the
same size as the one that you're moving from?
MR. BANER: No, it's larger.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This house is
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
'r~;:l\l< ..~:
. i!;:~
~',r"","~';~'~; '.T. """-.'
79
1
2
larger?
e
3
MR. BANER: Correct. And what's unique
about the property is it's on the corner so it's
considered to have two front yards and even if we
face the house the other way, we've sat down with
the architect and tried to skew it so it would fit
on that property without really having to reduce
the size of the property or the aesthetics of it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand the
dream part, and I'm sure back there is why this
porch is a wraparound porch because I have one
just like that, but I'm wondering if you could do
away with that?
MR. BANER: There is, we would rather not,
but if we have to.
MRS. BANER: We our property sits --
diagonal, across from our property is a piece of
property that belongs to the association and they
can never build there because it belongs to the
association, so we have a beautiful view of the
sound, and to sit out without mosquitoes and
things like that, it would be a beautiful view and
to be out there and to have friends out there and
sit it would make the house and make living out
here really --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's the 30 foot
side that's where you see the water from?
MR. BANER: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you want to
screen that in?
MRS. BANER: Not screen it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just trying to
get a hold of your dreams, honestly. I can look
at a flat piece of paper and see a house that has
a nonconforming side yard. If I don't ask the
questions, you can't get your dream. I'm done.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you tell me
which lot or come up and approach and indicate
which lot?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, Lot 22. I
think the unique part of this property is that
Green Acres is a subdivision without curbs, so
it's interesting to know that the road is not the
50 foot wide road that we have in normal
situations. Therefore, you have got to have
between seven and 10 feet until you actually get
to your property line from the actual pavement.
MR. BANER: I mow it twice a month, you're
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
~~"""~-~-
-""'T.~.:~"""-"--._--
-~ ~l"'"
80
1
5
being kind.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know if
there's ever any plans to widen the road there but
in any case I think that's one issue that leads
credence to the 30 foot setback, and I'll offer
that to the Board.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write
this deliberation, and it would appear that most
of the lots that are new construction in that area
are consistently applying for some degree of
setback variance because of the shape, the size of
the lots and the size of the houses?
MR. BANER: I know a lot of the houses on
the waterfront that would be north of our
property, that line of sound, I haven't checked
into it but just from looking into it it appears
that they do not have the setbacks that would be
necessary.
BOARD
BOARD
BOARD
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
GOEHRINGER: Michael?
SIMON: No questions.
DINIZIO: What about the
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
garage?
13
MR. BANER: The garage, because it's a
private community we're also set by covenants and
restrictions. One of the covenants and
restrictions for that community is that the garage
be attached. Again, we've done different ways to
look at it to have it attached and detached, but
looking at other houses in the area, and does the
Board have the pictures that I submitted? On Page
4 of the pictures you'll see that the house
directly across from us actually has the garage in
the front yard and is attached in a similar
fashion to their house as is our house or our
plans.
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yours is not
attached?
MR. BANER: It's a little breezeway, maybe
eight or six foot section breezeway.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that how you're
meeting the C and R?
MR. BANER: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the
association's okay with that?
MR. BANER: Yes. They were more upset
that it would not be attached. If I could add
also with the covenants and restrictions, they say
that they want 40 feet from the front of the
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
,---~-,-:"....
-""o~-
81
1
2
property line to the house, but also the setbacks
on the side would be 25 feet, so if we move the
house over, that would also meet the requirements
of the covenants and restrictions to have 25 feet
between the garage and the side yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right now the shed,
you're proposing to put in a shed or the shed
exists?
MR. BANER: No, the shed exists. From
speaking with code enforcement because that's a
shed, it's within code.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine, it's
an accessory building. You have a 19.3 foot --
what's the setback from the proposed garage to the
property line; is that 19.3? I don't see it, it's
not on here.
MR. BANER: I believe that's 16 feet --
I'm sorry, 15 feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 15 feet, right?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 15 foot side yard.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: A very small part
of the garage needs the variance also, to the side
of the house. It's only a small part of the
garage that needs the variance, about 10 feet of
the garage.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you see that;
do you see what she's saying?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll ask the
question, is there anybody in the audience that
would like to make a comment on this application?
Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
for the Estate of Boocock, that
MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm,
Southampton, for the applicant.
This is a pretty simple application, I
think. We're taking two lots, two building lots,
two Fitco lots and turning them into one pursuant
to the terms of Mrs. Boocock's will. She wanted
to deed a portion of one of these lots to the
Ferguson Museum, which is the open space
repository on Fishers Island. Prior to her death,
Next appeal is
is 5868, Mr. Hamm?
38 Nugent Street,
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
~,_", -';,1:;'<
82
1
5
she put a conservation easement on it anyway and
now that she has passed away, the estate attorneys
need to carry out her will. So we're doing a lot
line change that will create this substandard lot.
However, it will never be built upon. It's
already burdened by an easement and you can put
conditions, if you need to, to grant a variance
for this. The benefit of course is we're
eliminating one building site and the extra land
from this property will be added to and merged to
the house lot, there's an existing house, and that
will result in the creation of what is now a
nonconforming lot into a conforming lot.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the
conservation easement was placed on proposed
Lot I?
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
MR. HAMM:
Right. The southerly portion
of it.
11
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But by the same
token by the mere fact of putting it into the
Fergusen Museum's name, it would have been
sterilized anyway.
MR. HAMM: That's right. This is to carry
out the will and now it can be deeded. We've run
into this before, most of the people over there
deed the property outright to the museum rather
than give the easement because the easement does
not eliminate the tax burden on the property. So
it's the benefit to the owner to give it away
completely.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
question because I have to write
Questions from Mr. Simon?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is
is this museum limited to that piece?
MR. HAMM: They own many, many
properties.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They're not
continuous? The museum is simply the name for a
series of properties owned by the museum?
MR. HAMM: The museum owns many different
properties, correct, and everyone of them they
record covenants and restrictions against them
that prohibit building.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just curious, is the
museum an entity over and above the properties
that it holds?
MR. HAMM:
I ask that
the finding.
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
Yes, there's actually a
April 27, 2006
0-'
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
~'W~"c
-""-"",':"""'1I'~"':'''',:''\
'.1C,~
83
physical museum.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's quite a
distance from here.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
MR. HAMM: They have
history and artifacts.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
What's in the museum?
historical, natural
It's not just a
conservancy?
MR. HAMM: That's right. This is one of
its roles however.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. You're
reducing density and preserving open space. I
have no problem with it at all, you're creating a
conforming lot, no brainer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No question.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If there are no
other questions, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
-------------------------------------------------
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
for Kennedy, 5870. Mr. Hamm, we're ready.
MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street,
Southampton for the applicant.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
mention that we did receive a letter on this.
right?
MR. HAMM: I'll go into that in a bit. I
spoke to Mr. Keenan earlier in the week, my client
has, and she's written him a letter which I will
give to you in a minute which addresses what we
believe are his concerns. We are concerned that
his request for an adjournment has quid pro quo
written over it, but he can present his own case
should he choose to.
As I said, the memorandum addresses why we
think this location is the best one. I've given
Linda an affidavit from the surveyor which is
attached to that memorandum. So, before, I
address any of those issues, I would like to -- I
think and I'd like your views on this, that the
Building Department is in error in saying that we
have to set back from this right of way, and I
base that on, I was here four years ago on the
Richard Guest application, and I've got pages from
that decision, a little map, definition of a
April 27, 2006
-'~:::;I!l'~~.-
1
-,,~~-,---
,"
;t~
84
e
street. You have an excerpt from it. This is
Guest, this is where you ruled four years ago.
The number of the decision is on that page I just
only access; is it not?
MR. HAMM: It's t e access to this
property.
BOARD SECY. KOWAL KI: That's why it's
different.
BOARD MEMBER GOEH INGER: I would tend to
one of the determining fa tors.
BOARD SECY. KOWAL KI: That's my
understanding from the Bu Iding Department.
BOARD MEMBER GOEH INGER: If you have this
again, what would be help ul, Steve, if you gave
us an aerial on it so we could take a look at it.
