Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/31/2006 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T O W N O F S O U T H O L D 6 7 Z O N I N G B O A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 August 31, 2006 12 9:30 a.m. 13 14 15 Board Members Present : 16 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 18 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member 19 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 20 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 21 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 22 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting on August 31, 3 2006. I need a motion determining that all our applications are a Type 2 Action. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make the motion. 5 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Aliano will be held for later and we still have not had the full discussion on 7 the Zupas for the interpretation for the Board of Trustees, so we will not be discussing that at 8 this meeting. Our first hearing is a carry-over for 9 Stephen Seguoin, up on Lighthouse Road; is Stephen here? Hi, just explain what you have changed. 10 MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Seguoin. I have provided you with a new set 11 of drawings which includes changes which were made with regard to the suggestions and discussions. 12 The main concern was the request to extend three feet into the front yard, and the new 13 drawing which we have given you, that distance has been reduced to one foot and as I'm sure you can 14 appreciate, if we could do this without needing a variance, we would do it. But the design 15 conditions and such that one is really at that point in the building. It's really essential as 16 they explained to you last week, the stairway that's going in that corner is already -- I 17 hesitate to say -- it's already unusual in that the stair treads are only eight inches wide 18 instead of the usual 11 or so. And it just doesn't seem to be any reasonable way to further 19 reduce that. So we would like to ask you to consider that one foot. With regard to the 20 comments which may have been made, it's not changing the character of the neighborhood, gee, I 21 don't think so. The main point is, first of all, that when this is done, you will not be able to 22 see it, so that the casual passerby, the people who are streaming to the parking lot of the 23 lighthouse, will not be able to see it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I stop you 24 right there, Mr. Fitzgerald? That was the topic of discussion I had with Mr. Rubin, and that is 25 the ability to fight a fire. MR. FITZGERALD: We would be more than August 31, 2006 3 1 2 happy to discuss with the Southold Fire Department what their requirements are, and if they indicate 3 it's appropriate, we would be willing to put an access point that would provide access to the 4 water side of the house without their have having to go through this area. However, it would seem 5 to me that the open area that we're proposing would seem to be adequate, but we'll ask the 6 chief. It's almost six feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, 5.9 instead of the 7 six. MR. FITZGERALD: So if there is a need to 8 get the heavy equipment in, I don't think the fence would stand in their way. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Depending upon the time of the year. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There was some discussion about rolling gates. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there could be. As 12 I said, we'll do whatever needs to be done if it's reasonable, needed to insure the safety both of 13 the fire fighters and the property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, because 14 otherwise it's a very tight fit, the whole house. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're not going to get a very large person into that mud room at this 16 point. I think you have just managed to create enough space to walk in sideways. You can't keep 17 the same floor plan and shrink it any more. So I think you have done as much as you can given this 18 layout. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know. I still think that it's asking too much. This house 20 is just too big for the amount of land that you have available on this lot to build a house. I 21 for one, I don't see exasperating that any longer, anymore. I understand your stairway problem, but 22 you mentioned the character of the neighborhood, this house defines the character of the 23 neighborhood, the way it is now. Too close to the road, and if you're going to go closer to the road 24 it's going to define the character of the neighborhood to the detriment of everybody 25 else. I understand, I appreciate the amount of work you probably put in on this, but in all August 31, 2006 4 1 2 honesty, I'm not willing to go one foot closer than it is right now. 3 MR. FITZGERALD: Your problem is with the adverse affect upon the character of the 4 neighborhood? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The setbacks, 5 yes. MR. FITZGERALD: In what way does it 6 adversely affect? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's too close to 7 the road already, that's the reason why you're here. You're here because it's nonconforming and 8 you want to increase the nonconformity. That's why you're here. I'm saying to you that the way 9 things go in the town, I can understand having a nonconformity and wanting to stay on that line; I 10 don't understand how we can increase that degree of nonconformity. In this instance, we're talking 11 about -- even a foot is probably a 20 percent increase in the degree of nonconformity there, 12 maybe more. Just off the top of my head, it's a lot. But -- 13 MR. FITZGERALD: But having this plan in the building department, it's not going to affect 14 the character of the neighborhood. You are considering the fact that it is behind a fence, 15 and a significant fence, it's not going to be visually offensive to people. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, I don't see character of the neighborhood as being a 17 visual thing. We have certain limits in our zoning code, one of them is front yard 18 setbacks. In this instance it's supposed to be 40 feet away, and no way you're 40 feet away. That's 19 the character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood is defined by if you look down 20 the road and see all the houses at 40 feet, everybody seems to think that's an okay thing. I 21 believe the house next door was required to live up to that, and they did a fairly good job, I 22 thought. I am just not -- I'm sorry, I don't see how I can vote for one more foot in a front yard 23 variance here at that length. That's my comments, anyway. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The original setbacks prior to the redesign was 7.9; was it 25 not? No, 6.9 -- it was 6.9. It's 5.9. So that's your one foot that you're talking about. My August 31, 2006 5 1 2 concern I think the ability to essentially maintain the dramatic improvement in the 3 architectural character that this design represents and to reduce it to its very basic 4 volume so it has better access to the house, my concern is essentially not with the one foot so 5 much as with life safety. If that can be resolved given this plan, I have no objection to the 6 additional one foot because I don't believe -- in theory, yes, it does create more nonconformity, 7 but in reality I don't believe it will make any visual difference at all. I know that area very 8 well; I know all the houses in that area very well, and that much is not going to essentially 9 dramatically alter any of the existing visual conditions. My concern essentially is with its 10 functional ability to make sure that safety is available to fire access. And if a rolling gate 11 can be supplied and other means for ingress and egress for emergency, then I think this is a 12 reasonable compromise. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I, of course, brought that fire access issue up mainly because 14 of what presently exists there and that was the original discussion that we had. However, my 15 other discussion with Mr. Rubin was the removal of the carport and the piping of all water to the 16 sound to dry wells in the rear of the property or to the road side of the property basically in what 17 would be normally the rear of the dwelling. That's my concern. 18 MR. FITZGERALD: Mike, can we do that? MR. RUBIN: Yes, we can. My observations 19 are fairly similar to Mr. Dinizio's. We're talking about the character of the neighborhood 20 and we're talking about nonconformity. Nonconformity does not define the character of the 21 neighborhood. It's a grandfathered exception to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. 22 That's why the increasing of the nonconformity can be a significant issue. And the other point is 23 the nature of the conformity, yes, it's mostly visual, as Leslie would argue, but it's not all 24 visual. Part of the character of the neighborhood is a character that people can do, are expected to 25 do fairly similar things, they're expected to conform to the code on this. So I don't know how August 31, 2006 6 1 2 I would feel about putting this altogether once the fire access issue is started, but it is a 3 concern to me that you have something which would not have been approved the way it is because of 4 where it is located had it not been preexisting, and then to do anything to increase 5 that problem does deserve close scrutiny, I haven't made up my mind on this, but I am 6 concerned about precisely those things. MR. FITZGERALD: With regard to the 7 character of the neighborhood thing, the application for the variance asks for responses to 8 I believe five points which requests that we give information about why we think the variance should 9 be granted, and conformity and nonconformity doesn't enter into any of it. It talks about the 10 character of the neighborhood, and I think what I'm asking is you consider this as you have and 11 the other boards in the town that have these sorts of issues, the Trustees and the Planning Board, 12 consider this specific request to extend it one foot for this specific building, in this specific 13 location, at this specific time without regard to what has happened in the past on that property. 14 It was built legally presumably in the dim, dark days before many of these requirements were in 15 existence. So, that's what we're asking is this little change going to have an adverse effect on 16 the character of the neighborhood, and that's my understanding of what this is all about. I 17 understand what Jim said, and I understand what you said, but again, I ask that you consider it 18 from that standpoint, just this small addition without consideration of things that happened in 19 the past that brought about the nonconformity. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, 20 Mr. Fitzgerald. I think Mr. Hurtado would like to add a few words I think. 21 MR. HURTADO: John Hurtado. I'm having such a hard time understanding a foot. I just 22 don't understand why these people can't just live within that foot and just not ask for the 23 variance. I think to go any more is setting precedents that I don't think this Board wants to 24 set. You're talking about a front yard requirement of 35 feet. It's now seven feet and 25 it's been there so it's okay because it's grandfathered like everyone is saying. But to August 31, 2006 7 1 2 increase that another foot, to me it's ludicrous because I think you have a very good argument 3 here. I think he can do a wonderful job with the parameters that he's given. I have looked at the 4 plan, I don't see the problem that you see regarding the inside. I think one foot could be 5 moved very easily. I think the stairs could be moved a little bit. I'm a builder so I can look 6 at those plans and visualize things. So it can be moved. So I don't understand to set a precedent. 7 That one foot just doesn't seem right. To make that front yard nonconforming even more, I can't 8 see how anybody could justify that. Even when he says you're not going to be seeing it, well, you 9 don't know it yet. I mean, the house is for sale and you don't know that the new people are not 10 going to knock down all the shrubs or something like that. 11 MR. FITZGERALD: It's not for sale. MR. HURTADO: It was. Maybe it's off the 12 market now but it was for sale about a month ago. Do you want to see the listing? 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, address the Board. MR. HURTADO: It doesn't matter, that's 14 irrelevant really. But what I'm suggesting to you is that I just don't understand how you could just 15 make it nonconforming just one more foot or one more inch. It doesn't seem right. It's there, 16 you can't do anything about it, but to increase it to 5.9 feet, I mean, do you know what 5.9 feet is? 17 And as far as the safety goes, whether it's one foot more or one foot less, the safety issue is 18 still going to be there, it's there now. And as far as the dry wells goes, they have a problem 19 with the dry wells because the board of health requires that you stay I think at least 25 feet 20 away from any kind of well. My well is right in that corner, his well is right in that corner, so 21 you're going to have a problem increasing the house any degree if you go to the board of health 22 for a new pool. You almost can't put it in, it's almost impossible. So I just am having such a 23 hard time with why a good architect and a designer can't come up with a plan to live within the seven 24 feet. It's just mind boggling. When I did my house you gave me restrictions and I lived within 25 what you gave me. And I think you reduced my front yard to 38.4 feet. And his was right next August 31, 2006 8 1 2 to mine and his was already at seven feet now, which it's fine, it's there, but to make it even 3 further, and to go through this whole thing for one foot? I don't understand it. I think the 4 precedent that's set to increase the nonconformance, I just think it's crazy. I just 5 can't see how you could do it, to increase that to 5.9 feet. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Hurtado. We'll take your comments into consideration. Does 7 anyone else in the audience wish to comment on this application? 8 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Judlia Vidulich on Goose Creek Lane in Southold 10 for an accessory apartment. Yes? MS. VIDULICH: My name is Judlia Vidulich. 11 I am asking for an accessory apartment on top of my existing garage, which will not change the 12 exterior, only the interior changes. Since my husband passed away last November, I received a 13 notice from the tax board that my taxes are going to go up about $2,400, and that's why I'm asking 14 for an accessory apartment to supplement my income. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When we drove up and I looked, you have just one window over the garage; 16 are you going to put in more windows up there? MS. VIDULICH: No, nothing is going to 17 change from the outside. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically from what I 18 saw from the plans it's more of a studio apartment rather than with one or two bedrooms. 19 MS. VIDULICH: It's one bedroom I'm asking for. 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I ask you what is on the interior now and how it's been used? 21 Can you get to the inside of what is already built above your garage from the inside of your house or 22 do you have to go outside? MS. VIDULICH: You have to go 23 outside. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How has it been 24 used? MS. VIDULICH: Right now nothing. My 25 husband got sick and they told me that he's going to need a long term care. My son that lives in August 31, 2006 9 1 2 Memphis already has 25 years of service with the police department, he was going to come home and 3 help me, so he wanted to make like an office or whatever for him upstairs so when we have company 4 and he wanted some privacy, he could go upstairs and have his own place. So happen, as I said, my 5 husband passed away, my son is not even 50, he's not ready to come home yet since I don't need no 6 help, and I figured instead of that staying empty, I could ask for an accessory apartment to again, 7 supplement my income. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How would you have 8 to change the interior since we did not go inside? MS. VIDULICH: It's not really much to 9 change, just to put a kitchen, put a shower. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is there a toilet 10 in there now? MS. VIDULICH: There is a bathroom now. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But not a shower, a toilet and sink. 12 MS. VIDULICH: A toilet and sink. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm assuming she meets all the criteria, so I don't see any reason 14 why I wouldn't grant it. So I have no questions. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to have 16 a CO prior to January 1, 1984 and your CO reads 1977, so I think you're okay. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just have a couple 18 of questions, things I don't know whether you can answer. The code calls for a second building 19 being 18 feet high, the accessory building, and it's clearly higher than that; when was that 20 built, the second story on the garage? MS. VIDULICH: That was built when we got 21 the occupancy last July, so it was built the year 2005 was finished. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And is it because of that that the tax bill has gone up? 23 MS. VIDULICH: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The tax assessors 24 have caught up with the construction? MS. VIDULICH: They told me I extend my 25 living space or whatever that my taxes is going to go up. August 31, 2006 10 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it was because of the building of this garage that the taxes went 3 up? MS. VIDULICH: Yes. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think there is somebody else in the back that wishes to speak. 5 Yes, sir, you can use the mike over there? MR. WENDELL: I'm Robert Wendell, I'm the 6 neighbor immediately to the north side of the apartment. I know you got a letter from us, are 7 you interested in these? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I've already taken 8 pictures. We were all down there. MR. WENDELL: This is not located in the 9 principal building, there's no access, so isn't it considered unattached if you have no access from 10 the inside? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The house is 11 attached to the garage CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's all that 12 matters. MR. WENDELL: You don't have to have 13 access from the inside? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 14 MR. WENDELL: And it doesn't matter that prior to the addition that the house was 15 approximately 1,200 square feet, so that doesn't come into play either; is what you're saying? 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. MR. WENDELL: All right. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are your concerns? MR. WENDELL: Well, my concerns, which 18 were addressed in the letter, loss of privacy. I have no problem, the thing is extremely tall, it 19 stands over my house. I have known everybody in the family for a long time and I had no problem 20 with it, but now that I'm going to have rentees next to me and Judlia's in Florida for most of the 21 winter, I know how things can get a little crazy when you have renters and you have problems and 22 you're not going to have anybody here. Right now I'm going to have to match a fence on the other 23 side like I have on the other side of the house about 170 foot fence, it's probably going to cost 24 me about $7,500 to put this fence in. I've got to create some sort of privacy down the side yard. 25 If you saw what I'm looking at, you have the access around the side of the house, the entrance August 31, 2006 11 1 2 you have to go down the side, and up the stairs and into the back. If you have been there and 3 you've had the chance to stand on my side yard, then you know how close it is. I'm built back 4 there first. I built all those houses back in there a long time ago. I built in the woods to 5 not be next to a two family structure. So this is what I'm opposed to. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you do understand where a one bedroom -- I doubt if you're going to 7 have that many people. MR. WENDELL: I would like to think that 8 you're not going to have a family in there, and I don't know if there's anything that could be 9 written into restrictions, I mean -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 10 MR. WENDELL: So you're saying there's nothing I can do in terms of -- I mean, I guess by 11 law you can't refuse a renter; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think so. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just explain one thing? I originally designed this law 13 and came to the town board in 1984. The sole purpose of this law, Mr. Wendell, is exactly the 14 way this young lady is applying for it, okay; it is to assist people who are in the need of paying 15 their taxes and wanting to keep their houses in this town. The sole purpose of that is that 16 reason. Just be aware of one thing that it is a special permit and special permits can be taken 17 away. Special permits have been taken away by this Board. I don't think that's ever going to 18 happen in this case. I don't think you'll ever see that happen in this case, but I just want you 19 to be aware of that. In other words, we're giving them -- I'm not speaking for the Board -- we're 20 giving them a special permission or her, this lady, special permission to create an affordable 21 or accessory apartment in her house, and that is all we're doing. 22 MR. WENDELL: All right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is allowed by 23 code. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which is allowed 24 by code since 1984. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: However, the 25 principal dwelling will remain owner occupied. You have every right to take vacation, but the August 31, 2006 12 1 2 accessory apartment is meant to be subordinate to the principal dwelling, which is owner occupied; 3 in other words, the house will not be rented. The owner will continue to occupy the house. The 4 apartment will be the only aspect that would be rented. The law is not to create open rental 5 opportunities for homeowners per se. MR. WENDELL: So in other words, I'm there 6 for five months during the winter time with just the renters, that's considered all right? 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If they're good neighbors absolutely. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hopefully they would be. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I doubt that anyone would want someone in their home that was going to 10 be destructive one way or the other. The other thing to remember is that that house was designed 11 for more than one or two or three people. The house is big enough to assume a household that 12 would consist of at least two or three people. If she is one, then another one or two or three 13 people in no way taxes the amount of household size. It doesn't compromise the amount of parking 14 and so on that would be required. It's essentially the same. It's just different people 15 are living in the household than she and her husband and her son. It would be Mrs. Vidulich 16 and a renter. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is no guarantee 17 that anyone will have nice, good neighbors. If the renters are wonderful, but if the renters are 18 not wonderful that cannot be an issue any more than that it could be an issue than the people who 19 move in next door to you on the other side are not nice people. 20 MR. WENDELL: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, that should 21 be more of a concern to Mrs. Vidulich whom she rents to because I'm sure she wants someone in 22 that apartment. She's not going to be there for five months, so that is going to take care of the 23 place, and be an asset rather than a hindrance to anything that she wants to do. 24 MR. WENDELL: I agree. But it's just that they're right on top of me. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, what is your side yard? She's 13 and a half feet. August 31, 2006 13 1 2 MR. WENDELL: 15. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So there's 30 some 3 feet, it's not exactly right on top. MR. WENDELL: 28 feet. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Yes, ma'am. 5 MS. WENDELL: Madeline Wendell, I'm Doug's wife. The accessory apartment is it considered to 6 be an accessory structure? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. It has to be in 7 the main structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because it's part of 8 the garage and the garage is part of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Otherwise a separate 9 accessory structure is not allowed. MRS. WENDELL: Is there anything we can do 10 to help offset the cost of now the fence that we're going to have to put up, and the reason we 11 feel we have to put up a fence because the only way that these tenants are going to be able to 12 access this apartment is going down the side yard, and they will immediately be peering in on our 13 windows at the ground level; is there anything that we can do to help offset the cost of that? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This lady made an 16 application for something that she's fully entitled to, as you are. And the neighbor behind 17 you and the neighbor across the street from you. And we really have not much say over if she meets 18 all the criteria that are written in the code, we can't vary that one inch. The reason why she's 19 here, as my fellow board members said, is because she meets the exact criteria that we all, 10 to 20 20 years ago decided that the town needed, which was people who are getting up in age who are paying 21 these high taxes, maybe they don't have so many people in their house any more, they need a little 22 help and this was a good way. Before that you could not, you needed to have a single 23 family. This law has been I think on the books for at least 15 years. I think what you're asking 24 for is to have her pay some of the cost of your fence? To my mind I don't see where we could do 25 that. MS. WENDELL: The problem is after 28 August 31, 2006 14 1 2 years we've lived here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And that law was on 3 the books. MS. WENDELL: We fully understood the 4 illness of her husband, believe me we put up with a lot, but we fully understood it. And now to say 5 well, I don't have the money to pay for my taxes so I have to rent it so that our privacy has been 6 altered, and I believe that it does change the character of the neighborhood, we're only three 7 houses on our road. It's a private right of way. I mean, it does say you're required to have 8 three parking spots. I'm just trying to understand it. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you could go back and get a copy of the code, we have to follow each 10 one of the provisions that are in there for a special exception. Just as it is for a bed and 11 breakfast, if you meet each of those conditions then what you say or somebody else says on the 12 other side really does not concern us. What concerns us if they follow each one of the 13 conditions that was put down under that special exception, and she does. 14 MR. WENDELL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for 15 coming in. Does anyone else wish to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close 16 the hearing and reserve decision for later. (See minutes for resolution.) 17 --------------------------------------------------------. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 18 Mary Butz, who wishes to put in a pergola. MR. GORMAN: Hi, I'm Bill Gorman, and I'm 19 representing Mary Butz. We're seeking a 12 foot relief on a 40 foot front yard setback. We'd like 20 to put a shade and privacy pergola next to a pool that this Board was gracious enough to approve 21 last year. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My concern is having 22 been down there is you're cramming a lot of stuff all to that very small uplands space. Her deck 23 sits on top of the bluff. In fact, it extends over the bluff and you're putting the pool in and 24 now you want the pergola in. To me it just seems a bit much for the amount of land, the lot 25 coverage of course because she extends all the way down to the high water line seems fine, but the August 31, 2006 15 1 2 building envelope is not that big and she already has quite a bit of stuff in there. So I'm not 3 particularly for the idea. But I'll let the other board members speak for themselves. Michael? 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think that this is one of those cases -- and there are others around 5 the town -- where the portion of lot coverage is determined by the entire size of the lot rather 6 than the size of the building envelope. And this is the matter of the code and the interpretation 7 of the code. If it were the code or were the standard interpretation that you had to talk about 8 lot coverage in terms of the building envelope, then it might be a different matter, but given the 9 way things are right now, it seems to be difficult to find a legitimate or statute basis for 10 objecting to this especially since it is not set as far back from the boundary line as the pool 11 itself is. As I understand, it's about half way up the pool towards the house and farther away 12 from the road than the south edge of the pool; is that correct? 13 MR. GORMAN: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just looking at it. I have spent some time looking at this and 15 the difficult part of this is the fact that they have a house basically to the rear of them, and 16 they have literally no privacy in the rear of their house. The house in back overshadows their 17 house; yes, there's some growth back there and there is definitely a need for some sort of 18 privacy. And the height of the house in the back is phenomenal. 19 MR. GORMAN: It's overwhelming. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 20 overwhelming is correct. So the only way you're going to get any privacy back there or get any 21 shade from the sun when you get out of the pool is that pergola. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or plant trees. MR. GORMAN: It's all planted back there. 23 Was she able to save that one tree that you wanted to between the house and the proposed pool? 24 MR. GORMAN: We saved it and moved it. MS. BUTZ: I am Mary Butz and before we go 25 any further I want to thank you for the initial variance. I had to have a partial knee August 31, 2006 16 1 2 replacement and I'm about to say one of the reasons we're seeking this is clearly for privacy 3 and also my partner had a very, very, very close call with cancer, she had, and life is short. And 4 it is a small request to keep some privacy for health reasons as well, although she's not an 5 owner of this particular piece of property, she lives there constantly with me, and I'm concerned 6 about that and I can prove that medically as well. But you know, it is a small piece of property, I 7 understand what you're saying, but this is not going to infringe on anyone and it will provide us 8 with some privacy because it's true, I mean, everybody and their mother can look in there. 9 It's a beautiful place that was moved there in 1931 by barge down, oxen pulled it up the hill. 10 It's scenic and wonderful and it's filled with every single blessed problem on the face of this 11 earth. So what we tried to do is legally, honestly solve this problem as we come 12 along. That's why we're always in front of you; we don't do anything behind your back. This is an 13 honest request not for show, for health and for privacy. And if you spent some time in the pool, 14 you would know what I'm talking about, and you're welcome to. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In looking at these 16 drawings, which is very clear, the siting is in no way intrusive. It's really subordinate to the 17 scale of the pool. It's strictly a sun shade, type of screen from the sun. It's totally 18 appropriate for the design. It's behind a fence. It has very little -- if it was another 19 accessory structure standing freely, independently of another piece of open ground, then I'd begin to 20 say that there perhaps would be some visual clutter there. I don't think this is going to 21 have any significant impact on anybody other than the health and welfare of the owner/applicant. 22 And it's appropriately sited. It's very modest. It's really an overhang basically, a colonnaded 23 overhang, and it does not have the lot coverage and I don't have any problems with it. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree that it 25 doesn't violate the lot coverage. Quite honestly, I think if you planted some grapes there I don't August 31, 2006 17 1 2 think you would be before us. So I have no problem whatsoever with this. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this 4 application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 5 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Thomas Cavanagh down on Little Peconic Bay Road in 7 Cutchogue. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? From your permit from 8 the Board of Trustees, it is dated 2/06, but we don't have a copy of that map that they approved. 9 We appreciate if you could give it to us. MR. CAVANAUGH: What was submitted to the 10 Trustees was the same plans that was included with my application. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The only thing is we don't have the map that was stamped by the 12 Trustees. The one that the Zoning Board has is dated April 25th. You can furnish us later with 13 copies of that, thank you. MR. CAVANAUGH: This is for a deck 14 extension, and while the deck to be renovated is over 100 feet from the bulkhead when measured 15 perpendicular to the water there's water on two sides of this property. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. We've all been there. 17 MR. CAVANAUGH: The shortest distance is about 74 feet now and this would be reduced to 18 maybe about 64 feet, maybe 60 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just that one corner of 19 the deck, right? MR. CAVANAUGH: Just the one corner, so 20 for example, this is the existing, this is the proposed deck. The house is 116 feet from the 21 water, the deck would be over 100 feet from the water, the full deck except on this one diagonal, 22 and the issue is the diagonal and the low sill bulkhead that was installed that the Town Trustees 23 requested. If it were not for my voluntary compliance with installing the low sill bulkhead, 24 I don't think I'd be here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That deck is 25 going to remain open? MR. CAVANAUGH: Open deck and most of the August 31, 2006 18 1 2 construction is actually the steps. I tried to be as conservative as possible with the deck 3 extension, set the deck back. It's within side setbacks restrictions, and so it's primarily the 4 steps, and the real intent is to have a contiguous deck, and I tried to be as conservative as I could 5 while trying to make the deck contiguous across the back of the house. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're talking about approximately 100 square feet? 7 MR. CAVANAUGH: Approximately 100 square feet. It's about one-fifth of the entire deck is 8 within 75 feet of the low sill bulkhead when measured on the diagonal. So 100 feet if measured 9 perpendicular. Now, I do have a letter from the DEC, a letter of nonjurisdiction. The Town 10 Trustees did approve the deck as indicated on the plan that I submitted to them in February before I 11 submitted to the Building Department. And they did approve a six foot walkway along the water. 12 So I do have the deck currently along the water that was approved. So this proposed deck of 13 similar construction is about 60 feet away. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have questions, you have a beautiful spot. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this 20 application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 21 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is Greg and Rita Tyler on Bayer Road, Mattituck. 23 Good morning, how are you? MS. TYLER: Good morning, Rita Tyler. We 24 would like to put a porch and an accessory garage on our property. Our porch being a little bit 25 closer to the road than is required by the town, so we do need the variance for that, and the August 31, 2006 19 1 2 garage will be on the side yard. I'm sure that you have all seen that. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have. MS. TYLER: We are using a portable 4 structure because we have a classic car that will be housed in that garage. At this point in time 5 we are not planning on putting a formal driveway; we're going to leave as much grass as possible 6 there as long as we don't sink out of sight driving in and out. But right now we're going to 7 leave as much grass as we can, and we're planning on totally redoing the front yard, getting rid of 8 the cement walkway, doing all new landscaping there, and a new brick walk over to the drive, so 9 once the porch is done -- the house is an older house that we have been working on fixing up 10 inside, and now we just feel that this will be pleasing to look at with the porch on front to try 11 to dress it up, fix it up a little bit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do realize that 12 your lot coverage is an amount fairly over the allowable 20 percent; you are 23.52. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually I think they're 25 percent. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going to use that garage for storage also; in other words, is 15 there just going to be an open garage to the rafters or are you going to have a floor in there? 16 MS. TYLER: It's as low as we can make it. There will probably be a little opening so we can 17 put extra pieces and parts up there, but there will be no stand up in there, you can't stand up. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What kind of things do you put in the shed? I'm wondering if you could 19 put your things from the shed and put them into your storage area in the garage and just reduce 20 your total lot coverage? MS. TYLER: Right now the shed has the 21 lawn mowers and all the lawn equipment. Our motorcycle is in there so that's kind of full, 22 and, like I said, we need the garage to house this car that we now have. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it will be one car? MS. TYLER: It's just wide enough to get 24 the car in there, and then if you need to open the doors so you're not going to beat it up while 25 we're getting in and out of the car. And like I said, we're not planning on putting in a formal August 31, 2006 20 1 2 driveway of any sort. We want to keep the grass because we like to have a lawn. Down the road, if 3 something happens and the grass gets really worn, we might put two nice brick walk things just to 4 get the car in and out. But at this point we're not planning on formally making that a driveway 5 where it's going to be asphalted and any of that, we want to keep it grass. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you keep your car on the lawn now or in the street? 7 MS. TYLER: No. It's in that portable right now. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I mean the car that you use every day. 9 MS. TYLER: It stays on the driveway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the grass driveway? 10 MS. TYLER: Yes. The garage is to be to house our classic car and maybe a tool box or 11 whatever else he needs to put in there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there is a 12 problem, the problem comes from doing too many wonderful things on a fairly small piece of land, 13 and in a way, the garage is unrelated to the front porch. But because of the size of the lot, you've 14 got a problem because not only does this exceed the requirement for lot coverage, it also moves 15 the front of your house, your setbacks closer to the road than any of your neighbors that I could 16 see. All the purposes are wonderful, having a classic car and having a garage to put it in 17 sounds like a good thing, certifying the front of your house by building your porch out is also a 18 good thing, but all these things put together -- the need for the shed in the back, all of which 19 produces 23 and a half percent lot coverage, in other words, to do all these really good things on 20 a fairly small piece of land. I don't know but the Board may decide that something has to give 21 and that will be the hard part; do you have any idea what, if you did have to conform to the lot 22 coverage, what would be the alternative, if the Board were, for example, to propose an alternative 23 that was somewhat more restrictive than what you're asking for? Are all of these projects 24 equally important? MS. TYLER: I feel that they are. I would 25 really like to have everything that we asked for. I don't know that making the garage any smaller August 31, 2006 21 1 2 would really be an option because like I said, you don't have an opportunity to open the doors 3 without banging the car. As far as the lot coverage, I understand what you're saying, that it 4 is over what we're allowed, but it's not going to take you really that much more space than what you 5 have already seen. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Except what's going 6 to go between the house and the street? MS. TYLER: Yes, of course, that will be 7 more. Technically it really is a porch there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have a portico 8 there now. MS. TYLER: Yes, just a little covered 9 porch and we'd just like to extend it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And colonnade it to 10 create a different architectural appearance. It would appear on your drawing, on your site plan, 11 that the lot coverage includes the total of the existing pool and deck at 672 square feet and that 12 deck is at grade; is it not? That's not a raised deck is it? 13 MS. TYLER: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Technically that 14 does not necessarily need to be included in calculating the lot coverage. That's 16' by 10', 15 that's 160 square feet, which could be reduced from the overall total in lot coverage, which will 16 reduce the proposed additional lot coverage of 3.6 percent, I don't know how much, we have to 17 calculate it, but it would reduce it there. And ideally, granting the garage ought to possibly 18 result in the storage shed being reconsidered and the garage may be a tiny bit bigger to accommodate 19 your lawn mower and so on, so that you would have one less accessory structure on the property. In 20 my mind that would be an ideal answer because you would reduce your lot coverage, you would reduce 21 the amount of structures on your property, you would still have your porch, still have storage, 22 the Board will have to deliberate on whether we would grant the relief you're requesting or we 23 would grant alternative relief, which would basically say, this is as far as we can go with 24 lot coverage, for example. Then it would be up to you to decide how to handle it. We're not going 25 to tell you what to build and where to build it. Just to say this is the kind of relief that August 31, 2006 22 1 2 we think is appropriate for your lot and your neighborhood; do you follow? 3 MS. TYLER: In other words, you'd maybe require that we get rid of the shed and make the 4 shed and the garage all one; is that what you're saying? 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's one strategy, I'm not saying you have to do that. We would not 6 say you must do that, I don't think. We would probably tell you what percentage of lot coverage 7 would be acceptable and then you would have to figure out the numbers, the size of the things; do 8 you see what I'm getting at? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think there's 9 a great advantage to the removal of the 160 square feet since we're at ground level for the deck if 10 it's contiguous or adjacent to the swimming pool. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We may be all right. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're 160 square feet to the good right there and the 13 storage building is only 10' by 10', that's only 100 square feet. So I think you're okay. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's got to be approximately one and a half percent. If that 15 deck is 160 square feet and the lot is 10,000 square feet, that gives you your numbers that you 16 need for the calculation that would reduce that from three percent to about one and a half 17 percent, very roughly. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So about 22 percent. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. So that's a better situation. You still need a variance for 19 your front yard setbacks. Actually, your garage as well, because your raised deck faces a part of 20 that garage in your side yard. MS. TYLER: I was under the understanding 21 that that was what we were going for when I paid for the three things, the setbacks, the coverage 22 and being adjacent to the deck. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, you did. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, you want to go, 24 Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to 25 establish two things. This is an older area and what they have done to this house is absolutely August 31, 2006 23 1 2 magnificent. This is a real asset to put this front porch on, and, you know, you're going to 3 exceed the lot coverage a little bit in these older areas because these lots tend to be a little 4 bit smaller than the ones that exist in the half acre areas, and remember that we had half acre in 5 this town prior to going to one acre, which was in the latter '60s. So I mean, there's got to be 6 some give. And the give basically is the fact that the Board has to recognize the fact that the 7 smaller lots require a little exception of lots coverage, but I think that 160 square feet I think 8 is to everybody's benefit. MS. TYLER: When the garage and everything 9 so forth is built, we will make certain that it is landscaped so it's appealing to the neighborhood. 10 That's the purpose of doing it so we can get rid of that portable and be able to put some bushes 11 and some flowers there to make it look nice. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have neighbors 12 on both sides? MS. TYLER: Yes, we do. We have a renter 13 on one side, and regular neighbors on the other side, and across the street I've spoken to them 14 and they're absolutely fine with it, and it would be the front of their house to get really the full 15 impact of seeing the garage and so forth, and they're absolutely fine with it. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a couple of 17 questions to ask. One is you don't want a restriction that says you're not offering to us 18 that you won't pave a driveway to that garage; you want to have the opportunity to have some kind of 19 driveway to that garage? MS. TYLER: Obviously only if it's 20 absolutely -- MR. TYLER: We don't want one. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Here's what I'm saying: You're offering that, that could become a 22 restriction by us, and I want to be clear that that's not something that you want. I understand 23 that you think it's going to look nice, it's going to be more acceptable, but, quite honestly, you're 24 not going to be able to live with that. You've got a garage and want to be able to go into it. 25 MR. TYLER: The car doesn't go in and out of it. August 31, 2006 24 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, say you sell the house, who knows. I just want that to be on 3 the record. And concerning the deck on the pool, it's minimal. It looks like you built it that way 4 so you wouldn't have a minimal amount of lot coverage when you put the pool in. But I'm just 5 curious as to how they came to that amount of lot coverage to begin with. I didn't see any 6 calculation; is there one? MS. TYLER: I had that one done at Penny 7 Lumber. He figured it out, and quite frankly, I have no clue as to how to do it. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's all fine, the only difference is that by code if something's at 9 grade and the deck is at grade or driveway, that's not counted in lot coverage. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just concerned about us saying that and the building inspector 11 having a different interpretation of it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we can 12 overturn the building inspector's determination and that is very simply the building inspector 13 never looked at it. That's number one, let's bring that issue up. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm asking the question, and we know how things happen here. I 15 agree with you that anything around the pool if it's ground level, I agree with that part of it, 16 but we need to be clear that we're taking that part of it out of the calculation for our 17 reasoning. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whose file is 18 it? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mine. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Take it out. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll relish 20 that. Besides that, I agree with Jerry that small lots can handle higher density. And you need the 21 shed obviously. The 16 foot garage is not a two car garage, right? 22 MR. TYLER: No, it's a garage and a half. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And how high is it just plain old garage size high? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just 16. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 12, 14? 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Wait a minute, drawings right here. To the ridge it's 15.9 August 31, 2006 25 1 2 feet. It's modest, it's open frame, correct? MS. TYLER: Yes. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's on slab. You have one overhead door. You are not planning at 4 this point to build any attic storage or anything. It's just an open trussed. There's a header, 5 there's no lost space or anything like that. It's fine. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the front porch is basically just to dress up the house. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make it look nicer. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to get 8 things on the record and the driveway thing was bothering me the whole time you were saying it 9 because these things can turn into restrictions you cannot live with. 10 MS. TYLER: Yes. We want to make as much grass as we can. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But in the future somebody might want to use the car garage for a 12 car that you take in and out all the time. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We don't do 13 driveways because they are on the ground, but we sometimes have a tendency to add things that we 14 don't necessarily have, and I wanted to be clear on that. We had the discussion, it's on the 15 record. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good point, Jim. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that are wishes to speak on this 17 application? Yes, ma'am? MS. KEEGAN: Hi, my name is Jennifer 18 Keegan, I'm the daughter of Mary Jarrick, the owner of the house directly to the left of the 19 Tyler's. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Standing in the 20 front of the house which way, to the southeast towards Wickham Avenue? 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The property adjacent to where the shed is currently located? 22 MS. KEEGAN: The problem that we have is not necessarily with the porch, we like the porch, 23 that's fine, it will be nice. It's the garage because of exactly where it's going to be located. 24 I have a picture that's more showing where my mom's house is located on the property (handing). 25 My mom's house, as you can see is really close to the side line. The house has been there for about August 31, 2006 26 1 2 70 years. The garage would now be right next to the house pretty much. And from the view from the 3 windows, which is only not that many feet off to the side yard, you're just going to see this huge 4 wall, huge structure, I mean, this garage right on top of her house. And also in the plans they put 5 the garage right on top of the side lot. We're asking if the garage can be pushed back so it's 6 not in the side yard, so it is completely in the rear yard and pushed over closer to Tyler's house 7 so it's not right on top of our side property line, which is right on top of my mother's house, 8 which that would be a problem to my mother's property, to the neighborhood and also to get 9 access to machinery for any emergency vehicles. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. and Mrs. Tyler, is 10 there any reason that you couldn't move that garage, it's only three foot from the line, say 11 move it over five or six foot from the line? MS. TYLER: Yes, there is because our 12 cesspools are there. If we moved it over, we'd be on top of our cesspools. 13 MR. TYLER: We could move it over a little, but the cesspools are right there. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much could you move it over? 15 MR. TYLER: I could go five feet. MS. TYLER: I don't think so. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have to measure it, how about putting some plantings up there between 17 the garage and the property line? MS. TYLER: My understanding is that 18 because it is an older area, an older community that three feet was what I was allowed. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's true. MS. TYLER: And that is exactly what we're 20 trying to do. MR. TYLER: But we can move it a little. 21 MS. TYLER: Right now that portable structure, the so-called tent is there. During 22 the winter months, and I'm saying this just so you know, but that thing flaps and bangs and makes a 23 racket, and I'm sure that your renters have heard that; the noise, because we hear it in our 24 house. If we had a regular building there, it wouldn't be having all that noise and commotion. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think we have a problem with the garage per se, but if you could August 31, 2006 27 1 2 move it over a couple feet and then put some screening between the garage and the property line 3 so it's less offensive to your neighbor, it would be good. We might put that as a condition; would 4 that be agreeable? MR. TYLER: Sure. 5 MS. TYLER: But we have to see where the cesspools are. 6 MS. KEEGAN: I think more so -- my mom specifically when I asked how many feet, she asked 7 more for like 10 feet off the side, but okay, but we really want it completely in the rear, which is 8 what the variance is for. Because in the side yard and forward it's pretty much parallel with 9 her house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You do make a good 10 point in that one of the reasons why a variance would be required for a garage that is partly in 11 the side yard it is to try to reduce the kind of problem that you're calling attention to, and if 12 it were fully in the back yard, you would not have that kind of problem. So that certainly is 13 something that I think the Board needs to take into consideration. 14 MS. KEEGAN: Then even if it was right at the line fully in the back, it is still going to 15 be close, the corner of where it starts to the corner of my mom's house, so we would ask it moved 16 as far over as possible because again, I think there's going to be very limited access there. It 17 will be very close to the house. And I don't know if it's back more but the cesspool problem. 18 MR. TYLER: It's as far back as it can go. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Otherwise you hit the 19 shed. MR. TYLER: Can I ask what she means 20 access, access for what? MS. TYLER: She is concerned about access 21 on that side of the property of her mother's house; we used to rent that house, there is no 22 access; there never was any access. It's three feet, four feet from her house to the fence. 23 You're not getting a truck down there, you're not getting fire equipment down there. The other side 24 of the house has enough room of her parents house to go down that side yard, and we will be away 25 from her house by whatever, and then the additional three feet. If really necessary, you August 31, 2006 28 1 2 need to knock down the fence to get down there, you could. But with the three feet plus her four 3 or five feet that she's got there but right now there isn't any way you could get a truck down 4 there any way. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just let me wrap 5 this up. You're going to give us a figure on what you think you can move it over to. 6 MR. TYLER: I'm sure we can go five but not much more than that. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What the proximity is to your cesspool. 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you could show it on paper, show it on a map, and we'll maybe 9 make it part of the record. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you're going 10 to give us some idea of the plantings you'll put in either arborvitae, something like that. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Something evergreen, Leland cypress. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Something to shield the garage from the neighbor's property. 13 We have established the fact that the shed is a pretty stately shed, that it can't be moved. The 14 one thing that was not raised here that was clearly depicted when I stood on your deck and 15 looked at the whole elevation was the fact that you definitely have an elevation problem, so the 16 farther you go down, the more difficult it is for you to access that garage, and I'm not sure that 17 everybody on the Board is totally aware of that. I'm not speaking for that, I'm just making a 18 generalization. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What kind of 19 elevation, you mean a slope? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sloping. So I'm 20 not trying to take a way from this nice lady who is representing her mother, I think that the 21 placement of the garage is about where they can place it based upon that situation. And of 22 course, I think the only reason why it's construed to be in the rear yard is because of the fact that 23 you put the deck on the back of the house, which put it in the rear yard. It is actually in the 24 rear of the house, there is no question about that. If the deck wasn't on the house, it would 25 be in the rear yard. I just want to clear that issue up. August 31, 2006 29 1 2 MS. TYLER: And I truly believe that the front corner of the garage is only going to be by 3 the back corner of their house. I'll measure it some more when I get home, but I don't see that 4 it's going to be exactly next to their house. MS. KEEGAN: Question, from what I 5 remember, their house is significantly more forward than my mother's is; are they closer; is 6 there less front yard than they're supposed to have? 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're just going to extend the porch. 8 MS. KEEGAN: I'm not talking about the porch. Is their house closer to the street, 9 therefore the back of theirs is much closer than my mother's? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, of course. I they need a front yard variance, but the house 11 exists already. MS. KEEGAN: But I'm trying to point out 12 if their house is closer to the street than my mother's is therefore their rear yard starts 13 parallel to my mother's house; therefore, if you're going to put a garage in the rear yard 14 without the deck which now the deck extends their rear yard, you have this situation where this 15 garage is directly on top of my mother's house, even if you go two feet over, three feet, five 16 feet, visually that's not that big of a deal. You can look out this window, again it's parallel to 17 the house, and there's this huge wall there. This is like living in the city, this is not like 18 living in a rural. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask you a 19 question? Have you observed the relationship, proximity between the currently located tent 20 structure let's call it, carport, to your mother's house? 21 MS. KEEGAN: We drove by quickly on the way here today. It's much closer to the Tyler's 22 house and it's smaller, and it's pushed back more I believe. I didn't measure but aesthetically 23 speaking it's smaller than the garage they want to build. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's certainly not as high. Do you know what the square footage is, 25 dimensions, width and depth? MR. TYLER: 12 by 20. August 31, 2006 30 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your proposal is? 3 MR. TYLER: 16' by 24'. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what they're 4 proposing in the way of a footprint is not substantially bigger than what's already there. 