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