As you know, we have been over there probably 30,
40 times, but sometimes you need that aerial to
zero in on it.
MR. HAMM: That's an interpretation, in
just reading the ordinance though and looking at a
common definition of "street," which I have given
a couple of examples, it just seems odd, peculiar,
but at the same token that gives you, I think,
2
3
4
gave you. Crescent Avenu
nearest public street. T
that goes to another prop
this side, exactly the sa
right of way that the own
and both sides, it goes t
Building Department in th
pool -- this is a current
built, but we had the set
way for a dwelling and a
argue a variance as well
you were -- or the Buildi
error. You agreed in thi
last two pages of the dec
this is not a street from
set back, and I would ask
we even have to consider
Building Department does
yard as well, I disagree
fact a street and I have
memorandum, but we could
need no variance at all,
is not a street from whic
require a front yard setb
BOARD MEMBER GOEH
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
for Guest was the
ere's a right of way
rty that adjoins it on
e case we have here. A
r owns the right of way
the property. The
s case says for the
survey now, it's been
ack from that right of
001. I came in here to
s to say that we thought
g Department was in
case. And that's the
sion are there, that
which we would have to
that you so rule before
nything here. Now the
ay that we need a rear
ith that if this is in
ndicated why in the
edesign this so we would
f you were to say this
one would have to
ck.
INGER: But it is their
April 27, 2006
~':~"""'.'o
;.,,"i
85
1
8
more leeway to grant more relief in a sense that
only a few people use this. So it's not a
traditional street from which there is any public
policy reasons to have a huge setback. So it
comes to me, and you have a situation now you want
me to argue the variance side of it, the property
is bisected by this right of way. So there's
really no or almost no -- you could possibly
squeeze something in but as I say in the
memorandum, you'd be restricted on the one side by
some severe slopes and other side by wetlands.
The engineer, surveyor, the affidavit I submitted
is a relatively flat area. It would involve not
nearly as much earth movement, regrading,
excavation as other parts of that side of the
right of way would involve, if we were to push it
back towards Keenan, who has asked for this
adjournment, or to build on the waterfront side,
of course you have environmental issues. So we
feel that this is a superior location, it's a very
modest house by today's standards. I spoke to my
client this morning, and we had submitted some
plans. I think the footprint of the house itself,
exclusive of the garage which he probably will not
build right away anyway, is about 1,000 square
feet, it's a 2,000 square foot house. It's in a
flat area, and we feel that this is the best place
for this lot. Which is a building lot. It's been
approved by the Planning Board, minor subdivision
filed with the county and so forth.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me step back
one second. Based upon many of the applications,
if not most of the applications we bring in, they
are all Fitco orientated, all the Fitco property
except for the main thoroughfare, which goes from
the Town property all the way to the Fishers
Island Club are all private roads. They're all a
nature of very untraveled highways, roads. In
fact --
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MR. HAMM: This is in the west end.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know this is
the west end, but on the east end, those are
usually the cases. Most of the time, even in the
west end, when you get to that area up on the
northwest to northeast side.
MR. HAMM: That may be, but if you are
saying only a few people are impacted, if you're
addressing that part of the argument, many more
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
:t,m~~v~ .
1>''.:t:{".',
.\. c:,---:,~.,;,;,:"
86
1
.
3
people are impacted in Fitco. If you own a lot on
the Fitco map, you are entitled to use any road
that's on that map. So you can go anywhere
basically within that area. Here we have
Wilmerding, who owns several of the lots behind
this and then Keenan in terms of who can use this
right of way. It is distinguishable in that
respect.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Who uses the right of
way, just Wilmerding and Keenan?
MR. HAMM: Wilmerding and Keenan, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The 30 foot setback,
how does the argument go, exactly, if there are no
setback requirements at all required for this kind
of nonstreet, then it could be three feet instead
of 30 feet.
MR. HAMM: No, you would make an election
at that point as to where the right of way comes
in maybe would be considered the front yard.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the fact that it's
30 feet rather than 20 feet or 40 feet is relevant
to the overall attractiveness of the application.