5 The height is definitely more but the actual dimensions -- the way to do this, which is one of 6 the reasons we ask applicants to stake out the location of things -- is so you can really observe 7 specifically where things are going to go. It's one thing to measure it on a drawing, it's another 8 thing to actually see it on the site, and so it may be helpful to actually stake out what you're 9 proposing and what you think you can do to mitigate any -- 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The other thing is the Board may take it upon itself and again, 11 I'm not speaking for the Board -- to run the screening a little bit farther up towards the 12 road. MS. TYLER: There were stakes. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are they there now? MR. TYLER: No. 14 MS. KEEGAN: And it is much closer to their house. So it's creating a situation that 15 the new structure and the permanent structure -- again, the tent is obviously not a permanent 16 structure -- will be right on top of my mother's house. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How far is that from your lot line now? 18 MR. TYLER: It's basically where the garage is going to go. 19 MS. TYLER: A little closer to the fence because of the three foot setback. 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That structure right now is located in the same side yard, three 21 foot side yard as where the garage will be. It's not any closer to their house than the garage will 22 be. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The tent is totally 23 within the footprint of the garage. MS. KEEGAN: We don't have a picture of 24 the tent and it's not on the drawing here but my quick view is that it's not but if you stake it 25 out like you're saying and we can reconvene. We can go and have a look and maybe take some August 31, 2006 31 1 2 pictures and maybe reconvene. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can read plans 3 and pace it out when I was there and it's really exactly where the drawing says that it is. It's a 4 little bit bigger than what's there now and what's there now is being encompassed by the garage; in 5 other words, imagine the garage right where that existing structure is, 18 feet tall instead of 6 whatever that height is. Do you know what that height is, probably 10, 12 feet, so another four, 7 five feet higher than what that is. It's going to be closer to their house, that wall that's 8 adjacent to your mother's house is going to stay where it is. The garage is going a little bit 9 closer to their house, it's going about four feet higher, so that will give you a really good sense 10 of what's what. MS. KEEGAN: We can take a look at it, but 11 basically, by looking at the picture of my mother's house and you see the shed in there in 12 it, and it's 24 foot deep structure is going to go in front of it, it's going to be parallel to my 13 mother's house and that's the main problem. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why we're 14 going to have them put screening in, and we're going to put saying that it has to be continuously 15 maintained. MS. KEEGAN: I'm sorry, what is screening? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Landscaping. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They will have to 17 be evergreens, at least six foot. They will never be visible. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You won't be looking at the garage, you'll be looking within a couple of 19 years at just planting. MS. KEEGAN: Again, my mother is not here, 20 but I came with the general feeling that she doesn't want them to have it past the rear of the 21 house. She doesn't want it in the side yard, that's the main thing because it's going to be 22 parallel to the house, it's a permanent, large structure, even with plantings. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can take the deck down and then it wouldn't be an issue. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's my concern with your reasoning is that you want us to 25 restrict your neighbor from putting a building in basically the rear yard of their house because August 31, 2006 32 1 2 your principal structure is too close to your property line. I'm just a little concerned about 3 it. I understand that it's existing, that it has existed forever, and that it can exist in 4 perpetuity, but you're asking us to restrict them beyond I think a reasonable amount because of 5 that. And I'm looking at a map that doesn't show your house, and we look at these every month, and 6 we base our decision based on the plans that are before us. The other problems that you indicate 7 are problems that are from your perspective, your lot, not theirs. 8 MS. KEEGAN: We're part of the neighborhood and I think also part of the thing 9 that's on the table is that they're going to be building more than the 20 percent. And I think 10 that adds to it that they have the garage and they have various different things and the shed, maybe 11 they're doing too much of what the property allows and it's cutting down on the neighbors. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll take your comments under consideration. But is there anyone 13 else in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close 14 the hearing and reserve decision until later pending the information you're going to give us 15 about moving, and the landscaping, and the sanitary system. 16 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Luke Slack on Harbor Lane in Cutchogue, they wish 18 to make a few adjustments to their house. Hi, how are you? What would you like to tell us? 19 MR. SLACK: My name is Luke Slack, I live on Harbor Lane, I would like to put a second floor 20 on my house, consisting of three bedrooms, a computer room, bathroom, and a front porch. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your problem is basically the setbacks to that private driveway? 22 MR. SLACK: The right of way to the neighbor in back, right. My biggest room is the 23 three kids and two bedrooms. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the second floor 24 will not extend any closer to the right of way than the first floor now does; am I correct? 25 MR. SLACK: No, it won't. It's actually a little offset because the part that's adjacent, August 31, 2006 33 1 2 the right way was a garage and converted to a kitchen/dining room and has a cathedral ceiling so 3 the second floor will actually be more offset. It's not going to encompass the whole house. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually there will be no additional impact on that right of way at 5 all. If you look at the drawings, it's the shaded area that's going to be the second floor. There's 6 a bump-out in the back which is an existing sun room that will remain and there will be a room 7 above that, right and then you're going to extend your front porch and basically build above the 8 piece that is the principal dwelling. The other is an attached, it will remain one story; is that 9 clear? Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No objection at 12 all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 14 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close 15 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 16 -------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for 17 Paul Maloney on Goose Creek Lane in Southold. That was just a slight change in the garage. 18 MS. MALONEY: Good morning, I'm Terry Maloney pitch hitting for Paul Maloney today. 19 Basically the Town issued a variance allowing the garage to be 27 feet from the property line. This 20 is a miscommunication, we need a variance of 21 feet from the property line, which will be 27 feet 21 from the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's really not a new variance, it's just simply editing the way the old 23 variance should have been written? MS. MALONEY: Exactly. 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's still in the same spot. 25 MS. MALONEY: Exactly, yes. We just want to have it correct. August 31, 2006 34 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is no change in the overall use of the garage or no 3 other change other than what actually exists? MS. MALONEY: No. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions or problems. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 6 questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 7 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close 8 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 9 -------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next we have FHV, LLC. 10 Tell us exactly what you want to do. The present building in the front, the other building in the 11 back, and you want to build a new one, right? MR. SOLICE: Good afternoon, I'm Charles 12 Solice. Right. We have two preexisting buildings. We had a site plan that after we 13 purchased the building, the Town, of course, asked for a new site plan, a change of use, new COs, we 14 never changed the footprint of anything. They have asked for easily $60,000 in drainage, all was 15 preexisting, and we hadn't changed any footprint. In purchasing the property, we have 16 run two family businesses out of it. One in the front building, one in the rear building. We have 17 outgrown those buildings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you had a permit to 18 do that? MR. SOLICE: Yes, we already had the 19 permits. It's deeded two separate businesses on that lot when we purchased it. When we upgraded 20 the basic footprint, we had to go for new COs and new drainage and new site plan. In doing so we 21 have outgrown the two buildings, and we want to put an accessory building on the back of the 22 property for storage only. After reviewing the plans from the site plan people we couldn't put it 23 right up against the back due to the fact that the back end of the property because it didn't meet 24 setbacks, and it didn't meet code requirements for parking. So we positioned it where it meets all 25 code requirements for setbacks and parking. The Planning Board has already looked at it and has August 31, 2006 35 1 2 basically given us the nod. Architectural review has already looked at it and liked the way we set 3 it up, and you guys are pretty much our last stop. There is a deed restriction basically because 4 there's two preexisting buildings on the property and before expanding anything, we had to come to 5 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What type of use are 6 you having in those buildings? MR. SOLICE: In one is an audiovisual 7 retail business and offices on the building and rear is an electrical contracting business. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want the new building just to store some of the equipment for 9 both of these businesses. MR. SOLICE: Mainly for the rear the 10 building. It houses our equipment, our construction vehicles as well as some of our 11 material. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I understand, 12 there are already two businesses operating on this spot and the building that you're seeking is 13 simply going to be in service of one of the two existing businesses? 14 MR. SOLICE: Yes, I mean the alternative is -- which is an alternative we chose not to -- 15 and we tried to go by the code and ask for all the proper permissions right down to architectural 16 review was to put storage containers on the property. It's not as pleasing, it's not what we 17 do. So we tried to go through the proper routes. And we have no other way to expand our businesses 18 on 1.2 acres. It's all screened in properly. Architectural review liked it. They liked how we 19 were positioning. How by creating this building, we force our vehicles, our construction vehicles, 20 in the back of the property that will not be in sight line any more from the road. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I ask you once again what will be stored in the new structure? 22 MR. SOLICE: It will be construction vehicles like backhoes, things of that nature, 23 electrical supplies, piping, stuff that we don't want exposed to weather in the winter, stuff that 24 we can have access to. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's a Morton 25 building? MR. SOLICE: Morton building, Morton is August 31, 2006 36 1 2 here as well. And the colors, as far as the colors of the building, elevation of the building 3 everything architectural review has looked at, planning has looked at, they had no issue with 4 anything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have you gone to a full 5 hearing before the planning board yet or they're waiting on our decision? 6 MR. SOLICE: They're waiting on your decision. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But you have preliminary site plan approval? 8 MR. SOLICE: Yes. We had preliminary site plan for the two preexisting buildings, and then 9 we have an amended site plan for the addition. And quite honestly, we can't finish the buildings 10 that we already started as far as landscaping, draining, everything until we work this out 11 because there's a lot of money asking everything that the town is asking for on something that's 12 been preexisting. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What is the 13 condition that relief is sought from? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The prior ZBA 14 condition. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: After we grant 15 this, it's a 35 by 50 foot building in the rear yard of said parcel will be used as a second 16 business that will not to exceed 35 by 50 foot as is presently exists on the survey dated -- and 17 there's a date 1987. So basically what he's asking for is relief from a condition which is not 18 anything to do with the building. The building is perfectly fine except that we said that the rear 19 most building on this piece of property has to be used for the business not an accessory structure. 20 MR. SOLICE: Exactly. As well as we meet all proper setbacks where the building is now. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You meet everything, you meet setbacks, you meet coverage, 22 you meet parking, setbacks, lot coverage, parking. We said the rear of the building on this piece of 23 property has to be used for a business, not an accessory structure. 24 MR. SOLICE: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it is being 25 used. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The problem is the August 31, 2006 37 1 2 rear building will no longer be -- you're putting accessory structure between these two principal 3 structures basically. MR. SOLICE: For the most part, yes. And 4 you can't really do that. We said the back building is no longer accessory but principal. 5 You can't put accessory in front of the principal. 6 MR. SOLICE: It's not in front, it's off to the side. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we hadn't said anything about that, you would be fine quite 8 honestly, I think. That's the restriction. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You had two 9 principal structures on one property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We granted it. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The principal structure on the front is also -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had spoken to 12 Mr. Solice regarding this and he clearly told the Board what his intentions were and that basically 13 I asked him why it wasn't pushed back toward the railroad, he told me specifically why it wasn't 14 pushed back toward the railroad, that the Planning Board wants this, this is what everybody seems to 15 want. I have absolutely no objection to this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the 17 audience wish to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and 18 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 19 -------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 20 Mr. Tozar on New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck for a little sun room. Yes, Mr. Fitzgerald. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant. I think it's pretty straightforward. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do too. MR. FITZGERALD: A setback of 49 feet. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's tucked into the corner there. It looks really nice. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a beautiful house. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't have a problem with it. Jerry? August 31, 2006 38 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's because that property line falls away in the back which 3 causes the rear yard insufficiency. I had a hard time walking around trying to figure out where the 4 problem would be other than the fact of the rear line. It's totally foliated. You wouldn't even 5 know that the place is there. MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. You wouldn't be 6 able to see it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Leslie? 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions or problems. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application? If 11 not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Mr. Palmeri on Reydon Drive in Southold, he wishes 14 to build a pool. MS. QUINLAN: Hi, my name is Kathy Quinlan 15 from Swim King Pools, for Mr. and Mrs. Palmeri. We have two front yards on this. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you familiar 18 with what the neighbor has requested? MS. QUINLAN: Yes, I am. I have a copy of 19 it here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have you 20 discussed it with your applicant? MS. QUINLAN: Yes, I have. However, I 21 think he wanted the pool moved further to the back of the property was his request. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure if that's what he wanted or not, maybe he's here. 23 MS. QUINLAN: To maintain the side yard setbacks is not an issue, I think he was more 24 concerned with the noise of the filter, which we use a cartridge filter which is not a noisy 25 filter, and that would be about 60 feet back off the back of the house. The pool is situated where August 31, 2006 39 1 2 it is, they're trying to work around these huge trees that Philip has on the property. It's a 3 tight squeeze. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They're already cut 4 some. MS. QUINLAN: They cut one down already. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question regarding the pools and their filters in 6 general. We have done -- again, I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm going to use that phrase as 7 "we" and I'm going to continue with that phrase, but with all the pools that Swim King has built 8 over the years, you have got to be going into some noise retardant activity of enclosures, you've got 9 to be doing something to retard the noise of the filters? 10 MS. QUINLAN: Well, the cartridge filter that they use now is a fairly quiet filter, I'm 11 sure you're going to hear a humming noise when you plug it in, but as far as enclosing the filters, 12 not very few towns allow us to even do that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any 13 reason why? MS. QUINLAN: No. A lot of people want to 14 put it in a shed and they're not allowed to do it. I don't know if it's fire reasons. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're requesting that a lot, and more than likely, we're going to 16 request it in this particular situation. MS. QUINLAN: To enclose it? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, in a sound deadening shed with something that has some sort 18 of insulation in this. I don't care if it's styrofoam. 19 MS. QUINLAN: Like an open type? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Completely 20 enclosed, a vented one but certainly enclosed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry is right because 21 we have asked a lot of people to do that because the noise is annoying to a lot of people. 22 MS. QUINLAN: When you have tight situations, I mean, the yards are not all that 23 large there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The siting is in 24 what we would call the architectural rear yard of the property, it's only because of that very small 25 almost right of way it is a road it is paved. So you technically are putting it in a front yard, August 31, 2006 40 1 2 but then so is the garage in a front yard. MS. QUINLAN: Everything is in the front 3 yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As a consequence of 4 you have two side yards and a front yard. MS. QUINLAN: He will fence the property, 5 screen it with evergreens on the sides, he wants to cut -- I guess I was hearing from the neighbors 6 that they use that driveway as access from the back road when he's not there. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You mean they cut through the property? 8 MS. QUINLAN: Right, so he wants to fence that off and this way -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's a liability to him to have people -- 10 MS. QUINLAN: Especially when he's not there. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Especially when he has a swimming pool. 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have any further questions. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just going 14 to say that the Board may require a minimum amount of screening. The Board has in the past and will 15 probably require -- again, I'm not speaking for the Board. I am writing some of the determining 16 factors for this -- that the Board may require the right to inspect that screening prior to the 17 issuance of a CO, we use the word de-enhance, they have never de-enhanced anything in the 26 years 18 I've been on the Board, we've only enhanced screening, so it will read enhance screening if 19 they see fit. MS. QUINLAN: I know that was his 20 intention to fence and screen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Instead of when the CO 21 is issued, when the plantings have been completed we would like to come and inspect it. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it would behoove this applicant to come up with a 23 landscaping plan prior to, so that we could incorporate that in the decision rather than 24 clearly state that we want evergreens to a specific height. I think that this applicant 25 should come up with their landscaping plan. MS. QUINLAN: Something that he can draw August 31, 2006 41 1 2 himself. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't care if 3 he draws it but the phrase in it is that he continuously maintain the evergreens, or the large 4 plants have to be continuously maintained. So that means if they don't make it through a winter 5 or if they're not irrigated, they have got to be replaced. 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You also need to have the height of the plantings. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're not going to require a drip system, I'm not going to require 8 a drip system, for those evergreens but I'm telling you they have to be replaced. These are 9 all the pitfalls of building in the front yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 13 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close 14 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 15 -------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 16 the D'Addarios on Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. MS. ROCHET: Good morning everybody, my 17 name is Ellen Rochet, I'm from Ellen Rochet Architect. I am working with the homeowner, Jim 18 D'Addario here and my colleague Jamie Simone. Our principal reason for being in front of 19 the Board today is twofold. My client needed to increase the living area of the first floor of his 20 residence, it's a very small bungalow, it's used as a summer house, but also as a winter house over 21 the years. He's spending more time there throughout the year and the existing residence 22 does not have any eating area in the house. It's a small bungalow with a good sized kitchen because 23 they're both cooks, but they need an inside eating area because they are spending more and more time 24 out there year round. Right now the only existing eating area is in the existing screened-in porch 25 to the rear. You can see from the site plans that the existing residence is in rear yard violation, August 31, 2006 42 1 2 preexisting nonconforming. The second part of the application is that 3 we wish to enclose an existing one-story flat roof area, which is unsightly and leaks, doesn't fit 4 with the architecture of the dwelling and put a new shed-type roof on it, which is in conformance 5 with the existing architecture of the house. So that work for the roof is in the existing 6 nonconforming area of the rear yard, but all that work is happening to the landward side of the rear 7 yard setback line. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it's 8 essentially only a small corner of that fill in that is 12.4 feet rather than the required 15 9 feet, so it's just that small corner that's actually in need of a variance? 10 MS. ROCHET: Right. And it's only about under eight square feet of area. And obviously we 11 would like that area to be squared off. So it winds up our new addition on our roof line follows 12 the existing ridge. If we push that line further back to make it conforming, the ridge lines won't 13 align any longer and it won't look right. So we're trying to be architecturally sensitive to 14 the existing dwelling. Enhance what was there because the flat one-story roof does not work at 15 all. You can see from the photographs that the 16 side yard is already very well screened, but it's unique. If you need to have planting here, we 17 will certainly do that. There's certainly no objection to it. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How will the new construction if at all impact the existing 19 landscaping, the screening. Minimal disruption? MS. ROCHET: Minimal. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any idea what the footage is from the existing wood deck to 21 the bulkhead? Is that wood deck above ground or on the ground? 22 MS. ROCHET: That is existing above ground and I don't have the footage off the top of my 23 head. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Wait a minute. The 24 old survey I'm looking at, nothing's on there either. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can get that for us. August 31, 2006 43 1 2 MS. ROCHET: We can provide that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you? It's good 3 to have in the record. MS. ROCHET: It's 130. There's a 130 foot 4 DEC setback. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that to the 5 high water mark though or is that to the bulkhead? MS. ROCHET: That's on the bulkhead. So 6 it's at least 100. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Really, doesn't 7 give that appearance from the water. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You could confirm 8 it by letter tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any specific requests, concerns regarding this. I 10 think it's being done tastefully, not that that is always the case of not posing an objection, but 11 it's actually a magnificent site and the elevation factor I think is a real positive and that's my 12 opinion. MS. ROCHET: Also the dormer that is 13 coming on the side falls within the current setback line. So that vertical plain is within 14 the current. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I noticed 15 that. I think architecturally it's done very well. Certainly works extremely well with the 16 character of the existing structure and makes perfectly good sense to me. I don't see an 17 issue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a question of clarification with where the new kitchen is to be 20 built, which is where the 12.4 setback is going to be felt, the existing part is already within that 21 side setback; is that correct? It's only by extending the wall of the house in that direction 22 given the angular shape of the property that the variance is required? 23 MS. ROCHET: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the alternative 24 would have been to break up that straight line, you would have had to put an angle in. What 25 exists is 15 feet and in order to have it parallel -- August 31, 2006 44 1 2 MS. ROCHET: That's absolutely correct, we'd have to truncate the addition in order to be 3 conforming with the setback line, which would not be correct architecturally. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So even if that kitchen were only three feet in length, it still 5 would require a variance? MS. ROCHET: Correct. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 7 application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for the Garipians. Is there someone here to represent 10 the Garipians? MS. MCGIBNEY: Good morning, I'm Julie 11 McGibney, I'm the attorney representing Karnick and Haci Garipian, and I would like to take a few 12 moments to sum up what's in the application, what I believe you take into consideration in granting 13 a variance. I would like to talk about the benefit of this proposal. First of all to the 14 owner of the property, I feel that the benefits are that there's currently an older, rundown house 15 that may not be to code with the energy and efficiency that the current standards are. My 16 client would be benefited if he could demolish this house and reconstruct a new one and bring it 17 all up to code. The other reason he wants to do this is 18 because his family is growing. As we know as we get older, our kids get older and the families 19 grow. They have owned this home for almost 20 years and they continue to enjoy it and would like 20 to be able to have their family enjoy it. And they need a bigger house. 21 As far as the benefit to the neighborhood, when you drive along Town Beach and you're looking 22 at the beautiful water and you see there's very nice home. It's still a continuing pleasing sight 23 as you're driving by. The Garipians are seeking to add to that by making a very nice looking house 24 with the landscaping and yet very aesthetically pleasing. As far as the neighbors are concerned, 25 the Garipians are very friendly with the neighbors on both sides of them, and I received green cards August 31, 2006 45 1 2 back from three out of the four adjacent property owners. And it's quite funny, the neighbor to the 3 west, that is the one I received back unclaimed and my clients gave me their phone number, I spoke 4 to Mrs. Catano last night, she said, oh, I got the green card we never get out of there during post 5 office hours, I don't know where the post office is, but I'm very glad to hear this is from you and 6 not from somebody else regarding something, and she also stated that the request was to pull the 7 house back a little bit. The neighbor to the east, I have not been able to speak with them, but 8 they did send back the card, so I have the green card for that. The neighbor to the south that 9 neighbor's name is Virginia, she owns that property, the son owns the vacant land on the 10 other side of Bayberry, currently the family lives together, they got together, they got the 11 envelope, they sat down and both of them had no objections. So as far as the neighbors are 12 concerned, everybody seems comfortable with this proposal. So those are what I think the benefits 13 are. In addressing the questions of what could 14 they have done to do this some other way, I think there are two things that they could have done. 15 Number one, they could do a renovation of the existing home and then do an addition landward of 16 the principal dwelling, with the setbacks on the side, I think that would kind of checkerboard the 17 house a little bit, it wouldn't look as nice, and also it would be costly to have to renovate the 18 existing house and then build a new addition onto it. When their own choice would have been to pull 19 it back from the bluff. As you can see from the property line in pulling it back from the bluff, 20 you are completely losing the side yard setbacks. So this is also pulling it back to where they can 21 benefit the shoreline. In looking to see what was minimally necessary, the single side yard setbacks 22 on the easterly side of the house is going to remain exactly where it currently is, so the house 23 is already existing there. They're giving back to the bluff, they're giving back towards the 24 shoreline, and that is their trade off because they respect the fact of the coastal shoreline, 25 and they have enjoyed the property for over 20 years, they are willing to move it back in order August 31, 2006 46 1 2 to make sure it's out of the coastal erosion hazard area, and that they still have their house 3 and enjoy it, and still have their views while enjoying the views of their neighbors on both 4 sides. So that is why we believe this application is the best possible way in which to do this 5 house. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do have a big 6 problem about the setbacks from the bluff. As you know or may not know, we have adopted, the Town 7 has accepted the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and to be consistent, you are supposed to 8 be at least 100 foot back from the bluff. I think it would be difficult to move you 100 foot back, 9 but I would suggest to the rest of the Board to move you 80 foot back to be more consistent with 10 that. Because that has to be one of the reasons of our determination to be consistent or 11 nonconsistent with the local waterfront coordinator. 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: In the zoning code it's 100 feet also. So it's two laws. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two laws. MS. MCGIBNEY: If we did 100 feet that 14 puts us -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not saying 100, I'm 15 saying 80. MS. MCGIBNEY: So you say 80 also, that 16 too pulls it way back to the middle where the side yard setbacks would also be diminished and the 17 reason I think it isn't consistent because if it were consistent we wouldn't be here. I understand 18 the program, I am a native of the north fork, I think it's a fabulous program, but at the same 19 time they currently have a house which is nine feet from the bluff. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you're completely demoing it. 21 MS. MCGIBNEY: Right, and moving it back to try and balance their keeping their water views 22 and balance with respecting the erosion hazard area and understanding -- two reasons in which the 23 LWRP suggested that it was inconsistent was because of the erosion and that's why they 24 considered taking it out of the erosion area and because of having to address the Trustees, which 25 we're working with as well to try and find a balance here that they can build this house and August 31, 2006 47 1 2 respect that line. And the what are their other options, as I say, if he were to do an existing 3 renovation of the house as it currently stands and then to do an addition lands ward of that, trying 4 to get back to the bluff so it's kind of a catch 22, trying to accommodate by moving it away from 5 the bluff at the same time trying to keep the views that he's been enjoying for the past 20 6 years and which the north fork is known for. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even at 80 foot back 7 he'll be able to enjoy his views. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem is that 8 it's not clear that this is a matter of compromise. If you demolish a house and let's say 9 it's left blank, empty for years, and somebody wants to put up a new house, they're not going to 10 be able to argue that the house that was demolished was closer to the bluff than the code 11 allows. In other words, once you demolish the house, the code would indicate that you don't get 12 credit for where the demolished house used to be when you're putting up a new house. So the 13 argument would have to be made on its merit. I think the 80 foot offer is pretty generous, 14 frankly, because it does make a nod in this direction of the need and the history. And 80 15 foot from the bluff is still, as Miss Oliva says, a pretty good view. But to say you're giving 16 something back by demolishing is a little bit misleading because you'd also be giving something 17 back by demolishing it and never rebuilding, and you don't want to do that, obviously. 18 MS. MCGIBNEY: Right. But his other option is to leave the house the way it is to do 19 an addition. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, the 20 grandfathering principles of the law allow this option because nobody can do anything about it 21 because it is the law. Nobody is suggesting that people should be allowed to seriously consider 22 disregarding the law when they really want to demolish their house. 23 MS. MCGIBNEY: Well, the demolition is in part, as I said, due to the fact that it would 24 make the entire new house environmentally and energy efficient as well as costly. I mean, to do 25 a reno on an existing house and then to do an addition, it would be more costly, so the house August 31, 2006 48 1 2 the way it currently stands I think it would be what the LWRP is leaning to by leaving it there 3 and adding an addition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With all due respect, I 4 disagree with you. And we've already given permission to somebody else declaring that they 5 have to build whatever they're going to build, has to be 80 foot back from the bluff. 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, it's a nod in that direction, whatever purposes the 7 LWRP has, it does not specifically include allowing the preservation of preexisting 8 nonconforming houses. That's not what LWRP is about. 9 MS. MCGIBNEY: I know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're proposing to 10 build a six bedroom house, very, very large house, on what is a fairly narrow lot relative to the 11 footprint you're proposing. Moreover, by bringing it more landward to be in greater compliance with 12 the LWRP, you do have the likelihood that the existing garage is going to have to be dealt with. 13 But that is a consequence of when you demo and you do new construction you have lost your preexisting 14 nonconforming status. So we almost have to start with a tabula raza, blank slate. So it really is 15 your client's decision as to how to proceed. I certainly understand that it makes a lot of sense 16 to demo this house, given the kind of dwelling that your client really wants to build. However, 17 what might be productive would be to examine the possibility of moving this back further, come in 18 with a new site plan that shows what the side yard setbacks would be as a result. So that if there 19 are variances for the side yard setbacks that need to be granted, we can take that into 20 consideration. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your property is 350 21 feet long. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's quite deep. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quite deep, you have plenty of room. 23 MS. MCGIBNEY: Yes. The concern I think was the narrowing of the property as it gets 24 south. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd rather frankly see 25 it back from the bluff and out of harm's way and narrower side yards. August 31, 2006 49 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's why I'm suggesting an alternative site plan could be very 3 productive in helping to work this out in an amenable way. I have to write the findings on 4 this so I would like to see that kind of alternative suggestion, and if a site plan could 5 be put into the record before two weeks is up when we are doing our deliberations, that would be in 6 your favor. It would be a benefit to your client. We need to have that information available. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think maybe we should just adjourn it so you have time to do it and we 8 can reevaluate it, the 28th of September. MS. MCGIBNEY: The question I think, the 9 alternate site plan, do you want me to show you that at 80 feet back? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you like you can 11 submit different plans, plan B, C and D, if you have different types of designs and shapes of the 12 house. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're welcome to 13 submit alternative plans. MS. MCGIBNEY: Okay, I appreciate that. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to adjourn the hearing until September 28th at 15 11:00 a.m. (See minutes for resolution.) 