Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/25/2006 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 o F SOU THO L D Z 0 N I N G BOA R D o F A P PEA L S --------------------------------------------x Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York May 25, 2006 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney ORIG m SCANNED L_.~___ AUG 1 8 2086 Records Management COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to open our regularly scheduled meeting for May. First up lS, Mr. Curran, you have the as-built shed in the front yard. Of course, I think you have three front yards. MR. CURRAN: That seems to be my confusion and the basis for my appeal. When I purchased the house and I moved in my address was 680 Oakwood Court, designating the front of my house, which lS the existing front of the house -- I'm not sure if you have pictures -- when I purchased the shed, I placed it in what I conceive to be the side of the house. It's an unusual plot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know, very familiar with it. MR. CURRAN: And I'm making the appeal to the Zoning Board that the shed remain where it is. I stated in my areas for variance request that I have already cleared that land, removed all of the bramble, made it attractive to the community and physical environment. The shed is located near the driveway for easy access; it's a pleasant looking shed. I made sure it was compliant to the existing structure of the house with the same roof shingles, the same matching trim, and I even included flower boxes to add to the aesthetic value of the shed. Unfortunately somewhere along the line an anonymous complaint was filed with the Town, and I then was visited by the Building Inspector who said that it doesn't seem to be in compliance. And I pursued, well, my understanding is that this is the front of my house, this is the side of my house, pointing to the woods, I have another side of my house and this is the back of my house. So just from a logical point of view I placed it in position where I considered it to be in compliance. He then said that you need to pursue with the Zoning Board and that's what I have done from July 7th on until today. So, I am appealing to you to consider the placement of that shed where it is in that wooded area, which is, In my mind, the side yard but according to regulations, it might be some other yard in terms of the layout of the property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, you have two front yards, Oakwood and Lakeside, and probably Lakeside was barely even open when you bought the house. I think that's rather newer, that whole 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 May 25, 2006 3 1 2 new subdivision by General Wayne Inn. Michael do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, just some comments. My question, almost a rhetorical question, is where else you might put it consistent with the rules? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Got me. MR. CURRAN: I don't have many other -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This seems to be a function of this strange, particular rule, which makes sense about having multiple front yards on a corner lot and, in fact, this house actually it really does have two front yards because there's two front doors as far as I can see from looking at the house, but that doesn't seem to be a problem because the shed is in almost the ideal place, and it's not clear to me anyway that there lS significant obtrusion by the shed. I really don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does the shed have any utilities in it, any electric, anything other than just the shed? MR. CURRAN: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you intend to put any utilities in it? MR. CURRAN: I was thinking of maybe running an electric wire for a light, but that doesn't have to happen if that's something you would say shouldn't happen. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In fact there's only one other possibility, you technically have one side yard and if you're standing facing your house it would be to the right, and that's where your septic system is. MR. CURRAN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So, I noticed that there was some fence screening behind your house if you think of the front doors; the shed itself in the position that it's in is not blocked from the neighbor's view, would you consider putting in a couple of evergreens, something like behind it just simply to create a little additional privacy? MR. CURRAN: Yes, I would. As a matter of fact, if there was a complainant that indicated that to me, that would have been easily resolved 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 May 25, 2006 4 1 2 and I wouldn't be here. However, not knowing who I was offending by this I had no resolve but to come here to you the authorities in charge of all of this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's just the zoning code. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not us, it's the law. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it was quite a journey since July for just a shed. I have no trouble at all with this whatsoever. Quite honestly, I don't think we should put in a provision for screening. That's my own opinion, that's not how probably it will happen, I just want to state on the record that you're entitled to have a shed on your property, and In my opinion the Town caused that problem, not you. You have come before us because you have a hardship in trying to comply with the code, not the other way around. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't break the law. Geography lS different in Town law. MR. CURRAN: I'm still a little baffled by the fact that I have two front yards or three front yards, did you say? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, two really, Lakeside and Oakwood. MR. CURRAN: But I believe the builder had sought a variance designating the front of the house, before I bought it, because my neighbors told me this. They got notice before they were even built that they would be putting the front of the house on the Oakwood side. That doesn't matter? e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. For the purpose, that's basically it. MR. CURRAN: Right. I think I remember when I purchased the house they said you could pick either address. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have an ordinary subdivision where you have a house on the corner and front yard setback is let's say 35 feet, where the side yard setback doesn't have to be any more than 10, the purpose of this rule lS to say that people who have a corner lot don't put it only 10 feet from the side street. So it's because of the setbacks, it also produces some strange results such as occurred in your case. 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 5 1 2 But there is a rationale for the law, it just doesn't fit your instance, that's why you're here. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 ------------------------~------------------------ 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for James Bissett on Cox Neck Road in Mattituck. He has a little problem with a horse barn. Is there anybody here to speak on this application? MR. KELLY: Bill Kelly and I'm the owner rep for James Bissett. If you have been over to visit the site, you'll notice that they have a nursery in the front and they also have a horse facility in the back. It's for their own private use. Bissetts actually raise and breed race horses, so that's what they ralse there. As far as this facility, if you have been to the site you have noticed that we've already built the actual stall barn, and that was done under permits. It's in an AC zone, however, we have never gone and gotten -- the code's kind of changed since I've been here the last couple years. I'm not sure how it works with AC zones. From the standpoint if you file for it as an agricultural building and then it goes to the Planning Board or whatever. So far to date, we've been able to build these buildings as accessory structures to the residence, which is clearly there. And we would like to do the same with this facility as well. All it is used for is when the horses are at a young age, they green break the horses and it's an indoor facility so they can try to keep things confined and outside peripheral confusion out of the way of the horse. From the standpoint of that, a building for that type of use really needs to be 14 feet clear on the interior. The way our structure is configured that puts us at 24 feet to the peak and puts us about I think a foot and a half over midpoint of the gable, which is where we come into the problem of code compliance. And two things with that. It is an AC zone, if it was an agricultural building in an AC zone, I wouldn't even be here because then it would be code compliant because then they're allowed to meet the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 6 1 9 32 foot peak height or midpoint height. And the other part of that is from the standpoint if it was an accessory structure say, for example, it was a 24 foot wide garage that was 10 feet tall and had a 16-12 pitch on it, the peak height on that building would be 26 feet high, and the midpoint of the gable would be 18, which would be code compliant. So the point of that is this building is 24 foot high to the peak, if it had a steeper pitch on it and was a foot lower, it would be code compliant. The reason I can't make it any lower is because with the horse and rider, typical horse is 17 hands tall, 17 hands tall lS roughly 72 inches, a hand is four and a half inches, you put a rider on top of that, three and a half feet for the rider, that brings you to nine and a half feet, that leaves you four and a half feet of clearance to the trusses, and then if you have light fixtures, that's another two feet for light fixtures. So that only leaves you two and a half feet of clearance. So if a horse bucks, rears whatever, that's why we need that kind of clearance, so therefore we need to seek a variance for the height of the building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My granddaughter took lessons over at Jackie Bitner's so I understand the problem. MR. KELLY: If you look at the size of the building, it's a very small, what you would call an indoor, it's only 54 feet wide, and I think 80 or 90 feet long. So you can tell it's not for commercial use. A commercial use-type facility would be closer to 100 feet wide by 200 feet long. So it's really for their own private use in breaking the horses. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very clear, I have no questions either. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question is, Mr. Kelly, and it's very pragmatic, and that is from this particular point on, how do we get in if there are future variances? I happened to get In there the east gate or the north gate -- MR. KELLY: We could make it to where you 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 May 25, 2006 7 1 9 could either call myself or call the owner, the owner lives on site. He actually owns Bissett Nursery. They're readily available, they're good people, as far as friendly and everything like that. There would be no problem getting on site. You could call me, I'm Morton Buildings, I'm local. So by calling me and me contacting Jim, and I think those gates are open most of the time, and you can actually enter that site through the nursery and get all the way through it. And the nursery is ungated. So the only gates are the gates to his driveway and the gates to the horse facility. The only fencing is the actual horse fencing internal, and that's internal to the horse facility itself. That's just to keep the horses confined so if one does get out it doesn't end up on the street. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is, and maybe I didn't fully understand the drawings, you're saying that the walls, the vertical Slze, in order for them to be 14 feet high, glven the pitch of roof you want, you actually have to have this. I couldn't find a measurement as to high the side walls were. MR. KELLY: The side walls -- inside plans to the bottom of the trough is 14 feet, and I had submitted a detail, I don't know if you got this detail or not. I actually dropped it at the office. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We actually got it 17 today. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: into the office every single BOARD MEMBER SIMON: question. MR. KELLY: That would give you all the dimensions and why everything ends up being the way it is. It's a 4-12 pitch truss. I can't shallow out the truss because we would have roof and snow loads. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any problem with this. This is what I wanted to see. MR. KELLY: If you visited the site, you can see that aesthetically they're pretty well done. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close Not everybody goes day. That answers my 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 8 1 2 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Miritello, that's for an accessory cottage. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? Mr. Lark, how are you this morning? MR. LARK: Good morning, I'm fine. Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicant. I believe you have the affidavits of posting and publication in the file. The subject of the application before the Board is an 18' by 28' accessory building on the premises. The applicant is here because of the notice of disapproval of the Building Inspector dated last September 22, 2005. The applicant purchased the property on September 20th, but the deed is dated September 20, 2005. The applicant is here to answer any questions that you might have about this building that she knows about. I did not represent the applicant when she purchased. I became involved afterwards when she received the notice of disapproval from the Building Inspector. My first thing to do was to do a little research because being somewhat familiar with the neighborhood through all the years, I was under the impression that that building, the accessory building I'm only talking about, had been there since the 1930s, and that made sense because the main house on the premises is probably over 100 years old and had been there time in memorial. And what I'm going to tell you now the application lS fairly complete so I'm not going to repeat it, but because of the way the notice of disapproval is drawn we're both in a mix and match between an area variance and a use variance the way he disapproved it or the way the Building Department disapproved it. But after I started to get involved in this, everything that you have there in your package before you, the Building Department has, and it's somewhat shocking to me that I am here. But in any event, I went and did the research, and I found a property card that had a notation of this structure on 12/2/59. And apparently it's always been listed almost everywhere as a seasonal cottage. The '59 entry Ln the property card was one seasonal, one-story and then there was 2,400 two-story on the 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 9 1 9 premises, and then it goes on and on the back of the card they talk about a cottage 18 by 28 or 504 square feet, and that first entry that I could find was in '59. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you give us a copy of that? MR. LARK: Sure, I thought you had it. But anyway, then digging around I find a 1971 survey by Young and Young showing, which is the cottage in this location, which calls is a one-story frame house, it also shows the two-story frame house on it. So I located that because I couldn't understand the notice of disapproval. Then almost the coup de groix lS I located a 1984 CO for the accessory cottage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, Mr. Lark, just the back side of the assessor's card was missing. MR. LARK: I'm sorry, that was a mistake on my part, I thought I had it. So then I found this '84 CO issued, so I was really then puzzled. So when I met with the Building Department on it to discuss their notice of disapproval -- no, I did one more thing prior, I talked to the prior owner that Ms. Miritello purchased the property from, Mr. Tannenbaum, he bought it in '84, and he sold it to her and he held it. So I asked him without getting involved with anything I was going to do before the Board, so I asked him to tell me what it was all about, the building. And it was interesting because I said the '84 CO calls for a greenhouse. He said there was never a greenhouse there. He said what you see is what was there then except, and you have it In his affidavit, which he graciously provided me, I did upgrades, I replaced windows, I put in new bathroom facilities. He said all the things I did there but he said he never changed anything. I just upgraded. I said what about this heat issue, he said there was heat there and I just upgraded it and he told me the contractor was VanDuzer. So I go to VanDuzer and I talked to them and Cindy DeBenidetto, she then researches her records and she finds in I think it was '92, '93, that they in fact put that system in that was there today because the other system wasn't too safe. But there was a heating system there. So they took that apart and put the one that's in there today, 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 May 25, 2006 10 1 2 which is a relatively safe CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: situation. That's a space gas e 3 heater? 5 MR. LARK: Yes, but everything is outside as far as the burnings and exhaust and everything. Then I went to the Building Department, in fact I talked to three building inspectors there, one of which Mr. Tannenbaum said had been on that site because if you notice in the file there's swimming pool COs, there's additions, there's everything else so the Building Department has been to this property many, many times over the years. And I said first of all, the application that the real estate agent made in that transaction from Tannenbaum to Miritello back last September, I said they just wanted, like most attorneys do and banks do, they want updated COs, they want something that's current, that's what they did. So then you put in your disapproval that they want as-built alterations. There have been no alterations, here's what you have. Then we continue on, then he said, well, it was altered to include heat and to convert a sunroom into a bedroom. I said what evidence do you have of that? They said, none, we just feel it's that way. I said, that's very interesting, here's the owner Mr. Tannenbaum, who has no interest in this thing, giving an affidavit saying it didn't exist in fact, he told me one building inspector, Mr. Fish, I said you were at the property. He said he didn't remember anything. All of a sudden we had convenient amnesia. So then he goes on, and he tries to tell me that this is not a permitted use. And I said are you familiar with the zoning code, and I read him the definition of the zoning code of an accessory structure, you know, used in conjunction. It doesn't say anything about -- I know two of you on the Board remember -- we went through this with the kitchen business years ago in a house, that you can only have one. When you have an accessory structure used in conjuncture with a principal dwelling, you can have heat, you can have cooking facilities, you can have bathroom facilities, you can have all of this. It's just used as an accessory to the main house. So they became intransient and said, you're probably right, but let the Board decide, but why put the applicant through all of this. I 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 11 1 2 talked with your clerk, Linda, and she said make sure they have everything, she was perplexed as I was. So I made the application the best I could to meet the requirements as required by 267 of the Town law to conform it to both an area and a use variance, although because it's preexisting and it LS code compliant, I don't understand really what we're doing. Apparently you're to authorize them to give an updated co. I guess that's really what my application is. It's a very frustrating application because it complies, but they won't make the decision, and it is disgraceful that they won't do that, but that's why we're here. And if there's any questions because I would just be beating a dead horse because I think Mr. Tannenbaum's affidavit and all the information and COs and the history that I've given you of the property pretty much speaks for itself. And even if it didn't comply, it's obvious that it was there before the inception of zoning, the original structure. There's no denial that the Tannenbaums did those upgrades that he said in there, but I don't think they're unlawful at all, and, in fact, he said that Mr. Fish did inspect the place at one time, and he did grouse but nothing ever happened. They were there a number of times, you can see that from the additions and from the swimming pools and all that other business. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did Mr. Tannenbam upgrade the accessory structure? MR. LARK: After he purchased in '84 during periods of time, he put a new heating system, put in a skylight, new windows, that type of thing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was a cottage before '57, approximately what year was it a seasonal cottage? MR. LARK: I think it's always been a seasonal cottage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What date, '30s, '408, , 50s? MR. LARK: I was told that that place existed In the '30s. But it always was a seasonal cottage, and it's always been that because original on a survey, the water came from another place, had its own well, and he converted it, ran it from the main house and they shut the water off In the winter and no one uses it in the winter. . 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 May 25, 2006 12 1 2 And I said why did you, he said the heat was always but I wanted to upgrade it because I had my mother living there, and my mother-in-law living there and so on and so forth. He said it was chilly in the spring and in the early fall, just to take the chill off. But it's always been used as a seasonal in conjunction with the main house. And in fact talking to Miss Miritello, she said it's going to basically end up as a cabana for my family for the pool except when there's an overflow on the weekends staying at the house. She's not asking for a full year round situation there just keep it seasonal. She'd have to do other things with insulation and water and stuff like that if you were going to make it a year round deal, that type of thing. She's here if you have any questions you want to ask her. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. We had a very nice inspection the other day. I was a little late but I eXplained why. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have a question, I have an answer to the question you raised, that is how is it that the Building Department could put her through this? The only thing I wonder about is which is worse the Building Department erring on the side of requiring people to get variances when they shouldn't have to or interpreting applications in a way so that things get built without any kinds of appeal, basically failing to give notices of disapproval in any cases. And some of us wonder which is a more serious problem. I agree this is a problem that shouldn't have happened. MR. LARK: I do understand but when I was talking with them I said, any of these things if they didn't exist -- obviously she didn't do anything, but if Tannenbaum did any of those things, they're not illegal except he should have had it inspected because you should have your heat inspected, the electric was inspected because I got a certificate from Bartra to show they did everything correctly. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The only other thing I can think of is when you require a building permit for those changes, when they change from one heating system to another, there was no record of a permit. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 13 1 2 MR. LARK: No, he didn't because he was upgrading and he was told by the contractor he didn't need to, he was just replacing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Not a new furnace but if other upgrades are going on, the Building Department might require, that's what I was told by the Building Department. MR. LARK: That's their rationale? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I visited the site, and I have no questions, just a comment, I'm sorry for the waste of your time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, when I read this last night I said we're just going to say, no, it doesn't need a variance; but it does need a variance because if we say no, you're in limbo for another two years before they're going to make a decision. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. LARK: resistance there, let them view the ignore it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Our experience is that the Building Department would rather turn it over to us than to review their own decision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In all fairness, I think they're trying to be consistent, even though they're not. They error on the side of well, it's only a couple more months and you have your permit, but I don't see inconsistency. MR. LARK: Here time didn't affect her because the onset of winter. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it's there I took the path of least I said, just go to the Board, facts and rather than just 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 anyway. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this application? Yes, sir? 21 MR. RUSSO: My name is Dan Russo, and I live in the neighborhood. I have only two questions with regard to the variance. Does this change the existing variance to more than a single family residence? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. It's an accessory cottage to be used seasonal for members of the family only. MR. RUSSO: Can it also be used as a rental property? 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 ..,,"," 14 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In all honesty, yes, it could appear that way. That's the trouble when you go to legalize these things. The law is kind of ambivalent, yes, in all honesty to be truthful, yes. It could be rented legally by this person on a seasonal basis. MR. RUSSO: On a seasonal basis? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. It couldn't be rented to say a government agency or anything like that. It would never meet the criteria for say Section 8 or something like that, but it could be the criteria for a person coming out for the summer that wants to stay at a place for the summer, it could meet that criteria, legally. MR. RUSSO: How would that affect neighboring property values and stuff like that? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You value your property. I live in Greenport. So as far as I know I don't think it would affect property values. It's there and has been there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Lark, would you have any objections if we put in our decision that it's for family use only? MS. MIRITELLO: I would like to assure my neighbors I have no intention of renting it. I have no intention of letting anybody changing the structure. I just I have a large family and it was there when I bought the house. I want to say a bonus, I don't know if I want to say a bonus now, but it was there when I bought the house, and my feeling was, okay, if I have everything out here at least I have more bedrooms. MR. RUSSO: I don't have a problem with that. My only concern is five years from now if they sell the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If we put the condition on it, it runs with the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It runs with the e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 house. 22 MR. RUSSO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're welcome, thank you for coming in. Does anyone else wish to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 23 24 e (See minutes for resolution.) 25 -----------------------------~------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is May 25, 2006 15 1 2 for Mr. and Mrs. Ekster on Horseshoe Drive in Cutchogue. What would you like to tell us? MR. EKSTER: We're looking for approval on an addition we're putting on. Our daughter has a disability and the scope of the alteration was to create more room for her. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a variance requested because a future road is about to go in possibly on the other side of your large hedge. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But you have a large hedge that's going to stay there. MS. EKSTER: We have been there for 31 years and it's never developed into a road. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're looking at 33.9 feet from what will then be considered a front yard rather than a side yard, rather than the required 50 feet, and that's why you're here. Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the future road I think is the whole thing, and I don't see that ever happening, and quite honestly, I don't see any other reason why you shouldn't be granted this. That shed that exists, that's there, it's going to stay there? MR. EKSTER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I see that as a problem also that we should address. Besides that, I have no objection. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Me either. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Me either. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even if there were an actual road there you at least would have an arguable case for the variance given the hedge. So your case is even stronger. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Mr. and Mrs. Cotton on Dogwood Lane in Southold. Good morning. MR. COTTON: I have asked to add onto my cottage on Dogwood Lane a front deck and on the rear I have an existing deck, I wanted to make it 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 16 1 2 a little bit larger and screen it in. The original reason for doing part of these projects was the safety issue, the landing on the front stoop is only 20 inches, so when you open the door, you have to step back, so if you have a package or something in your hand, which my wife did one day, sort of slipped off the stoop. The rear deck, the railing that exists now lS at knee level, which is obviously quite dangerous. If you turn one way, you can go right over the edge. The second reason is obviously to add a little more living ~pace, the cottage lS quite small, there's only one living room, two small bedrooms and a kitchen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: lot because your coverage which is considerable, by your lot. Let's see what say, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, I'll just make the statement we have never gone 34 percent. We do understand that the lot is small and I was there, I understand that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: One of the smallest lots in Southold. MR. COTTON: I do have letters from the two neighbors, they are year round, stating that they have no problem with it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just a You have a very small will be 34 percent, considering the size of everybody else has to e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 seasonal? MR. COTTON: Weekends and the summer a little more, but we are year round, every other weekend we seem to be out. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only other possible thing, I think they're modest and reasonable additions and when I was there I asked -- Mr. Cotton had said he had spoken to his neighbors, and I'm glad that you have some supportive testimony to submit, I think that makes a difference. Is there any way that you can without altering the front elevation, move the stairs to the front door because that would actually -- it wouldn't change the lot coverage, but it would create a different front yard variance. I'm just asking and I'm not saying that you need to but because it is a very tiny lot and what you're trying to add on is reasonable I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 17 1 2 think. It's a big spread and the only other thing I could think of would be to possibly move the steps to the side yard because they're going to come in front of the deck, so that will bring the steps even closer. That's just a question not a requirement. MR. COTTON: Constructionally I don't know, I would have to ask the architect or the builder. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, they could be in your side yard, you could enter from the side and then into your house because you're putting the deck all across the front. You could still keep the portico and everything else. Aesthetically I think it looks better with the front, but I'm just thinking of the setback. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm concerned. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could build the stairs -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know if there's enough space to build the steps, and have a big enough landing to use to walk across from one side to another side, that's another option, if you can scoot those in a little farther then the steps wouldn't be protruding into the front yard. I mean, there's a couple of choices. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's as an alternative if they don't grant this one. MR. COTTON: I didn't think about it but now you bring it up. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My concern is, and it's consistent with Leslie's comment about the alternative, the house is already a nonconforming house, it already occupies more than the 20 percent. Now no one is going to say you can't continue to live in your house but the question is when the house is one that couldn't be built today, then the question of can we expand it just a little bit does become a question, which is why you have to come before this Board. The general idea of making the best of a small lot lS a good idea, but can it be done in a way that minimizes the impact, and I think one way that would minimize the impact would be, quite frankly, not to have the additional reduction of the setbacks on the street side but the idea of putting those stairs on the side I think might be a solution worth considering. 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 May 25, 2006 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm a professor of architecture, and I'll have a look. I just want to tell you I think you've done a lovely job. We're neighbors. I walk by there every day when I take my walk, and considering what this bungalow looked like before you renovated, you've done a wonderful job and it's really improved the neighborhood. And they're very modest additions to a very modest house, the problem is the size of the property. And if the neighbors don't really object to these additions then I'm thinking it will only enhance your ability to live there and make the place look nicer. I'm going to take a look and see about those steps, it may not have any aesthetic impact and it might help mitigate some of that front yard setback. MR. COTTON: Then wouldn't the portico look out of place? It would just be a rail right in front of it? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would be a porch or -- let me just have a look -- you could do it if you definitely move the stairs right into -- you've got 4'10", that's pretty shallow, how many risers do you need? Three and then a landing, that's too shallow, you won't have enough of a landing for those steps. So, I mean, if you scooted them to the side where your entrance to the porch is, that's one option. MR. COTTON: On the north side or -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. I would probably put it on the side where you have a 10 foot side yard. MR. COTTON: On that side right now -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Where your deck is, where your cut-out of your house is because you don't want to interfere with the steps on the porch. MR. COTTON: There are hedges there, you remember, I think the steps would come right into the hedges. Because I know behind on the side of the house, behind where I want to put the deck, I know there's 10 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Ten feet facing your house to the right. MR. COTTON: But there's hedges there, those are not mine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: trying to do is find a way to 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 . 25 18 What we're really say yes with the May 25, 2006 19 1 9 minimum impact because as Jerry points out, 34 percent lot coverage is pretty much unheard of. So we're doing everything we can to say yes, but we're trying to do it in a way to find the least impact so we'll just think about it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I guess they're talking about would you take alternative relief without the need to reapply? MR. COTTON: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, I've been on this Board for 18 years, and I can't recall ever doing that. To me it's a no-brainer that that front deck just doesn't get built. If you want something in the back a little privacy enjoy your house and that's based on all the other people we said no to. People that know me I know I believe in property rights to the nth degree, but quite honestly, I can't vote for 34 percent. And I see the only way that you can do that lS if you want to fill in that little gap in the front of the house and put a porch and deck on that -- that's only my opinion, I'm one of five -- you're welcome to do that. MR. COTTON: I didn't understand that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The jog on the southwest side of the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Don't go any closer to the property line, stay at 13'6" and fill in that little square, that little bite out of the house, put an entryway there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What you can actually do quite simply is if you eliminate the deck to the left of your door, and simply move the stairs in so that you have a little landing and that landing would lead you across to the deck on the right, then that would take care of the problem of the entry sequence as well as allowing for a small deck. It will minimally reduce the lot coverage also. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not my proposal, I'm saying you take and 4.6 off of that and don't go any closer to the property line than 13' 611 . MR. COTTON: I see what you're saying. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know you have to get into the house, I understand that, and I looked at the house, and I'm not going to tell you 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 May 25, 2006 20 1 9 it's easy because nothing is easy, I understand that. But honestly, I think of the people we told no for one percent increase, I would not vote for this and that would be more on principal. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually, the existing stairs, which are not actually drawn In In terms of the dimension, you have 13'6" to your front elevation, but on this existing plan, you don't have the dimensions as to where your current stairs are. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They don't count as setbacks. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If they're not counting then it's very simple, you can just move them over to where your new entrance is -- well, actually it's the same entrance, so just rebuild those and then we have to discuss whether or not we have a deck off to the right or not. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion is that we give them a lot coverage max that we can all agree to. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is your current lot coverage? MR. COTTON: It's small. It's over BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's obvious, but quite honestly -- MR. COTTON: My calculation I was only adding 317 square feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was very bad In math, sir. And quite honestly, for legal reasons it has to be precise. If you want to have an architect. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Sir, your lot is 3,300 square feet and you're adding 300 square feet, that's almost 10 percent of lot coverage increased. BOARD 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 e 25 square feet. we agree on a Mr. Cotton to develop. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My problem with that, Jerry, is that our maximum has been 28, he's more than that already. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm telling you, my proposal would be at this point, and I'll say it right now, 30 percent, I would go with 30 percent. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The house is 700 Again, my proposal to the Board that maximum figure and we allow develop whatever plan he chooses to 20 21 22 23 24 May 25, 2006 21 1 e 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can discuss that later, we're not voting on that now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have the ability to reduce the deck to a ground level. MR. COTTON: Ground level doesn't come into play? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as it's at grade. MR. COTTON: Then I could put on that side piece bring that down and put the stairway coming up from that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Bring that stairs -- MR. COTTON: That would take down 120 feet right there, which is actually my original proposal to the architect. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You should have listened to yourself. MR. COTTON: Always. Then the other piece would be up, which is the place where I prefer to sit. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BOARD MEMBER clear then, the back MR. COTTON: there's already a 10 BOARD MEMBER and make it a patio. MR. COTTON: I'm listening. I'm looking for some agreement here. So you were saying the front would be ground level. MR. COTTON: That one portion, could do that, originally it was that side deck with the new step to make -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll work on it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe would you want to come back with something else or did you want us to make a decision? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We could offer you an alternative and if the alternative is unacceptable to you you could come back to us. MR. COTTON: For another $600? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. That's why if you want to wait a month, you can come back to us with your plan, take into account my comment and everybody else's. MR. COTTON: If I'm understanding CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We would just adjourn it for a month. DINIZIO: So let me get it you could go at ground level? Not the back. The back by 12. DINIZIO: You could go down 13 e 14 15 16 17 12' I to be going the 10' by just going and we were 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 22 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's two choices. You can accept what the Board gives you, you don't have to come back and the Board will vote on it in two weeks. You can go to your architect and then go to the Building Department and you're finished with us; or, you can adjourn it and discuss it some more with new plans at the next meeting in June. So it's your choice, you have those two options. Most people take the alternative relief and then they go to the architect. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the alternative relief is unacceptable. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Take a while and think about it, calculate the lot coverage, if you can figure out how to do that, with the deck at grade. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're going to need the lot coverage anyway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We're going to need to know what your current lot coverage lS and what your additional lot coverage is with that deck at grade and the deck to the left of the steps as you come up eliminated. MR. COTTON: That's gone. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's gone. Just put the steps going up to your front door and then the little deck off to the right at grade, steps don't count. MR. COTTON: Basically I can just eliminate that front thing and just rework the steps. See that was the other problem, somebody brought in a mason wanted $5,000 to replace my stoop, I thought that was insane, where I could get a little bit more for $5,000. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember the 30 square feet is exempt for the landing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Anything at grade is not lot coverage and the steps, 30 square feet is exempt. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll be here for the rest of the morning, come back when you have thought about it carefully. Yes, I'll make a motion to recess the hearing until the applicant comes back. (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 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is May 25, 2006 23 1 2 for O'Hagen-Murphy on Breakwater Road. MR. HAROLD: Good morning, I'm Diane Harold, I'm the architect. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to e 3 4 do? 5 MS. HAROLD: If you look at the site plan, you'll notice that this property is occupied by 11 houses. I'm specifically referring to the house on the south side of the property and it's the middle house, the one-story frame house that shows a patio block right on the north side of it, so this is specifically the house with which we are dealing. We're asking to raise the house, put a new foundation underneath it and renovate the house and also build a new deck that's 12' by 14'. This house is seasonal. There is no heat as the other houses are. If you have been to the site, which I'm sure some of you have, I'm sure you'll notice that some of the houses have been improved with new siding, they have been raised. I've actually dug underneath this house to check the foundation, and there's virtually no foundation underneath. It's a couple of blocks sitting on a block cross way. Obviously the house has some structural problems. Also, it is undersized for the building code, so we're asking permission to keep it the same size as it is because it is compatible with the other buildings on the property. We're mostly doing the renovation. With that, I'm changing windows, so I'm also going to be moving that hot water heater shed, and I'm actually moving it to the west so it will give it a little more space off of that right of way: we're making that a little less nonconforming. The new deck, which is 12' by 14', we're asking to have that as a raised deck because the owner has children and would like to keep the kids in a play area because as you see they're right off that concrete driveway, which is the access for all houses on this property. I think that's pretty much it. The house will remain the same size as it is, same shape, we're not changing the roof line, we're doing new windows, new siding and as I say, the interior renovation. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to address them. BOARD MEMBER: Will the deck go over the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 24 1 8 existing patio? MS. HAROLD: It basically will be tight to the house and not in the same location. We're moving the front door, so we shift more toward the middle of the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would that be an increase in area then? MS. HAROLD: It would be, yes, that's true. There is a deck that's similar in size that would be the very northeast, one-story frame house does show a deck on the east side, it would be compatible with that. So there is a precedent on this property for a raised deck. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're only going to ralse it to the actual entry-level of the house, which is not very far off the ground. MS. HAROLD: The house will be higher. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Once you add a foundation. MS. HAROLD: We're going to add about another two feet to get some circulation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're going to use that as a crawl space for electric and -- MS. HAROLD: Actually it's going to be on Diers, we're not putting anything down there because that's how all the other houses are, they're all on concrete piers. We just want a little more air circulation and part of the house is now in the dirt, so we're raising it about two feet. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the new deck is going to be 14' by 12'? MS. HAROLD: 12' by 14', yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that's gOlng to increase the lot coverage, the existing deck is at grade. MS. HAROLD: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One issue is here we have 11 houses on approximately 1.1 acre, so I haven't seen any numbers about percentage of lot coverage for this. And the question of houses on a tenth of an acre obviously are straining the size of the allotted area. I realize it's all one common owner, Marsano, so then when we go further and further on a lot that is already crowded by a very small building on a tiny lot, there are problems because there are also 10 other houses and they want to do the same thing. In other 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 25 1 2 words, at some point some decision would have to be made if there were pressure on this to make the houses virtually touching one another. MS. HAROLD: In view of the Board's previous cases my client is quite eager to proceed. If I eliminate the deck, they would be interested in getting the permission to renovate the house and provide say a 4' by 4' deck and steps down, and I would come back to the Board at a future date because I don't want the deck to cause this -- if you have been to the house you know how poor it is. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You understand the problem? MS. HAROLD: I understand perfectly. This lS something that they threw on afterwards. I can go back to them and say keep your patio where it lS, put temporary fencing around it for the kids. I want to make this work so they can renovate the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can put an at grade patio at the new location. MS. HAROLD: That's what they have. If that's the way the Board looks at it, and I can understand you totally, they asked me to put this ln so I have to, but I'm not going to make it an issue. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm asking these questions because I have to write up this case, you're doing a tear-down and building on the footprint? MS. HAROLD: I wasn't going to do a tear-down because I didn't think the Board would allow me to do that. I was going to do sistering, refacing, keep the roof, if the Board lets me tear-down, rebuild it, I would be ecstatic, but I didn't think the Board would allow me to do it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, we have had situations where we have granted relief for doing exactly that, structural repairs BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not all the houses of this nature. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In some circumstances people have discovered once you sort of strip away things MS. HAROLD: It's a mess, there's no 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 doubt. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not May 25, 2006 26 1 2 structurally achievable to do that up tearing it down, and then we're because we have not granted that. up now. that they wind in trouble So I bring that e 3 4 MS. HAROLD: If the Board were willing to grant rebuilding in the existing footprint, I would greatly appreciate that, and so would my client. .5 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would make construction a lot easier. MS. HAROLD: It would, and it saves them a lot of money. If the Board does not feel comfortable with that, I will do my utmost to keep as much as I can and just sister everything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The height would be changed slightly on the roof, the height would be higher. MS. HAROLD: I would keep the building exactly as it is because it is similar in shape and size. 7 8 9 10 11 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the house would be raised. 13 MS. HAROLD: The house would be raised. I still want to take the house out of the ground. I'm lifting the house two feet. I would keep the existing roof, it's a very flat roof. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it would be two feet higher? MS. HAROLD: It would be two feet higher, e 14 15 16 yes. 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We would need the new elevation figures for the file. When you're asking the Board to grant a reconstruction, a tear-down/reconstruction, we need something to show the new elevations. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm telling you you're treading on very, very, very difficult waters when you do that. MS. HAROLD: When I submitted Sheet 3 I did show you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: For a tear-down? That's what we're asking you, we need something to verify whether the height elevation would change or not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would be true anyway. It's still going to go up. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The plans submitted are two feet higher already. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 27 1 2 MS. HAROLD: And on Sheet 3, I did show you the new house and the -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's a little bit of a problem procedurally. I'm concerned because we didn't advertise it as a demo. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not voting for it that way. I'm voting it for the exact same way that Miss Harold presented this application, because, Number 1, there are too many houses on this property and I haven't even discussed this lssue with her at this point of what it's going to be when it's done, and I know Jimmy wanted to ask a question regarding that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make a comment that we here on the Board have to remember the reason why we have a nonconforming law in this town, that is we're supposed to be eliminating nonconformities, and if we start with 11 houses on one piece of property and we start letting them upgrade these things to be livable year-round residences with children and the whole nine yards, we are going to be in deep trouble. That's the reason why it's nonconforming. And, in my mind and certainly of recent years, we have tried to discourage the increase in the degree of nonconformance by how we have made our decisions. To now say that all of a sudden we can tear this thing down and build all new. I don't see -- MS. HAROLD: Excuse me, I didn't apply for that. It just came up right this minute. Personally, I was not of the impression that the house was going to be torn down. It was said five minutes ago and that wasn't my intention at all. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I only brought it up because we have had circumstances in the past where there have been cases appearing before this Board where renovation was granted but tear-down took place. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they were problematic. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They were problematic because I understand architecturally how difficult it can be to build that way, to build with sistering and so on, it can be done, of course, and if that's what you have applied for, fine. 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 MS. HAROLD: what they had to do. I have told my client that's It is gOlng to look May 25, 2006 28 1 9 differently because we are moving windows around, but that is compatible with what has happened on the property. There have been other houses that have been resided, vinyl siding, had window replacement, so we're keeping everything the same way. It's still seasonal, we have no place to put heating equipment. It's got piers so you obviously are not going to insulate a house that's got an open foundation. So it basically will be the same summer house that it is now. All of these people are related. So they're all watching each other pretty carefully. I just have to get the right contractor to do this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would emphasize Jim Dinizio's comment. Nonconforming, as you know, is a technical term for grandfathering. And grandfathering is not meant to be a way of leveraging little teeny weenie incremental increases on the property. So ultimately there will be fewer and fewer nonconforming houses. So this goes back to my original point, which is to move to expanding just a little bit is to move in the opposite direction from the Town's announced policy. So I agree with you that we're going to have to work around this thing and not get too ambitious. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're not changing any of the outside walls; they're going to remain exactly as-is? MS. HAROLD: I'm going to be sistering them, I'm going to be reframing them, but they will be the same exact outside walls. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, did you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's it. I'm glad we're doing it just the way you would anticipate it. MS. HAROLD: I know this Board. I worked In Southold a long time, and I understand the codes. So I do tell my clients before they appear before the Board what they have to do. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think you're serving your clients well. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comments on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 29 1 2 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for the Ragusas at Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. Would you like to tell us what you want to do? MS. RAGUSA: Yes. We put up a six foot fence to have privacy from our neighbor's property, and I guess when we erected the fence we asked the fence company if it was all within code and he mistakenly told us that it was okay to have a six foot fence in that area where I guess it's just a four foot fence, and because it's a flag lot I don't think necessarily has to pertain to the regular rules, and we basically just wanted to see if we could keep the fence, please. Does anyone have any -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have had some problem with your neighbor I do believe? MS. RAGUSA: Yes, a lot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand your argument is being made independent of unneighborly reasons for wanting to have those fences; it's basically for the geometry of the property? MS. RAGUSA: Yes, also hopefully it will keep peace. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even without that issue, you could still make a case. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What type of fence are you planning to build? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a six foot stockade. It's extremely heavily wooded over there and really virtually not very visible over there from the road or even from your access driveway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: at this particular point, this is and I'll just take a pass at this CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I think it seems to be set back from the road far enough that it's not going really interfere with anybody. MS. RAGUSA: Right. And I believe the intent of the law is so it doesn't block your vision as you pull in and out of the driveway. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we have been dealing with fences certainly in my neighborhood, this is set back off the road so people driving by don't see it, so it doesn't look like a big wall. I'll just pass mine to write point. 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 May 25, 2006 30 1 9 Do you intend to paint it in any way? MS. RAGUSA: No, just leave it natural. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Continuously maintain it? MS. RAGUSA: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions, I've seen it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else like to comment on this application? MS. SPIELMAN: My name is Gabriella Spielman, and I am the neighbor. Even though I heard the comment that the fence is not visible to the Ragusas, it is clearly visible to us. We drive up to a wall every day when we pull up our driveway. I have comments here from ourselves, and another neighbor opposing the fence. And I can go through those comments now, I'd like to. Now it seems tome that it's common practice for people to do these things, even though they're not as per code, and then say I'm sorry, I made a boo-boo, can we have an approval now. It's becoming very common now. So the fence placement has obscured from view a portion of our property located on the southeast corner of our lot. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, I just wanted to ask if the applicant has a copy of your material; do you have an extra set? MS. SPIELMAN: Yes, I do (handing). The first letter is one from the other neighbor that is opposed to the six foot fence, and in it she comments that she cannot attend the meeting, and she has -- I have not received any mail notification about this application, and I feel the height and solid structure of the fence is a detriment to the environment and aesthetic appearance of the area. And if you drive down Harbor Lane, you will see no fence like this. And I'll begin with our letter, our first point, the fence placement has obscured from view a portion of our own property located on the southeast corner of our lot. This condition has created an unsafe for our children, preventing the viewing of their activities from our own property. You can see the attached photograph. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 31 1 6 A second point is the eastern most part of the fence has further obscured the natural landscaping that was present before this fence was installed in violation of the Town code. That's photo Number 2. The fence was placed in such a manner as to prevent viewing of the East Creek area and the wildlife that inhabit the creek and appears to serve no legitimate purpose. And point Number 3, the placement of the six foot stockade fence is out of character for the area in which we live. No other property owner within the Harbor Lane area has constructed such a fence in the front yard area of the property. And I would like to comment that I did speak to the fence installer and I suggested to him that this is not to code, in which he responded -- he ignored my comments. Point Number 4, the installation of the fence to a height of six feet necessitated the damaging of our trees bordering the property, removal of the branches to such a height that has cause irreparable damage to several -- a complaint that has been lodged with the Southold Town Code Enforcement Officer Point 5, the placement of such a structure in its location substantially changes the character and natural appearance of my property. The stark contrast created by the solid wall and its impact on the landscaping scheme will have a detrimental effect on property values. Point 6, the required notification procedures for the application have not been followed. No notice was posted before the required seven days prior to the meeting hearing. Nor was there certified mail notification before the seven days required -- seven days. The disapproval of this application will restore the safe and aesthetically pleasing environment that existed before the erection of this fence. You know when we purchased the lot, we paid prime real estate value for it, and we expected to enjoy it as we purchased it. And we follow Town code. We reviewed everything before we purchased it. We try to foresee what would be forthcoming. We evaluated what uses we could have of our property, and we would like to fully enjoy them. I would just like to keep it to the Town 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 32 1 9 code, I mean, to our rights as property owners. We don't impinge on any other body's rights and everything we do is legal and to code. So it just seems to me very common practice now that people do things that are not to code. When we built our house, when we did everything, we came to Southold town, we did everything per code and we expect everybody else in the town to do the same with no exception. This is a straight code violation. It's a very simple matter, and I mean, oops, I made a mistake, I built a house, now, can I please have a variance. That's what it seems to me. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'd like to ask a couple of questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When you say under Number 4, removal of branches to the height, were these branches on your property? MS. SPIELMAN: Yes, the trees are on our property. The trees. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand it, that some of these trees -- were these trees on the boundary or were they entirely on your property? MS. SPIELMAN: No, they were entirely on our property. Our neighbor has planted his trees on our property, but there was an existing -- there were trees that were already there, but our neighbor has planted five trees additional to the original border. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there's a survey lssue there as to where the boundary actually is? MS. SPIELMAN: There's a two inch issue. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I assume what's at lssue is trees don't go straight up like flag poles, they have branches, tree branches don't go up. MS. SPIELMAN: Yes, they do. And the tree trunk is on our side, and the fence was put so closely that they cut the whole half the tree. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Half the trunk? MS. SPIELMAN: Yes, all the branches. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The branches? MS. SPIELMAN: Yes, the branches that were laying on their property, rightfully so, but it was much nicer to look at the fully grown tree than a wall of stockade fence. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, that's a 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 33 1 2 separate issue. You're not claiming a right to the view of your own trees which happen to be partially over your neighbor's property? MS. SPIELMAN: No, we're not claiming that, no. We're just talking about the aesthetics. You don't see anywhere on Harbor Lane -- first of all it's a clear code violation. Every time we build something, put something up, we come to the Town and respect the codes and the law, and we expect everybody else to do so as well. e 3 4 5 6 7 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the code were simply a mechanical thing that could be applied to everything, there would not be a Zoning Board of Appeals. And the purpose of this Board is not to make exceptions of the law but to do what lawyers call equity, which means looking at specific circumstances and where there is room for some kind of interpretation of the legislative intent behind the code, that's what we're here for. I don't think it's simply a matter of mechanically applying the code. MS. SPIELMAN: I understand that, but we're being kept from seeing our own property because of the fence, we're being kept from seeing the view that we had prior to this wall, and this wall is not supposed to be there to begin with. I mean, we're not using our property to the fullest, we're being kept from doing that because there is a code violation here. I mean, there are different choices, you can put up green trees and of course it would probably obscure my view to the creek, but at least I'd see wildlife and not a stockade fence. And on top of that the fence, the wrong side is facing us. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Actually in the Town of Southold, unlike most towns, I made that mistake. 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. SPIELMAN: I can accept that, it's ugly any way. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Most towns require you to put the ugly side of the fence on your own side, in the Town of Southold, in its wisdom does not have such a rule. MS. SPIELMAN: We did not receive notification. The sign was posted on Sunday prior to this day. And this other neighbor who is also not in favor of the fence when she wrote the 22 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 34 1 9 letter had not received the notification. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: down and look at the fence again, is my file, and I just don't know this issue at this time. MS. SPIELMAN: What I'd like to I ask the Board not to look at it as a neighbor lssue, because there will always be neighbor issues, this has nothing to do with the neighbor issues, I know that the neighbors are not pleased that we keep chickens, but we have every right to keep chickens, and we researched this all before we purchased the property. We have children, we can't get rid of them, they're noisy, we have five boys, they're very noisy and there's no regulation against that. So that has to be set aside. This is a question of us not being able to fully enjoy our property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Spielman, I just want to say that the issue of rights of water view are -- I have to go I apologize. It how to resolve 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 MS. SPIELMAN: No. I don't expect to have 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- are real but I suspect there is no scenic vista or scenic easement over your neighbor's property or over those wetlands that are well to the south of you in that issue, so that one I can't particularly agree with you. MS. SPIELMAN: Let me pose this question to you, would you rather look at trees and wildlife or a stockade fence? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know that's a question that Member Simon was discussing with you and that is an interesting question. MS. SPIELMAN: And when we purchased the property, we liked its wilderness, everything about it, this is what the north fork lS about. It's not about putting up walls. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the fence were four feet high, it would not require a variance but many of your objections probably could be made against the four foot fence. MS. SPIELMAN: I think we would accept 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 that. May 25, 2006 35 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You wouldn't have any e choice. 3 MS. SPIELMAN: I wouldn't that, of course not, knowing that a choice, of course not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: complain about I wouldn't have 4 Even though it would 5 damage your view. MS. SPIELMAN: A four foot fence would not damage our view. We're set up higher than this property, so it wouldn't. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd like to ask you if you have any comments? MS. RAGUSA: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. First of all, your issue about trees, we bent the fence around in certain areas so they wouldn't affect any of the trees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You must address the Board. MS. RAGUSA: I'm sorry. We bent the fence around, you can see there are certain bends in it so we didn't disturb any trees, put it further into our property because we are tree lovers ourselves. Also, I don't understand if you like trees, if they like trees so much they have recently cut down three or four trees along the border that covered the fence, so obviously I think they prefer to look at our fence than the trees that had been there that they removed. So that argument makes no sense to me. The argument that there are no fences that high on Harbor Lane is also not true because the house that borders them on the other side has a six foot fence running the entire length of their property. And as far as notice, they refused our FedEx, and I have a FedEx return receipt, which I think you also have, showing that they would not accept our Federal Express package which did, in fact, give the Spielmans notice and we did send notice to all the people involved. I don't know which neighbor she's referring to who is complaining about the fence because we didn't get a name or address. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did you post the property? MS. RAGUSA: We posted it this weekend. There had been an issue because we had been out of town and we didn't receive the packet until then. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 36 1 5 So we posted it and we called the office and did everything we could within our power -- we hadn't been there, we hadn't received it. So we did our best, that's why we FedEx'd everything to save time and to get the notice as fast as possible to people, which is more expensive but also quicker than certified mail. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You might want to mention the lady that gave the letter objecting is Christine Gretch, 2880 Harbor Lane. MS. RAGUSA: I don't know who that one is. MS. SPIELMAN: It's right next door to them, excuse me, on the water side. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it between their house and the water? MS. SPIELMAN: Yes. MS. RAGUSA: I don't know if that is the case or not, she's never verbalized any complaints to us. She's actually commented in the past how she's liked how we cleaned up the property from the prior owner. I never heard her voice anything negative to us. And as far as talking about trying to increase land values, I feel like they're decreasing our land values because of the smells from the goats and the sheep and the chickens and the guinea hens and the feathers that come over and the feces, and we're just trying to basically keep peace and not have to look at and see all these varibus things, and old trucks. The intent was to try and beautify our property and keep our land values up. It's funny that that should be mentioned and the same thing with the neighbors on the other side, it's a whole deterrence to the neighborhood. It used to be a quiet peaceful neighborhood and it's not any more. The five boys are the quietest out of the whole package. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm Google picture that you took here. at this right, this really affects or is this your front yard? MS. SPIELMAN: This is the front of the house (indicating). BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you come in looking at the If I'm looking your rear yard 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 37 1 e 3 right alongside this fence? MS. SPIELMAN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are those buildings that are near the fence? MS. SPIELMAN: Those are our neighbors buildings. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I looks like the fence is behind those buildings, between your house and that fence there are some buildings; what are they? MS. SPIELMAN: They're buildings. What buildings are BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: there's buildings there. MS. SPIELMAN: Those are sheds. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three buildings there. MS. SPIELMAN: What picture are you looking at? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Number 1. MS. SPIELMAN: What building are you looking at? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At the end of the stockade fence toward the house, right at the end, there appears to be something that's square there. MS. SPIELMAN: The house isn't even shown I believe. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're right, I see you drew in your house, but in between the house and the fence there appear to be some buildings, or something; what is that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's three structures it appears to be? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are they there now? my neighbors you talking about? It looks like 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 here. 15 16 17 18 19 Maybe they're not there now. MS. RAGUSA: There's a now. That building used to be it was moved to their property it. I'm sorry. MS. RAGUSA: to my property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Would you both approach and point out, so we just make sure that we're looking at the same thing. MS. RAGUSA: They have a shed there today (indicating) . MS. SPIELMAN: We have an up to code shed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would probably be helpful to everybody if the pictures are up to small shed there on our property and before we purchased 20 21 I don't believe it was moved 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 38 1 2 date. e 3 MS. SPIELMAN: That's the most up to date that you can get now from Google. By the way, the trees that were removed that Mrs. Ragusa is commenting about are the trees that they planted on our property. And they're not in front of the stockade fence, they're on this border, and they started their stockade fence and then they finished it, and they stopped it. Where they stopped it they had planted some trees on our property that were dying, and we removed those trees because they were dying. They were harvested in the wild, and we got like the ugly side. First of all, they were planted on our property. It wasn't our choice. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The border dispute is a different question. MS. SPIELMAN: It really is. Our chickens are fenced in the yard. And the six foot stockade fence from the other neighbor is in the back yard. So when I comment about that it's not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, the rest of the neighborhood does not have six foot high fences in their front yard. As a matter of fact, they were very careful, they took great care, there wasn't one that put in around a pool, took great care to go from the four foot to the six foot range. They took great care to respect that code to keep the front yard at a four foot height, and that's all we're requesting that at least the code lS followed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Ragusa, how long 1.S the fence? MS. RAGUSA: I don't know. Let me see if I have it on the fence plan, 72 feet of fencing. That's a total because there's another section of fence that's not in violation. But that's the total amount of fence and we have another fence that's not in violation. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you get a chance sometime maybe tomorrow, give us the dimensions of each jog. MS. RAGUSA: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, did you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. In all fairness to you, ma'am, I see the only issue here is the height of that fence, and everything else 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 39 1 2 you guys have to deal with. MS. SPIELMAN: Yes, that's not an issue for this Board. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if she built a four foot fence -- MS. SPIELMAN: Then we wouldn't be here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you could plant shrubs as high as you would like to plant, it Leally doesn't make a difference to anybody In the world. You need the privacy that that fence lS going to give you, you could put any kind of shrubs there that grow as high as you want, as thick as you want in that corner and you don't need a permit for that. MS. RAGUSA: We actually have planted along there shrubs that are growing but it still doesn't -- the six feet helps to prevent having confrontation, and the extra two feet when you don't have to see your neighbors, it makes a huge difference. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, I'm not aware of what goes on. I'm not willing to say a six foot fence in that location -- MS. RAGUSA: For one example why I think the six foot makes a difference is Mr. Spielman chooses the spot of the property exactly by the fence on our border to do his wood chipping, which, I believe is intentional, that's another story. And there have been times when we have been working in that corner and the wood chips have flown over, one actually almost hit my husband in the eye a few weeks ago, and things like that it's a preventative measure. Animals were tied up to the border there. So that extra whatever where you don't have to actually see is very helpful. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So that's the front yard. It's just near the shed that's there now, the shed that's in the front yard? MS. RAGUSA: Yes, which is my side yard/ backyard back there. And just on the other side, on her border on the other side, where Mrs. Spielman was saying there are no fences like that, if you look at the property, the neighbor on the other side of her property has a fence the entire length, so I don't understand. MS. SPIELMAN: That is In their back yard. So that lS to code because that fence is placed in tit 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 May 25, 2006 40 1 2 the back yard. It's along the back. So it is a different situation. extreme whole yard, but it's In the e 3 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you, it's in the back, and honestly, when I first looked at this I said to myself that the piece of property is such an odd shape that a six foot fence shouldn't make any difference here. MS. SPIELMAN: It does. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But agaln, once you hear the story and you have other remedies in all honesty. You have other remedies. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Walt Whitman said good fences make good neighbors. MS. RAGUSA: Have you seen the property, 4 6 7 8 9 . ? Slr. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I knew Frank when he was alive, and he owned the property right behind you. I'm quite familiar with it. MS. SPIELMAN: I welcome you to come into my yard and see if you find any feathers or any chicken feces. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Doesn't concern me if you are allowed to have chickens, ma'am, more power to you. MS. SPIELMAN: And my little nine year old sells the eggs. MS. RAGUSA: But Mrs. Spielman mentioned that the chickens are fenced in but she didn't mention that the guinea hens are not, I have seen them several times on your property and on my property. I have pictures of them on my property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing lS the Romanelli Brothers wishes to build an accessory apartment above their office next to the Universalist church. MR. STRANG: Garrett Strang, Architect, Southold representing Romanelli Brothers. I believe the application is pretty straightforward. The property is zoned Residential Office and has been until recently a single-family dwelling with 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 41 1 2 detached garages. The Romanellis purchased it. They wish to convert the first floor to business office use, and then as the application says, create an apartment on the second floor, which if 1 understand the code correctly is permitted use provided this Board grants us that approval. So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, none at this e 3 4 5 6 7 time. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to ask a question, it's sort of tangential to this architectural site plan, but there's a proposed significant increase in the gravel parking area in the back between the shed building and the accessory structure and it is zoned for office use, but I'm wondering what kind of office use there will be in relationship to an apartment, a rental apartment? MR. STRANG: It's a rental apartment, yes. That's up to the owner, if he elects to make it an affordable, then he can address that, but at the moment I believe it's intended to be a market rate. 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And what will the use be? 16 MR. STRANG: It's a business office, we're not talking about retail or anything like that. 17 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the parking and the garages behind, is there equipment to be housed in there? MR. STRANG: The garages behind are presently used for storage and will continue as such, some would be for the proposed be business office use, and some would be for the apartment, and some would be for the Romanellis' personal use, and the parking is subject to the Planning Goard's requirements of providing parking and we're going through that process with Planning and we may be able to have them give us a little land banked area for parking if it's deemed we don't need to have that much dedicated parking built out immediately. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think everything 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 42 1 2 John does is top notch, and congratulate him on taking on the responsibilities of having a tenant up there. It's a responsibility and if we can add another apartment to Southold town, all the power to him. e 3 4 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions, just a slight qualification of Jim's comment everything John Romanelli does is top notch as far as we know up until now, and it doesn't mean that we can extrapolate from excellent behavior In the past to an argument for approving this one. So I think his remark should be off the record. MR. STRANG: I'll leave that up for the Board's discussion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this? Yes, sir? 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. NOLLETT: Ronald and Adriana Nollett, we're the property owners to the south, and questions basically had to do with the numbers and the expansion that's here and also the parking area. I wanted to just make sure that there's one apartment that will be added, it won't be more than one apartment. It's only one apartment rented to one person with one lease? I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. And as far as the parking is concerned, that's up to the Planning Board. So, if you have comments about that, you should attend their meeting. We can just say that they need the parking but they really specify where it should be. MR. NOLLETT: The other question was about the number of offices, the plans show that the office will be on the first floor of the existing house, and then also in the existing garage, and then there's also a proposed 700 foot expansion to an office behind the garage; would that be only one business office for one business? Or could that be three separate businesses? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't know. It could be, again, I think that's up to Planning. They're not here for a variance for that. They're only here for the accessory apartment use over the business. So any of the businesses, I suggest you go to the Planning Board to find out when they have their hearings and you will find out probably 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 43 1 2 more about that then. MR. NOLLETT: So as far as this is concerned, my concern for what is being addressed here was just a concern about that it was one apartment and not more than one apartment above the house? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct. MR. NOLLETT: Okay. MS. NOLLETT: Adriana Nollett. I have a question, this is residential. We have children walking by, school children. Southold needs houses, right, I've worked with John Romanelli on the robotics team, volunteering for school, so I know he's a great guy and everything, but my concern is if this house, if it was any other neighbor's house, this house is on the bend, there's many well-documented accidents. You're talking about 12 parking spaces, three large offices being planned. There's garage storage that was mentioned that the Romanellis will be using. It's been rented in the past, the tenant will be using, and then also the people that own the office, this would really increase the traffic. You're talking about 12 cars coming and going. Then people coming because they're storing In the back, then you have an auxiliary apartment. We have school children walking past that bend. I think the Board needs to do a traffic study. Are you going to do a traffic study? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be up to the Planning Board. We only have jurisdiction for that one apartment. The rest is up to Planning MS. NOLLETT: The concern we have is that it would no longer be a single unit home. It will be a totally commercial enterprise. You're going to have a commercial apartment and/or apartments if the variance should change in the future, you're going to have the offices underneath, and you're also going to have rental storage In the three garages. Now, I'm concerned about our property value, it's residential. I'm concerned about the look and more importantly, I'm concerned about the traffic that this apartment, if you rented to two adults, and two children, fine; if you rented to two adults with two adult children, you're talking about four cars. You're talking about so much traffic on a corner that that'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 May 25, 2006 44 1 2 known as the target house because it's been hit so many times because of the bend we have speeding traffic, and I think that that auxiliary apartment -- even though that we need affordable housing in Southold, so if it was any neighbor, Kate was doing this, we would have no problem, it's just where this house is located. And our house is directly near their driveway and then our driveway, and I am telling you, I have seen kids close calls, cars close calls, you're talking about adding excessive traffic to a place where they're already planning 12 parking spaces and rental of the garages. I think having that apartment is dangerous and takes away from being residential, and will eventually could possibly take away from our property value. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you zoned? MS. NOLLETT: Residential office. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is perfectly legal to propose both uses. The reason I asked the question about parking and the use of the accessory garages in the rear was because I live in that neighborhood too and I am also aware of the traffic problems and so on. This however lS a Planning Board issue, and everything you voiced should be voiced to the Planning Board. It is a concern, residential use is permitted there. It will at least continue to incorporate a residence In the neighborhood rather than have just an office structure. MS. NOLLETT: Which is a good thing, because then somebody's there sleeping at night, I have no problem with it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It does not violate the percentage of lot coverage, even with the projected future footprint, which is not before us. We're only looking at the apartment. It's my case to write up. So what I need to do is make a recommendation based upon the use of the apartment, which is a permitted use provided we say so. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. NOLLETT: My question is if there's an apartment 600 square feet, does this variance cause I don't know anything about the code or anything like that -- does this variance mean that in the future without another variance that they could put another apartment? That was our biggest concern. 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 45 1 e 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Absolutely not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's all they're asking for and that's all we can grant. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a special permission for one apartment, in fact, the code doesn't even allow two apartments with special permission. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's not a variance. MS. NOLLETT: That was our biggest concern but the traffic too needs to be addressed. MR. NOLLETT: Could you tell us the process of how to address the Planning Board? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I suggest that you visit their office up in the bank building, find out when they're going to have work sessions or when it will be up for a public hearing or what have you. I'm sure even in work sessions you're allowed to say something. So go up and see Carol Kalin there. MS. NOLLETT: Can I make one more statement? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MS. NOLLETT: I have respect for what you do, but after today, you guys work hard. This is a tough job. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this application? MR. STRANG: I just wanted to confirm the fact that we're talking about a single apartment, 600 square feet, that is limited, the size of the apartment is limited by the limitations of the Health Department. That's it. We can't do any more than a 600 square foot apartment. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (See minutes for resolution.) 21 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Mr. Perry on Clearview Road in Southold. MR. PERRY: I'm Richard Perry, I'm the owner of 830 Clearview Road in Southold, and the applicant for this variance. I have some letters from a neighbor in support of our application. We walked around the neighborhood and got endorsements from those that we could. First I'd like to say that I understand 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 46 1 2 the purpose of the Zoning Board is to determine whether the benefits of approving our variance for our project outweighs the detriment to the community, and in doing so the Board must consider the following five factors: That an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties; no, we believe that the proposed construction will not be out of character to the neighborhood. Most if not all the homes in the area have attached two-car garages. As improved the home will be of similar size and style to the nearby houses. There are other homes in the neighborhood that do not comply with the required setbacks and also require variances. The proposed addition is considerably distant from any neighboring structures on any adjoining lots and will not be a detriment to any of these properties and to reinforce this the two closest residents that live at their structures, you have letters from them endorsing the project. Number 2, the benefit sought by granting this variance cannot be achieved by some method feasible to pursue other than the area variance well, this existing property layout when first contemplated as an attached garage, but also in the front yard but that would have required the structure to be closer to the property line on the right of way. And it wouldn't provide us the ~dded living space that we're looking for. A detached or attached garage on the waterfront side of the property is impractical. Obviously it's the waterfront side of the property and it has DEe wetlands setbacks that would put the proposed structure closer to really the only neighboring house around us and the septic system is on that side of the yard and it actually takes up most of the useable building area there. The existing bulkhead doors and the patio would be affected if it was an attached structure. The existing structure's too close to the property line on both sides to allow access from the right of way to the waterfront side if we had to drive around the side of the house to get to the garage. And expansion of the house to the side yards is also impractical because both side yards are too narrow, and it's planned currently to utilize the existing single car garage as 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 May 25, 2006 47 1 9 additional living space, so simply changing the single car to a two car, we wouldn't be getting what we're trying to. Number 3, the amount of relief requested is not substantial. Unfortunately, the relief is substantial. If it's taken from the right of way to the setback line, but I believe that the '3etback of the property line -- the setback at the right of way, which is also the property line is more appropriate, the setback's actually 38 feet from that point therefore only a 12 foot relief would be sought. I believe that this is the right of way granted to my neighbors gives them the right of way to their ingress/egress of their properties and because we're the last house on the property, there's really no need for anybody to come down further than their own property. The only exception from the General Wayne's property, and from what I understood their decision hasn't been made yet on what has been approved there; so there is a possibility that there could be a house on that corner, which may or may not need some of that right of way, but that's not a problem to us. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Perry, may I ask you a question, please? I was there as everyone else was and this is my case to write up. When you come down your right of way and there are some woods there, sort of a dead end, there is a road on the other side of that? MR. PERRY: It's a private property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Access road? MR. PERRY: Access road for a few houses down on the water. I don't think it's a right of way. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. On your site plan here it shows existing Clearview Road, which I couldn't find, all I saw was a path. MR. PERRY: It actually connects on the other side of that private area. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a kind of dead end too. MR. PERRY: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's just a path that we're talking about in terms of setbacks. I just want to make sure because I saw nothing existing other than your access. MR. PERRY: There's no reason really that 20 21 22 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 48 1 9 road would ever put through especially with that new access road or whatever that private property strip that runs down to the water doesn't make sense any more. And that road was never on the original maps either. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else, Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I kind of concur, seems to be an appropriate location. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm just concerned ubout whether more needs to be said about ulternative possibilities. This is a pretty sizable lot, it's over an acre and a quarter. MR. PERRY: Unfortunately, the buildable area's not that large. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But there is lawn behind and there are septic tanks and so forth there, but as far as living space is concerned while I can see the argument about wanting your garage to be near the front of the property, the argument that the additional living space should also be in that place is not yet made clear to us, why additional living space couldn't be built on the water side, that is in the rear of the house. There certainly is enough room there within the building envelope. MR. PERRY: You mean to put a garage in the front? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is an existing garage, but I realize it's only a one-car garage, und if you don't think there's enough room to make it a two-car garage, that's another problem. But as far as the living space, which is going to be associated with the garage, why that has to be also 13 feet from the right of way. MR. PERRY: That's a good question, I guess economics has got to be a factor. Expanding the garage towards the property line would in itself require another variance; the structure built towards the water would then impact our backyard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean, you'd be using some of your own backyard for living area? MR. PERRY: If we were to. And obviously our structure would be closer to our neighbor's house. 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 May 25, 2006 49 1 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there someone directly behind you? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, they're to the side but they're set back. MR. PERRY: Set back 50 feet from the line, yeah, if you're in our backyard there's the new house which went up a year or so ago is right in our backyard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it's much less impact in your front yard than it would be in your rear yard. MR. PERRY: I did multiple layouts and what's here seemed the least impact to both environment for the waterfront reason and the neighborhood in general. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not planning on raising chickens here, are you? If you move it back, it will affect your neighbor I think much more than where it is, and it makes more sense. And you don't anticipate that that road will be a road at some point in time? MR. PERRY: I can't speculate in the future for everything. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that the General Wayne property that's right there at the end of Clearview? MR. PERRY: Yes, they're on the corner, the whole block, if you want to call it a block. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right, I have no further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment? MR. PERRY: I have one more thing, I don't know if it's the time or it's the place, I just found out that I was misrepresented when Joe, the owner of the General Wayne, was here trying to get a variance. One of our neighbors must have spoken out of turn that I talked to him about endorsing the opposition to his zoning request, and I never talked to him, my wife talked to him. I don't think -- in general terms we didn't object, that's why we didn't send a letter in, we didn't come to the meeting, we kind of abstained. We just want the area developed and all the trucks gone. That's just it. I wanted to add that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You have the letters, they're addressed to the Zoning Board so 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 May 25, 2006 50 1 8 we do require the originals when they're addressed to us, so I'll swap the copies you gave us with the originals. MR. PERRY: Okay. MS. MOORE: I have Mr. Disalvo here, he doesn't -- he needs to know what his decision is before he can determine whether or not this project is going to impact him. We had a public hearing on March 2nd, we had a hearing with respect to the General Wayne property, we're still waiting for a decision, a written decision. Once we see what that decision says, then we'll know how we're going to develop this property. So at this point, we would ask for a short adjournment. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is not a hearing for yours. MS. MOORE: to say we object. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Oh, you mean to Mr. Perry's project? MS. MOORE: Yes. We are the adjacent property owner. Mr. Disalvo is the owner of Clearview to the half-way point. So the development of his property certainly would be impacted by this proposal, whether it would be impacted to the point where we would object or whether we would have no objection to it. We don't want to oppose an application, in all fairness to Mr. Perry, if it has no impact to us, but because we don't have the end result of what that decision is we can't assess how we would develop this piece. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: would it have? MS. MOORE: see the decision. I'm explaining, we don't want 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 What kind of impact 21 CHAIRWOMAN decision. MS. MOORE: All I know is the verbal Well, We had OLIVA: we don't know until asked -- You have a verbal we 19 20 decision is no. e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: MS. MOORE: But I said or if you have given writing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We're curious how it relates to Mr. Perry's variance. MS. MOORE: Worst-case scenarlO we develop this property with six to eight multifamily units, I know. don't know what else something else in you 22 23 24 May 25, 2006 51 1 8 and the Planning Board says that in order to develop this piece the way we're permitted by the code, we must open Clearview from one end to the other, which is the Planning Board's prerogative; would it make sense? No, but they have done things that don't make sense in the past. At that point, you have Clearview that certainly the setback is the 13 feet that is from the road. We don't think that's going to end up, but we have to look at it in the worst-case scenario. So In all fairness to Mr. Perry and Mr. Disalvo, let's see what the decision is. We have been patient, we have been waiting, but on the other hand, in all fairness to him, before he can assess whether or not this impacts him, he should know what his decision it. And I'm very upset that the neighbor who came and claimed that he opposed and that he was representing Mr. Perry as well as other neighbors opposed an application which was ostensibly to put four houses on a piece of property when six to eight are permissible. So we'll see what your decision says, what alternatives. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was denied. MS. MOORE: Yes, but until it's in writing I don't know what you've said. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I still don't understand, does that mean you build a right of way because that's how it affects Mr. Perry's application because you were denied on a subdivision application variance? MS. MOORE: Had we gotten the four houses individually, there probably would have been no impact by having this garage where our house would be proposed. But now we don't know that so we don't know where our development is going to go. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean you don't know that you're not getting the four houses? MS. MOORE: We know that we're not getting an area variance, but we don't know how you've written it. We have asked for two area variances to create two equally sized lots. The hamlet business lots were oversize and the two AC lots were undersized to make four equal lots, so the Building Department sent us here for two area variances. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So now you have to go back and conform to the code so because you 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 52 1 8 have to conform to the code, you're saying Mr. Perry should be adjourned for a month? MS. MOORE: Just for a month to see what you say in our decision, and then he can look with his planners on how to develop this property. If it has no impact Mr. Disalvo likes Mr. Perry; they know each other. He doesn't want to hurt them in ~ny way, but on the other hand in all fairness to everybody, we should know how the property's going to be developed. So that's all we're asking for is a one month and by then we hopefully will have the decision in writing and we can move forward. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would object to holding this application up for another application in all honesty. I think that one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that we base our decision on what the property that exists there right now doesn't restrict you from using your property in any way as it is right now. MS. MOORE: If you have no objection to having the garage 13 feet from a property line, it becomes your decision. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's our decision In any case. As representing a neighbor, you want to know about a legally unrelated property before you decide whether you're going to object to this application? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think we can make our decision based on the future. MS. MOORE: I don't think it's legally unrelated. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's legally unrelated to Mr. Perry's application. MS. MOORE: We've been waiting more than 62 days for the DiSalvo decision. In all fairness, certainly the remedy would have been a an Article 78, that's not where we want to go. We just want to know what the Board was thinking when it denied the application. At that point we will then assess on how to develop this property either with no variance or with alternative relief that would possibly come back to you. Until we see the decision, we're hamstrung. Mr. Disalvo calls me daily to ask do we have the decision. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's possible that it would be 62 days before the Board makes a decision anyway on this application. MS. MOORE: But you're going to close the 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 53 1 3 hearing today. So, objection? BOARD SECY. do you want us to file an 2 e KOWALSKI: It's up to the Board. 9 MS. MOORE: We don't want to put on record an objection if it's not necessary. We don't want to create controversy. We need a decision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You want a decision. MS. MOORE: We need a decision. We obviously need a decision. You have a special meeting on the 8th. If we have a decision and can look at it before the 8th, we'll give you in writing whether or not we oppose the application and why before the 8th or we hopefully have no objection. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But then we'd have to give another seven weeks for the applicant to reply to your comments. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ask the applicant how do you feel? MR. PERRY: My only comment is this seems to be an issue only because of my own procrastination that my wife's been on me getting this zoning variance in, and if I year ago on time when she wanted it done, have had to wait a whole year? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think what I'm looking for would you be agreeable to letting it go until June 8th? MR. PERRY: I've waited a year. MR. DISIMONE: Scott DiSimone, friends with the applicant, perhaps a possible solution and a compromise. Perhaps the hearing would be closed today subject to the receipt of written objections from Miss Moore. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you close it now and she has written objections that we feel are valid, then we go through the whole process of readvertising. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: wait two weeks. about did it a I would 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I think if we just 23 MR. DISIMONE: Without any further adjournments. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We may have to make it through June 22nd because of the back-ups. This is spring time going to summer time, everybody 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 54 1 8 would like to start to build, and will do all these things PDQ. We have one person who writes the decision, we have had difficult decisions to write. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And a lot of other demands at the same time. We might get 45 minutes a day to work on decisions. We have no control over that. MS. MOORE: He calls me I don't call you. I know the difficulties that the Board has with timing, and I know that Linda works very oiligently. We're not here to criticize in any way, we're just saYlng in all fairness. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It will be adjourned until the 22nd of June. MR. PERRY: Can I have BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: after that, so it's up to the BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When we vote on it that night, on it and have it written? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm supposed to write this case, I don't have any problems with writing up the case based upon no objection from Miss Moore's client, and then we can depending on what that outcome is. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We can't take you ahead of the others. Everybody gets a number and we get to you as soon as we can. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said June a determination? You mean a vote? They have 62 days Board. I'll see maybe we if we can. can vote 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 22nd? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to adjourn this hearing until June 22nd. (See minutes for resolution.) 18 ----~--------------~----------------------------- e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to resume our hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Ward, we're finally up to you, what would you like to tell us? MR. WARD: Richard and Susan Ward for a lot line change. I just want Susan to hand out a Google map, which will illustrate what we're trying to do better than a survey. Basically this lS a lot line change based on a 1975 survey of a three lot at the time minor subdivision. Susan owns the front lot, which if you look at the red 20 21 22 23 24 May 25, 2006 55 1 8 lines, is the way the lines are configured today, and the black line down the middle is our proposed lot line change. We also are requesting that the right of way be changed to a 20 foot right of way, it's only going to be serving two lots, that's on the east border line. Old North Road, which is the road that the lots are on is to the north, so if you're looking at the Google map. The other thing is that the Lot 1, which lS the current lot up front, if you'll notice how the development has gone is the Lot 2, which would be the lot behind it, if that was developed in its current configuration we would pretty much lose that buffer that was there, that nice tree and wooded area. So what we're looking at lS where the lot line is proposed, the building envelope would essentially be the paddock area that's on that lot now for the Lot 2 that's created. The third lot that you see is developed now, the Google map a couple years ago, two, three years ago shows it under construction; that's our daughter Kiera and son-in-law have a house back there, so it's like a family kind of compound. We have no immediate intent to sell off here. We realize that the setbacks here are changed a little bit because when they upzoned to the two acre, all this was developed based on an R40 zone. So even though the proposed lot line here shows from the garage from the house shows 15 foot, originally when we dealt with the Building Department to put the barn up, everything was okay, but, of course, now it isn't. The barn we would like to leave where it is now, as if in one Lot 2 would be developed, that would be a condition that it would be removed at the time. So I think that's the long and short of it. We just felt that the plotting of the lots would be a lot better in this configuration. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The right of way lS there to serve your daughter's property, right? MR. WARD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say that maybe even a little more of a restriction on Lot 2 to the effect that the barn could not be changed or converted to a cottage in any way. MR. WARD: Yeah, whatever restriction you want. The intent now is to leave it as a barn, our grandson may have a horse some day. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 56 1 . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The proposed 20 foot common driveway, is that going to be located in the area that now currently has a lot of mature trees? 2 9 MR. WARD: The driveway is there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you saying you want to reduce the width or retain what's there? MR. WARD: No. The old file map in '75 showed a 50 foot right of way. We're proposing to reduce that to a 20 foot width. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But keep it on the same location as the existing? MR. WARD: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The driveway that goes down there now is within the 20 foot -- MR. WARD: Yes, it is, it just makes it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you wouldn't want to tear down any trees or anything? MR. WARD: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just afraid that we would approve something and you'd be tearing out trees. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the only thing I had a question about. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you would have no objection to us putting something in there that says that if any work was done on that barn it must be done conforming to setbacks? MR. WARD: Can we paint it? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can paint it, put windows on it. MR. WARD: The intent is to leave it in its condition the way it is, and use it until such time as that second lot, next generation decides to sell it, they can deal with it then. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So of course, if it burns down, it would be okay, but beyond that any attempt to make a residence out of that -- MR. WARD: No, no, you can put all that in there, it's not a problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have anything? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 57 1 2 (See minutes for resolution.) e -----------~------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Cotton? MR. COTTON: John Cotton back. I went and spoke to the architect. If I understood you correctly, I would have no problem losing -- facing the front of the house that 10 by -- 12 foot 10 inch and putting the steps coming down off the side, that's a no-brainer. That brings me right in the 30 percent range that you were talking about. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Something I can sell to the rest of the Board members. MR. COTTON: Other than that, the other thing if that doesn't work, I would take down, that whole front deck, but I would still have to do something with my front stoop. My question to you is even the way the front stoop is now I would still have to come out a little to do something to get that to conform. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Jerry said 30 square feet is exempt. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: For the steps. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the stoop. I think the steps are exempt in general but the stoop is 30 square feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the landing. MR. COTTON: So if I would take down even the other side of the deck, I could put a 30 square foot landing with the portico, correct? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. MR. COTTON: Would that be something that would require a permit? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The portico requires a building permit, not a variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So does the screen porch, but to get you the permit, we have to grant you a variance. So you're saying you're willing to get rid of that kind of cut-out in the 10 by 12 foot deck? You'd like to retain obviously the steps and landing and also a little portion to the left? So the front part of your house has the additional piece? MR. COTTON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you're going to remove that other piece of deck. And then you calculated that's going to come in at 30 percent? MR. COTTON: Well, because the shed issue, 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 58 1 8 this 51 square feet, I don't know how much that would add onto the percentage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you reduce this all to writing so we have it all before the next special meeting. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: By next Friday, it's always Friday before the meeting. Just a letter explaining the reductions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Highlight right over the top and a little sketch. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just draw, write over your existing proposal. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically we're going to grant this thing that the front of your house be no closer than 13.6 feet, or whatever it is now, that front yard. MR. COTTON: That's why I would put this thing out to the side. It's already at that four feet, cause it's not showing my existing stoop. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're not going to count that, that's for you to get into your house, you're allowed to have that. But the setbacks that you have right now will remain, and then 30 percent lot coverage will be the maximum you may have to deal with that. If you come in with 31 percent, that's probably not going to work. You might have to make your back smaller. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Wait. Are you saying forget this, forget any of that, just put steps here or put steps on the side? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He can put the steps wherever he wants. He has every right to get into his house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But if his landing is no more than 30 square feet BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He wants to put a portico on that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just make sure you put the portico on the plans. Where you can grab a little bit, if you need to -- and this is the last thing I'll say -- is this stairway in the back; we want to grab a little bit here, pull this back just a little bit. You can trade that probably for the portico. MR. COTTON: And take all this out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See you want to retain something here to sit on, that's what I was 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 1 2 trying to show you, Jimmy. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any objection, Jimmy, if he goes a little closer to the front property line. MR. COTTON: It's 4' 10". BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You all know how I feel about these things, but, quite honestly, but last month, we turned a person down for much less. e 3 4 5 6 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was a agricultural property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it was a residence. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I just wanted to mention, we're not in a deliberation session. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to make our opinions clear on this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wait a minute, there is a legal issue, that is if we make a vote and somebody doesn't like the outcome, and we get sued, the record can be used against us, if the things that people say at this hearing are not consistent with our final decision. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Only if you prevail. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All I need is one more vote. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is not deliberations. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is just a matter of discussion, but if you wish to come, it will be here on June 8th between 6:00 and 8:00 and you're more than welcome to come and listen to us to haggle some more. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something, Mr. Cotton? I apologize Mr. Cotton, for anything that I may have led you to believe, I assure you, however, that that will be something that I will be pushing for. If you have a specific concern regarding the front of your home and you want to add something to it or subtract something to it, give us two plans, Plan A and plan B, and we will deliberate over both of them. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And you reserve the right to change your mind in the course of deliberations. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not changing my mind. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, I'll make a 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 f ,.:~,-. 59 60 1 e 3 motion to close the hearing and reserve the hearing in receipt of his two plans, A and B. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 -~----------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application lS for Mr. Perillo. MS. MOORE: Mr. Perillo, I'm surprised he's not here because he's been pushing me for this. I've given you a little bit of history why we're here, it looks like from the record, the Town records, back in '79, the two lots -- Mr. Perillo has a house on one lot along Peconic Bay Boulevard and the Perillo family owns the lot on the water between the bay and his parcel, one is a road front parcel one is a waterfront parcel. Back in '79, the Planning Board approved and the zoning Board granted area variances to allow for a lot line modification between the two properties. At that time, the seaward lot, I'd call it, the one on the water, the Zoning Board during their deliberations had the access go on the west side of the property. It's funny, when you read the transcripts of the Planning Board meeting, Mr. Tasker, who was the town attorney at the time, the Planning Board preferred to see the access on the other side, but because the Zoning Board had already placed it on the west side, Mr. Tasker had correctly advised, that's the way it was approved, the Planning Board has to act within the scope of the zoning approval. Low and behold now, 20 years later, Mr. Perillo has his house on the property and he wants to add a garage to the property, but he Einds if he puts the garage on the east side, then it's going to do two things. One, it's going to impact, go straight behind the glass windows, and the back decking, everything that's going on in the backyard on his house, and he feels it will also impact the neighborhood as well because it's going to be right next to the right of way, it just doesn't work for him. So he asked if it would be possible, come before the Board and looking back at the history, try to figure out what I needed to do here, come before the Board alter the lot line access, in a sense, we can either do it as a right of way, or do it as a flag, I don't believe it matters to Mr. Perillo, but switch the location of the flag from where it 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 61 1 9 lS presently on the west side and move it to the east side. If we do move it to the east side, you'll note on the survey it is adjacent to the other right of way, they are separated, the driveway and the right of way are separated by a fence and some vegetation. We recognize that the house will be very close to that right of way but it's already close to the driveway right now. That's where they get access to the property anyway. So it won't change the circumstances or condition of the property. If anybody ever builds on the south -- on the waterfront piece, it will probably be someone from the Perillo family because of the way the properties are enjoyed right now. So he's coming on before the Board to ask that the relocation occur, so we can move it, and that way it will enable him to put a garage as I've shown on your survey, I think as a proposed garage, on the west side, and it will be conforming at that point because it's permitted to go I guess five feet or three feet from the property line. In a nutshell, that's why we're here. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're not increasing the size of this lot in any way? MS. MOORE: No. I guess it ultimately depends -- no, it will be direct, the same area either way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Switching from one side to the other. MS. MOORE: Whether you make it a right of way or a flag, maybe the numbers on the survey will change but the end result is the same. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we're not adding any square footage from any other piece of property? MS. MOORE: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing that I just wanted to say is the waterfront lot that you're referring to is really a water view lot because Laurel Water Estates -- MS. MOORE: Right, it's their community beach, park and playground. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions. e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 May 25, 2006 62 1 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to write this decision -- MS. MOORE: That's why I gave you the history because I thought it makes sense if you tell it as a little story. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned about right of way versus whatever? MS. MOORE: I don't care if you want to do it a flag, to simplify your decision if we convert it from a flag to another flag. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I also described it In the legal notice very extensively. MS. MOORE: You were very thorough, covers all the bases. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned how do we make it a flag lot. MS. MOORE: I think it's simpler as a right of way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to put it in the deed too. You have to switch too. The other way if it's a flag lot -- MS. MOORE: 'I just want to be sure because the lot area I believe of the waterfront lot probably included the area of the flag, we want to be sure that you identify -- we're not decreasing the area, since you discount flags and right of ways the same way in the code, I don't know technically, I don't remember if the surveyor -- I think he gave it to you with separate area calculations because we weren't sure which way you would do it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see it. That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ------------------------------------------------- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for our good friend over at Fishers Island who wishes to establish an accessory apartment in an existing building. MS. YOUNG: Hello, I'm Susan Young, and I I am representing the Windswept properties accessory apartment application for Roz Driscoll, and, well, basically we're here because we'd like 22 23 . 25 May 25, 2006 63 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 to make an accessory apartment so that the owners can use the house year round. Right now, they have a very big house, and it's basically built on blocks, and there's hardly anything to the walls, it's just a summer house. The water service consists of just a line to the house and in order to upgrade the whole house, which is almost 4,000 square feet depending on what you count, it would cost them a fortune. And also, the house would never look the same. I said when it came to the house, I love what you haven't done with the house. There's some pictures of it on Exhibit 6, which shows a lot of the old walls, and it's very plain. It only has a summer certificate of occupancy, and it's owned by this family group. It was originally built in 1932 by the grandfather, who passed it along to the offspring and then again, so they use it as a summer meeting place. And in the '80s, the lot was subdivided and the house up on the hill, Windswept, was separated from the guest house when the Windswept was left to the daughters and the smaller house was left to the son. In any case, Windswept is a very isolated kind of property. You go up a steep driveway to get there, and when you're up there, you can't see any other houses around nor can they see you. And also it has a required parking for an accessory apartment. There's a parking area, just to conform to the regulations that are on the books, but basically this is something that they would like to use just themselves. So they are really not in conflict with the single-family use, they want it to remain the single-family use. But they don't want to insulate the whole house, they just want to insulate the smaller portion of the building and be able to come out in winter because right now they have this beautiful house, you can Gee the nice views up there, and they can't go to it. And also the place is falling apart, and it needs maintenance and they can go off season and tend to things, so that's basically why they would like this and Roz Driscoll submitted an affidavit as to what their use would be. The people down the hill are a cousin, so that they share the driveway only with family, and in the winter, it would actually be nice if there were more people on Fishers Island because sometimes it gets too empty. May 25, 2006 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A little lonely. MS. YOUNG: I imagine if you grant this that there will be some extra people there on Fourth of July, but I don't think that if you wanted to include something that it can't be rented to separate families or anything, they don't care, because they just want to accommodate their own group. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I reflect on that, Susan? I think what we would have to do is put a condition in that if they intended to rebuild the house and take it out of its seasonality, that the apartment would have to be removed. In other words, not the apartment itself but the kitchen area and the facilities that are so attached to that. MS. YOUNG: But if you were going to rebuild the house to have a winter certificate of occupancy for the other house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think because it would be in conflict with the accessory apartment because then you would have the house and the accessory apartment. They would then have to reapply for the accessory apartment, and they would have to be actually the people living in the house to have the accessory apartment, and that's the purpose of the accessory apartment law. It works this way because they're not living in the house year round. It will not work -- and I'm not saying they, it could be a future generation. MS. YOUNG: You could certainly say they're doing this to accommodate their family and their particular use. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Their lifestyle has changed, they want to come back to the island in the winter. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure I understand the concept of the summer certificate of occupancy. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What you're saying is there are certificate based on seasonal use of it? e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. YOUNG: Yes, the certificate of occupancy is in here, so you can look at it, Exhibit 5. So we can look and see, it says something like seasonal use only or something that. like it's 24 e 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is that actually May 25, 2006 .^;...~ 64 65 1 9 enforceable? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that's based on the structure because it doesn't have insulation, it probably doesn't have a septic system, that's not based on zoning. In our code it doesn't say that you can get a seasonal certificate of occupancy. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I finish the follow up on that? That would mean that if somebody decided to essentially winter cabin in their place with a summer certificate of occupancy, in other words, without heat, that would not be in violation of the law, what it concerns only what kind of structural changes you can put in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a rule that says you can't stay overnight in winter in your summer cottage? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, if you want to 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 24 freeze, you can. MS. YOUNG: No. and no water because of the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Summer occupancy has to do with the building conditions? MS. YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, they have the main section of the house that will stay for summer use, just the one section of house that they're calling now accessory apartment, will be brought up to code as far as insulation and water and heating, and it has its own kitchen facilities? MS. YOUNG: That's right, which can be limited in size. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's the same family for both. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's an owner occupied, year round accessory apartment. And it's connected by an interior hallway as well. MS. YOUNG: And just in case anyone starts wondering was it a garage, it wasn't. It's on the same foundation as the rest of the building. When I first went to the house I thought what are they doing, they're putting something in the garage, but it has no slab and you couldn't possibly put a car in there because there's this flimsy floor up But there's no plumbing the way the water comes to 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 May 25, 2006 66 1 2 on blocks. So it was just a sort of wing of the house. e 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're simply renovating an existing room on the first floor. MS. YOUNG: Yes. And they're putting a deck area and a little sun area because the front room is very narrow. When they're there that will be the only part of the house they're using, so they want it to be nice. That appears to have no setback issues or anything or lot coverage issues, but I was advised to put it in even though it's not to be considered by you, just so you know what the full extent of their intentions are. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course you can, 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 lJim. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is my decision and I read through your nice -- you can always tell when a professional does it. It looks to me like you begged the building inspector to let you renovate this part of the house so that you could come to it. In other words, you wanted to put a heating system in and wanted to do the water so it's not freezing the pipes. MS. YOUNG: You know, we first asked, can we have a kitchen, and they said no; and then we said okay, what if we just insulate this part of the house, no, you can't insulate the house. And I was wondering is it really okay to stop someone from insulating their house, but they felt strongly, and I don't know exactly what the rationale was behind it that I should apply for accessory apartment use. So basically that's why I'm doing this. I don't really feel that it's a two-family use, but if they have certain requirements, this is the way we'll do it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I got to tell you, honestly, I don't know how we can grant an accessory apartment on this piece of property because the owner has to live there year round, and the main house, that's not the apartment, it has to be occupied by that owner, and you can't occupy that house in the winter. MS. YOUNG: I know that's the way they have the law written, and I think they're thinking of properties over here, but you could say just 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 May 25, 2006 67 1 2 because you don't live in a house year round, you still bought your property and you should have the right to use your property. And there shouldn't be different classes of property owners where one you have the right to use it year round and you don't, and I know that it was written that way, and so perhaps -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There may be another way to skin this cat, but as Linda pointed out to me, the code says "owner occupancy," it doesn't say owner occupancy 12 months a year. I know if you want to winterize your house as thousands of people are doing, you need a building permit for most of the things you are likely to do, but does the Building Department have any grounds for refusing to allow a person to turn their summer cottage into a year round house as long as satisfy the building code? I'm not aware that they do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What I was getting at, Michael, was that the reason they're here is because they're asking for that kitchen. That if they didn't ask for that kitchen, she could buy all the insulation she wants, put it in, put in sheet rock, she could do whatever she wants, all she has to do is apply for a building permit. MS. YOUNG: They actually did say that I could not put in an application to insulate the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could make a decision that says, no, you can't turn them down for this -- MS. YOUNG: But how do you have a house where there's no kitchen, you're a guy, they have no restaurants there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You would have to give the Building Department a fully comprehensive plan with all engineering inspections, you have to bring it up to energy code specifications if you were doing the entire house, that's why you can't take bits and pieces and right now all you're taking is a wing. MS. YOUNG: And I know as an architect that this kind of thing is from $200 to $300 a square foot, and all these people that have this house to visit in the summer, they're not going to want to put all of their life savings into millions and millions of dollars to renovate this plain house, and besides they like it the way it 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 May 25, 2006 68 1 2 lS. They own it, and I think they should be able to use it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the question is how legally can that be accomplished. MS. YOUNG: Is owner occupancy not CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't have to occupy it for 12 months a year. MS. YOUNG: In the case of a summer house, of a vacation property, they're using it as a vacation property 12 months a year. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The code doesn't specify what months of the year you have to live there, right? MS. YOUNG: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I could imagine, if you traveled 11 months a year on your job, but it was your house, and you're only there one month a year I can't believe that that would fail to satisfy the owner occupancy requirement. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That wouldn't for me, but I can tell you that this house lS not allowed to be lived in for an extended period of time because it's not conforming by building codes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By virtue of a 1977 decision in New Suffolk, Michael pugsly, the Board of Appeals determined that seasonality was from -- I'm sorry that the use was from April 1st to November 30th, and the rest of the time the building was to be shut down, and they have used that over the years as a sort of a benchmark. So that you would shut it down right after Thanksgiving and you would crank it back up after April 1st, and those are the figures that we have always used and the Building Department used. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's never been challenged in the court? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the thing is it's seasonal. It's a seasonal house, and it's not a permanent residence by any stretch of any imagination. I'm not trying to deny it. Quite honestly, you didn't put that kitchen in there, you had every right to go and do what you want to do with whatever half of the house you wanted to and you could insulate the doors and be done. MS. YOUNG: But it is required that someplace where people live have a kitchen. There 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 May 25, 2006 69 1 2 are certain requirements, rooms have to be of certain size, you have to have a kitchen, you have to have a bathroom. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The house does have a bathroom and it has a kitchen. MS. YOUNG: But you can't use them. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Maybe you can use only one of those dwelling sections at a time. You can't have them both occupied. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly that's not what's before us. What's before us is an accessory apartment, which must be an accessory on to a primary residence. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that but we also have to treat it as a variance, we may have to deny that and ask her to reapply as a variance. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: application in all honesty, I should be before us. I don't are here. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I have to say that I explained to her that it might be more of a variance, but Building Department insisted she go for a special exception, and that's why she's here. MS. YOUNG: I sent my papers in twice and they refused to give me either a -- they wouldn't approve it or deny it, and I felt funny about that. I thought don't you have to take action one way or the other, but they sent it back to me twice refusing to accept it. I think they were concerned that there would be a bad precedent set. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why I said they -- that's what it looked like to me, you were asking and they specifically didn't give you an answer. I think the remedy is not the remedy we can legally grant. That's the way I feel about I read this don't think they understand why they 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 it. 22 MS. YOUNG: There's a Murphy case where a variance was granted to accommodate the needs of the family. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could you say that 23 again? 24 MS. YOUNG: There is a case involving a Murphy, I have it here someplace where -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Frank Murphy, that's in Mattituck. e 25 May 25, 2006 70 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was a house not a seasonal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Go ahead, I want to hear what you have to say. MS. YOUNG: In any case, it is their house, and they should have the right to use it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What was the Murphy decision? MS. YOUNG: The Murphy decision allowed two kitchens to accommodate the needs of a family, and it was said that it was still a single-family use because it was indeed accommodating the needs of a single family. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That sounds like a very relevant precedent quite frankly. Because if they would allow it in the Murphy case, and they did, it's easier to establish that they should accept the second kitchen in this case. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We tried to do that. We tried to ask the Building Department to address it so Miss Young could apply for a variance and they would not issue a notice of disapproval. They refused, and they only issued a letter saying she should go for an accessory apartment. They did not want her to follow the same procedure that Frank Murphy's application did. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can't because it's not the same application. That application had a permanent residence in it. Whether they live there or not, this one does not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's not the relevant distinction between those two places. This is like saying the number of children is different and therefore can't compare. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This house is not a house by any building code. This is a seasonal residence. It doesn't meet any building code for you to actually live in it year-round. It's not. It's a nonconforming building and it could not be built today. It's nonconforming. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You cannot build summer cottages? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: How did she get 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 here? e 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no idea why she's here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You know why she's May 25, 2006 71 1 2 here because the Building Department refused to give a disapproval; what else could she do? MS. YOUNG: That's Exhibit 2, was the letter issued to me by the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How do we resolve e 3 4 it? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We resolve it in this manner: We deny what she is doing and say that it is not an accessory apartment, if that's what the Board is so inclined to do, and we tell them that we are requesting from the Building Department a notice of disapproval for the purposes of operating an accessory, and a separate dwelling unit in a seasonal dwelling, which will revert back to a one-single family dwelling when and if the family that owns this property wants to turn it around to a year-round house. And that's it. I'm going to address the Murphy case in one second. There were certain criteria in the Murphy case that caused us to do that, and it had to do with elderly people that were not well and that was the situation. An entirely different set of criteria. MS. YOUNG: One of the owners is elderly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Those are the different criteria. There's nothing stopping us from granting it on the basis of different criteria. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. There's no reason why we can't grant a variance. That's my particular opinion. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is that a special exception is not a variance. We can't vary that. You have to meet that criteria that's in that code. We can't vary any part of that, and if we do, if we pass this, we have usurped the law. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're right. We should be granting a variance BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we can't grant a variance unless the building inspector T don't know what else we can do but deny this. You have to do something, I don't know, ask a lawyer. MS. YOUNG: It's special in that the existing house is historic in nature, and it's on a hill and unseen. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 72 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: These are precisely the considerations which we would be entitled and justified in considering once it becomes legitimately before us. This is, unfortunately, not the forum to make those powerful arguments, but it will be once you get the notice of disapproval. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't see her getting that. They have turned it down twice. MS. YOUNG: I don't mind you saying that at all. Because we went every yard, and I didn't want to start World War III between the Building Department and the Zoning Board. So eventually we retreated and we said let's do it the way they want us to. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: we can to sort this out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nice CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will do for you, Susan. Does anyone else wish this application? If not, I'll make a close the hearing and reserve decision later. We will do whatever 11 to see you. what we can to speak on motion to until 12 13 e (See minutes for resolution.) 14 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing lS for Lowry on East Side Avenue MS. MOORE: 115 East Side Avenue. I think mine is easier, that was tough. I have Mr. Lowry here and I have Mr. Cooper, the design professional, the architect. We will start off very simply. This is an old house. They need to demolish the old house in order to build a new house. We have placed the house, pushed it away from the water. It's 100 feet from the water. It's conforming in all setback dimensions except Lagoon Lane, and I tried to convince the Building Department that it didn't require a variance from Lagoon Lane and I gave you the documents regarding the history of Lagoon Lane, which is it is now presently owned or the land is presently owned by the DEC, and it is limited access by permit only. So Lagoon Lane is not a true road in the sense that our front yard setbacks usually try to keep a proper distance from a road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does Lagoon Lane go anywhere, it just stops? MS. MOORE: Yes, I had Mr. Lowry take some 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 73 1 e 3 photographs. This is from the road, that's the start of Lagoon Lane. There is a pathway that then runs through and dead ends -- it's not really to the water it's to his bulkhead. So it really doesn't, you have to kind of walk around the bulkhead to get to the open space there. That's from his property to the south. Then here you can see agaln, the Lagoon Lane, it's impassable. But on the map it shows as a right of way. I'll give you the whole packet. As I said, Lagoon Lane is a paper road but it still exists. The Building Department gave us an option, they said if you abandon your rights to Lagoon Lane, we'd be entitled to use it as a side yard there, but I never have a client give up what is a limited access for the DEC. Only four houses have by deed rights to use that to the water, and I understood, we only found out through the Trustees hearing that the DEC does grant some limited access permits to someone other than three homes that had historic deeded access over that road. The design of the house we have the elevations and the plans there In your file. Mr. Lowry and the architect have been working with the design, tweaking it here and there not doing !najor modifications, but rather than have the final plan, which is a very basic plan, Mr. Cooper brought more specific plans showing where the windows are going to go. I believe the only difference is on the second floor over the first floor covered porch is decking, so that it's a second rooftop, rather than -- I don't want an issue with the Building Department, none of us do, that we suddenly bring in a plan that has that modification, so we would rather, since we have developed a plan to that extent, we have given you more current plans that are dated 5/19, the current plans. Just so that you have in your file one set of what is the final version. And that is it. I have more photographs. If you have questions, many of you have seen that property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my file. I need to ask you a question, we are dealing with the March 23, 2006 notice of disapproval; is that correct? Which clearly tells us that the cottage lS out, the cottage is legal, everything is fine. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's an accessory. 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 May 25, 2006 74 1 2 MS. MOORE: It's accessory. We're not touching the cottage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that notice of disapproval, it says the proposed construction, new family dwelling will have a front yard setback of 23 feet. MS. MOORE: Right. That is the setback from Lagoon Lane. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm seeing 15. MS. MOORE: No, 23. You probably see 14 elevation maybe. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My question, even though you're tweaking the house, are the outside dimensions going to be the same, and are you still going to have the 23 foot setback? MS. MOORE: Right, our dimensions are not going to change; are they, Mr. Cooper? MR. COOPER: No setbacks have been breached and there's a small profile change ln the kitchen area to be consistent with the rest of the -- it's a straight line instead of a jog. MS. MOORE: But that's on the north side, which is at 15 foot conforming setback. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it fair to say that the whole grounds for this disapproval on setback grounds has to do merely with interpreting the fact that there is access to DEC property. By calling that a front yard, so that the second front yard is a small fiction much of the time, in this case it's a huge fiction. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I would argue on grounds that the law not look like an ass, this should be granted in order that it not be -- MS. MOORE: I'll let you say that, I'm not allowed to say that. It really is a fiction ln this instance because Lagoon Lane, while it does appear as a right of way, is a paper road, a paper access, not even a road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But when a right of way makes something a front yard -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's the way it lS. MS. MOORE: You have created over time decisions and interpretations and ultimately I think the code was changed to conform to the Board's interpretation, I think the Koch decision brought that to bear because I remember I was 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 May 25, 2006 75 1 2 involved in it. If the property owner that abuts the right of way has no rights to use the right of way, then it is considered a side yard. That was an attempt to clean up some of the problems that were created with the code. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's all I e 3 4 5 have. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does audience wish to comment on this not, I'll make a motion to close reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) MS. MOORE: Let me put on the record, I'll give you the photographs. MR. COOPER: We decided not to have a wraparound porch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the house, Mr. Cooper? MR. COOPER: It's well under the code. MS. MOORE: You asked about the height, from the road, the road is actually higher than the property, and it tapers down towards the creek to the bay. So you'll see that we provided documentation to that in your file, but there's a differential of it's a normal high of two foot above grade for the front, which is actually below road frontage grade, then because it goes straight out and the land contours down, it's maybe a three and a half, four foot difference. So it's really insignificant. MR. COOPER: 30 feet. MS. MOORE: To the mean. MR. COOPER: To the ridge, 36 feet to the ridge at the rear, which is the worst case scenario. MR. COOPER: It's on the original submittal. I didn't put it on the new submittal. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the height hasn't changed at all. MS. MOORE: Photographs that we discussed of the right of way. We have photographs of the existing house and others but since you don't really have any issues. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We'll take all the photos. Thank you. MS. MOORE: them on the record, anybody in the application? If the hearing and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 The total building height is 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 That's fine, then I'll put describe what we're giving May 25, 2006 76 1 2 you. Photograph 5 is the neighboring property, and you can see that the neighboring house, actually the property is elevated. So it lS a one and a half story, but it is actually elevated above the Lowry house. Photograph 5 and 6 shows the difference in the grade between my client's property and the neighboring property. So he's (Jot almost -- what would you say the height up on the grade, maybe another six, eight feet? MR. LOWRY: Eight to 10 feet. MS. MOORE: Eight to 10 feet differential on the land before the house begins. Photograph 7 -- granted a variance for a pool. Photograph 8 again is the same house and the walls and so on. Photograph 9 is Mr. Lowry's house from the rear view, from the water view. You can see that it is a two story but because the land tapers down there's a walk-out on the lower floor, second floor. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. COOPER: It's a drop slope roughly about two to three feet from what is the existing front of the house to the rear of the house. So you have an elevated portion about four feet off the finished floor. MS. MOORE: Photograph 10 is again Mr. Lowry's house looking from the neighbor and you can see how it's set down. The properties in this area kind of taper down and up, there's nice slopes there. His house happens to be on the low end of that neighborhood. The house facing the right is higher, and the one to the left is also higher based on the grade. Again, the house across the street, the large house, couple of pictures of the large house and Photograph 12 is another photograph, it's a repeat of Number 10, so I'll take those two out. Those are all the photographs. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mrs. 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Moore. 22 MS. MOORE: BOARD SECY. ask is that one set available? MR. COOPER: Two sets. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Would you like to mark both of them before you leave then we'll enter them into the record? Thank you very much. Just the heights were altered? Any other questions? KOWALSKI: I just wanted of plans that you made to 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 77 1 2 MR. COOPER: The heights were not changed only the plans. A small profile. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't have the e 3 jog. 4 5 MS. MOORE: Yes. On the conforming side instead of the jogs shown on the original survey, it's been straightened out. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Prancis and Nancy Deegan in Mattituck. MR. DEEGAN: I'm Francis Deegan, this lS my wife Nancy Deegan. We purchased our house in 1985 on the Mattituck Creek, and after living there for 10 years in 1995, we built an addition to the house on the southerly side of the house. Now in 2006, we would like to put a second bedroom in the house on the second floor and to take advantage of the natural long view that we have down the driveway to have a garden room to look out at the garden in the winter time or rainy times. 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 The requirements for side yards are 15 and 20 feet for a total of 35 feet. The Lockwood house, which is adjacent to my house immediately on the north, is 70 feet at one point from the property line and towards the water it's 35 feet from the property line. My property has a nonconforming 5.7 feet side yard on that side. The Lockwoods have consented to the granting of a variance. We have somewhat of a rough, not drawn to scale that shows the Lockwoods's house to be 75 feet from the proposed addition and the Guglia house on the south would be 73 feet from the proposed addition so as not to impact upon them. But more importantly you can see that the houses are staggered front to back on the creek so that we are not overlooking each other but more the front of one house aligned with the back of the other. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Staggered. MR. DEEGAN: Staggered. Which takes the impact of this on other people. This is unique in this respect. It can't be seen from the creek and 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 78 1 e 3 it can't be seen from the road. So the only impact it's going to have is upon my neighbors to the north and south. We are preexisting nonconforming on the 5.7 feet. We will not be any closer than the 5.7 feet with the new addition being added. I'd like to hand In three affidavits, one from Lockwood, one from Guglia and the property immediately to the west is owned by my son and he signed it also. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was nice of him. MR. DEEGAN: His mother said he had to. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Deegan, can I ask you, is there any additional roof runoff that may be caused by this new addition? It looks very nice the plan that you have, since you're only five feet or so off the property line, lS there any way of mitigating that with gutters or some extensive type gutter, something a little wider because it appears that that roof is really gOlng to run some water off. MR. DEEGAN: We can run over sized gutter. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it would be better to put it in to a dry well. Especially since you're so close to the creek. MR. DEEGAN: It's going to run to the landward side as opposed to the water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone In the audience that would like to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Make a resolution to recess for 10 minutes. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is Kennedy over on Fishers Island. MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm 38 Nugent Street, Southampton for the applicant. Walter Keenan, who requested the adjournment is here, and I presented my case last month. 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 79 1 2 MR. KEENAN: I'm Walter Keenan and my wife Susan couldn't be here today, but first I want to thank you very much for giving us a continuation so we could be here because we wanted to be. I also want to apologize in advance, I've never done this before. A little bit of background, I believe Mr. Hamm probably went over the application before so the neighborhood that we're talking about lS the one next to the Garp house on Fishers Island, you can see it as you come in from the ferry. We've lived in our house, which was built in 1880, since 1995. The original subdivision was done I believe in the late 1960s with the Rouche family and the Evans family, the predecessors to us, splitting about an 11 acre parcel and two five and a half acre lots. Today the area is known as Hay Harbor Park. The houses are not visible from the road. It's a beautiful, tranquil neighborhood with lots trees and nice greenery and lots of people from town walk dogs through the neighborhood and come and enjoy it. We believe that the impact of the current plan as proposed by Sheila Kennedy is one that's far outside of the intent of the R80 zonlng and requires extensive variances. We had discussed with Mrs. Kennedy the potential to reconfigure the two lots to a plan that I believe her father had put forward at the time of the original subdivision that relocated the right of way. We discussed that with her but couldn't get anywhere on that. I have a letter with some pictures attached I'd like to pass to the Board, if I may. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MR. KEENAN: So the letter that you have In front of you is our amateur attempt to read the zoning code and figure out what can and can't be done. As we look at it, the area where Mrs. Rouche is planning to build her home is too small for the zoning code and also it would have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. But the area where she wants to place her home is the highest point of land in the neighborhood. Her first floor elevation would be just over the roof line of just about every other house that's certainly adjacent to her. Our lot line is the longest one I believe 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 May 25, 2006 80 1 e 3 as I look at the plan with hers, so we're the neighbors who would be the most severely affected by her building. We believe that Mrs. Kennedy does have alternatives to build a house on a lot that would to conform with R80, and the things that she could do to do that would be, if you look on the photo Number 1, you'll see the existing right of way as it comes through, photo Number 1 is taken basically from where her front porch would be. It's about 10 feet toward the road side of the stake that's labeled house on her lot up there that she's cleared. And then as you see pictures 2 and 3 also show the existing road with the location of her house up and to the right. And Picture 3 shows one of Mrs. Rouche's workers standing at approximately the center of where I believe where her front door would be based on the house plan. So as you can see the house is very, very close to the road. It would be nearly impossible to screen. All the other houses in the neighborhood are set well back from the right of way and have extensive screening. By placing a house on the highest elevation in the neighborhood and very close to the road it's going to significantly change the character of the neighborhood. And we're actually very willing and encouraged Mrs. Rouche and Mr. Hamm to optimize the original 11 acre parcel, and we would be happy to grant a right of way through our land, the right of way crosses all of our lots, but we'd be happy if she wants to relocate the driveway or the right of way, we'd be happy to let her do that across our lot, if she wants to move it forward across the water that would work as well. What we really don't want to do is have a new house in the neighborhood that's far out of the conformity with R80. The setbacks are there for a reason, and we would like the Town to uphold the setbacks and preserve the character of the neighborhood, and we believe that if Mrs. Rouche was a little more creative -- excuse me Miss Rouche Kennedy thought about it a little bit more, she could probably find a very nice solution to the issue, and we'd be more than willing to help out either with a change in the right of way and also with some screening if that would be appropriate. And we've offered that to her. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many people 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 May 25, 2006 81 1 6 have a right of way to that right of way? MR. KEENAN: That right of way services the whole peninsula to the west side of Hay Harbor. Past her house there are -- I want to say five houses including ours that would go past her house to get to their houses. Then on the other side of her house there are one two, three, four, four or five others that are on the right of way that pay to maintain it and what not. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question, are you then suggesting that if the right of way was changed that you would suggest that she push the house closer to the water over the top of the existing road? MR. KEENAN: I think that basically where the road is is on the original subdivision plan between the two, which Mrs. Rouche, which I don't have, we were discussing this, the road originally went around kind of behind the hill where she wants to build her house, and we think that that would be a perfectly appropriate place to build a house, closer to my property. And we have offered to go and do that if she would like to do that. We would rather have the road on our property than a house on top of a hill that we can't screen. We'd be looking at it from our front porch 24/7 with no ability to screen it because it's so high. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're at a little disadvantage and I'm not speaking for the Board I'm speaking for myself because I haven't seen it, I wonder if I could impose upon our resident gentleman, Mr. Jim, maybe you could go over and take some pictures? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be willing to go there on Saturday, anybody there? MR. KEENAN: I'll make sure I get there and if I'm not there, I'll make sure someone else. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Leave your cell phone number with Linda, is there a number I can call you when I get there? I could leave on the 9:00 boat from New London and probably get there sometime in the afternoon, would that be all right? MR. KEENAN: That would be fine with me, if it's a more convenient time than taking up your Memorial Day Saturday. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm actually 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 82 1 e 3 heading for Cape Cod, I'll zip there and Zlp back if that's okay with you. You don't necessarily have to be there. MR. KEENAN: I'd love to be there to show 2 4 you. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not conducive to having too much of a discussion there without the Board. I'll probably more just observe and maybe walk this piece of property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you take some pictures? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And I can take some pictures. 5 7 8 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I wonder if it would be possible to have a representative of the owner there as well. MR. HAMM: That was going to be my suggestion as well when it was my turn to speak, however I don't know her schedule. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hamm, has it been staked out where the proposed house is? MR. KEENAN: The house is staked out. On the photos that I showed were basically from the stakes and the gentleman standing up, I think Figure 3 is where -- BOARD MEMBER really prefer not to BOARD MEMBER get there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: DINIZIO: Honestly, I would have people there. GOEHRINGER: You've got to 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 I know how to get 17 there. MR. KEENAN: I'd be very happy not to be 18 there. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's fine. MR. HAMM: If you're not going to be there then I won't have her, but if you're not going to be there, then I won't be there. MR. KEENAN: I promise you I won't be 20 21 t.here. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then I have another question and it had to do with our site visits. We generally make it a practice that we all go to a site visit, some site visits aren't even necessary to help with a plans, this sounds like a difficult one. I can't make -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Would you like to 23 24 e 25 go? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. May 25, 2006 83 1 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. KEENAN: Thank you very much. MR. HAMM: I haven't seen his plan. Do you have an extra copy of what you're proposing to the Board as an alternative? MR. KEENAN: I have not proposed a specific alternative because, like I said, I'm just an insurance guy. MR. HAMM: You mentioned changing the right of way. MR. KEENAN: Mrs. Kennedy has a plan In her possession from the original subdivision that showed the right of way going further away from the water, which I think was intended to allow that to be a buildable -- MR. HAMM: I don't know what plan that is. I did the subdivision back in 1994. MR. KEENAN: For this lot, but I'm talking about the original subdivision for what's currently the Rouche property. MR. HAMM: The Rouches conveyed without Planning Board approval what you own in the late '60s; when they went to do their subdivision of the remainder of this property, we were required to include your property, which was known as John Evans, so you'll see the subdivision map is of Rouche and Evans, as far as I know that right of way has been there forever; that's where it is and has been MR. KEENAN: All I'm saying is I saw a piece of paper that Mrs. Kennedy showed me that showed an original subdivision plan, or a site plan maybe is the right way to describe it, from the late 1960s early 1970s at the time her father built her house on the lot that was split off from the lot where our house is. We have the oldest house in the neighborhood; it was built in 1881, and all the other areas around it were split off from the property where we are. She just said this is one thing we could do, and I said that looks like the right way to do it, if that was the way they were talking about doing it In the '60s. If we could stick to that and keep all the houses in a way where they're not visible from each other, which is something that we like in that R80 neighborhood. MR. HAMM: If this were between two property owners, that's one thing. But we have 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 84 1 5 the Wilmerding compound, the four lots that use this right of way are involved with this as well. MR. KEENAN: The Wilmerdings, they pass through, but I believe we have the longest contiguous property line with this house, and, quite frankly, it's the closest to us and we'll be the ones that will be seeing it. All the Wilmerdings are lower and look over Fishers Island .';ound and Hay Harbor. MR. HAMM: But they use that right of way is my point. MR. KEENAN: Correct. But their views are Gcreenable because of where their houses are. Ours is the most proximate to where Mrs. Rouche wants to build, and we don't believe that because of her first floor elevation, roof line, we're going to have a very tough time to screen it off. MR. HAMM: I understand that your property would be most impacted. However, you're talking about relocating a right of way that's used by other people it's not just something that you and Mrs. Kennedy can agree to. MR. KEENAN: Correct. But I believe it's not an agreement for us, it's a suggestion by us to keep the integrity of what's known as Hay Harbor Park to the locals intact such that the houses are as least visible from each other as they can be, and then we have lots of ability to screen houses from nature. And just to add to [-_hat point Mrs. Kennedy told me that Mr. Rouche, her father, when he originally built his house there in 1960 whatever it was, lopped a story off the top of it because it was so visible and decided to go down instead of up. That's the spirit of the neighborhood and that's what we would like to convey to you in Southold, that we would like to keep it as bucolic as possible, and we think there are plenty of ways to do it in order to build a home on that lot. MR. HAMM: I want to put in the record a letter my client wrote to Mr. Keenan immediately before the hearing last month to show that she is willing to cooperate with him. And this is Mr. Keenan called me a couple of days before the hearing to go over certain issues, which I then put in the form of a letter, and Sheila and I worked out the language of it, and that was our response. Among things that have not been 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 May 25, 2006 85 1 8 mentioned, Mr. Keenan has asked for her permission to put a dock on the property, and we're a little concerned that some of this objection relates to her unwillingness at this point, not to say that she's not willing to cooperate with him, but her unwillingness to agree to something as a condition of his support, and you'll see the issues addressed in that letter, I don't need to go into them in complete detail, but he had asked about using a path on her property, which she says she's willing to do at least for this summer, she's willing to walk the property with him with a landscape professional to determine what screening is there. It's not that she's been uncooperative, it's just she's not willing to do a quid pro quo at this point. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a two story house, though, right? MR. HAMM: Yes, but rather modest in scale, 1,000 square foot footprint, I believe. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But in effect, if we did have a height problem, she could reduce it to a one-story house and come in with a landscape plan against the Keenan property. I'm trying to eliminate a lawsuit, I'm being honest with you. MR. HAMM: My feeling is we shouldn't even be in here at all. I think the rear yard, I think the Building Department was in error and I think you agreed with me last month to call the encroachment on the rear yard requiring a variance and that's addressed in the memorandum I gave you last month, and also, after all we're talking about a right of way here, and I know that's a tront yard under the definitions and so forth, but it should be looked at a lot differently than a front yard request in other circumstances. Why should she reduce her rights that she has had; Mr. Keenan's property is part of this subdivision which created this lot. So I hope that fine, go look at it, and.we'll abide by your judgment on that, but I think I do want to focus on some of these other points, and I don't want to lose sight of them. This is a case where great leniency should be granted. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you, Mr. Hamm, the lot straddles that right of way. I've seen people come in before on Fishers Island; 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 86 1 9 the other side of that right of way, lS any of that buildable? MR. HAMM: Potentially with permits from the environmental agencies and probably it was determined this was the best location because you have one side that's wetlands and one side that's severely sloped. This is a flat area, I put in evidence last month from the engineer surveyor who's familiar with this property that this is the ideal location, impact from front yard, it's Mrs. Kennedy not the neighbors who are impacted by the proximity to the front yard. Wilmerding, I know Mr. Keenan says he can't see it, but I know he's sent a letter in support of this location. It's not quite as detrimental to the neighborhood, I have to admit, I haven't been there myself, but the evidence that I have from what I am told from the surveyor and Wilmerding's support and my client is that this is a modest house in probably the best location on this property. MR. KEENAN: Just if I may to defend myself against Mr. Hamm's insinuation that we put a quid pro quo to Mrs. Kennedy, let me add a couple of facts to the record. Mrs. Kennedy and her siblings, owners of Rouche Partners LP, telephoned me in October, telephoned me and said, if you want to buy the lot for $750,000 and then give it to the Nature Conservancy, we will sell it to you for $750,000 provided you give it to the Nature Conservancy, that was the first we heard of this plan. I said, gee, I'd be willing to take a quarter or a third or some part of that, and let's get all the neighbors together and we'll keep the park going. I'm very happy to contribute to that, that sounds like a good plan, but it shouldn't be just us, we should all do this together as neighbors on the right of way. Then when Mrs. Kennedy said I'd like to build a house, our response was, Sheila, we'd love to have you build a house there, let's just be sure when you do it, we take the original 11 acres, and we don't really care whether they're our acres or your acres there's three pieces of property that share one nice little corner of Fishers Island, let's just make it nice for everybody, and we suggested a number of different ways to do that which would include having the right of way relocated across our land, whatever it takes to build a house there 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 May 25, 2006 87 1 8 In a way that doesn't spoil the neighborhood. To the other point of the flatness of the land up there, my friend Mr. McGreevey drove his bulldozer around for a week and a half taking down the top of a hill, and I don't know how far down it came, but that was a pretty steep hill over there, and it's now flat on the top and there's a lot that's been sort of prepared for building. I believe they wanted to start building as soon as possible. I don't know if that's allowed or not but there is a significantly flattened hill that was there that's now got a flat top and a level and if you go over you might want to ask Mr. McGreevey to show you what he's done to prepare the lot for building. MR. HAMM: This is the site of the old Munnatauket Hotel on the island and there was concern about construction debris in the location and he did some test holes. As far as I know, the flat and extensive grading, as far as know, this is the natural elevation of this part of the property. I could see what the surveyor shows, I don't know what the date of this is, date the February 3rd. As far as I know Mr. McGreevey did not prepare to turn this into a flat site, that he was present at the site but for purposes of determining whether this was an acceptable location. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This moving of the right of way, where would you put it? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write this case so I have to make sure I understand it. MR. KEENAN: If you look and you want to see the photos one, two and three are pictures of the right of way directly in front. This was a hill. This is now a lesser hill. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Flattened plateau up here. MR. KEENAN: Mononoto Inn. What we would suggest this is the lot line here, and I believe her siblings would also cooperate because they actually asked us at one point if we would do this, as we were considering some things over here, if we wanted to move the driveway, to bring it through here and around this way on this side of the hill, and then you put a house right here, where the road is right now. You've got a very nice water view right here, stone retaining wall. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 88 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's right behind e you. 9 MR. KEENAN: It's a spectacular place, so our thought was bring the road here, closer to our house, leave this and then swing it back and then you have a nice place to put your house, it's not visible from our house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You put the house there and then you have a big hill right behind your house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But this is a huge slope, look at the contour. It appears to be a fairly substantial grade. This is a lot of grading you'd have to do along here. MR. KEENAN: If you brought this around on a 40 foot contour, for example, the bulldozer's not that expensive, put it in against this hill so our thought is you could bring it around the 40 foot contour. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about the cesspools or the wells that are there? MR. KEENAN: The existing well? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. KEENAN: Our back up well is right about here, and we're concerned about the septic tank location for that. We've offered if Mrs. Kennedy wants to -- MR. HAMM: I think you're supposed to hook up to public water. Our house is back here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is this whole proposal a consequence of height because it's already a high house and it's on a high property? That's all I'm trying to clarify, not how to redesign it. MR. HAMM: She's willing to work with him on screening, but just not on this point. He wanted to put trees along this line, and that's well into her property and she was very concerned about that being appropriate. MR. KEENAN: Why we suggested putting trees closer to her house is because the trees take a long time to grow, and if you started at a 25 foot deficit, and then you got to end up with 50 foot trees, it would take forever, so that was our suggestion that we have some screening up here rloser to her home. MR. HAMM: That's addressed in her letter. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a graphic 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 89 1 8 notation for a tree line, doesn't appear to have any on there; am I missing something? Just talking about the nondisturbance buffer zone? MR. HAMM: He's got a note on here somewhere. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Keenan, can we get a copy of your survey of your house property? MR. KEENAN: Certainly. I need to find one or have one -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's necessary because we need to address the issues that he is bringing before us, here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We know where his well is. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't want you to have -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is this the parcel you're referring to as a park? MR. KEENAN: Yes. Actually just the point of record the Rouche family declined to maintain this lot, this particular subdivision, and the Evans family maintained it and kept the right of way clear for many years, and we did the same at the Rouche's request basically when they said we don't care about this because it's past our house because we never see it. We've spent lots and lots and lots of lawn mower time over the years from keeping this back and keeping the right of way. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So this is their property? MR. KEENAN: Correct. Mr. this lot off of this lot in 1994. this one were subdivided I want to or thereabouts. MR. HAMM: It's now legalized. MR. KEENAN: My house lS here and my first floor elevation is -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to make it eaSler, what does your house look like? MR. KEENAN: My house is an 1882 -- it's a farm house. It's two farm houses squished together. It's gray clapboard. There are not that many houses in the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you stand up on the hill and -- MR. KEENAN: And look in this direction Hamm subdivided These two and say around 1969 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 90 1 5 you'll look down on my front porch. Thank you very much. MR. HAMM: will this matter be on again? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 9:45, 22nd of June, Mr. Hamm. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the hearing until June 22nd at 9:45 a.m. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Kassapidis. MS. RIVERA: Chris Rivera representing Dr. Kassapidis. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera, it was my understanding that there was some error that you raised regarding the Building Department and the roof that goes over the house which attaches the house to the garage? MS. RIVERA: Yes, when I applied for the building permit to alter the dwelling that was there, the Building Department approved a three foot setback for the garage from the property line and issued the permit. I started to build the garage, and no sooner than the foundation was in, one of the neighbors who you received a letter from, Sagianis, went down to the Building Department and questioned it, and they reviewed the plans with them at the time, and again, said there was no problem, they were permitted to build the garage with the three foot setback. When I built the garage, I brought it in at 5.7 feet side yard setback as opposed to the three foot setback and proceeded to construct the garage with the breezeway and altered the cottage that was there, and after all was said and done, I got a call from Damon at the Building Department and said I'm sorry we have a problem, we issued the building permit in error. We shouldn't have allowed you to have a three foot setback. I said I made it 5.7, he still said that's not proper, how far are you in the project. I said it's completed. And then he said, I'm sorry you have to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance for the garage as built. So that's why I'm here. Let me say I know that you received a letter from one of the neighbors, I am both president of the Captain Kidd Civic Association and the West Mattituck Beach Association and I do approximately 90 percent of my work in Captain Kidd. And I am very, very 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 91 1 9 conscious of the environment, the architecture and the neighborhood whenever I undertake a project. And the project that is before you now was a house that the previous owners had pillows and quilt blankets in the windows to keep out the cold. And Dr. Kassapidis bought this property and has invested over $600,000 in this complex and probably $150,000 of that is for landscape and pool. And I know the Sagianises did bring up the Kassapidises about the filter noise and they addressed it with me, and I said I will definitely enclose the filter system later on, but I was waiting for -- I had to get an ozonator, et cetera. So when the pool equipment goes back ln, I'm going to enclose it in a structure and insulate it with foam board to try to prevent any future noise. And I also have the filter on a timer that goes on 11:00 at night to about 2:00. 3:00 in the morning, I changed the filter times so they wouldn't have to listen to it during the daytime on their deck. They were also questioning that the filter was making noise and it's right by their bedroom, but their bedroom has a windows air conditioner on it during the summer time, which is far louder, believe me, than the pool equipment. So we addressed all these issues for the neighbor regarding the pool pump and the noise. And I know he wrote a letter asking us to relocate the pool equipment, but there's no way you can because all the pipes are underneath the cement patio at the time. I don't know if any of you had the chance to go out there, I know Mr. Goehringer has, but they also spoke about cutting down these majestic trees and you can see by the picture, what we have planted, we put 14 foot Leland Cypress trees between the property to screen not only the Kassapidis pool, but also their deck, this is how the house looks now. These are the pines, and we did not cut down any majestic trees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera, can I just mention that we had a similar situation occur, and I realize the nature of this relocation or specific relocation which you say you can't do, and so was the case in this other case down in Yakop Park over in Southold, we did ask the person to do exactly what you're anticipating, and they sprayed the inside of it with insulation and they put some further insulation in it and we never 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 May 25, 2006 92 1 9 heard another problem. So I think that's a positive move on your part as the contractor, and as the agent for the owner. MS. RIVERA: Thank you, the Kassapidises have been neighbors of these people for over 20 years, and right off the bat they're trying to be sensitive to everyone. They switched the timer on the pool pump, and it's really only a one horse power pump. It really doesn't make that much nOlse to be honest with you, and the way they're built today, it's really hardly any noise at all. I told them I'd be happy to build a waterproof cover and surround sound for it, and I intend to do that. As far as anything else, there's nothing else we can do. We put huge Lelands, we put a fence, we have gone all out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I'm talking taking first run on this, it happens to be my application and I have to incorporate this into the findings. As for the roof situation, I don't have any particular problem with it on the 5.7. It's an open breezeway. It doesn't even go over the entire roof of the house, so I assume you get more light into the rest of the house and so on. MS. RIVERA: It's my understanding that the breezeway was not the issue, the issue was the setback. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It becomes a side yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It becomes a side yard otherwise the garage would be in the back yard. MS. RIVERA: I have to tell you, this wasn't a slam dunk with the Building Department. I went back and forth with them maybe three or four times, and all they were concentrating on, to be honest with you, were the front steps. They had to be no more than 30 square feet. I had them going one way, I had them going the other way, I had a pillar, I had to take the pillar out and move it onto the step, et cetera. They were constantly reviewing this application and at no point did they ever pick up on the breezeway issue. They did say I had to limit the size of the breezeway, which I had done according to them, but at no point was anything else brought up. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I brought the issue of the shed or whatever 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 May 25, 2006 93 1 9 particular enclosure, that is probably within three to five feet to the property line, and if it's less than three feet we need to incorporate that into the decision, so you don't need to come back for a variance for that. I didn't notice that. I have to tell you, it was a beastly day that I was up there, and even on a beastly day the place looked beautiful. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the pool housing, the filter system is behind the garage. It's not three feet away, it's at least 5.7. MS. RIVERA: It's maybe even more, probably about six, seven feet then it's about other another 15 feet to their bedroom window. it's about 20 some-odd feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which property is the neighbor's property whose objecting? MS. RIVERA: Facing the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the left, 114? MS. RIVERA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: to the short setbacks, MS. RIVERA: No, they're objecting to the noise of the pool filter. I want to be perfectly honest with you, we're blocking out that also. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That breezeway is probably open in part to let light down into that stairwell. MS. door in the garage So 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 They're not objecting 13 e 14 15 16 RIVERA: It was just a matter we put a garage, if they pull into the 17 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So they're not rained on. Part of it is rained on anyway but I see you've drained it. MS. RIVERA: These are the trees that abut her property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's plenty of visual screening. Also I think you're 22 percent lot coverage? MS. RIVERA: 21.3. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you need a variance for that. MS. RIVERA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 18 19 20 21 23 24 . 25 May 25, 2006 __n______". 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 "-'.ii., 94 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at the survey, I see you got a frame garage, that garage existed the whole time? MS. RIVERA: No, actually, Mr. Dinizio, there was a garage but prior to the Kassapidises buying the property it was demolished, and it was in a different location. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just wondering how even if this were side yard setbacks how that garage got put there in the side yard like that? MS. RIVERA: When I put in the original application, that's where I had the garage located. I gave them a survey. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But they're saying that they approved it -- their disapproval here says they disapproved it because they thought it was accessory setbacks. But it's in the side yard, you need to be here for that too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They couldn't have approved it as accessory side back yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In the notice of disapproval -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They reversed themselves, basically. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If it were in the rear yard it would have been three feet, then they realized it was side yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it were there, if it were an accessory setback, it would not have been allowed because it would have to have been in the rear yard. MS. RIVERA: The original survey I gave them showed exactly where this was going, where it is now, in the breezeway, that's how they approved it. I realized that they made an error. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then they're saying with a breezeway it had to be a principal setback not an accessory. MS. RIVERA: Right, the original application was made with the breezeway attached to the garage, and then they realized it was an accessory. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On the side it would have had to have a 10 foot setback and enclosed addition. MS. RIVERA: It was addressed very early May 25, 2006 95 1 e 3 on in the project, and I went in there and they said, no, it's fine. And then after all was said done, they realized they had made a mistake. They had gone over it with the neighbor at the time, and they realized they made a mistake, and that's why I'm here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 4 5 6 7 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Fitzpatricks on Bailey Beach Road in Mattituck. Mr. Goggins? MR. GOGGINS: Good afternoon, William Goggins, for the applicant Tom Fitzpatrick and Mary Fitzpatrick. Before we go forward, I have to say I was sitting here listening to the Rouche Kennedy application and I had an epiphany. I was thinking, all the times I've been before the Board over the years, you people are so patient and you look like you're paving your way to heaven by sitting on this board and dealing with these issues. Anyway we're in this application. We're asking for variances. This property is deemed to have two front yards because of a right of way going along the east side of the property. Don Filer had drawn the plans, and he tried to square the building off and tried to make it as less intrusive as he could. The Fitzpatricks, this is their summer house, they're in their early 60s. They're getting ready to retire right now. It's a one bedroom cottage, they would like to make it a two bedroom cottage. They'd like to live out the rest of their lives in this house. So, she met with Mr. Filer and they drew up plans and you have them before you. I think I made a mistake in my application, I put that this house is preexisting to zoning, I don't think it was. I reviewed the assessment card, and it looked like it was built in 1973. But I'm not sure it could have been built before. And I think everyone knows about the Bailey Beach area, it's a bunch of summer cottages that remained summer cottages until the mid '80s people started converting them, putting 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 96 1 e 3 heat in them, and now people are living there year round. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The real issue then is the fact that the road on this site plan anyway drawn by the architect, the road seems angled creating a variety of different front yard setbacks if the house remains parallel to itself with the addition, then what you're doing is creating a 28 foot, 23.4 and 18 from the new corner. 2 4 5 6 8 MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The right of way is 25 feet from the rear and 22 feet towards the front on the right of way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bill, what are those structures that are sticking out to the next door neighbor's yard? MR. GOGGINS: One of them is a pump house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the public water down there? MR. GOGGINS: I believe so, and when they drew this one, I guess when they subdivided the property they made the property line go around the pump house, and also the other building is a shed which is there. So I'm not sure what the purpose of those are, but clearly -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bill, is there any problem with dropping that section of the house, or inverting that section of the house on the left-hand side looking at the plans, which is really the north side, back to approximately the same distance as the center of the house at about 23.4, which would be a reduction of about five feet? So have the same setbacks, in other words, an average setback of about 23 and taking five off the front? MR. GOGGINS: Standing on Bailey Beach Road and looking at the house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where it says the 18 and it says proposed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's where you have the 12 by 17 foot living room, it would mean creating a jog on the elevation instead of gOlng straight across and reducing the 17 foot dimension of the living room by how many feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By five feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: By five feet. Got a much smaller, got a 12 by 13, very small living 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 e e e 97 1 2 room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's up to you 3 guys. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's why I was asking, mean setbacks, average setbacks. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The road circles 5 around. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not apparent on the site. I'm wondering about a reaction from the neighbor. The one on the west side is setback farther than here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On both sides they 7 8 are. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wondered what impact that might have. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the problem, I think clearly the setbacks are nonconforming, they're nonconforming in that they're closer to the road than the other houses and this construction would not increase the nonconformity merely in the Walz sense but actual physical sense is it's already the closest one to the road, and put it yet closer. So I would certainly be open to suggestions of ways of redesigning this addition to put it on the side where there is room, and we'd have the net result of actually reducing the front yard setback rather than increasing; is that something that your client would consider? MR. GOGGINS: I don't think so. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a huge architectural job. MR. GOGGINS: It looks like it was built LD 1973, which means it conformed to the zoning in 1973. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it was reconstructed. This just happens to be one that is a little more conforming in reference to its size than some of the smaller ones, as you get closer to the water they were much smaller. MR. GOGGINS: I think the suggestion of five feet of the living room is much more And if they did, could that be an open 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 removing viable. deck? 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If it's at grade, sure. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This way we have a mean situation. May 25, 2006 98 1 9 MR. GOGGINS: I understand. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, the reason for the Board, this is my application, I have to write it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I must say that because this house is set farther forward and the other two neighboring properties are set farther back, other than from the road, there's pretty negligible impact on the neighbors on either side with the front yard setbacks. But trying to balance that setback is probably the reasonable alternative relief. MR. GOGGINS: They will agree to do it, no objection. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Pollio, who wishes now to make a kitchen. MS. MOORE: He always wanted to make the kitchen. The problem was that I guess somewhere along the lines somebody dropped it off the plans. I would ask that we incorporate by reference the ZBA file of 5753 because it has all the same documentation that would be presented at this hearing with the maps and so on and it's the same. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a different map, they're not the same maps, they're different maps. MS. MOORE: What do you mean? The issues of lot coverage and so on with the large maps that were submitted as part of the overall plan of this community, rather than have them reprinted in this application, we'll refer back to the prior one. What I understand from Mr. Pollio, because I stepped into this application very late into the process, he had submitted to the Building Department for a notice of disapproval for a much larger overall plan, even including the only thing that's habitable space is the kitchen addition, the other is a six by six covered stoop entrance. He had submitted to the Building Department that initial request for a much larger area. The notice of disapproval was issued. They went 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 99 1 e 3 through the notice provisions in the prior hearing and somewhere along the line Mr. Lenhert, his design professional, somehow or another dropped off the kitchen addition in the plan, and so, when he got the decision, we looked at it and said, well, that's not included, and he for some reason -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Moore, he was here that day. He only mentioned a family room, it didn't even enter his head about talking about the kitchen. MS. MOORE: I don't understand. In any case, at this point, I'm just relaying back what they request is the kitchen addition, it's a continuation of the family room, if you saw the interior layout of the plans, that was what was originally planned. The kitchen addition led into the family room and then the pop-out there, the six by six is a covered doorway, stoop, and since we were coming back to you, we thought best to put everything on the plans properly and submit it to this Board at this time. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the purpose of the kitchen? MS. MOORE: They have I guess an eating area -- let me pullout the drawings because it will make it easier on me. They have an existing kitchen and they want to enlarge the kitchenette eating area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words, it's still only going to be one kitchen? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's still part of the one kitchen. Do you see the floor plan, the kitchen right now ends, where you see the wall, it ends where the cabinets -- this area here is where the wall now exists (indicating). What they're adding is a breakfast nook, eat-in area on the other side of the cabinetry, and it would allow the seats to go under in this breakfast bar. You have the breakfast bar that allows you to put seats there, and then you have the kitchenette In this area. They are also able to relocate their washer and dryer. This was part of the addition that was approved. It was overlapping areas. The addition was -- some of the square footage overlaps what is part of the original or last four months ago, six months ago, so there's overlapping space. It also squares up the end of the house, 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 May 25, 2006 100 1 8 it doesn't leave such an odd jog with the addition, the previous addition, you see the survey. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't have to get Health Department approval for the extension of the kitchen? MS. MOORE: Not at all. Only when you add bedrooms you need to make sure that the sanitary is adequate for the number of bedrooms. But this sanitary was replaced at the last hearing. It was discussed in great detail and he has an enormous sanitary system there. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a new system? MS. MOORE: It was a new system about two years ago or so. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what you want to do is build according to the survey dated 11/5/04? MS. MOORE: Yes, 11/5/04, exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you just show me what was approved? MS. MOORE: The yellow line was approved, 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 5753. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And that's existing. MS. MOORE: This is existing and this lS the new wall. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How in the heck did that get dropped? It's so obvious on the plans. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It didn't get dropped. MS. MOORE: I don't know what Mr. Lenhert was thinking. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He was here. MS. MOORE: He was here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He was here and there was no mention of this kitchen. MS. MOORE: I don't think they were thinking of it only because it was on the original notice of disapproval. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Here's the problem, as you remember, this hearing was kept open and there was some concern about the incremental expansion of this property in this co-op, and I don't think it's possible, for me at least, to say how I would have voted on this application had this been the one that we were reviewing last time because it's bigger; in other words -- MS. MOORE: Functionally it's not bigger. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whatever problems in 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 May 25, 2006 101 1 6 regard to grading and lot coverage in these properties simply not the application that we saw before upon which there was considerable discussion from a neighbor, as you may recall. MS. MOORE: I do recall the conversation, that's when we -- when I got involved when the neighbor started raising these issues that, quite frankly, were not really relevant to what's going on. 2 e 3 4 5 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: hearing and he was heard and earlier plan, not to the one us right now. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. I don't understand why they weren't discussing in great detail, but often times at the hearing you discuss issues that you think are the problem rather than the overall. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not in any obvious way does that affect our decision making. MS. MOORE: All I know is here you can have the application you have before you, which is obviously part of the overall renovation of the house, which unfortunately wasn't clear the first time. Everybody got a he spoke to an that we have before 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If it's okay, I just want to mention a conversation. There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The arcnitect, Rob Lenhert, had mentioned with the other application that he had submitted that they decided to remove the kitchen and plan it at sometime in the future, that was intentionally removed from the plan; that's how we processed that application. You weren't involved with it. So I figured I'll tell both you of you. MS. MOORE: Mr. Lehnert often times got confused on Mr. Pollio's directions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn't matter for our purposes who misrepresented it. MS. MOORE: I'm not saying it was a misrepresentation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: From our point of view it was a misrepresentation because what we ,"aw is not what we got. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We granted something and now they're asking -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, before I lose my train of thought, it's supposed to be a combined application between Mr. Pollio and the whole 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 May 25, 2006 102 1 2 Kimogenor Point Association; is that in here? MS. MOORE: Yes, you have that in there. It's signed by both Kimogenor Point and Pollio. There was a lot of communication between Pollio and Lenhert. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Lot's of changes e 3 4 5 too. 9 MS. MOORE: I'm not pointing fingers at anybody doing the wrong thing, the bottom line was I think when Mr. Pollio thought he was doing one way and had it come to my attention at the time I got involved, I would have said, oh, no, we've got something missing, but I didn't realize it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Rather than say it's really one application modified, for our purposes we have to see it as a new application. MS. MOORE: No, I'm merely asking with regard to incorporation by referenced documents that are already in your file. It's just incorporation by reference, as you know, it's a legal term. It's incorporating the documents rather than resubmitting to you a pile of papers that are this big. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much is the square footage so we have it for the record? MS. MOORE: The square footage of the kitchen addition is 12'4" by 9'6" and the entrance, which is a covered stoop but because you consider everything nonconforming here, a six by SlX roofed over covered stoop. Those are the only two items. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Manos. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Ruth would like me to mention on the update on the file, the day before yesterday in the afternoon, there was some maps in the submitted information that came in. It wasn't the Friday before the meeting, so I have to distribute them at the hearing. So the Board is just seeing them for the first time, and the staff has not reviewed them, we have been very busy and one day was not enough time to review. 21 22 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 103 1 7 MS. MOORE: Okay. Well, if I could open the hearing and discuss it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The hearing's been opened already. MS. MOORE: Just give me a chance because it's very simple. I also want to introduce my father, Angel Chorno, who is the architect. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does that mean we can't grill him? MS. MOORE: You can grill him, but be nlce. Let me give you a little bit of why we're here and why you have the survey and the drawings redone, and as I say, I got them to you as soon as humanly possible. We made the application, as you know, for the house rebuilt based on the plans that were already submitted and got a building permit. As you know -- I'll go back a little bit. The variance that you granted dealt with a house that was going to be a renovation, and what happened is that after Mr. Strang, who was the original architect on this, the contractor was brought in, he came in, he looked at the foundation and said you have a problem, Mr. and Mrs. Manos. They got, before I was involved, one engineer, the engineer confirmed there was a problem because of the height of the sill and the water runoff that had occurred from the '70s construction there, there had been water damage there. They didn't rush off to take down the house, they went and got a second opinion from another engineer because they couldn't believe after spending as much money as they had to get all the drawings, all the permits and get ready for a building permit that they found out there was a problem with the foundation. We again tried to modify and work within the bounds of the permit that we had. The general contractor started working on it, and then despite my advice, to don't touch, leave stuff up, leave walls up, we had lots of discussions about that, he went and saw the Building Department. The Building Department said take it down, sure, go ahead, take it down. Well, at that point, Gary Fish, who is out in the field and it's a practical issue, allowed it to all come down. Well, now Damon saw it and because we had the plans for the new foundation, and he said, well, you have a problem because the variance we granted was for a 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 104 1 7 renovation not for reconstruction. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was actually for the porch. MS. MOORE: The plans that you had in your drawings because they're the same plans that we had was for renovation of the existing house. For all intents and purposes they had no plans to demolish the house. Now we move forward. The Building Department says you need a variance. Now because the code change with respect to setback from the bluff, we ended up with another board in between. We went to the Town Trustees, the neighbor to the east -- this neighbor here is to the west, Mr. Papas, very nice -- the neighbor to the east came out and we submitted the identical site plan that was originally submitted to this Board and the neighbor on the east came very upset with his lawyer because the pool was too close to his property. The Trustees had done an inspection. The neighbor had appeared at the inspection and from conversations based on the inspection, we were advised by a couple of members of the Trustees -- we never got to the point where they had to deny us -- we just heard from them that this neighbor was upset and Trustees thought it was a little close. So we went into the hallway, met with the lawyer, met with the neighbor, and said, listen, at this point, we've demolished the house. We can move the pool where it really belongs in the spot where the house was proposed before you, and we moved the house, which is obviously with the tear-down, now we're not renovating the existing house you're not bound by the existing conditions of the original structure, it didn't make sense to build the same house with the strange angles and living within the bounds of the original renovation, it made sense to do a new plan. I brought my dad in, he did things with inhuman speed, much faster and certainly they were a little upset with the prior architect because of how things worked out, that's fine. So we worked within the bounds of the side yard setbacks, the front and rear yard setbacks, we were able, because the pool was really important to the property owner, that was really the impetus of the whole thing, and you had actually reviewed an application for a pool that was denied I think 2 tit 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 May 25, 2006 T- 1 2 Cathy Mesiano was the agent on that one. It was too close to the bluff. It was pushed between the existing house and the bluff, and I'm not surprised you denied it. So they kind of unfortunately, they really wanted this pool. So we pushed the house back to I think it ended up being 83 feet, the roof line is the line that we see on the site plan, you have this site plan here among the papers that you got, this site plan is derived from the Trustees hearing, which we only had last Wednesday I think it was, so only at that hearing did we find out that the neighbor was upset about the location of the pool, that we could move everything and the Trustees had no issue with the our setback. In fact, they probably would have approved the house where it was, but again, we were with the neighbor that was upset about the pool location. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Could I ask one question? We asked the Trustees if they saw this plan at the last hearing and they said no. So they didn't have this map before them at the April hearing. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. original plan that was submitted BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: A without the pool, right? MS. MOORE: Excuse me. The pool was on the side yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Right. MS. MOORE: We had a conversation like I'm having with you, but they actually talked about it even more, and they said, we don't have a problem, when we put the pool in we'll keep it -- in fact, we kept to the 51 and 62, and they even recognized that the pool would have a lip around it; so we set back at 51 from the lip of the pool, you can see there's patio that goes around the lip of the pool. We actually talked about the width of the pool, the area that we would need for patio area, and where the house would ultimately be located. And we kind of drew up then and there at the Trustees meetings, and I may have what would be as a preliminary with the Trustees. So they actually had a more simplified diagram because we didn't have the elevations of the house at that point, we only had kind of dimensional requirements, all right, how far are we going to go back, what are e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e We had the to you. different plan, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 ~. 105 106 1 2 our setbacks and so on. So what they agreed to do was on a resolution that the Trustees adopted that night was a pool, because we were relocating the pool again. Where the neighbor objected, we relocated to the closest point to the bluff, and then we would push back giving some area for we call it patio, it's stones rather than decking, then that's where the house would go. So they had no issue, they said, listen because we couldn't draw then and there that evening, we established some lines and said this is what we're going to do, and your transcript of the hearing it should reflect that. All they wanted me to do was come back to them with a drawing reflecting what was agreed upon at the hearing, which we did, and add the hay bale lines because that was missing from the initial plan, and the dry wells, one for, I know you ask and often times the Trustees ask as well, a dry well for the pool and a dry well for the house. So this was all done within a week and a half from our hearing Wednesday to tonight, today, so that's why we came up with this footprint. Essentially what happens is when you're dealing with trying to draw drawings and you're asking for variances you got to have certain amount of basic drawings with footprints. They had spent over $50,000 between architect urals and permits on the first plan, so they weren't about -- they really were very nervous about how much we were going to do -- I was nervous for them -- how much are we going to do to be able to establish footprints so we don't go in that direction again, in the wrong direction. So that's what we did, I had my father meet with the Manos, they came up with more detailed elevations in the last week and a half of how the house is going to be designed. We changed everything. We kind of threw the whole plan out the window, that was gone, started over, but in the long run it works out for the best because it puts the pool in the best location for a waterfront house. It pushes the house back to certainly a very acceptable limit, and we are to a certain extent appeasing the neighbor on the one side, I think the neighbor on the west, you're here in support? MR. PAPAS: Yes. But I have a question. 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 May 25, 2006 107 1 8 MS. MOORE: Yes, a question. So we'll get 1:0 him. That's why we are here, and you have the plans which I delivered the other day figuring you might get your packet in time. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, this is mine. We went from a 26 foot house -- one plan I saw showed a 50 foot wide house -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sixty. MS. MOORE: You had the original house which was the original '70s house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the porch it's 50 feet wide. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have 67 originally. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 depth. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 26 feet deep. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now we're at 50 without the landscaping around the pool, which you said is ground level. MS. MOORE: It's all going to be patio, 10 12 yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was wondering why the house can't be shrunk a little to create a greater setback from the bluff and if even if you had -- how big is the square footage of the lot? MS. MOORE: Just slightly over 20,000 I think, it's like 21. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if we had to go 15 and 15, which would then create an insufficient side yard on the east side. I want to create a greater depth, pull everything back. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You want a shorter front yard setback? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 62 feet. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, the character of !-.his neighborhood, and that's one of the downsides of moving towards the road and one of the things that they had weighed in designing this, is you've got the neighbors that are about where the decking is. It's going to be screened. This neighbor has ~ garage, the other neighbor I don't recall what he has, his bedroom, that was his objection with the pool on the side yard next to him. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He said it was okay the last time. Rear yard. Longer from 51 and 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 May 25, 2006 108 1 e the MS. MOORE: hearing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I asked him I told him it was going to be He claimed he wasn't here at 2 3 4 specifically. noisy. 5 MS. MOORE: He told the Trustees that he did not come to the hearing. So I don't know. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The neighbor. MS. MOORE: I knew I read the record. MR. PAPAS: Excuse me, I was here, he wasn't here. MS. MOORE: At this point the plans, they really love the plans at this point, and it works with respect to their use and what they need for their -- you know, they're grandparents with grandchildren and the rest. We pushed everything as far back and all you're dealing with is the pool, and it's really going in the hole where the foundation was. That's a disturbed area. We've already provided to the Trustees, it's already part of the Plan, a nonturf buffer. It's a vegetated bluff. The water runs towards the street and that's part of the problem why the original foundation was damaged because the water runoff that went into the original existing foundation of the house. So we have pushed it back and all you're dealing with is just the pool, that's it. The house, the foundation, which is a more significant structure 1S at 83 feet from the top of the bluff. Given that the original house was at 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 62. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the house itself is set back farther from the bluff than it previously was. MS. MOORE: Now, very much so, it's 83, it's another 30 feet back from where it was originally located. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What's the required front yard setbacks? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I assume it's 19 20 21 22 40. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have 55 front yard setbacks at the moment? MS. MOORE: Yes, 55. But keep in mind everybody's house is up there, they're close to the bluff, so. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I know. 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 109 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Looks like it might e be 53. 8 MS. MOORE: I guess it depends on the angle. We put the building envelope on the site plan, and this also enables us to retain the sanitary that was previously approved. Remember, they had a building permit, everything was ready to go and we hope the only thing they're starting over on is the plans, and this point the plans are 99 percent complete, certainly they're not construction drawings. I promised to read a letter that client prepared. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry, Pat, you said they had a building permit, building permit for what? It was demoed, not after it was demoed? MS. MOORE: No, before demo. But take a look at the plans, the plans were a significant renovation, I mean, significant. May I read this? Arlene Manos writes and asks me to read to the Board: "We are very disappointed that we cannot be present at the hearing. We wish to express our sincere request that the Board grant us the proposed plan. "After the plans were prepared and variances obtained, we discovered by an engineer recommended by our contractor that the foundation could not support our proposed renovation. We obtained a second opinion hoping to preserve not only the house but the extensive financial investment in the drawings and permits made to that point. The second engineer concluded that we could not preserve our existing house without extensive and very expensive remedial measures. Our contractor tried to preserve what he could, but in the end the house was gone. "We returned to the Board with a hope that with patience all ends well. Our original plan for a pool seaward of the existing house, which the Board denied along the bluff and granted in the side yard can now be located comfortably in an area with our house once stood, the hole remains. The house and pool have been redesigned, the pool was relocated at the request of our neighbor. We agreed with the Trustees that the new location was better because it would respect our neighbor's privacy and is adequately setback from the top of 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 110 1 e 3 the bluff. The house is modest in size compared to some of the new homes in our neighborhood but good for visiting children and grandchildren. "We hope that the Board will grant our application and that we can start our house Goon. My husband is 82 years old. Swimming is the only exercise that he tolerates and he has dreamed of swimming in his pool with his grandchildren." I have the original and I have seven copies. Angel Chorno is here, if you have questions about the plans. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think at this time, at least as far as I'm concerned. MR. CHORNO: I would just like to point out for the benefit of Mr. Papas. The house before was 67 foot wide, I made it 60 feet. Mrs. Manos asked me why you made it 60 instead of 67. I said, I went to the site and I saw that the house on the left was very close to the property line. So I decided to shrink some the width of the house so you would have a longer, more space between the neighbor's house and your house. Their master bedroom is exactly there, so I thought that he was very, very close. So now, it would be further away. MR. PAPAS: Demetrios Papas. The only upset that I have is the noise of the swimming pool, and I propose to put it underground because the swimming pool now will be in the middle of our bedroom, and from the other side. I think the water pump must be in the middle and if can be underground because the water pumps they make a lot of noise. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the filter of the swimming pool? MR. PAPAS: The pump when the water passes through makes noise, circulates a lot of water because I have a swimming pool in Florida, and I know I can hear. If something can be done underground it would minimize the noise. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Underground or put in a soundproof MS. MOORE: I think the previous application. MR. PAPAS: To minimize. This is the only objection I think for me and I think for my neighbor, if can be done we'll appreciate it. 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 May 25, 2006 III 1 5 MS. MOORE: We can certainly enclose the pump with a box as Miss Rivera had recommended on the previous application, enclosure with foam board inside. I think that's an easy solution. The location of it, we have room, again, our building envelope, if it's on the west side -- I think we're at the max building envelope on the east side. So we have room on the west side to put a dampening enclosure. I'm not even sure it qualifies as setbacks issues because utilities aren't usually, but just in case. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore, the only concern I have is the issue of setbacks. I understand the plan, I understand what your father has created, and I would be willing to give up the easterly side yard at five feet if he could shrink the plan down another five feet creating 56 feet at its closest point and 67 feet at its -- MS. MOORE: Push it by five feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Shrink the plan down by five feet, carry it over to the east side by five feet leaving a 15 foot setback on the east side and 15 feet setback on the west side. Instead of a 60 foot house -- MR. CHORNO: I went over with Manos quite a bit what they wanted, how they want it, so the plan it would be very difficult to make the plan narrower, even if it's wider. But we could certainly move the house towards the street by a few feet. That's the least you can let me do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The patio. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could take some away from the patio, and you could move it 38 feet from the street and three feet away from the patio and create a greater setback. MR. CHORNO: Yes, I have to check with the owner, obviously, she might have the choice of shrinking the patio or getting closer to the street. 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the setback of 51 feet, which is extremely close on a smaller lot. The greatest we have ever dealt with was in Mattituck at 160 foot cliff at 50 feet, and it was In no way attached to the house or close to the house. 23 24 e 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: a lot greater than 50 feet. In some areas it's May 25, 2006 112 1 e 3 MS. MOORE: I understand, but that's why we purposely did the patio, and I was sensitive to that. If you say 55 and I'm sorry, did you say five feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking J8 -- a total of five on both, so 51 to 56, 62 to 67. 2 4 5 6 MR. CHORNO: Add five feet. MS. MOORE: Then we can work within the whatever dimensions the client wants, whether it's patio or pool or house. MR. CHORNO: We could do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's just a matter of changing the site plan. MS. MOORE: I think it's easier to change '.he site plan. MR. CHORNO: She wanted further from the street, but I can talk her into it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You'll have to do a little bit more backfill into the pool area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you'll submit that to us? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we'll adjourn the hearing until the 22nd. MS. MOORE: Can't we close the hearing and we'll submit the drawings? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All we're doing is approving that setback. We're going to say, you do this -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We're asking for more papers we can adjourn the hearing, until we receive those papers. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's either that or close the hearing subject to the Board making a decision. MS. MOORE: No subject to me. I have to submit a new site plan. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But they're not agreeable on that plan, just agreeing to alternative relief. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But there's no vote on this plans for them to consider, Jerry's asking for it to consider, see what I'm saying? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We were just going to have a preliminary beginning of the hearing, but if the Board thinks the hearing is completed MS. MOORE: It's up to the Board, I explained why the new drawings -- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 113 1 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whether that's actually enough. The original plan was to postpone. What we expected to do, the original motion was to have this hearing held a month from now, and you said can I make some of my presentations now? MS. MOORE: Yes, yes, yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What I'm saying is we don't know if you can arrive at the three votes to get that. MS. MOORE: If there's a majority of the Board that is satisfied that the extra five feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can't know that tonight. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's what I'm saying, so they want to adjourn it. MS. MOORE: I don't want a denial. Alternative relief is fine but I don't know how much. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then keep it open if you want to discuss it further. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We're not going to discuss the merits of the proposal now. The only thing before us is whether to adjourn the hearing or keep the hearing open. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion would be to adjourn the hearing until the special meeting at which time we will close the hearing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's not adjourning it, that's closing it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You adjourn it to the next hearing. MS. MOORE: If I can interject, I just need to know if you're in agreement with the Town Trustees opinion of this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We don't know that 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 yet. 21 MS. MOORE: I can poll the Board and ask how you individually feel about it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This would be out of 22 order. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I say something? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We've done that all the time. A special meeting is not a special meeting, it's a meeting just like this meeting, we just make decisions. 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 114 1 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's close the hearing subject receiving it in writing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We can close the hearing and we can make our decisions based on what we've heard today. She's agreeable to going back five feet, and we can make that decision. This is not rocket science. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The only reason to keep the hearing open is if you want to make further arguments or if we have further questions, we need to ask. MS. MOORE: Obviously, I don't want to have a denial that pushes us 10 feet away. We still have a variance for the side yard, but I think in all fairness to the owner -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a matter of probabilities. It's a matter of which lS more likely to receive a denial, closing the meeting now or allowing the meeting to continue. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any possibility of moving the whole thing 10 feet closer to the road? MS. MOORE: Honestly, you're changing the whole character of the area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm interested in this piece of property, I'm interested in this bluff, what has gone before has gone before. We're addressing this one. MS. MOORE: You have previously granted a setback for the enclosed porch with a house that was already close to the bluff. So that's already on record as having been approved by this Board. We came to you with a much better application and you're asking us to push way away. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because we weren't demolishing another house so we had no jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: But, I'm sorry, you still have the hole. The impact on the property is still there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn't work that way. We had a house when they wanted to demolish it was about eight feet from the bay, and they wanted to rebuild on that footprint, we said no way, if they want a new house, they're going to stick it much further back. So demolition doesn't mean you can do whatever you would have done had 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 U5 1 2 you not -- MS. MOORE: No, no, no, anticipating. Actually, maybe I shouldn't give you things that I think are more favorable, you should direct me to do it. I gave you a house that is 83 feet from the top of the bluff and the patio isn't wood, it's patio, and the Building Department even took the position, well, patio doesn't need a variance. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I don't think the Board has had the time to look at the new plan that they just got today, you're rushing the Board. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's my fault. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry, I would recommend that you adjourn it so you can consider it. 9 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think so too. I would like to make a motion to adjourn the hearing until June 22nd at 10:00 a.m. So we have a better chance to look and review the old ones, the new ones and speak to the Trustees and be better informed than we are today. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You may want to go back to the site. MS. MOORE: It's your call. I thought it was a simplified approach, but, hey, what do I know. 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 (See minutes for resolution.) BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then we need the plans. 17 MS. MOORE: You have the plans. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You were going to offer something else. MR. CHORNO: Five feet back? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can in send anything. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Any way that you feel that you would like to submit it. MS. MOORE: Well, wait a second. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to clarify for him. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can send in anything that you think will help you when we reopen the hearing in four weeks. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Chairwoman is saying 10 feet, and others asking for five foot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will withdraw my five feet and say ten. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 May 25, 2006 116 1 e 3 MR. CHORNO: The ten will create a problem for the septic system. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that an existing septic system? MS. MOORE: No, it's a replacement system. But we have the sanitary approval from the Health Department. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How close is that to the road? MR. CHORNO: The road is a little further down. It's eight feet from the road. I think the mlnimum is for the road the septic system are here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The two circles I take it are the septic systems here? MS. MOORE: Yes, the two circles and this tank. From the house the tank has to be 10 feet; between the tank and the sanitary ring it has to be eight feet; then the sanitary ring and another eight feet. So they pushed it to the sanitary it's as close as we can get. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The hearing has been closed. MS. MOORE: Well, may we reopen so we can keep talking? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You come in with any alternatives at all, five of them if you have five of them. 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 May 25, 2006 117 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 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 25th day of May, 2006. ,/l / / '-....-..f..A; "' {! '. I /7'\/ 1/ If / (// lf7iw {II fV.L Florence V. Wiles May 25, 2006