MR. HAMM: We would like a 30 foot setback
for reasons that it's far enough back that she
won't be bothered by vehicles and pedestrians, and
yet not so far back that it's into some slope.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you acknowledge
that it should be easier to get a 30 foot setback
than a 20 foot setback? If it isn't really a
setback, why do the numbers matter?
MR. HAMM: I don't acknowledge that, I
think it's silly, the whole thing is silly,
frankly. But I think that one of the factors that
you have to weigh under the state law is the
substantiality of the variance, and this I concede
is substantial if there's a 60 foot setback
requirement. However, you have to take that
substantiality in light of the other factors.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And degree of
substantiality then becomes a factor.
MR. HAMM: Exactly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hamm, we
don't see that 68 foot setback on the map.
MR. HAMM: Right. Let me explain that.
The Building Department, we vetted this map with
the Building Department last fall, and I mention
that in myself memorandum, and Dick Straus, the
surveyor, drew a building envelope, I sent it to
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
~1f-':;:~
87
1
6
the Building Department; is this right; yes,
that's what we'll give you. When I went for the
notice of disapproval, I had a different inspector
who had a different take on it apparently, but I
think that the second opinion is wrong because, if
you look at -- if, in fact, that right of way is a
street, then it creates a triangular piece, which
you would have to go back to the point to see
where the rear yard is. If Hay Harbor, the
northerly boundary of the property is a front
yard, then I would agree, that we would have to
set back on the entire length of the Keenan
property line. So that again, I would ask your
interpretation on that. That's something that's
not as substantial and I think that could be
modified if it had to be. But I think we would
need only the 30 foot front yard variance, I think
you could overrule the Building Department at
least insofar as the rear yard is concerned if
you're inclined to agree, or grant a variance
because it's not particularly substantial.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And that's 68 feet
that's set back, right?
MR. HAMM: That's measuring it and I spoke
to the surveyor, the surveyor scaled that off,
yes, that the edge of the garage I think would be
68 feet from Keenan's line, but that's the nearest
it would be is right in there, 68 feet scaled.
But you see, yes, I'll agree that's a rear yard if
that's the front lot line on Hay Harbor, but if
this is the front lot line then go in that
direction to determine the rear yard. And indeed
I've spoken to Damon, and I'm pretty sure he
consulted with someone before he gave me that
opinion, I think Pat Conklin wrote the notice
because Damon was not available that week.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think they're
going parallel with the right of way.
MR. HAMM: And that's what the surveyor
did. So I think if you're inclined to grant a
variance, you would only be required to grant a
variance for the front yard I think.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The way it's sited
now, it seems to me it's on the absolutely
flattest part of the property, it would require
the least amount of grading, and least amount of
runoff. I have to write the findings, so I want
to make sure I have all the information.
2
.
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
'.1,.
'.,~~~<.-.
c,":i,'C'.'!,)-._"fl''''
'~,,-,'-
~'''t'57.~:, '-":~
1
2
MR. HAMM: The flattest part on that, if
you consider there's two parcels bisected on that
southerly portion of the property it's the
flattest. I'm sure the contours are reasonably
flat towards the water, but then you have other
issues.
e
3
4
5
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to say on
your side of the right of way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The road is all
theirs. They could go on the other side, they
need wetlands permits.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Exactly you run
into a whole other series of permits.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's obvious that
that's where the house should go on the property.
You are on the flat part. I think it's a
driveway. I don't think it's a street. If that
were the case, you could just take it and move it
over and put it on the side of the property?
MR. HAMM: In fact, there is a written
right of way agreement where she has the right to
relocate it, but that, of course, would be very
expensive.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. It's
possible for you to do that, it's not like it's a
well-traveled street. If you wanted to, you could
move it if for some reason it became a public
hazard or something. I agree with you 100
percent, Mr. Hamm, this shouldn't be before us
honestly.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with you
too. This is a perfectly reasonable site given
the impact of the surrounding properties, wetlands
on one side, severe slopes on the other, this
looks to me to be extremely well-placed. It's a
very, very limited access road. There's only two
property owners in addition to your client that
share this right of way.
