Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/28/2006 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 BOA R D o F A P PEA L S ____________________________________________x Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York September 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 I'ff/~~",\! (I f1 ~.lU.ll~._,li\j['\:_,,,. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 e 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to call to order our regularly scheduled meeting of September 28, 2006. I'd like to have a motion stating all our applications have a negative declaration. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 4 6 for the Marion. like to CHAIRWOMAN Michelsens Would you do? MS. MICHELSEN: Valerie Michelsen, 860 Rabbit Lane. We would like to add a second story over part of the existing house. There are a number of homes that have added up, so it would not be blocking anyone's view. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hadn't been down there for a while. I see everyone across the street has gone up and up and up to get the view, but I was surprised, quite a few on the bay have not really put second stories on. I don't have any questions particularly. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was wondering if it's going to change the FEMA situation, and you're gOlng to have to change the elevation of the house in any way? MS. MICHELSEN: I don't I don't believe so. I think we the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: to say that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And dry wells by the road as near to the road as you can get. MS. MICHELSEN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't have much room in the front. MS. MICHELSEN: So far, no. We haven't heard definitively from the DEC. Back about six or seven years ago there was some concern about the elevation. We have a basement. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do? And it's dry? MS. MICHELSEN: Yes. The only time we had trouble was last fall, when everybody got water. It was coming up from the ground. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MS. MICHELSEN: And when we had a new survey done. OLIVA: Our first hearing is on Rabbit Lane in East like to tell us what you would 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 believe so. have gutters We on 16 I was just going 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: floor as 9.6. It showed the first September 28, 2006 3 1 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you just sort of squeaked in, which was lucky. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you may be all right on that. Because that would cause a phenomenal excavation. You'd have to take the basement out and put it on pilings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're a little bit 2 . 3 4 higher. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, they are, I noticed that. MS. MICHELSEN: But wouldn't they have required that already? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They should have. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. The only reason I ask that is it may require additional infrastructure that may require you to come back and that's the reason I ask the question. In the house itself, even though you're uSlng the existing footprint. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If it changes the 6 8 9 10 11 12 height. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: the height. MS. MICHELSEN: Okay, I know something where we had the bluestone, to flip it and put it a different way the supporting structure. They would change the beam down in the basement. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Assuming that the dry wells don't work on site, you have the ability to go across the right of way and place dry wells for the roof runoff? MS. MICHELSEN: I guess. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you have a right of way over the road and what you would do is just put them in. MS. MICHELSEN: He was there and actually pointed out where he would put them and he does this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions, they have all been addressed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you tearing the If it changes 13 . 14 there was and they had because of have had to 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 house down? MS. MICHELSEN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're just going September 28, 2006 4 1 7 to put right on top? MS. MICHELSEN: Over the existing. We have a living room, kitchen area, I don't want to go over that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was my next question, why you couldn't move it to the other side that's the reason why. MS. MICHELSEN: I'm really only adding one bedroom and one bath. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So your foundation will support this? MS. MICHELSEN: I don't understand. They showed me, apparently there's something about turning the roof a different way that was according to the architect -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We have had trouble with people starting a renovation, then suddenly finding out that the basement wasn't good enough, their foundation was crumbling, and then all of a sudden they end up with what ends up to be a hole in the ground for months. You're okay with dry wells. The basement exists. I think I have no other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Giordanos. On Case Road in Cutchogue. MR. GIORDANO: Hi, I'm Ed Giordano. I have an application pending to modify or to move into the setback of the bluff of the property. Our architect designed the facade in the front mistakenly or whatever, infringed upon the 40 foot setback. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you were supposed to send us an amended map from your architectural drawings. The architectural drawings said one thing and your survey said another thing. MR. GIORDANO: May I come up? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. 18 19 20 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 5 1 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The setback, Mr. Giordano, is now 38.8 to the portico. I just want to confirm that into the record because it's being recorded. I'm just confirming it for the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I like where you live down there. MR. GIORDANO: We do too. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, the question that I had was answered by this updated survey. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only issue here was the front yard setback; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which has been taken care of, thank you, no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. The only difference on the front setback are these bay windows that are being built out just a couple of feet; is that right? Okay, I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 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. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Orito on Stars Road in East Marion. Good morning again, Mr. Orito. I think we've seen you before. MR. ORITO: Yes, I've been here before. I live at 3420 Stars Road. And we would like to build a sun room on the side of our house. We have a porch now and you can sit out there and get eaten alive by bugs. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Really, you mean you're the only one? Okay. You want to put that really more in the rear yard, right. We already gave you a variance before in the rear yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So now it's in the side yard. MR. ORITO: property. There's side. It's a long piece of quite a lot of room on the 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice house. September 28, 2006 6 1 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand the only extension of the rear setback is that the house is being built to the side and therefore extends the length of the house to the rear of the house. So it doesn't go any further to the rear boundary line than is already the case. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have such a small rear yard. It's very heavily landscaped all the way around. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a nice 2 . 3 4 6 7 place. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The porch really would have no visual impact on anybody. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone In the audience that would like to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Russo on Oakwood Drive in Southold for a hot tub and shed. Good morning, how are you this morning? MS. RUSSO: Cathy Russo at 775 Oakwood. We wanted a hot tub. Actually, once we have the garage built it will be behind the garage, and we are trying to keep it away from the wetlands. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are 75 feet? MS. RUSSO: Yes, and that's all we have to keep it. And also the setback variance because the DEC wanted us to move it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a two car garage that you're going to add to the front elevation basically. MS. RUSSO: For the garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the only varlance is for the garage? MS. RUSSO: And the front to the left. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That you're extending over on the front elevation? MS. RUSSO: Yes. So it goes all the way 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 . 25 across. September 28, 2006 7 1 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Front yard setback varlance. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have we granted anything on the shed? MS. RUSSO: Excuse me? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has the Board granted anything on the shed? MS. RUSSO: No. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's only rear notice for part of today's hearing. MS. RUSSO: You mean the hot tub or the shed? The hot tub will be behind the garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The rear yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm concerned about closing up the side yards on a waterfront piece of property with the existing shed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The lesser of the two elevations, however, are on the right-hand side of the property where the garage lS being proposed; is that correct? That's the greater? I have to be honest with you, I was over on Sunday morning and I didn't want to go walking allover with your neighbors there. They watch down there very, very well and I didn't want to cause any police action. It was 9:30, 10:00, and it wasn't any big deal. So I didn't get a chance to look at the opening on the other side. Excuse me for jumping in on this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How long has the shed been there? MS. RUSSO: Couple of years. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That could be moved if you needed to get into the rear yard anyway, right? It's not on a permanent foundation? MS. RUSSO: No, it's on cinder block. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's under 100 square feet anyway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a very small building and actually even with the garage addition, there's plenty of ingress and egress on the side yard to the bulkhead. There's lots of room. 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. RUSSO: We actually have one of the smaller houses. Most of our neighbors have -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wanted to move the shed a foot? MS. RUSSO: Yes. . 25 September 28, 2006 8 1 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's 75 feet from the wetlands. Because that's what the DEC requires. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: As a minimum 75. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. So the shed is not an issue for us specifically. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It is. It still requires a variance because of the location. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The shed itself, the preexisting shed. Because they're having to move it. But with regard to the front yard setback, because of the covered porch, you're going to be reducing the front yard setback by a small amount; is that correct? MS. RUSSO: Two feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. And so that's really the only one that could possibly be a problem, and I'm not sure there is one with regard to the hot tub. It looks to everybody as though it's in the back yard. It's only because the garage is an attached garage and that defines the side yard. Since it's not visible from the road, and it's only in a very technical way in this side yard, it's not clear to me that that's a big problem. It will be less visible than it is now, not really. 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.) 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Peconic Bay Materials on Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. Mr. Pawlowski, and he wants to convert a landscape contractor's yard into a contractor and business yard. Tell us what you would like to do, and how you're moving everything around, and what it's going to look like. MR. REEVES: Charlie Reeves. We're looking for a special exception for a general contractor's yard. Just general contractor use. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I go on this 20 21 22 23 24 one? e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was not terribly impressed with the first way this project September 28, 2006 9 1 5 was presented. And we -- let me say, I in the opinion of justice asked Mr. Pawlowski to do the things which he has done, which have been wonderful for this particular piece of property. So In order to garner my vote, since I live in the area and go by this project, this very nice situation he has now, I need to know how things are going to change. Okay. I need to know if tractor trailers are going to go in, which they're not easily accessed in this property. Cox Neck Road is an extremely heavily traveled road. It is a road that has seen an inordinate amount of traffic for the amount of people that live down there, and I think the present owner has done a good job in holding the use of the property down for the use that he has. And I am specifically concerned with what's going to happen In the future, if the Board is so inclined to grant this special exception. So why don't you give us a laundry list of what you're going to do. MR. PAWLOWSKI: How are you, I'm Paul Pawlowski. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Basically the only reason why the change of plans has happened lS I've owned this property four years now, and I sold my landscaping company, and basically getting out of the business. I've been working with John for nine years directly basically doing the same thing exactly. As far as you're concerned, the property and the neighborhood, the building itself, the landscaping, the trees, the gate, everything you see there is staying exactly how you see it. In addition in the back, we're doing a stockade fence in the back to stop some of the litter that comes. As far as the type of business, he does the type of business I did. It's very similar. As far as tractor trailer use, it will be the same exact as it's been for the last four years. On occasion, as I did, I would periodically have, once a month have a delivery of plants which would be a larger vehicle, but I have had that happen for the last four years monthly, that's pretty much one day out of every month a larger tractor trailer which comes In, just like the vineyard has across the street, they get deliveries, that would be the larger vehicles that they're asking about. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only 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 September 28, 2006 10 1 9 difference is they have much greater road frontage and the ability to turn around. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I agree 100 percent but monthly I do want you to know that the deliveries I had he's going to be getting the same deliveries I did. That's why the large vehicles would come in monthly. As far as the use and the type of trucks he has and everything that he has, it's exactly what I had for the last four years. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the major problems that we had was the ability or the inability of this property to support the stocking of materials and the bringing in of stuff that had to be tub grinded. MR. PAWLOWSKI: that since -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I commended you for that, I'm serious. You've done a wonderful job. The place looks beautiful and I think since I live in the general area, I'm not taking the lead on this, I'm just simply saying I want to know what the difference is. MR. PAWLOWSKI: That's why I'm talking first, John will talk second. I just want to speak on behalf of what he's done, had been doing. Nothing's going to change as far as you've expected from me and what you should from John. His trucks are the same size as mine. He has the same amount of machinery. He has an excavator like I had an excavator. He has a tractor like I had a tractor. Everything that you've seen for the last four years he has, even the same color trucks basically. It's very interesting because I went for this special use 40 years ago, and when I originally sold John the property he's like well, I just want to make sure it says landscape contractor. It seems like we're going for the same variance that I already have, but we want to just make it contractor's use because we did go to the building inspector and did talk to him about, and he goes well, why are you even going for a variance. And we're like well, it says landscape contractors, and that's what he has, but we don't understand what the difference is between that and a general contractor, we're not sure about that. For us, we went back and forth and because it's like well, you did what I do, so that's not going There hasn't been any of 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 what expect 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 11 1 6 to change. That's the biggest thing here. We don't know why we're here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's go back to four years ago and I said to you four years ago and I'll make this general statement and again, there's nothing wrong with the operation that I could see, and I said to you, remember we have the ability to take it away. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That wasn't a threat; it's something we're telling you we have done it in the past. We haven't done it recently, but we have done it in the past. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I remember when there was no building or structure, there was a mulching pit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We saw a lot of stumps. MR. PAWLOWSKI: That's no longer. Now it's a pristine property. As far as what he holds there it's stone, clean stone material. Back four years ago it was mulch, piles of it, but not like you've seen four years ago. What you've seen for the last four years, you should expect for the next 20 years. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you one last question, and that is being the fee owner of the property presently, have you had any problems with the neighbor to either the east or the neighbor to the north regarding what has existed or what is going to exist? I know that you can't give me an opinion on what's going to exist. Then if nothing's going to change then we can expect the neighbors are not going to be upset. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Can I ask you your last name? MR. CONTE: Yes. We did have an intention to put up a stockade fence in the back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you John Conti? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to do that? MR. CONTE Yes, I am. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to put up a six foot stockade fence across the back? MR. CONTE Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That will be across the entire back? MR. CONTE: Across the entire back. 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 September 28, 2006 12 1 9 Because I am getting the debris coming from the parking lot. And as far as any other concerns, I do rent property down in Westhampton, and that's where the bulk of my material is stored. So I don't need storage there. My trucks go down, I have a pay loader down in that yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you sensitive, and are you going to continue to be sensitive regarding the fact that there's residential to the north of you regarding the starting and use of these vehicles during the season when windows are open? MR. CONTE: I would definitely be considerate of the owner. I mean, I'm in business, I will comply to business hours, which is the usual starting time. I guess, I mean, business starts 6:00, 6:30 and we only work daylight hours, if there is anything that has to be done, we pull it inside. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's just the wrapping of diesels when they start in the morning, and of course you can't use them until they have warmed up. And you wouldn't use them, I'm sure, because it only does damage. MR. CONTE Right. There is some warm up time, a few minutes and it's out the gate. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Am I getting that you're both landscape contractors? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. I just sold my business. MR. CONTE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. So you no longer are but that's what was happening on that property and you're going to continue to do the exact same kind of business. So exactly why did you decide to come in before the Board to transfer the special exception to your business name; just so legally you have that proper legal use continued with the change in title? MR. PAWLOWSKI: It says my name so much on 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What materials would you be storing on the premises? MR. CONTE The only materials I have right now is some stone and some sand and that's it, that's the only material that are there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you also deal in plant materials? 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 13 1 9 MR. CONTE: Yes, like have an occasional truck come placed on the ground, we have it there a couple days. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: out to the job site. MR. CONTE: The restrictions for -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it's not my nature, since I'm a businessman myself, but the conversation I just heard doesn't match what the disapproval says, which is you have an existing landscaping contractor's yard and you want now an excavation contractor's yard. MR. CONTE: I want a general contractor's yard. What happens lS when someone sees, gets an appraisal on landscaping, they see a pick-up truck and a lawn mower, I don't want someone to get the wrong impression that that's what's there, that it's a pick-up truck and a lawn mower. I do have equipment and let's say someone buys a house next door and they see they're under the impression that there's a landscaper there, and they're going to see a pick-up and a lawn mower there. I do have a lot of equipment. I have the same equipment that Paul had. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which lS what? MR. CONTE: Which is the bobcat and the excavator and a dump truck and trailer. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Cranes, bulldozers. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Backhoe? MR. CONTE: No cranes, no bulldozers. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Perhaps you can give us an affidavit exactly what you're going to be storing on the property and the type of machinery you're going to be using so we have it for the record? Paul said, we do in and unload. And irrigation, we keep 2 . 3 4 Then you take it 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 MR. CONTE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not too concerned about what you're using. I am concerned about this excavation contractor as opposed to landscape contractor. Because the connotation of an excavation contractor is bulldozers and cranes and digging holes in the ground that are not used for a tree but rather for large buildings. So it's a different type of business and my assumption is that that also has been distributed 21 22 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 14 1 6 in our code. I didn't go back to look at it, but looking at the disapproval, see I get the impression that the Building Inspector had to be talked into this as opposed to just you guys just go ahead and doing what you need to do. Because it says, you may now apply to these agencies directly. You know, I've never seen that line on a disapproval. MR. CONTE: That wasn't our wording at 2 e 3 4 5 all. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's his. I was just wondering why it was there. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think I can answer that. I believe it's because they don't need any variances. When it's a direct special exception, they don't write disapprovals. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. I agree with you there. Normally it's just you come and apply to us, and we don't even see a disapproval. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think with respect to the question of why you're here, it seems to me, I see it a little bit more clearly. I see the problem. When you apply for the special exception you applied directly to the ZBA, you didn't have a turn down. Now, you wanted to get the transfer and a decision was made, which I think is a reasonable one; that the application now because there is no ambiguity as to how similar and how different it is as though this is the first application for a special exception was being made today before us. And the standard that we would apply is does it really have anything to do -- the standard that was applied four years ago, but whether what is being done now is consistent with our judgment with regard to the special exception. And I think people agree with that and given the answers to your questions, would you be willing to accept conditions that made clear that there were not going to be cranes and bulldozers and so forth? There wasn't going to be a slippery slope of putting in heavier and heavier equipment because now it's becoming a full fledged excavating business; would that be a friendly condition that you could live with? MR. CONTE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which was the direction I was going. Even the larger dump truck, I'm not versed in what you call them, the 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 15 1 9 big one with the nine wheels in the back or whatever. There's a connotation when you're saying excavating and you're landscaping, to me landscaping is pick-up trucks and the small dump trucks. I mean, I have a guy across the street from me does it out of his house, I'm fine with that, but I don't want to see him coming up with Corzini's trucks. MR. CONTE: No. The last four years I've had 20 yard trucks, 10 wheelers go in and out of there; that's different than a large tractor trailer with a 40 yard bed on it, but we specifically designed that property with the 30 foot Cedar trees, the 30 foot privet, and the fence so it's not the guy across the street. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I agree, but you're in a residential area on top of the fact. MR. CONTE: I agree, I bought that property by the person next door and was surrounded by the vineyard, the deli, and the tractor trailer mechanic. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand all of that and believe me, honestly, my feeling lS if it's a business piece of property you could do anything you'd like to do, but if it's in our code and people expect -- when they read that code, they expect certain things from us, and one of those things is we limit it. If we're limiting it by special exception that we need to be clear when we grant these things that it's fair to everybody. That's what it comes down to. People read the code and they say, oh, yeah, that's what you did. I hear a conversation before me that says, oh, we're not going to do anything different. We just don't want to be called landscaping, we want to be called excavating. Well, that's okay, I install alarm systems. I don't know about landscaping and the difference between landscaping and excavating, you do. You need to explain that to us, so that we're comfortable with the fact that it's not going to change. Because it seems to me that whoever wrote the code saw a difference between the two. MR. CONTE: When you have a landscaper, you're changing the landscape of the property, putting soil down, putting dry wells in, so on and so forth. So, it's still going to incorporate these types of machinery in order to do it. So 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 16 1 5 that's why the larger equipment comes In. I'm still doing the plant material, still doing landscaping. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But you do have to do grading. When you do grading, you have to use heavier equipment, obviously. MR. CONTE: But nothing in the caliber that we're doing. We're not taking over a 40 house subdivision that you need to use huge equipment in there. There's taking something that can fit back behind a dump truck and fit on a site. 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I'm thinking. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you comfortable with the suggestion of defining, in addition to a list of items to be stored and equipment to be used on site, describing the nature of activities, the scope of the business that is part of that, simply so we're very clear about the activities that will be taking place on the premises? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like for us not to do that. I would like for you to do that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's what we're 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 saYlng. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I'm 15 saying. . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to write this decision. Honestly, I prefer to grant for you exactly what you need to keep your business going, but you've got to tell us what to do because I have on more than one occasion written ln the decision that says something and turns into something else and not by my fault or anybody else's fault just by what the words said. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But that's the point, if they will define for themselves and define to us the scope of the business operations along with equipment and materials, then we'll have a complete understanding of what we're extending this special exception for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Including what it will not be, if you can. Listen, it's not going to be an asphalt yard. It's not going to be storage for a large whatever, it's not going to be mounds of manure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what you're voluntarily placing on the property, and that is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 September 28, 2006 17 1 9 the fence, to what degree, what footage you're placing it, what the footage is across the back and the footage on the side. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just be careful about the side yard, can only go to the front of the building and go down. You don't want to have to reapply for the fence. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: not needing to get a variance. listening to me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: property with Paul? MR. CONTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for the record, thank you. 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. Pending the receipt of what you're going to do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: objections, I just need it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: For next week's meeting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Was there someone in the back that wishes to speak? Yes, sir. MR. TERRANOVA: Giacomo Terranova, I'm the owner of the strip center north of the property. My thing is it's going to be deposits for compost, for mulch that will smell and come into the store. It's gOlng to be storage for people to come and buy your sand and your gravels. MR. CONTE: Just for my own personal. MR. TERRANOVA: Just for your own? MR. CONTE: Not a retail. MR. TERRANOVA: That's my concern and I point it out openly here. So it would be nothing that will smell. Okay, so that's it. You're going to put a fence on my side as well, so you don't get the debris? MR. CONTE: Yes. MR. TERRANOVA: When I bought this property a few years ago he was doing the landscaping and sometimes they do mulch, they ground the wood. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what we're not in favor of. Just stay within I appreciate your 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 Have you closed on the 8 10 11 If there's no 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 MR. TERRANOVA: Sometimes a plece of wood will fly over my side, this piece of wood will fly September 28, 2006 18 1 7 over my side, and it's going to hit somebody on the head. So I was not happy with that. So I pointed that out. I hope we're not going to have the same thing. MR. PAWLOWSKI: That was prior to the building. MR. TERRANOVA: No, that was when you had the building. You would do mulch and mulch would fly over to my side. I showed you once. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I remember when you showed me that. MR. TERRANOVA: Hopefully we won't have the same thing again. And also on the back of their property when we have the line of trees across, my property is here, this property is here, and the excavator this property went down like this; so all the land from the tree is gone this way. I appreciate the new owner will fill that up, make sure we don't have the tree falling down. Everything is gone this way, so the trees in the back are falling down cause they have no roots. So that's my concern. Okay. If it's not going to be any yard going in because I do have a pizza place in the shop because I'm concerned about open the back door, the dust coming in, the noise or the machinery going on all day. Because you had a guy across the street Foster, he had a yard across the street and he was doing excavation. So the dust from that side will come to my side. If he's in the back it's even worse. So that's my concern, I hope you take that into consideration. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is why we requested the description of what will and will not happen on the premise, to make sure that they continue to be the good neighbors that they seem to be. 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. TERRANOVA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. comments? If not, I will make a motion the hearing and reserve decision until (See minutes for resolution.) No problem with that. 22 Any further to close later. 23 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mary McCabe, who wishes to build a swimming pool, Hi. . 25 MS. MCCABE: Good morning, Mary McCabe. I September 28, 2006 19 1 9 would like to put an inground pool in at 250 Angler's Road in Greenport. I do have the return cards that I got. One property that I know of the people were actually driving back to Seattle, so they have not returned that card yet. They are aware of the pool and they didn't have any difficulty with the idea. I also have for you three doctors's notes, medical doctors. Shall I just read these to you? They're the doctor's handwriting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, just hand them up. MS. MCCABE: I have severe arthritis, I had a hip replacement, and I have great difficulty with weight bearing exertion on my joints, on my other hip and my knees, which need to be replaced. So a pool is one of the best exercises that I could do. Safety concerns of a pool, I'm only too well aware of. I worked in an emergency room for 21 years; I've been a registered nurse since 1978. I know CPR, I know advanced cardiac life support. I plan on putting a fence around the pool, and I'm planning on putting not an opaque fence but either a metal fence or picket fence, something that allows a view if I'm sitting on my deck that I can watch what's going on in the pool. I also would love to get a pool alarm that actually is in the water, an alarm when somebody goes in the pool, which I hope won't be a deer which I have a lot of in my neighborhood. I took many, many years of swimming lessons and my son, whose nine year old also swims well and has had swimming lessons. Family recreation wise, having a nine year old son in Greenport, it is a concern to me when I go downtown Greenport and see a lot of kids hanging out allover the place. I would be much happier to keep him and his friends close to home, and I feel that if I have a pool he'll have less reason to be hanging out on street corners, 7-Eleven. We also have -- we don't have many kids there this time of year, but during the summer we have lots of children in the neighborhood, and which will also be invited to be part of our pool family. Another problem for me in using the beaches is that I sometimes use a cane and I have qreat difficulty lugging a cooler, a chair, an umbrella to the beach. It's just physically very difficult for me to do that. That's about the outline that I have here. