Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/22/2007 Hearing 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 February 22, 2007 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present : JAMES DINIZIO, Chairman RUTH OLIVA, Board Member GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney roJIIGINAC COURT ,REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 e 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Today we're starting off with Gerald Lang. It's Application Number 5998. Requested are (a) a reversal under Section 280-116-B based on the Building Inspector's July 7, 2006 notice of disapproval, amended September 14, 2006, concerning a second story deck built in 1973 at less than 75 feet from the top of the bulkhead, and/or a variance as an alternative; and (b) variance under Section 280-15-C concerning an as-built accessory structure (playhouse) located at less than 35 feet from the front yard line. Location: 4480 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this application? MR. LANG: Gerald Lang. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The first thing is the deck, and it's 35 feet from the bulkhead; is that correct? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 That's one point of the MR. LANG: bulkhead, yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: setback is not noted in my it somewhere. We may need you tell me first, why was your impression as to why? MR. LANG: When I bought the house, there's a lot of mistakes, I mean, I don't know if you have these copies, the Building Department said well, it could have been put in afterwards because on the building inspection report like this it wasn't noted that there was actually a second floor deck built, but you guys have the original blueprints with stamps, and the Building Department if it's built as per plans, they don't write anything. So I actually brought one from a job I'm on right now stating exactly what the building inspector does. And if they only note if there's something wrong on the job, if they built as per plans, they don't say, okay, second floor deck is okay. There's blueprints there and there's a cantilevered deck, and it's been there since 1973. And actually I have my neighbor here who witnessed the house being built. I have my neighbor here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That depth to your files, but we may have to upgrade that. Can the deck denied, as to You have to stand up, sir. MR. HUGHES: Arthur Hughes, I'm his neighbor to the south. I lived in my house since COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 e 3 '65 that's next door to his. I saw the house being built. I was in the house when it was under construction, the original house. It had a deck. I have a picture here showing the deck. This picture was taken in '88. So, that's proof that the deck was there. I don't know maybe you can help me out, what is the distance that would be legal from the bulkhead to this deck? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: 75 feet. MR. HUGHES: That's a new law or it's always been there? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. HUGHES: All right, after the old house was built. thing I can say about that. MR. LANG: When I applied for a permit to work on the house, you have to omit the deck, I said why it's there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, that's why you're here. We just need MR. HUGHES: at this picture. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: look at that. MR. HUGHES: Sure. MR. LANG: I just passed this out, Mr. Simon was there yesterday and I didn't see that, that's the original survey. And also that's been a mistake too, because it says one-story frame house there. When I bought the house I almost didn't get the loan because the bank, I needed proof that it was a two-story house and I had to show them the blueprints, and I actually had to go to the Town and on the inspection reports it said the second floor bathroom does not have linoleum, that's the only proof that stated it had a second floor. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're lucky. MR. LANG: Just the mistakes that were made, look at spelling of Ole Jule Lane. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I wondered did the name of the road change? MR. LANG: It's a mistake. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is not utterly exceptional with a Van Tuyl survey from that era. I have a question, there are two cantilevered decks on your property, right? MR. LANG: Now or then? '88, '89. so it's a new law That's the only 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 If you fellows want to look 13 We'd like to take a e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 3 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, now. MR. LANG: Well, the one that's shaded, there's no access to that up there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's new. e 3 4 5 So that's decorative? MR. LANG: Yes, that's totally decorative, yes. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there's no access other than through the window? MR. LANG: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: you added on after? MR. LANG: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the notice of disapproval is referring to a second story deck. MR. LANG: That's that one. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The new one? MR. LANG: No, the old one. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm confused. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, there's two cantilevered decks and it appears that it's an actual habitable additional story above what would be typically the second story. MR. LANG: Third story. It's from the attic, I did the same with the attic. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. It's on the third story. MR. LANG: It's out of BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: space; are you using it in any storage? MR. LANG: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the addition of that was done when? MR. LANG: Two years ago. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's not the subject of this? MR. LANG: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not but it needs to be clarified for the record because there are two cantilevers, and we need to determine what is the second floor, what is the third story. MR. LANG: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So how did you manage to get to us; how did the question come up, and how did you get denied; were you looking for a building permit to do something else? So that's something 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 the attic, yes. Is that habitable way other than for 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 4 1 2 5 MR. LANG: I received a building permit but during the whole thing it was to say omit this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What was the building permit for? MR. LANG: Renovation of the house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Was this third story? MR. LANG: Actually no. I did a renovation then, and I put a new roof line on it. Two years ago. MR. LANG: So I went up on that and I was denied different roof lines. That was the third roof line I submitted, so they kept denying it. I wanted to make the house Victorian looking, so I'm doing this decorative stuff, decorative trim. So there's another part, another phase that's going to be coming on too. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just can't quite understand how you got to us for this particular deck. e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. LANG: I don't know. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You didn't ask to do anything to that deck? MR. LANG: The deck was in bad shape, it was very bad shape, it was rotten, the railing was rotten, very unsafe. So I replaced the railing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Did you need a building permit for that? MR. LANG: Well, it was in there, sure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you asked to do something to that deck and that's how you got here. 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 20 plans I inside, plans. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: the disapproval. MR. LANG: Right. Because on the new submitted because I was changing walls we put that existing deck back on the That's what produced 19 21 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, it's not like you didn't know how you got here, right? MR. LANG: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You needed to do some work on that deck. Now the building inspector claims that they didn't know that the deck was there when they gave you the CO, right; there was no need to mention it because you had plans that had the deck on it and back then they had those 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 5 1 2 e 3 plans? None of the people that are in there now were there when these plans were approved in 1972. MR. LANG: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I didn't know why they didn't just go look at the plans and see. MR. LANG: On this thing he said omit the deck. I said I'm not going to cut the deck off, it's there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. I want to get to, and I think Michael's going to ask the same questions as me, those plans that you have, does it actually show the deck? MR. LANG: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying then, if the building inspector had looked more closely at the plans that were submitted before when he wrote this thing up he would not have issued a violation for the deck? MR. LANG: It wasn't a violation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON. Not a violation but something that needed a variance. Why do you think the building inspector called you on this deck question? MR. LANG: It wasn't the Building Inspector. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who was it? MR. LANG: Bruno Simone. He worked in the building department. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's site plan. MR. LANG: This is when I was applying for a building permit and during the process of the building permit issue, he said everything's okay but you have to omit the deck. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This was when? This was '88? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. LANG: This is 2002. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is on your recent renovation? MR. LANG: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When you first MR. LANG: Started. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He was building inspector at that time? MR. LANG: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, he was in his capacity of a building inspector? MR. LANG: Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So had he written 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 6 1 2 this more closely you think therefore you wouldn't have been given this notice of disapproval with respect to the deck? MR. LANG: Correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Did you ever get a CO for the deck? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. We need to ask one at a time, we used to go one person at a time and I'd like to continue that, please. Poor applicant is getting bombarded and I'm sure the people taking the minutes are not going to be too happy about everyone speaking at once. So, Michael, you had the floor. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I completed my questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie, would you like to ask any further questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to just clarify, I suspect what happened in this particular case is because you were doing changes to a preexisting nonconforming deck that there was a notice of disapproval because you may have been increasing the degree of nonconformity in doing the repair. Nevertheless, it's before us and our task will be to approve or disapprove the existence of that deck with its repair in place. I had an additional question simply out of curiosity. Your survey shows a shed, not the lighthouse, but the shed, and now there is a small foundation wall; are you rebuilding that shed in place? MR. LANG: That's a new shed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's torn down? MR. LANG: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're building a new one because it's on your survey? MR. LANG: Right. The new survey. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is. I just wanted to clarify that that's not anything that's on your survey, it's something that you are actually undertaking. MR. LANG: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have other questions when we look at the second part, but for now I don't have any additional questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, there was just a big mix-up as far as that deck was concerned 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 February 22, 2007 7 1 2 because if it was already there when you bought the place and you had no knowledge that it was nonconforming or what have you -- MR. LANG: Right. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How many feet is it from the bulkhead? MR. LANG: To the point where you see it on the surface. e 3 4 5 6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 64 I thought. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have 36 feet. MR. LANG: Okay, that's about right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's not noted on the We may require you to put that on Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was my question, the survey was showing 53. MR. LANG: It is 53 from the point they measured from, the bulkhead goes like this and then comes back. The bulkhead is a jog in it and then goes back towards the house like 20 feet or something. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think we have to ask Mr. Chairman when he would like to discuss the playhouse. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to do that second. This is two separate things here, quite honestly, it should have been two. I'm going to just clarify a couple of things. After the hearings that we have had and after I've heard, my suspicion is in 2002, we had something, I think in 2001 called the Walz decision, and I'm not so sure that Bruno Simone didn't think that because he wanted to do something on a nonconforming deck as Leslie said, that this didn't fall under that, quite honestly. And I think that even though it's not mentioned in here, and may not at this time have come here because that's been kind of clarified, back then I think things may have been just a little confusing and that may be the reason, you would have come here regardless. So I think we can clear that up. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're suggesting that by now the boiler plate, referring to the Walz decision, but it was not at the time of this decision. survey. there. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: that's what it is. I know deal with. Right. I suspect that it was something to February 22, 2007 8 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The simplest way to proceed is a reversal of the disapproval. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, we can have that discussion. It was not clear, it's clear to me now. e 3 4 5 MR. LANG: I'm a local builder, so I'm in the Building Department all the time. So I always ask, make sure I am doing the right thing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, no, again, I think that's where we went wrong. Now, we also have a lighthouse, the setback is 12 feet from the side yard and 17 feet from the front yard; is that correct? 6 7 8 9 MR. LANG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you need a minimum 35 feet. Did you apply for a building permit for that; and how did that come about? MR. LANG: I actually went down to the Building Department, I had a sketch, and I confronted my neighbors before I started construction on these things, and I said I want to build a playhouse/bus stop for the kids, a lighthouse. And he saw the drawing and it had 19 feet on there on height and he said can you make that 18 feet. I said I didn't build it yet, I says I want to make sure I can build it before I start construction on this thing. He goes, oh, yeah as long as it's under 100 square feet, under 18 feet tall, it's out of our jurisdiction. So I had the thing almost constructed and then the new building inspector, George, shows up when I wasn't there and writes me up that I need surveys, blueprints, this, that, and I was like what? So I ran down to the Building Department and I said, Damon, you told me that I didn't need anything, and he goes well, did you put it in your setback? And I said I didn't even think about setback. 'Cause I built it as a bus stop for the kids, and where do you build a bus stop? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yeah, on the street. MR. LANG: You know, close to the road. So that's how it started. And I started building this thing I was going to put it on railroad ties. And it might blow over, so I put a full bore foundation in and poured two yards of concrete under the main lighthouse. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so now you got this bus stop and it's all constructed. It's all 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 9 1 2 ready to go. And I'm assuming that you just relied on what the building inspector said. On faith, you don't need a building permit for anything 100 square feet, right? MR. LANG: Under 18 feet, right. So it was out of their jurisdiction. I think I went there and told him about it and he goes where are you going to put it. I said it's going to be a playhouse/bus stop for the kids, you know. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You didn't mention setback? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let's just go one at a time, okay. If you want to go next, Michael, you can. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you it's a very tastefully done building. I have to tell you on the 27 years I've been on this Board I've never seen anything like this that close to the property line. And I don't know what to suggest to you. It's absolutely beautiful, but I'm going to say it's inappropriate in the front yard in a nonconforming location. So I'll kick that around. I have nothing against it personally. It's large. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, one question then. It would be allowed, I'm assuming, to clarify, at 35 feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MR. LANG: If I could have moved it, I would have moved it already. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, just clarifying. You could have it in that front yard but it would have to be 35 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, you could grant -- you want an if? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: An if? No, just for discussion I think we want it in the record. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion is you could allow the gentleman and his family to leave it there for a certain period of time. I mean, there is going to come a time when the kids aren't going to need a bus stop. That's what you could do. MR. LANG: Then I'll donate it to the 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 park. e 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Similar comment. The problem of this, the code is silent on bus stops. February 22, 2007 10 1 2 And the idea is that did you say it should be an exception during the time that kids are using it as a bus stop might be a fairly reasonable thing. The problem we have now is unless we can put a time limit on this, 10 years from now there perhaps will be no children using that and then you will have a nonconforming building that can now be used for any kind of the purposes of an accessory building, and that would be a problem if we have 100 of these throughout the town. So that's not your problem immediately. So would you be willing to accept a condition on it so that this permission would expire after a certain period of time? MR. LANG: Yes. go, that would be it to a park or a didn't donate that. I actually said if this a great idea, and I would school or something like e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a situation that comes up all too frequently in which individuals go to the Building Department for accessory structures like sheds and are told it's not their jurisdiction because of the size and height, which is conforming. But there is very little mention of setback requirements, as most people know that accessory structures need to be in rear yards except in your case, you're on a dredged canal. So because it's got water back there, you can legally put an accessory structure in a front yard. However, in most instances, the Board has had to rule that the circumstances are that the applicant is required to know this. And as a builder, someone who is familiar with putting up sheds and other kinds of structures, I would assume that understanding that setback requirements are part of a placement of such a structure would be something that you are aware of. Having said that, it is in place, and I would also argue that it's also not just a bus stop it's clearly a play structure. It will be used more than just shelter for waiting for a bus. So it's a multiuse structure, and it's primarily a play structure that the kids can go into if it's raining or raining while waiting for the bus. So 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 11 1 2 I just want the record to reflect that the setback that is nonconforming and is substantially nonconforming is not something that this Board necessarily has to endorse as a result of the fact that it's as built. And I can see where kids would enjoy it; it's a lot of fun, very nicely built. So I think we'll simply have to deliberate and see what kind of solution we can collaboratively come up with for you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to add a point to that, it's hard to see how that wonderful spiral staircase that you have built is necessary for a bus stop. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, it's a play structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a play structure, she's right. MR. LANG: It's a play structure, I mean the lighthouse -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know, you're not claiming it's solely a bus stop. MR. LANG: No. I put that in there play house/bus stop. So the actual hang out area for the kids is actually really small, it's just that little house then they go upstairs and they go outside. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Frankly, I mean, I love the structure and I think it's totally inappropriate for where it is. It's just too close to the edge of the road. You take a chance maybe some cars coming down the road go so close to banging into it. So I don't approve of having it in the place that it is. I know it would be a great expense to move it, but it's just too close. I'm sorry, but you should know as a builder there are setback regulations. MR. LANG: Well, when he said it was out of his jurisdiction. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It really is pretty, I love it. MR. LANG: I mean, I made sure. I went down there. I made sure that I was doing everything right before I built this thing. When he said it was out of his jurisdiction -- because all the jobs I do have permits, I don't do anything without a permit -- so he said it was out of his jurisdiction so I didn't even think about 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 February 22, 2007 12 1 2 it. I was like it's on my property. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I would say it's half your fault and half the inspector's fault for not informing you. MR. LANG: And I've heard this before from other people too, this has been an issue with the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's too bad because it puts you in the bad position. MR. LANG: And I wish I could move it, I wish I didn't pour concrete. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Because it really is e 3 4 5 6 7 8 cute. 9 MR. LANG: feet, no problem. strapped down. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd say I'll slide it back 35 But it's concreted in and 10 Can you move it back? 11 MR. LANG: No, I would have if I could have. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? MR. LANG: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any complaints about it, about the color of it in any way with the red stripe? MR. LANG: I don't know. I discussed it with Mr. Hughes before I did it, and we were talking about either horizontal stripes or candy cane stripes, and my other neighbor, Conklin, the other kids that use it, so my immediate neighbors knew what I was doing before I did it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have a letter that was handed up to us from Richard S. Burton, Linda would like to read that into the record and maybe you can comment on it afterwards. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: "Dear Board of Appeals: I am writing this letter due to my work schedule makes it impossible for me to be present this morning. "One, a variance is a special needs situation where there is a hardship. The structure does not meet this requirement. "Two, the structure is not needed, and there is no purpose to its existence in this 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 13 1 2 location where it has been built. "Three, it is insulting that it has been built with no regard to what effect it has on the neighborhood, and a total disregard for the process of law that is required to build a structure like this. Now you are being asked to justify this. "Four, I know there are other people that would be against this, but they are away at this time. I am asking for a four week stay so that others may be able to speak their opinion. "Five, there were no notices posted on the property that the neighbors would know about the hearing. "Six, plain and simple this structure is illegally built and it is not located within the confines that the Town allows. "And finally, let's be honest, would you want to look at this from your house? "Richard F, Burton, Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck." BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know what his address is, Linda? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: 2800. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's the same side of the street. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the address of your house? MR. LANG: 3480. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Quite a ways away. Do you have any comment? MR. LANG: I'm surprised because I did talk to my immediate neighbors about this before I started any of this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, anybody can come in once you file for a variance, you're well aware of that. I looked at this long before you had even reason to put any notices on that property, so I don't know if it was actually did you put out the signs that we gave you? MR. LANG: I have it in the window. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Which window, of the house? MR. LANG: Of the play house, so it's right up by the road. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean, did anybody see 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 those? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. February 22, 2007 14 1 2 e 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Probably looked at the red stripes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Looked at the play house, that was enough. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can understand why he would look at that if he's feeling the way he is. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And we're also waiting for three green signature cards from the neighbors, we didn't get those back. MR. LANG: My secretary Rita mailed them out, he's the neighbor that got one, right, that's why he knows about it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to need those before we do anything anyway. Do you have any comments on that other than what we just discussed? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. LANG: I the road far enough. in the neighborhood, it. guess I didn't wander down I'm trying to keep the peace I'm not trying to disturb 11 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. That's not necessarily your responsibility, sir. But he has a right to comment on it because it's a public hearing. And you can't go to every neighbor and try to convince him, but he has an obligation to do what he needs to do and that's what he did. If you have nothing further constructively to say about it. MR. LANG: No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I offended him. I don't want to offend anybody in the neighborhood, I don't. I mean, I built this for the kids. It's not for me or to upset any of the neighbors. We didn't do it for that reason. I mean, I thought this was going to be a week project. It took me like four months. I thought, geez, what did I get myself into. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say something? Mr. Lang, that was the reason why I raised the issue of the color. Certainly the thing can be -- and we're not referring to it as the thing, it's a lighthouse with a little building attached to it certainly the color can change. MR. LANG: Tone it down. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A safety barrier can be put up between the street and the structure, okay. Some bushes can be planted around it to make it more woodsy looking. All of 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 15 1 2 of those things are issues that I have dealt with on this Board over the years, and that's the reason why I raise that issue. And we'll see how the situation goes in the future. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have one question, how long actually has it been since the lighthouse has been completed? MR. LANG: Only a few months. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it hasn't been here over the summer? MR. LANG: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there any people who live on Ole Jule Lane who live here mostly in the summer and not here during the winter? I guess I'm saying is there anyone who is going to see it this summer who didn't know it was going to be there last summer or last time they were here? MR. LANG: No, no, no, the only one that travels a lot is Mr. Spar, which is directly across the street, and I don't even know, Florida. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don't have summer residents there? MR. LANG: No, not really. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just so we have a little bit better understanding of the neighborhood use of the structure, how many children would you estimate that actually use that play house for playing and for bus stopping. MR. LANG: Well, I have three kids, well, five for the bus stopping, three, minus two of the neighbors there's a lot of kids in the neighborhood. So they're all in and out of it playing. We have 13 stops for the bus on that road alone. So there's a lot of kids. It's a great neighborhood for that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would anybody else like to comment on this? Come on up, sir. MR. HUGHES: Arthur Hughes, next door neighbor, I just talked to you before. I have no problem with it. I think it's in good taste. If it was a designed neighborhood where we had like say across from the country club maybe it would be out of place. Where we are, Ole Jule, we put the street in with a horse and buggy and said this is where everything's going to go and lined up everything and the houses are built all helter-skelter, bulkheads, and I don't see any e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 16 1 e 3 problem with it. And I'm his next door neighbor. I can't change your opinion on setback and this and that, but I think you're on the right track with maybe putting some bushes or fences around it. 2 4 MR. LANG: Or I could tone it down with a 5 color. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I think we would take seriously the suggestion for keeping the hearing open partly because of the letter, the letter raises the kind of concerns which don't peculiarly fit just the immediate neighbor, those that get notice; it could very well be a general issue. And if there are continued hearings from people who just routinely drive by it and if, for example, 10 people showed up and said I don't have any problem with it, that would be some relevance. On the other hand, if 10 people showed up and eight of them said, how did that get there I didn't know it was happening, so I would like to see the hearing kept open. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this? I agree on this, Michael, we usually grant a person who sends a letter, we usually grant them their request for another month. It's not unusual for us to hold the hearing open. MR. LANG: Sure, like I said, I apologize if I offended anyone. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If it's all right, I would like to ask that a new sign be put up and it be posted 10 feet from the road so it's more visible. That's what the code requires. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So if you could repost that sign. MR. LANG: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I must say as far as the notice is concerned, I did not find the house by seeing the notice; I found it by seeing the lighthouse and by seeing the street number. And on other properties I would be dependent on seeing that notice, and I didn't even recall that there really was a sign perhaps because it was on the lighthouse. So I think it would be a good idea to put it in a more conspicuous place. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean, Michael, that that is the only house on the block 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 17 1 5 with a lighthouse? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn't look at all the houses, it's also the only one that's 3480. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So we'll have the hearing next month, and you would be well advised probably to show up I would think for that. 2 e 3 4 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thursday, March 29th at 9:30. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would just like to say one more thing about the time limit. Do you have any idea of how long you would think you would need that, the kids are young now? MR. LANG: The youngest kid is nine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Five years, 10 years? MR. LANG: Tell you the truth, I don't know, how long do you think they would stop using it, until they were 15 -- six years maybe. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So between five and 10 years is good, right? MR. LANG: Yeah, I mean he's third grade now, high school he'll be driving. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So hearing nothing else, I'll move that we hold the hearing open until next month. (See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Dorothy E. Lockridge, a request for a Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-30A.2B and 10-31B, Subsections 14 (a-d) of the Southold Town Zoning Code. The applicant-owner requests an accessory bed and breakfast for the renting of three guest bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than 10 casual and transient roomers, providers that the renting of such rooms is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal single-family dwelling use. Location: 9625 Main Road, East Marion. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anyone wish to speak to 17 18 19 20 21 22 that? 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim, before you speak to Miss Lockridge, I made an appointment to go and inspect the house Saturday at 9:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This coming Saturday. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is anybody else 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 18 1 2 invited? 9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just did it on my own because I do like to inspect the houses. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can we join you? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because I was going to request an inspection. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you may have two Board members show up, okay? MS. LOCKRIDGE: Fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you are? MS. LOCKRIDGE: Dorothy Lockridge. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you want to get three bedrooms, and my original reading of the notice of disapproval was six guests, right? MS. LOCKRIDGE: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because what I just read says 10. But it's six, right? MS. LOCKRIDGE: I requested six, I don't know where the 10 came from. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I can explain. You're allowed to have extra guests. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that's what the code reads, right? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you are the owner so you will be living there? MS. LOCKRIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I noticed that there are quite a few legal things going on there about the ownership, but you had been granted a bed and breakfast before on this? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No prior owner, Lydia and I had gone there years ago. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So I guess we'll just take your testimony and tell us what you would like to do. MS. LOCKRIDGE: Well, just that I would like to open the house as a bed and breakfast with three guest rooms. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're going to meet all the requirements of the code concerning a ladder in each room and those kinds of things, right? MS. LOCKRIDGE: Okay, whatever. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Whatever it says to get the permit, right? MS. LOCKRIDGE: Right. 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 February 22, 2007 19 1 2 e 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was looking over, Miss Lockridge, the decision of 2002 from the prior owner, the only difference I will like to deal with between that decision and this decision today is that we specifically state because of the width of the driveway that all parking is in the rear of the property as per your plan. MS. LOCKRIDGE: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second thing I would like to state is that a sign be posted on the way out saying "No Left Turns" into that traffic and I know that probably it would be used mainly around the summer time and the fall when the greatest amount of traffic occurs on State Road 25. I have no objection to anything else regarding your property. It's a very nice house. MS. LOCKRIDGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that it, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would the suggestion no left turn be acceptable to you? MS. LOCKRIDGE: You're talking about at the end of the driveway? Yes, that's fine with me because they can make a right and then turn around. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You would not consider that that would be a hardship on your guests? MS. LOCKRIDGE: No, actually it would be a safety issue. I have no problem with that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I assume it would not be more than three cars at anyone time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Some of this will probably be answered upon inspection of the interior, your hand-drawn plans were not exactly clear enough, but I presume there will be no structural changes on the interior, no additional -- you have the three bedrooms upstairs and the bathrooms and you're simply going to make them available for guests, and you're going to continue living downstairs in the other bedroom and bathroom. MS. LOCKRIDGE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 20 1 2 make sure that you did not anticipate any other structural changes in the house. You have more than ample room in the back for additional cars. So, site plan should not be a problem and I'll look forward to seeing the interior on Saturday. MS. LOCKRIDGE: Good enough. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: In other words, there has been no change since the previous owner had a bed and breakfast there. I don't know if she ever really fully implemented it, but we had looked at the parking back there so there is sufficient parking for the cars. MS. LOCKRIDGE: Right. And I had a layer of underlay put down. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, so we'll see you Saturday. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, is there anybody else that wishes to comment on the bed and breakfast in East Marion? State your name, ma'am, please. MS. IKABRODE: My name is Lois Ikabrode, I own property directly across. I am here in support. We came the last time when the prior owner asked for permission. I think it's nice that the parking is going to be off the street rather than tie off the road out front. My concern with your suggestion is that we already our house fronts on Main Road, but we have our driveways on Bay Avenue, which already is a turnaround for people who have gone the wrong way. I see them making a right out of your place, left on Bay Avenue and turning around in our deteriorating driveway. You can't believe how many trucks and vehicles come in there and turn around. So that's my only concern. I mean, it's making some presumptions about what's going to happen with the traffic. That would be my only concern, but it's not a huge volume of people. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say that I didn't say to that nice lady -- but I'm saying to you nice lady -- we also normally put in, and I'm speaking for the Board now, that there be no backing out on the Main Road, it would be absolute suicide. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: old decision already. So to have you abide by that I think that's in the we basically are going decision that was made 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 February 22, 2007 21 1 8 before, and that maybe you can live with and maybe put this sign out there. MS. LOCKRIDGE: I don't presently let anyone back out. There is truly plenty of room to turn around in that driveway, and I would certainly suggest that to any guest that they not back out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem is when someone's pulling out of the driveway and someone may be pulling in, sometimes the person pulling out doesn't yield to the person pulling in, and that person is forced to back out; where that person pulling out, this is not science here, that person should really back up into the parking area and allow the other person to come in. MS. LOCKRIDGE: That would be common courtesy to me. I don't know about other people. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, if we can mitigate the potential traffic impact in our decision, I think that's a perfectly appropriate use of an owner-occupied structure and you're not anticipating a great number of vehicles. Safety is of real concern and people do it all along that stretch because the traffic is increasing. So it's becoming a problem I think all along that stretch, all along to Greenport practically from Greenport all the way out to the point people are forced to do that because of oncoming traffic in one direction or another. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, everybody through? Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on the nice bed and breakfast in East Marion? I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing pending any written information, if they come and they have something they want to have in writing, and if it does change things, we could take that opportunity to open up the hearing if we so chose. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for George and Jeanne Braun. It's a request for a variance under Section 280-124 based on the building inspector's October 25, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed addition to the existing dwelling at less than 10 feet on a single side yard and less than 25 feet for the combined side yards at 2005 Bayshore Road, Greenport. 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 22 1 9 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BRAUN: George Braun. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hi, Mr. Braun, looks like the information I have is the side yard setback is required at 10 feet, you're proposing 5.3 feet; is that correct? MR. BRAUN: It's whatever it is. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's already built. You're not proposing any more than 5.3 feet already, right? MR. BRAUN: The property is 50 feet wide now. The house is already 33 feet wide, so the two proposed rooms would follow the building line of the house, and it's not a front setback issue, as I understand. It's the ruling which I think must have come in after the house was built. I think this must be a pre-existing condition. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, it certainly is. It's a Walz decision. You have a nonconformity, and you want to expand that nonconformity that's what it is. I'm clarifying that 5.3 is what exists, and you're not going any closer than that? MR. BRAUN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And the combined side yards are going to remain the same as they are now, which are 17 feet; that's your proposal? MR. BRAUN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything to add to that? MR. BRAUN: Just a couple of points in my opinion at least. What we're trying to do here makes no change in the character, the health, the safety or the welfare of the neighborhood. These are not substantial changes. The two rooms will add about 10 percent to the living space of the house. They represent less than two percent of the plot size as a footprint. And because of the way that the houses are laid out, and I don't know if I included this in the application, but I made copies, my house to the west to 300 feet property, whereas my neighbors on either side are to the east. So subsequently, the two rooms we're proposing don't abut their properties in any way. There's just a yard there. Can you tell me, folks, is this in the file? You folks look at these things first? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sure. 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 February 22, 2007 23 1 9 MR. BRAUN: So you understand that the other houses are set back. The neighbors have absolutely no objection to this. I have talked to them personally. I have the cards. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're just bumping out the front? MR. BRAUN: Two small rooms in the front. What we'd like to do is make it a permanent residence. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it one story? MR. BRAUN: One story. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have any more questions? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have absolutely no objection. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just clarification, you're extending the front portico as it exists now, not extending it forward, lateral, sideways, you're going to extend it on either side so it becomes a continuous facade at one story height. The two rooms will abut the existing front entrance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it goes beyond that. MR. BRAUN: The portico/foyer is seven feet out from the house. The rooms are nominally 12 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Eleven by 12. MR. BRAUN: Right. Which means we're about five feet closer to the street. But as I understand that's not the issue. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. That's not the issue, it's the side yard. And I just wanted to clarify that that is going to be one continuous elevation for the record that is slightly closer to the road. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Mr. Braun, do you have the affidavit of signed posting, a form that you have to sign? MR. BRAUN: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on Mr. Braun's application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion that we 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 February 22, 2007 24 1 2 close this hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Linda Commender and others. Request for a variance on under Section 280-15 based on the Building Inspector's November 6, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed addition to the existing dwelling, which created a side yard instead of a rear yard on an existing accessory garage at 1370 Highland Road, Cutchogue. The applicant's building a one-story addition to his house over a deck and because you're doing that, because you're extending it, it makes it appear that the garage that has existed in that lot for a while is now in your side yard; is that pretty much what's going on here? MS. MEADE: That's correct. Just so you know, my name is Marilyn Meade, I'm the contractor for Mrs. Commender. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything to 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 add? 24 MS. MEADE: No. Just an 18 by 16 one-story addition removing portion of the deck, putting the extension there, and the garage becomes a side issue because it's not behind the structure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So it's going to replace more than just the deck. It's going to go further than the deck goes right now? MS. MEADE: No, it's not. The portion of the deck we're going to remove, put the extension right where the deck is. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you're following that footprint? MS. MEADE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no problems. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have a real problem. It sounds as though you're before us because of the garage in the side yard. So without actually moving the garage, the garage is moved from the back yard to the side yard, even though the garage is not being moved at all. MS. MEADE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's why this is 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 February 22, 2007 25 1 2 not a hard case. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Moreover, it's only partially in the side yard. So it's an extremely small addition in the rear that has absolutely no visual impact on anyone or anything. Completely screened in every direction by vegetated buffer. So the impact is absolutely negligible if any in terms of what you're intending to do. It's simply a legal matter of allowing something to change location technically. MS. MEADE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, no problems. You're just caught between a side yard and a rear yard. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have the affidavit of posting? MS. MEADE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want to bring that up and hand that to Linda? MS. MEADE: (Handing.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) 12 13 e 14 15 ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next application is for Carole Donlin, a request for a variance under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's December 4, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed addition and alterations to the existing dwelling at less than 15 feet from the side yard line, at 910 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. Miss Doty? MS. DOTY: Debra Doty. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The proposed side yard setback is going to be 12.4 feet according to the Notice of Disapproval and that's right? MS. DOTY: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have an approval 1999, for an attached carport; is that correct? MS. DOTY: Yes, and that was a three foot side yard on the western side, and we're actually 3 .5. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So that's been all approved, and it's not the subject of this hearing? February 22, 2007 26 1 2 MS. DOTY: I hope not because I'm not ready for it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Then there's a letter in the file from you discussing setback from the wetlands, I guess there was some question of that. MS. DOTY: Yes. This is a long, narrow lot. I think it's 230 feet away, way at the south end of the property there may be some wetlands. But we didn't stake them. It would have to be 130 feet at least. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Then there was an answer in there from somebody else about the wetlands? MS. DOTY: I answered. I said the surveyor said there were none on his field notes and Don Filer, who is the architect that's here, said if there were any, it would be 130 feet away from the structure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which would not impact on this application? MS. DOTY: Right. I would hope. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right, Miss Doty, do you have anything you would like to say? MS. DOTY: Let me start with the administrative, I have the affidavit of posting from B. Miller and apparently Miss Donlin told me that her neighbor to the east picked it up this morning and has no objection. And those actually are the neighbors that would be most impacted by this because our proposed addition is to the east side. Miss Donlin is here and Don Filer is also here, the architect. We're the victims -- or Miss Donlin's the victim of something that happened almost 100 years ago. The house was put on the lot on an angle in 1910. And the original structure is a maximum of 14 feet from the eastern side yard and 12 feet on the southern part. Additions have been made to the house and just by the fact it's on an angle, the eastern side yard keeps getting smaller and smaller, we're not proposing going any closer than we are right now, which is 12.4 feet. And I think it was 2003, there was a CO for an addition to the back of the house which was for the dining room and a renovated kitchen. We are suggesting or proposing an addition over that portion of the building, and that portion of the building is in one spot 12 __ 13.4 feet. And the addition has a one foot 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 February 22, 2007 27 1 2 overhang, which reduces the side yard to 12.4. The purpose of it is that we want to move the master bedroom off of New Suffolk Avenue. It currently faces New Suffolk Avenue. There's only only one bathroom on the second floor and that one we have a New York State variance for because the ceiling height is too low. We would bring that bathroom up to code and we would add a master bedroom and a master bathroom and a closet in the back portion of the house over the existing structure. So there would be no visual or physical impact to the streetscape on New Suffolk Avenue. The property is treed on both sides so the neighbors wouldn't see much of anything. It's really the only way of doing it because we have a very narrow lot, we're only 60 feet wide. And short of moving the house, which we are not going to propose, there's no way of accommodating a new bedroom and bath at the back of the house. Miss Donlin was in the city, was in the city, she's retired, she's moving out here. She intends this to be her retirement home. I think you may know, she's a trustee of the hospital and on the Arts in Southold Town committee as well. She's very much involved in the community and wants to make this her retirement home. We considered the possibility of adding a master bathroom at the front of the house, but Mr. Filer believes that that structure is not strong enough to accommodate the weight of a bathroom up there and therefore we request that the Board grant the variance. It's 12.4 feet, would be the side yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's the setback on that, one foot? MS. DOTY: Originally on the carport asked for one foot, but it's not one foot. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The carport is 3.5? MS. DOTY: You gave us three feet, we did 3.5, so we get some credit for that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else to add? MS. DOTY: If there are questions we will e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 respond. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The house has great significance to me because many years ago when I first joined the fire department we had a fire at this house, which Miss Donlin's probably 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 28 1 2 not aware of, and was easily taken care of some time later and that was in the very early '70s, but the house is actually beautiful. It has great grace, and it was very nice to park underneath the carport during one of those cold days for a second just to get out and take a look at it. I wish you the best of luck. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will the second floor extend closer to the south boundary than the floor over which it's built? MS. DOTY: Yes, just the foot. So it's a foot on three sides. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will that extend, would the reduction of setback beyond be on any other point on that house? MS. DOTY: You mean on the new, no. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there are other parts of the house that are as close or closer? MS. DOTY: The original house is 12 feet, and the current closest I think is 12.4 and we're proposing 12.4 because we're stepped in on the back. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's always a pleasure to write up findings with your application because they're meticulously thorough. You clearly went over everything I have in my notes, and that were in the file; and upon site inspection, there was no alternative architecturally reasonable place to put an addition, and the addition as proposed has literally no impact visually on the rear yard, front yard and minimal impact on the side yard, which is already well screened. So I don't see any particular problems with this application and we'll have to confer as a group, but I think it's very clear what your intent is. And it's certainly not increasing nonconformity, and it structurally makes sense to approve that bathroom. MS. DOTY: Well, we're improving that nonconforming bathroom and adding another one. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I mean. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Lovely house. I enjoyed walking around it, and I think the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 29 1 2 addition will be an addition in the house that will fit in perfectly. I have no problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else to add to this? Is there anyone else who would like to speak? MS. DOTY: I will bring that other card in once I get it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We won't make a decision until we do. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They called this morning and said they signed it this morning and are sending it back to the post office. MS. DOTY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would entertain a motion that we close this hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ------------------------------------------------- 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Barrows Hall, a request for a variance under Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's November 30, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed accessory garage in a yard other than the code required rear yard. Location of property is Private Road off East End Road near Block Island Sound, Fishers Island. Mr. Hamm, I can tell you I was out there two weekends ago and inspected the place, it looks like you're replacing a pool that had previous approval in that location with a garage that you want to put in that same location? MR. HAMM: That's correct. I'll just do my appearance, Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton, for the applicant. That's correct and I have the presentation in writing so we don't have to take too much of your time. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is my file, can I just ask one question of Mr. Hamm when he comes back? Mr. Hamm, I understand, and of course I could ask the Chairman the same question, but I understand there's some topography issues on this property? MR. HAMM: That's correct. The rear yard is severely sloped and that was the basis of a 1997 variance that your Board granted to the prior owner who had wanted to construct a swimming pool. So it was mentioned, there is at present a variance for a pool that was never built. This particular owner wants a garage. It's pretty much 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 30 1 2 the same issue and in my memorandum, I addressed one possible alternative, which is not feasible other than the rear yard, to connect it to the house which does not work very well either. I have an affidavit from an engineer, Richard Straus, who can testify to some of the reasons for that. Also you should note, and this was important in the earlier decision, that the structure does meet the setback for a principal dwelling, and will not be visible. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only other question is that in writing a decision like this that is in reference to a conditional decision, my suggestion will be to the Board to limit the conditions to two, and that is that the building be only used for storage purposes, there is a loft area I suspect for storage as proposed; and it contain only the utility of electricity; do you have any problems with that? MR. HAMM: Whatever the plans show. The builder told me something about that they might want to put a toilet or something in there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That really is not part of the application. MR. HAMM: It's not. The plans were denied as is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If that were the case in the future, you would have to come back and modify them. That is the normal standard thing that we use for storage buildings -- I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There is no . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 toilet. 19 MR. HAMM: I didn't see it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not part of the application. MR. HAMM: It's not so I can't -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not putting you on the spot, I'm just saying. MR. HAMM: No, there was just a reference by the builder about a toilet, and I looked for it in anticipation that something might come up about that, but I didn't see it in the plans. So I think that would be fair. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can say that there is something in that location that has to do with plumbing. I don't know what it was. There are some hoses. I don't know exactly what it was. I 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 31 1 . 3 don't know if it was a gas tank? MR. HAMM: From the photographs you can see a propane tank there, and I asked the surveyor, he thinks it's for cooking. And so forth. 2 4 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we referred to the utility of electricity, doesn't mean a person can't put an outside hose on the building attaching it exteriorly. It just means we don't want plumbing on the inside and water running through the building on the inside. MR. HAMM: I understand that, and if they didn't show that on the plans, and I think it's fair that you would so state and we would come back. 6 7 8 9 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anyone else have a question? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question. I guess the concern is whether this will ever be more than a garage. It's going to be for storage; will there be a staircase? MR. HAMM: Two-car garage, and I believe there will be a staircase, it's a loft. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two floors and four 11 12 13 e 14 windows. 15 MR. HAMM: I think so by design, we have some elevations I submitted. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, building as described in this case no internal plumbing. MR. HAMM: If that's not the plans than this is what they intend to build, absolutely. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I should state for the record that the mean height of 18 feet with 21.10 and a quarter inch to the ridge falls according to your setback is in the approved new code for accessory structure. It is conforming in that sense. So that's good. I'm very glad you submitted photographs because there's no contour intervals on the surveys or the site plans and without them it would be very difficult to imagine the severity of the slope but the photographs do show those conditions well. MR. HAMM: As an exhibit I have a contour map which to my memorandum, this is probably going to be clear, I only have one copy, it's the former owner's survey which did have the contour. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it in your 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 32 1 8 submission? MR. flAMM: Unfortunately, no. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a further short question: What is referred to as the pantry in this loft? MR. HAMM: Storage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the meaning of pantry? MR. HAMM: Pantry would mean food to me, food stored there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And food suggests preparation, cooking. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you're on Fishers Island. MR. HAMM: I think it's a permitted part of an accessory building to have a pantry or else we would have been denied. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we'll just get to the heart of the pantry thing, in your opinion that's storage? That's part and parcel of accessory structure? MR. HAMM: As we said, you'll stipulate that there's no interior plumbing will be permitted. So it's not going to have living facilities in it. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is a propane stove considered plumbing? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: BOARD MEMBER SIMON: about is cooking facilities. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Without heat -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can't use it inside, it's got to be vented, that's why you have to take a propane grill outside. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? Do you have any more questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I can already tell from this that you're changing elevations from the rear of the house. MR. HAMM: Thirty percent according to the No. What I'm talking 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 survey. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's exactly right. It's about 60 feet horizontally, and it's a 30 foot drop so it's about a 30 percent slope. MR. HAMM: You'll see in my affidavit and submission. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for bringing this, Mr. Hamm. 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 33 1 2 e 3 MR. HAMM: I'm sorry I didn't have them put it on the current one. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Why don't you read the date of the map into the record? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: June 9, 1997, shows additions to swimming pool. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have to say it's a nice piece of property, and I understand that location because the rest of the place, if you tried to attach it to the house, you'd be below the basement of that house. So I don't think you'd want to do that. There's some fairly large boulders there too, rocks and such. Do you have anything else to add, Mr. Hamm? MR. HAMM: No, it's in Mr. Straus's affidavit about visibility and other neighborhood issues, so I think it's pretty well addressed. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have anything to say about this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ------------------------------------------------- e 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is going to be long so the Board would like to take a five minute recess. (See minutes for resolution.) 15 ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Vicki Haupt, Application Number 6000. This is a request for a variance based on the Building Inspector's December 18, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for a building permit. The grounds cited in the disapproval are: The proposed construction is not permitted under Section 280-121 except as provided hereinafter nonconforming use of buildings or open land existing on the effective date of this chapter or authorized by a building permit issued prior to, regardless of change of title, possession or occupancy or right thereof, may be continued indefinitely, except that such building or use: A) shall not be enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed or restored or placed on a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use on the effective date of this chapter; nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever. The 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 34 1 9 structure was erected in 1960 under a permit, and under current zoning regulations, the structure is nonconforming. The applicant states that the structure is a seasonal, one-story structure with a bedroom and a bathroom, and is part of a single-family dwelling, two section construction noted in the July 22, 1960 Certificate of Occupancy, and it gives us the certificate of occupancies for both of those structures. Sir, you are? MR. WILLIAMSON: I am Nigel Williamson, architect for Miss Haupt. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you are familiar with the application? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct, I made the application. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What I just read is basically what we're here for? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. I mean, I think it's longer than what we're requesting. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Did you care? MR. WILLIAMSON: May I approach, first, please for affidavits. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Oh, yes, please hand 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 that up. MR. WILLIAMSON: (Handing.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Why don't you just tell us the story. MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, as noted in the 1960 c.o. and also with the building permit application, which you should have a copy of, on the building permit application there is a sketch of two structures that is barely legible and on the c.o. it says single-family dwelling and built in two sections. Again, I think the confusion is back then I guess things were done on a handshake and the sketches that were provided were acceptable, and now we're into an issue of trying to reconstruct the existing single story by replacing windows and removing windows and relocating them and we're making repairs to existing piers and hence we're at the Zoning Board because of alterations/reconstruction. The dwellings were there since 1960. I think that's all I can really say about this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, these structures, they were some kind of kits or something like that? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 35 1 2 e 3 MR. WILLIAMSON: From what I understand, and again it's hearsay to me, they were either a Sears kit or some unit you could buyout of a magazine. I have a letter from Mr. Levin, who was the actual owner/builder, that I could submit to you. I was keeping it for the Building Department. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, if you would, we'd be interested in that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have to write it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, that's fairly obvious what that says. MR. WILLIAMSON: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Basically he built the structure. Do you have anything else to add or could the Board ask you some questions? Ruth, this is your application so maybe you could start. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. I would like for you to explain just exactly what you're going to do. Because it is in poor repair, it looks unsafe. It's rather confusing what you're going to do. Are you keeping the bedroom downstairs in the lower level of the two-story house and the living room on the upper floor, and then going up the stairs -- doesn't look too comfortable -- to a master bedroom and a bath; am I correct on that? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And the upper one-story structure is going to be nonconforming now, and the reason I'm here for the alteration, even though it's listed on the assessor's card as a bunk house. And again, I think this was on the original paperwork for their individual interpretation of what it was. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And you're putting new pilings on that upper structure? MR. WILLIAMSON: No, we're replacing two piers; there's a pier on the north and east. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: And you can see the two by eights I guess about two and a half inches down, the structure is stabilized. It hasn't moved or anything. We would like to replace that pier and the one on the southwest corner, which would be by the bathroom. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then you're putting new windows in, floors, what? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. We're removing 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 36 1 2 e 3 and replacing existing windows, do you want me to go through the elevation? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. It would be helpful. I've been up there twice. MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. This is drawing A3, drawn by me. I'll start with the southeast elevation, which is the elevation where the bathroom is going to come into. There's an existing patio door that's showing dashed lines; we would like to put two new windows. On the northeast elevation, there's an existing door, three existing windows, we're going to replace the three existing windows in-kind and a door in-kind. On the northwest elevation, there's three existing windows, we would like to remove, patch and install one window as drawn. And on the southwest elevation, there are three, actually four windows, we would like to remove three, remove and replace in-kind one and install a new window. And on the interior, the enlarged bathroom and make the bedroom smaller without increasing the footprint. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the stairs, are the stairs going down? It's very awkward when you come to the last step on those stairs, you kind of have to turn your whole body around to get to the first floor. MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, there was no mention in the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, you'll have to work that building, but both Leslie and I noticed that it's very difficult. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a suggestion on that when you get to me, I'm not jumping the gun, I just want to tell you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you all set? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I'm going to keep going, Jerry, hold your thought. Okay, then, on what's this, B2, where is the master bedroom? MR. WILLIAMSON: The master bedroom is the existing one-story structure. The higher level one. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then what is A3; is that not the higher structure too, the one story? MR. WILLIAMSON: The elevations we just looked at? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct, that's the existing one-story structure. 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 37 1 9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. All right, that makes it a little clearer. Then the first one then is the living room Bl? MR. WILLIAMSON: Bl is the existing two-story structure; which is the first one you come to when you drive in. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So then the living room is going to be on the upper level or the lower level? MR. WILLIAMSON: The upper level. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then the lower level will be the new deck and then right off that there will be the kitchen that will no longer be a bedroom there? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Am I correct? The kitchen and the dining room will be on the lower level of the two-story structure? MR. WILLIAMSON: No, no, no, ma'am, the Bl plan that you're looking at is all the same floor level. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 e 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then you have no plans for the first level? MR. WILLIAMSON: The lower level of this two story? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, we do. If you go back to B2 again on the top of the sheet. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's crossed out. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You have "n/a" not applicable. MR. WILLIAMSON: No, it is applicable. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You have me confused. MR. WILLIAMSON: Then I apologize, ma'am. Originally when I submitted them I crossed them out because I was dealing with the existing one-story structure that we were altering and Mrs. Kowalski said leave it in so there's no confusion and so that I can explain everything. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, that makes it a little more understandable. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, again, Ruth. So the top of B2 is the lower end of the main structure, which is the most easterly structure and the one you see when you come in? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's not my question. 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 38 1 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: This is different than anything we've ever had. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I think I'm going to clear it up, Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Go, go ahead, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I take it that one of the situations that exists here is that there was never a CO granted on the buildings? MR. WILLIAMSON: There's a CO on the buildings from 1960. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What does the CO 2 e 3 4 6 7 read? 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right there, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I may have seen 9 it. 18 MR. WILLIAMSON: It says to Eugene Horton AC Tom Levin, New Suffolk, to build new Oh, this is the building permit. Sorry. Okay, certificate of occupancy, July 22, 1960, Number 0792, private one-family dwelling. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Private one-family dwelling? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And the building permit for this certificate of occupancy dated May 3, 1960 is to build new one-family dwelling -- in parens -- built in two sections. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Built in two sectionsll? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn't say the two sections are separated, though. MR. WILLIAMSON: No, it does not. But if you look at the actual application for building permit, on the second page that I have submitted, which is I guess it's a plot diagram, you can actually see that there are two separate structures on that application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I am leading to, Mr. Williamson, is that this is going to be a really kind of total renovation of both of these structures, and I don't have any problems with pursuing what you're looking for if you were to permanently link these two structures together as one structure. We are looking at a substandard stairway, which Mrs. Oliva has mentioned to you. In the past we have had people that have requested new structures and we have required them to have heated hallways between the two and so on 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 39 1 9 and so forth. It is my understanding that at this time and after your construction that you're officiating at will be unheated, but that has no bearing on it; these structures need to be interconnected. And they need to be interconnected with some sort of permanent interconnection. I don't care if it's glass. I don't care if it's walls. I don't care if it's a combination of glass and walls. But my opinion is that they need to be interconnected, and that's my opinion in general. And I'm saying that for the sole purpose that we have one single unit that we're dealing with now, not two separate units, one of which everything has been taken out of. It's gutted, and in the future for any future use of this property, you will have much less trouble in dealing with this when these structures are interconnected. I concur with what Mrs. Oliva is saying in reference to the access, and I'll refer to the westerly structure or the lofted structure. I don't care if you do it with a series of ramps that meet the present code and stairways going up to landings and stairways, whatever the case may be. It has to be a permanent structure. I don't care if you use pilings, which we know that the loft structure is done with pilings. It has to be wide enough, and code enough for access and so on and so forth and that's just my opinion. That's what I'm offering as a suggestion to you. If you were not totally renovating everything, I could see the possibility of doing something else. There is no doubt that during the renovation you're going to run into not only substandard construction, but deterioration. I can tell you the deck is not so hot now. I'm not going to tell you on the record how much I weigh, but I'm going to tell you I was on the deck, and it's not so hot now, and I'm probably a good test for that deck. Nor am I a builder. That's my suggestion and it could be done quite easily. As I said, I don't care if you elevate it, what you suggest to the Building Department, but they should be interconnected. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Aside from the various practical advantages, legal and otherwise down the road, what have I missed, what the reasons are for not going ahead with it as it is now? 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 February 22, 2007 40 1 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The stairwell is totally substandard; it's dangerous. It does not provide adequate ingress and egress to this structure. And this is a bedroom structure, if it were a structure for the purposes of a library that you were only going to habitate on conceivably if you fell asleep in a recliner reading a book, that's not an issue, this is going to be a permanent master bedroom, so to speak, one that you're going to be using for at least eight hours a day or six hours a day or seven hours a day in a sleep mode. It is not something that we are used to seeing that doesn't violate health, safety and welfare. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there actually a code that requires those points? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So what you're saying to bring it up to code for reasons of safety would be more elaborate and more complicated than following your suggestion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, you could build this thing outside, but again, we now have two disenfranchised structures that it appears that the CO mayor may not have covered it. I'm just saying that if you're going to do the renovation, and this is not a reflection on you, sir, you're taking the direction, they have got to be connected. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's also some other issues structurally and architecturally. I'm an architect. In examining it. I'd like you to address before I ask some questions, the extent to which you or a P. E., a professional engineer, has really examined the underlying structure aside from the piers. I understand that you're replacing and removing windows and doors and so on. To what extent have you really examined the studs; have you any idea of what is really involved in the building envelope itself and its restoration as well as the roof, which it is not only substandard in cases it's extraordinarily deteriorated. MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean the roof covering? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the structure, the joists and so on and the rafters of the floor and the roof. I want you to address the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 February 22, 2007 41 1 2 structural conditions as you understand them of the actual floor, the joist, the rafters and the stud walls. MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, I can only address what I have seen, and I'll start with the upper structure, other than the 2 X 6s that are exposed on the roof, right now they're preexisting and there's no visible deflection of them. The underside of that structure, the floor joists are in I will say good shape. There's no signs of subsidence other than the pier on the northeast corner, and other than the hold down straps to the garters, which have some rust exposure from the salt air, the present condition of it as it stands now would not cause me great concern. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What about the lower structure? e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. WILLIAMSON: The lower structure, the deck I guess is questionable, I haven't taken BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And stairs leading to the deck? MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, the stair as it I mean, I can't say that it's not up 12 13 e 14 exists now, to code. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not code. need a couple of winders in there to have an appropriate landing in the bottom. MR. WILLIAMSON: Without a doubt it doesn't comply to those; I was dealing with that as preexisting. The upper part of the lower structure again from what I've seen, the walls are in reasonably good condition. The lower footings and basement walls to the lower two-story structure, no visible signs of cracking on the exterior other than degradation of the bituminous coating and that was done in the report that I had done because there was an issue of what appeared to be water marks on the lower level because there are cobblestones set in there, and I could find no new visible signs of water damage other than the south connection to that where I could actually see a drip of water coming in where the steps, not to the main front door but to that side door, go off. You can see that the detailing of there has a dove cove molding on that, there's water infiltration, and that is done on a report that I did on specifically addressing the water or the viewing of the water marks on the interior floor You 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 42 1 8 there. I would say the building is in reasonable shape. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not great. MR. WILLIAMSON: Not great, I'm not going to say it's great and I'm not going to nail myself to a cross here. It's in reasonable shape. Again, I can only address that their preexisting roof structure doesn't have any noticeable signs of excessive deflection. And we are replacing the part with the kitchen dining room with new roof rafters and roof covering, correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason that I asked for this for the record is because there have been many circumstances under which we have listened to applications that we have approved that would be working with a nonconforming structure and making alterations and in many cases, the applicant or their architect or builder, has discovered that once they tore into the wall that the deterioration was far more substantial, and they were not able to reasonably sister up and so on and so on and the next thing we know they're gone, and they're back before us. So I want to make sure that the record incorporates your expert testimony about the structural soundness of the general thing. I would also like to suggest as some of my colleagues have, that it would be extremely unwise to proceed with renovations without making everything code compliant, including that connecting piece. And certainly to resolve once and for all the contemporary interpretation of single-family dwelling. I agree completely that seasonal use or not, unheated or not, that not only making them compliant but making them enclosed in such a way that it is very clear that there is two modules and a connecting piece that creates an internal corridor that links them so that it's very clearly one structure as opposed to two structures with a very flimsy kind of exterior. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask one more question? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You honestly believe -- and this is not a sarcastic statement it is only truly pragmatic -- MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. 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 February 22, 2007 43 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That upper loft will be able to support the new windows that are required for not only energy but for hurricane proofing, which are at least twice the weight of the older new windows, which let's just take straight line Anderson windows, but the new ones are as you know, double the weight. It will be able to support that? MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not going to commit myself to whether it's going to support that or not because we're not using hurricane windows. It's going to be I'm sure shutters, plywood shutters. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to use regular windows, shutters over the window? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. I mean there's three items in the code that allow for this. You either use plywood shutters or I mean, you can expose the whole building and let the window and doors blowout. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But even with the weight of double insulated windows today, you feel that that upper structure will be able to support that? MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, I do, sir. Again on the northeast elevation where there are three large windows, they're I'm guessing five feet wide by six feet high, they're insulated right now and we're just replacing those. Again, I can only go from what I've seen right now. There are no visible signs of subsidence other than that corner, which appears to have been undermined at some stage along the way and that seems to have been for quite a while, and it hasn't been a continuous thing. It's obviously settled at some point. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have one other question. Your application as proposed will not increase the footprint of the existing structure with the exception of the small additional deck. There's a new deck proposed that is not there now? MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there is a small new deck on that lower structure. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And of course there's the stairs that go along with 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 February 22, 2007 44 1 2 e 3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Other than that you're not increasing the building envelope -- other than that you're not increasing the building envelope other than what you might end up having to do in relationship to the connecting stairs, which you had not planned on. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to make sure I understood for the record that because we are concerned with the increased degree of nonconformity. The only additional piece here is the rather small deck and stair. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And with nonconformance, I don't believe it comes close to the lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. The lot coverage is not an issue. MR. WILLIAMSON: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, I just wanted to mention that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody on the Board? Okay, I have some questions, quite honestly. I looked over the notice of disapproval and I can't quite understand why you're here, sir. Let me ask you a few questions. It doesn't say anything in here that you need a side yard variance. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Doesn't say anything in here that you need a front yard variance. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn't say anything in here that you need a rear yard variance. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you're not going over 35 feet, so you don't need a height variance. MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you're not going filling up more than 20 percent of the lot? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's the criteria for a variance, so why are you here? MR. WILLIAMSON: Because in the notice of disapproval it mentioned the alterations. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn't mention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 Walz. February 22, 2007 45 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it describes e it. 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. This has stated a part of the code that quite honestly, my 20 years on this Board, I have never had to deal with. So I'm not quite sure. I have a feeling that there's some confusion between a nonconforming building, which yours obviously is and nonconforming setback, which is what we deal with. We don't necessarily deal with nonconforming buildings. We don't really care much about what kind of windows you put in there. We care more about whether you're going closer to someone else's property line. And I would like to suggest -- and I have already spoken to the person who wrote this notice of disapproval -- that we ask that person, Pat Conklin, to come in at the next meeting, I'll give her enough advance warning. She seemed like she would come in and explain to us, unless there is somebody on this Board that can explain exactly just what we're going to grant, because if we deny it, that's fine. This gentleman can go on his merry way, but I don't see where we can pick anything out. That's only me and certainly I didn't hear anybody on this Board say anything about the side yards or anything about the rear yards that can pertain to anything that this Board can make a decision on. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I spoke to Miss Conklin, and she felt that the permit in 1960 was issued not in compliance with today's code as far as the whole building was concerned and the building was going to be somewhat constructed, somehow part restored that that constituted a notice of disapproval for the house. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Under Walz, right? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Go ahead, Mike. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Specifically it says nonconforming use of the buildings; what is the nonconforming use, is that what was rendered under Walz; what is a nonconforming use? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, under Walz it was a nonconforming setback, and this has a conforming use. It's residential. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. What I'm saying is that that sentence doesn't help us then. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we need to explore this more before we can come to that 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 46 1 e 3 because I have no idea what our decision would look like. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would need to know this further because what you're saying besides Walz considerations. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which they weren't denied for. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it appears, Leslie seems to think, it could only be for Walz considerations and we need clarification. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They were in part denied for Walz. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But there's nothing that really pertains to Walz. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the part we need to have explained. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's the part that's unclear. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's no language in there to that effect in the notice of disapproval. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was explained to me by the applicant and the Building Department. I was told that the use of it was also nonconforming, but they didn't have a name for it so they called it a seasonal structure because it wasn't a dwelling, it wasn't heated, it was a nonconforming structure but no name for it in our code. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We need more specification. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just let me say one thing. A building permit issued in 1960 could not possibly be issued in 2007. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No way. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There's no way. So that excuse was that was then and now is now, it applies to every building that has gone past the bench marks, 1986, you know all the things that have changed. Quite honestly, when I spoke to Pat, I understand what she was trying to say, but it seemed to me like they were groping in some way to deny to get it to us. So we just need to clarify it. Maybe we can have our lawyer present. He can explain to us what we would grant if we were to grant. Because quite honestly, what Jerry said, you can just demolish a house and build another one if that's the case if you don't go 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 47 1 e 3 outside the footprint. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but I'm just telling you that one of the glaring aspects of this application that this quote/unquote accessory structure, which is not necessarily an accessory structure based upon the original building permit is being used for total habitable purposes and you can't get more habitable than sleeping purposes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: My understanding from speaking to Miss Conklin, and Kieran has said this also, because it was the law years ago and laws have changed today that therefore you have to apply the new law, not the old law. The old law is extinct, we have to conform to what the law is 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 now. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless it's preexisting. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the question here. 11 12 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Then honestly, and I agree with you, we have never done this before, but then it would be that they would be tearing this house down or doing extreme amount of renovation to the point where it would just be built new because, number one, you can't have two separate houses or structures that are bedrooms, that just doesn't happen any more. So if we're asking them to now join them together, then they're increasing the degree of nonconformity. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: They are being e 14 15 16 17 18 joined. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But then they're back here now for Walz. They should be and we can't grant the variance if they haven't been denied for it. I'm just saying, let's build the record so we know exactly what Pat was thinking, and let her testify and let's bring Kieran in on this thing, and I have a feeling this is going to be quite a journey. Quite honestly, I don't think you're going to be done today, I can tell you that. Does anyone have anything else they would like to add? I suggest we leave the hearing open. Did you have anything else you would like to add, sir? MR. WILLIAMSON: No, my understanding was the reason we are here is because we were altering the windows, and that gave the Building 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 48 1 2 Department -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not really. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We just don't grant that kind of thing. It would seem to me like you need to go to the state and get some kind of variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Unless it's an exceptionally unusual case, we don't usually deal with seasonal dwellings. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, we don't. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the fact that you are going to continue it as a seasonal use unheated, complicates the notice of disapproval for us because we need to have specific legal grounds upon which to grant variances and that's what Jim is talking about getting clarification on which I think is a really prudent thing to do because the last thing we want to do is perpetuate more unclear certificates of occupancy. You and your clients really want to have this straightened out once and for all. MR. WILLIAMSON: Without a doubt. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's legal and it's appropriate. So I think that's a very prudent way to proceed to get additional testimony. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll just ask Pat to e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 come in. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm saying now we need more than that because I think the issue is we haven't got a clear notice of disapproval, a complete notice of disapproval from the Building Department, and I don't think it will necessarily be to have testimony from the Building Department. I think we need to essentially send it back to them for a revised notice of disapproval where we have something we can look at closer within our jurisdiction, and then have the testimony in addition. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's not always easy to get. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I slept on this and quite honestly, what I envision happening is us turning this down and then, if they want to come back with something that is an up-to-date, 2007 building, then that's probably what's going to end up happening. It might be. I don't know but I think we need to have the explanation because like 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 49 1 2 I said, I don't think we've ever seen this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think we agree that we cannot base a decision on what someone in the Building Department said in conversation to members of this Board, that has to be at best in writing on this at least with testimony before the entire Board at an open meeting. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: While the notice of disapproval is in there in writing to answer to us, I am still unclear on the notice of disapproval. That's why I'd like to have her here. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We need a Town attorney here with Pat. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm thinking that Michael will probably want her to have the Town attorney here too. He may represent her instead of us at the time. But any way, we're going to contact the Building Department, write them a letter asking them to be here for our next meeting. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We can try for 1:00 on March 29th. The only thing is if we put it on for March 29th and there is a new disapproval, we would have to advertise it, renotice it, if it's too late in the time span, we might have to put it over to April. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm not interested in us asking for a new notice of disapproval. I think we ought to pursue this now and after she comes and does her testifying, then if they decide, let's just do that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Okay, let's adjourn to March 29th based on everything the way it's written. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Would you just give me the square footprint of each of the rooms, not the rooms, the total, the upper one and the first and second story lower level? MR. WILLIAMSON: The existing two-story structure, it's a 622 square foot footprint. That's not the total, the surveyor has done lot coverage, the existing upper structure is 347 square feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So could you have that for us, broken down for us at the next meeting because I know Ruth will need that in any case. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. And we'll 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 50 1 e 3 confer with the Town attorney too. MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to hear back from the Zoning Board or the Building Department? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're going to be here for the next hearing. MR. WILLIAMSON: So I'm just going to show 2 4 5 up? 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. And we're going to ask them to come and testify, put something on the record as to what our involvement in this should be, and we go from there. MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody else wish to speak on this application for or against? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this to March 29th at 1:00 p.m. (See minutes for resolution.) 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Claire Jannuzzi Copersino, it's Application 6002. It's a request for a variance under section 280-122 and 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's November 15, 2006 Amended Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, which will increase the degree of nonconformance when located less than 10 feet on a single side yard, and less than 35 feet on combined side yards. Also requested is a lot coverage variance in excess of the code limitation of 20 percent. Location of the property is 580 L'Hommedieu Lane and Old Shipyard Road in Southold. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the existing setback is 1.5 feet, correct, sir, and your name is? MR. JANNUZZI: My name is David Jannuzzi. I'm acting as both attorney and husband of the applicant, a nonpaying client I might add. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we're looking at a side yard setback that exists there already, right? 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. JANNUZZI: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: 1.5 feet and you want to add an addition onto the rear of this home, that addition will be two feet away from the property line? MR. JANNUZZI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And the front yard setback is 14.1 feet, you're required to have 35. 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 51 1 2 I don't know if that was the subject of this application. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The lot coverage is certainly 21 percent; is that correct, that's what you're asking us for? MR. JANNUZZI: I think the end result is 23 percent. I thought we were over at 20 but according to the surveyor, he thought we were at 20 percent when we began, they thought we were above the lot coverage. The end result is 23 percent, whereas the code calls for 20 percent. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I noticed that in your paperwork that all the numbers added up to 23, so the notice of disapproval said 21. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right and 22 on the application and then 23 on the survey. MR. JANNUZZI: Depends on who you ask, the survey, we'll take the worst-case scenario, at 23 percent. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then on the front yard setback it's 30 feet instead of 35. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, I had that in here. So, sir, do you have anything to add to that? MR. JANNUZZI: Yes, just that it was really just connecting the garage to the main house. There was extensive construction done on this house, it started out as a bungalow before my time as it were. And at the same time connecting the garage, we would hope to finish one half of the garage and to use that as living space, and I believe to do that they have to raise it up a little bit to match the foundation of the house itself. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're just going to have a one-car garage then? MR. JANNUZZI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's a larger garage now, right? MR. JANNUZZI: It's a two-car garage now detached from the house. So a walkway connecting the two, this enables us to increase the size of the kitchen. If you would like me to address the individual points that you would have to cover in an area variance, I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, please do. MR. JANNUZZI: With respect to the change 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 February 22, 2007 52 1 e 3 in character of the neighborhood, our architect went in and did it in such an historical style that we think compliments some of the older houses in the neighborhood. It's definitely a mixed neighborhood. There are houses built in the '50s and '60s, but there are a few that were done in this style, and that's what our architect had picked up on. I don't see how we could achieve what we are seeking to do here by any other method. It's a strange lot. It's long and shallow. The kitchen on the original house was always in the back right corner. So apart from restructuring the entire downstairs, there's really no place for us to blowout the kitchen into a larger area for us. The code calls for 20 percent, we're going to end up I imagine with 23 percent, and I would respectfully argue that that would not be a substantial deviation from what the Town code has for us. I don't see an adverse impact on the physical or environmental. The footprint change is very little, it amounts to about 10 feet visually from the road that you would see of additional living space, and then again it's going to be done in a style which we think is in conformity with some of the historical structures in the neighborhood. And to the extent that we decided to procreate, I guess the problem is self-created in that we needed to, the house suddenly became a lot smaller with the birth of my son, but to the extent that this house -- as I said, it's a strange lot, anything that we are going to do to the house would require a trip to the ZBA. But as I said, the kitchen was in that back corner; that's the only place where we would be able to sort of blow it out. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the lot coverage is basically going to be taken up with the addition between the garage and the house? MR. JANNUZZI: That's correct. I guess basically a walkway between the garage. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It will be part of the house, it's not just a walkway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It will make an attached garage and convert some of the area into another interior room and reduce the size of the garage, and it's all one story. Have you spoken to your neighbor to the rear? That's the only impact I could see is on that property line. 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 February 22, 2007 53 1 2 MR. JANNUZZI: When they did the second story, that too was sort of intrusive for our neighbor, and we had long discussions about that. They're down in Florida now, but he did send back his card before he went, I walked through it and I said, I have a standing offer for him that any sort of landscaping that he would like done, I would be happy to make him happy on the southern side. Right now there is a privet that's there that sort of blocks us visually, although the second story certainly looks down onto their yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, could you just state the neighbor's name, please? MR. JANNUZZI: That would be Louis Dinizio. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That Louis Dinizio is my uncle. And I just found out that he actually lives next to this person when he came up to tell me that. MR. JANNUZZI: I would only ask you to recuse yourself if you don't agree with my application. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I don't intend to recuse myself. I would like to have five minutes to call my uncle to see how he feels. No. I just wanted to get that on the record, that he is my uncle. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 Go ahead, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm always concerned about these very, very shallow, we'll refer to it as a rear yard. MR. JANNUZZI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What have you done to mitigate the water runoff off the garage, which is now going to be further exacerbated by the addition of connecting the two? MR. JANNUZZI: On the garage, I don't believe there's a gutter system on the garage currently. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is my suggestion to this Board that you put gutters on the new addition and on the garage, and that those gutters go into a dry well and that it's going to be big enough to accommodate that. MR. JANNUZZI: I don't think it's allowed to go into the cesspool. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, put a dry well in. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 54 1 2 5 MR. JANNUZZI: There's plenty of yard on that side if perhaps not a Yankee drain system but if the drainage went to that side. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The building inspector will probably tell you what choices you have. It necessarily doesn't have to be a dry well either. I've been looking at that code but it does have to be contained to your property. We're going to say there's going to be gutters and leaders; it's going to be a standard condition what we do. Michael, do you have a comment? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question and a comment. The question is, I think in this enclosed area will the new construction at any point reduce the setback in any place? Will it extend beyond the already nonconforming setback in any place? MR. JANNUZZI: My understanding it's a straight line so it wouldn't. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. The comment is this is relatively unusual based upon my experience on this Board with regard to lot coverage. In many cases people are building an addition which then extends the perimeter of the house and therefore forces an increase in lot coverage. In this case, it's an interior increase in lot coverage and that would seem to me might make a difference with regard to the acceptability of giving the variance for lot coverage because you're not expanding the perimeter of the house but only filling in. The analogy on that would be as though you had an attached garage and decided to join it to the house by a matter of a few feet that would increase lot coverage without increasing perimeter; would you say that that's the sort of situation you're envisioning? MR. JANNUZZI: I guess I'm having a problem to the extent the perimeter of the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Meaning the outside barrier surrounding the two buildings that now exists, that's not going to be increased. MR. JANNUZZI: No. But certainly lot coverage is going to be increased. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But only in the part interior to the outside perimeter. MR. JANNUZZI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which is the point of my question before. You're right. I think 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 February 22, 2007 55 1 e 3 Michael's point is that that stands to your benefit. That it's happening in that way and not some other way. Leslie, would you like to add anything to 2 4 this? 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, it looks very nice, you did a good job. MR. JANNUZZI: Thank you. I have to add, we don't have one of the signature cards to our neighbor to the southwest and that's Mr. James Kelly who's located at Lot 35.1. He's a weekender and I caught him over the weekend and gave him a copy of the notice that I had given to the other neighbors. I explained our project. I told him about this hearing and the notice obviously was up as well. And he did express support for that application. I do not know if we're going to see a green card from Mr. Kelly. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. So that's all you have, right? MR. JANNUZZI: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this application? Hearing none I'd like to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Ernesto Adriano, Number 6006, a request for a variance under Section 280-124, based on the January 22, 2007 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, and the applicant's request to amend Building Permit Number 32026-z issued on 5/23/2006, concerning the as-built location of a proposed dwelling at less than 75 feet from the rear yard lot line, at 2195 East Side Lane, Orient. Sir, you are? MR. PEARSON: I'm Eric Pearson, I'm here for Ernie. When we were laying out for the foundation there was some ambiguity with the hard corner from the survey company and the mason, which has brought us to why we're here today. We are now left with after resurveying the property, less than 75 rear yard to the southwest side of the property. The topography hides most of this area. We don't feel that it's going to be of any 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 56 1 9 consequence to adjoining properties as far as respect to neighborhood or character, and from the street this actually brings us further away from the wetlands. So there's no safety or detriment to the wetlands area and safety of the neighborhood and so forth. We feel that the corner that's left there over the 75 foot is relatively small. The exorbitant cost of altering the structure to allow for that 75 we feel would -- it's just not feasible. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you just state what the actual distance is? MR. PEARSON: I think we're 73.8, it's one foot eight is what it comes out to. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm going to be writing this. The application says -- and you argue fairly plausibly about the honest mistake. This is not the first case that's come before us which has apparently turned on an alleged honest mistake, so we have a problem of the proliferation of honest mistakes that are made. So I guess I would like to have more information as to what the sequence of events was that led to this mistake. MR. PEARSON: May I approach? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Sure. MR. PEARSON: I don't have the current survey that shows the existing foundation. This was the proposed. Here we have -- we're one foot eight, that's the hard corner that they gave us. He was working with the faxed copy in the field, I grabbed this as the hard corner so that's the difference. The only encroachment is that piece right there (indicating). BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you misinterpreted the survey and you did the excavation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, could you go back to the microphone? We have to get this for a recording. For the record, you have a survey of the old and your mistake was made basically from using a photocopy of that survey, right? MR. PEARSON: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess,I could say, is there any advantage that you would gain from this 1. 8? 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 MR. PEARSON: No, it even moves the poor guy further away from his view of the ocean, so there's no gain there. February 22, 2007 57 1 e 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It was basically an honest mistake. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Diminimus. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: In paperwork. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think that's important because honest mistakes turn out to benefit the applicant. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's no gain. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have the person here who actually made the mistake testifying. Okay, Leslie, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. Just that you better start improving that road. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything that you would like to say, sir? MR. ADRIANO: No, just that the mistake 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 was -- 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was the mistake discovered by the building inspector after the foundation was poured? MR. ADRIANO: No. We resurveyed the area and we found it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why was it resurveyed? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They do a foundation inspection. Okay. So is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Sir, do you have anything you would like to add? MR. PEARSON: No, I'm just anxious to get building. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, we'll probably be making the decision on March 8th, that's when we do our decision. So we're going to close this hearing until that date. (See minutes for resolution.) e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Kathleen Bower, Number 5981. There's a note here that we're supposed to wait for the staking, but I was by there last night and it has been staked out. It's a request for a variance under Section 280-15 based on the Building Inspector's September 19, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning an 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 58 1 e 3 as-built accessory shed located in a yard other than the code required rear yard, at 12710 Soundview Avenue and the corner of Horton's Lane in Southold. I understand you are the applicants; could you state your names, please? MS. BOWER: Kathleen Bower. MR. BOWER: John Bower. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You were here before, we considered your application. We asked you to go back and see if you could make it a little less nonconforming and apparently you have moved the stakes in a little bit. So do you have any other things you would like to discuss with us; do you actually have the measurements that it's right now, the setback? MS. BOWER: No, I figured you know, I'd wait to hear, get feedback from you guys to see if it was okay. And I'm also waiting to hear back from the company that we purchased the shed from. My husband contacted them to see if they could move it because there's really no way that the two of us and our two sons could move it. I don't know what we were thinking, but they're closed right now. They have only short hours for the winter. When they open up in the spring and when they get busy again bringing sheds out to our area, they may be able to move the shed for us for a nominal, couple hundred dollar fee. So, I was really waiting to hear back from you guys as far as is that area acceptable or do you want it somewhere else. I mean, you know how limited this lot is as far as we have wetlands restrictions, we have to stay -- originally we had to stay 75 feet away from wetlands, now we have to stay 100 feet away from the wetlands. I thought we had been grandfathered in but apparently not. I mean, the lot is very restrictive. I know we received a letter today from our neighbor, to me it's very insulting because it kind of says that we didn't bother to get a permit and I would like them to know that ordinarily for an 8 by 10 shed a permit is not required. But we did go to the Building Department and ask what was required for a shed of this size, and they told us that no permit was required. We only found out by chance when a building inspector came to the door and told us that it was not situated according to code, because we are a corner piece of property 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 February 22, 2007 59 1 5 there are more restrictions on our land. So you know, I just wanted to clarify that. We're not people that go around and just plunk buildings down without getting the proper permits. I just wanted to clarify that with our neighbor, and we are working to remedy this situation as best we can. But we can't pick the building up with our own two hands, we know that. And the other thing is we're very restricted of where we can put it because of the Trustee restrictions on our lot. We only have 10 feet to the front of our home to the north towards Soundview Avenue that we're technically allowed to disturb. You know, our side yards, the topography is very, I don't know if we're calling side or what, but what we consider to be the back yard, back of our house, the topography does not allow us to put our shed anywhere back there. MR. BOWER: And the cesspools. MS. BOWER: I was going to say that we have an extensive cesspool system there. MR. BOWER: Also in the front it can't be moved because of the extreme slope in the front. So it couldn't be placed anywhere in the back. MS. BOWER: We had originally planned to put this shed in the back lining it up with our neighbor's shed to the rear, but the truck that brought this, he wouldn't bring it there because there's the chance that it would falloff the truck. He's not inclined to bring this trailer up an incline. So we're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was never our intention to just go put this anywhere we wanted to. That's not our MO, if anyone knows us. The original building envelope that was handed down to us by the Trustees, we followed it to a T, even though that building envelope did not conform to the very simple setbacks that are required by the Building Department. Instead of taking the time and coming here and getting a variance, we just said, you know what, we'll just chop off a few feet of the garage and that's when we did. We have not asked for any variances before. We have a very restricted lot. We're only using less than four percent of our land for our structures. And I hear these other people in what went on today using 20 percent of their lot, I mean, my God, four percent of an acre of land that we're paying 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 February 22, 2007 60 1 5 taxes on, more taxes than other people in the neighborhood because we have this wonderful corner property which for some reason by the assessors determination is more valuable, and then assessed at a higher rate. So I'm very upset today. I'm upset by the letter; it implies that we did something wrong and we didn't. We went to the Building Department. We asked what to do. And now we're stuck with this situation. So really, we came today really trying to get guidance from your Board because I don't know what to do. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I just state one thing, as a Board, we're not really qualified to judge the distance in which those stakes are now from your front yard. There's no way we can take a tape measure and measure it. We're going to need those numbers before we can even consider deliberating on it quite honestly. So you're going to have to somehow get it to us in some reliable form. Then we can start considering, I mean everybody's going to have a chance to ask you questions or not. I looked at it last night and I read the letter. The letter's a typical letter from a neighbor. They weren't involved in your process so they had no idea. I'm not making excuses for it. We get these kinds of letters all the time. So I'd like to ask, I guess Jerry, you want to start? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the hearing's when we first met you nice people, Mr. Dinizio asked you if you could move it back and turn it, and meaning that the largest or area of the building is facing the road. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The 12 foot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 12 foot line. So we really don't know how that's going to look -- I don't know how that's going to look I should say. Also one of the other major problems is the elevation aspects that you were referring to. I just need to ask you where exactly are your cesspools; are they in back of the garage or are they in back of the house? MR. BOWER: Back of the house. MS. BOWER: They're in the back of the house and extend in front of the -- there's seven, they're in back of the garage, they're in back of the house, they're all the way back to the driveway. 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 February 22, 2007 61 1 2 . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you, and I think that was a very good question, one of the other major stumbling blocks when I look at these, and Mr. Dinizio and I have been on this Board for an excess of 20 years, is the fact that this building, which is a cute building, is elevated so high, another aspect that could be done, is you could run a machine in there and cut that hill down a little bit and actually have it lay on ground level rather than the elevation on the blocks, and put a little stone wall around the back of that. MS. BOWER: I had mentioned that last 4 5 6 7 8 time. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't remember that. 10 MS. BOWER: Which would make it look more 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: need to know where this is anyway. contention right now. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First of all, with regard to the letter, I think Mr. Dinizio is right about these are fairly typical letters. The point of the letter as far as we're concerned is not whether they're saying whether you did anything wrong, as far as we're concerned, we believe that any mistake that you made was in good faith and therefore anybody who tries to blame you for that is off point and we're not concerned with that kind of dispute, but the issue is particularly the one whether good faith, bad faith, whatever, whether this is acceptable. And the other thing has to do with, yes, to reiterate the point that some of the numbers that we need in order to make a decision that we can rely upon, and Jim used the word reliable, you know, signed off by a surveyor, not just us getting out there with a tape measure and then signing an affidavit. So we need things and it may be determined that you're going to need a new survey to get this thing approved. And something that we touched on before, which I think you knew, is that you're not the only case where there has been a case of people discover that sheds below a certain size do not need building permits, and they don't seem to know that that doesn't mean that they can put it anywhere they want to on their lot, and I think that was a We're going to That's my only 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 62 1 2 perfectly honest misunderstanding and you're not the first person to have that problem. So we basically have to deal with this thing in terms of what the facts on the ground are or will be on the ground. So I certainly support the collection of the minimum information that we need in order to make a responsible decision. MS. BOWER: I'm going to have to weigh out what is going to be -- it's going to be a financial Burton for us at this point. If we have to get an entirely new survey, it just may -- we just will have to put the shed up for sale because it will just be not worth the trouble at all. As I mentioned the last time we were here, our surveyor that we had made innumerable errors, he had to go back to the drawing board innumerable times. He moved our foundation five feet away from the wetlands in error. We fired this man and the thing is, we all know that surveys and architectural drawings are all done on computers now. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mrs. Bower, hold on for a second now. Linda may be able to help you now. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I was just thinking, I have heard of another situation like yours and rather than having a whole new survey done, it may be possible that there's another surveyor you can call and just have him measure it and put it on a letter. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Maybe you can get a letter on that. MS. BOWER: We know what a new survey is going to cost, it's going to be thousands of dollars, and the shed was only like what, five hundred dollars. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You will eventually need to have your property surveyed. MS. BOWER: Yes, if we sell the house down the road. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you did provide testimony about your previous surveyor and all of that, I'm sure all of this Board as well as I recall your previous testimony. Not only do I want to reiterate what Mr. Simon has said, I don't know if you were here this morning when we heard another case similar to yours about someone building a lighthouse/playhouse in their front yard, which is technically yours, said exactly the e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 63 1 2 same thing, went to the Building Department, wasn't their jurisdiction because the height and size were fine, didn't need a permit. Went and put it very close to the road, and is now before us for the very same reason you are because he was unaware of setbacks. That, however, is not an issue -- I mean, that's why you're here. In addition to moving it, it would appear from where you staked it out, and this is strictly visual and this is not enough evidence for us to make legal decisions on, we had previous situations where someone came in with a hand-drawn survey like yours and in the end, the only way that we could finalize that case was by having the survey stamped by a licensed surveyor. If you have someone who has a license who has provided us with numbers of where you propose without perhaps resurveying the whole thing, we will have a legal basis for making a decision. We can't just eyeball it because it's a specific proposal with dimensions. We grant area variances which deal with actual feet, and they have to be not just rough ideas and hand drawn. Having said that, it would appear that you have proposed by virtue of where your stakes are, which is what Mr. Dinizio suggested, which is to change the orientation of the shed, simply take the two corners, twist the thing around, which would give you approximately 12 feet of additional setback. If you add that to what your rough drawing says is 19 feet, you would have a proposed potential of 31 foot setback. In addition to potentially leveling some of that, you can take that fill, create a slight berm with it along the property edge and thereby elevate that somewhat. You will then be far enough away from the existing stand of deciduous trees that you have to at least allow yourself (a) the building will be a little bit lower, and (b) this be a little higher, you can then put in a vegetated buffer of some sort which would visually mitigate any impact on the road. MS. BOWER: Which we plan to do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But all of these things have got to be made concrete in either the deliberation that we come up with, a finding that creates a condition whereby you are required to do that sort of thing, including the evergreen screening. 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 February 22, 2007 64 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, could you just be a little more clear on the buffer? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have a lady in the audience that wrote a letter and perhaps you can clarify, just tell her exactly what it's going to be. e 3 4 5 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Should this location as moved closer to your house and farther from the road, lower down rather than up on cinder blocks be been approved, we have a right as a Board to condition the approval based upon your agreeing that you will create a row of evergreens that will be tall enough and dense enough to screen the shed from the neighbor's view, from anybody along Hortons Lane. We're not necessarily talking about behind the shed, along your property line, someone might glimpse at something driving on an angle, but we're talking about primarily creating a situation that reduces the visual impact to almost nothing from the neighbor's across the street. In order for us to truly evaluate how far back you can push it -- and of course we would all agree as far back as is reasonable -- two things have to happen, one, you need to speak to that person who's going to do the moving for you, which is what we talked about at the last hearing, so you would understand if it's feasible from your point of view; apparently that hasn't happened yet. Another thing is this survey that you provided, that you drew on, it does show cesspools, but it's so tiny, in this Xerox, and we can't really evaluate what the difference is between where your cesspools are, how close you have to get, how far away you have to be. So at the very least, I would think we would need a couple of things. You could draw in my hand, if you wanted, some sort of screening, that isn't required, that's not a legal dimension, but we would need some dimensional proposal stamped by a surveyor, that's number one, and again, as Linda said, it doesn't necessarily have to be a full survey, it could be just this corner. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I said numbers in a 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 letter. e BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Or numbers in a 25 letter. MS. BOWER: Have you actually seen February 22, 2007 65 1 2 surveyors do that, you have? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's very rare. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You really can ask a surveyor to do anything; you can say what I want is for you to stake my property line, and I want you to stake with a stake where the corner of the shed is, that's all, I don't want the property surveyed, I just want that piece measured. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If I could just say one other thing. On our instruction sheet, which is required for every application, if they have an available survey, then they could actually go to a draftsman, an architect or a draftsman, and they can do a very small plot plan of that corner and attach the available survey to that to save the expense. So it's probably easier to find an architect or a draftsman instead of a surveyor. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Maybe you could just work with Linda on that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We would be happy to do that, but we cannot in good faith make a determination based upon hand drawings, you have to have a professional stamp on that. MS. BOWER: May I just say one thing about that, I know you have a somewhat shrunken down survey and the cesspools are pretty much the size of pinheads. They're not much larger on the full size survey, and really, my survey is 40 foot equals one inch, so this shed is going to be on the drawing a quarter of an inch on one side, it's going to be no bigger than a pinhead anyway. I see your point that it has to be legal, but it just seems extreme. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The point is, ma'am, if we make a decision and we say, because we're going to put footages and we're guessing and we're wrong to your disadvantage, you see how government works, you'll be right back before us if you want to keep that shed because there's no bending of our decision. Our decisions are hard and fast. So even if we're wrong by six inches, if you at the end go and get your survey and find out that it's six inches off from what our decision was, you'll be right back before us. MS. BOWER: It's really not a setback issue anyway. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, it is. MS. BOWER: No, it shouldn't be in this 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 February 22, 2007 66 1 2 part of the yard entirely. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's what we're talking about. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There are two issues, one is in the front yard, the other is the setback within the front yard. MS. BOWER: So what would be a setback in a front yard -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thirty-five feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can't have an accessory structure in a side yard. That's number one. Number two, because it's a side yard -- it's a front yard, you need 50 feet, so that's a setback issue. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have two. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean, besides that you can't have it in the front yard anyway. MS. BOWER: I know, but that's what we're trying to get. I just a soon have it in the back, if I could get it back there. If it turns out that this is going to be so costly for getting a new survey and having it moved, you know, maybe hiring a crane for one day will be cheaper. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think so. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is strictly your decision. We suggested some of those things last time. Unless you are prepared to investigate what those consequences are for you, you'll go around in circles in front of us. You need to decide what you want to do. If you move it to an accessible rear yard, you won't need a variance. If you find that's costly or not feasible, you believe it's going to screw up your cesspools or whatever, then you need the variance. MS. BOWER: I would have to go back to the Trustees in order to do anything else. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can't tell you what to do. We know what we need to make a decision, we don't have everything we need. Okay, anybody else have something to add? Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, we need the e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 numbers. 23 MS. BOWER: I was not going to draw this out until I had some feedback from you whether you felt that was a fine place to put it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We've given as much feedback as we can and we cannot make hypothetical decisions. 24 e 25 February 22, 2007 67 1 2 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And we have not, ma'am, we haven't given you whether you're going to get it or not, and you won't get it from this Board certainly until we close the hearing. MS. BOWER: Okay. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: How much time, Mrs. Bower, would you need to get that information? MS. BOWER: Well, honestly, if we could wait until the April meeting, this way we'll have a chance to talk to the gentleman from the shed company and investigate different architects or as you said. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The April meeting is April 26th. I would say the time would be 1:15 in the afternoon. MS. BOWER: Okay, and at that time I should have drawings by an architect or a Plan B. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to say something? MS. WINTERS: I'm Penny Winters and we're a neighbor of the Bowers. We have nothing against our neighbors, they're lovely neighbors, and whatnot, but the shed itself is an eyesore being as close, but I agree with Leslie, that if it was moved as much as it could be, and if it could be lowered because as you say it is on cement blocks, and it could be buffered, it wouldn't look so bad. It just doesn't look nice, nobody else has them on the street, and I think they would feel the same way if mine was on the street that close, they wouldn't like that either, it just takes away from the street. So we have nothing against them or anything, it's a little bit of an eyesore. MS. BOWER: We had every intention, we started bringing in trees and we were going to put those big giant arborvitaes, and then we had that inspection from your department, that's why we stopped the buffer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually you don't really have room to put them in because if you look without moving it because you are about that far away from a clump of deciduous trees. MS. BOWER: I was planning to put behind the clump of trees. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you would be planting right on the Town's shoulder. MS. BOWER: Which everyone does in our . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 February 22, 2007 e e e 68 1 2 neighborhood, if you take a look. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the problem with that is when the snow plow comes by, I live right around the corner from you, and Suffolk County Water came through on Soundview, they tore up my shoulder along with it some specimen trees that I put down in ignorance that I didn't realize I shouldn't have put there. So my advice would be, if you're going to invest in landscaping, put it on property that you own and not property that the Town owns, you're not legally supposed to be planting there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They wouldn't in this instance because we would make the decision based on that. You wouldn't have that option. Okay, so do you have anything else you would like to add to this? Basically what we're going to do is we're going to adjourn the meeting until April 26th. I'll entertain a motion that we do that. (See minutes for resolution.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Michael Liegey. It's a resolution to convene the hearing and grant applicants a February 8, 2007 request for more time with an adjournment until April 26th. (See minutes for resolution.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 February 22, 2007 69 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 22nd February, 2007. ~ v: ^Ij February 22, 2007