MR. HAMM: Well, Wilmerding has three or
four houses in the back there.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like to make
a motion to hold this hearing in abeyance until
May 25th at 1:00 p.m.
(See minutes for resolution.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is
for Aliano, Number 5846.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I wanted to mention
25
April 27, 2006
""I-:::(tf "-".~,.~;
\'f,!
88
)l!'~,..,-;.-:-
89
1
5
the Aliano hearing, and before we start, we did
receive some information late in the afternoon the
day before yesterday. I was not able to
distribute it to the Board Members until I saw
them today, it was from Cramer. I will distribute
them now and make them part of the record.
MS. MOORE: I'm actually going to have Tom
Cramer start because it's the technical report.
MR. CRAMER: Good afternoon, Members of
the Board, for the record, my name is Thomas
Cramer, principal firm of Cramer Consulting Group
with offices in Miller Place. I will try to be
brief.
2
e
3
4
6
7
8
9
What you were just handed is the response
to the Saltwater Conservation District letter of
March 30th. She went through and made a number of
statements, number of comments on the erosion
control plan that was submitted to her. I note in
her letter that satisfactorily addresses the
methods of erosion sediment control. She went on
and talked about how it should have included plant
material and methods of installation and things
like that, but the erosion sediment control plan
is a document that's dictated by the state of New
York as to its contents. It's not a planting
diagram, it's not a planting plan or specification
sheet. So what I did for the Board's benefit was
I included some notes on the planting plan that
was previously submitted to you. I included that
in the package. Essentially it talks about,
specifies the type of grass, the irrigation
methods and how to irrigate. I also provided for
the Board a general specifications for planting
plan, essentially a spec sheet that is given out
to a contractor before. So I included that, which
really addresses all her comments. So she
unfortunately when she had the erosion sediment
control plan, didn't have the other documentation
so she didn't have the benefit of everything. But
I pulled it all together and I have given it to
the Board.
Ordinarily the specification sheet such as
this doesn't go to the municipality; it generally
goes to the contractor. It's to protect the owner
of the property that the plant material is
installed properly and he has to do it this way so
it will be maintained this way. That's
essentially what you have before you.
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
. '.'1:'-.;.'1/1'11 ~
90
1
9
Just yesterday afternoon, in fact, I
didn't see it until this morning there was an
engineer's report that was faxed to me. I'll go
through it briefly; I didn't prepare anything
written on it, but I did have an opportunity to
review it, and also to discuss it with our
engineers for the project. Unfortunately being
that this was last minute they couldn't be here
but I'll relay to the Board what our conservations
were as far as my findings also.
For the most part the site conditions and
proposed development and the soils agrees with
what we have presented previously. It's more
potato-potato type of thing. They're saying it
one way, we say it another. But for the most
part, it's consistent with the previous
submissions that we had.
There are three recommendations that he
makes. He goes through talks about bluff and
coastal dynamics, makes reference to some of the
ports that are out there, but at the last meeting
I believe the Board heard testimony from the
adjoining property owner that put on the record
that he had put in a flag pole 18 feet from the
bluff. He put it in 18 years ago and it was six
feet of erosion since then from it, which comes
out to about a third of a foot per year as far as
erosion rate in the area. And that's consistent
with the aerial photos that I presented to the
Board the last time, the historic aerials as well
as the various reports, the reports that he states
is a foot, less than one foot on some of the other
reports in the area. Even though it's an active
erosion site, it's not significant erosion as far
as greater than one foot per year and in some
cases, we've had cases of two foot per year in
other locations.
He does make a couple recommendations,
three recommendations, one being that the
applicant should conduct an analysis of the site
prior to the proposed development and then with
the proposed development disposal system in place
to determine whether there's potential for slope
destabilization in both the location of the
building and from the proposed development. I
believe it was last meeting, where our engineer
was here, Bill Yaeger, he has previously presented
a report to the Board and has also testified that
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
April 27, 2006
~:
It,!lf';''.