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 20 1 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: my note, the only problem you have two front yards. amount of property there. MS. MCCABE: It's .62 acres, and the rear of the property, which would be toward Gull Pond, which is the east, before I bought the property it's almost 10 years ago -- many trees had come down during hurricanes, also all along my neighbor's property, my property and the other neighbor to the other side, there's a stone fence, so I couldn't even drive a vehicle back there if I wanted to. I don't want to do anything to that property because the deer live back there. I have turtles, tree frogs, tortoises. I am a great nature lover, I don't put pesticides down, I have praying mantises everywhere and I just want to have -- I don't think it's outside the realm of what's going on in the neighborhood, there are several other pools and I very much respect the environment and I have lived here my entire life. Actually, according that you really have But you have a fair to 2 is e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 e 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss McCabe, we run into a minor little problem with these dual front yard situations and I'll make that as a generalization, we need to know -- and I just want to explain this to you -- if the deck or stone patio is at ground level -- we don't need to know that, but if it's going to be elevated at all above the ground, we need to know the closest point or the dimensions between the pool and the front property line on the next road. We need to know that. We have run into a major problem with that In another situation in Mattituck. If you could just afford the Board that information we would appreciate it. please remember, if there's any elevation of the pool, then we need to know what the width of that deck is that goes around it or whatever that cement patio lS also. MS. MCCABE: It's not going to be a deck. I have a deck attached to the house that's been there. The pool will just be in the ground. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you could give us the measurement. MS. MCCABE: I'll have to measure it out. I have a survey of the property done and perhaps if I speak to the surveyor, they could speak to that. 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 September 28, 2006 21 1 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Looks like you have 72 feet from the right of way. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have it shown on mine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's here, 72 feet from there to there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't know if that's to the fence line or to the pool. Would you just confirm that for us that 72 feet is to the pool and not to the fence? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's got to be to the pool. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's all we're asking her to do is to confirm that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That right of way is heavily screened by shrub and landscape. It is actually in what we call the architectural rear yard because your primary frontage is along Anglers so although you technically do have frontage along the right of way, it really is the only place that you can put it, otherwise it would end up in your side yard. MS. MCCABE: Then that would interfere 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . with 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it's close to your house, and I think it's quite reasonably sited, but if you could just simply have a measurement from where exactly the inground pool lS and perhaps even from where you propose to put the fence to the property line on the right of way, that would be helpful because the 72 feet appears to be to the edge of the pool, but it's a little ambiguous. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The right of way is actually a road; lS it not? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's an improved -- MS. MCCABE: I believe there are two right of ways actually, the one behind me and then there is a road that had been paved at one point, but when it rounds the Derga's property, it's not paved. But the other road is paved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But the part behind you is not. MS. MCCABE: There are only two people that access, Larry Tuttle and Gary Heaney access the dock and then Mr. Kraus and then his neighbor Mr.-- I can't think of his name, begins with a B. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. There's not a 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 22 1 e 3 lot of traffic in there and residences and I don't see how it would have much visual impact on anybody driving past it. MS. MCCABE: Okay, so shall I come back next week? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, just send it to us as soon as possible. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Call the surveyor tomorrow and have him confirm it. Then they can make the decision next week if we have it from you tomorrow. MS. MCCABE: Okay, I'll leave you these two things. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We just need that distance so she doesn't need a variance later on. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I concur with Miss Weisman's comments with what she calls the architectural front yard, and I don't see any problem with this having looked at it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in this audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 12 13 tit 14 15 16 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for the Cutchogue Free Library, and for some renovations and expansion because people are reading more. They're using the library more. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank God they're using the library more. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, he's got a model. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a good guy, look at this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's beautiful. MR. NEMSCHEK: We brought up the model so visually we can understand. For the record I'm Nemschek, the architect for the Cutchogue Library additions and alterations. Cutchogue Library right now we were denied or the disapproval was issued from the Building Department noting the Walz decision as far as increasing the level of nonconformity. With the oormers to the south portion of the site, and I 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 23 1 e 3 think on your site plan, I hatched in where that 40 foot line comes through the building itself. So really, the two dormers that we're talking about are the ones that are located in the back. One is minimal, to say the least, if you look up to the front of that model and the rear one, the rear ones actually pushed through to the exterior wall of the construction of the existing library. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that a dormer or a reverse gable? MR. NEMSCHEK: There's a reverse gable and two dormers. But the reverse gable is really just falsed In on the top. The true construction of this are two shed dormers and then some roofing false to get on the top, to get the look that we wanted and the look that we desired. The Library itself it's important to note that we're not changing the footprint of the library. What we are doing, and I'll just take you through the actual construction and what we're proposlng to do throughout the project so we can have a clear understanding of where we're going with this. The existing library is housed -- and I'm going to refer to it as kind of three different things, first is the former church structure, which is circa 1862; the second is a connector piece or the circulation area or the low portion on the model; and the third is the heavy timber addition, both of which the connector and the heavy timber addition were created in 1986. I don't know if anyone remembers that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vividly. MR. NEMSCHEK: Yeah. I mean, growing up, I remember seeing it go up and understanding how they melded into the existing church structure, but not to the point where they tried to match it, and I appreciated that back then, and I appreciate it now still more. The library is in desperate need of more space for their collection. Overnight the population doesn't change so the uses of the library doesn't change as far as how many people use it. But what does change is that we're just creating more space for the community to exist in. In addition to creating mezzanine or second story levels inside the existing structure, hence the dormers to get head height on the back 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 September 28, 2006 24 1 2 portions, we're also creating a situation where we're not disturbing the interior volumes as much as possible. One of the things that we all love about this library is the sense of volumes and the sense of space. I have two drawings that kind of depict different portions of what we're looking to accomplish with the library (handing). I offer those as visual aids. The library itself, one of the other things that we're going to do is we're going to excavate underneath the existing 1862 church structure. And we're going to create a multifunctional room underneath there for any kind of pick-up meetings that they might have or yoga class or whatever functions that the library chooses to do there. We would also have an elevator serving all three stops; and a ramp that's gOlng to service to the front entrance, not just to the back entrance now so the handicapped have equal access. We have gone through just about every phase of the filing now to the exception of final planning approval. As far as for the variance, all we're concerned with is creating the head height and the space that the community desperately needs for their existing library. So that's what we're here for today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a question. Is that first drawing the reverse gable? MR. NEMSCHEK: The first drawing is actually the existing church structure. And what's going to happen is that the existing church itself -- if everybody's been in the library it has a flat ceiling right now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MR. NEMSCHEK: Above that sheetrock are these beautiful heavy timber trusses, and that's what's there now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you're going to expose them? MR. NEMSCHEK: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, it will be beautiful. MR. NEMSCHEK: Basically what's gOlng to happen is that we're going to end up with these trusses to the side, we're going to expose those trusses so that while we do this ring of a gallery space around, I'm trying to offset it by creating 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 September 28, 2006 25 1 2 more volume. Again, I'm taking some head rest back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: quick question. We don't really back again and I'll make that as in increasing the height of this you're not increasing it? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, just the interior volume is exposed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just taking the ceiling it's kind of a give-and-take. height away while getting the e 3 5 Let me ask you a want you to come a generalization, building by 4 6 7 down. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By putting a basement in you're not increasing the height of it at all? 9 10 MR. NEMSCHEK: No, we're not actually lifting the structure; we're just loading it, temporarily take the weight off the existing foundation and construct a new basement underneath it. But we're not raising it at all. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If I make a comment, it's not really a question, about the library. First of all I think it's worth noting the library as I understand it has a very interesting history in that the church became a what they call In England a redundant church because this church was created I believe when the congregational church split from the Presbyterian church over the issue of abolition of the civil War. And when the Civil War was fought and won by the North, there was no need for that church; so the building was turned into a marvelous community institution, which I understand also has the highest rate of borrowing of any library in the entire Suffolk County. So this is a community which by a vast majority supported the referendum for this, and I have heard a somewhat slightly different version of this presentation by the architect and by Miss Burns in New Suffolk. It's the Cutchogue New Suffolk Library, and to me this question of needing the variance is understandable. It makes sense in terms of the code and Walz and so forth, but to me it seems like a no-brainer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll say this as a professor of architecture, who has done these models with my students for 35 years: It's a real pleasure to see actually hand-drawn perspective as well as a physical model instead of just AutoCAD 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 26 1 9 only is that a great public service because people can understand that kind of visual material, although your plans are beautifully drawn and very clear, and certainly the way you have explained what is proposed and what's existing is very commendable, also it's a very clear set of drawings; we don't always necessarily get that kind of information that everyone on the Board lS able to really understand so compellingly. And I think you have been very sensitive to the existing structure, its historic character; its historic volumes that have changed over time and added on. And I love the fact that you're going to open up the trusses because that's what should be there. It's really an ugly drop in ceiling and so In a sense you're going to be enhancing what's already there as well. I think it's heavily screened with evergreens in the back. The property behind it has a shed building, a metal shed building with no window. It will have no greater impact on the surroundings than that which lS already there. Simply enhance the opportunity for increasing the collection of the library. So I don't have any difficulty with this project. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before we go on, I want to tell you that I am the one that's charged with dealing with this decision, and that's why I was asking the question regarding the shed dormers as opposed to the reverse gable. Is there any additional information I should know in writing this portion of the decision, which is a very small portion? Is there anything you can afford me either in writing or verbally that I should know in dealing with this in the denial of the Building Department? MR. NEMSCHEK: I have an informational packet that I can give to you, if it makes your position easier to write, with not only the written portions of what I've just said but also some of the square footage allotment and what we're going to create with this designation. We're almost doubling their square footage by staying inside the existing footprint. We're going to increase their square footage by about 4,000 square feet to their existing five. But that's outside of what the basements are. The model as well has the basement portions underneath it. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 27 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You might want to just show them since it's a model that comes apart. MR. NEMSCHEK: You know, I think it's important for you to understand that when we can take apart these pieces and at least show you what we're going to end up with. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The foundation for the church is going to withstand excavation without raising the foundation? MR. NEMSCHEK: The foundation's actually going to be removed from the church. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're going to like prop up the church? MR. NEMSCHEK: if we prop it up we're it from the addition. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Similar to what Mattituck had to do when they did the Presbyterian. MR. NEMSCHEK: And the same movers are going to be the ones that do it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: How do you remove it without raising it? MR. NEMSCHEK: Basically what we're doing is we'll raise it about a quarter of an inch I would say. Meaning that the only way that we can kind of take that foundation out is to pick it up a little bit but not enough so that the structure will feel any stress. What's going to happen is that by doing so, we take off the loads of the balloon frame of the church, which is a very interesting structure to say the least because this is one of the only times that I've seen a floor structure independent of an exterior floor. Normally the floor goes underneath the exterior wall and that wall sits on top of it whether it's balloon frame or platform frame, that happens quite often. In this structure there's an internal rim joist that actually is let into the exterior stud, but they both sit on a foundation independently. So when we do take the loads off, we'll excavate around the existing church and drop in rings similar to septic rings and build cribbing inside those rings on either side. So we can take two longitudinal beams outborn from the buildings and then cross-sectional, seven cross sectional steel members through the center. Once We won't prop it up because going to have to separate 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 September 28, 2006 28 1 e 3 that happens, we've taken off the loads on the existing foundation. So we're free then to excavate down to the bottom of what those rings are; which are going to be bottom or the level of the bottom of the footings. And we'll be able to do it all from one side. We won't have to disturb the back portion because the back lot line is kind of close, but we'll be able to excavate and pick from the front. Once that's accomplished, we're kind of free to come in with form work, but that form work's going to be held two feet below the existing church structure because we have to have space for pumps inside that foundation once we're done. And the architectural review committee actually enjoyed the notion of the landmarks as well as that stone is an incredibly valuable thing to me. You know we've got this existing stone foundation that's some 12 inches thick. So we're going to take that stone and build a wall that rings not only the existing church, but the former addition four feet out. So it's going to hide the area way and the welled exit that we need to get down. But it will bring back the look of the existing foundation to the church. So we really don't want to disturb that. That's a keystone that says 1862. It would be a tragedy for that not to exist again at the library. And we're going to match every portion of the existing material to the library with the exception of the barrel dormer in the front is going to be a standings seam copper. So it's kind of a signature of the latest addition. And we'll get to see it patinize over time and enjoy the fact that we can mark those kinds of progressions of the library and hopefully in 20 years, I'll get the commission to do another addition to it. So that's pretty much where we're going to go with this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: will they be able to operate the rear portion of the library during this? MR. NEMSCHEK: They have the option to phase this if they want to, and that's stilt under discussion. It's in three distinct portions. So if they did phase it, the first thing I would like to see accomplished obviously -- and answer the question of loading this church and getting the foundations poured so I can breathe a sigh of 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 September 28, 2006 29 1 6 relief that we're not disturbing any more, and it's possible. We have been over and over and over this. And I have a full set of drawings here that just went out to bid actually, if anybody wants to take a look at them, which are much more detailed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just don't give them to us right now. MR. NEMSCHEK: Trust me, I'm not submitting them as part of this presentation. But it's -- 2 e 3 4 5 7 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll look at them. MR. NEMSCHEK: But it's really for purposes of phasing this project. The second portion would be the heavy timber structure and for that we're also going to introduce two smaller~ steel columns, three inch columns that will sandwich the heavy timber columns inside the former addition. So I don't have to remove those. The horizontal ones I'll take out but reinstall them in a decorative fashion to create covers underneath the actual mezzanine that you see, the one closest to me; and that's the view you're going to get when you kind of walk off the elevator. And that's that reverse gable we're putting on is going to look straight at the old house too, so you'll have this kind of neat little nook that you see there where you can kind of collect your thoughts and get a quiet reflection space which the library can't afford any of its patrons at the moment. So, in addition, not taking out those vertical supports gives me the reality that I don't have to take out the center section of the roof in that main gable that runs through the 1986 addition, which affords the library more to spend on the rest of the construction. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any indication on who built this church at the time? MR. NEMSCHEK: You mean as far as names? I don't have any. We know it was a Unitarian church to begin with ~~ Congregational, sorry. And you know, I would imagine, I mean as far as the way it's built and the style it's built ln, we see this almost every church that you pass, you see from Mattituck to Aquebogue to Cutchogue, there's a lot of the same characteristics gOlng on. And I think they're all right around the same 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 30 1 9 circa, which is enjoyable. To tell you the truth I can't wait for everybody to see those trusses because I've been crawling around up there for the last 10 months, and there's no mechanical fasteners, they're all pegged. It's all mortise and peg joints. The ridge is a dovetail ridge, there's heavy whalers that come across the outside. Some of the members are five inches by 10 inches in dimension, and I think it's going to be a pleasure to kind of clean them up, not too much, just wipe them down. And we're going to have wedge uplights and paint the ceiling, and we'll even get some better insulating quality because the trusses actually fall below the existing roof rafter levels. So we'll be able to cover the roof rafters, put some rigid insulation In and create a better envelope for the library to work off of. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can't wait to see it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 much. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I guess so. First of all, Jerry would like to have the model. He's building a little town In his house and that would go nicely. The basement, I'm just concerned about it. I know we had the conversation. What is the existing height of the basement now, and is it going to be increased? MR. NEMSCHEK: As far as height off the e 14 15 16 17 grade? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. NEMSCHEK: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not above grade, I'm talking about below grade. MR. NEMSCHEK: Oh, yes, absolutely. Right now it's a crawl space, a dirt crawl space that's not more than two and a half feet. You know, just getting around in it is troublesome to even measure the existing members. But yes, this is gOlng to go down to what is the existing level of their basement under the former addition. The model right now of this portion right here exists, this lS a crawl space, and this lS all the dirt. We're gOlng to create a connector between that. We'll have a little underpinning here. And that's why temporarily abandoning the structure 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 31 1 2 instead of under the main foundation to offset the costs of that. But this will actually create about a 10 foot basement that matches the same level of this. It will be the addition of the elevator shaft -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that going to be usable space down there where people are going to be able to go and do their things? MR. NEMSCHEK: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you'll have some way of getting out of that basement from the basement? MR. NEMSCHEK: Yes, you'll notice on the drawings that we put another welled exit in. In addition, we have the central stair as a welled exit to the back. There's a welled exit over here, there's a central stair here, and we're going to put another welled exit here (indicting). So three means of egress, you know, not even counting obviously the elevators. And we're putting in two more handicapped accessible inside the basement itself. One of the great things about the library in the basement they have, they have a bathroom down there already. So the septic is a deep ring, it's one deeper than it normally would have been. So we still have gravity flow, there's no ejectors or anything. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know my Board members probably know what I'm getting at, and I looked at the notice of disapproval and I didn't see the basement on there; is there any reason why it shouldn't be? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think we have jurisdiction. MR. NEMSCHEK: It's a matter of right for them to build their basement. They're inside their setback. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, but they're building in a nonconforming area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Also it's the three story aspect? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand the history of it all. I understand if it were up to me, these people would not be here. I disagree with the law, with the interpretation that brings these people here. What I'm saying is we must be consistent if we're gOlng to use that interpretation and to say that going from a crawl . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 32 1 e 3 space to usable space lS not an increase In the bulk of this building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's true. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is not consistent with how we have been interpreting this law, this interpretation. So, I am not saYlng that we should deny them in any respect and I certainly am not going to, but I certainly would like to be able to have a clarification on that or at least have the applicant amend the application to include that basement if this is under Walz, an increase In the bulk of a nonconforming area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we can address it in the decision. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can include it in part of your decision to be consistent, and to say that the portion that's gOlng to go down further you'll also grant a variance under Walz for that. I think the point lS well taken. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to have the Building Department -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Recognize that when it happens. But I think the application, since the plans already include it, they reflect the basement going down. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not saying they're deceiving anybody; I'm saying that if someone reads this decision, this decision has been published with no mention of the basement. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The decision should include the basement, I agree. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know that your heart was fluttering for a while, but we have a problem with this Walz thing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The only other thing I can think of, Jim, I'm trying to guess what the Building Department might say, is because the walls aren't being changed, and it's only the basement that a substantial part of that nonconformity remains that they would not apply Walz decision, and also there might be an average front yard setback in the area that would allow you to be that close without a variance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Quite frankly, they might not have been confronted with the situation where you go down instead of up. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I couldn't agree 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 September 28, 2006 33 1 2 with you more. I'm just saying that certainly if a dormer that doesn't go any closer to a property line on the back of this building is considered under Walz, certainly the basement, which is just the opposite end of the building, is increasing the bulk, increasing the use of the building, allowing more people to be in this building, certainly should be addressed by this interpretation. MR. NEMSCHEK: Can I offer an explanation as far as that goes as well because we have had this conversation over and over again. Although I agree it's increasing the square footage, it's not increasing the use because more people haven't moved there overnight to use the library. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's increasing the square footage of the building. MR. NEMSCHEK: That I agree with. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The advantage we have is that we have all-inclusive powers to include that in our decision. MR. NEMSCHEK: Fantastic. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that's what I will do, and that's what we will certainly deal with. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 MR. NEMSCHEK: It's much appreciated. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One more question on the notice of disapproval. It mentions here something about the landmark preservation; I just want to be clear, we're not granting any kind of variance from that. MR. NEMSCHEK: No. We've already been there. We have had landmarks out on the 18th, and we're awaiting their decision as well. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? Miss Doty? MS. DOTY: I'm Debra Doty, I'm a resident of Cutchogue, and I'm a trustee of the library. I would just request that the Board make its determination as soon as possible because we would like as the trustees to begin work soon as we possibly can. So we would appreciate that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the audience wishes to comment? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 34 1 2 . 3 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a resolution to withdraw the application of David Sciacchitano. (See minutes for resolution.) 4 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Thomas and Helen Fox on Freeman Road in Mattituck. You just wanted to put a porch on, I believe. MS. FOX: We're here today to ask the Board to approve a variance. We want to put a deck on. Our front steps deteriorated, and instead of just replacing the front steps, we would like to put a porch with a rocking chair so we can sit there and watch our neighbors, watch the people as they go by. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, this is mine so I'm going to ask a couple questions. The garage is out, I see it on there, but there's an X through it, you're not going to build that? MS. FOX: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And your existing front yard is 40 feet I see, 40 something and this deck there's no foundation underneath it? MS. FOX: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's just on pilings, footings whatever. will it be covered? MS. FOX: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's not going to be a roof over top? MS. FOX: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you have no intention of doing that? MS. FOX: Well, maybe down the road. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we're probably going to restrict it. We're probably going to say shall remain open to the sky, so that's why I'm asking that question. Maybe later on, if you want to apply for a variance to put a cover on it, you can, but you haven't applied for that now, and I'm just being clear on what you are applying for so we know what to give you. MS. FOX: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Naturally you'll have railings and all that kind of stuff on it. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 35 1 2 So it's not heated. It's a wood deck, right? MS. FOX: Wood deck, right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I think it's quite clear. I was there. We met the other day and the steps are just off to the side. It's just a raised platform basically, wooden platform, 238 square feet, 21 by 10 with the steps. MS. FOX: That was a mistake, it's supposed to be 21 by 12. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Didn't we get an amended one? We did get an amended one. You gave us a second one, that's fine. I don't have any further questions. It's a five foot variance, setback. MS. FOX: Right. And I also have a e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 return. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, you can give that to Linda. Thank you very much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no 13 comment. e 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. I appreciate the need to do something about the deteriorated steps and the idea of having a deck out to the limits of the code allotment for setbacks makes a whole lot of sense. One problem might be that someone might object to the fact that a 12 foot deck is one that duly extends beyond the front of the neighboring property, and then the question is why do you want a 12 foot deck rather than say a 10 foot or eight foot deck. I guess I want to hear the argument for making it that wide given that you require a variance for that rather than a narrower deck. MS. FOX: We didn't want to put up a smaller deck where we couldn't sit and enjoy ourselves in front. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You can put a table and chair out there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. There have been people who have four foot decks, six foot decks, eight foot decks. We have at times reduced a deck to as small as six feet when the circumstances warrant it, but you would argue that that's not necessary or desirable in this case; is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 36 1 2 that right? MS. FOX: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the whole purpose was not simply to get to your front door but rather while in the process of getting to your front door you wanted more than a landing; you wanted a place to be able to sit out with a chair and enjoy your neighbors or whatever. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Watch the traffic go by. 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.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for House of Daige. The applicant wants to put a house on a 6,000 foot piece of property that was supposedly just for a garage. Miss Doty. MS. DOTY: I have for the Board I'll start with the return receipt cards (handing) and one missing. There is no card from the Ruch Lane Holdings because it was mailed to Southold and Mr. Hoffman didn't go out to Southold to pick up the card (inaudible). For the sake of simplicity, I'll call the applicant Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman lS seeking relief for a situation that no one knew about. The sellers didn't know about it; the buyers didn't know about it; (inaudible) didn't know about it; the title company didn't know about it; the attorney didn't know about. And the Town of Southold did not know about it (inaudible). I came to the Zoning Board on a number of occasions and Linda -- Miss Kowalski read a decision. In that decision it says that this parcel is to be (inaudible). This applicant wishes to build a house on the property. We bought this property with the intention of building a house on the property. In fact, the contract of sale is contingent upon the approval of -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Could you speak a little louder? I'm not hearing you well. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think that mike is working to be honest with you. MS. DOTY: It would probably be good if it was turned on. Do you want me to start allover? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 10 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 37 1 . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I heard you. MS. DOTY: On the contract of sale the last page has the contingency on it. I have Health Department approval. We went into contract in January of '04; Health Department approval was received in July of '05. We closed at the end of October, '05. The property across the street, which is Lot 36, which is owned by Mr. Hoffman, the contract was signed the same day, January of '04, and that closed in March of '04. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which piece is his, excuse me, Miss Doty? MS. DOTY: Number 36 across the street. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number 36. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The house is there on the water. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: have had variances on already. variances on that house. MS. DOTY: I was not involved in that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was part of this application when the prior owner applied for those variances. It was part of this House of Daige application, under a different name, of course. MS. DOTY: Are you talking about Bishop? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The one across the street that this application was joined with when the former owner applied for the variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He didn't have enough room for a garage. MS. DOTY: He owned both parcels and he wanted to create two parcels across the street. One is this 40 foot lot and the one is the property to the east. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Not exactly create, but he applied for variances to build a garage on the lot across the street. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's set off the property; it was set off from the property. MS. DOTY: It was set off from the property across the street, yes, and that's the 1969 determination. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don't want to interrupt you if you have more you want to say, but to me this matter comes down to an issue of fairness and notice, and these are issues that we grapple with as a municipality. We all know that Right. Which we We've have had 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 38 1 . 3 in order to get a building permit on an empty lot In Southold town you have to have a recognized lot. And we have a part of our Town code that deals with lot recognition. And I suppose that the category that this lot falls under as having been created and/or approved by the ZBA prior to 1983, right, the one catch with that approval and/or creation is the very act that approved and created this lot said you can't build a house on it. So, yes, the lot was created, and so In a sense it was recognized, but the issue for this Board in addition to the fairness issue is to say, did it recognize a buildable lot or did it just recognize a lot that an accessory structure could be built upon. And I don't think there's a clear cut answer to that. That's why I think the equities and fairness come into play. There lS case law out there that if you're going to impose conditions on a lot such as this, it needs to be recorded in the chain of recording that we follow In this county, which is in the county. However, this is a little different because when you buy a lot in Southold town you take notice of the laws of Southold town, and in order to get a building permit on it, you need a recognized lot. And in order to have a recognized lot, you need to fall under one of these categories. The very category under which this falls says no house. So give me something on that. MS. DOTY: I would respectfully suggest that in this instance, it was created by the ZBA and the decision says for accessory purposes only. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The decision says it's accessory purposes only, the ZBA decision that created the lot. MS. DOTY: I acknowledge that; that's in the record. Okay. I would believe that at one point in time the reason for that was that on Ruch Lane a lot this size, or even the 50 foot lots, which are garage lots, could not be built upon because you could not get the separations for well and septic. There's no way you could build a house on the various lots that are 50 feet wide because you can't get the separations. There's water on the road now, and therefore, each of those lots, the 50 foot lots as well as this lot, can be built upon because we can get water. In 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 39 1 2 this instance, if the Town wanted to restrict the use of this lot, they should have put it of record in the County Center, but there's nothing in the deed; there's nothing in the covenant restriction; there's nothing in any of the COs for this lot saying it is accessory only and that it's accessory to another lot. There's nothing that says you can only have an accessory structure, except for the decision that's hidden -- I shouldn't say hidden, I'm sorry -- that's in the ZBA files. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Okay, so when the buyer goes about buying this, how do they convince themselves that they have a recognized lot; what do they do to determine that? MS. DOTY: They get a single and separate . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 search. 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, but a recognized lot under Southold Town Code. MS. DOTY: They look in there was nothing -- that was not done as far as I know, but I disagree. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So there was no diligence to determine whether they had a recognized lot for building purposes. MS. DOTY: In this instance there was a structure on it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: An accessory structure. MS. DOTY: And there's a CO saying a 12 13 . 14 15 16 garage. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: An accessory structure, not a principal. MS. DOTY: But it doesn't say garage and nothing else ever. 18 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It says garage. MS. DOTY: And I would also go to the decision Second Department in 2003 that says very specifically u ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Now what I referred to, I'm aware of that. getting at, that issue didn't deal with recognition, and the Town's requirements recognition. MS. DOTY: I understand that. understand what you're saying. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what you said is important. It's not exactly a vacant lot. There's a structure on the lot, and although that's But I'm lot of lot 20 21 22 23 I 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 40 1 5 it is an accessory structure, I think it's a little different than if -- I mean, if you're going to buy a vacant lot, you have to do a lot of due diligence to make sure it's a buildable lot. Especially In this town where we have our own peculiar laws about lot recognition. MS. DOTY: Right, correct. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So, I think everyone is aware that is a pretty tricky case. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a brief little statement here? It also makes a difference, okay, if the lot is described as subdivided. In this particular case, it appears that this lot is described. Okay? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What do you mean by described? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is not part of an actual subdivision. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This is a set off, right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a set off. I wouldn't call is it described, I'd call it a set off. 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it does not support the recognition of what we see all throughout the county of having a secondary tax map number, which it would have had if it was a subdivision in question, meaning all of Ruch Lane was a subdivision. It was probably a described map, filed with the County Clerk at one time, of which this mayor may not have been an entire lot or a piece of a lot at that particular point. And that's one issue that would have stood out in my mind In the recognition of this particular piece of property. So, I'm just using that as another thought. Because if it was a subdivided piece of property, it would then go to the exempt list first, then you would get the single and separate search. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. DOTY: I agree with Mr. Goehringer, there is nothing in the record that would indicate to anybody that they should do that. Moreover, when I represent a client buying a plece of property In this town and a small lot, if it's built on, I used to not go to the ZBA and do a FOIL request to see if there's any decision. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That's in my mind, and I don't know if it makes sense to anyone 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 41 1 2 else, but that's a big difference. I think if you have a vacant lot, there's additional due diligence imposed upon you in this town to make sure it's recognized. MS. DOTY: I didn't say a vacant lot. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I know that's the distinction that I'm making. So this is where we get to the fairness issue, and that's going to be up to the Board to figure out what they want to do here. A very peculiar circumstance where a lot lS built upon, it's only built upon with an accessory structure, do you want to impose the obligation of the successor in title to go search through all the Town records to find out whether there's any condition in terms of meeting lot recognition? MS. DOTY: I would suggest that that would be counter to the 2003, which involved the Southold Town Planning Board. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, but that's a different issue. In fairness, that was a case in which the Planning Board imposed a condition no further subdivision on a particular lot and the subdivision map was filed and nothing on the map said that it couldn't be further subdivided, and there were no C and Rs that were filed In the County. And the Court, the Appellate Division said, you can't impose that condition upon a successor in chain of title when they had no notice of it, and they did not impose an obligation on that successor in title to search Town-wide records. MS. DOTY: But if in fact this had been a regular subdivision as Mr. Goehringer suggested, in point of fact usually what happens lS you take a lot number and it becomes -- say it's Lot 12, okay, and you're splitting Lot 12 in half, the tax department usually then makes it Lot 12.1 and Lot 12.2. It didn't have it on this lot; we have Lot 13 . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ask the question slightly differently. Apart from the subdivision question, if you go to buy a lot, an undersized lot, and it's vacant, then clearly the burden lS on the buyer to look hard to see whether there is any reason to think you can build or not build on it. The question is when you buy this undersized lot on which a garage is built, does . 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 2S, 2006 42 1 9 that same burden exist or is others to say that, no, they because there is a garage on exercise full diligence. MS. DOTY: Well, I can tell you what I do in a situation where it's an undersized lot and there is an existing structure. I will go to the Building Department and I will pull each of the COs and normally on the CO, it says if there has been a variance granted per ZBA number whatever. Then I go check the variance. We don't have that here. It's not here on the CO. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's an original file, and the copy is in the original file. MS. DOTY: I understand what you're saying, but I don't -- Linda, do you know, if every attorney who handles real estate transactions in this town were forced to come to your office to search every CO, old or new, that doesn't have a ZBA reference to see if there's a ZBA reference, I would suggest that the Board is going to need to hire some more employees. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not every C of 0, it's C of Os in clearly complicated and suspicious issues. It's a very small set of COs that would have to be investigated. MS. DOTY: I'm not sure about that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not either completely. MS. DOTY: I haven't quantified that yet, Mr. Simon. There's also the lssue in this instance, my client had originally thought about putting upon up a 15 foot house; that house would have been built by now because we wouldn't have needed a variance. We could have done it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It may have been checked again by the Building Department a second time, when that was applied for it might have been picked up. It was just one time where somebody didn't find it on laser fiche. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. If you were to apply for that 15 foot house now you would have the same problem that you currently have. MS. DOTY: I'm not sure I would have last the burden somehow can presume that it they don't have on 2 e 3 to 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 sprlng. . 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the fact that somebody didn't find the record is not really a defense. September 28, 2006 43 1 8 MS. DOTY: But instead he wants to do a 20 foot house, and we're here because of the additional need for a side yard variance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Maybe the Board should discuss the variance issue now. MS. DOTY: That's where I was going to go. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Okay, great. MS. DOTY: The proposed structure will fit within sort of the footprint of the existing garage. It's going to go no wider than the garage. It will be set back from the road. It meets the Town Code, front yard setbacks. The neighborhood lS a neighborhood of nonconforming and I think when you drive down Ruch Lane everybody -- well, not everybody, almost everybody has an issue of nonconforming; that's certainly not suggesting that this Board wants to create additional nonconformities, however we're requesting a five yard side yard setback variance. There are 30 lots on that road, if I don't include the lot, which I think it's 24 it's a right of way, of those 16 of them are 100 feet or less in road width. And of those, ten are 50 feet or less In road frontage. Each of those 50 foot lots can be built on with a house if they haven't already been already. The only lot that has a restriction on the accessory use is this lot. In fact, two of the lots, the deeds very expressly say that a building can be built on, on the 50 foot lots where garages now exist. We're not asking for a huge McMansion. We're asking for a 20 foot wide house that extends back. I think with porches it's 600 feet -- Tom Samuels, the architect here -- 600 square feet. I think it would be an enhancement to the community, and I would request that the Board grant not only the variance, but would remove the condition from the property, particularly in the interest of justice and fairness. I have seen decisions from this Board in which the Board has removed restrictions that are recorded in County Center that prohibit the building of a single-family dwelling and in one instance that I can name, it was because public water was available and everybody else was building on similar sized lots, so go ahead and do it. 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 I also would offer the Board a possibility of alternative relief. September 28, 2006 44 1 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MS. DOTY: As Linda knows and Kieran is aware, I'm one of the two -- this application and the one that follows, heard together. It wasn't because I didn't want to come back and see you again, it was because we would suggest that the Board might want to consider a lot line change. That we increase the size of this lot, keeping the adjoining lot, while nonconforming, more than 20,000 square feet. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't have an application for that. MS. DOTY: I know we don't have an application. I'm asking the Board to consider that as a possibility as alternative relief. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to 14.1? MS. DOTY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much property does Mr. Hoffman own in this specific area or whoever the fee owners of these parcels are? MS. DOTY: I can't quantify the exact square footage, but he owns -- he or one of his entities own this garage parcel. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 14.1? MS. DOTY: 14.1, which sometimes we call the Caymans' parcel because we bought it from the Caymans. That's the one with the ranch house on it right next to it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did they want to move a garage over? MS. DOTY: I'll get to that in a minute, that's the next appeal. He owns the property across the street, 36, which is the waterfront parcel, and he owns the road. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He owns the 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 road. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that for the downstairs or for the the downstairs, so it's about upstairs and downstairs, Tom? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Doesn't code say that the minimum square footage on the ground floor has to be 750? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think so. MR. SAMUELS: 750 square foot total. 600 square feet whole house? 1,200 square 22 just Just feet 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 45 1 e 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding that it had to be a mlnlmum 750 on the ground. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My house is 20 feet 2 4 wide. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's the total square footage. Is the intent to use that as a guest cottage, which is how the text calls out the space as "guest room 1," "guest room 2"? It looks as though it's meant to be a small guest cottage. MS. DOTY: I believe he would like to have it as a guest cottage, but I don't think it has to be. 5 6 7 9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, but you're preserving the ability to sell it off separately. I presume that's why it's owned by an LLC, right? MS. DOTY: We wanted to make sure there would be no question in terms of -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, merger. MS. DOTY: Of course it can't be because the road's there. But we didn't want -- he's got an LLC, and he's got the ranch house in Hoffman, so. 10 11 12 13 e 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know how you could grant a side yard variance without recognizing it as a building lot. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, that would only follow if you granted relief from that unrecorded condition. MS. DOTY: I meant to say when I was handing out the green cards to you, there lS no card from the Ruch Lane Holding Company. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, you told us that. MS. DOTY: That's because it was mailed to Southold and Mr. Hoffman's wife is in the process of giving birth and he didn't go out to Southold to pick up the card; did I say that? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Not the giving birth part, but that the Hoffmans are -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, let me just ask counsel a question, Counsel, regarding this situation of a lot line change ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That would need to be done in conjunction with the Planning Board. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And because it September 28, 2006 46 1 2 was undersized it would also probably have come back to us. . 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It would have to. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: While I have you on the line, he does not own Lot Number 127 MS. DOTY: No, he doesn't, that's VanderBeek. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. That's VanDerBeek. Okay, so the point in question is, Miss Doty is now going to, when we finish this hearing, come in with the next application, which is the next moving of the garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of a garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The building of the 4 5 6 7 8 garage. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Moving or building a new garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess my question, Counsel, is since she has not applied for this lot line issue, we actually could hold this hearing in abeyance to see if a lot line issue was palatable with ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what she's asking you, if you're not inclined to grant relief in the way that she's requesting it, an alternative would be to see if you're amenable to making this lot a little bigger to accommodate a house if that makes you happier, and if you sort of give her the wink and nod on that, she'll go make her lot line application and come to you for an area variance but not going to do it if -- MS. DOTY: Go talk to Anthony right now. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: -- if you are not happy with it. If that's not your preferred way to go, then she's not going to do it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still think we have the question, we don't know how the Board feels nor are we asking them how they feel at this point regarding this overall condition of 1969. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The buildability issue, yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The only other thing I can think of is we can finish with these two hearings, and then make a decision and then she can always come back anyway, since it's the same amount of paperwork and procedure, there's no 10 11 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 47 1 . 3 rush to do it today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, absolutely not. Well, the decision would be contingent upon anyway. We would then not grant the area variance ~~ excuse me, the side yard variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because it might not be necessary. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We may not need a variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: True. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We would need an area variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not a side yard variance. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: involved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not a side yard It's extremely 11 variance. MS. DOTY: But you know, there are as you know, two issues before the Board. One is the question of the condition that nobody knew about, I would also submit to the Board that the seller's attorney didn't know about it either, and that's Mr. Price, because he's the one who prepared the seller's affidavits. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Who is the seller? MS. DOTY: Pollack, they were represented by Mr. Justice Price. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But he didn't make any representations to you that it was a buildable lot? MS. DOTY: No, I just asked him for the affidavits, but he did prepare the affidavits and gave them to us without question. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The owner who had applied to the Zoning Board requesting the garage on the vacant lot was Bishop? MS. DOTY: That's correct. And he died, and his estate transferred the properties. But I am offering an alternative relief to make it more palatable to the Board, and to also say my client is not adverse to possibly going the route of a lot line change In order to get a larger side yard In order to accommodate the Board. We do have room on the adjoining parcel to move the lot without having a ~~ is it a side yard or back yard problem? 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 48 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much would your client be willing to move that line? MS. DOTY: We could move it five feet, we could move it ten feet if we had to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Procedurally, do we have to close this in order to hear the next or can we talk about -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, we can adjourn it. MS. DOTY: But if you could give me an indication as to what way you're going, I could talk to the Planning Department and see whether or not they would be willing to do a lot line change. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'll deliberate. We'll all think about it. MS. DOTY: Well, I appreciate the Board's thinking about it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll leave the hearing open, if everybody's agreeable. MS. DOTY: Does anybody else have any questions on this one? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I think it's quite clear what the conditions are. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They're leaving it open in case they have questions, we could contact you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do I have a motion to leave it open? (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Hoffman. Do you want to tell us about Mr. Hoffman and the garage; he really wants to move that garage, Miss Doty? MR. SAMUELS: He has the garage and it's in pretty good shape. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Continue. MS. DOTY: Debra Doty on behalf of the applicant, David Hoffman. We are we have a lot that's about 22,000 square feet, it's 21,678. It's a single-family dwelling ranch house on it, of which about 1,500 is living space and there's about a 660 foot square foot attached garage. Mr. Hoffman wishes to convert the garage into a family room living space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e garage? 25 MS. DOTY: There's only one garage right now, the existing garage, and locate a detached September 28, 2006 49 1 7 garage in the eastern-most corner -- or the northeast corner of the property. That garage would either be the garage from Lot 13 or a new structure. And our problem is that we have three front yards. It was interesting when I went out and posted the property, three of the neighbors came out and asked me what was going on. And I said well, he wants to put a garage over in that corner because that was the one we were talking about, and they said, oh, what's the problem. I said well, he's got three front yards. They said no, he doesn't. Yes, he does. And they kept insisting he doesn't. He does, according to the Town code. We have Ruch Lane, which is the private road, which Mr. Hoffman owns. We have an unopened portion of Ruch Lane on the eastern-most -- or south, and then we have Wild Cherry Way in the back. wild Cherry Way has no access to this area, and the road to the south is unopened, and we don't intend to open it. We do not intend to use that road for our driveway. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, I misunderstood you. Wild Cherry Way has no access here but Wild Cherry Way is an open road, right? MS. DOTY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's fenced off and it's totally fenced off back there. MS. DOTY: Not only fenced off but 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 briars. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Bramble of all sorts back there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well vegetated? MS. DOTY: Yes. So we have three front yards, and setback issues on each of the front yards, which sterilizes a large portion of the property as far as putting any accessory structure be it a shed or whatever. MS. DOTY: When you look at the property, and I know you've all been out there, the logical place for a garage is in the corner we're proposing it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It certainly is. MS. DOTY: And we're requesting the Board's permission to locate a garage In the quote/unquote front yard which really isn't a front yard, but it lS a front yard. There's really no other place to put it on the property. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 50 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Doty, I'd really like to see that garage, if the Board is so inclined if we grant it, to be about seven feet from that rear property line as opposed to five. You have overhangs on the garage which, water runoff. e 3 4 5 MS. DOTY: I don't see a problem with that. 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's a front line. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They're all frontlines, we understand. And I realize that there's a diagnose of natural buffer back there but at the same token, one never really knows In the future of these roads in Southold town what's going to happen. MS. DOTY: No, we don't, but I don't see a problem giving seven feet back there. I know that Mr. Hoffman wants to plant a garden in the back and that's one reason why he doesn't want to attach anything to the house, and even if we were we'd be over in the front yard, so short of putting a garage by the bedrooms it really just doesn't make any sense. So I would request -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the height of the garage? MS. DOTY: It's on the elevation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's pretty 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 low. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sixteen feet, five and a half inches to the ridge. MS. DOTY: The other thing in granting this variance is I think Mr. Hoffman lS most of the neighborhood down there, and it's his garage, he would like to have a garage there in order to put his car there, and as I said, he wants to put a garden In the back, he's already got a partial garden and he wants to expand. We request that the board grant relief from the front yard. I am coming to ask for relief. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You would not need anything other than setback variances from us because you could choose to demolish that existing garage, move the existing garage or create a new one, all you need from us is approval for siting. MS. DOTY: That's correct, I mean, the garage could fall down as it's going up the road to its new location. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 51 1 2 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As far as I'm concerned, it is once again the architectural rear yard the only place you can place an accessory garage and you have enough room on that property, however, should -- this is why they're all interrelated, should there be a pending lot line change potentially, that may have some consequences, it's still the right place for a garage, but it may have some consequence in terms . 3 4 6 7 MS. DOTY: Well, we're not going to take land from that side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it would be from the other side. MS. DOTY: And I would urge the Board on the other one to consider more than 20,000 square feet, which I'm sure the Board wants to do, and I know the Board doesn't want to increase like to increase a nonconformity, but sometimes CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment on this application? I make a motion to close the application and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the Burlingames on West Creek Avenue in Cutchogue. They want to do an as-built dwelling less than 40 feet from the front lot line. MR. UHLENDAHL: My name is Franz Uhlendahl and Kristian Burlingame, the owner of the property that we are requesting a variance for. A second floor addition to the existing structure is noncompliant because a corner of the -- the easterly corner penetrates or encroaches on the front side yard by four feet. It's a relatively small portion. In addition to this, there is an as-built deck balcony, which must have been built at the time when the structure was erected because there was a concrete step going up into -- I consider this the main entrance because it goes right into the kitchen. There is a door, it couldn't have been built without that deck. The Building Department couldn't find any CO on that particular deck. The buildable area lS certainly large enough so you can build something, but we 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 52 1 2 don't want to take the existing structure down. The foundation is in very good condition and we'd like to use the foundation, we can talk about the deck, but we want to go up to the second floor. We are going to be partially in the front yard by four feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have two front . 3 4 5 yards? 6 MR. UHLENDAHL: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. I don't have any specific questions. People always have trouble with these two front yards, which is unfortunate. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any specific comments regarding this except that it appears that the house is going to be very large, and that's it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only thing for which you need a variance is a very small one, there's no other way to access the property except for the slope. The grade is such that you have to get up there somehow and you have to be above that existing garage. I wanted to say that I very much appreciate the clarity of your documentation. It's very easy for Board members to understand the sort of color coding. I'm into reading these things all the time. MR. UHLENDAHL: As far as the size is concerned, consider this an envelope and we talked about trying to create roof line where the second floor basically will have a series of dormers. So the roof line will come down quite a bit to the first floor, the ceiling and so it will be -- it's not what we see in this elevation; it does look much bigger than it will be in the final version. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The slope spirals going up in the rear and the front, and coming down it's a whole slope coming down. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It very much respects the character of the existing dwelling, it's appropriate in scale even with this particular rendition, and you can have some wonderful views. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The unfortunate part about it is the driveway is in the area of where the most visual impact is going to be. If 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 53 1 2 that could be lessened in some way and it's a very difficult thing to do. MR. UHLENDAHL: I think by playing with the second floor architecture, we will be able to create less of an impact as that I show In the sketch. Usually just want to see a sketch or outline drawing. It's not the final. We will keep that in mind. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also if you put plantings there? MR. UHLENDAHL: This is heavily planted to start with. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Also bearing In mind that that elevation through the end wall of the house rather than the primary elevation scale wise. So its impact especially if the ridge comes down a bit. MR. UHLENDAHL: I mean, you hardly see the existing structure now in the summer time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. I hate to restrict you to height, hopefully won't do that. I think it looks nice and I think it would be not very intrusive at all except for that one little garage thing. I would hope that if we are going to grant this, we grant it as applied. That's all I have to say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have a serious problem. Just a question of clarification for me. The deck that you refer to is on two sides of the house; is that correct? MR. UHLENDAHL: The deck is the only one on Dick's Pond Road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. But the variance is only needed regarding the one that's on the Dick's Pond Point Road. MR. UHLENDAHL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And this as-built deck, which apparently was as-built at the time the house was built; do you know when the house was built? MR. UHLENDAHL: Maybe 30, 40 years ago. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 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 September 28, 2006 54 1 2 (See minutes for resolution.) e 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Peconic Landing. Miss Hussie, nice to see you. MS. HUSSIE: Ma'am Chairwoman, we thank you for the tour. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The tour which was wonderful. MS. HUSSIE: Whenever you see cars there, stop in. We're asking for a special exception. Brecknock Hall is on residential property and an historic building, and in order to maintain it to any degree at all, we have to have some sort of an income. Therefore, we're asking for offices, an apartment and public space. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two great big rooms on the bottom and the hallway, they will be public rooms. My question was upstairs where you're going to have the offices, will these two rooms be broken up into smaller offices or just -- MS. HUSSIE: No. The two present bedrooms will be offices as is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just two offices then? You're going to partition them off? MS. HUSSIE: No, we're not going to partition anything up there. There's another bedroom up there that possibly can be used as an office, but we're not being -- we don't know really. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The two front bedrooms are the ones you're referring to. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The two front bedrooms? MS. HUSSIE: The ones on the west side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I would hate to see them partitioned off. MS. HUSSIE: No, we're doing practically nothing to the interior and nothing to the exterior obviously. But the only realignment of walls and things will be for the restrooms on the first floor, that's all, and the apartment, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can't imagine given the reverence that everyone feels toward that beautiful building that anything would be done detrimentally to the architectural character. I mean, that's in fact what you want to preserve. So it would be antithetical to the whole purpose. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You could even move into that attic. The beams up there, too bad you 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 55 1 2 can't expose them, they're gorgeous. MS. HUSSIE: We have enough to work on as e 3 is. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any sense of who you want to rent those offices to? MS. HUSSIE: Our original thought was to rent them to other not for profit organizations who might not be able to pay what the going rent lS, and we hopefully would be able to have a cost that was a little bit softer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Would the foundation be in there as well then? MS. HUSSIE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And then rent out two offices to nonprofit? MS. HUSSIE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The public spaces that you're going to rent out, are those rentable public spaces for people to have various events in, weddings, whatever? MS. HUSSIE: Yes. There's roughly 1,500 square feet in just the center hall and the two parlors. It's large. The whole building is 8,000 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you showed us a plan for parking because I think your neighbor was concerned that the parking view would not extend over the front part of the house. MS. HUSSIE: We don't want that either because it spoils the vista all together. No, the parking will be in the back, the primary parking then there's additional space across the Brecknock Road over near the yellow barn. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That requires Planning Board approval, the parking? MS. HUSSIE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you need from us the special exception? MS. HUSSIE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Hussie, can I ask you again, referring to the two bedrooms on the second floor, we're referring to one that faces towards the road and the other one that faces west, which is in the rear -- MS. HUSSIE: No. They're both facing west. One is in the northwest corner, one is in the southwest corner. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 56 1 2 describe that. MS. HUSSIE: And there's a lavatory In between. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very good. And originally I think you told me that the proposed apartment was going to be about 900 square feet? MS. HUSSIE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, you know I have to reduce this to writing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In terms of apartment rents, I assume that just because of income it would be good to have somebody actually a resident in the building itself to sort of look after it. MS. HUSSIE: I think you noticed on the plans it's calling that apartment a caretaker's apartment. We don't know if we can afford a caretaker and an apartment at the same time. Somebody's going to be living there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who would be deciding? Who is the landlord In this situation? MS. HUSSIE: The Brecknock Hall Foundation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're actually charged with running that building, maintaining it? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 MS. HUSSIE: Yes. We have an agreement, a stewardship agreement with Peconic Landing that says that everything that happens there is our BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Prerogative. MS. HUSSIE: -- fault or good things. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you don't have to report back to Peconic Landing? MS. HUSSIE: No. But our agreement of course says essentially the same thing that we're going to preserve the place. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon a discussion with you at that site two weeks ago on Saturday, I think we determined that any outside use might require an additional permit. And I think as we do with wineries and you said that's going to be limited anyway. MS. HUSSIE: Yes. Our aim is to be able to have enough income to maintain the place and improve it continually. Our present business plan doesn't call for maximizing the lawn at all. It would be one of those here and now kind of things. If it was an occasion that we deemed proper for 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 57 1 2 that building, then we would come for a special permit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we would put it in our decision that any outdoor event should require a special permit with a parking plan as we do with the wineries because people will be parking -- you know what happens with the wineries, they park up and down the road and people get called. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should point out to you and the people that are these nice people that are with you to say that that does not require a public hearing. MS. HUSSIE: They're part of the Board. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Just a one day permit for outdoor events. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I guess you would have some sort of insurance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That's not part of this, of the special exception; that would be required in any circumstances. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have nothing to do with that? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think that need not be part of this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In the interest of disclosure, Peconic Landing is a customer of my business, I've done plenty of business. And Brecknock Hall has an alarm system that I put in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you recusing yourself? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not. I did want to be forward about that. I am intimately aware of that whole entire building and how it's laid out. I would just like to say that the public meeting part of it, having these affairs on the grounds is like a winery kind of situation. So you do need to have this, but it's not part of the special exception. We're not granting you that. . 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 MS. HUSSIE: I understand. Nor are we 23 asking. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you're going to have to show and I didn't want to confuse the issue. The apartment will have no restrictions other than someone's going to be living in there. . 25 September 2S, 2006 58 1 5 MS. HUSSIE: living situation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not for your director, the offices are just office space, they're not for you guys, they're for whoever you can rent them to for the rent you need to have. And that is part of the special exception. I just want to be clear on that because it seemed to me you were going towards you were going to have one of those offices and someone else is. I don't want that to be part of our decision if you don't want that. MS. HUSSIE: Say that again. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seemed during the course of this discussion that someone was intimating that you may have put your organization in there In one of those offices? MS. HUSSIE: Not in one of the two that we're asking for. It will be part of the other place, but it would not be rented out. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Downstairs and It's going to be a permanent 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 whatever? MS. HUSSIE: No. upstairs. I don't think downstairs. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. So you just want office space, public use down below with an apartment on that side. MS. HUSSIE: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which was traditionally an apartment many, many years ago. That's all I have to say, thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to say I'm excited about the fact that there's something available for the community. There's such a shortage of public meeting spaces. I can imagine it becoming a wonderful kind of cultural -- MS. HUSSIE: Along those lines. Mr. Goehringer had asked me for a list of what possibly could happen there, and I'm going to give this to you, but I'll read it to you so you all know it. This is not limited to art exhibits, musical performances, weddings, receptions, a fashion show, play and poetry readings, annual dinners or meetings for clubs like Kiwanis or somebody. A lecture series, special classes such as driver safety, boating and that kind of thing, formal dances and dance instruction. It will probably be there's any room left 13 . 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 59 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you're gOlng to have a catering kitchen? MS. HUSSIE: A catering kitchen, yes, we're not cooking. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you anticipating advertising these opportunities? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When they get it done? MS. HUSSIE: When it's done, I think we'll probably do a little bit of a hoopla thing, when it's all finished. And hopefully the publicity takes care of our advertising. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You'll court the Suffolk Times. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can say this, that my wife's family was looking to having the family reunion at peconic. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good idea. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A little too steep for the Irish blood there. We had it at our house and the grass hasn't grown back yet. MS. HUSSIE: That's a reason why we're not pushing the outdoor activities. It is hard on the green. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it is. Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. 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.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next Karnick Garipian and Haci Garipian. resolution to grant the applicant's adjournment until October 26th. (See minutes for resolution.) hearing is for We need a request for 18 20 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for for Miss Radacinski for a fencing on the corner of Sound Road and Main Road. Jim, you're right near there. The poor lady wants to put a fence up. MS. RADACINSKI: I did put it up already because I was getting a puppy and I needed to have that fence repaired. So I built it with the understanding from the builder that it could easily be cut back to four feet, if you don't give me permission to leave it at six. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have it at six at 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 60 1 2 one part then it drops down. MS. RADACINSKI: It's just the part that is part of my back yard. Again, you have the two front yard situations. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long is that fence, ma'am? MS. RADACINSKI: That section is about 44 feet, and it actually is not six feet all the way because the grounds slope it goes down to about five feet at one end. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the frontage alongside -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 25. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CR 25. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I guess it's sort of your side yard in a way. MS. RADACINSKI: It is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it's your second front yard. MS. RADACINSKI: Because of the nature of that road there, there's no house across the road; there's no sidewalk; it doesn't really feel like a street. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a 44 foot. MS. RADACINSKI: It's approximately 44 feet, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Varies from six to five feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can personally attest that it does not interfere with any coming and going. You really don't notice. There's always headlights shining in these people's yards. MS. RADACINSKI: My biggest concern lS when the truck drove through the fence. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was in a car that ended up in that lot once. MS. RADACINSKI: This lS the second time someone's been through my fence, actually. I really wanted something a little more secure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, I have to tell you it's a very tastefully done fence. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And air goes through it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I thought you might want to extend it a little bit even closer to Sound Road then drop it down because you don't get much privacy. Jim? e 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 2S, 2006 61 1 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very heavily vegetated, and then you have sort of chicken wire condition around four foot high. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would just say in this case having built the fence in anticipation of probably being able to keep it, you made it easier for us to get an idea of what it would look like if we granted it. MS. RADACINSKI: Thank you. actually a matter of cost for me. I cheaper to cut down a six foot fence it up. It was think it was then to build 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How noisy is that 9 corner? 23 MS. RADACINSKI: It's horrible. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I doubt that that unfortunately is going to baffle noise. MS. RADACINSKI: It has made a difference with regular traffic. The guys who are building it said they noticed the difference being inside or outside it is fence. But In terms of motorcycles, the difference between head shattering and just extremely loud is very little. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Have you heard from any of the neighbors? MS. RADACINSKI: The only ones I didn't get the green cards back from was Bretons. But I spoke to them because they asked me what it was about and they have no objections. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. I live on that road. Just so you know, I live on Sound Road. Like I said, I have no objection to it whatsoever. I thought maybe we could set it back a little bit. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's so scrubby. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They need it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can't walk along there. I did when I went to do site inspection, and I was sort of walking in brambles because to be close to the edge of that road is sort of a disaster. MS. RADACINSKI: When they cut the grass, they don't cut right up to the fence. My guys cleared it in order to put the fence up, but it will be overgrown in six months I would say. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write the 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 62 1 . 3 decision and I don't have any questions or problems with it. It's sort of a corridor, a traffic corridor and doesn't have any effect on neighbors in particular, and if it can lmprove the quality of your life and your dog's life. I notice you have an area behind your house that's fenced off. Is that where your dog runs? MS. RADACINSKI: It runs the entire back yard. In fact, I had the entire fence rebuilt with the puppy coming. It's four feet around the back, but it's a very small puppy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no further questions, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing lS for the Anselmos on the North Road, who wish to convert an accessory building. Miss Moore? MS. MOORE: Good afternoon, I have Mr. and Mrs. Anselmo, and I have Angel Chorno the architect with me as well. I don't know if you all have had a chance to go inside the building as well. Did you get inside or just the outside? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just the outside. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just the outside. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The door on the most easterly side was a little ajar. MS. MOORE: Everything's a little ajar. Certainly you saw the building. I gave you a lot of history with respect to this property because you could see that the main house has historic status. The Anse1mos began really this process because -- and I explained she's a pianist, and she wants a music studio for herself. This barn was the perfect place for it, but the condition it's In may not sustain the weight of a piano, plus the building needs to have significant improvements made to it. The plan was that because of the construction style, and I could only gather from the tax map information that it certainly predates the records that are kept at the Building Department, so it's certainly older than the '50s. find it would make more sense and the applicants 10 11 12 13 e 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 63 1 e 3 want to take this building down and build a barn, that is I want to say, a replica in a sense of style. You can see the style of the window is different but replicate the barn that is presently there In terms of volume, height and everything. This is the original barn that was for the large piece of property. It's this piece plus the farm acreage. It was all one piece at one time, and they want to keep the farm character of the property. I have the plans in your file and you can see style~wise what it's going to look like. We were flexible In its placement. It makes sense to push it towards the back because that's where it is. We are on Route 48 so the privacy of this barn and keeping the character of the property, it makes sense to push it toward the back of the property. When the surveyor marked it, it is a 12.3 feet from the back property line. The plans propose a cantilevered balcony, which overlaps so the foundation wouldn't show, but the balcony is there and to straighten, since it's gOlng to be a new building, straighten the foundation and push it so the edge of the balcony lS at 50 feet, 10 feet, whatever you find acceptable. We're here to discuss it with you. We didn't know which way you would prefer to see this done and we'd entertain any questions that you might have. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: whole issue is the use. MS. MOORE: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's go back to the Orient situation because that's the best one to build on, okay, that's your client In Orient that had that very nice house on 25. MS. MOORE: He wanted to subdivide. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. He wanted to build a garage with a heated area above it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For recreation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For recreational purposes and this was where we had this huge discussion regarding a heated hallway connecting the house. MS. MOORE: Yes. The old house that was going to be heated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly the same situation except it's not a four lane highway. I think the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 MS. MOORE: I think that was different in that the connection was feasible. That was originally the way it was planned was they needed extra I think a master suite, bedroom space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They needed a nanny's quarters or something? MS. MOORE: No, I think that was actually a master bedroom suite. They actually designed that with the connection, and the question was could you connect it with something less than heated space. That was the Orient example that you had and the architects had no problem with saying, okay, fine, we'll connect it with something more than a breezeway. Which is what I think they were originally considering, something that was maybe a glass enclosure but it is heated. We unfortunately don't have the flexibility to do that here. For one you have a historic house that really trying to connect this barn or something similar that close to it would really change the integrity of this house. It's what do they call it, the Italianate. The barn is -- they want to keep the character of the barn as an accessory building for recreational use, and actually I've had several applications that more and more these barns are being used for something. Obviously the farm community is changing. There are no longer farms attached to the homes, many of the homes here, the farms have been sold off many years ago. People want to take the barns, not lose the use of it as a large open recreation area; and that's really what they want to do here, take this barn, use is it as a recreational space storage and the piano, they can assure you there's no living quarters in it, and your decision -- and that's why often times it comes to the Zoning Board because the Building Department doesn't necessarily have an issue with the use of the accessory structure, they're just concerned that over time they become living spaces, they become second dwellings. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's our concern too. MS. MOORE: Exactly. here saying, we are not making Right now I asked if you had a inside. I have photographs of 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 64 Which is why we're it a living space. chance to look the inside. The September 28, 2006 65 1 2 inside clearly and not too long ago was used probably as migrant worker housing or some type of housing because the building inside is not in bad condition. But that's not what they want to use it for. e 3 4 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're going to demolish it? MS. MOORE: Exactly. And what they're planning on doing is having it as a rec room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the second floor I notice there is a wood burning stove. MS. MOORE: There is one now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, I don't care about now but the proposed is for a wood burning stove upstairs how about the poor guy downstairs that is doing his recreation, he has no heat. MS. MOORE: I don't know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is the building going to be heated? MS. MOORE: I'm getting an answer. For the record, the plan is not to have heated space on the first floor to make the heated space the second floor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the first floor is going to be like a storage area like a garage area; is that correct? MR. ANSELMO: And summer use. MS. MOORE: And summer use. They're not really -- the first floor is not CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There is a bathroom down there though. MS. MOORE: There is now a bathroom, yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not interested in 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 now. 22 MS. MOORE: I didn't know if you were asking me if there was a bathroom now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't care about now. MS. MOORE: Yes. There will be a bathroom, but it will be on both floors. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Just a toilet and sink, right? MS. MOORE: Yes, toilet and sink, water 19 20 21 23 closet. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, I have to say that the maximum we have ever done -- and I'm saying we because I have firsthand knowledge and I don't mean that in a sarcastic sense -- is the creation of an accessory library. We have an e 25 September 28, 2006 66 1 9 attorney that retired but chose to enjoy his library, and he had had a one-story garage on the Long Island Sound, which he intended to make two story to put his library in. We allowed him to have heat on the second floor for the purposes of housing books. That was dead storage MS. MOORE: Well, I actually have two Camp Mineolas that I've done. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just let him finish. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As an accessory structure, we also had a very similar situation which dates back at least 10 years in Mattituck down In the Camp Mineola area, which was a similar situation. It was a library of sense, I cannot tell you if it was law books, I don't remember what kind of books it was. So, in all of these situations, they were situations of storage, but the ability of climate control for storage. They were not active detached buildings for the purposes of these types of activities that your client -- MS. MOORE: If I could refresh your recollection on two that I had because I did them. One on Peconic Bay Boulevard the space above the three car garage she did antiques and restoration of furniture, and they used the second floor of the garage heated for that hobby, it's a hobby room essentially. I have another one on Aquaview Lane, which was in an existing garage, and they made the second floor space for -- she was an artist, so she used it as an art studio. Those are two right off the bat that I recall. Mrs. Anselmo is a pianist, she needs just a music studio for herself. And the goal was take this beautiful space and use it, use the second floor as a very nice piano studio, not unlike any other hobby room, hobby that you might have whether it's an ancillary office for a lawyer or whatever. There are a lot of people coming out here who are artists or creative or have adjunct home offices and the space above the garage is very useful for this space because one it's private, and two it's often times nice, clean and kind of gives you the prlvacy that you need. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, but isn't it unusual to have a facility like that with two half baths? 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 67 1 2 MS. MOORE: If you don't want two baths, we'll make it One. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it's for the use of a studio and for storage one wonders when one sees that the plans call for a bathroom on both floors. . 3 4 9 MS. MOORE: If they're half remember that the old house is very it's very limiting. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not talking about the old house, I'm talking about MS. MOORE: No. But I'm reasons for putting in two extra have no objection. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: building? MS. MOORE: They have no objection to one toilet since the toilet is going to be the one in her piano studio. So, if you want to limit it to one half bath, they have no objection to that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue lS whether this is going to be convertible to a living space and when the plans call for a new building with two half baths, that's only going to be used as a studio, it makes you wonder a little bit. MS. MOORE: That's why we're here because your decision specifically says you can't make it sleeping quarters, and that's the whole reason that many of these applications come to this Board so you can impose the restrictions on it so it's clear to certainly the applicant but any future owner as to what the restrictions are with this space. That's why we always come to this Board with any kind of unique, something that doesn't fit the typical mould under our code. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's back up a Do you want to go? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a couple of things, being this is a tear-down altogether, I fully understand and appreciate the desire to keep the historic character of an accessory barn on the premises, particularly when you have a historic home to begin with. As an architect that makes a lot of sense to me. However, there's two issues here. One is the fact that accessory structures should not exceed 18 feet in height because they are not meant to have a second floor that's habitable for any use. Secondly, the setback, the baths, lovely but 5 6 7 8 saying their toilets, they In the accessory 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 second. 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 68 1 9 rear yard setback is not such a big issue but unfortunately these are not permitted uses for accessory buildings. Now, the fact is that probably given the fact that increasingly accessory buildings are being preserved and people are wanting to use them for home offices, for computer rooms, for workshops, we need to reexamine the code as far as I'm concerned. We really ought to begin to look in the way in which adaptive re-use of accessory uses can be accommodated. We aren't at that point, however. The code doesn't permit use other than for storage of equipment. It's an ancillary storage structure of some sort. MS. MOORE: But I would disagree because an accessory use is one which is and incidental to the principal use. By definition. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: that's right. MS. MOORE: Therefore, what we've asked for lS an accessory building with an accessory use and you have a lot -- I mean, this is not the first type of application where you have somebody who is trying to keep the character of the property, keep the look of the property but have use of a property, have something more -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In a tear down situation, in that kind of condition. It's one thing to say this building that already exceeds the height restriction of an accessory structure is salvageable, and we're going to rebuild it because it has some historic value. It's another thing if you're saying you're going to replicate the appearance of what was there. You have an open slate then. At that point when you're tearing it down, you can site it anywhere you want. You can make it look like anything you want. You can have it attached with the flimsiest of attachments, and you could have it skewed so it appeared to be a separate building. There are a million ways that you can recreate a music studio. You can have the height at 18 feet high and have the footprint wider if you have the setback moved closer to the house. So I just want to raise it because I truly appreciate wanting to use your property in the way that is useful for you, and I also appreciate wanting to keep the sense of a with that customary 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 By definition, 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 69 1 7 farm building. But there are ways to do it that probably don't require as many variances. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it's perhaps misleading to use the words preserve an old structure when you are in fact replacing it with a new structure. MS. MOORE: We're trying to preserve the look of the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's essentially building a replica of a nonconforming building after you have torn it down and you call it preserve the look of it. It still doesn't get around the fact that when you build from the ground up, you're more constrained by the existing codes than you would be it you were modifying an existing structure and everybody knows that. MS. MOORE: I appreciate that. The client, they wanted to try to bring back that barn building. That really truly is what they want to do. They bought the house. It's an antique. It's beautiful. They want to preserve the look of the property with an old barn in the back. That's what was their goal, and that's why they're here. If you're telling me that to demolish the mold and try to rebuild something that looks the same is a problem for this Board, we'll adjourn. We'll go look and see if it's feasible with the right contractor to rebuild the building or not rebuild. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Modify to fix it. MS. MOORE: Yeah, renovate the existing building. The problem is you end up with footings, you end up bolstering a lot more. Financially it makes more sense, and you know this from a lot of the applications you get before this Board, it's a lot more expensive to try to bolster an old than to try to rebuild something that's a replica. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So something's going to have to give. An older building which lS nonconforming is grandfathered, is preserved. But once the grandfathered building is demolished, then the grandfather exception goes out the window. 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. MOORE: I understand. But we have to be careful because sometimes the Building Department at one point or another says geez, you've replaced too much wood, come to the Zoning Board. So I don't want to say okay, we'll go back e 25 September 28, 2006 70 1 5 to the drawing board. I'd rather keep it open, look to see if structurally there's a way of bolstering, repairing the existing structure to preserve it, keeping it the way it is, reshingling, everything else, but it's the wood behind it, and the footings that are key to maintaining this structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One more hypothetical. Suppose the building is demolished if you've got detailed plans and pictures of it. Then five years later you decide that you want to restore the old building, would you want to make the same argument because it was only preserving with a five year hiatus between it. It sounds to me like a new building. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Suppose this is demolished and instead of building on the same site one month later, you do it five years later, would you want to make the same argument; how do you stop someone else from making that argument? MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that I'm following. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That you can make a replication of a demolished building any time after the demolition occurs. MS. MOORE: Yes. But now you see with what the building looks like, you can have applications, Orient, for example, I had a client that wanted to build a replica on Village Lane exactly the same house that I think structurally had a problem it couldn't be repaired and they wanted to do a replica, identical replica of it. They had the existing building that they used as a form. Here we're trying to replicate the barn and if you're telling me, well, if you demolish it, forget this barn. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In the Orient case, did they require and obtain the same variances? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They needed side yard, front yard, they did replicate it more or less the same style but it was a principal dwelling. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But they were able to retain the variances that were originally applied? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think there were any variances at the time it was built, then they had to come in to uS. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's exactly 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 September 28, 2006 7l 1 5 point, now they have to come in for variances. Rebuild it to improve it, you wouldn't require the variance. MS. MOORE: I don't know that to be sure because the Building Department is not often consistent on whether or not we need to come back to the Zoning Board. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's one reason why we exist because they have trouble being consistent. MS. MOORE: I'm trying to get them to just do a barn. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The notice of disapproval has to do with the height of the building and its use. It's a perfectly nice building, but it's a fully insulated two-story finished interior. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not a barn. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. Goehringer, I think he was just mentioning to me that generally these structure.s are open inside. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In general these structures are open studs, like a garage. MS. MOORE: No. That's why I asked you BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a building to be inhabited, not for sleeping, necessarily, but for CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Habitation. MS. MOORE: May I please make the request, we'll adjourn today. I want you to go inside the building. Once you go inside the building, you'll see what it was like and it is fully -- it is a complete living structure right now. It was clearly used for sleeping quarters. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It might have been but that would still be against the code today, Pat, so it doesn't do us any good. MS. MOORE: No. But what I'm saying what we're trying to do -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's too big for a game room and just a music room, you don't need something 57 feet long by God knows how many feet wide. For that you can have a smaller building to accomplish the same thing. This is just too big. MS. MOORE: But if you shared that -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make a 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim. September 28, 2006 72 1 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make a comment, we're here basically because they need a height variance, two feet, right? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And also we're here, I don't think they need a setback variance if they go back 10 feet, saying demolish your buildings, you can build probably a building 70 feet long if you want to because it's conforming. You can have as large an accessory structure that you want until you fill up 20 percent of your property. MS. MOORE: But we want to use it as a music studio. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Now you're trying to preserve the space that you have here, what you envision there already. In order for you to do that -- let me finish my thought -- you would have to say renovate this building if you want to, and there would no permits needed to be issued. I see you have a sink there, it's a 1930s sink. There's a stove. People have inhabited in what we're envisioning right now with the exception of your piano, which could possibly be put in there, although I doubt the stairs would hold it. You'd probably have to get a crane or something. But in any case, you're just coming to preserve that upstairs/downstairs that you have already. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But they're tearing it 2 . 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 down? 