Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/26/2007 Hearing 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x TOW N SOU THO L D o F Z 0 N I N G BOA R D A P PEA L S o F --------------------------------------------x Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York April 26, 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 rORIGINAIJ COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is the April 26, 2007 regularly scheduled meeting of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Our first hearing is for Santos, this is Leslie's. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Alan Santos, this is a request for a variance under Section 280-l5-B based on the Building Inspector's December 13, 2006 notice of disapproval concerning a proposed shed attached at the side of the dwelling, set back less than 20 feet from the property line. Location is 933 New Suffolk Road and private right of way in Cutchogue. Essentially what you want to do is on your 2.2 acre lot locate an accessory structure to be set back 20 feet from -- you're required to have it set back 20 feet from the property line, and you're proposing to locate a 180 square foot shed -- now I have a question, on the notice it says 15 feet from the property line, but on your survey it says 16.65 feet from the property line, and as I understand it, you are requesting really about three foot four inches of relief from the setback because just a portion of the shed itself is going to be, because it's diagonally sited. MR. SANTOS: It's just about five feet I think. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it's going to resume a 20 foot setback after about seven feet in length, something like that? MR. SANTOS: Something like that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Something like that, all right. Two other questions, the shed itself, the drawings that you submitted, it's sort of a prefab, it's called a run-in shed. MR. SANTOS: Right, horse shed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. They're calling it a horse barn. On your survey again the use that you're suggesting is storage for pool equipment and clothing for guests and -- MR. SANTOS: Changing area. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Changing area. The survey called it a proposed pavilion with a pergola. MR. SANTOS: You know I kind of corrected that, that was an old plan. It's the plans that I actually submitted so it's a prefabricated shed. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on, could you state your name and address, sir? CUlIiT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 . 3 MR. SANTOS: Yes, Alan Santos, 933 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue, 11935. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What else did I have? The height to the ridge, what the specifications point out is the wall height, but it doesn't tell me how high it is to the ridge; can you tell me how high that shed is? MR. SANTOS: I think it's approximately 12 2 4 5 6 feet. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's pretty low. MR. SANTOS: Again, that's an approximation on my part, I couldn't estimate from the drawing how much it was, but it looks like it would be even keel with the other structure that was on the property. Well, we would want it to be. 7 9 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It might be helpful if you could find that information out because we do have not only setback restrictions but we have height restrictions too and relative to the size of the lot and the setback. So that would be helpful if you could get that information and submit it to staff, Miss Kowalski in the office, that would be helpful. MR. SANTOS: Do you need that in writing or do you need that as a verbal check with Southold? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think if you check verbally and then just jotted a note down so we had something in the record. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's better actually if he could just jot it down on a piece of paper and fax it to us, that would be very helpful then it could be added to the file. Thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Plans were a little sketchy because they were prefab; do you plan to heat this in any way? MR. SANTOS: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Would you have plumbing in there or shower or anything like that? MR. SANTOS: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. No second 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 floor? 24 MR. SANTOS: No. I don't think it's high enough to include a second floor. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just checking because it wasn't called out. Well, you certainly . 25 April 26, 2007 3 1 9 are overlooking beautiful fruit trees and the Cutchogue Fire Department probably wouldn't object with this great big green lawn. MR. SANTOS: We'd rather look at fruit trees than the fire department. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have beautiful landscaping there. MR. SANTOS: That was all done by us, we have upgraded the property quite a bit. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Michael. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, just one question. For the record could you state why you are locating it there requiring the setback rather than the few feet to the west? MR. SANTOS: The problem is there's a brick patio on the other side of the pool. This was going on the grade. We would have to rip up the brick patio, which has some intricate brick lay work in it. The other thing is to put it in a different part of the yard, like Miss Weisman says, we would be blocking the whole Briton Farm, whereas here to it here it seems to balance the whole framework of the garden. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, since the part of the fire department that you face is behind the Morton building that they store chairs and so on, it's hard to imagine a less obtrusive place than that. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 18 MR. SANTOS: For both of us. And that whole area is bordered off by trees. So I don't think that all three setback of flanking neighbors would be able to see the shed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, it's a lovely spot down there. I don't see a problem putting a shed behind your pool there to keep everything. It's lovely. I met Connie Cross down there. 17 19 20 21 23 MR. SANTOS: Well, there goes the source of confusion, Connie wanted a pavilion and pergola and all kinds of drama, there is a budget and particularly living in New Orleans. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's beautiful, no questions. MR. SANTOS: Thank CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: you. I just want to confirm, 22 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 4 1 2 this looks like it's about a 40 percent variance; in other words, 25 is required and 15 is what you need? . 3 MR. SANTOS: Sir, I am very bad with 4 numbers. 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not that large? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Instead of having 20 feet, with the proposed setback, it's a four foot. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a 16 foot setback. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's percent, and it's only for about seven length of the shed and then it resumes setback. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: for only a small portion. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My assumption is this is part of the new accessory setback, and we're looking at a 20 percent variance from that. I'm a little concerned. We start these laws and then we grant 20 percent variances on them the first time we come across them. I'm wondering if there's any place else that you could put that shed where you wouldn't need -- about 20 feet of the the 20 foot ,- J 6 '7 8 Thank you. So it's 20 percent 10 11 12 13 . 14 . 25 MR. SANTOS: I think Miss Oliva and Miss Weisman have both seen the property. I don't think there really is a place where I think it could go. On the other side of the pool towards the Wickham side, we're talking about a substantial variance there. On the other side is the house and it's framed by another accessory structure, that's another shed for other types of equipment, plus a trellis on that side. It really, I think eventually frames the whole property. It does not encroach on the neighbors substantially. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Other than the fact that you need a setback variance. MR. SANTOS: Correct, Mr. Dinizio, but what we have tried to do in constructing that property is preserve the openness of the whole area. If you notice on the survey we have restricted our living area and the whole area where we recreate to a very small area of that property. And I think Miss Oliva will tell you that we have left all of the grounds open to preserve the habitat there. So putting it out in 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Apr i 1 26, 2007 5 1 9 the field wouldn't be functional, and would really destroy the character of of the property. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I wonder just move it opposite of just where other shed. MR. SANTOS: That's where it's going. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If to your house you would be of very large trees. MR. SANTOS: Not only that, but it's balanced on where the pool is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On an axis, right. That's one reason why I wanted to have the height in writing because our new accessory structure law deals with the relationship between height and square footage and setback relative to lot size, and I can then write the findings with those facts in front of me if I have the height. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just add something for the record? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Having worked for what we call a quasi commercial entity in Mattituck as an elected officer for 30 years and a fireman in Mattituck, this piece of property that's next to you, this L piece that was just purchased probably four or five years ago by the fire department really is a positive thing for you in reference to this variance, probably a negative thing for you in the future but as you know, that fire department has purchased a great deal of property up on Cox's Lane and whatever they intend to do with that sometime in the future, they may be taking some portion of that fire department out of town, which is probably good for you. MR. SANTOS: Not really. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we never know, we really can't tell, it really depends on how Cutchogue builds out in the future, but in general, it really doesn't affect that piece of property, and rather than having a house in that particular area in placing that this close to the line. I just wanted to say that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else have anything to say? Hearing no one, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. I think the openness 2 . 3 4 if you could you have that 5 7 closer couple you scooted pulling out a it 6 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 6 1 2 (See minutes for resolution.) ------------------------------------------------- . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion for a resolution to determine Type 2 Actions, no further SEQRA steps required for interpretation, variances, accessory building, special permits, accessory apartments or bed and breakfast uses. (See minutes for resolution.) 3 4 6 ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Martha Rosenthal. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: This is a request for a variance under Section 280-124 based on the applicant's request for a building permit and the Building Inspector's February 20, 2007 notice of disapproval concerning a proposed addition which will be less than 35 feet from the rear lot line, at Munnatawket Road, Fishers Island. Is there someone here that would like to speak on this? MR. AHLGREN: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name, sir. MR. AHLGREN: Thomas Ahlgren, Carriage Drive, Stonington, Connecticut. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're representing Mr. Rosenthal? MR. AHLGREN: Yes, I am. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're the architect? MR. AHLGREN: I'm the builder. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, I understand, you're just doing an enclosed space that you could put a covered porch and a new entrance. MR. AHLGREN: Yes, correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And it's only a 12,000 foot lot? MR. AHLGREN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: A little tight. MR. AHLGREN: I think it works out to about 16 square feet. I don't know if you have a copy of the survey, the plans. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have a big picture. MR. AHLGREN: According to the survey it catches the corner; do you have the pictures? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. MR. AHLGREN: If you look at this one, they have that concrete slab there, I believe that's what's in the variance against the zoning. 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 7 1 6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So the deck is just going to be approximately 16.8 feet by six feet and then you're going to build a roof over that? MR. AHLGREN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: With a little bit of protection from the elements? MR. AHLGREN: Yes, correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it existing 35 feet from the rear lot line? You need a rear lot line? 2 . 3 4 5 9 west -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: MR. AHLGREN: To the to the west of us is BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I guess it's a rear violation of. What is behind you? east or to the the road. Right, but behind 7 MR. AHLGREN: Yes. yard setback that we're in 8 15 there's a lot, 2.2 acres. MR. AHLGREN: Yes, that's the Martlings, they own a house, it's a separate house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I understand that you would like something to protect yourself from the elements, it's such a small addition, I don't have really a problem with it. MR. AHLGREN: A lot of it is aesthetics, we're just trying to balance out the house a bit. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have any problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, Ruth. 10 11 12 13 . 14 16 Jerry? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Exactly what is the setback in the rear yard; what is called out on the site plan is 25 foot 11 and three-quarter inches, and that's the location of the actual house itself. MR. AHLGREN: I have 23.7. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be on one side but on the other side. MR. AHLGREN: Yes, 25 foot 11 and three-quarters. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In what would be considered the rear yard I presume? MR. AHLGREN: That would be considered side yard. The house is on a strange lot. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. Because this site plan -- I suppose the location of the porch 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 25 April 26, 2007 8 1 . 3 is consistently with the side yard because this 25 foot setback is along Montauket Road, I'm trying to figure out because that's not called out exactly what that distance from the front yard is to the back. It's not called out to where the proposed porch is. MR. AHLGREN: Oh, from the new porch, from the front yard? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm sure it's within code. MR. AHLGREN: Yes, it's way past because that one addition is about a 16 foot addition that's coming out, then you have another about six or seven feet on that existing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It looks as though it would be over 35 feet? MR. AHLGREN: Yes, it is. The overall lot is 90 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is. I'm jus t checking. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right, Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I had a similar question. I was puzzled as to why the setback to the, I guess it's to the west is indicated as requiring the variance when in fact it's not the closest point to the lot line on that existing side of the house but that's a minor matter. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's a Walz decision thing, if you take a look at it. It's still increasing the degree of nonconformity within that area. But the house exists as it is right now, those setback, 23-7 and 19-3 have been there for many, many years and you go through that house, through that line and you're then putting on this little porch, that still falls within the 35 foot setback that's required. Really what you need is a small 16 feet -- MR. AHLGREN: I think it's more aesthetic. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's aesthetic, but you're building something but that's how you got to us, you're increasing the degree of nonconformity, whether you're making it more or closer, you're still increasing the bulk, that's what that whole thing was about. We all understand why the gentleman is here. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. 2 4 ,- ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 9 1 2 (See minutes for resolution.) . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry and Linda Matejka. names, please? MR. MATEJKA: Jerry and Linda Matejka, 1300 Strohson Road in Cutchogue. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a very interesting request for a building permit based on a notice of disapproval concerning a garage which is located in a code required rear yard. It's my understanding that a portion of the garage is in a side yard in consequence of the building of this porch, which is on the other road side of the house. Our next hearing is for Could you state your 3 4 5 6 7 8 24 MR. MATEJKA: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is no rear yard on this lot because this is a two front yard lot. It's waterfront property and it also has frontage on the street. MR. MATEJKA: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you have anything to comment and sort of describe further what it is you're asking for and why? MR. MATEJKA: I sent in a letter of explanation but if it's okay with you, Mr. Simon, I'll briefly go over it? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Please. MR. MATEJKA: Around November 15th our contractor and myself went to get a building permit for a house renovation that we're having done on the property and it was only at that point that we were notified by the Building Department that with the plans as they are designed and to be built that unfortunately that the portion, which is an eight foot wide front porch, open porch, created a situation that put the existing 75 year old garage into a nonconforming situation so that by that front porch less than 200 feet of that garage now was into the side yard, not the front. So that we were faced with the decision, the builder wanted to get some concrete work started before the winter set in so that what had happened was we filed for a separate permit for the garage that the Building Department made us do, which would be to either demolish the garage or move it by that eight foot up into that front yard, 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 25 April 26, 2007 10 1 9 because the existing setback is over 50 feet. there was room to the front to move it back. we went along with that part just to get the process started, but our contractor notified us that the 75 year old existing garage, detached garage could not be moved, and that it would cost several thousand dollars just to demolish it and take it away. So we thought about it and we thought that we would like to pursue keeping it where it is, that it's been there for 75 years. My relatives bought the property in 1950. So it does have some sentimental value. At this point it is not being used as a garage and it will not be used as a garage, it's just that we need a shed. That's basically why we are here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What's curious to me is that maybe this is a good example of why at least you have the opportunity to come before a Board like this because suddenly this old garage, which was not offending any rule, has suddenly become a nonconforming garage without moving a single inch. And if there's a problem, the problem is where the porch -- which is not mentioned as a problem -- but for the porch, the garage would be fine? MR. MATEJKA: Exactly, Mr. Simon, and I would just like to add, and I did put it into the letter of explanation to the Board, that unfortunately had our local architect over a 14 month period that we worked with him informed us that there would be this possible problem, we would have most likely made changes in the design of the house, but when we were at the Building Department with the builder, he's ready to get started and all of a sudden it came on us like a ton of bricks. So we just had to get a separate permit and pay for that, but then we thought about it and said why don't we try the Board and try to keep this thing where it is. I mean, we're going to fix it up, maybe scrape it and paint it, but basically a 75 year old structure that's only partially nonconforming, we really would like to try to keep it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If I may editorialize a little bit, because of the reading of the code, working of the code and the reading of it by the Building Department, this is a kind of tail wagging the dog situation. You're building a So So 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 11 1 2 house with a porch, which is a little bit overlapping with the line of the garage, but they're both set back adequately from the road, and somehow because the garage, because the porch is being built in a way that doesn't offend anybody except this technical rule, is that you're here now because you are asking for permission. I don't have any problem with it myself. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I was down there looking, I was wondering, how are you going to get a car into that garage? As a shed I think it's a very good idea. MR. MATEJKA: We are not going to use it as a garage. We need the shed storage. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Everybody needs storage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're using it that way now? MR. MATEJKA: We are. And it will continue to be used as such. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to know if you know how many feet of the existing shed is now nonconforming? MR. MATEJKA: We went over that with Miss Kowalski. I have it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have to write this . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 up. 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I thought. It would be helpful just to know what degree of variance. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I don't think it was explained to the applicant by the Building Department. Usually you calculate that for the ZBA. I don't do that for the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, we just need that information. I don't have any problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can do that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We can determine 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 12 1 2 it. . 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael can do that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If he can't, I can. See, this is not in scale; it's a Xerox. So it has numbers on it, but if I were to use a scale ruler, I wouldn't have enough information to calculate. They could probably measure it on site. 4 5 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's usually part of the findings and we do that together. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have the maps. We have the original. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have the original survey. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We just want to make sure it's accurate. MR. MATEJKA: If there's any other information that you need, we can provide it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How about, why don't you do that. I think it would be better. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just measure it and jot it down. MR. MATEJKA: How much is nonconforming? We went through that calculation with Miss Kowalski, but I guess we didn't write it down. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Give us footages from the property line so it can be accurate. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is in front of your porch. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You give us the numbers and we'll do the calculations. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone that has anything else to say, anybody, for or against? MR. LOESH: Robert Loesh at 1200 Strohson Road. I'm the neighbor on the right-hand side or the south side, which is the garage side, and we bought the property in 1946. The garage was there. It's been up kept ever since, and we're very happy where it is and we'd like it to stay there. 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, thank you, sir. Anybody else wish to comment about this? I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until May 10th. 24 (See minutes for resolution.) . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for April 26, 2007 13 1 9 John and Vivian Anemoyanis. This is Leslie's. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a request for a variance under Section 280-124 based on Building Permit 32427-Z and construction of the deck addition, a corner of which is less than 50 feet from the rear lot line at its closest point, located at 2960 Lighthouse Road in Southold. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, state your name and address for the record. MR. ANEMOYANIS: Hi, my name is John Anemoyanis. We just moved into our new house on 2960 Lighthouse Road in Southold. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Good morning. As I understand it, you're as-built deck. It's already built, on the survey is noted as 45.5 feet at the north corner of your deck, and the code requires a 50 foot. You have a very irregularly shaped lot to begin with and you planted substantial evergreen screening it looks like all around the perimeter as a vegetative buffer. So I don't think those stairs are particularly intrusive on anybody. Welcome to your new home. Are those the facts as you understand them also? MR. ANEMOYANIS: Yes, we do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is there anything else you would like to add to that or you would like to state? MR. ANEMOYANIS: No, all I want to add is that we tried very hard. The house was originally 10 feet north, which is a desirable place on the lot, but we didn't go for a variance even though it was the desirable place, so we moved the whole house 10 feet south, which wasn't so desirable, in order to comply. And we thought that by measuring the corner of the house, we thought that the deck is also because we had drawings, and it came as a surprise to me when I got this last survey when the surveyor found out that actually this corner of the deck not telling me that we moved this house, and we did everything in order to comply with the code rather than go for a variance. It came as a surprise to me. I brought to your attention when I got the survey, we didn't plan to do it that way, but -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If those stairs had gone on the side instead of that way, which I'm sure you would have chosen to do rather than be here, but -- 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 14 1 2 . 3 MR. ANEMOYANIS: It took us two and a half years to build a house, and I wish that was the only problem. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, it's not a very substantial variance, and it doesn't have much impact on anybody or anyone. Too bad you even had to have this happen because clearly you you were doing everything you could to avoid having to deal with variances, and here you are anyway. I don't have any problems with it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And I don't have any questions to add either. Would anybody in the audience wish to make a comment on this application? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close this hearing with a decision on May 10th. (See minutes for resolution.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Celeste Shevlin and Patricia Booke. Is there anyone here to represent them? Please state your name and address. MR. WEBBER: Fred Webber, I live at 41 East Maple Road in Greenlawn, New York, and I'm the architect for the project, and these are the owners. 16 17 18 MS. SHEVLIN: Miss Shevlin, 1020 Vanston 19 Road MS. BOOKE: Pat Booke, 1020 Vanston 20 Road. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, this is yours. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a variance under Section 280-124 based on the applicant's request for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, and the Building Inspector's notice of disapproval, amended March 8, 2007, stating the new construction will be less than 40 feet from the front lot line facing Wunneweta Road. Location is 1020 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 15 1 . 3 site. It appears that you are changing the overall exterior of the building with this one particular addition, which is really the nature of this application. The house itself is nonconforming anyway, so you're changing it or altering it so it falls within the notice of disapproval at 24'5" or 24.5 feet is really the answer or at 24.5 feet. For the record, Wunneweta Road is not the same Wunneweta Road that's across the street. At some times of the year it goes through, definitely not this time of year. I think the winter was a little rough on Wunneweta Road, this portion anyway. It gives you the impression of being a long driveway. So the setbacks themselves don't necessarily extend to the road. The right of way itself is wider than what actually exists. And these measurements actually go to the property line, do not go to the road, and there is really more area than there appears to be; is that correct? MR. WEBBER: Very quickly, what they're proposing to do is to add a sitting room to the house. Right now it's a small ranch house. It's set back currently from Vans ton Road, which is about 190 feet, but because the lot is a very narrow lot and it's on a corner, it's very difficult to do any additions without going over that second front yard setback. As far as the building plan itself, I have a floor plan of the house here, which the bedrooms are on the side away from Wunneweta, and they actually want to add a sitting room that's adjacent to the kitchen area, and they don't really want to add it to the bedroom side of the house; they want to add it to the living side of the house. And to put another room in front of a room wouldn't make sense. They want to maintain windows, et cetera. And they are, as you mentioned, trying to improve, change the house look as it is right now. It's a ranch house with, I don't want to say nondescript but 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's proper. MR. WEBBER: What they're interested in doing is hopefully improving the look of it with wood shingles, it now has vinyl siding, just generally adding a lot of architectural details to make it a special house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, what's 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 16 1 . 3 unique is it's a stately location being up on that hill, so this will certainly add to the ambiance of that entire piece of property by changing that entire look of the house by just that one little addition and the porch situation, which is not the nature of this application. MR. WEBBER: Yes. They are adding a front porch and there's a metal sort of awning structure on the back that is a porch as well, and that they're going to improve as more of a -- it's just a tin roof right now, metal. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I've seen it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, first of all as an architect, I'll tell you that the elevation is a lot nicer, it's not over-scaled either. It's very appropriate to the size of the house. Upon site inspection, it's very heavily screened from Wunneweta, and all the other neighboring properties are set way back so it's really virtually no visual impact on anybody. It's certainly going to improve the appearance of the property tremendously. I noted here that your very large accessory structure in the rear yard, actually the front yard as well, is also set back at 24.5 to the property line, which is what the callout on the site plan or survey indicates the addition would be -- the 24.5 is to Wunneweta, to the edge of the roadway or is that the property line? 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 MR. WEBBER: There's two lines there. The dashed line is what they call the tie line, that's the line that goes from point to point on a straight line. The actual property line is a curve, that's the more solid line. So that's to the tie line, it's 19.5 is garage and 19.3 is the house, but to the actual property line the house would be 24.5 and then the actual road is almost another, the road bed or -- well, it doesn't have much of a service but where you drive is about another 10 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. wanted to clarify the dimensions on I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First a comment, not negative, on the presentation. I don't think I just the site plan. 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 17 1 2 there's anything wrong with using the word "nondescript" as long as you don't use it on the finished project. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Fair point. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand the distance of the setback that is required for this addition is no less than already exists in other parts of the existing house; is that correct? MR. WEBBER: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I think it will be a lovely addition to the house. It's a nice view, I was up there, took pictures. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else? Anybody in the audience like to make a comment? I think certainly, you're constrained by the shape of that lot and you've got, whoever built the house originally did a fairly good job of putting it in a good location. I wish you the best of luck. Hearing nothing else, I will entertain a motion to close the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Paul Cacioppo, and, Ruth, that is your application. Is there anyone here representing Mr. Cacioppo? MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lenhert, Main Road, Cutchogue. I am the architect. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll just read the notice of disapproval into the record. The proposed construction of this nonconforming 13,055 square foot lot in the R40 District is not permitted pursuant to Article 3 Section 280-15 which states that accessory buildings and structures shall be located in a required rear yard. The proposed construction will result in the existing accessory garage being located partially in the side yard. In addition, Article 3 Section 280-15-B states that the existing accessory cottage measuring approximately 16 feet in height requires the minimum setback of five feet. The new construction notices a setback of 4.5 feet. Finally, the proposed additions and alterations to the existing accessory building are not permitted pursuant to Article 23-280-121, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 18 1 2 which states, except as provided hereinafter, nonconforming use of buildings or open land existing on effective date of this Chapter or authorized by a building permit issued by a building permit issued prior thereto, regardless of change of title, possession or occupancy or right thereof may be continued indefinitely except such building for use (a) shall not be enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed or restored or placed on a different portion of a 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 existing accessory building contains a nonconforming use pursuant to Article 3 Section 280-13-C, an accessory cottage is not a permitted accessory use. The permitted additions and alterations to this single-family dwelling are not permitted pursuant to Article 23 Section 200-124, which states that nonconforming lots measuring less than 20,000 square feet in total size require minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet and a total lot coverage of 20 percent. Following the proposed construction, the dwelling will have a rear yard setback of 27.75 feet and there will be a total lot of 22.5 percent. This notice and disapproval was amended on March 6, 2007 to address the need for a variance for lot coverage. So that's our problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What would you like to tell us? MR. LENHERT: I basically want to tell you the existing accessory cottage was there when the owner bought the property. The work we want to do to it, the reason we're here for the variance is it doesn't meet the existing five foot setback. It's there at three. What we're proposing to do with that is to put a small dormer on the front and surround it with a pergola on two sides; that's the reason for that. Also, another variance is the rear yard location. Same thing, it's the existing building, nonconforming. Just because we're doing work, that's the reason we're there for the accessory cottage. The rear yard setback on the primary building we want to bring to 27.75, from the required 35, which of course, the proposed . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 19 1 . 3 additions will bring us above the 20 percent lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: May I ask why you need such a big garage, and why it couldn't be pushed further forward and not make it 20 feet 24 feet, but something a little bit smaller so your accessory building would not be in the side yard but in the rear yard. MR. LENHERT: The accessory building is always going to be in the side yard, it exists, we can't change that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I didn't say you could, but you could change the garage. MR. LENHERT: We could change the garage. We wanted to put a two-car garage on the property. We wanted the master bedroom on the second floor. We kind of moved it around in a couple places and this is the way it worked out. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Are you putting the master bedroom above the garage? MR. LENHERT: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We are really exceeding our lot coverage. MR. LENHERT: If you look at the lot coverage, the percentage of the lot coverage, we're asking for 2.5 percent more than we're allowed of that 235 square feet, or 1.8 percent is the proposed pergola on the accessory building, which is open space. It's not habitable space. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What percentage is 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 that? 18 MR. LENHERT: It's 1.8 percent. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's on the lot 19 coverage. MR. LENHERT: On the lot coverage. The actual structure itself, we're asking for .7 percent increase. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 230 square feet you 20 21 said? 22 MR. LENHERT: 235 square feet is the proposed pergola on the accessory cottage. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And that puts it over the lot coverage limit. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a 10 percent increase in allowed lot coverage, however. MR. LENHERT: Yes. I'm going on the percentages of the total lot. So most of the coverage we're asking for is for nonhabitable 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 20 1 2 space. 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Your neighbors thought that your addition was a bit large. MR. LENHERT: I got that letter yesterday. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Would you like to reply to it? MR. LENHERT: Yes, I can answer the letter. The neighbor that sent the letter, he lives in the stone house to the south of us, big brick house to the south of us. He's speaking about a third residential unit. I don't see where we're having a third, we have a primary building and a legal accessory cottage that was preexisting. He's speaking about the front yard setback, that's one of the few variances we're not asking for. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have 37 feet. MR. LENHERT: And the part where he says about overwhelming the neighborhood, I don't think this house is going to overwhelm the neighborhood, Jackson Street, you've got big houses all around it. . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not right now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can come back. . 14 15 Jerry? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In a reconstruction of the cottage, there were no changes made in the footprint at all, right? MR. LENHERT: No, we have a building permit to change the front windows and the siding, currently. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I noticed when I looked in there, the kitchen seems to be somewhat the same. MR. LENHERT: Everything is the same. We went in and painted the place and cleaned it up. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So most of the work was done on the exterior of the building. MR. LENHERT: There was new siding and the three windows, the door and the two windows on either side of the front. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the doorway? MR. LENHERT: Yes. That's part of what we're asking for now. The owner went a little above and beyond. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There's a kitchen in 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 21 1 2 that accessory building? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, yes, it's fully renovated, MR. LENHERT: Oh, yeah, there's a kitchen and bathroom, it's always been there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is a second dwelling, essentially, an accessory dwelling for which there is a CO on that? MR. LENHERT: There's a legal CO on that. The building permit wouldn't have issued us the permit without it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, are you done? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm done. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. It says on the construction there was something that I was a little confused about. On the existing single-story house with renovating and then adding a second story, is this a knock-down? MR. LENHERT: Yes, right down to the floor . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 deck. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, so foundation of the floor deck, the joists are staying? MR. LENHERT: Joists are staying. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But everything . 14 else? 15 MR. LENHERT: Whole thing is going. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to be clear about that because sometimes in Walz, you know, where you're expanding things, we are assuming that you are sistering things up and you're not knocking it down, and I wanted to state for the record that this is a knock-down; it's a new house that's being built on an existing foundation's second story. And actually, the accessory structure's finished I mean, other than the pergola. MR. LENHERT: Other than the pergola it's finished. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How much, do you know offhand how much the percentage of the dormer you're over the allowable percent of the roof? MR. LENHERT: I don't know the exact number, but it's much less than that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Dormers are permitted up to 40 percent of the roof width. That's what the new law states. So I don't think it looks like it's that large a dormer, I wonder 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 22 1 2 why that was noticed. MR. LENHERT: Change of roof line is going to kick in the accessory structures rule. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, because it's not over scale. But we need to have for our findings accurate information. You're going to remove the existing chimney and stair? You're going to put in new stairs? MR. LENHERT: Yes. New BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Stair, new chimney. And you're going to put in a new foundation pinned to the existing for the -- MR. LENHERT: Yes, for the new construction. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Well, I've got the plans and so on, but I wish it was a situation where I know you don't need a front yard variance, but unlike the other properties that are all up and down that street, those houses are set way back from Jackson on either side, the neighboring properties and across the street, and it's going to be quite a substantial house when you're done, legal, but it's going to be right in your face on that street as opposed to others that are set back. And the scale as it is now relative to the street is not bad, but it's going to be quite a statement on the impact on that street. So, again, 35 feet is all that's required so you're not before us for that purpose. It will have much more impact on that than it will on the rear yard as far as I'm concerned with respect to the garage. I think there's no other fact that I need to -- no, that's it, I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have some questions about the history of this. I mean, this application sort of takes off from the fact that there was nonconforming structures with nonconforming setbacks before this work was done. I'm curious to know, I'm trying to find out what the history is. This is a neighborhood where ordinarily anyplace else in the town of Southold there is not allowed to have two dwelling units on the same property. What I don't understand quickly from this 280-121, is if you have a secondary dwelling on the property for which there is a CO, which means it's possible to have a second family living there, can that be altered . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 7-007 23 1 . 3 given that it's not allowable now, and in a way that this has been done? MR. LENHERT: Well, it can only be altered coming before you guys for a variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, the alteration was done before we saw it. MR. LENHERT: The dormer is the only section that's as-built. The rest of it is permitted. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I looked in the windows and I noticed it looks like a brand new heating system on the east side of the building. MR. LENHERT: Repairing the heating system, repairing the kitchens, is fully legal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was it heated before? MR. LENHERT: It was heated before. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It was heated before? MR. LENHERT: Yes. It was heated before, it had kitchen before. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it had people living in it? MR. LENHERT: Yes. It's been, the previous owner had that rented out almost full time. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. And in New Suffolk and elsewhere there are nonconforming secondary dwelling which had been rented out for a long time for which I believe there are no COSo I was wondering how this comes with a CO; do you know? MR. LENHERT: I don't know if came with the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It came to the Cacioppos, but how did the previous owner get a CO? 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. LENHERT: I don't know. And part of the reason the Cacioppos bought the property, what made it valuable was it had the CO for the legal -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's an inspection report that was done very recently, September 28, 2006, passed by George Gillen. He confirms that the accessory structure has a living room, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom, but there's no information to show what was previously there, what was there before it was altered. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. This is what I was puzzled about. I happen to live in New 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 24 1 . 3 Suffolk myself, that there are other secondary buildings which are rented for which there are no COs and I believe that if the owner wanted to sell it, he could not get a CO. I'm just curious, I realize this is not the Cacioppos' problem, but it sort of is puzzling and as someone who lives in the area, a lot of people have been asking questions how come this is happening. And it's important for us to be able to say because this is what the law permits, and these are what all the documents permit. MR. LENHERT: I don't know the history that much of the property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, it's pretty important that we get those findings, reflect the fact that it's a legal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As you know there's a lot of pressure in this town legal and non-legal for people to build secondary structures for rental purposes. So this looks like an example to other people who would like to do something similar. Now, under the law now they can't, but they want to know how come. MR. LENHERT: But would that affect us since we're not asking to change the status of it from not legal to legal? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It may not affect the status of your application but it is of interest to us. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the notice in part it is written as though an accessory cottage is not a permitted use. So we have to make sure that we incorporate in our findings that it is preexisting, legal, permitted use. Somewhere or other there has to be a variance or something. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, what do you want from him, you want an affidavit? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that the notice of disapproval is mistaken by making the point about not being a permitted use, in your view that's irrelevant and should not have been in the notice of disapproval? MR. LENHERT: I know why we're here, it's an accessory cottage. Any accessory use, any change or alteration to an accessory use has to come before the ZBA. So that's my understanding as to why we're here. I'm confused about why we're going through the history of it when we 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 25 1 . 3 already have a CO. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. Because I'm struck by the sentence in here that says an accessory cottage is not a permitted accessory use. 2 4 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know, Michael, in rereading this, I think the CO is boiler plate. It's just an automatic noticing because it would ordinarily be the case. This circumvents that, so it's really just the alterations are just the pergola and the dormer, and then you have the rear yard setback problem and the lot coverage. MR. LENHERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Michael, are you finished? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have anything else to add? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I see it in the packet that you have the CO, and somebody didn't read it when they were making the notice of disapproval, very simply. No, I don't have anything else. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so we're fairly clear on this application. I know the Cacioppos personally, and I can tell you that they do a beautiful job of building houses, and I have no further questions. Does anybody else have anything further to add? Yes, sir, could you stand up and state your name and address, please? MR. GATES: My name is Clayton Gates, and I am the owner of 645 Jackson Street, which is to the west of the property under review. And I have a letter here from my wife and I, I'm sorry I didn't have it to you earlier. We only received the letter about the plan over the weekend, what would you like me to do with this? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can read it into the record. MR. GATES: Okay. Dear Mr. Dinizio and other Board Members, thank you for taking the time to consider this statement as part of your hearing and evaluation process. My wife and I own the house at 645 Jackson Street that is directly to the west of the property under review. We bought our house in 1999 and we have enjoyed eight years in New Suffolk. We aren't year round residents, but we enjoy coming out to the house in all 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 26 1 2 seasons as often as possible. We love the north fork and New Suffolk for its relaxed and low key and community oriented feeling. We come to the north fork to get away from the crowds, noise and the density of the city. When we received the letter containing the proposed plans, we were very upset to see how large a renovation was planned for the house next door. After reviewing the plans, we feel that the variance request should be denied and that the owner should be asked to revise his plans for the following reasons: One, the proposed house and two-car garage is too large for the size of the lot; two, the dramatic difference in scale of the new house compared to its immediate neighbors is disruptive to the neighborhood; three, the house appears to be designed for maximum size, thus maximum profit with no regard to its neighbors; four, the house is simply being renovated to be flipped. The owner is putting priorities of profit over the interests of the community; five, the owner has removed trees from the property that might help to buffer the visual impact of the house on its neighbors; six, the property will now have six bathrooms, originally two, which raises environmental impact and groundwater quality concerns; seven, the cathedral ceilings and every second floor room will require significant cooling machinery adding unpleasant and possibly constant noise to a very, very quiet neighborhood. My wife and I are not against profit or enterprise, and we understand the desire to renovate 735 Jackson, it's been wanting some TLC, but we are strongly against a behemoth house on a Lilliputian lot, especially when the developer doesn't have to live with the many consequences listed above. The existing house at 735 Jackson and its immediate neighbors are all currently one-story houses. I have a graphic I can show you. There are larger houses nearby as has been mentioned, but they all sit on much larger lots that can accommodate their size. Each of the adjacent four houses was likely a summer cottage. They're all small and charming. The houses are close together. But the small scale of the houses keeps an open feeling. Building a house on one of these lots more than twice the square footage of these existing structures would dramatically and . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 27 1 . 3 detrimentally unbalance the scale of our neighborhood. Thank you again for your time and thoughtful consideration of our position. As immediately affected neighbors, although we are not the only ones, of this renovation. The one thing I would like to add. I know a lot of these points are not under consideration right now. It seems to be with this intrusion into the rear yard setback, there is no need for this. This house, the scale of this house is enormous for the size of the lot. We are going to look out at a two-car garage and a master bedroom above it. There's no need for a scale of a house this big on this lot. There's no need. So those are the points. I understand that certainly there is a need to renovate, and we have nothing against increasing the size of the house, but the scale is beyond rational in our view based on the neighborhood. We feel it would be destructive to the neighborhood and that's very sad to us. Thank you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you, I'll take your letter and put it into the record. Thank you very much. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, could I just ask you a question about your comments? When you refer to scale, can you be more descriptive; describe that to me. What is it about the scale of the project? MR. GATES: Of the new project? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is it the lot coverage, is it the height of the house? MR. GATES: It's basically what we're looking at. We spend a lot of time outside in our front yard, which clearly is adjacent to the project, and on the last page of the letter, there's -- I tried to do a comparison of the existing view to the new structure. Basically in the new view, we'll be looking at a wall of the house from the accessory cottage, which is a dwelling and there's going to be, I would assume, people there, and basically from our view, there's not going to be a break in our view or a very slight one from the cottage now to this two-story garage plus master bedroom with cathedral ceiling. This is going to be a huge house that's 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 28 1 2 sitting on a very small lot, and we're basically, where we were looking before at a reasonable sized house and a cottage -- which it would be great if the cottage weren't there, but we don't have a problem with that really. But now we're going to be looking at this massive house looming up over our lot. I mean, the other houses that are in this kind of four quadrant, you know, it was probably one lot at one time and they chopped it into four pieces and put a summer cottage there. We're very close but the houses are small enough they kind of blend into the environment. This house is not going to blend in at all. And we are extremely disappointed to see this happening. Jackson Street, I'm sure you've been down there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is it the height of the house or just -- MR. GATES: It's the height, it's the length of it. I'm not an architect. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But you're living there. I'm just trying, when you say scale, I just need to know. I mean, they're entitled to build a two-story house. MR. GATES: I have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But in order to build exactly what they need, they need a minimal variance, but they need one. MR. GATES: But they're asking for one. But do they need one to build a bigger house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's what I'm asking . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 you. 18 MR. GATES: There are many, many options out there, and there's room on the lot, as you can see, to put an addition on the back, to put, to have three bedrooms if that's what they want upstairs, to have all the bathrooms, if they really need that many bathrooms on the property without intruding into that rear yard setback. I mean, I tried to get the neighbor at the back, Mr. Abbott, who lives behind this property to the north on New Suffolk Avenue to come, he works for the Highway Department and he couldn't get away from his job. The back of his garage is going to loom right over the back of his fence, 27 feet away, there's no need for that. There's plenty of room on the property to build a reasonable sized addition. We have nothing against an addition, but to build one so long that intrudes into the 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 29 1 2 back yard, why can't they just build a one-car garage? Why do they need a two-car garage? It's not required. That cottage maybe was a garage, who knows what it was before they turned it into a little cottage that's now a dwelling; turn that back into a garage, make the house smaller. The house is too big, too big for that lot. We're looking at trees, we're going to be looking at the house from the front to the back, and that's really disappointing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, does anybody have any comments? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, I rather agree with him. I said from the beginning, I think the garage is too big, it sticks out like a sore thumb back there. To me, I kind of agree. I think it's too big a house for that lot. I think it could be diminished given the amenities that they wish to have. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. GATES: As I can see it from the plans, they're not being forced into doing that. It's their choice to make it that big, and I do not understand why a variance should be granted in this situation if there's not a compelling need for that and I don't see a compelling need other than it's going to make it more profitable to sell. 13 . 14 15 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, I just want to speak to the issue that we were talking about a little while ago, and I'm going to make an attempt to clarify on the issue of the nonconforming use. I think that the Building Department was just using different language. I don't think that they're saying that this is an illegal use because clearly there's a CO for it, it's recognized by the Town. What they're saying is it's not conforming now because right now we wouldn't approve a second dwelling; however, we have learned through some court decisions that unless and until any change in the code is made, we can't treat that as a nonconforming use. Residential is a permitted use on this lot. It is not an illegal structure. Okay, so where does that leave us? We were told by the courts to treat it more as a nonconforming building, because that's the second use. It still needs a variance, an area variance, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 30 1 2 . 3 not a use variance for size, scale, lot coverage, proximity to the lot lines, et cetera. I don't think the Building Department intended to say this is an illegal structure; what they intended to say is we wouldn't have approved it now. And you know, I think maybe we need some communication back and forth with the Building Department to get our language straight. I think the way it needs to be treated is what we have been discussing for the last 15 minutes or so is, is it appropriate for this lot, for this neighborhood and in this scale and magnitude. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Do you have anything to add to this, sir? MR. GATES: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The Cacioppos, would they like to make a comment? MR. CACIOPPO: My name is Paul Cacioppo, and I am the owner of 735 Jackson. I thought we were doing all the right things. I have been getting nothing but wonderful comments because we also live in New Suffolk, right around the corner on New Suffolk Avenue, right by the bridge. Our thought was to do this in a way that I have an 88 year old mother and the thought would be that right now she's living with my sister, but we've spoken to her about the possibility of maybe her being in the cottage, and she's a very spry 88 year old woman, and the thought was that my wife Maureen and I thought about moving into the address we want to renovate and design the house for us. We have three children. One of them is married with some grandchildren, and they come out all the time, especially during the warm weather. So far what we have done, everybody in the area, including the person behind us who works for the Highway Department, keeps saying how wonderful it is, you've done such wonderful things. The president of the civic association also has said it. So many people have come by and said that we really like what you're doing, it really needed a renovation, and I haven't had any objections really until now. The letter that was sent in by the person to the south I guess it is, he has probably the largest house on Jackson Avenue. It must be a 6,000 square foot, three level brick old home. So, pretty much that's where we have stood all the way along, and we have done other work in 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 31 1 2 the area. We have always only got nothing but really good comments trying to make everything look like it should fit into the area. Again, trying to keep that in mind, that's how we have designed this place for our own personal use, the possibility of moving there and my mother coming into the cottage and this is what we felt we needed in order to do that, but we also thought that we would make a vast improvement in the area along Jackson Street, and that's about it. . 3 4 5 6 7 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on a second, Mr. Cacioppo. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? I would just like to know, because I can tell you honestly that you got a long list of requests from us, and we're going to have a heck of a time trying to come to some kind of agreement on some of this stuff. So I'm wondering if there's any kind of alternative that you would be willing to accept, maybe just making it a one-car garage instead or something to that effect? Maybe the pergola around the accessory structure, cut that back a little bit, anything that you might think that you could do. MR. CACIOPPO: Yes, I mean, I'm willing to do something. I didn't think it would come down to this because I really didn't think I was asking for that much, but certainly, the pergola, I mean, if I can't put it on the front, I just thought it would enhance the look of it. If that's a problem, I know that's one of the variances we're going for, if we have to make some kind of adjustment on that, so be it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean, I looked at it, quite honestly you're asking for a lot in my opinion. I mean, you've got two residences on the same piece of property and then you want to reduce the rear yard substantially, 40 percent or so. And then add a second story, which it's certainly your right and there's no other variances required for that, but I just think I have a little bit of trouble with being able to grant this whole thing as one piece. So if you're willing to accept some kind of alternative relief, we can try to hash it out a little bit; is that acceptable? Mike, how do you feel about that? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I support what you're 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 saying. April 26, 2007 32 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I just say . 3 something? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Please, as an architect, I really understand what your concerns are about visual impact, that's what I was raising earlier and I also understand good design and how things evolve, and construction, which is why I said this is a knock-down. And what you're trying to do with most respects is legal, I mean, you're within the height restriction, you're within the front yard setback, though I've already commented on that, the problem in part is many things are allowed by law, and we have limited jurisdiction over the things that we can and cannot do, and the things that are before us, and although I may personally empathize with the impact that going from such a very small scale -- scaling is essentially defined as size in proportion. It's how big is it relative to the whole picture. So this, which is now a very small house on a very small lot, is going to become a very big house on a very small lot. So it changes the impact. It's legal to put that second story on. The question is, part of our balancing test, of which there are five criteria, has to do with impact on the character of the neighborhood. Now, you're absolutely right, there are many houses that are much bigger or as big, but again, they're set way back with lots of buffering. So they don't change the street scape as dramatically as what will be the case here. Single story perhaps with a two story addition at some portion of it wouldn't have as big an impact, but you're very far along in your plans. You know, this is a difficult thing because there's been time and money invested, you know. So all of those factors I guess have to be weighed, and I do support the idea that within our possible jurisdiction for negotiating some way in which those will be balanced and mediated is the way I would like to see our deliberation take place, and that will be what, May lOth? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: May 10th, assuming BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have something I would like to add. I certainly agree that there is a problem because I as much as anybody else wouldn't want to say that you shouldn't do anything that is legal and covered by the code and 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 33 1 2 as that objection simply does not have a place. You and I both know that in New Suffolk there is a building, which is built entirely legally, which no one, as far as I know is happy about. Except maybe the owners, the one by the creeks, but there's no legal problem. The problem here is that while each of these things, the second floor, are perfectly legal, the reason you're here is because not everything is legal because that's why you need a variance. We can not touch presumably any of the things for which a variance is unnecessary, but we are motivated to look more closely at each of these individual things together at impact. Because if you're talking about impact on the neighborhood, one of the things that is included, it's not so obvious, is the impact of the collection of variances on the immediate neighborhood, namely on that property itself. And together a whole series of ordinarily acceptable changes can combine together to produce something that makes a number of people uncomfortable. But I agree, we're going to have to work something out. If I can make an informal prediction is while we decide these cases in two weeks, I would not be surprised if it takes more than two weeks to sort all of this out. And we appreciate your willingness to be flexible as we try to work something out. We have by law 62 days from today to make a decision, and we may not be able to do it in two weeks as I predict. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, did you have something else that you would like to add? MR. GATES: No, I think I'm okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else? All right, so I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing and for deliberations to begin on May 10th. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (See minutes for resolution.) ------------------------------------------------- 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for Linda Bertani. Is there anyone here representing the Bertanis? Oh, the Bertanis are here. MR. BERTANI: Hi, my name is John I live at 1380 Oakwood Drive in 23 24 Bertani. Southold. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a square foot lot in an R40 zone and the 30,000 issue is . 25 April 26, 2007 34 1 2 the building of a screened porch addition and it's a corner lot, and because of that there are two front yard setback problems to be dealt with. As I understand it, you are asking for a setback of 36 feet instead of 40, and I believe that is the extent of the variance request that has been submitted? MR. BERTANI: Yes. This is on an existing deck that's been there since 1986. At that time it was legal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. It's on an existing deck that's going to be -- MR. BERTANI: Screened in. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there going to be any increase in the footprint? MR. BERTANI: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the impact it makes is only vertical dimension? MR. BERTANI: That's right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you have anything further you would like to add? MR. BERTANI: No, that's it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: problems. It essentially doesn't the house has been there and it's No problems at all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No problems, but I did have one question. I didn't see on the materials submitted how runoff from the flat roof is going to be treated on the front porch addition. I have no affect anybody, very stately. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. BERTANI: It's going to be flat roofed, so I'm going to pick up the drain and take it, put it in the existing dry well, which is right there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's all, I just wanted to make sure. MR. BERTANI: That corner, the gutters are in there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no problems. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody else wish to make a comment on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 35 1 2 (See minutes for resolution.) . ------------------------------------------------- 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next application is for Leila Hadley Luce. Is there anybody here representing the Luces? MR. MCDONOUGH: Garth McDonough, Architect, 20851 Fort Road, Brooklyn, Connecticut. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is yours, Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I thought. Let me read the notice of disapproval for the record. Request for variance under Section 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's August 25, 2006 notice of disapproval, amended March 7, 2007 concerning proposed additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at less than 35 feet from the westerly front yard lot line, located west side of Montauk Avenue and east side of private right of way, Fishers Island. Let me summarize my understanding of the facts, and I'd like to ask you to please make additional comments. This is a property that has essentially two front yards. Your proposed construction notes a front yard setback at 22 feet on Montauk and 23 feet on the right of way when the code requires 35 foot setback. You're proposing to build a wood screen porch addition on pillories, which in nonarchitectural terms means raised columns, over an existing -- this would be a second story screened porch over an existing smaller one-story piece of the house. One question I have with the lot coverage is going to go from 18 percent to 20 percent, which is allowable, you're extending the seasonal living space, but I'd like to just ask a question, the survey says the front yard setback from the right of way will be 25.4 feet and the disapproval says 23 feet. Can you explain the difference or what the actual setback is? MR. MCDONOUGH: I'm not sure why it says that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See, it's saying front yard setback 22 feet and 23 feet from the right of way, and then the callout on the site plan is showing something else. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think I know why, because the original map that was submitted to the Building Department was a hand drawn diagram, and we received the final one after that, and it was only a discrepancy of maybe 12 inches, so I didn't 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 36 1 2 . 3 ask for a new disapproval on that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All right, thank you, Linda, for clarifying that. So let us assume that the request is based upon the survey and site plan submitted by on 2/9/2007, the most current one. That setback is 25 foot four inches, correct? This one right here (indicating). Obviously the setback variance is not the total elevation of the porch, it's a portion. Do you know what percentage that is or how many feet? I guess it's from here to here, we have to measure that. Can you just provide that information for us at your earliest convenience? I just want to know what the distance from that point to this point is because that's, you know, under the 35 feet so for findings I can get the percentage of variance. That's all. MR. MCDONOUGH: I don't know how much we want to get into it, but again, the clients are asking for a variance really only in the setback requirements. And it's basically due to practical difficulties with the site. As you see, she would like to add this porch, and the existing nonconforming won't allow that to happen. We do not feel that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood; we do not feel that it is an undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties, and probably the biggest thing is the benefit cannot be sought through other means. And again, the feeling is that it will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to clarify that you're going to provide us with the information on the number of feet out of the total, but it's 25 feet by seven, seven deep 25 feet wide, and you'll tell me what the number of feet of that 25 requires a variance. I mean, there's a few feet that don't basically. MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Now it's very clear that it's an irregularly shaped parcel, lot, that has setbacks all the over the place between the right of way and the -- can you describe a little bit about the nature of that right of way; do you have photographs of that? MR. MCDONOUGH: It looks like it's a pedestrian right of way, doesn't look like a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 37 1 2 vehicle. If you see the map it cuts back very abruptly from Alpine Avenue to Montauk. From what I have seen out there it's particularly brush. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's almost a paper road. . 3 4 5 MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: not driving on it. Are other through that right of way? MR. MCDONOUGH: Whether they access them as a means of accessing on a normal basis, but they mayor may not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Walk through, because we weren't able to do a site visit on Fishers Island. So I need to characterize the area surrounding, that would be helpful. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, ordinarily we make visits, we sometimes do go to Fishers Island to go look at them to get answers that you just provided us about the nature of the right of way. A question that I often ask regarding a variance is we know why the disapproval was issued, and I thought as one, at least the first test of whether we should award the variance you said a little bit about the irregUlarly shaped lot, but say more about what are the features of this particular project and this particular lot that make the variance warranted for this particular case; what are the specific features which would justify our overturning the Building Department's disapproval? MR. MCDONOUGH: I guess the main thing is the fact that when all is said and done, there's a very, very small portion of this property with current setback requirements that can be constructed upon and I think it's less than 10 square feet. If we were to strictly go by today's guidelines then that itself poses the practical indifferences. I think it's -- So you're certainly houses accessed 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because of lot size? MR. MCDONOUGH: A little bit of both. The lot size is 5,700 square feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Pretty small. MR. MCDONOUGH: And you combine that with the fact that you need 35 feet because there are 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 38 1 2 two front yards, and then you combine that with the two side yards. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: 57 square feet is pretty small especially for Fishers Island. MR. MCDONOUGH: Right. And the house isn't very big either. So really, it's just a matter of the regulations don't allow us to do anything without a variance. We're not increasing percentage of lot on purpose. We're just trying to do one thing right now, and that's really just the setback. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Making the most of a rather constrained situation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you will be going from 18 to 20 percent lot coverage, which is allowed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Certainly makes it more attractive to us than if you were going from 18 to 25 percent. MR. MCDONOUGH: We didn't want to do that, the client, she's not interested right now, I mean, she's not at all. I mean to say maybe some day she will decide to go forward, but we're strictly sticking to the 20 percent. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's really just a percent of a variance for the 25 foot length of a screened porch from that right of way, private right of way. MR. MCDONOUGH: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth. Is it BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have no questions, it's fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody in the audience have anything to add to this for or against? Sir, do you have anything else you would like to say? MR. MCDONOUGH: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hearing no additional comments, I entertain a motion to close this hearing with deliberations on the 10th. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ------------------------------------------------- . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Lenny and Randee Daddona. yours? Next application is for Leslie, I think this is April 26, 2007 39 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a request for a variance under Section 280-15 based on the applicant's request for a building permit to construct a swimming pool and the Building Inspector's March 9, 2007 notice of disapproval for the reason it is proposed in a yard other than the code required rear yard on this 34,538 square foot lot with two front yards at 1380 Calves Neck Road, Southold. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. TOTH: My name is Vicky Toth, I'm here for the applicant. I reside at 425 Jacob's Lane in Southold. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As I understand it, Calves Neck is the primary road and Midfarm is sort of in the architectural rear yard. You really don't have a rear yard, you have two front yards and a side yard, so you need to be before us no matter where you put this. The pool when I went out there to do a site inspection was not staked, but based upon this survey, it's fairly apparent that it's essentially, and partly in the Midfarm Road front yard past the house and a little bit in what would be the side yard, but to help me get a little bit better grip on exactly where it is, there's a huge tree with a bed of ivy; I assume that's remaining? MS. TOTH: Yes, I have photos that show the proposed area. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, that would be helpful. A couple of questions, if I might, there's a fence on the survey that I would like you to explain what it would be made out of, what height you're proposing, and I don't see noted on here, unless you can point it out to me, a dry well for pool backwash, that's that little round thing over there perhaps, you know, to discharge pool backwash. And the location of the pump equipment is not there either that I can see, so if you could just address those three things. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And maybe if it's not an imposition, you could give us those copies that you wanted to give us. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You want to mark them, first, Linda? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No, I can do it . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 Apr i 1 26, 2007 40 1 2 later. . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a 36 by 16 3 foot? 5 MS. TOTH: Correct. In regards to your question about the fence, they're leaning more towards doing a wrought iron type fencing, but they haven't made that decision yet. I wasn't aware that the pump and the backwash had to be located on the survey also, so I apologize for that; I was not aware of that condition. As to where it's going to be placed, I'm sure that the pool company is the one that has to dictate where that has to go in relation to how the pool is set up when they come out to layout the initial plan. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I answer that? What has happened is we have had numerous requests, I'll say I have had numerous requests for these particular accessories to be placed away from people's property lines. Or to be placed in sheds that are insulated or soundproofed, just so you're aware of that situation, and I'm not answering a question for my colleague because she's much more aware of some of these things than I am, but simply, these are issues that have come to be and that we're deeply concerned about, that I'm deeply concerned about. MS. DADDONA: Okay, my name is Randee Daddona, I'm at the address, 1380 Calves Neck Road. We discussed that; we're going to put the equipment right on the side of our house for that soundproofing, so it's not near a neighbor and making that humming noise. And we're going to barricade it a little bit because we have our central air over there tOO, and we're going to put trees so it muffles it also. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember that that sometimes may not be enough, and I don't know how the Board will treat that, although you have this very beautiful tree line on the one side, it's amazing how much noise these particular units make, particularly if you have them timed in and they cycle on at certain times of the night so that you don't have to deal with that situation during the day. I'm just making a generalization, and you have relatively flat property there, there is no up and down topography and that's some of the real uniqueness about Calves Neck which makes it very beautiful. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 41 1 2 . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I continue with a couple of things? Yes, I mean the pictures are basically what we saw when we went out on site inspection, it's still not staked as we generally request, It's vague, the survey is most helpful because at least I could measure it out and walk it out. But what I would like is the height of the fence, because you're dealing with front yards and side yards. MS. TOTR: Well, code is four feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. MS. DADDONA: I think we were going to 4 5 6 7 8 five. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, we need to know about that because if it's five feet in a front yard then that's a variance; do you understand what I mean? So these specifics become important because we don't want to see you back here again. We want to make this complete, one stop shopping. So we are concerned with a couple of things, one is that fence height, the type is up to you, the other thing is acoustical treatment so whether or not it winds up in a soundproof cabinet we need to know that, visual screening is always helpful for your sake and the neighbors. And if it were my pool, I would want to have some evergreens screening from Midfarm because that's pretty open. Your side yard is pretty vegetated, you know, no one's going to kind of see that pool from that side, and it's set back enough from Calves Neck where it doesn't have a visual impact. You know, I would certainly want to do that for your sake as well because you don't want to have a swimming pool visual to the road. Sometimes we put conditions on granting these variances which say shall be screened by evergreens of your own choosing or whatever. MS. DADDONA: Yes, and that's what we'll do. We have beautiful landscaping on the property now, and we want to keep that. MS. TOTR: That's the reason for the placement of the pool where it is too. Also their septic system is in the rear yard so they didn't want to disturb that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which rear yard is 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 that? MS. TOTR: That's the one on Midfarm. April 26, 2007 42 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because that's not . 3 on this survey. MS. TOTH: It shows the leach pool. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So we need to know about that backwash, where that's going to go. Because again we have a drainage code. We can't have pool water spilling on the ground and running in the road. So we need to see where that's going. The equipment, the acoustical impact, the dry wells, and for pool discharge and screening. MS. TOTH: Okay. And I submitted letters from the neighbors and actually the neighbor that is to the east also is fully supportive of this application. And just for the record, that side of their house is their driveway and their garages, which I'm sure you noticed when you were out there on your inspection. So that's the least intrusive as far as sound. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the neighbors -- MS. TOTH: Yes, to their property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. This denotes a side yard setback of 10 feet? MS. TOTH: Correct. That's with the new 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . code. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. Could you do 12 feet; does it matter two feet, three feet? It doesn't show any plans for a deck. That's the minimum that's required right now. Because sometimes people generally build patios around it or a deck or something. MS. TOTH: My only concern is 16 feet to the house foundation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. You don't want it too close to the house. MS. TOTH: Because we have 18 now, I just get a little concerned being that close to the foundation. MS. DADDONA: And any decking we would do towards our house, we have the big evergreens there, we want to keep that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, because that's pretty close to where those evergreens are, the property line is -- the line's the other side of the evergreens, but they're big and they're going to come very close to your pool. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here's where the problem lies, if you change the topography of the pool in any way, there's a possibility that the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 43 1 . 3 decking regardless of what it is, if it's raised at all and nothing is flat, even though it looks flat, could place it in an encroachment area. So my suggestion and I think what my colleague is saying, if you're putting a three foot deck around this pool, I don't care if it's a porch, meaning a raised deck, I don't care if it's cement, you know, ornamental stone, it could place it out, okay, because it's raised now. So, I would be very careful. If you were not going to place anything on that side of the evergreens, then you're going to be fine. But I would never leave it zero. You always have to have some play room on that side. Everybody puts at least a two to three foot scallop. MS. DADDONA: I always have to be able to get to the pool no matter what. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You should do that, particularly if you have children, which I'm sure you do because I saw the play equipment. So, you know, I would go 13, but you know, I think 12 is acceptable. MS. DADDONA: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand it, the actual placement of the pool is not why you're before us, and technically it's not even our jurisdiction because given the property, the two front yards, the very decision of two front yards, the very decision to have a pool, regardless of where you put it, required you to come before us for a variance. So you're not before us to get approval for a location of a pool, but just to get approval for a pool at all given the fact that you have no rear yard. That said, I would interpret -- people can disagree with me -- that these useful comments that I'm hearing from my two colleagues on my right are basically advice to make sure you stay within code when you do this. I don't know that these are conditions that we put, because the conditions would say just make sure that the setback are consistent with the code, and I certainly would support that, but I'm not sure that that's not even necessarily part of our decision, except as a reminder. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes, well, actually there's no code provision when you don't have it in a permitted yard area. It's up to the Zoning 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 44 1 9 Board to decide the setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. I mean the 10 feet is not necessarily what they're allowed to have. We're going to grant whatever they -- quite honestly, if you take that pool and you build it at 10 feet, you haven't got anything more that you can do within that 10 foot. So say you want, you needed a deck on there, you needed just to finish it, it is raised above the grade, which probably it will be, assuming the pool's built, you're going to need a variance. MS. TOTH: Even stone. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: At grade it's fine. Anything raised is another problem, but if it's right at grade, that's why I said, because you don't want to be in your evergreens you need probably reasonably two feet is minimal, three feet is better. It's not a yard stick, it gives you a chance to walk around the pool. So it would be to everyone's advantage if you made some decisions now about the proposed fence height all the way around. See that fence looks like it's almost going through your evergreen border, the way it's drawn on the survey. MS. DADDONA: I want to have the appearance that you don't see the fence. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, on that side, that's fine, it's on your property line, but think it through, let us know what the heights are, where you want to put the pump equipment, where you want to put the dry wells and any kind of landscape screening that you want to put in, all that information will mean that when we deliberate, we will know specifically what you're proposing and you will know that it's all to code and you don't have to be dealing with this again. MS. DADDONA: So we'll just put that all together and bring it to you before -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Seven copies in writing and submit it before the 9th to our office. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have anything else to add? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want to make it 23 24 April 26, 2007 45 1 . 3 clear on what we're going to do. Because it sounds to me like we probably should leave this hearing open. You are going to resubmit a new plan showing the location of the pool. We realize that you want 10 feet, but I think to build that pool at 10 feet may be impractical. So we need to have you move it as close to the house as you think possible, so in order to leave yourself some room to build something up to that 10 foot point. 2 4 5 6 9 MS. TOTH: Can we just do it as far as just changing the setback itself as to what it will be instead of having to go back to the surveyor and having them change everything and charging them an additional fee? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: sure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly we can grant it and certainly we can be clear that your survey doesn't reflect. MS. TOTH: I mean, instead of holding it open, maybe we can get everything into you as early as tomorrow actually, and on May 9th, you will have everything that you would need. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, that's up to the Board, I mean, if we have some questions on that, we'll need to reopen that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: One other problem, if it's closer to the property line, and it creates more of a nonconformity, there hasn't been a notice to the neighbors for the additional relief. 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, she's not asking to be closer, we're just kind of warning you that what you asked for is probably just the minimal we would be willing to grant. So it's up to the Board what they want to do. I would prefer not to commit myself to making a decision based on what she submits until she submits it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, if it's submitted by the time we deliberate. I see, we don't want to close the hearing and then reopen it because it delays you and so on, so I think. MS. TOTH: So we'll leave it open and you could decide it on the nine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, if the hearing is left open then it has to be concluded at the following hearing a month later. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's up to the Board if 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 46 1 8 you think she'll submit, that will make us happy, then we can close this hearing and we can make a decision. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim, the question is not whether it makes us happy but whether we can make a decision based on reading those materials or rather we need to reserve the opportunity to ask questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: what I'm asking the Board. vote is one way or another. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question, how long is it going to take you to make this determination, an hour? Okay, then give it to us in an hour. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We could reconvene That's right that's Either way, in my one 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 . 14 this afternoon. MS. TOTH: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you can submit that today and we can close it at that time. MS. TOTH: Fine. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I mention that to you, when you look at the beautiful landscape and lawn that you have, don't believe that it's flat, and the problem is this: A pool builder will always want to raise that up enough so that that pool does not become a recharge basin when it rains, so it's always going to stick one end of it out of the ground. So that is what you have to be concerned about. Is that elevation of what other side is going to come out of the ground. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He's going to build it onto the highest point, and then a couple inches more. 