91
1
5
the building itself will be stable in this
location given the soil types on the particular
property. That report was for the original
building, which was closer to the edge of the
bluff than what we're proposing now. The new
building has set the building back I guess some
eight feet from what was originally proposed. So
that moved back it further. There was discussion
also as far as the soil types on the site and how
the leaching from the sanitary system and the dry
wells might destabilize the slope. I have a copy
of the test boring that was done on the site for
the Board which I'll pass up. This corresponds to
what I find out in the field also. The first foot
and a half is loam, the next foot and a half is
brown silt, and then you move into silty sand with
10 percent gravel, which goes down to about seven
feet; then you get into the pale fine to coarse
grain sand with gravel in it also. This is all
excellent leaching material, even after the rains
we have had recently, you can see there was no
ponding, there was very little runoff that
occurred on the site also. In discussing it with
the engineer, what's to be expected on this site
is really vertical recharge from the bottom of the
leaching pools to essentially go down
straight. The only time you would have horizontal
movement is where it hits the ground water itself,
which is at two foot elevation, which is below the
base of the bluff. So we don't have the situation
where there's a lot of clay in the soil where
water may come down as it recharges, hit the clay
and then move out to the bluff; that's not
happening. There's no indication of leaching
coming off the face of the bluff which would occur
if there were clay in the areas. There are as
testified last time, there are areas immediately
adjacent to our site where overland flow from the
top of the bluff, the neighbor's lawn areas
essentially directed over the edge of the bluff
and has eroded gully out on a section of our
property. And I believe as a result of the
testimony, the owner has directed our attorney to
contact the owner and have him cease and desist to
take the necessary measures to contain the runoff
on his own property. So again, it's good
practice, part of the erosion is overland flow.
We don't have any of this seeping coming out the
2
.
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
April 27, 2006
',.""'-':',
92
1
2
sides and because of the groundwater elevation,
any lateral movement will be below the base of the
bluff. So we're not going to have any problem
there.
e
3
9
There was some question with regard to the
retaining walls and having to bring in large
amounts of fill; that is incorrect. The way the
site has been designed, as the Board can see the
plans, there's a set of three retaining walls on
the top which will drop the ground elevation down
from what it is in existence, then there will be
another set of three retaining walls further to
the east, which will allow a flat surface. So we
are essentially cutting it out of one place and
moving it to the other. There will be no fill
brought on to the property, we're just balancing
cuts and fills on site. That slope between the
two setbacks of walls will be five percent, based
on Health Department requirements and all these
plans have been approved by the Health Department
as far as the recharge and everything else.
He also makes a recommendation that we
should seek -- I'll read it. Should the ZBA grant
the relief of the requirement for the 100 foot
setback from the coastal erosion hazard line --
which is really incorrect, it's really 100 foot
setback from the bluff line -- relief should be
conditioned if legally allowable upon the
applicant seeking or obtaining approval to
complete a suitable toe protection bulkhead
recommended for consistency with adjacent
protective measures, slope stabilization. Some
top soil may be added to the slope to encourage
the establishment of vegetation. It also states
that the applicant should also be required to
complete a low bulkhead protective measure across
the end of Duck Pond Road to mitigate any adverse
impacts at the end of the bulkhead. Essentially
what he's talking about is going on to Town
property and building the bulkhead on Town
property, which I don't know whether we can obtain
that permission, that's certainly something this
Board wouldn't be able to address.
Be that as it may, my client would be
willing to seek the permit for constructing of a
toe stabilization. The New York State DEe doesn't
like structures; they do not like bulkheads. What
we would probably like to do is seek a rock
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
~,,,",.,,,
1
2
revetment along the riprap along the base. There
are a large number of stones there already that
are protecting the bluff presently, and we would
continue that type of structure if the DEe would
allow us. And Pat can probably speak to it better
and also your attorney as far as whether -- it's
my opinion that this Board wouldn't be able to
necessarily make that permit conditioned on that,
but we would certainly seek it because it would be
to our benefit to provide a shoreline
stabilization in that area. We would make every
effort to obtain that permit. If the Board in
granting the application would consider or make it
a condition that we at least seek this permit to
build the thing, we would certainly be willing to
do tha t.