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In order to do that you have to build this building to code, some code, I don't know what it's going to be. I'm sure it's going to be insulation. You're going to have to build it so you can't bump your head when you come down the stairwell, those kinds of things. So I don't see this as a really huge leap from what they have to what they want because the 55 -- 51 foot building is already there. I don't think that you could renovate this, but I do think you could ask us for a variance but you're asking for the way you have to build it today as opposed to because you want it. Just simply because you want it. You have something there already, you just don't want to give that up. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But, Jim, if they're demolishing the structure they don't have 18 19 20 21 22 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 73 1 5 anything there. They're asking for a use variance and a height variance on a new building. MS. MOORE: I want to clarify, it's not a use variance. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I want to just mention there's a CO in the file that says it's a nonhabitable accessory barn. So it is a use issue. 2 e 3 4 9 MS. MOORE: That's why I asked you, please go and look inside. You'll see on the inspection that it showed heat and water and all that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Pat, if you take it down, I don't care what's there, it means you have two principal dwellings on a single lot and it still is illegal. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not though. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there had been a use variance on the building that is now there and it's torn down, you would have to apply for a new use variance which you might or might not get. The use variance does not surVlve the use of the house once the house is demolished. You can't have a use variance where there is no house. MS. MOORE: I think once the variance lS issued it runs with the land. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The use runs with the land only if the house is on it. It doesn't run with the land if the house is demolished. MS. MOORE: Are you talking about the principal house? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Any house. A use variance refers to the use of a structure on the property. When the house is no longer on the property, then the use variance expires at the same time the structure did. MS. MOORE: I think in the past the Board has said that we recognize that you have accessory residential uses that you want to undertake In accessory buildings, and that you come to this Board and with the proper restrictions, that is don't convert it to sleeping quarters, you can use it for something that lS ancillary to the residential use, which is all we're asking for is for it to be ancillary as a piano studio. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're saying I've got the use variance, now I want to build the 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 74 1 9 house for that use. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They don't have a use variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even if she did have a use variance, if this structure was used, once you demolish the house you don't have -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don't have anything. And now you want to build a new house. There are choices you can make. One is if you want to have a studio, fine, no variances necessary. If you want to repair the -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No variances, but you can't have both. MS. MOORE: I just need some guidance from this Board. What would you like me to do because obviously my clients, all they're asking for lS a piano studio, they don't want to have it attached to a 1600s house. It's somewhat undermines the integrity of the architectural structure. If that's the only way it can be done, they go back to the drawing board. You have got to attach it, put a barn attached to it. I don't know that's something that you would ever want to do. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Take them out to Orient and show them the one that you did. MS. MOORE: That was a different style house. That was a Cape Cod that had like a Cape Cod, just architectural style. It was a barn looking, but it was all part of the living space. Here they wanted to preserve the barn look that is very different from the Italianate. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I explain something to you? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There may come a time, and your father is a wonderful architect, there may come a time when they want sound deadening insulation in this building for the purposes of this very nice lady and her occupation or her hobby, whatever it is, it's none of my business what it is. The only way you can perform this act is two ways, you can rebuild the barn with bear studs and that is it. Personally, I don't think this Board -- and I'm not speaking for the Board and I'll speak for myself -- I don't care if you put a stove in it, if you have bare 2 tit 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 September 28, 2006 75 1 5 studs, but what you are asking for is a fully insulated, fully heatable, even though it may not be heated except for the nature of the stove that your father mentioned, building. And I think that several of us clearly feel that that can't be done unless it's attached to the house, and I'm not speaking for those several, they're here to answer that question, but that's what we're saying and that's it. MS. MOORE: Maybe. I heard different opinions here. Is the issue if it were a smaller building? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No bearing on 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 it. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly again, I think if you built a building to conform so you didn't need variances, there would be no trouble at all. 10 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That has nothing 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no reason why you can't playa piano in a garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just said that but it can't have walls, it can't have insulation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure it can. You can insulate an accessory structure. MS. MOORE: Sure. Even car repalr people that tinker with cars in their garage put sheetrock and they insulate it with heat. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not for me to make that decision. It's for the Building Department to make that decision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but what I'm saying is if you built this building without needing variances, you could put that sheetrock in; you could put the sheetrock in; you could put everything that we have been complaining about from this side you could do because you wouldn't be before the Board. You wouldn't be under the restrictions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wouldn't get a CO. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't be before the suspicions that seeming to emanate. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You still need a CO, Jimmy. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You need a CO, but I'm sure that the Building Inspector would lssue it. 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 76 1 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wouldn't spend that kind of money without -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hey, all I'm saying is if you don't need a variance you could probably do it. I don't know about the bathrooms. MS. MOORE: You're actually allowed a bathroom in the accessory building as long as it's a toilet and a sink. MS. ANSELMO: Excuse me, I just want to say a little bit about my background. I just want to introduce my profession and how I was brought up. I was brought up a concert pianist. My mother was a professor in Moscow Conservatory and she taught multiple students. I am the same profession as my mother and therefore In order for a Steinway piano that often costs $50,000 and up to let's say brought into any building, it needs to have heat because the piano cannot survive due to the nature in which it's built, the wood and strings and everything that was put into the piano, it cannot be sustained if it was put in the building. And only because of that nature of it we need to have some sort of heating provided so that the piano would not be -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I appreciate that having played piano years ago. But how are you going to keep a wood burning stove going all night? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can't do 2 . 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 that. 17 MR. ANSELMO: probably not. I just don't know. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a friend that has a Steinway and we water it down all the time. It has that water gauge on it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I appreciate that as my son has a Steinway grand in his house, which he's inherited from my mother, and he had to get rid of his wood burning stove because a wood burning stove isn't the right kind of heat. MS. MOORE: We don't need a wood burning 18 19 20 21 stove. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then what are they going to use for heat? MR. ANSELMO: As long as there lS some 23 e heat. 25 MS. MOORE: Okay, the building was previously heated by propane. September 28, 2006 77 1 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But more important, I don't think you would have a problem at least with this Board in having an accessory building appropriate for your Steinway. The issue is whether you can have a building which also preserves the memory, if you will, of the existing building, the structure and the location. And you may have to choose between where you want to put your piano and what you want to do with the existing structure. But I think both of them are very worthwhile, whether they can be done in the same application is what's giving us trouble. MR. ANSELMO: Sure. If I may just add, before we bought the house, we had an engineer come in and inspect the house and inspect the barn, and he said the barn you cannot salvage it. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We agree. We're just 11 saying. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can recycle the wood that's all. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have to go inside to know, and neither do you, to know that's not something you want to put money into trying to rebuild. MS. MOORE: Can I make a suggestion only because you're suggesting to them go back to the drawing board, you may not be able to put this same size, look of the barn as your piano studio 12 13 . 14 15 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Attach it to the house. MS. MOORE: Maybe something more appropriately sized to the property. I don't know whether it's appropriate to attach it or not attach it, that's not my business, that would be up to the client. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MS. MOORE: I would ask that we hold this hearing open because I think no matter what we decide to do when you decide to put, whether it's called a family room or play room or art studio or music studio, the Building Department has some degree of control i.e. you, to review it so somebody doesn't convert it to living space. And nobody has ever has an objection coming to you -- most of my clients who come to you and say I don't want to convert it to living space, it's the people that don't come to you that convert it to 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 78 1 2 living space. So I don't want to penalize a client that comes to you, asks for a piano studio and you tell them well, you can't have it. Well, I think you're saying go back and design, and you may not be able to build the type of barn you want. . 3 4 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're saying somehow try to attach it to the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're absolutely right that the Board is typically concerned with having something turned into living space, but that doesn't follow from that as long as you're not going to convert it into living space you can build anything you want, anywhere, at any height. There are other reasons other than the fear or the apprehension that if I turn it into a living space for wanting this to be built according to code. MS. MOORE: Our only reason to ask for this height variance on this accessory building is that it has no neighbors, it looks out to a farm field, and it already has a building there that is 27, 22 feet in height. So we are not changing the character of the area. And if you could preserve the views out to the farm fields, that's what the client would prefer. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Accessory buildings are not usually as tall as the principal building. MS. MOORE: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So maybe I misunderstood you, I hope you weren't saYlng that because the principal building lS more than 20 feet this one should be too. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No this one too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As it now exists. MS. MOORE: Therefore to replace it with the other building we were not changing the character of the area. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're right. MS. MOORE: That's why we thought in this instance a request for a height variance lS not a huge variance, and would be appropriate not In all the cases because if you had a little lot and you wanted to put a huge accessory building next to your neighbor, that's one thing in this instance we didn't think it was a big leap. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How would you feel 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 79 1 6 about leaving the hearing open to go back to your client and architect? I mean, I had a Convert grand piano as well for 25 years. The conditions out here are horrendous, you'd have to be tuning that piano every week either; it's too humid or it's not humid enough. Either it's too hot or it's too cold. They're very sensitive and especially if you're a concertizer, you need to have a piano that has an environment that's respectable of what that instrument requires. And I think that's the issue. You should speak to your architect about how you can create an appropriate music studio, where it can best be located. I have no objection to an accessory building on the premises, but whether or not an accessory building that will be suitable as a music studio given the piano is the right thing to do in a separate building is another issue. You might want recreation space which is a totally different nature in an accessory building and a mUSlC studio that may have its own separate entrance. It can have its own architectural character. There are many ways attached to historic buildings, another volume of some sort that will allow you to have the space that you need. But really, that's up to all of you. I would be very welcome for you to have the time to think those things over and come back before this Board and see what alternatives you propose before we take any action on it. MS. MOORE: I appreciate that, thank you. Because I don't want them having to undertake once they decide to come back with fees for a similar application. Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So I'll make a motion to keep the hearing open until October 26th. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The hearing will be October 26th to amend the plans, and if we can have seven amended plans the Friday before. But if you need more time, we can always give more time if you need it. MS. MOORE: Okay, so we'll try different approaches. Some of you said one thing, some of you said another. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I made the motion to keep the hearing open until October 26th. (See minutes for resolution.) 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 September 28, 2006 80 1 2 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Shacks on Shore Drive in Greenport. And you have amended your plans considerably, thank you. MR. BASSOLINO: Bob Bassolino, I'm the architect for John Shack. On 31 of August, 2006, we had the hearing and a few items, you wanted the apartment to be removed. The plan indicates the apartment is now no longer, the apartment is a bedroom. The Board wanted nine feet on the east side, it's now nine feet. Moved the garage a foot over. The accessory apartment is now removed, it's a bedroom; you wanted nine feet to the east side, it's now proposed nine feet. You wanted 40 feet to the bulkhead, it's now 40 feet, and you wanted a computation on the 20 percent or less and that's on the drawings. Seven copies of everything was submitted September 15th. If you have any questions -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is mlne, so all we're looking at now is nine feet. Everything else is -- e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: asked him. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do you that. So we're clear that's what it is. have no other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you so much. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your client too, clearly was very amenable to working within the code. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: this is mine. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I too appreciate the effort that has gone into this. I think we will certainly look very closely and convince ourselves that it has been brought entirely within the purview of what we grant variances for. 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.) Right. You did what we 13 e 14 like Okay, I 15 16 17 Jimmy, I think 18 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for the Glasses and Rafkins on Minnehaha Boulevard in Southold for lot coverage limitation; is there anyone here to speak to this application? Yes, e 25 September 28, 2006 81 1 9 please come up. MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. This one it's decking on the back of the house for those of you who have seen the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We've seen it. MS. MOORE: Good. You can see it's a no-brainer. It's tucked up behind there. There's already poured concrete patio everywhere, and what they would like to do is make a very nice seating area, wood decking. You have Dr. Glass's letter with respect to you need to have this be with as few steps if no steps at all, and that's what they propose. We got a clarification from the Building Department that the decking that is on grade doesn't count as lot coverage, and we have, what I did lS I did the math, and I gave you the square footage of the lot, the square footage of each individual portion separately, and what I come to is the portion -- you can see that the decking lS two foot above grade and the reason lS it has to match the sliding doors, it's 625 square feet. That brings the total lot coverage that is required to 26.68 percent. Since the Building Department does not require -- does not calculate the decking that is on grade, our original request was for 30 percent lot coverage. We can actually remove that 330 square feet from our request and we only need the lot coverage of 26.68. So I gave you the numbers so that -- I was always under the impression that if it was made of stone it didn't count, but if it was made of wood -- and they clarified that regardless of the material if it's on grade it doesn't get included in the lot coverage calculations. Whether or not this Board would make us get a variance for the wood on grade, that's the location because we do have the closest location of the decking at five feet from the property line, the other decking is slightly set back, but still not meeting the code requirement. So it seemed to me more appropriate to keep everything in. But with respect to lot coverage, it's actually a lesser number. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The existing setback of the concrete patio is 16 feet or is that the house? MS. MOORE: That's the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the existing concrete? It's not called out on the -- 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 September 28, 2006 82 1 2 MS. MOORE: I don't know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It shows it dotted in but it doesn't callout. MS. MOORE. Nine feet? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the property . 3 4 line. 5 MS. MOORE: Miss Glass just spoke. She's the architect, the landscape designer, but not related. The same name but unrelated. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. MS. MOORE: Yes, we actually have the survey that shows the masonry wall and concrete patio, but he didn't give us the dimension. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the existing is nine feet and you're proposing five feet, right? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the existing lot coverage? MS. MOORE: The masonry doesn't count toward lot coverage, so it's the existing house. It's the same thing, the existing is 19.809. If you go back, just go back to that sheet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's just for the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 house. . 14 MS. MOORE: Yes. But that's all that was -- 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No matter what you do if it's elevated, it's going to be a variance. MS. MOORE: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, we can make the assumption that none of this decking area, I don't care what the elevation factor is, will be enclosed. There will be no roof. It will be unroofed? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Open to the sky? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How much above grade is this deck going to be in order for it to be level? MS. MOORE: Two feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that an existing walkway off of Minnehaha on the front elevation? MS. MOORE: The masonry walk and stoop? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. MS. MOORE: That's existing, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I understand that you want to eliminate steps here entirely. So lS that an increasing grade to get 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 83 1 5 in the front door; is it zero threshold entrance? MS. GLASS: No. It's just to facilitate somebody that lS inside the house being able to be wheeled out onto the deck without having -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's for the rear yard, I'm talking about the front yard. MS. GLASS: It's on grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's on threshold so you don't need any alterations. And I presume the two feet off the ground is so you can have the spa, the hot tub inserted into the deck. MS. GLASS: It's about 36 inches, so we were able to sink it down by two feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is your name? MS. GLASS: My name is Sabrina Glass and I'm an interior designer, and I work for Dr. Glass and his wife Laurie Rafkin to do the interior, and then they asked me whether I would work on a plan for their deck so that they could complete the entire project and tie it all together. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is that cut out in the deck? MS. GLASS: There's a shrub, beautiful existing shrub and we just was such a shame to destroy it so we would build around it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you really have effectively no back yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's pretty well screened from the neighbor anyway. MS. MOORE: Plus they're going to have privacy screen. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it's a very attractive design. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question has to do with the numbers. As it now exists, with the grade level cement patio, it doesn't exceed 20 percent lot coverage, correct? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 19.8. MS. MOORE: Because this house predates the ordinance with respect to the concrete patio, the concrete patio is actually not on grade right now. The portion that is two feet above is how far up? MS. GLASS: The part that's going to be two feet up, is that elevated? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it's all ground it's a thought thought it 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 we 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 level. September 28, 2006 84 1 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To go to the 30 percent lot could be a problem and the reason going to a 26 percent lot coverage is because of the new deck will be elevated. Now the question is, and I don't have any idea how the Board is going to feel about this, is that the minimum amount of the deck that has to be raised? Because every square foot that is raised increases the lot coverage, we're up to 26 percent. If, for example, you decided it could be three quarters the size of the upgraded, then the lot coverage, would be correspondingly reduced. Could you comment on how that plays out? MS. MOORE: If you look at attached to what I gave you, you'll see the floor plan, the aerial view, the elevation. You'll see that there are actually two sets of steps or two doorways, there is the slider, which is the eight foot slider in front of what shows as 20 foot; then there's also a doorway just to the north of the kitchen doorway. Both of those doorways are raised. So you would be bringing the decking to the level of both doors. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I see. So the width of the deck is determined by the existence of the rear door of the house itself? MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it were pushed two feet further back, then it would be right in the middle of the door? MS. MOORE: for part 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 Exactly. You wouldn't have 18 clearance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The privacy screen and the existing landscaping gives somebody the opportunity to have a reasonable outdoor space that's at the same threshold as their interior space seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable request. I do understand that it's 6.68 percent increase in lot coverage, but the consequences of that lot coverage is minimum. The two feet is for two purposes. One is so the hot tub is at a reasonable height to be able to sit and slide your feet over; the other is so that you can actually access is it without any steps from the inside. To put a measly little crumby thin little strip like what's there now is kind of a waste of money as far as I'm concerned. I think it's very nicely done and it will actually improve the look of the 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 85 1 6 house and improve the privacy of the neighbors and the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because there isn't that much privacy there now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I really don't object to this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 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.) 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for the Bajadas on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. Oh, you have the affidavit, thank you. You could tell us what you would like to do. MS. MOORE. I am Pat Moore, and I have Mr. and Mrs. Bajada who are here and they can address any questions that come up. This is a very simple concept. They want to add a garage to their property. That's the simple issue. The issue is that they have this full second dwelling on their property, with a full CO, based on a Zoning Board decision that was done in '71, which when I went through the Zoning Board decision and the language which kind of -- in '71 this decision was issued in September and in December the zoning was changing so at that period of time my guess is that the Zoning Board at the time wasn't sure exactly what the end result of any zoning change would be. And part of their conditions was go for a building permit within a year and do whatever you have to do to subdivide this property. Well, I went through all the regulations that were existing at the time in '71, the Planning Board requirements; I went through three years of minutes of the Planning Board hearings and their minutes of their hearings. There was not one setoff application that the Planning Board ever reviewed. That's highly unlikely in three years that there would be one. This being one of them so it's like looking for a needle in a hay stack. 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 e 25 Then it was kind of ratified by or September 28, 2006 S6 1 9 confirmed in the 'SOs that there was a retroactive resolution that was adopted by the Town Board saying we understand that from '71 through whatever the year was, several years the Zoning Board was in fact the entity that would grant the development or subdivision of setoffs and you didn't go anywhere else. So, what I have here on this property is a house that has, based on Zoning Board decision, a full CO to make it a full dwelling, and my client wants to add a garage within a space and move the living space to the second -- partly first floor, partly second floor of this modified garage, so as not to lose this accessory, what has been a nice living space for the family for many years. That's the goal. How we choose to do it here or how the Board wishes to do it, I've given you two options. One, and I did it 15 years ago, and that's why I came up with it because 15 years ago there was a very similar situation, and the Board preferred to subdivide the property. And in this case the Zoning Board in '71 actually subdivided the property and all that would have been required by the owners of the property at the time was just do two deeds. For some reason they didn't do it, and therefore it's all been part of one property. So we could certainly do the deeds today. My client does not intend to sell this front piece. He wants to keep the properties, both properties for their family use. But that's one alternative, if you want to go back to 15 years ago, that's the way it was done. We could do alternative number two, which is allow us to build the garage and put the living space as part of the -- you have the set of plans, there's a portion of the first floor of the space, that is the living space of the accessory cottage and put the second floor, move the second floor space, the bedrooms to the second floor. That actually is more consistent with Peconic Bay Boulevard because I gave you the photographs. You have just about every house on Peconic Bay Boulevard that has the similar situation, which is the living space that is integrated into the garage or as the neighbor has, a full house. I mean, you see the house next door, a beautiful colonial home, and they have a house on the water as well, another option. All they want is to add 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 S 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 2S, 2006 87 1 5 a garage on this as part of this integrated space is to reduce the number of buildings that appear on this property because there's a sense of openness, open space. When you're going down Peconic Bay Boulevard you don't see building after building; you see kind of an open space and you see the light and the air and the water down to the bay. So, to keep the character and the look of this property, they would prefer in order to add a conforming use of a garage into this structure -- and you're waiting to ask me something. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I have a couple of things to ask you. You're aware obviously that you can't expand a nonconforming use such as this. The code does not allow you to do that and you would need a use variance in order to do that. MS. MOORE: To add a garage? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You're expanding a second dwelling on a property, that's a nonconforming use. You're not allowed to do anything except repair it. MS. MOORE: That's why I go back to the history of how this house -- this house actually has -- 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But it's a nonconforming house. MS. MOORE: It has a full CO based on the Zoning Board. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's nonconforming right now. It's a second dwelling on a property. MS. MOORE: Well, then we go back to the subdivision. I think it depends on how you look at whether a use that's been granted a variance to be there, whether that's considered nonconforming, whether you have built it based on a Zoning Board varlance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's nonconforming now because now you're only allowed -- under present zoning you're only allowed one dwelling on a lot. There are two, it's nonconforming. MS. MOORE: I guess that's the legal opinion you've given them. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There is little room for debate. But In any event, you 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 88 1 8 didn't, the conditions of the zoning, of the ZBA's varlance back in the day were never complied with in any event. MS. MOORE: Well, that's what I believe that they may have been. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the conditions were that the property be subdivided and that clearly didn't happen, right? MS. MOORE: True. But the one year limitation was that the building was going to be constructed within one year, not that the subdivision would be done with one year; that's what also accompanied the building permit application, which I highlighted. The building inspector at the time wrote out what the conditions were, and one of the things was expand the house because it was an already existing cottage. Expand the house within one year and that was done. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: it still remains the fact that it's today. It's two houses on one lot. zoning allows one house on a lot. MS. MOORE: What we're asking to do is add a conforming accessory garage. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Today's code says you can't expand a nonconforming use. MS. MOORE: Until it comes to this Board and gets the approval. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But then you would need a use variance, which means you would have to show that there's no economic use of the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which goes back to the other problem, that is that one of your arguments relies on the fact that properties with two dwellings on them on Peconic Bay Boulevard are quite common. MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The idea of using that as an argument for saying, well, what's wrong with one more is not terribly persuasive to a Board in 2006. In addition to that, you would need the use variance, which as I say requlres a showing of economic hardship which would be difficult to show especially given the alternative that you suggested about applying for a subdivision. In any event, nonconforming Today's 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 S9 1 9 MS. MOORE: I did apply to essentially resurrect the Zoning Board decision from '71 to complete the subdivision which the completion of the subdivision in this instance would be to do the two deeds because the resolution by the town boards, they said we ratify the subdivisions that were done by the Zoning Board between '71 and 'SO, whatever the year was. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Exactly. Which by your own words completely defeats any possible argument of economic hardship which could be used for granting a use variance. You don't want to go that way. What you're saying you already conceded that there isn't a need because you can fairly obtain or more easily obtain a subdivision. MS. MOORE: Only if the Board authorizes us to complete the '71 decision could we accomplish the splits. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the second arrow In your quiver. MS. MOORE: Right. Would you rather us make two conforming uses, a single family dwelling on each individual lot in order for us to add a garage to this space? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you would have a better shot at the second than you would at the first. MS. MOORE: The funny thing is it's really up to the Board. Years ago depending on who the members of the Board are, both you have different weights as to which way you prefer to go. We would be willing to do either one. It's just a question of which way the Board would rather us treat this application. Again, we're trying to avoid the construction of a detached garage to this property, which will just add one more structure to this property. It clutters the property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me be clear about this. The existing small dwelling, the proposal is to take some of the living space on the ground level that currently exists, turn it, make it into a garage, about half of the structure, then refurbish space on the second floor which is currently attic storage into dwelling space? MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's a single 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 S 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 2S, 2006 90 1 5 family house with an attached garage. I just wanted to be clear. MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason lS we need a garage and you don't want to put a third building on the property. MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: At least it's clear there are so many submissions. MS. MOORE: So I guess the question is which way would you rather we proceed? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have to think about it, Pat. It's not something we can agree with today. Because I'm not sure we agree with what you're saying. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There are three possibilities just as a simple matter of logic. You're saying we could do Plan A, or Plan B, or we can decide on neither of the above. MS. MOORE: If you say no, don't want you to do anything here, then my client has to build a detached garage because it's the only way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, the only recourse I see lS to make that cottage the garage and you lose the living space. MS. MOORE: Yes, and they don't want to do that. If that was the choice they obviously wouldn't do that to their cottage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're saying if they had to choose between the cottage and the garage they would choose the cottage? MS. MOORE: They would want to keep the cottage, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At that point we are right now, which is keep the cottage, could you legally build a garage on this property? MS. MOORE: Yes, detached, accessory. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whereabouts would you put it? MS. MOORE: It would be have to be five feet off the property line and set back 40 feet from the front yard. So it would probably be directly across from the cottage, and it would take away from the views of peconic Bay Boulevard any open space out to the water. So it changes the character. 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 September 28, 2006 91 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Change the character of the neighborhood more than just adding a garage underneath this space that you already have. MS. MOORE: Exactly. That's the sense I got from the neighbors. They don't mind. That's the way Peconic Bay Boulevard has developed, which lS that these cottages, most of them are accessory cottages, were included as part of the garage, often times second floor garages or integrated into the garage. So what we want to do is try to keep the character. Modify the second dwelling, which again, I repeat it has a full CO as a primary use. We would still be willing to reduce it's statutory as making it into an accessory cottage. That's apparently this property originally in '71 it had history that based on the transcript of the '71 hearing, it was an existing accessory cottage that the owner wanted to expand. They expanded it and the Zoning Board said, we don't have a problem with this, make it at least 850 square feet, and by the way, subdivide the property. So they got the building permit, they got the CO and here we are at this point. They just want a permitted use of a garage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now a garage is an allowable use in that zone. Is a garage actually any different use than a house when it's attached? MS. MOORE: As far as the residential. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you attach a garage to a house, is it any different use than the use you currently have? MS. MOORE: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I'm trying to understand this no use variance. MS. MOORE: I professionally disagree that that opinion, that it's a use variance outright. I won't argue that. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The section deals with use. MS. MOORE: I think there's been decisions that this Board has gotten on accessory buildings where one of the judges, and I think it was the Dawson case, that the court actually specifically addressed an issue that the Board claimed it was a use variance for an accessory dwelling. And the court said no, no, the use is the residential. It's not a pigsty; it's not a marina, it's a . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 92 1 2 residence. So the use itself is not a use variance, it's an area variance in terms of configuration, size of the property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There was a condition that said it couldn't be rented; it was accessory, and the judge said, yes, it can be rented. It wasn't a garage issue at all. MS. MOORE: I'm not saying it was a garage lssue. I'm saying that the use of a second dwelling is not when you're trying to modify that second dwelling, it's not a use variance. It's considered an area variance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In any event, we're left with a circumstance where the code says a nonconforming use shall not be altered, and you're asking that this Board allow it to alter it. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MS. MOORE: Well, I don't believe it's a problem without coming into this Board asking for a variance, that's why we're here. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm figure out what is the alteration. MS. MOORE: The alteration is reconfiguring the space. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: alteration in use? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. trying to 12 13 e 14 What is the 15 Increasing a 18 nonconforming use. MS. MOORE: They're claiming that the nonconforming use is the second dwelling. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are they increasing it, they're making it bigger in size, ask Pat, I apologize. MS. MOORE: They're not making it bigger 16 17 19 In size. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They are not making it bigger in size. They're changing, just rebuilding it. MS. MOORE: In fact, right by my house, I think it's down on the water, I'm trying to remember my neighbor's name but you did exactly this. You had a situation where it was an accessory cottage, and what they wanted to do was add a garage space and Rob Brown was the architect. You relocated the living space to the second floor because the family was now living there permanently, the mother was going to live in 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 the cottage, and they wanted to preserve the accessory use, but they now were living there permanently and wanted garage space. So on Terry Lane at the end of Terry Lane and Shipyard, I think is the house on the water that you did exactly this. The same application. I just don't -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know the house you're talking about. Let me reanswer the question, okay. The minute you go from one story to two stories in an accessory -- excuse me, in a CO'd cottage with a nonconforming setback, you are increasing the degree of nonconformity. That's my opinion. MS. MOORE: That's why we're here for a variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's not a use variance. That's an area variance. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's leave the use variance aspect out of it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On the map I'm looking at it, it says it's being rebuilt, demo'd rebuilt as one story. MS. MOORE: They're keeping the foundation. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Maybe we need a foundation plan to show all that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So this is going to be a complete rebuild? MS. MOORE: If they can get it as a rebuild they prefer. If I have to tell them the only way they can do it is to keep part of your building intact, they can do that too. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So that's what was applied for as a demo? MS. MOORE: Yes, as the worst-case scenario. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're proposing to go from an existing height of 17 up to -- MS. MOORE: 25. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On the ridge. MS. MOORE: No, to the top is 25. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, to the ridge. And that exists now is 17, that's to the soffit looks like. MS. MOORE: I'm looking at Garrett Strang's. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 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 93 I am too. September 28, 2006 94 1 2 MS. MOORE: Just under 20 I think. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you can't really tell exactly from here what's existing and what is proposed. I presume this is all proposed since this lS a tear down. MS. MOORE: Ideally it would be to tear it e 3 4 5 down. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Those are the drawings I'm looking at and the dotted lines actually probably represent the bulk of the building mass of what is there now? MS. MOORE: Yes, the dotted line is what lS there now. Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So according to this callout then it's 17 feet in terms of what lS there now, and you're proposing to make it 25 so the second floor is habitable. MS. MOORE: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would you want to be arguing or what you would be asking for is that an existing cottage have an addition built to it which would take the form of an attached garage, saying that that's what we would be asking to do? MS. MOORE: That's not what Garrett Strang designed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would come closer to the spirit of the code, but maybe if you have an existing cottage you might be able to, if you could get permission to make an addition to it, an addition would then be a garage. It may not look like that in the plans, but would you be more comfortable arguing it that way? MS. MOORE: If the Board would be more comfortable adding to an existing cottage a garage space because that's what they are looking for, they're here they can hear it for themselves, they just don't want to have to add more buildings to this property by building the detached garage. It's just too many buildings on the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they don't want to convert the existing building into a detached garage because they would rather keep it as a cottage. MS. MOORE: Well, yeah. They would hope to have the accessory sleeping quarters for the family. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, for us, I don't know about for you, but for us it would be 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 95 1 2 something of a twist to interpret this simply as adding a garage to a cottage because the architectural plans don't belie that interpretation, and I'd be embarrassed to sign off on something that required that interpretation. So we're really just simply building an attached garage. MS. MOORE: Yes. What they're doing lS they were trying to keep to the same square footprint. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand but they're building up. MS. MOORE: They're relocating and up, e 3 4 5 6 7 S yes. 9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Five feet. How many more feet is it? MS. MOORE: The difference between seven feet, which is and actually Garrett had drawn what lS a squat structure with the dormers to get the type of space that they would need for building code compliance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So your proposed tear down is to build on the footprint? MS. MOORE: Same footprint, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Make it higher. I want to make sure I understand. MS. MOORE: Again, if the Board is -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know this by heart in all honesty, that's why I'm asking these questions, because I don't see the garage as increasing the use here. MS. MOORE: That's why this is unique, because you have a CO for a full dwelling, it's not an accessory cottage. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There's two circumstances here. It would be one thing if you were taking the existing nonconforming use, which is the second dwelling and adding a garage to it. It's a little different to tear down and rebuild that nonconforming use, which you're not allowed to do. It's questionable whether you could add a garage to it because one might argue that you're not rebuilding a nonconforming use because it's the accessory use and not the second dwelling that you're adding on to it. So you have some wiggle room there that you're not enlarging the nonconforming use. But it seems clear to me, and I'm open to discussion about it, is that you can't 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 2S, 2006 96 1 2 tear down and rebuild the second dwelling. MS. MOORE: If you didn't have a CO based on a variance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's still nonconforming, Pat. It doesn't matter if you got a variance. It doesn't matter if it was legal in 19-whatever, when it was built, and you didn't need a variance. It's still nonconforming today as a second dwelling. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's no CO for a building because there's no building. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There's lots of buildings in the town that have COs that are nonconforming. MS. MOORE: I understand that but they were not necessarily created by a Zoning Board variance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They might have been created legally under the law at the time, and not even required a variance which made their position stronger, but they're still nonconforming today. MS. MOORE. Do you want to go back to the drawing board and look at this with Garrett Strang for an addition to taking the existing building, just adding the garage? MS. BAJADA: When you say adding the garage, I don't mean to be ignorant as to what you mean, but does that require it being next to it or or can you -- without using the word rebuild, but addition on the first floor and still gain the space upstairs? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You couldn't use the space upstairs as habitable, the space upstairs as dwelling space. MS. BAJADA: Okay, so when you say addition, then -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It could conceivably be attached if this Board was willing to go along with that. I mean, and as Mr. Dinizio was saying, it could be detached without the need for a variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But what it cannot be is to move the cottage to the top of the garage because that would not count as building a garage as an adjunct to your cottage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What if they raised the cottage and put the garage under? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 97 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You're moving it, you can't do that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, I think we're here, and this is what I get from you, Pat, is the neighborhood better served by the fact that you raised this building up seven feet and put a garage on it? Or is it better served by building another building on this piece of property that can be larger and may be not higher but certainly more intrusive? MS. MOORE: I think that's why we're here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's your offer lS look, we'd like to do this, and it's the benefit to the neighborhood, it's not going to add much except for that five feet. If I hear right, the alternatives are to add a garage to a building to which our Town Attorney is saying it's a nonconforming use. Well, if you can't increase a nonconforming, I agree. But I think we should find a way to mitigate the impact. You're coming to us with a suggestion on that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim, the problem with that is that you're suggesting that the impact on the neighborhood is by itself a sufficient reason for granting something where we don't typically allow that except in the case of an addition. We're talking about what the constraints of a law are, not what would be good to do if there were no law. You can't build an extra building on your property by arguing that it will prettify the neighborhood. MS. MOORE: No. We're saying that you can't modify, whether you consider this nonconforming or not, this is preexisting in the sense that it's there. We're asking to modify this preexisting structure, and in order to do that because of your interpretation that any expansion or any increase in the degree of nonconformity, even though -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat, it's not interpretation; it's words written in the code. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. I'm saying as far as interpretation whether or not something is an increase or not, if you add a conforming use, a garage to a nonconforming use, is the nonconforming increasing. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don't think so, but you can't rebuild the nonconformity. . 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 September 28, 2006 98 1 2 5 MS. MOORE: You're saying if you demolish and you try to rebuild it, you've got a problem. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Thank you. MS. MOORE: So if you modify, you might entertain it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON. Depends on the modification, obviously. MS. MOORE: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you don't want to say lS if you don't let us do what the code specifically prohibits, we'll do something you like even less. MS. MOORE: No. I said I don't need your permlSSlon to go do something that -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They don't need permission to build a separate garage elsewhere on the property, and it's not a good argument to us to say, you know, we will exercise our given rights and do something you don't like if you don't bend the law to do something to let us do what we were planning to do. MS. MOORE: No. I'm responding to the question, which is can you do this; can you add a garage, and, yes, we can add a garage, but it will not be in character -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Bajada, could you put a garage and attach it to the shed area of the cottage? MS. BAJADA: Not without obviously taking up more of the property that we would be using if we just lifted it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: right? Yes. And you have the . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 driveway there now, MS. BAJADA: BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't understand. MR. BAJADA: The cottage is there; it's not going anywhere. This is not approved. We're going to lift it and put a foundation on it so it's not going anywhere. So for us to cut down some more trees and add another building on the property, we would like to take down what we have which regardless is going to be there, try to put one room, well, actually it's two rooms, one big and a small room upstairs, and put a garage where that one room is, that room and a half. I mean, really when she started out, we're adding a garage, but we're not adding a garage next to what 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 99 1 2 we have, we'd like to add it under what we have. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Or another area that might be an alternative that might work for you is where the shed is in the driveway, there's an open space area in there where you can fit a 30 foot garage. MR. BAJADA: And I understood what you said, but I don't know if you ever walked Peconic Bay Boulevard, like Pat said, every property on the water side has exactly or very similar to what we're trying to accomplish. Our neighbor next door has a two story cottage plus a full attic plus a garage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Some of them are 40 feet from the boulevard. MS. MOORE: Closer, yes. MR. BAJADA: I think our cottage is much more than 40 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're absolutely right. peconic Bay Boulevard is full of lots where there are two principal dwellings and that's a fact. MS. BAJADA: Forty feet from the street or from the water. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: From the street, where the shed is. MS. BAJADA: So 40 feet would bring you, I'm not sure where 40 feet would bring you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's about 30 feet of driveway where the driveway is. MS. BAJADA: Would that be 40 feet from the road? MS. MOORE: Yes, there's plenty room, looks to be. MR. BAJADA: The property is 100 feet by 300 feet. So I don't know what the issue is. The other thing I want to say is this, I don't quite understand what conformity and this and that, but the end of the day, I would like to think that when these things are required, people come to you and at the end of the day, I would like to think that you as a group look at the situation and common sense wins rather than walk a straight line because not every property, not every situation will sort of conform to that law that is required or by whatever rules you guys go by. It does not make sense for us to build another hunk of two by fours, two by sixes next to what we have. It does . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 100 1 2 not do our property MS. MOORE: have us go and look back in? any justice. Do you want to adjourn at alternatives before this, we come . 3 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, answering Mr. Bajada, we understand that sometimes common sense is common sense, but unfortunately, we are bound by rules and regulations, and we have to go by that. MR. BAJADA: If that's what you must do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: Was there any thought about the subdivision; would you entertain the subdivision aspect of it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MS. MOORE: Okay, I didn't know whether to pursue this or not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll adjourn this to the 26th. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes, if we could have the alternative plans by the Friday before. If you need more time, let me know. MS. MOORE: We'll just give you a footprint. It's where it would be if it were attached. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for your patience. If no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for John Diller on Peconic Bay Boulevard. Mr. Goggins? MR. GOGGINS: Good afternoon, my name lS william C. Goggins, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck, New York for the applicant, John Diller. We're here seeking variances pursuant to Section 100-244, 100-239.4B. I was going to make a presentation but Mr. Diller would like to make one first. I'm here if you have any questions, if I need to make any additional points, thank you. MR. DILLER: Thank you, good afternoon. One health note, I just found out this morning I have a herniated disk and sometimes when I stand up I'm fine, and sometimes when I stand up it hurts, so if you see me sit down from time to 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 101 1 2 time, I mean no disrespect to the Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quite all right. MR. DILLER: My north fork credentials go back to being born in Greenport at the hospital, being raised in peconic, a potato farm, graduating 50 years ago from Southold High School. My work took me to New York City and more recently to San Antonio and Nashville, but I have always maintained a residence on the north fork throughout all that time. In 1981 I built a four bedroom, year round house on property on in Laurel. And the subject of this hearing today is on a related property. And at that point in time in 1981, it was determined that the town attorney, Bob Tasker, ruled that these lots which were created by will by my grandfather were recognizable lots predating zoning. In any event, the house that I built and swimming pool, for my wife and two children and eventually a third child, was the first year round house in that area. We spent our Christmases and winter weekends, and of course, the summer. And as time went by the children have gone their own way, and I found two years ago that the pool wasn't being used, and I was rattling around In a house that was too big. So at that point in time I sold that house. The subject of the hearing today goes back to a property that in the 1890s was bought for my grandfather, who was also a farmer in Laurel. When he died, an untimely death in 1943, he left the three acre parcel south of Peconic Bay Boulevard stretching to the bay divided amongst his six living children. The lots are narrow, 50 feet wide, and the lots are very long, approximately 400 feet long. And those were the lots that, as I said before, were determined to predate zoning in their creation and be buildable lots. However, the reason that I'm here today with this variance application is that in a sense, the size of the lot works against me because it's too big. Because it is more than 20,000 square feet, technically about five percent larger, the side yard requirements for lots that size I believe are 35 feet and subsequently, the house that I could build on this buildable lot could be 15 feet wide, 266 feet long and 35 feet high. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 102 1 2 That doesn't make any sense to me and I suspect I hope -- it doesn't make any sense to anyone else. . 3 5 So, what we've done, what we're doing is trying to build a much more modest house, two bedroom house, 24 feet wide, and we've sited it originally, with our application to the Building Department on the common building line with the properties immediately to the west and to the east. In determining that common building line, I took into account that there was a screened porch in one of those buildings and there was a deck. And one of those buildings -- and there was a deck, open deck in the other building to create a common building line. However the Board of Trustees did not agree and moved it back 10 feet so that it now comports with the common building line of the enclosed portion of the structures to the east and to the west. What I would hope the Board would do would be to look at this from a standpoint of the hardship that's imposed by the particular lot in question. If the lot were 25 feet shorter, it would be under 20,000 square feet, the building side yard requirement would be 25 feet and what we are proposing would be well within the envelope that's created. The property In question is level; it's 13 to 14 feet above the water level, 14 feet In elevation. It's 94 feet from the mean high water mark, and within that 94 feet there are two separate restraining walls that are built, and there is, no, there has never been any ecological problem. However, out of the six lots that my grandfather created, five of them now have houses on them, and I would say that what is being proposed here is a year round house that is an addition to the neighborhood. The plot immediately, the house immediately to the east is a farm building from I guess the 1920s, and to the west is a dwelling that was created by taking two of the Camp Immaculata camp buildings that upon the closing of Camp Immaculata maybe in the '60s or '70s became available. And now are interspersed at varlOUS places usually as out buildings around the north fork. So, I'd say that this would be a year round dwelling, whereas the others are seasonal, and I think it's totally reasonable and would add to 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 103 1 2 rather than detract certainly from the neighborhood itself. There was a question raised by my cousin about it being a three story building. He left the country before I was able to talk to him directly about it, but I think it's a misinterpretation of a suggestion that actually his son had made that we make the roof flat and be able to access the roof as a place to watch the sun set back over the northwest portion of the property. I thought it was a good suggestion; I incorporated it but he misinterpreted it as a three story building. It is not a three story building, it was never intended to be. It's totally in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I would dare to say it's an improvement on the character of the neighborhood. As far as any questions that you may have that deal with the legalities, Mr. Goggins is here prepared to answer those questions. If there are any questions you may want to put to me, I'd be more than glad to answer. I am now retired, and I'm able to spend more time back here. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is still a rather large house for the size of the property. And the setback is only 20 feet. We are now trying to be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization, which would put it 75 foot back, and frankly, if you put it 75 foot back, you would not incur the closeness to your neighbors on the east and especially the west. MR. GOGGINS: You would not incur that but what he would incur is a loss of view. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, he wouldn't, Bill, there aren't trees in front of that. MR. GOGGINS: Well, if you can't look to your left and you can't look to the right, you lose your view, all you have is a view straight ahead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, I'm sorry, but we are trying -- this Board is trying to comply as much as possible with the LWRP. We can maybe do 70, but nothing less than that. In fact, in the letter from John McNulty, he said that years ago his property extended 20 feet out into the bay. There has been that much erosion. So he's back where he lS today. So we're doing this just for e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 September 28, 2006 104 1 2 protective services for the owner of the property because erosion will occur. MR. GOGGINS: Well-- MR. DILLER: May I respond to that? MR. GOGGINS: No, let me, please. That's why they changed the law to make it instead of from the mean high tide mark to the bulkhead because the bulkhead prevents erosion, and if I could now make a record -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm going to disagree with you on that but that's all right. MR. GOGGINS: The property to the west has a building on it; that building is within 10 feet of the property line. Mr. Diller isn't asking for anything more than that same distance away from that, and the Trustees, who are the environmental people in Town, the ones that look at the environment and the effect upon the environment, they decided to move the house back only 10 feet; so I don't understand why this Board or your opinion would be that you have to move the building back more than that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because we have different ways of looking at things, sir. MR. GOGGINS: What would your opinion be as to why they should move back further than the existing buildings on the east and on the west? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They were preexisting, so we had no notification; we had no studies of erosion in the town at that time when they were put in. So today it's a horse of a different color. We are trying very hard to comply with the consistency forms of the LWRP and what we know to be true, that there is erosion and we want them back. MR. DILLER: Madam Chairperson, any erosion that took place on this property we took steps to stop. And prior to 1947 there was a survey in the file from Young and Young, a bulkhead was placed on the property. But we found after that at a second elevation there was a possibility of an undercutting to the bank, so a restraining wall was installed, I believe, sometime in the 1980s and 1990s, and there has been absolutely no erosion, and it would be impossible for there to be any erosion without either one or the other of those restraining walls giving away. It is not an open bank. 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 September 28, 2006 105 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 70 foot. MR. DILLER: Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whatever it is, it's 70 foot, you're not going to change my mind. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me try to put a point consistent with what Miss Oliva said but maybe a little differently. Neither the Trustees nor the Zoning Board nor the LWRP can do anything with the existing houses on both sides. So we have the LWRP to go on; we have the zoning code; and the Trustees have their zoning code. They don't always agree with us, at least so far as to how seriously to take the LWRP rule. It's not for us to conform to what we may disagree with at their judgment but to do what we see fit. And the fact that there are two houses which could not be built today on either side, we're not likely to have that influence. The decision we make, whatever it is going to be with regard to how much of a setback from the bulkhead we're going to allow, and we are taking the LWRP rules seriously, and we take the code seriously, and we take other considerations -- all their considerations seriously, so do the Trustees. We don't follow the Trustees. We follow our own best judgment, the code and the LWRP. And we'll see what happens when we examine it. That's about all I can say at this point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? MR. DILLER: Did you indicate, Madam Chairperson, that it was a 20 foot setback? I may have misunderstood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I believe so. MR. DILLER: Because the distance from the bulkhead -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the retaining e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 wall. 21 MR. DILLER: To the proposed location is 54 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's all the way down to the lower bulkhead, I'm talking to the retaining wall. MR. DILLER: Well, the retaining wall is not the bulkhead. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You don't give the measurement to the retaining wall. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's only to the bulkhead. 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 106 1 2 MR. DILLER: I've never heard anybody marking the distance from the retaining wall. He just separates land from land. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a reference point I guess. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The variance is keyed off the bulkhead, correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll put it back to 80 . 3 4 5 6 feet. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The notice of disapproval seems to say differently. The notice of disapproval says that the existing is 20 feet from the nearest wood bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So they're calling the retaining wall a bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At best it's misleading. I would agree with you, Mr. Goggins. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: To be clear, all the things that have been mentioned are good principles. It is relevant where the neighboring properties are because that's one of the variant's considerations is the effect on the character of the neighborhood and that's one of the principles that the Board needs to go by. It, of course, also needs to be consistent with the LWRP, but that means it just need not violate any of the policies in the LWRP. I'm hearing that erosion is one of the major concerns. So the neighborhood is important; erosion is one of the major concerns. The neighborhood is important, but just the fact that houses are in a certain place isn't going to rule the day if there are other problems bourn out by the LWRP, which I'm not aware if they are or aren't. MR. GOGGINS: So if we assume that the lower bulkhead, which is 54 feet, which is the bulkhead that touches the beach, then we're only asking for a 21 foot variance. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We were just going over the two walls on the property and referencing the outer one, the one with high water mark as being the bulkhead and the inside retaining wall is also a structure that seems regulated under that 230 code number, the 75 foot setback, I'm not sure. Take a look. MR. GOGGINS: But survey that you have, the also, if you look high tide mark in on the 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 107 1 2 August, 2005 -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't care. MR. GOGGINS: I know you don't care, but we're talking about erosion and if your concern is erosion and the mean high tide mark in August, 2005, the 85 feet from the proposed structure on the east and 105 feet from the proposed structure on the west side of the property, then erosion becomes less of a concern. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then why did they have to put the second retaining wall there, if they weren't being eroded? MR. GOGGINS: If you walk along the beach in that area of peconic Bay, you'll see that almost all the houses have a bulkhead and retaining wall because they're built on a cliff. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even more reason, my . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 dear. 11 MR. GOGGINS: I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even more reason, bulkheads do fail. MR. DILLER: But is the net result of that ruling to penalize people who, In 1947 and after, took action to put up things that would prevent erOSlon, because further to the east where the land comes down more toward the beach level and there are no bulkheads, and they could build a house within 75 feet of the high water mark, but you're saying somebody takes the action which we took to preserve property is going to be penalized by having to put a house 75 feet back and a good 50 feet back from the adjoining -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They need not be penalized but neither should they be rewarded. MR. GOGGINS: But that's his argument, his argument is if you put a bulkhead away from the high tide mark with the anticipation that at some point the water's going to come up and hit the bulkhead, it protects your property more than someone that doesn't have a bulkhead and the water comes up and starts eroding the land. So what he's saying it's like an equal protection argument. I guess it's an argument for the code, but why should the code give somebody 75 feet from the high tide mark if they don't have a bulkhead, but 75 feet from the bulkhead if they do; it doesn't make sense if your intent is to prevent erOSlon. 