16 -------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 17 John Shack on Shore Drive in Greenport. Yes, sir MR. ASELINO: Good morning my name is Bob 18 Aselino. I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Shack. I'm here for two reasons, the accessory 19 apartment, which is a special permit which complies to most all the regulations. The second 20 part is that there is a side yard regulation, the existing side yard to the west is 1.9. We're 21 demolishing approximately eight feet of that part of the building, which will increase that side 22 yard to 6'11", making the total side yard from 20 feet to a total of 24'4". So we're just eight 23 inches short of the total. The reason we're here for the side yard is 24 we're putting a second floor on the garage, which will increase that side yard to 6'11", making the 25 total side yard total of 24'4", so we're just eight inches short of the total. The reason we're August 31, 2006 50 1 2 here for the side yard is we're putting a second floor on the garage, which actually is within the 3 side yard. In terms of distance to the bulkhead, the Town Trustees approved the plan we submitted 4 with the requirement of instead of being 31 foot from the bulkhead, we took five feet off the 5 building, reducing it by 87 square feet and increasing the distance to the bulkhead by five 6 feet. I have a drawing that the Trustees asked me to submit which might be helpful. It shows the 7 distance to the bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You increased it to 36 8 feet? MR. ASELINO: That's correct. And we took 9 five feet off the building, reduced the square footage to 90 square feet. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need a photocopy of this. It's not in our file. We're 11 going to take a recess to photocopy this for all the Board members. 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That side yard setback, the garage is 1.8 feet. 13 MR. ASELINO: As existing. It's existing, it's 1.8 feet but we're taking down eight feet of 14 that projection. We're increasing the side yard to almost seven feet. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I should not have asked that because we are technically in recess. 16 I will reask that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The plan we have 17 before us, Mr. Buckman, prior to today says 31 feet, would you like to see that? 18 MR. ASELINO: Yes. And the Trustees asked us to move it back five feet. 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So you're amending it today to conform to that? 20 MR. ASELINO: That's correct. I'm conforming to the Town Trustees' requirement to 21 reduce the building by five feet and square footage and distance to the bulkhead. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far is it from the house to the street? 23 MR. ASELINO: The front yard, we do not comply with the front yard. 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And the dimensions of the structure basically have shortened up, and 25 they're not written on the plans so later we'll need that from you. The plan that you gave us August 31, 2006 51 1 2 gives all the dimensions, so it's shortened up, just later if you could furnish that. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you repeat, they're not sited, the side yard setbacks on one 4 side is now going to be seven -- MR. ASELINO: 6'11". 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's on the garage side. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. And what is the other side? 7 MR. ASELINO: About 17 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 17 feet. So you're 8 going to total -- 24. So four inches instead of the 35. 9 MR. ASELINO: No, instead of 20. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the distance to 10 the bulkhead is now 36 feet? MR. ASELINO: 36 instead of 31. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Trying to see the 13 proposed lot coverage on this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me clear 14 something up for you. I discussed this with the Building Department yesterday, and they're not 15 positive that the lot coverage that you came up with was the correct lot coverage. It is still 16 under 20 percent to their best analysis, and it was one of the questions that I was going to ask 17 this gentleman, you're certainly welcome to ask it now. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Go ahead, we're going to ask the same thing. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to discuss lot coverage and then I want to discuss 20 side yard at the 6.91. MR. ASELINO: As far as I know the lot 21 coverage was below 20 percent. I can redo computations for you, that's not a problem. You 22 want to talk about the side yards? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to talk 23 about the side yard. It's shown in two-ways, 6'11" and 6.9, one on one of the drawings I could 24 see, which are in fact -- MR. ASELINO: Which is 1.08 inches. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's one and the same basically. Is there any reason why that August 31, 2006 52 1 2 side yard can't be a little more conforming? MR. ASELINO: The problem is that's the 3 existing garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to 4 use that existing garage? MR. ASELINO: Actually we're going on top 5 of that. Actually we're taking one foot of that and reinforcing it, putting a new foundation in on 6 the side of the garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the outside 7 portion of the garage? MR. ASELINO: Correct. And we're 8 extending that up. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see. That 9 garage is actually useable? MR. ASELINO: Yes. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that answers my question. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you explain a little bit about the use of the accessory 12 apartment; why you are applying for special exception for that? 13 MR. ASELINO: Would you rather hear it from the owner? 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. MR. SHACK: My name is John Shack, my wife 15 and I are retiring. We're going to move out here full time, that's why we're putting up. 16 There was a couple purposes for this to happen. Number one is we'll be retired and the 17 taxes I expect on the house when we're done will probably double and I was hoping to have it as a 18 year round rental. I have no intention of any short term rentals. I also like the idea of 19 having a caretaker there when we're not there. We'll be gone for a couple of months at a time in 20 the winter time. I was hoping to get -- it's going to be a studio apartment, I don't know what 21 the rental market is but I'm figuring less than $1,000. It's a year round. Initially my wife and 22 I, the plan I'm not sure I can make it work -- I'm hoping to have the garage and the apartment done 23 first, and my wife and I would live there while the rest of the house is be being done and then we 24 would rent it. My nephew, whose family lives two houses down, has already expressed interest in 25 renting it so I mean, I'm going to say that the tax rates around here are outrageous, but I'm August 31, 2006 53 1 2 already paying almost 50 percent more than I paid for a 13 room home in Boston for this house in 3 Long Island, and it's just a cottage. So I expect my taxes will probably go at least double and 4 that's something I hadn't really budgeted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the square 5 footage of your house now? MR. SHACK: I don't have a clue. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the proposed square footage? 7 MR. ASELINO: Let's see if I have that in my file. There's a set of plans there. 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The existing house looks like it's 24 by 42. 9 MR. ASELINO: Approximately, and we're putting a second floor on the existing house and 10 we're connecting with a one-story family room. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So you're doubling 11 the size of the house and you're extending off to the side, approximately the same size again. So 12 it's three times the size as the existing. You can furnish that square footage by letter 13 tomorrow. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is what led 14 me to believe that I wanted to see what the extension of the 20 percent. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Exactly. When you put all the accessory structures together, it's a 16 big footprint, and just to really be sure we understand the proposed total square footprint and 17 the footprint and the lot coverage, especially since you have amended the site plan that we have, 18 it would be helpful. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is just about the 19 largest house in the area there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. There's one 20 going up two houses away. I looked at this a month ago. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This accessory apartment is going to be above the garage and the 22 garage adjoining the house? MR. SHACK: That's correct. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But there will be a separate entrance and exit? 24 MR. SHACK: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This original 25 house must have been built sometime in the '40s, right? August 31, 2006 54 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or '30s. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does it have a 3 CO? MR. ASELINO: Yes, it does. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the date on the CO? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's in the file. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the 6 accessory apartment. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's prior to '84. 7 It's preexisting. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a 8 question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course you can, Jim. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The garage as it currently exists, is that where the apartment's 10 going to be? MR. SHACK: Yes. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The garage as it currently exists? 12 MR. SHACK: We're setting back the apartment by three feet from the front of the 13 garage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not asking 14 that question. I'm saying that there's a garage on this piece of property; you're asking for an 15 accessory apartment, which must be attached to the house. If you attach the garage to the house, and 16 didn't put a second story on, would you have an apartment? 17 MR. SHACK: There would be no place to put it. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm wondering then how you can qualify. If you're supposed to have 19 an existing certificate of occupancy before January 1, 1984 how that qualifies. 20 MR. SHACK: We have a CO prior to that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you don't 21 have. This space doesn't even exist yet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don't have a CO 22 for the place where the apartment's going to be. MR. SHACK: In that space, no, that's a 23 garage right now. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it's not 24 attached. It's an accessory structure at the moment. 25 MR. SHACK: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And you can't get an August 31, 2006 55 1 2 apartment on an accessory structure that's not attached. 3 MR. SHACK: After construction's done. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the 4 problem, it's not existing. In the prior hearing you may have not been here for, the building 5 exists now, we're not saying that you can't get it; we're saying it's an issue that we can't deal 6 with, I can't deal with at this time because it doesn't exist and that's the problem. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm saying you don't qualify for an accessory apartment. 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, you can't get an accessory apartment in a place that 9 doesn't exist yet. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's meant for 10 existing homes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. If you have an 11 existing home and you want to convert part of it into an accessory apartment, that's what the 12 special exception is designed for. It's substantially a two-step process that's going on 13 here. One is to join the garage, and it turns out the garage will be a garage with a ready-made 14 accessory apartment which will then exist, but doesn't exist now. So you might -- I don't know 15 whether you can do it in two steps or not, but people are raising doubts whether these two steps 16 can be hammered into one. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can't do it at once. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I was there when the law came into existence. Certainly the 18 mission statement, so to speak, was this was supposed to go into older houses. You weren't 19 supposed to build a new house with an accessory apartment. Now we addressed that just recently in 20 our laws, and we put them in certain zones you can have an accessory apartment in a brand new house 21 if it were an affordable housing development, and that's the only place where you can build an 22 accessory apartment. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From scratch. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just in all fairness, you certainly can ask the question, but 24 my answer is if you can't qualify, if you can't give us a CO for where you want to put that 25 apartment, then I don't know how we can possibly grant you an accessory apartment. I understand August 31, 2006 56 1 2 the taxes, I live here myself. Honestly, I can't see how you can do that in that part of the 3 house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Procedurally build 4 everything but the apartment and then apply for a special exception. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. The CO has to be 1984. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It can't be after that? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Special exception, you have to meet all 15 of these 8 criteria, one of them is 1984. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Another way of 9 putting it, if you built the accessory apartment on the garage that now exists, you wouldn't be 10 able to get a CO for it. What you could not do, and you know it, is you could not put an accessory 11 apartment in the garage where it now exists and then join the garage to the house because you 12 would not have gotten the CO for the apartment if that was done first. 13 MR. SHACK: But the apartment could be in the garage area then. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But you couldn't get an apartment in the garage if the garage is 15 detached from the house. So you can't do that first. 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have had situations where people could add a second floor 17 over the existing footprint of the home not to expand out, enlarge the home and then add an 18 apartment. An accessory apartment is not allowed in garage areas at all. So if you built the 19 second floor, put an apartment upstairs, but that's still stretching it. They're saying the 20 plan doesn't conform. MR. SHACK: Can I build up? 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's a question to the Board. I mentioned to the Board that we 22 have had situations where people expanded slightly over the existing footprint of the home that 23 qualified with the CO dated prior to 1984. And what they did was they added over the existing 24 attached garage, not detached but over the attached garage, that had been there for 30 years 25 in order to enlarge their own living area and provide for the accessory apartment and the August 31, 2006 57 1 2 existing floor area. But yours is not like that at all, yours is very different. 3 MR. SHACK: Let me ask, if I were to build up to this room up above my garage. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The house. MR. SHACK: No, I want to know if I put 5 this room above my house and I live in it for a year but then I don't ask for an accessory 6 apartment, would that be a possibility? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you have to 7 have a CO from before 1984. Say you took your house and you asked us, you didn't do anything to 8 this piece of property, and you came before us with an application for an accessory apartment, we 9 would grant it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If the garage were 10 attached. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you added onto 11 the house, I don't know how that works, I do know that what you're asking for we can't grant. 12 MR. SHACK: The space above the garage could be used as bedrooms not an apartment. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you built this house the way you want it and didn't ask us for a 14 variance -- excuse me, a special exception, you could have all the bedrooms you want in that house 15 any way you want it, all you're asking from us then is the side yard setback and a one foot 16 total. MR. SHACK: Basically what I hear is that 17 space over the garage was not an apartment but a bedroom, bathroom -- 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then it's not a problem. 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you meet the zoning code without variance. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're taking a portion of the existing structure down; is that 21 correct? You're going from 1.8 to 6.1? MR. SHACK: We're increasing the side yard 22 to almost seven feet. You answered the question that I was trying to ask, which is that I could 23 put a bedroom up there as opposed to an apartment that that would be okay. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't rent it out, you couldn't put a kitchen there. You 25 could have a bathroom I suppose. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You could have a August 31, 2006 58 1 2 bedroom and bathroom up there. MR. SHACK: It wouldn't be an apartment. 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Could I mention the side yard is nonconforming on that side and you 4 have not granted a variance yet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, two separate 5 issues. MR. SHACK: I'm just thinking about it so 6 probably then I guess we would withdraw. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We would suggest that 7 we adjourn the hearing and you come back with a new set of plans meaning a greater setback on your 8 side yard, and also I feel that you could, if you didn't have that garage so far out, you could 9 still move your house back another five feet from the bulkhead as it was originally 40 feet back. 10 MR. SHACK: Even moving it back five feet, there's no space for a room any more. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's 39 feet in depth from front to back, so she's saying cut the 12 39 foot to 34 foot of additional living space that you have shown on here. You're proposing a 36 13 foot setback, right now it's 34 foot -- MR. SHACK: That space is the entrance 14 foyer and a small room. The room is only like 14 feet long. If you took out that four feet, you 15 would have a tiny small space. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If you would like 16 to withdraw and resubmit in a future application, you are welcome to do that also. 17 MR. SHACK: I appreciate that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I say one 18 thing? I really want nine feet on the garage side, I don't care where you cut it, how much you 19 use, but six feet is just too small, 6'9". MR. SHACK: So you're saying we have to 20 cut the garage down, it's existing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand 21 that but it's just too small. I appreciate the footage on the opposite side but it's just too 22 close. MR. SHACK: As it exists it's 1'9". 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand but you're cutting it already, you might as well cut 24 it the way it should be. MR. SHACK: There's a little storage shed 25 in back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you have to August 31, 2006 59 1 2 build something on that structure to be able to support a second story anyway. I mean, why not do 3 it the right way anyway. MR. SHACK: You want to take down three 4 feet of the garage and build a new wall. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Build a new bearing 5 wall. The point is once you're attaching that garage, you're really creating a very large house 6 on that property. So the impact of side yards is substantially increased when you have that large 7 dwelling as opposed to an accessory building, a small accessory structure. 8 MR. SHACK: That was the reason why we went from the 1'9" to the 7', to increase the side 9 yards. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You understand that 10 clearly, and you have already made an effort to increase the side yard, I guess Mr. Goehringer is 11 saying that given the size of the proposed dwelling, a nine foot side yard for emergency 12 access is more appropriate than the one you are proposing now. 13 MR. SHACK: If I were to build a house that remained unattached from the garage, that 14 side setback would be no issue? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as you 15 don't attach the garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's preexisting. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The Building Department would probably tell you to leave five 17 feet or something away from the building. There's a distance for safety reasons. 18 MR. SHACK: So what's going to happen is you're asking us to cut off two feet of the garage 19 and rebuild at that point? MR. ASELINO: You're asking us to come 20 back? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no reason why, if you agree to nine feet today, we can't 22 adjourn this and make a decision. We don't need to see anything. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then we would close the hearing. 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What about the accessory apartment? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He's going to have to withdraw that. August 31, 2006 60 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That will have to be withdrawn. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's up to him. MR. SHACK: If we're not eligible, I'll 4 withdraw it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Are you withdrawing 5 the whole application? MR. ASELINO: No, the accessory 6 application we're withdrawing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We need a letter. 7 MR. ASELINO: A new application, an amended application will be submitted indicating 8 that the garage will be sliced off, two feet of it removed. 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: For a nine foot setback for the whole side. 10 MR. ASELINO: No problem, makes sense, then the second floor will be bedrooms, whatever I 11 need. Do I have to submit to the Building Department first or just you? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can just grant the nine feet if that's what we choose to do. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It has to be severed from the accessory apartment application. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we can deny that too. 15 MR. SHACK: We'll withdraw the accessory apartment and we'll agree to a nine foot setback. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about the setback from the bulkhead? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make a comment, please because it's getting more 18 complicated than I think it needs to be. This gentleman applied to us for three things. The 19 accessory apartment we found today that he just doesn't meet that, and there's no reason why we 20 can't just deny that. My concern is that we let this gentleman go another month, and he's now into 21 Thanksgiving trying to dig a hole in the ground. So we can deny that and we can also say we can 22 grant you nine feet. He doesn't have to apply for anything. 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's why I was saying it's his option to adjourn it. But if he 24 would like to finish today. You can finish today and the Board can make a decision in two weeks 25 without any new plans, but then you have to go back later to the drawing board and do that anyway August 31, 2006 61 1 2 to get your building permit. So which would you rather do? 3 MR. SHACK: Right now here you remove the apartment and you decide whether nine feet is 4 acceptable, and you would approve it with nine feet. I don't have to do anything more here. Now 5 I have to revise the drawings, of course, back at the Building Department. I will not have to come 6 back here again? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You won't have to 7 submit nine plans or whatever. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You would have to 8 reapply to the Building Department and your application would have to be consistent with the 9 decision of this Board and you wouldn't have to go back. 10 MR. SHACK: That seems reasonable. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So would you like 11 the hearing closed today and let the Board make a decision? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are people that want to speak. 13 MR. SHACK: Move the house back, how could I do that? 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I don't think she meant move it back, I think she meant cut off four 15 feet off the setback. MR. SHACK: We'd have nothing in that room 16 then. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: She's saying you 17 have 39 or 40 feet now, can you maintain that same setback. 18 MR. ASELINO: No, because if you took that and slid it back, it would line up with the 19 hallway. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You have that 20 extension going out. MR. ASELINO: The extension toward the 21 street is a vestibule/entrance area. On each side is the hallway. The extension to the water is a 22 room. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What room is that? 23 MR. ASELINO: It's a family room with a small screened-in porch. We've already taken five 24 feet off and the room becomes barely useable as it is now. Take anything more off and we'd have 25 nothing left. We're not going beyond our deck anyway. August 31, 2006 62 1 2 MR. SHACK: We're not going beyond the existing deck and that little point over there is 3 really just a screened-in porch. It's going to be separated from the house. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's covered though. MR. ASELINO: When the Board of Trustees 5 asked me to move it back five feet, I did that on that sketch and I said it would be impossible to 6 change the construction drawings in such a short period of time. So he said as long as I give them 7 a sketch showing that it's five feet off, I can then work with the Building Department and revise 8 the drawings accordingly. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They're not making 9 a decision today on it, so if you're allowing the Board to close the hearing, then you're saying you 10 will accept alternative relief or whatever it is, and you'll have to go back and redesign later to 11 meet their requirement. MR. ASELINO: Certainly. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me clarify again, I am sorry to drag this on. But does that 13 mean that the Board is going to consider 40 feet and are you interested in that? 14 MR. ASELINO: There would be no room there then. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The Board could deny the application as written, could propose an 16 alternative, which you can accept or not and those look like the only options. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now you're accepting the nine feet. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The nine would be proposed in the form of an alternative after 19 denial of it. As applied for and you have already indicated you would probably accept that as an 20 alternative. MR. ASELINO: Definitely. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When it comes to the setback for the bulkhead that's another story. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I think we should adjourn it. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we ought to have a plan before us that you would like 24 because I am hearing something -- I'm not opposed to the 36 feet, but I'm one vote on this Board and 25 we could come up with alternative relief that says 40 feet that gives you a trailer instead of a August 31, 2006 63 1 2 house. Maybe you want to adjourn it so we all can see what it looks like and where we can have the 3 battle. MR. SHACK: I don't want a permit that 4 says 40 feet right now, so if that's what you're telling me I'm going to get, then I say we got to 5 adjourn. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're going to 6 have that argument. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: New site plan and 7 and a new floor plan. MR. ASELINO: Where the Trustees asked to 8 take off the six feet we would show the plan with the six feet off -- I'm sorry, five feet off. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we could visualize that better and with the nine foot. 10 MR. SHACK: Is that the only issue, the screened-in porch? 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's part of it. MR. SHACK: If that's it I mean, I'll take 12 that off. I mean, it will just be a deck. I mean, I don't want that to be -- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Should do something to hang you up. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about that part that hangs out? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That is a screened-in porch. 16 MR. SHACK: That's what I'm saying. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Make an open deck 17 and it's fine. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's up to you. 18 MR. SHACK: I can always put screens in, all I want to do is go down there. 19 MR. ASELINO: Is it a possibility of the Board approving a 36 foot setback as the Trustees 20 asked for; do you want more? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I wouldn't say 21 there's no possibility. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We don't know. 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They haven't seen the new plans. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think probably you understand what the issues are at this point 24 and perhaps it would be to your benefit to take a little bit of time to think through your 25 priorities and how you would be comfortable proceeding, and then you understand what our August 31, 2006 64 1 2 concerns are and bring them back so we can deliberate all on the same page with the same 3 information without suppositions. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You probably need 4 consulting time. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When we're doing our 5 job, we would like to give you a variance for something that you can live with and we can live 6 with, and that's what we're working toward. What we don't know, we can't speak for the rest of us 7 is no, this would not satisfy us, no, this would not satisfy you. So that's where we are. We're 8 trying to figure out something that would bring us together. 9 MR. SHACK: So we'll adjourn this until September. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: September 28th. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But wasn't there 11 someone who wants to speak? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There are a couple 12 people. MR. SHACK: But if we did adjourn it would 13 be to the 28th? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 14 Ma'am, you wanted to say something? MS. HEARST: Jacquelyn Hearst. I have a 15 big problem with the accessory apartment. It's very close to my house. You are now saying nine 16 feet that's much better. What I would like to know about is where the garage is getting pushed 17 way back. That was for the accessory apartment, people are coming up my side and going in the 18 stair case. If there is no accessory apartment could we not push all that out to the bay? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Hearst, I read your letter and this is not a curt statement, 20 this is not meant to be anything but pragmatic. We can't create better water views all the time, 21 and I just want you to be aware of that. MS. HEARST: I would like the same ones I 22 have. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure we 23 can guarantee that either. MS. HEARST: Could you tell me why would 24 the garage go back that far? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You really 25 should meet with them on the site and let them deal with it. August 31, 2006 65 1 2 MR. SHACK: We met with Cathy two years ago. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to do it again. 4 MS. HEARST: I saw these plans a year ago, someone said sometime this morning when you see 5 the stakes in the ground that's when you really understand what's happening. The plans weren't 6 too clear to me, but the stakes in the ground said wow, this is going back this far. The house is 7 going past the mean line, which is where everybody -- I think that's what you call 8 it. They're lining up, that's not where the other houses are. They line up to the back of the 9 house. Even the new large house lines up to that. This is going out in the bay a lot further. I 10 mean, I know I can't have everything, I can't keep it the way it was. But I would like you to look 11 at where my house is too in relation to this. I would like the garage lower if it's not going to 12 be an apartment. A little bit lower is nice, it wouldn't be on top of me. I would really 13 appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anyone else 14 that wishes to speak? MR. ASELINO: Can I just refer to this, 15 the area behind the garage is for a laundry room and a lavatory. So it's not the garage going 16 out. Also the building to the west, if you notice is further out than our proposal and there's a 17 deck beyond that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. How high is the 18 garage going to be; what is the height to the ridge of the garage? 19 MR. ASELINO: About 24 feet. Which is a normal two-story building. There are several 20 other two-story buildings on that same street which are the same thing. 21 MS. HEARST: There are exactly two other -- except for the new house, two other two 22 story houses out of 19. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But as of right 23 they are allowed to build that. MS. HEARST: Yes, but if it's not going to 24 be an apartment, does it have to be that high? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's up to them. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they went one more foot, then they wouldn't need a variance August 31, 2006 66 1 2 here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Ten feet over they 3 don't need a variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't 4 object to it? MS. HEARST: I would object to the 5 apartment. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The apartment issue 6 is not here. MS. HEARST: At least if this is in the 7 zoning rules. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why they're 8 here. They're here for a variance. MS. HEARST: If it was 10 feet, I would 9 have no say and that's where they would be. MR. ASELINO: In terms of the height, also 10 created hip roofs so you don't have the large peak. And view of the house, you hardly see the 11 roof because it's at an angle on all four sides. MS. HEARST: If that was an apartment -- 12 MR. ASELINO: Regardless of what's inside the space, the roof is the same design, it's a hip 13 roof. The purpose of the hip roof is to reduce, so you don't have the tall peak. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: To reduce the height and bulk. 15 MR. ASELINO: So visually you look up the the side of the house. And it's only a standard 16 eight foot ceiling. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have to have 17 that for habitable space, I mean they can't make it any longer. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is it a 16 foot wall and then the peak? 19 MR. ASELINO: Eight feet on the end and then about a four foot peak, that's all it is. So 20 you're talking about 24, 25 feet, which is standard for two-story house building. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to 22 adjourn this hearing until September 28th at 1:15 in the afternoon. 23 (See minutes for resolution.) -------------------------------------------------------- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Leonard Rosenbaum on Osprey Nest Road in 25 Greenport. Hi, what would you like to tell us; what would you plan to do? August 31, 2006 67 1 2 MS. ROSENBAUM: What we're doing is raising the roof over the kitchen and the garage 3 and making living space and then on the street side of the house we're just making the 4 entranceway, just pushing it out a little bit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So what would your 5 front yard setbacks be after you pushed it out? MS. ROSENBAUM: I don't have the 6 dimensions. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the notice 7 of disapproval says the existing is 29.7 and post construction note the front yard setbacks of 29.8 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think that's right. 9 MS. ROSENBAUM: The dining room is out so far. 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It shows 35 feet from Osprey Nest Road on the site map that 11 Architechnology did for you. So the house that's existing now is 29, so you need it set back about 12 six feet probably. Looks like it's stepped back six feet from where the house is now. 13 MS. ROSENBAUM: What is that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the road. 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: From 29 to 35 feet. MS. ROSENBAUM: Over the kitchen and the 15 garage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's 28.2 feet to 16 the bulkhead, that's the closest corner there. MS. ROSENBAUM: Right. 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now, the bulkhead is as it now exists it's about 28 feet from the 18 bulkhead, this would just be extended along that line; is that correct? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not exactly. MS. ROSENBAUM: All we're doing is raising 20 the roof. We're not pushing out, we're not pushing in. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's not basically what the plan shows, Mrs. Rosenbaum, it 22 shows it's out a little bit, but I don't know if it's accurate. 23 MS. ROSENBAUM: We already have a second story. The roof is going to be raised, and that 24 extension is just going to be -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Trustees permit 25 is for a two-story addition over the existing garage; was that built already? August 31, 2006 68 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it's the same structure. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually we have two really different drawings here. Maybe you 4 could come up and I could show them to you and you could verify. This particular plan from the 5 architect shows this line straight across, and I presume those are the stairs. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In this drawing this second story pops out further line, whereas 7 here it's straight across. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know what 8 that is, that's an overhang? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So which is the 9 correct one? So it is popped out slightly. So there is an overhang. 10 MS. ROSENBAUM: So, it is overhanging a little and it would just overhang the walkway. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would be overhanging the deck walkway. 12 MS. ROSENBAUM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what it 13 shows right here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, I've got it. 14 MS. ROSENBAUM: We did not like the previous design, it was awful. It's aesthetically 15 very pleasing to the eyes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The notice of 16 disapproval says the construction notes a setback of 28 feet from the bulkhead, but the survey I 17 have seems to indicate that it's -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's the 18 architect site map, there's a new survey that was done. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this is wrong. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's 28.2 feet, see 20 that little number. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's on the 21 diagonal. MS. ROSENBAUM: That's a right of way. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The variance is in part for that approval of that 28.2 feet. So this 23 is existing, so this 28 feet is already there? MS. ROSENBAUM: From the walkway, oh, yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: From the bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I get that. It's 25 not a big deal. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only other August 31, 2006 69 1 2 thing is the issue of leaders and gutters in the rear of the house closer to the water. They have 3 to be put into some sort of storm drain. MS. ROSENBAUM: That was all done with the 4 Trustees. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you understand 5 about the rules for the runoff? MS. ROSENBAUM: Yes. When we were in 6 front of the Trustees. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you have a 7 fairly large house on a rather small piece of property and the bulkhead is pretty close to your 8 home. It's not your fault, I know. MS. ROSENBAUM: It was there, again, we're 9 not asking to push out or go any more. That's just to improve the entranceway. We just want it 10 to look -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the front 11 elevation? MS. ROSENBAUM: Right. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any other questions, anybody? Is there anyone in the 13 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close 14 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 15 -------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the 16 Engelkes on Indian Neck Lane in Peconic. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for this 17 application? Miss Steelman? MS. STEELMAN: Hi, my name is Nancy 18 Steelman, with Samuels and Steelman Architects, representing my clients George and Sandra Engelke. 19 I think you probably have some questions which I'm here to answer, but I just want to make a point 20 that we have a situation here on Indian Neck where according to our current survey, our bulkhead is 21 61 feet from mean high tide, and there's substantial beach, that beach used to be fairly 22 stable, not a lot of erosion here. The small bluff it goes up from approximately 10 to 18 on 23 elevation, I think primarily that bulkhead is working more as a retaining wall since it's so far 24 back from mean high tide. So I want to make that point. 25 The other thing is we're removing an existing house that is currently approximately two August 31, 2006 70 1 2 feet away from the side yard setbacks, there's also a garage that's also approximately two feet 3 off the side yard setbacks, removing all those structures except for a small portion up in front 4 that we're maintaining a little bit of it for a beach house and a screen porch that projects out 5 towards the water. So the other part of the application is a new house and a pool. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Steelman, what is the definition of a beach house in your 7 opinion? MS. STEELMAN: We have in there, we have a 8 small accessory structure, there is a portion that is projecting out towards the water, which is a 9 screen porch with deck, currently it's a sun room, but we're going to be converting it into a porch. 10 Then we have a small 15 by 20 is the remaining part of the little structure as an accessory and 11 there's a small toilet and a little wet bar so it's quite small. There's an outdoor shower that 12 is just to the rear, and that is basically a shower head with a fence around it, not anything 13 that's substantial, so. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 14 MS. STEELMAN: I'd also like to note that we have all our approvals in place; Trustees have 15 agreed with our plan and we have health permit and DEC nonjurisdiction. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not happy with the setbacks from the bulkhead for the pool, the 17 house, the beach house, with the LWRP. We just told someone up on the sound 80 foot back and 18 that's what I would like to see here. MS. STEELMAN: 80 foot back from -- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the bulkhead. I want everything moved back. 20 MS. STEELMAN: We're on the bay, we're not on the sound. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: LWRP is 100 foot. MS. STEELMAN: Trustees also got the 22 report from planning, the LWRP -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. 23 MS. STEELMAN: And this is what they came back with off the bulkhead. I'm just -- I think 24 for us as professionals working with different agencies and zoning has 75 feet off the bulkhead, 25 so I'm just -- and not only that, we have 75 feet plus the 61 feet to mean high tide. We are in a August 31, 2006 71 1 2 situation that is quite substantial from the water. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're still concerned with the code is the bulkhead, not the mean high 4 water or how much beach you have from the bluff or the bulkhead. Your plans look lovely. I'm sure 5 it's going to be beautiful but I like it set back. I'm trying really hard to be fair and not 6 say 100 feet back as the LWRP, but I'm trying to bring it more into consistency with the policy and 7 say 80 foot back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a problem 8 with the setbacks on the beach. I have a problem with the beach house anyway, and I don't know how 9 the Board's going to rectify that. I guess we'll do it based upon voting, but this plan, which is 10 absolutely magnificent, it's also absolutely ambitious. It closes up the side yards like you 11 wouldn't believe, and you know my situation with side yards. I'm just going to throw this out, I 12 think the beach house should be a pergola. I have no objection to the showers. I think it should be 13 setback and with a pergola. You can see through it so you don't obstruct your view. I think it 14 should be set back from the property line, enough so that you can at least get into the property if 15 you had to, meaning the waterfront side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Talking about the 16 side yard at 1.3. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's my 17 opinion, I don't care about wherever we decide to end up, I don't care if the deck is where the 18 existing deck is, it really doesn't bother me if it remains there, and I'm not saying that from a 19 point of view for making a decision for this Board, I'm just making that statement. 20 MS. STEELMAN: I'd like to make note too what we're doing is we're saving a portion of that 21 entire house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know you are 22 but it's entirely too close to the property line, and that's my particular opinion. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I tend to agree. I mean, it's perched very, very close to the 24 bulkhead. I know it's preexisting and I know you're removing a considerable amount of it, but 25 you can choose more or less which part you retain and which part you slice and dice. I tend to August 31, 2006 72 1 2 agree the more it becomes an ancillary accessory outdoor type of thing rather than an enclosed 3 structure. Do you have anywhere -- I'm looking on the plans -- lot coverage? 4 MS. STEELMAN: We have three and a half acres. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I know you have a huge amount of property, I'm just curious. You're 6 way under. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question is sort 7 of related, if your argument since replied to LWRP is that as you said before this bulkhead is in 8 reality more a retaining wall, but it's a fairly high retaining wall and then the problem comes is 9 since the beach house is also on top of this retaining wall, is it a beach house; in other 10 words, after all it's some 60 feet back of the mean high water mark and really it's 11 nonconforming. There's no way that it could be built today. I mean, where the beach house is 12 today it might even be on the beach rather than above the beach, above this retaining wall; do you 13 have any comment on that? MS. STEELMAN: Yes. We see it as an 14 accessory structure. "Beach house" is a term my clients have been using, it's an accessory 15 structure. But you're right, we wouldn't be able to build this as a new structure currently. I 16 think the point here is we were substantially trying to minimize the setbacks with the existing 17 house. We decided not to add onto the existing house, which is definitely what we explored quite 18 substantially to add onto that. But we felt that tearing that down and moving it away from the side 19 yard at least for the principal residence would be a better solution, and we thought maybe we could 20 save part of the existing house as-is for an accessory structure, so that was the intent. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you move that over to create a larger side yard and create more 22 visual permeability what impact, I'm looking at the site plan, what visual impact -- 23 MS. STEELMAN: It would be sitting in front of the house. I don't think that we would 24 want to do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's why I'm 25 asking because to create a larger side yard is going to slap that smack in front of a primary August 31, 2006 73 1 2 building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't care 3 about the views, but I'm going to tell you about this that you need to leave that side yard open if 4 you intend to put it or crowd it close to that property line, and that means no structures, no 5 even temporary structures, because that's the only way you're going to get to it. I'm going to make 6 one more statement too, and that is the issue, and clearly you're correct in your interpretation of 7 the proximity of the bulkhead. However this Board has made decisions primarily in the Cedar Beach 8 area, which is very similar to this site and all of those situations, the most recent pergola that 9 we did deny I have to say was five or six years ago and the man was Fresita, and they are on the 10 corner just before you make the bend going down to the bay, directly next to a house that was 11 formerly J.J. Harris, which they refer to as the Klan house. We can give you a tax map. So we 12 clearly understand what you're saying, but we have to -- I have to tell you that that was an issue. 13 MS. STEELMAN: Okay. I understand. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My thing is you have 14 68.8 feet to the covered porch, to move that back to 80, which would then put your pool back to 15 about 59 feet, which is about consistent or what was done with other pools on the bay that have 16 been 54 feet back, it would be far more acceptable. It still fits within the consistency 17 of the LWRP but it kind of mitigates it a bit. MS. STEELMAN: Could you give me a sense 18 of where that dimension would be, how much off the bulkhead? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The covered porch you have 68 feet, to move that back to 80 feet. 20 MS. STEELMAN: My only other concern is what we're getting into, we have existing overhead 21 wires that run all along Indian Neck, which are existing, and they're servicing many of the 22 properties. I'm concerned if we move that back much further. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's only 12 feet. MS. STEELMAN: Just making a point there 24 is some form of an easement, trying to get them away from the house. They are substantial, 25 there's transformers, they're pretty heavy because they are servicing the area. August 31, 2006 74 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So the garage would move under the overhead wires, it's not the living 3 area, it's about 25 feet away. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would that 4 suggestion, moving everything including the garage, further to the north -- I don't have the 5 interior plans but this sort of neck between the garage and the house? 6 MS. STEELMAN: That's like a mud room area. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON. Not because I could imagine making that a little smaller. If you 8 didn't want to push it back. MS. STEELMAN: We have a bathroom and a 9 mud room and some closets in there and part of the kitchen area is in there too, Michael. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it would be easier to move the garage, if you had to, to move the 11 garage simply further to the north and redesign the driveway slightly? 12 MS. STEELMAN: It would be substantially cutting out a certain part of the house. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write the finding on this, but I think it's pretty clear 15 what the issues are. It's a beautiful plan, but I will say that I think it will become increasingly 16 important that there be more consistency among the various town agencies in terms of reinforcement. 17 As a design professional I understand how difficult it is to be responding to one set of 18 criteria and then having to redesign and respond to a more stringent set of criteria. And I think 19 it's incumbent upon the Town, just for the record, that we all begin to agree with the LWRP in place 20 and more consistent. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We are trying to do 21 that, Nancy. It's going to take a little time but we are trying to do that. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it's a fair thing to acknowledge. 23 MS. STEELMAN: I agree. Thank you very much. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: While it pains me 25 to say this, I think you're right about the LWRP. Specifically to this instance in that you're August 31, 2006 75 1 2 building a brand new house. The beach house, that concept, I'm sorry, but I don't see that. You're 3 removing well more than 50 percent of that building regardless of how you try to preserve 4 those walls. My preference would be that you put that in a conforming area if you need that space 5 for whatever reason. MS. STEELMAN: I think there is a certain 6 point if we don't have it in that location it doesn't make sense to have it. It's either in 7 front of the house or behind the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're calling it a 8 beach house but in our code that's not defined as a beach house. 9 MS. STEELMAN: Right. It's an accessory structure. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And if it's an accessory structure it doesn't have to be that 11 close to the beach. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned 12 about the side yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If we provide a 13 side yard setback, it's up to you and your client to decide whether or not it's feasible to make it 14 smaller and keep it in the same place or whether you lose it. 15 MS. STEELMAN: I agree. And I'm going to say that if we don't maintain it, I think we're 16 fine. If we need to lose it, I know there's concern about the side yard setbacks, and I'm very 17 concerned with that. This was a request of my client to maintain that. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is not necessarily that you get it or don't get it; my 19 concern is that we're calling it a beach house and then we grant it as a beach house. 20 MS. STEELMAN: I understand that. We can amend that in terms of what it's called. It's not 21 a house in the same sense of as a principal structure. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm for moving it away from the property too. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it was an internally used in conjunction with the pool for 24 the sole purpose of having an outside shower and a little open area, you have a cooking facility area 25 over there, that's a different situation. And, of course, over there it's not going to block any August 31, 2006 76 1 2 water views. MS. STEELMAN: That's true, but that part 3 of the mud room area is a small little area in that wing. It's more addressing being on the 4 beach and having something adjacent with a small toilet room, that was all really what it was 5 trying to do. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a problem 6 because the lot is fairly narrow, as large as it is, a beach house on one side is fine but what you 7 don't necessarily expect is on the opposite side of that there's going to be a swimming pool and 8 the beach house not be anywhere near the swimming pool. 9 MS. STEELMAN: Right. But this was the existing steps, and that's the way it worked 10 out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We understand. A 11 deck is allowable there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else 12 who would like to comment on this application? MS. GEASA: Janet Geasa, Gail Wickham's 13 partner. Gail wrote a letter and since we have not had a chance to submit it beforehand, I'd like 14 to read it into the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. 15 MS. GEASA: "We represent the owners of the property next door directly to the east. 16 They're descendents of the Tuttle family. I have been asked to write you on behalf of the Tuttle 17 Bunker Property Corporation, which owns the property to the east of the Engelke property. The 18 Tuttle family, which now extends to several families who are descendents of the original 19 owners, has owned and used its property for many years. The corporation has no adverse position 20 regarding the proposed pool or house or the insufficient bulkhead setbacks. They do, however, 21 feel that the proposed beach house, which includes an outdoor shower and deck, is located too close 22 to the property line. Since the entire property is being reconstructed, and the dwelling will be 23 greatly expanded, it would seem reasonable that the extreme nonconformity of the existing building 24 be eliminated. "Our clients suggest a conforming side 25 line setback or if the Board believes a site variance is advised in a reasonable distance in August 31, 2006 77 1 2 your discretion. They would also prefer that the outdoor shower not be located so close to the line 3 and be adequately screened. Another important consideration is that there be no increase in the 4 elevation of the property." Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 5 MS. GEASA: And it's my understanding from your discussion that the Board is already aware of 6 that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there 7 anyone else that wishes to speak on this? Yes, sir? 8 MR. WARDLOW: My name is Matt Wardlow, I'm the son of one of the property owners on the 9 bungalows to the east, what she was just referring to. I'll be brief, I just wanted to chime in that 10 we have enjoyed this property -- I have enjoyed this property since I was a kid, and I'm concerned 11 about the visual impacts, the noise impacts, also a shower located that close to the property line, 12 I haven't seen the drainage plan or anything like that, but other things come to my mind, potential 13 for water saturation, ponding, that kind of thing. One of the nice things -- I'm sure you folks know, 14 these properties in this area, the privacy is just, it's wonderful. There's nice old trees 15 along that property line. I'm not sure exactly how feasible the construction's going to be with 16 nice old trees right there on the property line and power lines as well. So I just want to 17 contribute my concern as well about the beach house right there up against the property line. I 18 just don't think that's appropriate. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody 19 else? MS. STEELMAN: One more point I'd like to 20 make. On the two adjacent properties my site plan shows this, where the adjacent properties are 21 relative to the bulkhead to the east, we're approximately 29 feet to the bulkhead to that 22 existing house, and to the west they have a concrete sea wall, and from the sea wall they're 23 42 feet. So I just want to also make a point that pushing it that much further back from the house 24 and the pool back further when there's properties that are fairly close already to the bulkhead on 25 each side, I just think that should be at least considered as part of your decision, and if you August 31, 2006 78 1 2 would like to see the site plan where these are located. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 4 later. (See minutes for resolution.) 5 ------------------------------------------------ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 August 31, 2006 79 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 6 7 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 8 State of New York, do hereby certify: 9 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 10 the testimony given. 11 I further certify that I am not related by 12 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 13 action; and 14 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 15 of this matter. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 17 hand this 31st day of August, 2006. 18 19 20 21 22 _________________________ 23 Florence V. Wiles 24 25 August 31, 2006