Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/28/2006 Hearing 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x TOW N o F SOU THO L D Z 0 N I N G A P PEA L S BOA R D o F --------------------------------------------x Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York December 28, 2006 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney -, n.....''":'';f'\r.'\t \ ,-; L ',-, ~ -' 1 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning, everybody, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all. First I'd like to call to order our first meeting of December 28, 2006 and I'd like to have a motion stating that all our applications are a Type 2 Action. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for the Kiefers on Terry Lane in Orient; lS there someone here to speak on this application? MR. KIEFER: This is my wife, Joan and Harold Kiefer. We just want to get the okay to get the Building Department to okay our plans. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are planning to build a deck? MR. KIEFER: A deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15 or 19 feet? MR. KIEFER: 15 or CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: about 85 feet from the edge MR. KIEFER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was up there and you can take my advice or not, this is part of it. But you have an overhang, a lip on your bluff. Ten years ago we had a number of terrible northeast storms, and I walked that whole beach and you must have lost at least 15 to 20 feet from that storm on that bluff because it is gouged out. I would suggest, if you want to hold that bluff in behind that lip, if you could plant some low shrubs like rosa rugosa, something like that that would hold that in that if we have another How wide lS that deck, 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 16. That will leave of your bluff? you 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 storm -- 24 MR. KIEFER: I have planted at least 50 rosa rugosa on the bluff itself. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We got a nlce report from Suffolk County Soil and Water. I'm just suggesting that after the cut off from the bluff you could put something there that would hold that top up. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Kiefer, I believe you were fishing that day I was there. I didn't want to bother you. I have no objection to your application as long as the deck remaln open. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To the sky. Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your proposal lS to 20 21 22 23 e 25 December 28, 2006 3 1 9 create a deck that's 22 inches off the ground level so you can come straight out off your sliding door? MR. KIEFER: I think it's 24 or something. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your neighbor has a two level deck on one side and yourself is actually going to be smaller, the bluff seems in relatively decent shape at the moment. And 85 feet -- MR. KIEFER: Orginally when we put it up I guess it was 100. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You were smart. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, the farther back the better In terms of protection of the property. I have no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's going to be 54'7" long, right? MR. KIEFER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do you get access to the deck from the house? MR. KIEFER: Double sliders. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From the kitchen, any other rooms? MR. KIEFER: Living room, dining room. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then looks like it's 40 feet from the rest of the property line, the deck lS going to end up 40 feet? MR. KIEFER: I guess so. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the reasons for the variance is because 100 feet is the code requirement; is there a reason why it would be necessary or desireable that it be 15 feet wide rather than five feet wide so the setback could be increased to 90 feet for example; could you speak to that question? If the Board decided that some sort of compromise would be offered would you argue against the plausibility of that compromise? MR. KIEFER: You mean? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If we gave you 90 feet rather than 85 feet, and your deck was going to be five feet narrow, it would be 10 feet instead of the 11, instead of 16. MR. KIEFER: Ten foot would be kind of narrow for a deck and table and chairs. If you have the 15 feet would be reasonable. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 4 1 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just wanted to hear you address the issue is all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 2 e 3 4 (See minutes for resolution.) 6 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the Milowskis on Cox Neck Road in Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? The applicant, we are awaiting an amended survey; is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? Yes, sir? 7 9 15 MR. DOUBLEDAY: My name is Malcolm Doubleday. I'm here on behalf of some neighbors Ted and Rita Wells; they're in Florida, so they couldn't be here. I just want to read a letter from them, it's addressed to the Board Members. We, Theodore and Rita Wells, give Malcolm Doubleday full authority to represent us at the Southold Town Board meeting of December 28th. This pertains to the request of Kevin Milowski to add a structure on his property. We haven't any objections to that, our only concern is that the 50 foot right of way remains open and unobstructed at all times as our deed states. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here? If not, I make a motion to adjourn the hearing until January 25th at 9:35 in the morning. (See minutes for resolution.) 10 11 12 13 e 14 16 17 18 19 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the Beninatis on Oakwood Drive in Southold; is there anyone here who would like to speak on this? Cathy? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Beninati propose to construct a garage with a second story over. Our request is for a side yard variance for a seven foot side yard setback, and that would be on the southerly side yard. We've done everything we could design-wise to snug this up as much as possible. The purpose of this renovation is to provide actually some living space to the house. 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 5 1 9 A lot of these houses were beautiful architecturally, but from a practical perspective, they really were not livable. There's really not much of a kitchen. The Beninatis expect to make this their principal residence, so they're taking a bedroom, converting it to enlarge the kitchen and creating another bedroom up over the garage. So that's the essence of our request. We do not exceed the lot coverage. We do have Trustees approval; we're pending in the DEC. It's pretty straightforward. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I can ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, go ahead, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, I'm a stickler on side yard situations. MS. MESIANO: I know. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The way that portion of that application is presented, the tail end, which is closest to the water, which is closest to the wood deck restricts it farther down than seven feet. MS. MESIANO: noted as a deck? BOARD MEMBER MS. MESIANO: BOARD MEMBER deck or cement deck? MS. MESIANO: It's intended to be wood. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, wood or not, it's still restricted. Actually, eight feet is the actual minimum that you could use to bring machinery. MS. MESIANO: Even considering the fact that we do have ample room on the other side, on the north side? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was my question, and I did spend some time looking at that ample room. I just don't know what they intend to do with the rest of that and the landscaping on the other side. MS. MESIANO: I can give you a landscape plan. We have had a landscape plan very rudimentary but very representative of what their intention lS, and basically the landscape plan is a revegetation plan that would put back, give back if you will, the wetland vegetation because it has deteriorated. It's been a lot of runoff, the Are you looking at what's 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 GOEHRINGER: Yes. That's at grade. GOEHRINGER: Is that a wood 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 6 1 7 house hasn't been occupied. So it's intended to give back as far as the wetland vegetation is concerned. So they're all low shrubs, low bush blueberries, et cetera. And that's a plan that the Trustees have approved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea how far that ground level deck encroaches into that deck area? MS. MESIANO: If you bear with me a minute, I'll get my scale and I'll tell you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is how far does the ground level deck encroach into the side yard? That's what Miss Mesiano's gOlng to give us. MS. MESIANO: It appears to be five feet, the closest point of the at-grade deck. We could propose there to be stone set in sand so we still maintain drainage and have no wood structure there. That's an alternative that we could propose. That's certainly something that equipment can move over. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember that equipment doesn't have to be mechanized equipment, it could be fire lines, et cetera. MS. MESIANO: But that point is at five feet, but it is at grade. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason that you couldn't slant that deck off so it would glve you a little greater side yard? MS. MESIANO: We could do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're going to be hard pressed to fit two cars in it then because it's oblique. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's not a straight square, but I'm just looking at the deck MS. MESIANO: We had no choice but the oblique angle. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I raise a question about the garage and I appreciate the need for the oblique angle, there is a concern of the LWRP coordinator regarding the closest -- when you're ready. MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry. Mrs. Beninati is just pointing out a discrepancy here. She's telling me that what we're referring to as the proposed deck as it's shown on the survey lS a second floor balcony. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Over the garage, 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 7 1 7 coming out from the garage. MS. MESIANO: Okay. Lee on that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're not talking about the deck on the north side, you're talking about the garage now? MS. MESIANO: We have been talking about the rectangular structure on the east side, and Mrs. Beninati just informed me that although the survey calls that a proposed deck, it lS In fact a second story deck. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What's beneath it? MS. MESIANO: Nothing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That will be open land. So this is a deck that comes out about eight feet above the ground or so? MS. MESIANO: It would be eight to 10 feet and an open structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What approach to the deck come from? MS. MESIANO: That would house because it's proposed that would be over the garage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: also be part of the roof of that small area, or will it is that what it will be? MS. MESIANO: You have a set of plans In there. A lot of the finer details they haven't fully resolved because conceptually we needed to know what we could do before we spent a lot of money before fine-tuning the details of the structure. Because I questioned 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 will the From the house? come from the a master bedroom 12 13 e 14 So would the deck the garage as well, be a flat roof garage; 15 16 17 18 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't have plans, we don't have a schematic of what it might look look like. There's no diagram showing the second story deck, it doesn't give details of it. It shows elevations but it doesn't show anything more. MS. MESIANO: Well, at this point, what I would say to the Board is, we'll basically accept your recommendation on that because we are more concerned with the side yard setback because that will allow us to design the space that they're hoping to galn for inhabiting the house. As far as that deck that would be accessible from the room over the garage, if you want it open to the sky, we would give it to you open to the sky. If 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 8 1 5 you would allow a roof portion but not to be enclosed and not be heated, we would be satisfied with that. Again, our primary concern is the side yard setback and what the Board sees fit as far as allowing the utility of that deck is less important to us. I think -- do you have a preference? Would you like for it to be roofed over or is it shady enough that that doesn't make a difference? MS. BENINATI: about it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: difference. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question with regard to the dimensions of the deck, as it is on the plan it will be closer to the boundary line, that corner of the deck, than the proposed side of the garage would be? MS. MESIANO: Yes. then five feet but it would grade. I haven't even thought 2 . 3 4 6 7 Doesn't make a 8 9 10 11 The corner would be be eight feet off 12 . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would be good if you could slice that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would be good if that was sliced off. MS. MESIANO: We could live with that. MS. BENINATI: I'm Marie Beninati. I think it's strange because when you make that kind of cut, you lose all that space over to the right because it's an angle, it's a sharp angle. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: will the useable part of the deck be limited to that little rectangle or will that also include the roof of the garage? MS. BENINATI: I'm not sure about that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I haven't seen what the plan is for the garage, but if it were a peaked roof for the garage, obviously that couldn't be part of the deck, but if the deck were actually going to be 20 feet long because it was the entire roof of the garage, then that entire corner would be less crucial to your design, so I think we need to know that. MS. BENINATI: I really don't know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's clear at this point what you have is schematic plans. This lS Just a blocking diagram. It does callout second floor deck. It's in our packet. And these elevations are very schematic, but it shows flat 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 December 28, 2006 9 1 9 roof structure. That's as far as they have gotten. And you don't want to invest in finalized architectural plans until you understand what your setback will be. MS. BENINATI: I don't have to tell you we've already invested a substantial sum to get to this point. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's just a question if we have enough information on what you have done to be able to decide the zoning issue because your point about the effective size of the deck is an important one. And whether the deck is going to be limited to that little rectangle or whether you are going to have more space that would be relevant to a balancing of interests if it was felt that it would be desirable to have you slice off a corner of that deck that extends behind the garage. So, I would like to have more information about what the deck is going to look like from people who are sitting on the deck. MS. MESIANO: I think I could answer your question. We could reduce the overall width of the deck and instead of cutting it in a line parallel to the property line, we could cut that deck back so that it will still have a 90 degree angle, so we maintained the same setback as the corner of the garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That sounds very 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 good. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would certainly mitigate. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are the dimensions of the garage, Cathy, do you know? MS. MESIANO: The deck dimension is presently 18 by -- it's about 8 by 18, and I'm just going to strike that line so I can make a measurement. It would make it 15; it would be 8 by 15 rectangular instead of 18. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a second story deck open on the sides, right? MS. MESIANO: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And the ground floor is flush with the ground? MS. MESIANO: Yes. That will be flush with the ground, there's no structure under it. MS. BENINATI: It wouldn't be open on one 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 side. MS. MESIANO: Because that's where it December 28, 2006 10 1 7 attaches to the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No roof on it? MS. MESIANO: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other words, Mrs. Beninati, you're going to put a privacy effect going down causing a pr1vacy factor for you and then there will be straight railing going across? MS. BENINATI: Correct. And we are gOlng to put privacy shrubbery on the other side. Actually our neighbor is a friend, and he actually prefers the garage here to the only other place we could put it, because that would obstruct his house, basically. So he'd really rather see this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a nice spot down 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 there. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You will be losing some lovely pine trees in the process. The thing 1S with this side yard variance of seven feet, when you revegetate, when you create a landscape buffer, you're going to have to maybe talk to your neighbor about where to locate it because when those evergreens are mature, they're going to impinge upon that seven feet if it's on your property. So it will then narrow, 1n effect, the access so there has to be some care with how that gets planted. Just so it remains wide enough. MS. BENINATI: Right now there's bamboo and the bamboo crosses from his property to mine. 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You need a machete. Hope they like bamboo. MS. BENINATI: They do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess I'm trying to catch myself and find out if there are other places that would be acceptable to you to put this garage. I mean, to me it's an expansion of your house, it's not a garage; is that correct? MS. MESIANO: It's an addition to the house but the utility of the space on the first floor will be as a garage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. So it's not necessarily the garage that you need; is that -- it's the space? 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 December 28, 2006 11 1 9 MS. MESIANO: It's the bedroom space, and there's no place, there's no way to achieve everything that you needed by strictly going up. Giving up a bedroom downstairs again, limited the utility of the house. Since it will be their primary residence, a garage is more necessary than discretionary I would say. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, a garage could be put anywhere on this property? MS. MESIANO: No. We're extremely limited because of the wetlands setback. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about where the pool is? MS. MESIANO: We would be limited as well because while the Trustees have approved this we haven't get gotten past the DEC. And our probability of having the DEC approve the pool are not great; it's less than 50-50. If we are going to lose something, we'd rather lose the pool than the garage. So we'd be more comfortable giving up in a location where we may not get an approval. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. You're basically saying you're restricted, you couldn't put it in front of the house any place? MS. MESIANO: No, because the wetlands setback -- our wetlands setback at the closest point I think it 50 or 51 feet, and we're maintaining that. If we were to put it in the front we'd be losing some more substantial trees and we'd be much closer to the wetland line. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm talking towards Oakwood Drive. MS. MESIANO: No. Again, because the wetland line -- there is a shed on the driveway closer to the Oakwood. We have that area of the proposed pool, and again, if we measure 75 feet back from the wetland, that encompasses most of that area. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Looks to me like it encompasses the garage where you want to put it now also, I mean as far as the setback. MS. MESIANO: Correct. But the point with the garage where we put it now is that it maintains the existing setback from the wetlands. So I have a structure with a -- for argument's sake -- 50 foot setback, and I'm proposing an addition to that structure with a setback no less than what we presently have. That, the DEC would 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 S 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 2S, 2006 12 1 5 find more acceptable than my putting a new free-standing structure in an area that is within 75 feet of the wetland. That's a sure loser. The pool is, again, if we're going to gamble something, we'd rather lose the pool than the garage because the garage is more important to the utility of the structure as a primary residence. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't have a single car garage for what reason? MS. MESIANO: Again, principal structure, being able to utilize it fully because it's on an oblique angle, it's not a full two car garage, they're trying to get as much as they can out of the space. Again, it's utility of the property. If you're talking about a matter of one foot, Mr. Goehringer mentioned eight foot, if you're talking about one foot, I think we can accomplish that without sacrificing the utility of the property. But if we start cutting it back further then we have spent a lot of money building a structure that looks a little bit like what we had originally hoped for, but given the expense the utility is not equivalent to what 100 percent of the structure would have been. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How many bedrooms are you going to have? MS. MESIANO: There are three and will be 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 three. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: over this? MS. MESIANO: There will be one room over the structure that will be, I believe, a bedroom. There are three bedrooms and one of them downstairs is being given up to create a kitchen because there's not a normal kitchen. It's like a gaIly kitchen. It's not one what one would expect in a full time use primary residence. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not a subject of this hearing? I mean whether or not the kitchen or not doesn't make -- MS. MESIANO: That's part of the reason behind the whole thought process is giving up a bedroom for the kitchen and creating another bedroom. We're not adding another bedroom to the house. I'm talking about 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So what, the kitchen is going to be access inside the house; that's where it's going to go? December 28, 2006 13 1 2 MS. BENINATI: May I say something? We're not building a McMansion here. We're doing what's needed, as Cathy said, to kind of make it livable. It's a very small house, and to make it livable so we can live here year round. A garage is a necessity. Having the garage attached to the house as we get older is probably more important to us than a lot of other things we might opt for. As you can see, we respected all of the wetlands, and I think what Cathy's saying is absolutely right, anywhere else it's a very stranged shaped property, it's an odd shape, and there's wetlands all around. And the truth of the matter is, even with neighbors, there had to be an approval for setback that you wouldn't normally do. It's that area and the way things were built. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mrs. Beninati, don't take my questioning as being opposed to it. We need to set on the record your reasonlngs for having about a 55 percent variance. It's fairly important because people come In and ask for much less and we turn it down. I live in a house that's 40 by 20, okay, so what you're looking at, your house is a fairly large house. With that said, we need to establish the reasoning behind it. And my asking you to replace it by the pool, you giving me an answer makes sense to me, your answer makes sense to me but if those questions aren't answered we establish no record, so don't take that -- MS. BENINATI: No, I'm not. I just want you to know, we are not building a monster house here; we don/t want to. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's a fairly large house for that lot, quite honestly. I know it's an unusual shape, it's narrow, but it's a pretty good sized house for that lot. But that's neither here nor there. It's not a subject of this variance except for the fact that you want to add more living space, and you want to build close to the property line than what's allowed by the code. Just trying to establish some facts, and we'll make our decision on those facts to the answers that we get. MS. BENINATI: The existing lot coverage J,S really not BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's not before us, 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 14 1 5 it's just the kinds of consideration. May I raise a question, just to get absolutely clear, given the shape of the property and the position of the house and the garage, it's a two-car garage. That means there's going to be a corner of the garage closer to the property line which is not going to be accessible for a car; what use is proposed for it? 2 e 3 4 6 9 MS. MESIANO: Storage space. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the other side of the cars. Again, the reason why the south side of the garage is not parallel to the north side of the garage, i.e. the side of the house, can you go over the reasons why that is important? Is it just to have the extra storage space? MS. MESIANO: To have the extra storage space. Mr. Beninati collects antique cars, classic cars, and he would rather not pay for storage space off site, so he can keep his cars and his equipment on his property. And to further answer Mr. Dinizio's comments, the garage being attached to the house Marie brought up an important point, as one gets older it's more convenient. Also there's a safety factor if the garage were up by the road you've got a long gravel, uneven driveway. Traversing that in the middle of the winter in the dark lS a safety factor. 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I certainly will grant you, and I'm not particularly concerned, I understand the advantages of having an attached garage. Is this essentially going to be a mini shop? MS. MESIANO: Lee, can you answer that? MR. BENINATI: I'm Lee Beninati. That little extra space I like to use because you probably notice the size of my cars, if you notice my little Fiat. It's a little car, and I like to store. 17 18 19 20 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you can put a 22 little car in that corner? MR. BENINATI: Exactly. And that's basically it. Basically back it in in the winter and it never goes out. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the kind of answer -- I was looking for some sort of answer that would make some sense as to why this shape would be put in there. 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 15 1 2 MR. BENINATI: Which I would like to utilize as much as I can. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: to be able to have enclosed work on your car, and since garage anyway, why not make for you? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In addition, I must say that as someone whose profession is design, is architecture, aesthetics matter. That corner, that oblique corner is a part of an architectural vocabulary that will be forthcoming as you see your design develop, and I think people within reason as long as it's not enormous defiance of the zoning requirements have the right to be as creative with their architectural decisions as is possible. To me the infill of what you're proposing within the footprint of the existing deck is a very responsible and reasonable way to proceed with adding and enlarging space to your existing dwelling. I think the siting of these various things is perfectly reasonable, as you say, that in gaining optimal utility for the money you're investing. It is a very difficult site, you have water on three sides. It's a very fragile site. If I were on the DEC I'd be highly questioning a swimming pool in any location on that piece of property. But that isn't before us, that's just an obvious problem when you have to deal with excavation of a rather fragile wetland. Certainly I think the garage is much better placed where it is both in terms of adding living space to the second floor as well as clearly being able to enjoy the comforts of a garage that you have access in inclement weather. It's a long, long driveway and it would be difficult to traverse that driveway. MS. MESIANO: better, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) Essentially you want space to store and you're building a a wing to the garage e 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 I couldn't have said it 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing lS for the Reiblings on Island View Drive in Greenport. December 2S, 2006 16 1 2 Mr. Tohill. MR. TOHILL: Good morning, how are you? This is a difficult application. I don't think it's difficult legally, but that's only because I don't think it's difficult legally. So let me talk a little bit. The owners are here, the Reiblings are sitting next to me. They've been sitting there for a while. They've been in this process for five years, to renovate and upgrade this house they have lived in with their family 40 years. They would like to live there another 40 years. If you were to go out there and looked at it right now you'll see, the foundations, it actually is the same cinder block foundation that has been there for the last 40 years, however it's been improved with ribar and concrete, and it has been elevated so as to comply with the elevation requirements under FEMA and flood damage prevention. That work was done by Frank Summer, who is to my immediate right; he is the contractor on the job. And the design of the work was Meryl Kramer, who is sitting next to Frank Summer, who made the original presentation with respect to this property. The property, as you recall, lS on the water at 75 Island View Drive. It's a small -- less than 10,000 square feet lot in an R40 zone. So it comes in under the under 20,000 square foot standards under Section 280-124, and it requlres the rear yard or a side yard of 35 feet; it has only 13 feet. There's no problem on either of the side yards or is there a problem on the front yard, exceeds the requirements even though it's a small house about the same size as Jim Dinizio's house, I heard that, that's a coincidence. In any event, there was an application here that the understanding -- I wasn't here -- but the understanding from everybody I've spoken to was that what the Board was entertaining at the time was an application with a rear yard variance 35 feet, 13 preexisting conditions -- it was a Walz application -- and a reduction of the 75 foot under Section 280-116 down to 13 feet. It was understood that the house that was there would remaln and that the second story under Walz would be the lncrease in volume and the increase In the degree of nonconformity. There were DEe approvals, there were Health Department approvals, e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 17 1 2 there were Trustee approvals and the work started. When the work started, the contractor was following a set of plans, and I'm going to hand them up (handing). I'm actually going to hand up what is the actual approved Building Department set of plans, and I'm going to hand up an extra set. I'm going to ask that the set that's marked Exhibit D be kept as part of the record. The extra set, which we'll put over on this side of the table so people can follow the conversation, I'd like it back because it's the only remaining set that we have. When I do this I'm going to also hand up at the time a copy of your decision, because it should be made part of your record; I'm going to hand up a copy of the actual application of the building permit, which lS the beginning of the problem. You'll notice on the second page, Paragraph 3, describes the nature of the work: "New building and repair." So here it starts. Then you come to the building permit itself, and the plot thickens as they say 80 miles to the west of us. Some day when I write my memoirs this is going to be one of the chapters for sure. This is the building permit, and it's a building permit not for a new construction, which is what the application is for. It's for adds/alter, translation I think addition and alteration. Then here's the set of drawings, which is the approved set of drawings. With your permission I'm going to hand all of this up right now and talk about the drawings. If you look at the Drawing A3 you'll see that it calls out a new foundation. So to have a new foundation on the existing house, obviously the house that was there had to be lifted and placed back on. If you look at A5, and you look on the right side of A5 there's an arrow pointed back at the wall on the first floor, and it calls out typical construction. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Typical exterior wall? MR. TOHILL: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. TOHILL: If you parse that out, you'll see first there will be new siding; there was asbestos siding that had to be removed, so new siding. The second thing is there had to be new sheathing, so that's new plyboard on the outside half-inch plyboard, whatever was there would be . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 18 1 2 removed. There was to be new insulation, there was no insulation. This was a house that was built as a summer house years ago. There was to be new half-inch drywall, you see this spec called out. Now I'm inside the house where I'm starting to put in drywall. And it was to be put on 2 by 6 studs. There are no 2 by 6 studs on that house. They were 2 by 4 at best, and they were to be on 16 inch centers. Nothing was on 16 inch centers. If you turn to page -- I'm sorry, on the same page, if you look at the height of the first floor, it would be on the left side instead of the right side where we were just looking at that note. It's called out at nine feet; in fact, the house was seven and a half feet. So when the contractor started to do his work, the first thing that he saw was the carpenter ants had removed a good portion of the old 2 by 4 studs, and that he could not safely or prudently in his judgment place a second story on top of that kind of timber. tit 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Second thing is that the timber was essentially all rotted out, throughout the whole structure the house had been exposed to weather; it had never been insulated or properly sealed. So the material once he uncovered it, that he was working on it as he was removing it in order to comply with the specs, he didn't see much that he was going to be able to either preserve and work with, sistering wasn't there as a reasonable path for him. And the reason is there was nothing for him to safely sister. There was no sill plate for him to work with to settle. The house once lifted up back down on this new foundation. So the bottom line is that he continued to work, continued to do what he was doing and the house ended up largely in the dumpster. He then called for a foundation inspection. He called for the foundation inspection. He asked Gary Fish to come by and look at my work, and when Gary Fish got there, he sat in his car and he looked through the car window, and he saw that the house was removed. And the next thing that happened is that he issued -- Pat Conklin actually at his direction issued a notice of disapproval, which I have marked as Exhibit E, and in the course of doing that, she cites the Walz decision, the famous Walz decision, which I have marked as Exhibit F. Both tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 19 1 2 of those I'd like to make part of the record. They're important because that notice of disapproval is saying that what happened here is a violation of Walz, when In fact after parsing out the drawings I'm not so sure it lS a violation of Walz. I know that I'm here -- and the name of my chapter, by the way, in my memoirs, is going to be called "Regulatory Miscommunication." And here it lS. You reviewed a set of drawings under Walz with the understanding that the first floor was gOlng to remain when nobody put all the two and twos together, nobody connected all the dots, seven and a half feet doesn't equal nine feet, the timber is terrible; there's no insulation; there's carpenter ants throughout; there's no sill plate; that's not your job, by the way, you're not GCs. You're not CMs. You're not In the business of gOlng out into the field with high boots. So the bottom line is when all of this happened, the contractor who's doing the right thing by these property owners who have been there for a long time, he was criticized by Gary Fish. And he was told he did the wrong thing. Pat Conklin's memo says he violated Walz. There is no increase in the vertical mass, if there lS no increase In the volume, if there is not horizontal expansion, there lS no violation of Walz. And the reason lS just read the decision in Walz, and you will see that that's the exact language that you use in Walz. I'm looking at Paragraph 3, it says, "If the new construction, remodeling, reconstruction or addition to a nonconforming building creates a new area of nonconformance where none existed before, the degree of the building's nonconformity will be increased." So what you were doing when Walz was originally written was taking the concept of increase of degree of nonconformity and translating it the way three or four other municipalities in the state have translated it, including by the way, the City of New York prior to the introduction of the floor-area ratio local law. It's exactly the way they translate it. Any increase in volume would be considered increase in the degree nonconformity. However, here there's a variance that has been granted by this Board, part of the miscommunication, where the varlance that was e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 20 1 2 granted did not have expressed conditions saying that the first floor had to remain exactly the way it was despite the set of drawi~gs that were approved when the variance was approved. In other words, that set of drawings is the set of drawings that's part of the record of the variance application; that's the original set of drawings. Then they're approved by the Building Department, nobody ever seeing that these problems were absolutely likely, if not certain to occur. And they now have occured, and the property owner has been told by the Trustees, pay $1,000 to the Justice Court; I have a check here for $1,000 payable to the Justice Court. They're here because the Building Department has issued a Stop Work Order. I don't think they're in violation of Walz. The house that's under construction, the foundation is exactly where the foundation was before. The only difference is it's higher, 8.3 feet high, and then if you add two sill plates and the joists, you'll create a bottom floor joist of 9.3 -- I'm sorry, it's 7.3. It needs to be eight. It's gOlng to be 8.3 when it's finished, in order to be three inches above base floor elevation. So that's exactly what everybody approved, Building Department and ZBA. The first floor is not going to be different from the first floor on those drawings for which a building permit was issued, and the second floor will be exactly what you allowed under Walz to exist. So that if this lS translated under Walz, somebody's in the wrong department. This is not a Walz case anymore at all. At best this is the case where the variance was granted; there were misunderstandings or there was miscommunication without any question, but the property owner achieved absolutely no advantage. The property owner is simply going to get the same house they had before except that it's going to be new materials. The government, I suspect, this Board in particular, the government is not gOlng to ask a property owner to put that second floor that you approved on top of a first floor that this contractor, who has been here for a few years, says it was falling down. That wasn't in the cards at all when you granted the variance. There is no public purpose to telling people, whether you're in the Building Department or any e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 21 1 6 part of Town government, to build the second floor only on top of rotted out first floor; that's what happened. That's the whole of the story here. It's not something where anybody got anything out of it other than a lot of aggravation, a lot of expense. There is one case out of the Second Department called Hoffman versus Gunther. It's not easy to find a case with this set of facts, but this is the closest I could come. In this case the Second Department Appellate Division said, the proper remedy here when this kind of thing happens is to direct the Building Department to issue an amended permit and that's what we're asking. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Tohill, can I just mention something? Along about six or eight months ago we had a series of two applications, one of which was in New Suffolk, one of which was in Nassau Point, and both of which had some very interesting similarities, so to speak. And we began at that particular time and I'm going to say I began -- several of us on the Board began -- to look at the situation and say, and ask the property owner: Is this application going to include a partial demolition, a full demolition, whatever the case might be. The property owner in Nassau Point came back to us and said, I'd really like to ask for a full demolition because it's costing me 47 percent more for this sistering and all this other schmaltz you have to go through, and so based upon the New Suffolk situation, and based upon the Nassau Point situation, we are now, I am now asking that question. And possibly in this particular case, I have to tell you that Meryl Kramer's been before us many, many times. She's a wonderful, wonderful person in her presentation and in what she tells us. She does work on some smaller projects, meaning smaller lots particularly in that particular area. And this was not a question that was asked at that particular time because we know there's deterioration, particularly anything that is open faced to the water. There is going to be deterioration based upon either substandard construction in the past or deterioration by water. So in some respects, this may not be an lssue that comes before us in the future based on those particular questions we ask now based upon 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 22 1 9 those two particular cases that we had. MR. TOHILL: I think under Section 122 of the Town Code, what happened here is actually permitted. It says that you're allowed to reconstruct provided you don't lncrease the degree of nonconformity. If you parse this out, there lS actually no lncrease In the degree of nonconformity. I understand what Gary was doing at the job site. Gary's written a building permit that says "add/alt". He sees completely new construction. He could see the bay when he pulled up, that's not adds and alts, but if you look the at building permit application, it says new construction. If you look at the drawings, really look at the drawings the way we did this morning, that's not adds and alts, that's new construction. So here's the problem: If the Board doesn't have a FAR -- Floor Area Ratio -- local law doesn't have a pyramid law, neither does here. There's been article for Suffolk Times where I collect them assuming I'm going to see something enacted before I die or retire. If you had that, you would not need the Walz view of the increase in the degree of nonconformity, and the reason is it becomes much clearer. So now you have the Walz doctrine here and you follow it as consistently as you do, if someone's gOlng to come In and they're only going to add a second floor, and that is a increase in volume then maybe the decisions In the future would callout that the applicant represented, and that if something happens that the applicant would stop work on his own, and return to the Board and that the situation would be evaluated. So it puts you in a bad situation because if you look at the four corners of the decision, it doesn't have any expressed condition that the first floor actually remaln. It was sort of benignly understood. You look at the building drawings, the building drawings callout essentially new construction. Typical is typical so the contractor lS following exactly what the drawings do. The Building Department didn't connect any of this and then Gary Fish says not on my watch that this is going to happen. Go back to the ZBA because what is a mother to do. What is anybody to do with this situation? Bottom line, bad experience. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem I take it 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 23 1 2 and I think we probably agree, and I think this lS what you're arguing lS procedural and not substantive. MR. TOHILL: Let's parse it out. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me, Mr. Tohill, we never get did get plans like this. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's another file, and that's what happened, the Building Department checked with the Zoning Board office. They looked at our file of everything, and the maps that we had showed loft over existing first floor. There was no mention of any of the other work that was done. So the Building Department said if the Zoning Board didn't grant this substantial demo, then we can't amend the building permit, and that's why we're here. MR. TOHILL: Okay, let's parse it out. order to get here there ought to have been a set of drawings before the Building Department in order for the disapproval or denial to get you the jurisdiction as the Zoning Board of Appeals. So it sounds to me like some steps got skipped here. So let's go back to your question, the Board's jurisdiction, as Kieran will tell you, lS area variances, use variances, special permits if you had that particular authority under the code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do. MR. TOHILL: There we go. under certain circumstances. What today? Don't answer too quickly. actually none of the above. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Change of In e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 Interpretations are we here for There is 17 18 circumstances. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: May I try to understand, because I didn't before today have previous familiarity with this application. I'm gathering that this applicant came before the Board, got a Walz variance in the first instance because they required that; there was an lncrease in the degree of nonconformance. There was some representation, the degree of which I'm not certain, that this was needed because we want to build over the existing single story home. So one question let's flag for a moment and I'll come back to it. Would the ZBA have made the same decision had there not been that representation; had they been told at that time we're going to oemo and build a new house, would the ZBA have 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 24 1 9 granted that same house or would they have required they put it somewhere else. That's an lssue. So it is represented they're going to rebuild over the existing story. They grant the variance. We go out into the world, we start building and they realize they can't. And I don't think anyone here would suggest that you should build over a floor that shouldn't be built over. But someone said, hey, you were supposed to leave that first floor, not demo it, so you're really doing something you're not supposed to be doing. We're going to send you back to the ZBA to make sure they're going to stand by their decision now that they know that first floor lS not going to be staying there. So I think what the ZBA has to decide today is, knowing what we know now, which is that the first floor is not going to be there anymore, are we going to stick with that decision to allow that Slze house to stay in that location; is that right? MR. TOHILL: Except what the problem is, it's a hindsight analysis. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Although that's not the fault of this Board, and it may not even be the fault of the Building Department or the Town whatsoever. Somebody should have made an analysis whether that floor was going to be able to carry another floor on top of it. MR. TOHILL: I don't think the Board lS at 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 fault. 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not a matter of fault, it's a matter of what should have been done, and what would we have done. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. So this Board is put in the position of making hindsight analysis, but it's really been put In that position by the applicant. MR. TOHILL: I think by circumstances that developed afterwards. The applicant wasn't there. The applicant's up in Westchester. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The applicant and their agents. It's for them to figure out whether that first floor is going to be able to handle a second floor or not. MR. TOHILL: If there were an advantage I'd follow that analysis better. There's no advantage here at all. They're getting back what they started with albeit new timber, but that's 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 25 1 9 what the plans effectively -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, although you have to understand, which I'm sure you do, is sometimes people come before this Board and say, we want what we want, where we want it because we already have a preexisting footprint, and we're going to keep it, and it's gOlng to cost too much to tear it down and rebuild it somewhere else so please glve it to us where it is, even though you prefer it somewhere else. MR. TOHILL: What I'm worried about from the Board's perspective isn't that one, it's a different one. The one I'm worried about from the Board's perspective is the intentional misrepresentation; that one would bother me much more. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Intentional or not, there lS still an issue. And we have had a case, an embattled case involving a variance for a renovation of a house which was In a place which the Board would never have approved de novo. As soon as they got started, they realized that the existing foundation, which they were going to build on, it was a demo, keeping the foundation, had to be completely replaced. They went ahead and tried to build on that place after redoing the foundation, a Stop Work order was given, and they have had to move the house because what we approved was conditional on the impracticability of moving the house to a place which it turns out they were planning to do anyway, and they were proceeding without a permit until a Stop Work order was issued. It didn't depend on whether we suspected that they knew it was going to be necessary or not. A house was being built at a place where it should not have been. I think the argument that needs to be made here is even if there were was full knowledge and even if the demolition had been put in at that case, the Board can consider would it have approved the house as planned right, now on the foundation that now exists. I think that is the material question before us. We don't have to get into questions of fault or intention. MR. TOHILL: Nobody's talking fault. It's a question of miscommunication at best. Nobody got an advantage here. If anything the property owner's been put through tremendous additional 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 26 1 9 expense. I'm here. The Trustees are charging $1,000 payable to the Justice Court. The process has been five years underway between the DEC, the Health Department, the Trustees, here, and now this is a position they're in. It's a regulatory nightmare. You didn't design it. They didn't design it. None of us designed it. We're stuck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I by design, quite honestly, Mr. Tohill, decision is directly to blame for your However, we have to live with that. MR. TOHILL: Were you here? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was here until the day it was implemented then I was gone. However, and Jerry brought up a good point that I hadn't remembered, and that is about this sistering pretending that we're adding on, doing an addition when we're actually rebuilding a house doesn't seem to make any sense to me either. And although in our decision, I just read it, that we did say that it would be over an existing first floor and Mr. Fish did drive up and not see an existing first floor. So that certainly is a problem. I'm not sure that the building inspector didn't think that we tore down a house that had nonconformities, now we're back to square one. I know that they think that way. That may have been his reason now for saying, okay, now you've got to go back. I didn't hear you address that. I don't know that you thought about that. It seems to me that when we get applications such as this. That's the immediate thing, if you have a nonconformity and it no longer exists you have to get a variance. MR. TOHILL: been moved. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I wouldn't argue it, but I think that's what his thinking is, and that's why you're here before us. But I have to concur with Jerry that this sistering and this adding on to houses just simply because it looks like we're applying the law has really got to stop. In some way we have to come to grips when we make our decisions. MR. TOHILL: On your end, I agree with you. I don't know the solution, I don't know how you fix it. think it is the Walz situation. 2 tit 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 Except the foundation hasn't 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 December 28, 2006 27 1 2 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You throw Walz out, and you get a law that's applied in the code, but that's besides the point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When we have situations like this, you know they're going to reconstruct above, that we're going to have to require an engineer's report stating that the foundation is sufficient to withstand the building of first or second floor. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not the subject of our application; we deal with variances; we deal with distances, not necessarily structure. And if the application makes a representation to us that this building will withstand whatever it is; that's their representation. If they do so and then they find out that they can't, that's not our decision. We shouldn't be asking for engineering reports based on distance. MR. TOHILL: I was asked when I was wearing Keiran's hat for another municipality to fix this exact problem, and the way I did it was I went to the City of New York and I recreated their floor-area ratio local law, and then I created a schedule of lot sizes similar to Section 124 of the Zoning Ordinance and sliding schedule. So when the property owner comes In instead of an engineer's report to you, it's an engineers or architect's report to the building inspector and they do the analysis of the cubic feet, and then they're allowed or not allowed, and if they're not allowed, then they have to come to the ZBA. And then it's a pure area variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it's based on the person in town who can make those decisions, i.e. the building inspector, not an architect, guy who works for government, not Ruth makes nice muffins, and Jim Dinizio -- do you know what I mean? It's made specifically on someone's knowledge. Ruth says we should start requiring engineering reports -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have done that in the past, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hopefully we would not continue to do that. MR. TOHILL: It would be nice not to have to do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is untenable to e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 28 1 2 be placed In a position, property owner or architect or contractor to try to put good money into bad materials. It's simply not a reasonable proposition. The plans you submited are dated 5/3/04 with a progress of 4/6/2006. Had I seen these to begin with, I would have said it's a total reconstruction to bring it up to code essentially. So that the interior, the floor to ceiling height is to code and so on. MR. TOHILL: You know what BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have described the procedural problems very well, I think Keiran summarized it very accurately. The only reason that we would want to understand an engineer's report, a structural report would have to do primarily with the idea of additional degree of nonconformity. Whether that's a feasible thing to do if you're putting a second story on, for example, and it's increasing the degree of nonconformity in so granting that, are we going to be assured that that's what we're granting or that we should be allowing the individual to reconstruct. MR. TOHILL: You just gave me an idea. If you're going to continue with Walz and you have a Walz application, make the property owner have a set of drawings as a condition for the Board's review. That's different, Jim, from an engineer's report. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When someone knows how to study these documents, and there's a good reason for them being drawn, then it's very clear. These documents communicate very precisely exactly what the intentions are, not text, it's all in the measurement. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, that lS not the purview of this Board. We're supposed to review. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Walz it is. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We are supposed to review the building inspector's notice of disapproval. That is it. We don't go any further than that. We don't even need the plan as long as we know what the distances are. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It depends. If you are not inclined to grant a variance because you don't want it where the person wants it to be, Only relative to 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 29 1 2 and you are inclined to make them move it someplace else, then that's when the plans become relevant; that's when you would be looking to see if there's a hardship to that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would agree. But that would be part of the hearing when Ruth bangs the gavel. Before that you don't have to require every applicant or any applicant to have anything other than what they're requesting. After we request something then, yes. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can follow whatever procedure you think is most expedient. Where we are now right now, it's all a little bit hypothetical and theoretical. Right now you have to decide are you okay with where they want to build this new house whether it's a reconstruction, whatever you want to call it, they're building a new house in this spot; are you okay with it? Or are you offended with where it's going to be and want to require some other condition? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Keiran. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't either. But I do think we can ask the question as Jerry says, hey, is this gOlng to be a tear-down? I know Leslie does it once in a while. They say it's not gOlng to be, they live up to that, they come before us. It's no one's fault but their e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 own. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sometimes the problem is you really want it to be a reconstruction or a sistered up situation, and a because you don't know in advance what you're going to get when you tear into a wall, you cannot always predict that. If you take extreme measures and you do a little pre-construction demo, you can find out about conditions of termites and so on. But that's a whole other process that lS not now required. We can't sit here and legislate from the bench. We follow what the codes are, and if we don't like them we try to change them. And I think we have all the information we could possibly get. MR. TOHILL: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have a happy New Year. Is there anyone else In the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 30 1 2 I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application lS for the Reeds on Private Road in East Marion. They have had a little problem also with where the shed is placed. Is there anybody here to speak on this application? MS. REED: Good morning. Maggi-Meg Reed and this is my husband Michael Schubert. We're here hoping to speak for ourselves. I believe you have the application in front of you for our request for a variance. This concerns an as-built utility shed on our property. It was built -- a variance was requested for it to be built at less than the traditional 40 foot, at a 35 foot distance from the technical front yard lot line, and it was built. However, what was determined after the fact was that the individual who measured it on behalf of the architect approximated the distance because the measurement would have gone into a heavy brush area that nobody could climb through so the distance ended up being closer to 32 feet instead of 35 feet. It was information that none of us knew at the time. It had already been built. It was an after the fact variance, so we're asking to correct that at this point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You say fact. A varlance was given and what not consistent with the variance; is you're saying? MR. SCHUBERT: Yes, actually MS. REED: Actually, the building was built on the recommendation of the architect. The application, it was then determined after the fact that we needed to request a variance. MR. SCHUBERT: The architect drafted a variance based on the as-built building and he mismeasured the distance in that variance that was approved, but when the person came to check it and measured there was a two or three foot discrepancy. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you're asking that the record be changed to conform to what exists where, in fact, what exists would probably by your after the was built that what was 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 31 1 2 argument would not be problematic had it been properly described in the first place? MR. SCHUBERT: That's sounds right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that's not what they're asking for. Okay, you were granted a variance to build the building. MS. REED: Had they applied for the correct measurement variance in the first place that would have been granted. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I won't say that you misrepresented that; I will say that it was built in a place other than the place that we approved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not the place, the setback. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We approved a certain setback. It was not 32 feet from that property line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, 35. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, but you built lS 32 feet from the property line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He thought it was 35. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, that's okay, you're going to have your shed. Don't get upset. I don't want anyone to say or this Board to think that it was in any way your doing or in any way the Board's doing. MS. REED: The building was constructed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't get through the brush to make this measurement. So all you need now is a variance from 35 to 32 and you're on your way, correct? MS. REED: That's the issue. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're clear on that. Thank you. MR. SCHUBERT: We're not architects. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Believe me neither e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 am I. 21 MR. SCHUBERT: We are just here trying to clean up what was left. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you selling the house; what made you come to this point? MS. REED: The Building Inspector came to issue the certificate of occupancy and measured it himself. MR. SCHUBERT: And it doesn't match the variance that was granted. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 32 1 2 change of use of the building; it's still a shed, it will remain a shed? MS. REED: There's no change of use. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Moving that building over a couple feet it serves no purpose. MS. REED: The difficulty in moving it is there's a very large cherry tree just in front of it. So it wouldn't be possible to move it in the opposite direction. We entertained that the first time around with the initial variance, that's why it can't be put into a different position. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But to restate Leslie's question, are you saYlng that even if there were reasons against moving it, were there any good purposes even if there could be a cost less move? Is there anything wrong with it where it is now? MS. REED: No. There lS nothing wrong with where it lS now, other than the fact that it's closer than it should be to the technical front yard line. MR. SCHUBERT: If you were to come to the property, you would see that it's not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We all saw it. MS. REED: The access is actually from the side yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I must admit as I was walking around the property, I had to go back and look at the plans, and I looked around and I said, what lS the problem, and I had to read the plans to see what the problem was in the application. MS. REED: It is that three foot distance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It isn't something that sticks out that leads people to say, as we do In other cases, how did they ever get away with that. There is no that. MS. REED: There is no glaring error here, it's after the fact. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else here to speak for or against this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing lS for the Mears on Dean Drive In Cutchogue. They want to put a deck addition. How are you? December 28, 2006 33 1 2 9 MS. MEARS: I'm Maryann Mears and I'm here with my brother David Mears and our neighbor Don Suter, who is president of the Beachwood Colony Association. We would like to add a deck to our existing bungalow on Dean Drive, which is a little bungalow that is almost 100 years old. The variance that we are seeking is to go too close to the property line on either side. The lots are very narrow. I think the best thing is to look at the photographs and the plan. We've wanted to build this deck for many, many years, and it's really a matter we enjoy the decks of our neighbors on either side have added to their bungalows, we want to do the same kind thing. You will see the photographs showing my daughter standing holding a spar or mast from a Sunfish. She's standing on the property line, you can see this is the property line to our neighbors to the east, and it runs under the eve of our bungalow; and then you'll see the neighbors to the other side, the Taylors' house, again, the property line runs under the eve of the house. If you look at our bungalow and the design of the deck, we have actually angled it so it angles away from the McAlions, the property line to the east. And we have actually designed the deck so that we believe it's aesthetically pleasing, which is extremely important to us, and is accommodating as much as possible the existing property lines, and the alternative would be to pick up the house and move it but that's really not practical. If you look at the Taylors' deck, their deck, the line of it angles right along the property line, and that was the accommodation we all agreed to when they built theirs a number of years ago. So I think that In a nutshell is the case. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is your existing setback on the east side one foot also? MS. MEARS: The eve of the house overhangs. It's probably negative one foot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just 5.6, which it exists on the corner of the house, which will then end up 9.4 at its closest point where the deck starts, I would suggest to the Board that no other construction exist on that side at any time to provide the access to the water side. MS. MEARS: I'm sorry, you're talking e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 34 1 9 about the west side of the house? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MS. MEARS: So nothing more beyond the deck, correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's nlce you kept it pretty much in line with the existing overhang of the house. Unfortunately you only have 5.6 that exists. It's important to keep that side yard open. MS. MEARS: Yes. And we actually use that to wheel the Sunfish back and forth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And of course to leave the deck open at the same time. You're proposing an open deck? MS. MEARS: Yes. It's an open deck and it will be just at 29 inches, so we won't even need to have a railing except by the steps. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I met the president of your association there. Perhaps you want to speak for yourself then. MR. SUTER: I am the president of the homeowner's association. We talked to a number of folks, this goes on in our development all the time. We have lots of small houses with strange angles. I think everybody's very comfortable with them putting a deck In. Most of us have decks there. I think everybody feels what they have done lS very accommodating, and I think both neighbors have written notes supporting their efforts. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions. This is all a consequence of very, very narrow and long, long lots where the houses, cottages are sited diagonally rather than parallel to the lot line. So I think it's a perfectly reasonable proposal, I agree, as long as that one side yard remains open for access. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If I read this site plan correctly, if the deck did not extend the entire length of a house at that point, and it ended earlier, there would be much more of a setback than as proposed on this plan? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not really. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The corner of the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 35 1 2 house is very close to the lot line and then I see the corner of the deck, is that the exact same distance? e 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One foot proposed. 4 Same. 5 MR. SCHUBERT: The line of the deck is actually further away from the lot line than the corner of the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the map I'm looking at may be inaccurate, it was a very minor amount, I was just curious about it. MS. MEARS: The corner of the house overlaps the property line and the deck will be set back from the property line. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you take the edge of the house, the part that lS already on the neighbor's property, then of course the deck lS farther back. MS. REED: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mrs. Bower who wishes a side yard variance for a shed. MS. BOWER: I have my affidavit of posting, and these are the only four that came back out of six. This is for my neighbor who away on vacation. She asked me to deliver it you (handing). CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: just describe to us why you accessory shed in the front move it? is 16 17 to 19 20 Thank you. Would you have the as-built yard, why you can't 21 22 MS. BOWER: It could be moved at a great expense with a crane or a cherry picker or something. Because of the topography of our yard, it slopes in the front and slopes in the back. And in the back are the cesspools, you couldn't drive a vehicle to move it by truck; and in the front you couldn't drive a vehicle to move it by truck either, it would falloff, which we discussed this with the gentleman who delivered 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 36 1 2 it. e 3 I really want to just tell you folks how we got into this fine mess in the first place. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MS. BOWER: We had heard through the grapevine that you did not need a permit for a shed if it was less than 100 square feet. MR. BOWER: Heard it from the Building Department from the Town. MS. BOWER: But we wanted to go right to the horse's mouth, I sent my husband down to the Building Department to just make sure that was in fact true. He went down and told them he was about to put a deposit on a shed, it's 96 square feet, does he need a permit and what did they tell you? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. BOWER: it's under 100. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's true, but you didn't ask them where you could put it, or they didn't ask you where you were going to put it? MR. BOWER: Well, the lady said generally in the backyard, and where it is now it technically is our backyard. MS. BOWER: It's behind the house, it's In the rear of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You front yards, you are on Horton just the way your property is. kind of stuck. MS. BOWER: We're kind of stuck, but if we had known that we were in that situation, we may have skipped the whole thing all together or just built the shed in the back because it was a very good buy. He said, oh, I couldn't buy the materials to build this thing so let's just purchase it all together. That's the situation. MR. BOWER: And it wasn't from China. MS. BOWER: It was built up until Calverton. That's one aspect of the situation, and the other aspect is we do have a full acre we're dealing with, but because of our restraints, the wetland restraints, we have a nonturf disturbance of only 10 feet from our foundation. So we couldn't really put it anywhere else. There's one corner to the north -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: East, that little No permit required as long as 11 12 13 e 14 15 really have two and on Soundview, So you're really 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 37 1 2 section where you have the evergreens there. MS. BOWER: No. It couldn't go In front where the evergreens are, but initially we thought In the back, towards the Hawkins property, just the little Tudor house, but it would mean taking down the few trees that we have between Mrs. Hawkins and ourselves, and there aren't many trees left standing on that section, but also because of the way the Hawkins driveway drains, it's very unstable there. It's like mush. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because they have a brick driveway and everything runs off. MS. BOWER: Runs down there and you couldn't put a structure in there without putting In fill and also cutting down all the trees. So it would make our land there look like Levittown or something instead of what it is, and it wouldn't be fair to the Hawkins. And Mrs. Hawkins, who lS the only adjacent neighbor, she's very pleased with it. She was happy from the first day. She thinks it's adorable. She's glad we didn't put it In the back because it wouldn't take away from her aesthetic point of Vlew. That's it, that's our story. I don't know what else I can tell you. Just if I can read from the application. The home that we built is a reproduction of a classic 17th century saltbox, and the out-building or shed lS in keeping with the size and style of outbuildings that were In use in those days, and can be found on nearby historical buildings throughout Southold. And particularly on Horton's Lane, at the old Conway farm. And the benefit sought by us cannot be achieved by some method feasible for us to pursue other than the variance because of the building envelope restriction, the location of the septic system, the unyielding topography and the drainage lssues from the adjacent property. My property consists of 40,466 square feet. I am only utilizing 11,000 square feet. I'm talking about my buildings and the actual property that we're allowed to walk on and exist on. We're not even talking about the three-quarters of an acre that the Highway Department lS using for drainage and it's supposed to be wetlands. So that's the story. You guys have all the photographs and stuff. We do plan to dress it up. We had planned to put a fieldstone . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 38 1 2 foundation under the shed because the way it's sitting, it's up on cinder blocks in back because of the hill, we were going to fashion it so it's more attractive. Right now you see it sticking up out of the ground on the cinder blocks. We were also going to put a row of trees, evergreens behind it, so the neighbors couldn't see it from across the street or the road; that was our plan but we stopped because we wanted to see the outcome of this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mrs. Bower, we have a situation previously where the site plan that was submitted, you submitted one with your application, that was drawn in by hand and not by a licensed surveyor. I presume what you submitted to us was your measurement and you drew that In on here; lS that correct? MS. BOWER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I feel I must on the record say this lS not a legal document because it was not done by a licensed surveyor, so we cannot absolutely accept the dimensions that you have provided us with to make a determination. MS. BOWER: It's unfortunate because the surveyor that we came to use for our building project, he was instrumental in getting the building envelope approved by the Trustees. He proved to be incompetent. What he did was actually gave an additional five feet to the north to the wetlands, so we actually lost usable land. And he made numerous mistakes. We had to go back and to go back and back. I did not want to hire him for this project. I did not want to hire him for anything ever again. I think his license should be removed. I have heard other folks, you know, through the grapevine, our builder actually had a stop work order because another big blunder that he made. So I would have to go through great expense to hire a new architect to draw this up for 96 square feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don't need an architect, you need a surveyor. And usually amended surveys don't cost that much. You're not starting from scratch. They will take your existing survey. They don't necessarily have to redo the entire thing. Having said that, I just wanted that on the record because it needs to be . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 39 1 9 made clear to applicants that when setbacks are being examined, we can only operate on information that is provided us through a licensed surveyor. You can appreciate why. This lS testimony that requires expertise. My yardstick and your yardstick may be off by where a rock is placed. We might slightly vary. MS. BOWER: No. My husband has been in construction his whole life, and I was a licensed real estate appralser for 10 years. So a yard stick is not foreign to me. I am used to measuring buildings. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We're talking about legally supportable standards. Not about people's accuracy as measurers. MS. BOWER: I see. But in my view of the world, you can hire a expert and the expert can screw up. And this guy screwed up for us. So I thought I might as well do it myself. I will get a better job and not cost anything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think I agree with Leslie. You must have a legally surveyed piece of paper for us and for your own sake, too. MS. BOWER: I'm curious why. I didn't apply for the swimming pool. The pool company did that, we just had put it In over the summer, and that wasn't required to be CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you didn't require a variance. MS. BOWER: Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ralse a question. What I'm saying is really independent of the question of whether we actually decide that the house, the shed can stay exactly where it is or whether it would have to be moved. But with regard of the confusion, apparently failures of communication, what the facts are on the grounds, yes, your property, your shed lS considered In a front yard because of a technical reason, because you're on a corner, it has two front yards. But if you look at the house and you look at the area where you say you don't have any access, if anybody who didn't know anything about that looked to see what is your front yard -- MS. BOWER: They wouldn't tell. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. They would see where the shed lS because the other front yard lS not even by eyeballing a candidate for the front 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 40 1 8 yard. This is not a question that this is a technical front yard where the shed is; it's also the visible front yard because it's the only front yard you have access to. Every house has to have a front yard. So that question about the two front yards becomes somewhat of less relevance in this particular case. So then the issue comes that if you did not ask the Building Department and they didn't tell you whether you could put this shed less than 100 square feet anyplace you wanted to on your property, whether that thereby freed you up to put it anyplace you wanted to on your property, and that is the issue before us. Secondly, the fact that your neighbor may very well prefer the shed where it lS now, says that she would probably prefer it less if it were were actually where it was legally allowed. So again, the force of that argument is not overpowering. So I think what we really have to decide is whether given all this, what is the hardship involved; what are the possibilities of moving the shed where it is now. As it stands now, it reminds me of a guard house that you sometimes see right up by the front yard of a large estate because it doesn't look like it's on the property. It looks as though it's almost as close to the road as you can possibly put it. MS. BOWER: It appears that way. But I just want to take a point on your point that if you say that we have no use of this front yard so that the area where the shed lS lS our front yard -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn't say you had no use for it; I just said you can't build on it. MS. BOWER: Well essentially then, to my mind, we don't really have a front yard on Soundview Avenue. I mean, we don't have -- so essentially we don't have a corner property any more. So we're not subject to any of this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So are you saying you don't have any front yard? MS. BOWER: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn't mean that seriously. Your argument would depend upon assuming that you had no front yard. And I'm not sure I'm persuaded by that. MS. BOWER: There are some issues pending on this whole situation of this front yard that 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 41 1 9 fronts on Soundview Avenue. It may be in the future not our front yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes? MS. BOWER: It's a long story, but -- MR. BOWER: If I move it into the backyard I don't need a survey. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you don't need a variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you don't need a variance, you don't need a survey. MS. BOWER: So essentially we need a survey, and from your point of view, Mr. Simon, you think it looks terrible BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn't say it looks terrible. MS. BOWER: -- and the argument has not any validity at all. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm saying I agree with your neighbor that it is fairly attractive, but it is very hard to get around the point that it is not where anybody else lS allowed to put a shed In this town without a very, very generous variance that's what you're asking for, and you may get it, I don't know. MR. BOWER: Technically I was told by the town preferably in the back yard, and that is my back yard. MS. BOWER: Because of the corner situation. We have no use and no access to our front yard on Soundview Avenue. Technically speaking, we don't have a -- we have a front yard that's ten foot wide. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What you have is two front yards and a very, very narrow rear yard. The problem is that people don't understand that front lS not necessarily where the front of your house; it's street house. And the average homeowner doesn't understand that. MS. BOWER: And apparently the Building Department clerks do not know this either, or they're not willing to go the extra step, and say well, there must be many, many corner properties in the town of Southold, why didn't they say, gee, maybe if you're on a corner you might need to have a permit or something. You know, to me that's the unfairness of it all. We would have rethought the whole thing if we were glven the proper information at the Building Department. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 S 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 2S, 2006 42 1 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think procedurally if you had come in with a survey and said here's the Slze of the shed, here's my property, where can I put it; but you didn't know to ask that, and they didn't voluntarily inform you of that, however -- well, it's unfortunate because it's difficult when you have invested money. It is very, very close to the road. It's really, really in your face when you drive by. MS. BOWER: How close to the road? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can't say. I can say that I agree with your numbers. I can go out and measure it myself; it still wouldn't be legal. But having said that visually, the visual impact, without even looking at the numbers, it's substantial. It's very, very much close to the shoulder, the edge of the road. That's a fact. It can be screened with evergreens in a way that will mitigate, so it becomes a green, vegetated buffer. It could be moved slightly, closer toward your house in the same general area. It can be still be in the front yard, still require a variance. MS. BOWER: The earth would have to be dug 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 out. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's on cinder blocks. You would have a slight increase in the elevation there, it's not enormous. The other side, the other front yard on the wetlands side, there is more room actually over there, and it's a little bit flatter from the edge of the road to your house on the other side of your driveway MS. BOWER: Then we would have to get a Trustee permit. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You need a variance 16 17 18 19 also. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're going to need a variance no matter what. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could put it back by where the pool is, that's your hardship. MS. BOWER: I have no other back yard, no other privacy, no other use. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask you a couple questions? MS. BOWER: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: side, you're 84 feet away from wetlands. On the Soundview the flagged 20 21 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 43 1 2 MS. BOWER: From the plants that were e tagged. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was something everybody agreed to, I'm sure. MS. BOWER: Uh-huh. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if you were to take this structure and put it on that side, you'd still require a variance, just not 100 feet. A MS. BOWER: Right. And I'd need a Trustee permit and DEC. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As that stands now that 100 foot mark is far enough away from the building that you don't need a variance for that. Basically you have a hardship because that; you're restricted on this piece of property from building on that side anything without gOlng through the process you're going through right now? MS. BOWER: A much worse process. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, you purchased a building as opposed to lumber and stuff and hauling it into your backyard, you purchased it, it came on wheels, you set it down 19 feet away from your front property line. There's no way that you can move it back? MS. BOWER: Back where? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Towards the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's not 19 feet from the property line it's 19 feet from the road, from the center of the yellow line. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Nineteen feet from the property line. MS. BOWER: It's 19 feet from the property line and 33 feet from the center of that, and 21 feet from Hawkins. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The only place you could put this building is where the pool is, right, that's your backyard. MS. BOWER: Exactly. And to move this shed ln, you're heading into these eight cesspools, you know. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was my next question. Let's talk about the backyard, first. On your west side I guess it's John Berriman? MS. BOWER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know John very well. If you were to put -- I think if you were to put the shed between your house and John Berriman's, you would be in your side yard? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 44 1 2 MS. BOWER: We would be past. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where the pool is right now, that's a side yard. MS. BOWER: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Except where the pool lS, that's the rear yard. The Building Department determined that to be a rear yard and gave a building permit for the pool. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would dispute that that's not a side yard, the only place that's a true rear yard lS that southwest corner of your house. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: How they determine it is the larger yard that remains when you subtract the two front yards, you only have two yards left; the larger yard is the rear yard because the way the code is written it says then the rear yard shall be determined and any remaining yard will be a side yard. So then the side yard is to the left of the house and the rear yard lS where the pool area is. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. But in any case, you could take this building and bring it back there or you could build it there if somehow you could get it there. It's built. That's a hardship that you're complaining here too, that could be very expensive. You couldn't just take it put it on wheels and have North Fork whoever they are and bring this back to them? There's no way you can get a truck back there to do it? MS. BOWER: We had a cement truck try to come in to put our patio in, and the cement truck was almost impaled into the wetlands because it lS a steep incline, and the morning the gentleman came to deliver that shed, he also said there's no way you could drive back there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Was that your original thing? MS. BOWER: That was our original thing. We were going to align it up with Mr. Berriman's shed, although we couldn't line it up directly but in that general vicinity because we can't go past the 10 feet. If you see my foundation, you follow that line along, we have five feet less, so we have essentially five feet past that foundation which we are not technically allowed to disturb. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the Soundview 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 side. December 28, 2006 45 1 2 MS. BOWER: We couldn't put it there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're 84 feet away from wetlands, so you're not putting anything there. e 3 4 5 MS. BOWER: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't take a truck because the topography of the land doesn't lend itself to you taking this building and bringing it around the back. You could hire a crane, it could set up in your driveway, and you could haul it up over your house and set it down. Any idea of what that would cost? MS. BOWER: Thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't even want to find out. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For a 96 square foot shed. Now, what do you do with this place? MS. BOWER: Our gardening tools, the pool pump we put in there. It's quite a distance from where the pool is but that's what we got. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The pool equipment lS going to be there? You're just storing stuff out there; any heat, water? MS. BOWER: Gosh, no. We haven't even anchored it to the ground permanently because we're waiting for this hearing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? MS. BOWER: It is a hardship down at that Building Department. They really need to get information out to the poor slobs that come in. We really didn't know. I have been in to the assessor's office. I understand that my corner property is a premimum on my property because they're more valuable, however, it is useless. How is that valuable? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's valuable to 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 us. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a corner 22 lot too, I understand. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not going to blow this out of proportion, but this lS my application to write up the decision, which I am still up in the alr about, I don't know what to do. And hearing all my fellow colleagues, let's just explore the aspect of taking it off those cement blocks and moving it back a little bit farther away from the front property line on 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 46 1 2 Horton's Lane; is that a possibility or is that not a possibility? MR. BOWER: That's possible. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How far do you think you would be able to move that, Mr. Bower? MR. BOWER: I would guess four or five e 3 4 5 feet. 9 MS. BOWER: It is starting to go uphill. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no attempt to bring a small machine in there and flattening that incline out a little bit and possibly lowering it a little bit? MR. BOWER: If you would accept the five feet, which I'm just guessing right now, I assume it's about five feet, I could hand dig it out a little and do that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It could be lowered then? MR. BOWER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because personally when looking at it, the highest portion of it is that portion that's visible from Horton's Lane based upon the present topography that exists, right? MS. BOWER: Uh-huh. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there something you would like to do based upon this hearing prior to the completion of this hearing In further investigation that you could get back on to us on, or are you pretty much etched in stone at the five feet that you feel you could move this back? MR. BOWER: I can take a concrete measurement and let you know how far I could bring it. 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's probably my suggestion to the Board at this particular point, and any type of specific landscaping plan that Mrs. Bower was mentioning in the way of -- our suggestions are basically two things, and I'm not speaking for the Board -- it's either arborvitae four to five feet high continuously maintained or with a nice area of distance between them, and two would be evergreens, which are bushier, fatter and sometimes more appealing, but much more expensive, would be the same situation. MS. BOWER: I was planning and I have a few of them there, those green giant arborvitae, 20 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 47 1 5 although they don't grow too well in the shade. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They don't grow too much in acidy soil and In oak leaves, which you know as well as I do we all have out here. However with some TLC they do exist. MS. BOWER: I'm questioning this moving, you're more optimistic than I am. It's quite an incline. 2 e 3 4 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not only look at the topography again and what you think is a reasonable possibility, but it might behoove you to make a call or two to see what's involved and move it just a few feet back toward your house. You may be pleasantly surprised. As you say and you're right to not proceed in creating any more permanent foundation. They're just cinder blocks. They can be moved by hand. And the structure lS stable, it has a floor, and just scooting it back can be done on rollers. At least find out. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make one more suggestion? If you turn this thing around 90 degrees, you would gain four feet there. MS. BOWER: That's a very good point. I would go along with that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know how the Board feels about that. I think you may be surprised at what you're going to hear. I think there's four feet and maybe another foot. MS. BOWER: That's a better. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Four feet and five feet are nine feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think if we were talking a real five feet, you would gain four by turning that building. MS. BOWER: We have an extensive septic system that we had to put in there, and it goes right up to the driveway, and I don't want to disturb that. If we start digging around In there BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do you feel about turning it around? MS. BOWER: It's a good idea. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you move it another foot or two or three? MR. BOWER: If I do turn it 90 and four feet, and I move it two -- six feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. You're gaining another foot out of that. 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 48 1 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The advantage too lS you can enter it from the driveway area. MS. BOWER: We were trying to make it less obscure. We thought if we tucked it in there behind those trees, put more trees. That was what we were trying to do. There was a little grove of trees in there, we were trying to tuck it in there. We felt if we put it the other way, it would be more out In the open. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then throw some plans in there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But we should have an accurate survey. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I disagree with that. We're granting a setback. We're not granting where the building is going on the lot. We're granting a setback from a side yard. And we have that. We can grant 20, 22 or 24 feet from the front, side yard line and 21 feet, we can do all that without a survey. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I disagree. I'm really kind of edgy about it because we have been caught so many times. We let people just get away with it and in the end it either bites their hand or bites our hand. I think it would be a minimal adjustment and a minimal amount of money to have someone come in and adjust the survey that you have here with the accurate dimensions. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One of the things that would be called out on a survey, and it's so tiny on this Xerox, which is not even to scale because the Xerox destroys scale, would be where the septic system is; that should be on a survey. MS. BOWER: It is on there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you do, but it's not legible. What I'm trying to point out is your argument of where the septic system lS lS very credible and very important, and it makes a difference. It does create a burden, a hardship and a potential environmental hazard. But without accurate, legal information for us to make our decision on, that becomes sort of just theoretical. Not that I disbelieve you, by no means do I disbelieve you. But, agaln, we had a situation not long ago where there was tremendous miscommunication because someone drew In by hand where they wanted to put another structure with a survey that was done by the licensed surveyor, and 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 49 1 9 in fact if they had done that, they would have gotten everything they wanted right off the bat. They had given us misinformation. They were In better shape than what their survey, actually drawn by hand, said. You might find that you are farther back from the property line, we don't really know. MS. BOWER: I'm afraid to find out what other mistakes the surveyor made. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I wouldn't suggest going back to the surveyor if you're unhappy, that's silly. But at least, find out the cost of sliding it over a little bit to you; B, what you think is realistic about the topography and where you can put it; and, C, what an amended, updated survey would cost you. Then we'll know exactly what we're dealing with, and what is feasible to your point of view and what would be burdensome to you. MS. BOWER: Do you want us to have a surveyor draw up after he moves it or -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it would be better after it's moved, then we could put it In our decision that you would only get the CO unless you had a new survey prepared to give to the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What if the distance lS different from what we're discussing right now? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We wouldn't put the actual distances In, Jim, until we saw what that new survey called out? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, are we it? can show 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 going to grant it after this man moves BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If he that he can move it back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're going to have to adjourn this until the later meeting to see if Mr. Bower can move it back and to what degree. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we would come over and see the new stakes where you were going to put it. MS. BOWER: You want to see the stakes 20 21 22 23 first? 24 MR. BOWER: I'll stake it out for you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we can do one of two things, we can make the decision subject to the survey and call it out in the e 25 December 28, 2006 50 1 5 decision, or you can get the survey first and then we can re-site it, either one of those two situations. This Board over the years has made decisions subject to a survey. It's really semantics of how you want to do it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Fine. MR. BOWER: I'd rather stake it out and have you look at it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine. Can we adjourn 2 e 3 4 6 this to 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: January 25th, 9:45. MS. BOWER: If the survey costs more than the shed I might have a problem with that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's imperative that you have your pool mentioned on the survey. Everything would then be done in a proper sense. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You should have the pool on it. You'd have no problem from here on In. 7 8 10 11 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You would have no problem because if you needed to work on something else, or if you needed let's say a second shed, you know where everything lS and you know where you could squeeze it in In that back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make the motion to adjourn this hearing until January 25th at which -- prior to that date the Bowers will contact us with an alternative location staked out of which we will go back and inspect its location by stakes. We could make this decision subject to a survey, subject to staking first and then we'll talk about the survey. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So subject to staking. 12 13 e 14 15 16 18 19 (See minutes for resolution.) 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is NO FO Properties, LLC, the Gordons on Northview Drive In Orient. 21 22 MR. GORDON: Good morning, my name is Jessie Gordon. How are you doing today? Our application, we are seeking a variance to have some work done on the house on Northview. Basically the scope of the work involves primarily interior work along with the addition of an existing deck that we want to extend beyond its current position. The extension of a bedroom above an already existing roof. So no expansion 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 51 1 9 of the existing footprint, home. And other than that, the majority of the work, as I said, is interior work. We'll be bringing an exterior set of stairs that go up to the roof up to code because they in their current position they aren't up to code when the house was originally built. And we'll also be doing some decking on the roof because the home has a flat roof. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's all flat roof? MR. GORDON: All flat roof. The whole roof is a flat roof. The house was built in -- we're also going to be correcting the pitch of the roof so prior to putting the decking down to make sure that it drains properly with gutters and scuppers. We've already had roof people come in and analyze that situation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Flat roofs are very difficult. It was dripping on my head, which is okay. I'm just saying I have had experience with other people, they're ticklish. MR. GORDON: They are indeed. We are aware of that and we want to make sure that if we are going to put decking on the roof, that all the drainage is correct so that we don't have any leaking into the home and then have to pull any decking up to repair. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it was leaking right by your foundation In the back. MR. GORDON: The person who lived In the house prior to us purchasing it lived there until she was 99 years old. The house fell into disrepair. Our hope is to bring the house -- the house was originally designed by a gentleman named Olindo Grassi, who was the head of the architecture department at Pratt. So it's an architecturally significant home. And our plan isn't to tear the home down or to do anything other than to bring it back to its original glory. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Those gutters and dry wells into a dry well up closer to the road because you are fairly near the edge of the bluff and the bluff does slope more downward than up. MR. GORDON: We can do that most certainly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gordon, I want you to know I have great difficulty in understanding exactly what you are doing. This is not a derogotory statement of what you are doing. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 52 1 9 Is there some time you could meet us there so you could explain to us exactly what you are doing? Particularly with the second story deck addition. I have been there twice and I'm still baffled by this plan. I've been on this Board for 26 years; starting January 1st it will be my 27th year. This one is a little baffling to me. MR. GORDON: I'd be more than happy to meet you there, but perhaps I can address your concerns here prlor to doing that, or at least make an attempt to address those concerns. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there gOlng to be a significant change in height to the structure? MR. GORDON: No change whatsoever in height. What we are doing lS we are capturing an already existing portion of an existing roof and extending a bedroom off of that. Essentially there will be no change In height whatsoever. There will be no additional roof added to the home itself because we're gOlng over an already existing plain of space. Essentially we're capturing unused space on an already existing structure and enclosing it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just as the Chairperson said, how are you going to capture this water runoff off of the existing roof? Are there gOlng to be French drains placed In the roof to do that? MR. GORDON: The roof currently lS pitched and it has gutters, and what we can do is run those gutters as was suggested to dry wells on the not water side but the other side of the property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The road side. MR. GORDON: Road side, correct. There's a significant amount of room to do that and as I said we've already consulted with the roof professionals and that significant part of our plan is making sure all that drainage lS going away from the home, away from the foundation and away from the bluff because we want to maintain the integrity of the bluff to the best of our ability. We had a gentleman five or six homes down on the bluff who is running his gutters directly into a dry well that was on the front of his property and caused a portion of the bluff to erode. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You sat here December 28, 2006 53 1 9 through a hearing on Island View Lane I hope with a gentleman who was standing on the location, an attorney from Riverhead. You've done I hope some intensive investigation on the house; is there going to be any need to demolish, destroy or dismantle any portion of this house as it presently exists at this time? MR. GORDON: There will be some interior demolition; there will be no structural demolition. We have had an engineer come and do an analysis of all the load-bearing beams of all the structure of the home, of the foundation and prior to doing any of these plans that was all taken into consideration. We will not be doing any demolition of the house. We want to keep the house as it is. Our intent is from the structure of the house itself to expand that bedroom out, it's only about six or seven feet, just so we have a place to put a bed in the master bedroom. It's small. We are not going to do any demolition. As I said, we had an engineer come in, we've actually had several engineers come in as well as our general contractor, punch holes in the ceilings, analyze the foundation, extensive engineer's report done on all the systems of the home as well. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mechanical systems? MR. GORDON: Mechanical systems, correct. We will be replacing some mechanical systems. But we will not be demolishing any portion of the house; that's the last thing we want to do. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of that architectural integrity. MR. GORDON: Because of the architectural integrity of the home. It's a mid-century home that was designed by a well-known architect. I'm going to be using the home myself with my family. I have a particular affinity with this style of a architecture. It's my goal to return the house to its original glory as it was built. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you'll be working independently with the Building Department on this renovation, you particularly or the contractor? MR. GORDON: The contractor and the architect will be working with the Building Department and have been working with the Building Department. 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 54 1 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So they're perfectly aware of what you are doing based upon this application that is before us? MR. GORDON: Yes, indeed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course the main reason is because you're well within the 100 foot setback situation. MR. GORDON: I understand that. Basically, if we aren't able to do anything to the home, you know, if we aren't able to make any changes, the home is just going to fall into further disrepair. What we want to do lS make the property and the home more usable for me and my family, and it improves upon the nature of the home itself. It gives us the ability to use it. In its current condition it's not useable. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Based on the elevations that I'm looking at here, you're doing a good job just to the restoration. MR. GORDON: Thank you very much. We've worked very hard on that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It shows. I knew the architect. I have no problems In reading these plans or supporting what your intention is. I have to write the finding, and I just want to make sure that the proposed setback lS 39'2" from the edge of the bluff to the new deck? MR. GORDON: That's correct, with the extension. The deck in its current condition is in a state of disrepair. It's rotted away. Essentially In its current condition it's very, very narrow and doesn't have much useability for anything other than walking out of the home and down to the lawn. This will enable us to place a table there, place some chairs there, enable us to use the space. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the additional increase in the depth of the deck from the existing to the proposed? MR. GORDON: I believe it's 6'6". BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, that's what it's called out as. I'm just making sure. MR. GORDON: The plans accurately reflect our intentions. We haven't strayed from the plans In any way whatsoever. I don't know if the plans you have have a cut-out on the front portion of the deck; there's a possibility that a portion of the deck won't extend out that far. 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 55 1 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: called out as open to the sky. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: put it on there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They know Jerry. MR. GORDON: We do thorough research. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm impressed. As long as you're prepared to deal with the drainage. MR. GORDON: We have no choice but to deal with the drainage problems for the well being of the home and the well being of the bluff, it's important we contain any drainage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Be very careful. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no further Right, and it's Favorite phrase. That's funny they 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 questions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As you know, it's 38.5 feet from the edge of the bluff and that raises a flag with the LWRP and so on. How far actually closer to the edge of the bluff will it be after this deck is built or rebuilt? MR. GORDON: It's 6'6" closer to the bluff than it is now. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now it's 44 feet or 10 11 12 13 e so? 19 MR. GORDON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it's pilings underneath the deck? MR. GORDON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will point out to you that I will go again on Saturday, and I will look at this entire plan. It's not that I have additional questions, it's just questions that I had when I was looking at it. So you'll see me there Saturday morning. MR. GORDON: Would you like me to meet you I could possibly make arrangements to do I live in Manhattan. there? that. 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think it's necessary at this time. As I said, Miss Weisman is much more articulate. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My confusion is reading the notice of disapproval which doesn't give me any information as to exactly what you're doing. So I think that's where it pretty much all came from. It looks to me like the deck is just steps, you're adding steps to -- MR. GORDON: To the front portion of the 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 56 1 2 deck. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Those steps are going to take up about six feet. MR. GORDON: It's my understanding that the cut out section, there currently are steps. I don't think that the steps are gOlng to take up the six feet that we're adding. At least that's not my understanding from the plans. I believe we'll be gaining a significant amount of useful space to use the deck with just that -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You'll be filling in and squaring off. But as far as the utility of that deck and filling that In, that gets you to just about six feet, which is about six inches just from your plan. And it looks like the rest of it lS just steps down and the planting in the middle. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 MR. GORDON: You have to take into consideration the deck as it currently exists also has steps so we'll be galnlng that space as well. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't want to take any space from you. MR. GORDON: The way it currently exists we can't put a table on there; it's pitched very steeply. We have a three year old daughter. It just doesn't work. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you're adding a second story bedroom? MR. GORDON: We're not even adding a second story bedroom; we're expanding off the existing bedroom over the roof that currently exists. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you putting up two by fours and windows, and it's going to be a roof that's higher than the roof. MR. GORDON: One window and another flat roof, just one additional window. So it will be some two by four framing and dry wall. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know what the distance of that is. How big is that? The new addition upstairs, how large lS that? MR. GORDON: It looks like 10.6 feet out and 14 feet across and then five feet back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all the questions I have. MR. GORDON: That's the only building that's being done on the exterior other than the decking and the railing that will be put on the 11 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 57 1 2 roof as well. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else In the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Michael Leigey who wishes to build a garage on Town Creek Lane. MR. VANDENBERG: Good morning, Richard VanDenBerg. I just handed up an authorization for Mr. Leigey who very reluctantly could not be here today. I know that he was actually concerned about his inability to be here and inquired whether he should request an adjournment, but I think the advice that was given to him was to allow the public hearing to go forward. So he asked me toward the end of last week to appear here In order to relay comments and his intent as best as I could from notes he's given me. I can tell you that I have known Mike for 20 some~odd years. He is a single dad. He runs the party shop in town. He is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and volunteer firefighter In the community. Mike does also run his ~~ has a business known as Peconic Building Solutions and operates that business and continues to do and will continue to do so out of 53840 Main Road in Southold. He has no intention of runnlng any business out of the property located at 105 Town Creek Lane. I believe you have ~~ he only gave me some information before he left, but I believe you have some plans and some elevations with regard to what he proposes to do. It seems to be somewhat the theme today about putting a garage or structure In a side or front yard. And from what I can determine that is the situation here. I'm also aware there are a number of people with us today that Michael told me that there was a petition that had been circulated where there was great concern about what Michael was intending to do with the garage, and I've seen a copy of that petition where it does appear ~~ and I'm not certain where it came from ~~ to say that this was gOlng to be a warehouse of some kind. Michael absolutely, emphatically indicates 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 58 1 5 that there is no way this is intended or will ever be a warehouse. It will not be used for manufacturing anything. It's really just a three-car garage in order to house -- he wants to be able to put his boat in there. He owns three vehicles and he wants to be able to store his boat In the garage over the winter time, and he wants to be able to park his truck and another vehicle that he uses. So that's really the intent of the use of the garage is just that, just a garage for storage space. He also wants the Board to know that because it's being used for personal storage, he can explain some of that with the fact that the house that lS on the property lS over 300 years old, does not have any basement, attic and virtually any closet space for storage. He lives there with his three young children and has no available storage for any of those things that are attendant to a busy young household. In addition to storing items for his boat that sort of thing, rakes, utensils, all of that will also be stored In the garage. The reason for the setback requirement lS because again, his situation being on the corner of Youngs Avenue and Town Creek Lane. The survey will show that his house lS located on the easterly -- virtually right on the easterly property line of the property. Locating the garage In a different location other than what he's proposing would create putting the garage right where the back quote/unquote backyard is for his family. Located there he has a very small, grassy area with a picnic table and things of that nature that he uses with the family. So placing in what would otherwise be that northeast corner of the property would create a problem In that his kids would lose what little rear yard that they have to play in, and also create an extremely long and kind of consuming driveway in order to get to that location. He also has some intention, as his family continues to grow in terms of age and size, to add on at some point to the house relative to expanding the kitchen area because it lS a small home. I've been In it and it lS small. The other point that he wanted me to make was that in locating the garage where he has it proposed lS taking advantage of the grade, the 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 59 1 2 slope of the property. The way he's proposing constructing this garage lS to actually build it into the grade so that the height actually after it was finished would be relatively nominal. The rear of the garage would only be about 18 feet to the peak of the garage in the back. So the profile or the view of the garage from the back side or from a neighbor's property or even from the road would be relatively a lower profile, not a 20-plus foot high garage. You would see it a lower profile. Part of what he intends to do In terms of constructing it there as well is to create more of a grade, potentially a berm with some screening along the roadway to further shield and soften the visual impact of the garage from Youngs Avenue. He wanted me to point out, and I have a couple of pictures that he took, that his neighbors to the north on Youngs Avenue have also -- I believe it's the Anderson property have a five-car garage with a finished second floor. which also has, as you can see from the photograph, a sliding door and outside windows that face the south to my client's property. In addition to that, and not sure if it's the Lynch property or if it's Mrs. Lynch that has been the proponent with regard to the petition, but that her property, which is on the other side of the Anderson property also has a minimum four-car garage with a finished or apartment above it. Now both of those buildings exceed the overall height of what my client is proposing. Michael told me that he has specific knowledge with regard to the Lynch property because he looked at that property before buying this property as potentially purchasing that property. That garage has a stove In it, as I say, it has the apartment. This particular garage will have no bathrooms or any running water. It's purely going to be for his personal use, parking his vehicles and storing his personal effects. In addition, he also wanted me to point out that just up the road at 425 Calves Neck, which is the neighbor directly to the south, across the creek, has a garage in the front yard that's not attached to the house approximately 15 feet from the road. And he mentions that he believes the Board or the Building Department has issued a building permit 3190 back in April of '06 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 60 1 2 for 1020 Goose Creek Lane which is a two-story garage with windows in the back side and located In the front yard with 20 feet from the road. I don't have any specific knowledge of those applications, but Michael wanted me to make sure I made that part of the record as well. There's also been some rumor with regard to the type of construction with this garage, that it was gOlng to be like a Morton building or a steel building; that is absolutely false. And certainly if anyone came to me with a petition saYlng that that's what somebody intended to do, I would probably be concerned and might even consider signing such a petition. But quite frankly, that's a rumor that's misleading because this particular structure, as you can see, will be all stick built. It's going to be either in the Shaker or Craftsman style design. He's looking to keep the profile low. There are some materials that he already has located over In that area in the yard. He has three setback of garage doors. He has some other lumber there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bunch of stuff there. MR. VANDENBERG: Yes. He realizes that while that may be of some concern those are materials that he intended to use in the construction of this property. They will all be natural woods, there will be no steel in it, the only steel that will be used will be the nails. So hopefully that will put to rest that rumor with regard to the construction of the building. As I said, he does propose, and I'm not sure that you have this, he's hoping where he does wish to create some additional screening, as much screenlng as possible. And one of the other comments he's wanted to make is someone has indicated where they see his truck, as I say he has a black truck that says Peconic Building Solutions on it, he sees his truck constantly coming and going up and down Youngs Avenue. Michael, as I say, he's a single father, he is perplexed by that comment because as I said, he lS the person responsible for transporting kids to and from dance class, to and from practice, piano lessons. He has the benefit fortunately of living locally, and he's able to do that and it's certainly at different hours of the day, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he's runnlng e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 back and forth to his home to operate his business; it has everything to do with the fact that he's doing the best job that he can taking care of his three young kids. So there's really, again, there's no foundation, there's really no basis of saying he's operating any business out of this location. He was aware of this petition. He actually had developed a petition of his own. I'm not sure if the Board has that. There's a number of signatures on this petition as well that are in support of what he's looking to do knowing the work that he's capable of in terms of the construction of the property. His neighbor, which lS to the east, happens to be In favor of what he's looking to do. There are a number of other petitions, again, I'm not sure if the Board has this and is interested In this petition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, always interested in more information. MR. VANDENBERG: As I said, the garage would be constructed out of wood, it's cedar shake siding and cedar shake roof, not out of metal. I'm not sure if the building plans call it out that way, but that's what Michael was saying he intends to do. It's supposed to simulate a carriage house. And his idea is to make it somewhat consistent with the other structure on the property, which as I say is about a 300 year old home. As far as what his alternative would be, it appears as though because of the lack of storage and the hardship there, the only other option in order to make the garage appear to be more in the backyard, would be to pick the 300 year old house up off the original foundation and move it closer to the street. I don't know if that completely alleviates the side yard situation, but it would potentially help. The problem is doing that to this house would be potentially devastating to this 300 year old structure. The cost as well would be significant in addition. So I think what he's sought to do by actually building the garage into the grade of the existing topography of the property certainly mlnlmlzes the impact it has being where he's proposing it to be. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: couple of questions that we need 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 61 There are a answered. Do you December 28, 2006 62 1 2 want to go first? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll ask a couple quick questions. The plans are not fully specked out. So let me double check. It would appear that the mean height of the structure is 16 feet and it's 21 feet to the ridge; is that correct? MR. VANDENBERG: Did you see say 16? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The mean. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And 21 to the ridge is what it looks like. MR. VANDENBERG: Yes, that's what I'm seeing as well, 21 feet to the ridge. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The actual prints are very faint. The other question I have had to do with the handling of runoff; to site that there certainly in terms of the berm building in on the Horton side will mitigate some of the height. However, there's a great divot, kind of slope that the property sits like this, and it will be sitting in a well, a low spot. So some tree cutting and excavation is going to be required in that area. How has your client -- has he considered drainage, road runoff and so on? MR. VANDENBERG: I will tell you -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Goes straight down to the creek. MR. VANDENBERG: I will say that the way currently there is a bit of a pitch back into that area, there's kind of a swale where the front of the garage would be located. Certainly I'm sure he's not planning on any impervious driveway; it would still be a stone driveway of that nature. But certainly there would have to be some added consideration for installing dry wells, perhaps some runoff grates in the driveway to try to catch whatever water flow would come off, as well as dry wells along the exterior of the roof pitch line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He's going to have to do a lot of excavation to push that garage as far back as he wants to do it. So that's that whole swale area. It goes far back. Any runoff is going to have to be put over maybe to the east side of the property as close as possible to the north. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. VANDENBERG: Yes. Because of that swale that comes in there I know that there's a fair amount of available space for dry wells if you call that in front of the house, to the west e 25 December 28, 2006 63 1 2 of the house, and to the east of what would be the driveway, as well as the garage itself. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it's to the . 3 north. 4 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question about the garage. As I understand, this garage which is 21 feet to the pitch, has I count nine windows in that garage from the elevations, three on each of three sides, I don't see the fourth side elevation. There's a side elevation, a front and rear elevation. MR. VANDENBERG: I'm not sure, I only saw 6 7 S six. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But in any case, what ultimate purpose can we anticipate he has for that garage? What else is going in that garage? MR. VANDENBERG: Nothing, there's no intended apartment use. Quite frankly, I know his objective in terms of placing the windows was to make it appear somewhat more pleasing than just a simple wall of cedar shake. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Presumably there will be electricity, but will there be plumbing In the garage? MR. VANDENBERG: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It will essentially be unfinished interior to a garage? MR. VANDENBERG: That's correct. It's purely intended for personal storage space. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: will there be a floor or stairway going to the upper level? MR. VANDENBERG: Yes. There is a stairwell. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Presumably for storage, attic. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just lights In there, that's it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So essentially it would be no different than the attic of an ordinary two-story house that would have windows in the attic for aesthetic and practical reasons? MR. VANDENBERG: That's my understanding. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to address two lssues. Although the Board did entertain an application on a back road in a subdivision that's of a similar setback, for the period of time I've been on this Board we very rarely if ever have granted a 24 foot setback on a 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 2S, 2006 64 1 5 major public road, which comes out of the actual hamlet of Southold at 20 feet. I can think of two of them; one of them is Deep Hole Drive In Mattituck on a 50 by 210 foot lot on the water, person's cesspools, sanitary system was in the front yard area, and the person had no other choice but to locate a garage -- not of this magnitude -- in the front yard area of which there were substantial plantings placed In front of it. The other one was one we agonized over in Nassau Point. The house fronted on Nassau Point Road. The rear of the house fronted on Wunnaweta, and there was a reconstruction of a garage which the applicant significantly minimized in reference to Slze. Size is an issue here. Setback lS an lssue here. This is an extremely large structure. The structure is almost the same size as the house. It's got to be pushed back in my particular oplnlon. It's got to go to at least 30 feet, and it has to be lessened In Slze and in magnitude. I think you have addressed some of the magnitudenal issues regarding the placing it in that area that has to be excavated. However, it's too high anyway and it's too large. There's no question about it if you want to build it in an area of this proposed location. Secondly, the height of the garage has to be lessened. I would never suggest anything than a ceiling not to exceed about 7'6" on the second floor and I realize the eve aspect or the gable end aspect, which you refer to as a Shaker roof aspect, lS fine, but that's the max I would suggest that you're going to get out of me. MR. VANDENBERG: If I could, certainly I see the criss-cross pattern of the gable end of the second floor. If he were to eliminate one qable on either side, I know that part of the size aspect is because he's looking for the three parking spots, the boat with the trailer and everything, it's going to encompass almost 30 feet, 20-something feet. If there was a way to do that and to reduce the ridge line and eliminate a couple of the gable ends, would that be a potential compromise in keeping the footprint the way it is? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's look at a normal Slze garage. A normal size garage can be 20 or 22, or it can be 22 by 22. This is 30 by 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 65 1 e 3 40, extremely too long. Entirely too long for a front yard area, again, on a very well used public road. I mean 1,000, 800 feet from town and feeding a very big subdivision that apart from the satellite roads, but a very big subdivision after you go over the little bridge up to Calve's Neck. If it was on a dead end street somewhere In Southold or in any hamlet in the north fork you could see it, but it's just too big. MR. VANDENBERG: And the fact that there are neighbors with larger. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, but they're not In a front yard area one; number two, we have no idea if they preexisted zonlng or not. They may have preexisted zoning, and those may be established issues. I have to tell you that we did a significant, a very similar design, by the way, the one on Nassau Point and there were questions of privacy basically, to other people's property in that particular design, and so on and so forth. So those are all issues that I think this applicant needs to look at in the proposal of a 1,200 square feet, two-story garage on a very heavily traveled road. That is just my opinion. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On the overall height to the top of the ridge -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It should limit it by about three feet, which is exactly 18 feet, which the code requires. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Linda has a question. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I wanted to ask Mr. VanDenBerg, because on the right side of the map you have Mr. Leigey had mentioned that there might be a change of a few inches, maybe six inches or so in the mean height. So I thought perhaps he gave you the amended plan. MR. VANDENBERG: I have a notation drawn on the map he gave me saying 18.6. This is March 16 of '06. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: This is different from what we have. We need that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you saying that he's already proposed to lower the ridge? MR. VANDENBERG: That's what it appears to me based upon his notes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Lower the ridge but I think lncrease the mean height. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 66 1 2 6 MR. VANDENBERG: I'm not sure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't care about the mean height; I care about the height to the ridge. That's the bulk. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess there lS a concern that we're talking about a 1,200 square foot garage. There are people in this room, some of whom on this side of the podium, have houses that aren't any bigger than that, that are smaller. When talking about a garage, the largest garage that I can recall our approving was 24 by 24, people say 22, and so on. So it looks as though something will have to glve. First of all the 20 foot setback, second the closeness to the road, and this rather large garage. I've seen some garages that large, but as some other people have said, not on that kind of property, in that kind of location. As a message to take back to your client. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's right next to a very beautiful historic house. MR. VANDENBERG: He doesn't want to diminish that, he really wants to construct it so that it compliments it. I understand your Board's concern. e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand it would be better to have a garage to put his trucks In instead of leaving them In his driveway. MR. VANDENBERG: That's what he wanted to do. He really wanted to get everything indoors including his boat. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any reason he can't attach it to the house? MR. VANDENBERG: Well, the problem is you would be attaching to the front, and he really would be significantly altering that 300 year old structure in terms of incorporation of the garage, so it's probably not feasible without damaging the character of that old home. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't build it like the old home? I know on Village Lane In Orient, there's a couple new houses there, you can't even tell they're there. Is it a possible that if he wants a three-car garage, needs a 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 67 1 2 three-car garage, he could attach it to this house? I don't believe he would need a variance then. e 3 5 MR. VANDENBERG: Well, he was kind of concerned about, quite frankly, the structural integrity about beginning to mess with the existing structure there. But one of the things he said 1S look, if it were a situation where they were saying, I'm not going to get anything I'm asking for, then my next alternative is to move this house so that I can move it forward to be in conformity with setbacks and so forth and then that would give him more options to allow him to attach the garage to the back side of the house. Certainly there are significant costs 1n doing that. His biggest concern 1S not to eliminate -- I mean, certainly there's overhead wires there, certainly he could have the wires buried. He didn't want to eliminate, really which 1S probably the nicest part really of the entire lot, is that back northeast corner. And that was placing the garage back in that area would eliminate that. I don't know it would probably call for redoing the entire house in terms of the layout of the house because that's really the entrance; you can see the screened-in porch on that side, there's a walkway, there's a front entrance on the westerly side, it's got the main door entrance to it, and there's certainly no room to the south. It would really require significant adjustment of that existing structure. As far as options, I think he thought that would be probably option number four or five down the list of potentials. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's a lot to be asking for in that area. When you have so many other areas that you could attach this, that you could put this building. If you're uncompromising in that, then we really have nothing to work with. MR. VANDENBERG: I don't want to give the impression he's uncompromising. Certainly pushing the distance back further, reducing the size, eliminating some of the gables, that to me seems relatively feasible without even beginning to have to deal with incorporating a structure into an older structure, in terms of cost and really just a fear that when you start doing that it's gOlng to cause some structural damage to an old house. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 68 1 2 I've been in there. It's got the old, thin doors. It's a small old house. It's beautiful but it's old. e 3 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're worried about the integrity of the house if you were to attach this, which is something you could legally do. So now you need a variance just because it's so far back. Naturally you can't move the house for the same reason you can't put a building alongside it, you're certainly not going to want to put it on steel beams and move it. So we're stuck now with a 40 by 30 foot structure, which lS 10 feet larger than my house, and you want to put it 20 feet away from the road. And I honestly don't think that's going to be forthcoming from this Board. So you need to come up with some other probably fairly drastic alternatives. MR. VANDENBERG: You're suggesting that if he did attach it to the garage, it would be attached to the northern side? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: However, it's not my purview. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He wouldn't need a variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're looking for hardship. And first I look at what you can do on the property. I see you can attach something to this house. I realize ~~ no, I don't realize the structural integrity part of it. I install phone systems for a living. I don't know about basements. But when I'm looking at a plan that's on here, I say to myself, let's see what could he do without me ever having to see this as a Zoning Board member, and that's one of the things, attach it to the house. I suppose you could make a three~car garage, certainly the lot coverage wouldn't be bad. The height, I don't know where it falls with Walz, in any case, that possibility is there. So, if you're saying it's just because the integrity of the house I probably am willing to buy that. But a 30 by 40 foot structure that's going to be 20 feet away from the front property line I can't. Your hardship, maybe you're gOlng to lose backyard, the kids aren't going to be able to play, probably a pretty good argument if you you didn't have 300 feet of front yard, whatever it is, where they could play. My kids played In the front yard, put up a fence and whatnot. I 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 69 1 5 don't see that as being much of a hardship. I'm just being forthright with you, sir. I would say that you may be served better if your client, the applicant were to come before us. MR. VANDENBERG: Certainly, and he wanted to. If it's a matter that you would like to hear from him, then we would request a continuance so he could be here. Unfortunately he had a prearranged vacation and with all the kids and tickets, air fare that couldn't be refunded and any of that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, but if he could come next month. I don't know when we can put him on, but he may be able to explain it better. 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 your that that CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: alternative plans. MR. VANDENBERG: Absolutely. Based on initial comments, at least I can give him feedback. We would have no opposition to whatsoever. He would invite that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, I certainly concur with keeping the hearing open. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the sanitary systems located, if you know? MR. VANDENBERG: I have no idea. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They don't. They're probably perfectly willing to replace whatever is there. Or he may have some 10 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're probably 300 years old. I think some of these good people have something to say. Who would like to speak first? MS. SERCHIN: My name is Ann Serchin, and I live at 355 Youngs Avenue, diagonally across the street from the applicant's house. I live in a house that was built in 1891, by Benjamin Lawrence Prince, known as the Elm Cottage. It's a very historic house. I brought with me, I don't know if you have it, the building structure inventory form for 105 Town Creek Road, which is Mr. Leigey's house. It was the first custom's house in town, moved to his site from Founder's Landing. It was also the Landon House, which belonged to a sea captain. The construction goes back to around the mid 1700s. I did all this research in the library and I thought maybe you 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 70 1 9 would like to peruse this to see how historic his house really is. There is a report in there from the Southold Landmark's Preservation Commission with regard to his house. Anyway, I'm just throwing that out as a preface to what I am about to say. By the way, I'm also an architect. I really feel that this building will irreparably change the character of the neighborhood if it goes where the applicant has proposed putting it. These are small houses in this neighborhood. I did a square footage takeoff from the survey, it's 1,100 square feet and change. The garage is 1,200 square feet. If you add on the storage space above, double it, 2,400 square feet as a totality. I just think that the building is proportionally challenged with more than half of its height taken up by the roof, when you look at the plans. It's a very awkward looking thing. And there is no other garage on our street that sits in the front yard. As you were saying before, the whole notion that on the Anderson and Lynch properties there are garages there, they were put in either preexisting zoning or done legally; they're not out in your face on the street. I also have problems with this particular building in terms of the fact that it has 10 foot high garage doors; that's not exactly in my mind a residential height for garage door. It has 12 foot ceilings according to the plans for the downstairs. That is also extraordinarily high for a garage. I realize he does have a truck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And a boat. MS. SERCHIN: Also I look at this and I say, is this building really an appropriate companion piece to the historic house on the property. He says it's a carriage house; that's a very vague, nebulous term in architecture, and that it's appropriate on what basis. On what basis? On what authority? I don't know. I'm an architect, I just kind of scratch my head at that one. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Basically those are the issues of the character of the neighborhood. I just have to throw this out to the Board because I think it's a loophole in the zoning ordinance altogether where you can have an accessory structure that can actually dwarf the primary building on the site. 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 71 1 5 I don't know any other municipality that allows that. I'm just throwing that out. The other thing to me that is very suspect are the drawings. They are misleading. The survey doesn't indicate for example any datum, any base elevation on which these mean heights are given. So then you start to scale the drawings, which we know lS a very sort of inaccurate thing to do because the Xerox does shrink them or stretch them. But just scaling them, the rear elevation from peak of roof to grade lS 21'3", and from the front elevation it's 26 feet to grade. Those are the actual scaled dimensions, which varied from what you were discussing a little earlier. The site slopes. Obviously it's going to be a cut and fill job. The contours will be altered somewhat for a variety of reasons including drainage. So it's kind of silly to say that he's burying this house to accommodate a lessening of height, especially where he's put it. Because just to the north of it, a little closer to the house, is really like a pit. It's much lower, so much lower In fact that if he were to put the garage there, it would be substantially lessened height-wise. If he were to lower the first floor height, it would be lessened height-wise. If he were to change the pitch of the roof, it would be lowered. There are a million things he could do. He could reorient his driveway, a minor point, but one well taken to glve space in front of the house. I just have a feeling that the scheme wasn't well thought out by whoever prepared it for him. The other thing lS the materials. As I said before, it was a little vague. Cedar shakes, I guess that's appropriate to the neighborhood, but those windows, a collection of windows upstairs isn't really a historic look, you know, gable windows on the second floor are usually much smaller. So you do have to wonder what mayor may not be going on up there. The other thing also is what we see is not necessarily what we ultimately are gOlng to get with this building. I say this because as a practicing architect who deals all the time with the relatively new building code and the prOVlSlons for hurricane sheltering and strapping, 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 72 1 5 this building as drawn does not meet the sheer requirements of the code. So that means he has to indicate on the drawings or do an analysis of what lS required to fulfill the code, meaning, the width of that front entrance might have to shrink In order to combat the sheer forces, and that can be done. Or, what he's presented to us, the representation is really not what we're going to get, because he'll get his zoning variance, it will be kicked into the Building Department, they'll tell him he's got to change the design then. So I'm pointing this out to you now, what he has submitted and what we're ultimately going to see based on these drawings I don't think are one and the same thing. Lastly, you have all touched on this, I really believe this is a self-created hardship because there are other alternatives on the site. I'm sympathetic to him in terms of having no basement storage space, et cetera, but he knew all of this when he bought the house. I feel to change irreparably the character of our neighborhood it's a very special place. It's a very special block. This is why I moved here. It just kind of makes me sick. I feel very strongly about the character of this neighborhood. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 else? 17 MS. LYNCH: It's now good afternoon. My name is Adriane Lynch and I reside at 450 Youngs Avenue In the Reverend John Youngs house, at least folks have told me, because I have two young children and have no time for home research, but it's rumored that my house is the oldest in Southold, but I think there is some discrepancy among people who own old houses, but give me a couple of years. I am the lady who wallpapered your offices with the petitions and the signatures and I apologize in advance for the aggresslve nature with which I did that, but my feeling was if we didn't voice our collective oplnlon early In this process that perhaps we wouldn't have an opportunity to do so further down the road. I have four quick points to raise. I read, and I'm not very up to the terminology of this, but I guess Mr. Leigey's application for a 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 73 1 8 variance, he states somewhere In that that this structure's gOlng to cost him somewhere In the area of $9,000, I haven't done very much renovation on my home, but I am in mortal fear of what will be built for $9,000 in the scale that this gentleman is proposing. I did some quick math, I think I was toying with the idea of redoing one of myoId bathrooms, and someone told me it was gOlng to cost between 10 and 15 grand, and that's the size of a shoebox. I think it's $250 a square foot these days for retail construction. He's a builder, so let's play the devil's advocate, it would cost him 75 bucks a square foot, that still puts the structure at 180 grand. What's he going to put up for 9 grand? If you do the math, that's $3.75 a square foot -- not interested in living next door to that, most especially if we get a hurricane. The second point I have is there seems to be a discrepancy between his drawings and somewhere in his application he's stating that the structure is 40 by 40, and yet on the drawings it's 30 by 40, I'm confused. How big is this thing going to be? The other thing that concerns me is I think in his letter of denial where he was first denied the ability to build this structure, the letter is addressed to the Peconic Building Solutions and Michael Leigey. My concern is why, if this lS a residential garage strictly for storage, is the name of his company a few places on his application? To speak to Mr. VanDerBerg's point about there being a stove, by the way, I do have a large garage, it's actually a seven or eight-car garage that was built by I think two previous owners to me. It is large. When I bought the house I thought I hope some day I can afford enough cars to put in it. There is an office space above that garage. I invite any of you to come; there is no stove there. But I guess that's sort of irrelevant. What I have and what Mr. Anderson next door to me has, I guess when they were built we were conforming to whatever town code there was. I think Mr. Leigey should have bought my home, it has an enormous garage; it is an old historic house; it probably would have suited his needs better. I am very sympathetic to historic 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 74 1 6 homes, I own one. They are very expensive to restore, endless foundation issues, want to pick our house up but have been told under pain of death don't even think about it -- I get all that. But if Mr. Leigey lS a builder with three growing children, he maybe should have thought not to buy that home if it doesn't suit his needs. Many people own homes that they outgrow or that the purpose doesn't suit them after a while. I don't begrudge him a garage within proportion to the neighborhood. If I could have a quick show of hands of everyone who has come or who potentially has come -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We need names. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: People speak for themselves. MS. ABRAHAM: My name is Harriet Abraham and I live at 265 Youngs Avenue. I just wanted to point out that when we talk about the beauty of this neighborhood, I've been reading Suffolk Times quite a lot lately, including this very week about changes to come in the accessory code, and how important it is in the new code and what lS proposed by the public, and what the people want, is that the buildings be in proportion to the Slze of the home not just in terms of the placement on the property, but everywhere In the code it says that an accessory building must always be built in the back, and that all the proposals here indicate a variety of changes that the public and apparently the Town government supports In terms of exactly the opposite of what our neighbor lS proposing to build. I just wanted to make that fact known. And also to say that one thing that hasn't been mentioned here in terms of the beauty of our neighborhood is that this house is directly across the street from the town's waterfront. And so it's not just Youngs Avenue traffic; it's not just the neighbors; it's everyone who pays taxes In this town and in the park district who will be impacted by a giant garage bigger than his house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. BARRY: Good afternoon, Bill Barry, 500 Hill Road. I go down this road every day to Youngs Avenue. I have seen such debris in that yard you cannot believe. As far as I can see, not right at the moment but In the last year, there's a business being run out of here. He's got 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 75 1 9 dumpsters in the yard and he brings his material and dumps it in there. Sometimes they are filled, they take them away, and then there's more debris dumped in there. So I think I agree -- I know I agree with the lady who got here first. What you see is not what you're going to get in the end. I have a big garage, 22 by 22; this is 30 by 40 garage with an upstairs. There's something else in the long term here, and I think it looks terrible or it will look terrible in the neighborhood. I go to use that park with my granddaughters, and I look forward to the beauty of it. That's all I have to say to the Board. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? MS. BERTANI: I am Linda Bertani. I am the sectretary/treasurer of the Southold Park District. I think you got the letter that was written on behalf of the commissioners that couldn't be here today, I'm sorry. Basically just listening to everything that has been said today, and your questions, you've basically answered all my questions, and everything I wanted to say I think has been said. I would like to say that Mr. Leigey cut down almost all the trees in his front yard in preparation, I'm thinking, for building this humongous thing, which really disturbed the Park District commissioners. Any relief that you grant to him, they do want to reiterate regardless of what he puts it whatever, we would like to possibly see a stand of evergreen trees on the south property line in between his house and the park. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody 20 else? 23 MR. ANDERSON: I was gOlng to say good morning, Board Members, but I think I'll say good afternoon. I'm sorry this is running on, and I know you all want to go onto other things. I'm Stan Anderson. I live at 330 Youngs Avenue. My property borders Mr. Leigey's property to the north. I have several concerns of course, many of which have been stated. A few years ago, two years ago approximately when Mr. Leigey moved into the area, everything was fine for a while, then I noticed changes. Not only has he clear-cut the 21 22 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 76 1 9 entire property, with just a few fringe trees on the property, which technically he's entitled to. I notice the presence of backhoes and bobcats and moving earth and moving rocks and all that type of thing. Then I got piles of building debris, which, if I stood on my deck, or I look out my windows toward the south, all I see is scaffolding, piles of wood, ladders, PVC piping, blue tarp rolled in balls, shingles, fencing, sinks, plywood sheets, whatever, ACs -- old alr conditioners. Anyway, if Mr. Leigey is not running a business out of this area, why do I see regular visits by he and his staff gOlng through these piles, taking out whatever building materials he might need to work on the house that he's working on at the time. I do see countless trips daily by his vehicles up and down the road. His children are in school, so he's not delivering his children anywhere. Now Mr. Leigey wants to build a 30 by 40 foot two-story structure. It's apparent that he intends to run his business out of there. The Town responded, as was previously stated, to his application that when he was declined or said he did not meet the code, that Town response was addressed to peconic Building Solutions. What does that say? My personal concerns, why not In the backyard where the building code says it should be? Why so close to the Town road and my property line given the fact that he has so much land, and why would the building require windows and dormers on the second story, especially one that's going to look right into my bedroom windows. I'm retired. I spend a great deal of time trying to keep my property fit and as beautiful as I can make it; however, when I sit on my back deck, if I look over there all I see is what looks like a garbage pit. So anyway, I would like to just VOlce my biggest concern at what the impact is gOlng to be on my real estate values as well as other real estate values in the area. I don't know what this lS ultimately going to look like, but I certainly would like to see Mr. Leigey compromise his requirements. And one point regarding the integrity of this old 300 year old house and why it might not 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 77 1 5 be able to be moved, I can understand that but adding on a breezeway or Mr. Leigey's representative has already said that he intends to do construction to that house, an add-on onto the kitchen. So if you're going to do that, then add on to the west, add on a little breezeway, put your garage over there where it belongs, then he wouldn't need any variance. Anyway, that's my statement for today and thank you very much for your time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, 2 e 3 4 6 7 ma'am? 9 MS. MADELENA: Good afternoon, my name is Joanne Madelena, my residence is 510 Youngs Avenue, just north of the Lynch residence. I have a tiny garage, which was built in 1929, and I cannot put one of my vehicles in that garage. We also own a boat, we keep our boat at a marina for storage. It certainly is not a hardship for us to put our boat at a marina for storage, and I can't understand why someone would need to keep it on their property. That's the only point. Thank you. 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 MR. ANDERSON: Could I just add one thing to my statement? It was stated that both the Lynch property and my property have large garages In the backyard where they should be, and I know from the prior ownership of the Lynch property that they complied with the code, which lS the same as mlne, an extension to an existing accessory building. It was done 100 percent to code, no variances were required. I just wanted to put that on the record. MR. FREDERICKSON: Good afternoon, my name lS Jim Frederickson, and I live at 195 Youngs Avenue. I am directly west of Mr. Leigey's property, across Youngs Avenue. You'll have to excuse me if I get emotional but I am very, very concerned about having a building of the Slze proposed in these documents directly in my line of sight outside of the front of my property. My wife has history in the town of Greenport that extends over 50 years. She has a family business that's there. And we are trying to prepare for our future out here, which is where we intend to spend the rest of our lives, and it didn't have anywhere in that plan that I should be looking at the back of a 30 foot building that may 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 78 1 6 or may not be housing a business in a quiet, heavenly residential area, which is why we spent so much time looking for an ideal house that we could live in. Now, to see a proposal like that, it saddens me to an extent that I'm not sure I can make you aware of. Now, I will say even In his defense, when he started clear cutting some of the property, I said, you know, that's great for me because I know what the property looked like prior to his clear cutting it, and I couldn't see to the creek. I said that looks nice, it's cleaned up, and I'm going to have a winter view, and I can appreciate that. And now when I go, my wife and I fight because from day one I said now there's a truck there, and now there's a construction vehicle with advertising allover it and a trailer, and now there's a fence surrounding 20, 30 yards of debris. And from my bedroom windows upstairs I can see the ditch that we're talking about, and all the building supplies that are stashed In there. That's not why I moved to Southold. I moved here because I can see the potential and the beauty that's out here. That's what I want to live with. I don't want to live with the back of a barn. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anybody else? Yes, ma'am. MS. SHEA: My name is Maureen Shea, 250 Calves Neck Road. I will make my remarks brief. I live in an historic house, the Thomas Lester house, also known as the Booth house. We've put a lot of care into preserving and restoring this as part of the historic heritage of the area. Our house directly faces the Town Creek and the applicant's house, that's the front view from our home. Although much mention has been made of an old house and the integrity of an old house, I haven't seen any indication that there's concern about the preservation of a heritage house and grounds to preserve this. Rather, I've seen destruction of landscape, destruction of view, debris, and I share the concerns of the people that have spoken before me, what it has left me with is a great lack of confidence in the applicant's intent and concern for the particular area and what his new development would do this to area. I do not have any confidence that this 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 December 28, 2006 79 1 6 would be an asset to preserving the lovely historic nature of the community and the park area. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. GRANFORD: Good afternoon, my name is Sal Granford. I live at 575 Hill Road. I'd just like to tell you a story about my summer time in Southold. If you want to make a left turn from Wells Avenue or from Youngs Avenue from the south side, the only safe way to do it is to Youngs Avenue, there's a stop light; if you didn't take Wells Avenue, you're gOlng to be cut in two. So every day when I want to go to the Main Road I go up Youngs Avenue. Every day going up Youngs Avenue for quite a period of time, all I ever witnessed was debris. It was the only place In our part of the woods, that looked anything like that. I don't understand why it was justified, why it was allowed, but it was allowed. I think after numerous complaints part of a fence was put up, vegetation but there was all kinds of building materials just laying there, piping, fencing, to name a few. I think if you were to judge the size of this building, I think you have to take into account, the only way to know what the future lS is to look at the past. And if you judge the past, then you have a better look at the future. See what had happened and think about the size of this building, and if it's appropriate for this spot. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 else? 19 MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask for the record that the people that have not spoken at least name themselves as representatives for the cause? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Come up to the microphone, sure. MS. BERRY: Southold. MR. KROLL: MS. MANN: Betty Berry, 500 Hill Road in 18 20 21 22 Ken Kroll, 265 Youngs Avenue. Joan Mann, 1775 Calves Neck Road. 23 MS. GRANFORD: Lucille Granford, 575 Hill Road. 24 MR. MADELENA: Robert Madelena, 510 Youngs Avenue, Southold. By the way, I'd like to describe the manner in which I discovered who had bought this house when Mr. Leigey did buy it. And e 25 December 28, 2006 so 1 5 that was during my walks to Town Creek, finding all of his trucks parked in the park district parking lot for what seemed like a long, long time. So I think this shows total disregard for anything he might do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS. NORTHUM: Johanna Northum, 1150 Calves Neck Road. I think the bottom line here is that it's illegal to put a structure this size in a residential neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS. STEINAKER: Sandra Steinaker, 560 Youngs Avenue. The house was owned by my very best friend Betty, she died. If she could see what's happened to that place, her son lS so upset for that purpose. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I make a motion to adjourn the hearing subject to the applicant providing us with the information that's required. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: How much time, Mr. VanDenBerg, do you think you'll be able to have all that in in the next two and-a-half weeks? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It was my understanding that the applicant was going to come next themselves? MR. VANDENBERG: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'd prefer to adjourn with the date. The meeting in February is the 22nd if that's okay. Otherwise, it would be January 25th, if you feel that's too soon. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could I ask a question as far as February is not a great month because a lot of people they go on vacation in February. So if that's the case there won't be as many people come and listen to the hearing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Well, it may be that way every month. So how would you know which month more people will be here? So which is the best month for everybody? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It may not be fair to the applicant whether we agree or don't agree. If he's under some sort of time constraint. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You can have a representative; you can have a substitute for you. 2 e 3 4 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're all probably December 2S, 2006 81 1 9 on computers or telephone. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What he comes back with may be radically different from what it is right now. And quite honestly, I myself did not hear any alternatives from your side. Everybody had a comment, and, you know, I for one, February or March lS fine for this gentleman, and if I think I haven't gotten enough information, I'm gOlng to ask that it be held, but if you could write to us what you feel is acceptable, I certainly will read those. They have to go into the record. Maybe we can consider it that way. MS. LYNCH: I don't think we were aware that we could propose alternatives. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We tend to make better decisions if the people -- it's not a decision based on what you think, but certainly, I mean, you heard my comment and I have my own way of thinking about these things, as do all five of us. But tell us what you think is acceptable. I felt like I wanted to ask you, but I did not want you to feel like you were being grilled. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Did everybody agree with what the Park's Department said they would like to do? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then they can write a letter to that effect. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You could put a letter in and also I think that Mr. VanDenBerg would need to submit the information at least a week before that February meeting. So if you would like to be in touch with us the week before February 22nd and look at the file, it's available to you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd also like to reiterate what Mr. Dinizio said. I have to write the draft finding for this case and would very much welcome opinions on alternatives. Again, they don't determine what the outcome is, but they're certainly important to the record. There are alternative possibilities, numerous alternative possibilities to this, and I would also want all of you to know that we on this Board are very aware of the proposed changes to the code for accessory structures. I have been instrumental in working on the draft legislation, 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 82 1 5 not the legislation so much as the proposal that the legislation has to be done by the Town Board, but on proposals that examine the size and proportionality, and so has Miss Oliva been involved In that. So we're very aware of our concern of making sure that the scale and character of all the hamlets are respected. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have one more thing, I did hear this comment, I just wanted to be clear, that this applicant is here because it isn't allowed In the code. So you can say it's illegal, but our Board is the relief for that because there are a lot of older structures, and you're all aware of that that can't be moved, and they're built on the property line. So he's coming to us for some relief from that code, and we have the power to grant it. And we're looking for the best for all the neighbors. Quite honestly, a structure that's the size of my house 1 don't know if that's going to happen. Think of it as relief, not necessarily that we're going to let him break the law. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, we are the Appellate Division of the Board, the board you come to seek relief from. Sometimes we glve it; sometimes we make amendments, but we listen to everybody. We're always interested In any of your comments or what have you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To supplement that remark, is nothing like this would come before us if it hadn't been judged at least to be technically illegal, and then it appeals for us, then we have to decide whether we're going to enforce the letter of the law or modify or offer the notion of alternative relief is exactly why we welcome any suggestions because sometimes we come up with them ourselves, and the more help we get from concerned citizens the better off we all are. MR. VANDENBERG: When you come up with a proposal, is that a place to start negotiating from? 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The form it would typically take is if the applicant doesn't already alter the proposal, the Board may deny and then put together all this other information, and come up with alternative relief, which lS then offered to the applicant. So it will coalesce into one or two or three alternatives based on all the inputs 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 83 1 5 that have been received. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can something be done about the mess in the short term? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are not charged with that code enforcement. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Aren't there codes for the number of vehicles? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would suggest that you call Mr. Edward Forrester. He's located In the annex building. Thank you very much. I'll make a motion to adjourn the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 December 28, 2006 84 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 C E R T I FIe A T ION I, Florence v. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related by blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of December, 2006. , December 28, 2006