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 108 1 2 MR. DILLER: The pictures that are In your files show the extent of the beach seaward of the bulkhead. The bulkhead was not built with the intention of being at this high water mark. It was built inward quite a bit. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think the Building Department had 20 foot relief on there because putting that -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. We should be measuring from the bulkhead, not the further retaining wall. MR. DILLER: So then it's 54 feet as proposed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It appears to be, . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 21 and 54 is 75, 10 right? 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the rule lS 75; they're asking for 54, so they're asking for 21 feet of relief. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the LWRP consistency report states a minimum separation distance of 100 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 97. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The Trustees have already dealt with that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But they granted 12 13 e 14 15 relief. 16 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correct. MR. GOGGINS: So they made an analysis of the LWRP. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They have made their own consistency determination and that takes care of that. You need not deal with Chapter 97. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but it is within our purview to introduce this inconsistency and deal with it. Certainly we have to deal with it in the same manner as the Trustees? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, we don't. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not saying -- we have to come up with a reason if we grant anything. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And if we deny anything we have to come up with reasonable reasons, and, you know, I am more inclined to go along with the inconsistency report and take it on that basis as opposed to a flawed disapproval. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 109 1 2 Because certainly the 20 feet that they're saying here, I can't make heads or tails. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So if they go back 75 feet from the main bulkhead, which is just an increase of another 21 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's consistent with code, not the LWRP, which is 100 feet. The LWRP is even more restrictive than the existing code. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think Jim is right, we have to correct what seems to be an error to us on the disapproval form and we consider the code. Yes, we do consider the LWRP, we do not consider the apparent ignoring of the LWRP recommendations by the Trustees; that's simply not our province. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I wouldn't say they ignored it. Because things get referred to the Trustees as a matter of course if they're within 100 feet and they're found to be inconsistent, and it's the Trustees purview to vary that 100 feet, which they have done in this instance. So I wouldn't hang anything on that inconsistent determination with relation to Chapter 97. Now it's been found inconsistent but recommended, from what I understand -- but recommended by the LWRP coordinator to this body. This body may grant a variance if it finds it can make it consistent with the LWRP. It has that ability, but you have to make such a determination if you find that to be true. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. We have to back it up with fact. MR. GOGGINS: I don't understand, if the LWRP it's not that I haven't read it -- but you have two boards looking at the same recommendation, and they could have inconsistent -- I'm just throwing this out -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Zoning Board has the final say. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I wouldn't say they have the final say, they need both. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The more restrictive, right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whoever lS the more restrictive. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They evaluate under different criteria. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a little e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 110 1 2 unclear, quite honestly, about this 100 feet. If we don't have to consider that CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I thought. Just because the Trustees say our old laws apply to this, the 75 feet, and under the Andros Patens they have that right, we still must consider the 100 feet. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No. I would disagree. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A 55 foot setback is about a 40 foot -- 40 percent variance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I would disagree. My advice, the 100 feet, the reason it was found to be consistent within 100 feet is because that is the Trustees' jurisdiction. Okay. And everything within 100 feet requires the Trustees to sign off on it and give a variance. They won't use that word but essentially what they're doing is giving a variance. Apparently they have done that. Your jurisdiction is within 75 feet. You were only asked for a variance as to less than 75 feet, so you need to value it under that criteria. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, 75 feet back from the bulkhead, which is an increase of about 21 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is about 20 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 percent. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A 20 percent variance as opposed to 40. MR. GOGGINS: So we have 54 feet now, we're asking for less than 75. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Asking for 21 more feet back. MR. GOGGINS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MR. GOGGINS: So you're not granting the variance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Looking at the reasons to do it. MR. GOGGINS: With Miss Oliva, that's I guess my question to you, you don't agree with giving us the variance on that 75 feet? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 III 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO; Bill, I'm looking for, quite honestly -- and you know me -- I'm looking for some good reasons to make that argument that we can put in writing that we can vote on. Miss Oliva is a vote on here and I'm a vote. . 3 4 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And she can have her opinion and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't agree, but quite honestly, I am not in a position of granting something just because I think it may be okay, or it may be fair to your applicant; I need to have reasons. And I haven't heard too much other than the houses alongside -- MR. GOGGINS: I really haven't got to that point. Actually I was shutdown earlier. The reason why you have waterfront property and the reason why you want to have a house there is you want to have a view. And the reason why the Trustees want to have us move the house back and the reason why we're in consent with that is along the shoreline it evens the houses so everybody has an equal view. When you talk about variants, you're talking about equity among the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Bill, we're not concerned with views. MR. GOGGINS: That's our argument. Our argument is that you want to give equity. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Board has never been -- go to Rabbit Lane. MR. GOGGINS: If you want to give equity to the neighbors and to applicant, then you want to keep their views of the water consistent because that's a primary concern when you have waterfront property. So if you don't grant a variance at all, and you push the house back 75 feet, they lose that view because your view is in a tunnel view looking straight, when you're on the bay, you want the houses all consistent at the same distance from the bay so you all have a type of panoramic view. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How high are the structures on either side? MR. GOGGINS: The other structures are probably what Pat Moore would call squat structure. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. A story and September 28, 2006 112 1 2 a half. . 3 MR. GOGGINS: They're cottages. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there's no question that this structure on the second floor can provide panoramic views if set back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would look over the roofs of the structures. MR. GOGGINS: Presently. But these cottages are falling apart. I know the Board probably went out there and looked at the area. These cottages are old, they're not being taken care of; they're falling down. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The one on the left looked pretty good to me. MR. GOGGINS: It's just a matter of time by the time these neighbors come out and say, gee, I want to convert my summer shack to a year round summer house. And they're going to say, well, can we stay In the footprint, and maybe build back and you're not going to make them pick it up and move it back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Want to bet? MR. GOGGINS: We haven't seen that yet. So what these applicants want to do in the future is they will want to build up and they will want to build back, so now you're going to have in the future that's what's going to happen. So to keep parity in the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's what your client lS doing, your client is not saYlng I want to keep it in parity with the other cottages on the thing. And I will build a one story, small house low to the ground, a one story ranch house that just can look over the bay. He's saying he wants to make it rather a high pitched house, which will over -- I mean, it's bigger than anything in the neighborhood. MR. GOGGINS: Well, we talked about a panoramic view from the second floor. Well, if you move the house back and these neighbors go up, you're going to lose that view. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, he won't. MR. GOGGINS: If you move that back and the trees grow, you're going to lose that view. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about view when you have waterfront property. MR. DILLER: Madam Chairperson, it lS a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 113 1 2 1,400 square foot house. It's 24 feet wide. It's not a big house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand. MR. DILLER: Even compared to the camp cottages, it's bigger, but it's not some situation where somebody's coming in and trying to build a big house, I mean 1,440 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm trying to be sensitive -- this is my own opinion, your neighbors and relatives to the west, it puts you in very close proximity to the wall of that house. If you did move back the 21 feet, they would not have the same feeling that you're practically in their house instead of in your house. MR. DILLER: Well, when they built their house 10 feet from the property line in 1976, does that mean that they now have the right to keep the property immediately east of them clear? It doesn't seem fair that they put their house that close. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're trying to be sensitive to neighbors' privacy and what have you. MR. DILLER: It's a house that's occupied two months of the year. These are seasonal dwellings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sometimes they end up to be more than seasonal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Most of these houses were seasonal at one point, almost all of them. MR. GOGGINS: Is the Board going to allow to put landscaping in along the border to get privacy; is that the Board's concern? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is the proposed house to the ridge? MR. DILLER: 29 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 29 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's high. MR. DILLER: What would you like? Height of the house is not material to me. I mean with a flat roof u CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 25. MR. GOGGINS: To the eve it's 18 feet, so if they went with a flat roof it would be may be 19 feet. MR. DILLER: The height of the house lS immaterial to me. It's important to have that second story on a couple of the pieces of the . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 114 1 2 house so they have a bedroom. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know about you, but given the snow load and everything else, I'm not sure I would want to put a flat roof structure on a waterfront piece of property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Drive down Dune Road a couple times, I don't think that's our responsibility. Our responsibility here lS to insure that the neighborhood and the health and welfare of everybody lS considered. And if the gentleman wants to have a flat house, I'm not all that happy about him having a flat house, but if he wants to, I think more of the consideration lS that distances from the bulkhead. You know, yeah, you can have a two story house, you know I would think you would want it to look a little nice. I think a pitched roof doesn't bother a person with the walls on either side. But the reason that you're here is because you're asking for a side yard variance, and maybe you have got to kind of mitigate that in some way. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you want to look at what a two and a half story, two story house can be height wise, he could go down to 24 feet and still have the pitch and just change the pitch slightly and still have a totally habitable second story. MR. GOGGINS: That's what he would do, whatever the Board wants. MR. DILLER: The house as originally applied for to the Building Department had a slight pitch to the roof of about 24, 25 feet. The only reason that that roof went up was the neighbor'S suggestion of a flat roof, and in order to have a flat roof, you had to have a way to get to it. That's immaterial. If we go back to the original proposal. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That sounds better. MR. DILLER: Fine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don't have that before us. MR. GOGGINS: But what is important is not to be stuck in back of the adjoining houses. For 10 months of the year they are closed up and this is a year round house that we'd have to be looking at those houses 21 feet in front of this. More than 21 feet actually because it would be 21 feet plus their porches. 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 September 28, 2006 115 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I certainly can understand your reasoning, however, even with privacy screening, which can restrict your own views as well as your neighbors'. You may create privacy, but it can also create a barrier to the panoramic view that you're talking about wanting to retain. It seems to me more desirable to have a little bit more privacy on your side yards for everybody, including you. I mean really, look at the stakes; you put up a 20 foot wall there and there that cast shadows alone on those other properties depending on the time of day will be quite significant. And you'll be chopping down a whole lot of mature evergreens In the process. MR. DILLER: I understand. But we're working with plots that are 50 feet wide. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They're very difficult to build on. I understand why -- MR. GOGGINS: And the neighbor decided to put theirs 10 feet away. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's sited at an angle stepped back in order to create some views instead of a shotgun house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's why another 21 feet, it's very good. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a difficult problem when you have such small lots with such beautiful views and such tiny houses on either side that could be nonconforming and so close to the lot. That's all granted. It's difficult to build desirably on these small lots. Yet it's just a problem. While protecting your desire for views and protecting our responsibility for dealing with protecting the environment, as well as balancing with the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Be that as it may, even though it might change, Bill, I know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The character of the neighborhoods change as these houses become converted again and again into larger structures. It's an interesting argument to suggest that why should I be the one at which that stops. If they were allowed to do it, and the houses are getting bigger and bigger, and what you do now has an effect on you in the future, and if someone decides to make those houses -- and no doubt will -- larger structures, it will affect you 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 September 28, 2006 116 1 2 then. I mean, change happens and an attempt to kind of predict, but you can't predict when and how. . 3 4 MR. DILLER: But I'm having difficulty understanding, the house to the east is about 28 feet wide; the house to the west is camp cottages somewhere around 23 feet wide lS the character of the neighborhood, and I'm proposing a 24 foot wide house, which is a year round type of construction whereas the other lS what it is. And you've got pictures of it. I don't have to describe it to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would say on any other kind of lot taken out of this context, I would say you are proposing a very modest house. Place this modest house on a very restrictive building site with small tiny cottages on either side, and it becomes a very conflated kind of condition. You have to look at it contextually. You must understand it in the context of being very site specific. MR. DILLER: But the width is not out of keeping with the houses on the either side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with you. MR. DILLER: Are you talking about the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 height? 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a whole range of things. The width is the least of them. The larger issue does have to do with the setback from the bulkhead and from the high water mark. Bill, you know that there are plenty of places in Mattituck, Camp Mineola and around there. The houses are about eight, 10 feet off, and we've had cases before us where somebody wanted to alter or even demolish a house that was that close, and the equity argument never got off the ground that all the rest of the houses are eight feet off the water, why can't I rebuild my house eight feet off the water. That argument doesn't even pass the laugh test. Your argument of the equity with the neighbors are too close doesn't carry as much force as some people would like it to. MR. DILLER: But this is 94 feet away from the usual high water mark. MR. GOGGINS: Although that distance is from the bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because nobody really knows where high tide is. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 117 1 2 MR. GOGGINS: From week to week actually. MR. DILLER: But the issue we were talking about before was that whether these houses are In keeping with the others, and I'm sorry, the width lS essentially the same. The height you say lS a problem then. If the height is brought back to the 24 feet -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Certainly helpful. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move it back another 21 feet and would you accept the alternative relief, Mr. Diller? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Ruth, if he moves it back 24 feet, he doesn't have to do anything about the height because he can build it to code the height. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The side yards will be affected. MR. DILLER: Unless I do the 15 feet house that's 266 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Open up a bowling . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 alley. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The side yard variance wouldn't be a problem if you were 24 more feet back. MR. GOGGINS: Do you understand what they're saying? They're saying that they're not going to grant the variance to the setback of 75 feet, but they're going to grant the side yard variance, which is also an application that we have before them. So if you're willing to accept that, then we're done. MR. DILLER: Counsel, what does that mean? MR. GOGGINS: They're granting your variance, you can build a house, the type of house that you want, except it has to be 21 feet back from the existing place that it's located. If you disagree with that, this Board can deny the whole application and make you move the whole house back further, and also narrow the Slze of your house; do you understand that? They will move it back 21 feet and you'll have to squeeze your house smaller or can you can keep the house as it exists -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He doesn't have to decide that today. MR. GOGGINS: No, he doesn't. But that's the question of whether or not he would accept that. . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 MR. DILLER: -- going through the expense September 28, 2006 118 1 2 of building the house and living in the house that's now 21 feet -- or now 28 with the porches back from the houses that are right there is not a very inviting one to say the least. If we don't have to decide right now, I'll see what counsel MR. GOGGINS: We can talk and I'll send you a letter. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You don't have to agree or disagree, because we can make our decision based on -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You either take it or you don't. Yes, sir? MR. MCNULTY: My name lS Tom McNulty, and I am one of the property owners of the property to the west of Mr. Diller's proposed site. I believe it's described as a rundown shack about to fall down by Mr. Goggins. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I said it didn't look like that to me. MR. MCNULTY: So, I want to say a couple of things here. The first thing lS I actually live In Los Angeles, California, and I actually flew here specifically for this hearing today. It's actually a miracle I'm even here because apparently according to what I was told by the Trustees that Mr. Goggins is supposed to notify us by certified mail of this hearing today; he did not do so. We heard about it from my Uncle John, who owns the property to the east of this property. And according to Heather Cusack and the Board of Trustees, he said/she said I guess her associate Lauren there talked to Mr. Goggins and said he did notify the neighbors and he will find notification and proof and get it to the Board of Trustees, but nothing has been provided today as of 2:00. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did receive a letter from Maureen. MR. MCNULTY: My mom's been dead for six e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 months. 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We're not the Trustees. MR. MCNULTY: I'm just saying, he did not notify us of this hearing today. We had to hear about it through a third party, and I had to fly back here last minute for this hearing. And so a couple of things I want to say akin to what John Diller has said, akin to his conversation about 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 119 1 2 how he used to own a home and it became too big to rattle around in. What he failed to mention is that he still does own a property on that residence. There are six plots of land and there lS a smaller cottage also on Peconic Bay Boulevard, which he does own right now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the road, about 100 feet east? MR. MCNULTY: Correct. That's on there. As well as the property that he owned was on a plot of land approximately twice the width of the current plot. I believe that's two plots of land that he sold two years ago. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw that. MR. MCNULTY: For a substantial amount of money. In August 2005, John approached my then ill mother and informed her of his intention to build a one story home, and discussed his need to maximize his space since it was such a narrow plot. He did not offer to share architectural plans or ask for her support; nor did she give it to him. Hearings were then held earlier this year In January with no written notice to my mother. My mother passed away on April 23, 2006. Certainly John knew as he attended her funeral. On her deathbed the evening of the 21st of this year with me and my four siblings at her bedside, my mother was adamant and clear about her intention, which this walver not be granted. I am telling you this, and I flew here to make sure that her voice it heard as well as ours. Only one letter that was sent to my mother's home was the one arriving early September only after it was brought to the Town's attention that John had not been compliant with the required notification by registered mail. This recent letter was written to my mother, a mother he knows is deceased. And I also want to note that when I went to the Trustees earlier today, the plans that he has drawn up to them and have been approved by the Trustees thus far do not mention any and do not list a deck on that property as well. And so I do believe the plans you have In front of you may have a deck but they don't have any sort of presentation, they have no notification of that right now. So, their plans have been altered since the Trustees have approved the plans. Secondly, in terms of whether a retaining e 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 2S, 2006 120 1 2 wall is a bulkhead, I can actually tell you that it is a bulkhead specifically because I'm the person that built it with Larry Tuttle, and the procedures used to build the retaining wall are the same exact procedures used to build the bulkhead. The reason why the quote/unquote retaining wall was built was because that during hurricane seasons occasionally my aunt's house, which is the house east of the property, was almost lost into peconic Bay several times. So I think that without getting into an argument of semantics, I think that calling that retaining wall a retaining wall is a tad ludicrous. It's actually a bulkhead, which is why it's there In the first place. In fact, the water was within two yards of my aunt's bungalow, and I was told I was living in California at the time -- that we have to maybe fly back and sand bag because the aunts may lose their house tonight. That's why that was built. And I built it with Larry Tuttle myself with my own two hands. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MR. MCNULTY: So it is a bulkhead. It is not a retaining wall. And the proposed house and new deck, which you don't know about, do not meet the required setbacks. The house was not equally situated on the land. It's skewed more towards our home. Erosion has been a major issue In this part of Mattituck, part of Laurel, and change of the landscape may compromise integrity to the beachscape. To point, the house that he sold last year, the new owners have thus removed all of the beach grass, contributed to the erosion, it's not his fault per se, but I'm citing at reference here that new people have come in and changed the landscape of the land thus increasing and expediting the erosion. His plans also don't indicate that there lS an outdoor shower on the east side of our home, and since his home will be so close to ours, no privacy can be maintained. Given the fact that there would be a 20 foot wall and residences above, and so I'm adamantly opposed to these waivers both environmentally and/or aesthetically sound. In terms of will we want to come in and build our house, yes. We don't live In it two months out of the year, we live in this four 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 September 28, 2006 121 1 2 months out of the year. And secondly, do we want to winterize it, yes, we do. The overall plan lS to sell the house in Huntington, which was our maln house and then take the land that was left to my father and my mother from my grandfather, winterize it and keep the integrity of the house and not make it anything monstrous or anything by any means. That place is so the five kids can come and celebrate Christmas with our families. It's not big, but it's all we have. And furthermore, I kindly ask the following of the Board: That setback waivers of any kind not be granted. The house not be built at an angle but rather in the same straight line as all the houses around it. That the house also and the footprint of the house is situated in the middle of the land, not to favor our house over the property to the east, that John Diller agreed to sign that he will not remove or destroy any beach grass or devastate any wildlife determined as precious or endangered. And I also ask that the garage not be allowed to be built. It's not my intent to deny John Diller what rightly lS his. However, he already has had a wide home and sold it for a large profit, and it is very much feared that he will build only to sell again to nonfamily members. since we no longer live In a times of vast farmlands, family gatherings and slow pace, the practice is now of overdevelopment. Unfortunately, this proposed home in my opinion represents exactly that. I do have letters from my three siblings. My one sibling Mark could not be here today. He had a work situation pop up last minute, which lS why I'm here by myself. But I do want to submit these if I could. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. Thank you very . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 much. 21 MR. MCNULTY: I would also ask that the new plans that have been drawn up be registered back with the Trustees as well so they can actually look at it, and I think the variance should be 75 feet or 100 feet from the retaining wall not the bulkhead. And furthermore, in terms of Mr. Goggins's comment about if you have houses to your left and to your right all you have lS straight ahead, well, that's exactly what he's proposing for us. We have a tree line to the 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 122 1 2 right; we can't see off to the right and the house to the left is a two story monstrosity. I don't want him not to have property or build on it, but he's had three plots on it thusfar, and has sold them off with a small cottage to do with what he choose. But the other plot of land he sold outside the family without ever notifying us, and again, I'm not asking the Town Board to -- you're not here to settle family squabbles any more than you are to insure family legacy, but I just ask that you kind of take our thoughts into consideration. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. McNulty, can we see what you have compared to what we have? The only deck is a second story deck on top of the second story. MR. GOGGINS: If I could comment briefly, it's not our responsibility to provide the neighbors with this stuff. If they want to look at it, they can look at the record. As for my notification, just to let Mr. McNulty know, we didn't do anything sleazy. I go to the assessor's office, not Mr. Diller, I get the addresses of the properties that we're supposed to notify, as everybody knows, and we sent out the notices. So I don't know whether your mom has died or who is the owner of the property; that's why we go to the assessor's records. So, if you feel slighted by not getting a notification, that's just a process. We didn't purposely not notify you. In fact, I spoke with John McNulty, your uncle, at length about this, and so has Mr. Diller. So it's not like Mr. McNulty didn't know. So if you think that we tried to do something and sneak something by you, we didn't. We have been straight upfront. When I was posting the property, I stood with John McNulty, your uncle and talked with him about it. In fact, I drove to his house and picked him up and drove over the property. MR. MCNULTY: I understand that. MR. GOGGINS: We talked about it. MR. MCNULTY: But I'm not John McNulty and I don't own that property. MR. GOGGINS: I know that, but you're making it an innuendo that somehow I did something improper. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, I was wondering if I could ask you a question. It was . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 123 1 2 mailed to Maureen McNulty. We know that she is not alive but the address that it was sent to, 30 Monet Place, Greenlawn; is that still the address? MR. MCNULTY: Yes, it is, for the time being. But I've also provided in the documentation one of the letters, the current mailing addresses and email addresses and phone numbers of all the siblings. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You might want to notify the assessor's office in writing so that they change the owner of record. MR. MCNULTY: I'm pretty sure my brother Chris did that. MR. GOGGINS: notified, it won't be MR. MCNULTY: you then, I guess I'm MR. GOGGINS: questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From reading the letter they mentioned something about an electric right of way that goes right through the middle of this proposed house. MR. GOGGINS: I saw that too, apparently it's a LILCO easement or probably not. MR. DILLER: What is that? MR. GOGGINS: The LILCO poles and wires, they go down the property line, right; is there an easement there or -- MR. DILLER: It comes in from Laurel Lane. MR. GOGGINS: Is there an easement? MR. DILLER: It comes in from Laurel Lane. We're planning on putting underground utilities in. The fact that the electricity comes in from Laurel Lane obviously if that lS BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean on this survey by John Ingegno, it shows that there is what looks to me like an electric right of way. MR. GOGGINS: We don't have the answer to that whether there is or not. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because it looks like it goes from one house to the other right over where you want to build it. What happens, what lS your proposal to do; is that your responsibility, or is there a right of way this person has currently? MR. DILLER: The discussions that were instigated by John was that we would come in from In the future you can all be a problem. Well, I'm not slighted by slighted by the process. Thank you. Any more . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 124 1 2 the peconic Bay Boulevard common property line, cable, water. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I am concerned about us granting any kind of variance until that is settled not for us to settle that. If all of a sudden we get a call because someone doesn't have electricity because you decided to build a two story house in the middle of a right of way, that lS a concern. MR. DILLER: What would you like for me to e 3 4 5 6 7 do? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like for you to explain to me that line that's on your survey that says overhead wires; I would like to have that explained to me in some way as to what the legal ramifications of that line means. MR. GOGGINS: It's not a certain a right of way, but what happens is the electricity goes down Laurel Lane out down to the bay; then it goes from there to Mr. McNulty's house to my left. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you required to keep that line there? MR. GOGGINS: If the line goes from the McNulty house to the west, then it goes to the next house -- not house but this property here, what Mr. Diller is saying, he's going to cut off the line there and then he and John McNulty, who owns the property to the east, are going to run it underground from behind peconic Bay Boulevard, straight down their property line. So that's what they're intending to do with their electricity. So instead of having overhead lines, it will just be underground lines from Peconic Bay Boulevard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So no one is left without electricity. MR. GOGGINS: Correct. is still then the The McNultys to going to get fed electricity will 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 the west, Tom's house from Laurel Lane, but stop there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know that what you're stating is MR. GOGGINS: Maybe make condition. guess how do we fact? it a possible 21 22 23 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you give us something that says that that's your intention? MR. GOGGINS: Again, we have to talk to John McNulty. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, that's a e 25 September 28, 2006 125 1 2 fair question, it's part of the record. Give us something in the record that says this is your remedy to that particular thing on this survey. MR. GOGGINS: When we move the Wlres -- the condition will be when we move the wires the house to the west and the house to the east will not be without electricity. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In writing. MR. GOGGINS: In writing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not for that. You're going to have to give us something that states what your plan is for those overhead wires. I don't think that we can even grant that. MR. GOGGINS: I don't think you can either. I know it's a concern. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the reluctance here? e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. GOGGINS: I don't know what to do, to say. You don't want a letter. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll certainly a letter saying I'm the neighbor and we agree we're going to remove those wires and feed it like the gentleman says. MR. GOGGINS: As opposed to representation by the property owner. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. Something that's in the file. So that Mr. McNulty is not coming to the Town saying, hey, he ripped out my electricity. MR. GOGGINS: between the house on BOARD MEMBER be an agreement. MR. GOGGINS: It can't be because they're not getting along now, apparently. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. McNulty needs to represent to us that what Mr. Diller has said is true. MR. GOGGINS: Now, for argument's sake, Mr. Diller and Mr. McNulty are somehow -- Mr. John McNulty -- are somehow not talking. MR. GOGGINS: For argument's sake that Mr. Diller and Mr. John McNulty are for some reason not talking because they seem to have a hot and cold relationship. Mr. Diller makes a representation that he's going to bring underground utilities from Peconic Bay Boulevard down the shared property line to provide John take that just 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 You want an the east and DINIZIO: It agreement doesn't have to 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 126 1 2 McNulty electricity as well as John Diller electricity, then accomplishes your goal, correct? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose it does with the exception then of Mr. McNulty lS going to incur some costs provided Mr. Diller doing that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Am I smelling something suspicious here or can I get Mr. Diller's neighbor to say, listen, we had this conversation that this man just testified to and that's what we're going to do. MR. GOGGINS: Sure. But sometimes they say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's really going to depend on what is the nature of the easement, and what is the requirement on this property owner. I mean, LIPA's not going to let you mess with delivery of utility from one house to another. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would suspect that there's probably no LIPA utility there simply because these are so old. But certainly we should consider at least the fact that you know, this was a family compound, and it may not be that at the end of all this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, the only problem is that Mr. McNulty is in Europe and that's the reason why he's not here. So it may take a little while to do that. MR. GOGGINS: We'll get it to you as soon as possible. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. McNulty did request the opportunity to the possibility of keeping the hearing open so he can testify so that he could appear, and he did that in a letter in our file. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that the gentleman's letter that I read? So it's not this gentleman? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's the other side. This is the west gentleman, and the other was on the east. MR. GOGGINS: As soon as John gets back from Europe I'll talk to John, and I'll get something from him. If not, we'll get a representation and we'll get a bid from LIPA and we'll provide it to the Board. MR. DILLER: John lS the one that's . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 127 1 2 getting bids. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there should be no problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just need to have you represent. MR. MCNULTY: So where are we in terms of easements? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we need to keep the hearing open until we get some information as to what Mr. McNulty's procedure is going to be about the electric lines. MR. MCNULTY: But in terms of the variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hold in abeyance ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is that going to affect how far up you put it or how far back you go? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It might. I don't 11 know. 12 MR. GOGGINS: Because I think what Mr. Diller's saying, he's going to do it no matter what, whether McNulty agrees to it or not, he's going to run the electric down to -- he has to -- he is going to run the electric down his property line and hook McNulty up and hook himself up. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can we decide if we can separate these questions at different times so we can get an answer to one question expeditiously; maybe the variance question? Can we agree amongst ourselves that the electrical question can be deferred? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it goes through the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It goes through the house. We can't do anything. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Resolve both situations at the same time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to keep the hearing open until such time, say October 26th to receive the information about where the lines are going to come and so forth and so on. MR. MCNULTY: Can you register that I would like to consider the retaining wall a bulkhead not a retaining wall? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So noted, well, 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 noted. . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: discussion anyway. It's a subject of September 28, 2006 128 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make that motion. If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 ------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Fishers Island Windswept Properties to create an accessory apartment. Hello. MS. YOUNG: Hello. Thank you for hearing our case. My name is Susan Young, and I'm here speaking on behalf of Fishers Island Windswept Properties and Rosalyn Driscoll, Number 5883. The property in question is a single family house on Fishers Island in an R80 zone. Rosalyn Driscoll and her husband Alton are here today. They request a special exception under Article 3 Subsection 13 of the Zoning Code to establish an accessory apartment in the existing dwelling. I understand that a number of the Board members visited the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did. MS. YOUNG: And have seen it and those of you who have not, there are some pictures and the plans. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everyone of us has. MS. YOUNG: Let's see, the main house in spite of its size, 3,395 square feet, presently has no winter water service or insulation. It was built entirely as a summer cottage. It has the original bead board and exposed studs, 1930s light fixtures and the old porcelain sinks and kitchen exactly the way it was originally built. There are simple bedrooms with dormers overlooking the ocean. And it is historically intact, shingle style beach house. And the owners would like to preserve its charm. It is completely uninsulated. The foundation consists of simple blocks and a crawl space barely large enough for a man to shimmy under. Well, actually, I'm not even sure. It's very small maybe even a foot. It would be very difficult and costly to winterize the house and the charm would be lost. Let's say you decided to winterize the existing kitchen, you'd have to winterize the room above it to make a bedroom and the floor, and the walls, which would change the look of the place. And also, it would be, you know, maybe a 2,000 square foot project. You'd have to do the roof to do all the insulation 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 129 1 2 up to code, and you know the prices we're getting for things out on Fishers Island are over $200 a square foot, and it would be quite a large undertaking. The purpose of this whole project is just to accommodate the owners themselves. They want to use the house year round. The use of the existing dwelling will continue to remaln a single family. The owners have so stated in their May lOth affidavit, which I believe has been distributed, and their use of this part of the building for their winter residency won't change the appearance or the character of the neighborhood, and it won't be a detriment to the nearby properties and preserves the single family status. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The owners don't object if the Board wanted to place a condition on the approval that in the case the house be rented, it is to be rented as one to one family. And you know, we were talking about this earlier, it's a big house, they usually rent it for a few weeks during the summer and the rental cost for a place like this is high. They get a lot of money for this and you wouldn't rent it to different families and have them looking at each other In the close confines. It wouldn't even make sense, the rental because you see the accessory building it's too close, the accessory apartment is too close to the house. So it would be unlikely that that would happen even without any restrictions. And I went over the rules and the house seems to meet the relations of the statute. You know, except for the fact that the owners want to use it themselves, and you know, I don't see why that should be a problem. But, if it is, maybe the Board could grant us a variance because it is a single family use, and they're not trying to do anything else. Besides that, if a property changed ownership, which this property is not likely to do because this family built it in the 1930s and is still occupying it, but if it did change ownership, there exists within that statute the review of the accessory apartment if the thing changes hands. So the remedy for a possible problem exists within the statute. Let's see, the intent of the statute lS to 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 130 1 2 prevent two family use and to create safe dwelling units, and to see that the property lS watched over, and certainly if they're there more often, the property will be more watched over. And there's nothing to say that they might not want to live in the house. Now they haven't been able to live in the house because it's a summer C of o. So they haven't had the opportunity to live in the house. But there's nothing saYlng that once they have this part of the house insulated that someone In the family may want to live out there. And let's say, you know, this statute is not designed to stop an owner from living in their own property, that's certainly not the idea behind it. It's to create proper use and to make a safe dwelling unit. In this case, the owner is merely accommodating the needs of their own family under one roof of this unique historic and problematic property. We hope that the Board can rule on this fairly soon. I guess we're coming back from having it being heard originally in May and I guess it's getting costly going back and forth. But anyway if there's anything that needs to be continued. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When we were there there was lengthy discussion about the problem of certificate of occupancy for only part of the dwelling if you bring just part of it up to code. One of the suggestions we made was fireproofing between the portion that you want to have year round occupancy, so in a sense it would be an attached accessory structure. MS. YOUNG: We're willing to fireproof if you would like that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Have we gotten any further, you were going to check perhaps with your architect and see? MS. YOUNG: Yes, I'm the architect and I have an engineer, and he instantly said that he would submit a proper wall. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know where we're talking about? MS. YOUNG: Yes, if it's needed. It's not a problem. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It didn't look like it was a problem. The only area of some consideration was the little breakfast nook that 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 September 28, 2006 131 1 2 was glazed. Would you have to move that in order to have a continuous firewall; would you have to wrap around that? MS. YOUNG: I would take it, keeping the boiler in the accessory apartment and dividing it from that hallway there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think you would need to have plans submitted. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel wants to . 3 4 5 6 speak. 7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What do we do about the requirement that it be owner occupied as a principal residence and that the other unit be leased for year round occupancy? MS. YOUNG: I think they could certainly lease it to themselves. I mean, that sounds silly. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Let's start with the owner reside there as a principal resident. What I hear you saying is maybe some day in the future somebody may choose to live there? MS. YOUNG: Well, it's sort of a catch 22. Because they can't live there now, certainly. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We're talking about if the apartment was to be granted. But one of the requirements is that the owner occupy it as their principal residence; is that going to be true? S 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 MS. YOUNG: Well, they're going to be much closer to that. They want to go there, that's why we're doing it. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We want to hear more than it's possible because that's a requirement. MS. YOUNG: The owner would like to be able to live in the house. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: As its principal residence? MS. YOUNG: Now, there's a difference between principal residence and legal residence; now, do they have to vote there? It's been their principal summer house since 1930s. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don't think principal residence is intended to mean summer house. IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 MS. YOUNG: They haven't been able to use it -- September 2S, 2006 132 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand that. But in the event that an accessory apartment is granted, will it be the owner's principal residence? MS. YOUNG: They would BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: question is will you be living you have another residence? MS. DRISCOLL: It's not our principal residence as such. We live in Massachusetts. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: This is Mrs. Driscoll speaking? MS. DRISCOLL: Yes, I'm Rosalyn Driscoll. the main part of the house, I guess that would be considered the principal? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Here, I'll read it to you and I'm not trying to be -- we're trying to find ways for you here, and what it says and it's the second requirement, "The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. The other dwelling unit shall be leased for year round occupancy." So we're in a little bit of a quandary here, because if you can't live in the main part year round because it's only got a summer CO. So even if you were to say, okay, we're going to live in the accessory apartment year round, you couldn't lease out the other part for year round because it's only got a summer CO. So, it's a little circular but it doesn't seem to work under the accessory apartment. MS. YOUNG: It's certainly their principal like to. I guess the there year round; . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 summer residence. 19 MS. DRISCOLL: The accessory apartment designation is something that we were offered as a way to solve the problem. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand that. It seems to me it would fit better into perhaps a multiple dwelling or two family dwelling. But I don't know, it sounds to me like the Building Department wasn't willing to give you a notice of disapproval on that ground. But that's not clear to me. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: is we came up with a potential solution that doesn't have the corollary. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's why we're What it sounds architectural same legal like 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 133 1 2 here today because we don't have that on the record. e 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask a question, Counsel, could you grant a conditional accessory apartment conditioned on the fact that they will eventually bring the house up, but at this particular time, the only ability to work on the house is to really be there weekends at certain times. No one else is utilizing it except for the family. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, I understand that, but if they have no plans, I just don't see how it can be used year round. The entire thing is intended to be occupied year round. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean the entire house? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One possibility is if there were no actual physical changes planned, and you were to apply to live there all year round and make the necessary changes, whether you lived in the big .part of the house or the little part of the house as long you were committed to live in that one continuous building, you wouldn't need the accessory apartment, which I understand; unless I may be missing something. What is the problem with that? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Say that 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 again. 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be if they're living in some part of the house or other all year round. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm not so worried about that part, the principle residence part, it's a square peg in a round hole here. MS. YOUNG: It doesn't seem as if the statute was written ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: With this in mind, that's correct MS. YOUNG: On the other hand, it doesn't seem to really violate the whole spirit of the statute. And so since this is an appeals court, maybe you could grant a variance for the principle residence part of it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What would the variance be for? MS. YOUNG: The variance would be for this 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 134 1 2 kind of nebulous idea of principle residence; which isn't even legal residence. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's the summer CO? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That's the main sticking point. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, if it weren't a summer CO, then there would be no problem. They could heat part of it and live in it and be there all year round. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Like an attached accessory cottage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's an interesting point. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Look, there are lots of houses here on the north fork which have regular COs even though they're only occupied in the summer and nothing needs to be done if you decide to live there year round. MS. YOUNG: So there's a distinction between a summer -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Apparently there is, and I don't know very much about this, but that is the problem is that you have a summer CO rather than an all year around CO. How hard would that be to convert that to an all year around CO in which case you could use it as you wanted to and winterize part of it and not the other part? What would it take to turn it into a full year round CO? e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 MS. YOUNG: But we want to have another kitchenette over there because you can't cook in the main house, and there's no restaurants whatsoever on Fishers Island, so you can't just go out there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's why we talked about these other possibilities while we were on Fishers Island. MS. YOUNG: It can be a kitchenette of some very limited size. The certificate of occupancy that I see here, Exhibit 5, it just says certificate of occupancy, it doesn't say summer. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, it does. If you look at the asterisk at the bottom, it says these two documents can only be occupied between May 31st and -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's seasonal. The other thing to look into perhaps is in terms of relief is looking at the winterized portion as 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 135 1 2 an attached accessory cottage. that -- I don't know what e 3 MS. YOUNG: Existing attached accessory cottage? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you know what we're trying to do really is help you figure out how to do what you want to do without having to spend a bajillion dollars. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can we not look at it -- well, I don't know how you do this, but it could be a two-family or can you not call it an addition and give some variance for the second kitchen? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that's what we had come to when we were there. The part that was all insulated and everything was going to be their principal residence, and the rest of the building was going to be left to what it is and we're going to put a fire wall and a fire door up there, and we're going to put a kitchen downstairs, and we were going to grant them an accessory apartment and that would have been the end of it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But we can't do the accessory apartment because it's not a principal dwelling occupied year round. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing we didn't talk about, Jimmy, was the reverter and the reverter was that the kitchen be taken out if the entire house was renovated to a year round use. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I know. But I thought we needed to get to a point and the point was we got over there, and we saw that like half this house is up to standard that would not be considered by the building inspector to be a summer cottage; that we could use that as our principal residence. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Then you're adding an accessory apartment onto that? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The other part, the existing part is the accessory apartment. It just, it can't be used, just because it has restrictions on it -- just because our code says it has to be used year round, if it's used less than that I'm not sure that that is a problem. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Maybe that's okay because it says -- well, it says the other 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 136 1 2 dwelling unit shall be leased for year round occupancy evidenced by written lease for a term of one or more years. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you lease it for . 3 4 a year. 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If you wanted to, I mean it's getting a little shaky and you'd have to give it to everybody, but you'd be saying just give us a lease for a year and we'll ignore the fact that it's a seasonal CO. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But there's a gap in that to say lease for year round. It doesn't commit people to being thrown out if they lose their tenant, which will be leased if at all. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A year round dwelling has a certificate of occupancy based on certain code requirements and that includes heating and all the things you don't want to do because of the character of the house and because of the cost. So you're mixing so many fruits, apples and oranges and MS. DRISCOLL: I'm sorry, this hasn't come up as an issue before? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, never. MS. DRISCOLL: Maybe it won't come up 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 again. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just saying, if you didn't make such a big deal out of it, maybe it will go away. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'll leave if you want. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't mean -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I've never seen a Board work so hard to help people to find both an architectural and a legal answer to allow you to do what seems reasonable to do. But the codes are very specific about life-saving issues and about what constitutes seasonal use or principal use. And it's exacerbated by the fact that they're under a single roof. If you had two structures on a piece of property it could actually wind up being easier to solve. MS. YOUNG: That's where the fire wall comes in and the part that they live in year round will be brought up to proper code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don't fit into a two family either, it's too small a property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a little over 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 137 1 2 an acre. . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Almost an acre and a 3 half. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What do you need for two family? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: 80,000. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Would you need to bring the other dwelling up to code? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be a Building Department question. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we just grant a variance for a second kitchen, a variance for the second kitchen in the unit? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's alternative 4 6 7 8 9 relief. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the reverter when and if they bring the entire house up that the kitchen be removed. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Jerry, you'll submit that in writing to me. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, Jim has to write this up. We have to deliberate this a week from today. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So Jim's writing Jerry's resolution; is that right? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, we're just going to grant them a second kitchen. We should put the fire wall in though. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Subject to the approval of the Building Department, though because you have nonconformities that can come in as a separate dwelling unit. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that's fine, they're going to have to put the fire wall. 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MS. YOUNG: We have to do all that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had a discussion with the Building Inspector, Michael Verity, he can call me and I can call him. I don't shoot out these names. And I said, Mike, we have this situation. He said, yeah, I'm aware of that. I said we're proposing a fire wall in between the two structures; I said how do you feel about that? He said, I think that's okay. So I then said to him, you know, they can't utilize the kitchen, and I think that's about where the discussion stopped, but I'm sure Susan knows that you're going to have to put smoke alarms in each 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 138 1 2 one of the bedrooms and everything has to be connected. It's all required today along with the fire wall. MS. YOUNG: I'm familiar with all of that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just state something, just in the heated portion. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is the first kitchen not working? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a summer kitchen. There is no way to insulate it. This is single wall construction. The studs are showing. It's open to the ocean. This lS a cold location. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The kitchen works, it's just not available to you in the winter. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What would the cost be to make the kitchen and only the kitchen available to the occupancies of the accessory apartment; would that be possible? MS. YOUNG: You'd basically have to multiply $225 a square foot for the square footage being renovated in order to use the kitchen. So I would say it would be maybe $500,000 or so. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It makes no sense. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you're going to do that, you're going to do the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just do thing and let's move on. Good luck to going to grant the second kitchen with wall and with the reverter. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the entire structure is brought up, the second kitchen is taken out. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it would revert back to a single kitchen. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you are able to submit in the next day or so plans that show exactly where the fire wall would go MS. YOUNG: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: need that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Otherwise just be clear on this because I don't think we want to create two dwellings here, we're not creating two apartments, we're just putting an additional kitchen in a house that will happen to be separated by a fire door. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. Jerry's you. We're the fire . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We would really 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 139 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, when it reverts back, it's only reverting back to you no longer can have the second kitchen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then we don't have to get into the legalities of what we call it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Make sure you include those interconnections if you're going to go on the smoke detector and all that. MS. YOUNG: The Building Department has all that. I have a whole page of those. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Put heat detectors on that side but no smoke detectors. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (See minutes for resolution.) 11 ------------------------------------------------- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Dickersons. MR. DICKERSON: This is my wife Debbie. I didn't realize how sticky your jobs really are. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Most people don't. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to 13 e 14 15 tell us? 16 MR. DICKERSON: I'm not sure what I'm going to try and tell you. I have a small ranch house, and my neighbors got big, big mansions, and my rooms are kind of small. I have 10 by 10. I have twin beds, I can't get a full bed in there. I want to try and make it a little larger. I want to go up so I can do what I want to do. And I didn't want to build it like a box. I wanted it to look nice. I plan on living in the town forever. We're town founders of the town. I am kind of hoping that my children and my children's children will be here after I'm gone too. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If they can afford 17 18 19 20 21 22 it. 23 MR. DICKERSON: If they can afford it. So I want it to look nice. I guess you have the plans. It will look a little fancy in the front. It's going to have a garage, a swimming pool and a deck. And I think it's three variances that we're looking for, a little bit on the front porch from the road frontage, a little bit on the 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 140 1 2 side for the garage, and I guess the lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 21.29. MR. DICKERSON: I'm willing to do whatever I got to do to make it right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It looks from the plans that you'll be able to access your attic space above your garage from the second floor? MR. DICKERSON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the inside? MR. DICKERSON: Yes, because it's going to be a gable bedroom I guess. I will have no attic, so that's going to be my attic, that one room above the garage. It wasn't worth putting a bedroom there because it will probably be a cold bedroom, so we'll just use it as dead storage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean, it could be habitable space, there's enough room, if you insulate it and heat it, and in future you could turn it into -- MR. DICKERSON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wondered what you wanted to do with it because it's unusual to have a second story, the top part of a garage accessible from the inside of the house without it being considered living space. MRS. DICKERSON: There's just three of us e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 so -- 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You just need storage? MRS. DICKERSON: Yes, we need storage 17 space. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know the feeling. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You could heat it if you wanted to. MR. DICKERSON: You could make it a bedroom later if you wanted to, like I said if we sold the house. I don't believe we're doing that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's your bonus 19 20 21 room. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Greg, is there any location on here that shows that the side yard is diminished to nine feet? Because I'm showing the closest is 10.43, which lS the house to the left of you, the new big house. I think they're allover 10, right? It's 10 and 10, right? So that's incorrect, correct? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. The survey is correct and the disapproval lS incorrect. 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 141 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This happens to be my decision here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your street, too, . 3 right? 4 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. briefly run over this a second. You're a small front porch; lS that a porch or deck? Let's just requesting is that a 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a covered porch. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that lS diminishing the front yard to what? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 33.18. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Existing lS 39.6. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we have a single side yard. MR. DICKERSON: I'm not sure how they measure that from the edge of the road or -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From your property. The Town owns a shoulder. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your right of way is about 50 foot. MR. DICKERSON: My neighbor's house, he's got a porch and it probably sticks out further than I want to go. The road is straight. If you measure from the dual line, the road is straight, but it kind of bellies out a little bit. If you measure from the center of that line from the house, and then you went to the dot at the town line and went to his porch, his would probably be closer than what I want to do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're looking at the survey and the survey is your property line, and it says 33. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See the dotted line, it shows where the road lS, it shows where your property line is. Most people don't know unless they have the surveyor stake their property exactly where their property line is relative to where the asphalt is. But we have to measure setbacks from the property line not the road. MR. DICKERSON: To be in continuity with my neighbor's porch. It's not like I'm going to be out further than him, closer to the road, it's probably going to be in line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right. We have the side yard situation under control, and 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 September 28, 2006 142 1 2 the only other thing is that the pool probably puts you over the lot coverage a little bit. So that's where you are. MRS. DICKERSON: The next size smaller pool is going to be really small. So we didn't want to go smaller. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is that pool, 14 by 22; that's a small pool in today's standards, which is fine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Considering the size of the house on the double lot next door to you, and the house on the other side of you is fairly substantial too. MR. DICKERSON: Both of those are kind of . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 big. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There goes the neighborhood again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If everybody is happy, then I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 11 12 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 September 28, 2006 143 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 of September, 2006. I) [ (/.'P',./ ..I.(d' 7 ,--...> [ /'. ?J!liw V 10 I..//V' Florence V. Wiles September 28, 2006