The final recommendation is the storm
water management where he makes reference back to
the soil and water conservation letter that that
should be adhered to, and again, that's what I
previously presented to you; the soil and water
conservation is one type document, but I provided
you with the other documents that address all the
other issues that she had in there.
He states that the applicant should be
required to immediately institute erosion
prevention measures on the site, particularly
loose dirt stockpiles to prevent soil loss. We
have done that; it's been effective even after the
last rainstorms. The contractor went out on
Sunday afternoon after the rains. I don't believe
you received the rains that we did up island, but
he went out there anyway and made sure there was
nothing occurring and there was no erosion
occurring even after those storms.
So we're fully prepared to institute all
the recommendations. If you have been out to the
site, you have seen the three buildings that have
been created. We placed jute mat down on the
slopes in an effort to stabilize those. There's
no movement of any types of material. The hay
bales and silt fencing is still in place and will
continue to be in place until the site is
stabilized.
That pretty much sums it up. I know you
have a lot of to consider but again, as I said,
this most recent letter is something that, again,
it's more potato-potato type of thing. We're
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
April 27, 2006
';e[
.'''.\;
93
,,'
94
1
9
pretty much in agreement with him. There's a
couple of things that I think were incorrect or he
may not have had the complete information we
provided through this process. But we would like
to have a decision, preferably a favorable
decision on this.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We would like to
close the hearing, but we will leave it open to a
discussion amongst ourselves at this particular
point, and we'll see what we are going to do.
MS. MOORE: Does anybody have any
questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're still
absorbing everything including the most recent
documentation from Mr. Cramer.
MR. CRAMER: There is the other letter
that was recently in; we'd like to have the
opportunity to provide written responses to it.
Again, our engineers, I was only able to talk to
them. One is on vacation, Joe Baer, who did the
original sanitary design, you probably know Joe,
he was the head of Suffolk County Health
Department in the past, he's working for Dilbert
and Bottalucci's. He's the one who did the
sanitary system. We also have Bill Yeager, who is
familiar with this, who we would like to be able
to present to the Board a written response to
this.
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: How much time
do you want?
MS. MOORE: When is Joe returning?
MR. CRAMER: He'll be back on the first.
MS. MOORE: Did you plan on closing the
hearing subject to submission to response to a
letter? It's essentially addressing the Geotech
certification.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If the Board
was inclined, they could close the hearing for
oral comment and leave it open for a certain
amount of time for you to submit written comment.
MR. CRAMER: If there's other written
comment coming in -- if you could just limit it to
the -- because otherwise I could see it going back
and forth and back and forth.
MS. MOORE: We weren't aware that you had
an engineer.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That's up to
the Board.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
April 27, 2006
e
e
e
95
1
2
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As far as I'm
concerned, if you have additional documentation
that you want to submit. We have a lot of
information. I don't really know other than your
right to respond to anything that's been recently
received what else we could possibly consider.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The closing of
the hearing also triggers the time to respond, to
make a decision. I think the Board wants to keep
it tight.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN:
3
4
5
6
7
I think at this
close to all
8
point it's most reasonable to
testimony.
MS. MOORE:
Just in response to your
9
engineer.
MR. CRAMER: Again, we were fortunate that
you didn't receive the rain that we did up island,
we had like six inches that came through there.
Everything was failing, recharge basins were
overflowing. If the storm was a little bit to the
east when it passed through, it would have been a
major problem. So I mean, we still have the
potential of similar problems out there if this
isn't acted upon quickly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I used to
do in the past was make a motion closing this
hearing to oral testimony, and then closing it as
a matter of right on the day of our special
meeting, which is --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Two weeks from
today. In order to receive written response
regarding the report.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So if we close
to oral testimony today and then in your special
meeting you can close it for everything.
MS. MOORE: So your time frames begin from
that special meeting.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make that
as a resolution.
(See minutes for resolution.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
April 27, 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
e 25
96
C E R T I FIe A T ION
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 27th day of April, 2006.
RECEIVED 4- ~
J:'1~ 1'111-
JUL 1 1 2006
~~~tl~
~;nClerk
April 27, 2006