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 MS. TOTH: I tell you, I know that firsthand, my next door neighbor, same thing, we thought it was flat. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That could be the other side, you don't know. So, we're going to adjourn this hearing until 1:30 this afternoon. I'll entertain the motion to adjourn the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) 21 22 23 24 . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Christopher and Amy Astley. Is there anyone here to represent them? Could you stand up, sir, and April 26, 2007 47 1 9 state your name and your address? MR. RYALL: I'm Bill Ryall, and my office address is 135 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10010, and my Orient address is PO Box 57. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Ruth, this is yours? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. This request is for a variance under Section 280-10, 280-15, 280-124, 280-116, based on the applicant's request for a building permit and the Building Inspector's December 26, 2006 notice of disapproval concerning one, a screened porch addition proposed at less than 100 feet at the top of the bluff adjacent to Long Island Sound; two, proposed additions to the existing dwelling which will be less than 40 feet from the front property line; and three, a proposed swimming pool in a location other than that the code required rear yard and less than 40 feet from the front lot line. Location of property is 460 Northview Drive, Orient. Yes, sir, you have a very difficult spot. MR. RYALL: Yes. But mostly I'm here to just answer your questions. And this is Chris and Amy Astley. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have any questions? MR. RYALL: I guess I just should quickly summarize because Chris and Amy have a house in Browns Hills where I also live and have a house which I built from scratch, theirs is from the 1950s. And I'm sure you're all familiar with Browns Hills, but it's a private subdivision from the '50s with very small lots. None of them conform to the two acre current zoning. And Chris and Amy's is actually on the bluff overlooking the beach on Browns Hills. So they have .8 acres and their house which is a 1955 or '57 small modern cottage really is on the flat portion of the lot at the top of the hill. And we would like to add to it because they have really one room and an alcove, which they're using as a bedroom. And they have two kids and they would like to be able to live there more comfortably. So we're doing what we consider to be the least amount of addition to make it really habitable or at least more usable for them, which is to add two bedrooms on top of each other actually to keep the impact on the land as minimal as possible. So it's the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 48 1 9 kids' bedroom, the girls will share a bedroom and bathroom downstairs and the parents are upstairs with a bathroom and a bedroom. So the footprint of the existing house is 1,070 square feet and the addition would be 675 square feet on the ground. I think the total enclosed area of the addition, I think is 1,350. The height, even though it's two stories, the height is only 19 feet eight inches at the top of the roof peak, so it's more than 15 feet below the town ordinance of 35 feet. There's also an application, part of this is to build a screen porch on the house which would be over what is already an existing patio, but it would be on posts, on Sonatube concrete footings, which are going to be hand dug to make absolute minimal environmental impact. We of course would have hay bales surrounding all of this construction. And there's a pool application too as part of this. We had located initially just the pool as again, on the flat part of the land, on the front yard side because that's part of keeping everything away from the bluff as much as possible. And we had originally -- the surveyor had, and we had located it just at the town requirement of five feet from the town property line. The next door neighbor, which is the latest house to be built in the neighborhood just two years ago, I think it was actually finished a year ago complained about that, you have letters from him about that, so we have moved the swimming pool another 10 feet. So it's 15 feet from the property line. It's still in the front yard. So you have neighbors, you have I think half dozen letters from neighbors supporting the application, then a couple letter from the next door neighbor asking questions and asking you to look into some things. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The burning question that's bothering me is why not push the addition closer to the house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You took the words out of my mouth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And have this huge stairway area and pushing everything towards the road. The other concern, and I'm just throwing this out, is this pool in its present 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 49 1 9 location based upon the topography of the next door neighbor's property, which is way low, it's got to be a gunite pool. It can't be a liner pool. If that pool was to blowout, for some specific reason, it would totally flood the next door neighbor's property. MR. RYALL: How would it do that if it's in the ground? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How would it do that? By leaching right out. MR. RYALL: If it leached out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In my particular opinion we had a similar situation up on Hyatt Road probably three or four years ago and this Board -- I'm not telling tales out of school and we ended up denying that application for that particular reason. And I realize if it adds to the cost of the situation if this Board is so inclined to grant it, but I'm just making a constructive statement before -- and I do apologize, Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You took the words out of my mouth. Why can't the addition be snuggled right up against the house? MR. RYALL: Well, it could, but actually by doing it this way, it moves it, for the most part, it moves it farther away from the bluff to do this, and it makes the house less of a big house and more of a cottage in its feel by the size of the different pieces of the house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But with the stair addition in the hallway? MR. RYALL: Do you have a floor plan 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 there? 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. It just seems to me that if it's against the house and more toward 20 23 MR. RYALL: It's also to allow -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There's a little flat area right in if here that to me it would be far better suited to an addition to staking it over here where there's more of a drop off. MR. RYALL: Well, it's actually not on, I wouldn't say it's flat, as you pointed out about some other matters, but it's not a steep slope at all. It's not a slope where the addition's going to be. And the reason for pulling the bedrooms away, from an architectural standpoint, as I said, 21 22 24 . 25 Apr i 1 26, 2007 50 1 9 is to have the scale so we're not taking a little house that looks like it's got this little two story thing slammed up against it, but also, for really light and air all around the addition. So it's in a way what we wanted was a cottage put on the property that's not an addition, but of course it is an addition. You have to do it that way and it had to be connected internally. So it was purely a design and architectural decision, but I don't think that it does anything detrimental to the land at all. I mean, of course the first question always was, why not just build a second story on the existing house, couldn't do that. It's just a slab on grade. It would not be able to support. It can actually barely support itself in our opinion. I mean it's a simple wood frame structure. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's no basement, just a slab? MR. RYALL: Yes. And this, the addition won't have a basement either. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And also your screened-in porch, it's so close to the bluff, and I'm trying to alleviate any weight on that bluff because I know there is a clay liner there and -- MR. RYALL: Yes. Which was a problem with the next door neighbor, Marshall Johnson. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And I live in Orient too on River Road, and that porch went down the slope and we want to keep it as least as possible, and as far as I'm concerned, I'll tell you right off, the pool is out. We also have to comply with our Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and this whole thing is inconsistent, of course, with the program, but you have what you have. You know, you can't move the whole house someplace because you only have a very small lot. But the pool, no, I would not put that weight on the bluff. I agree with Mr. Goehringer, that if there was some sort of a fallout from that pool, you would completely flood their property. So, you have the whole Sound in front of you, I see really no need for a pool. And the screened-in porch also is so close, is there any way that you could screen in part of that existing screened-in patio? I walked, I tried to, it's very difficult with all that brush there, and then you do have the concrete retaining wall from your neighbor 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 51 1 . 3 there. So it's hard to get through that mess. It's not your fault. MR. RYALL: We're not actually, we feel we're not doing very much grading on this at all. We don't see any need for retaining ourselves for what we want to do. I think with the screened-in porch, they will be in small hand dug foundations and sonatubes right there, and we have had the structural engineer look at it and there's not going to be any structural problem. I mean, the porch is a lightweight structure, it's not enclosed, it's really just the wood frame, the roof and the screens. So there would just be three, you probably can't see it but they're dotted rectangles underneath that porch where the three foundations go out there, two of which I think are two feet square, underground, four feet and then the Sonatube, which is really just an eight or nine inch diameter. So it's about as minimum as possible. I am very, very sensitive to environmental issues. I mean, I'm a member of the U.S. Green Building Council, and I'm lead certified professional, so I do take all this very seriously. And one other thing I forgot to say is you'll see there are dry wells located allover. What we did was put in dry wells not just for the addition, but also to take care of all the runoff that is existing so in fact, the structures won't send anything across the soil at all. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I mean, you have the existing little patio there with the bricks. MR. RYALL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And it is only 18 feet from the edge of the bluff. And by us giving you a variance for that, kind of condones building things 18 feet from the bluff and the setback is 100 foot, which you cannot meet in any way or measure, I understand that, but it makes it difficult for us as a Board when we have so many other decisions such as this on bluffs. We've tried to be very, very careful about granting anything. MR. RYALL: Right. I guess the current setback, which is not exactly a standard you want to strive for, but the setback of the existing house is just under 32 feet. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know you can't do anything about that. What's there is there but 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 52 1 . 3 when we have to write up our decision in order to meet the LWRP consistency report, which is Mark Terry who is the coordinator, that it's inconsistent, at least if we can say that we're taking out the pool, and we're still on the situation with the screened porch. We have mitigated to some extent the 100 foot required setback and made it as consistent as possible on the small lot that it is. We are very sympathetic to the people who have family; you wanted to have a little more room. MR. RYALL: Okay, I think that the porch -- I just don't believe that the porch would be anything damaging. By what I have said about the foundation, if someone were building at grade there and actually having to put a grade bead in and the foundations in, which would be a trench 48 inches deep all around the four sides of the porch, then that would require mechanical equipment and would be a big mess. But this is not going to be at all. I mean, I would be happy for you to write a stipulation that it's agreed only because the foundations are going to be dug by hand with nine inch diameter sonatubes because nothing could be more environmental sensitive than that. And then that would cover it so that someone couldn't say, well, they got it, and I want to do it with a bulldozer next time and you say no that's not the way it was. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, didn't we hold the photos next door, 54 feet away from this house? 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 MR. RYALL: For the house next door? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem also is water runoff. I'm just going to throw that in, I know it's not my turn. From that screened porch. MR. RYALL: Oh, no, we're capturing all the rain water from the roof, and that's also going to down spouts and going right to the dry wells, the one right on the street side of the house. So there will be no runoff at all from the screened porch. I mean, that is really the most environmentally sensitive point right there that there should be no runoff in that direction at all. That's in the direction of Marshall Johnson's house, which is where the trouble was. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. Let me hear 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 53 1 2 what my colleagues have to say. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you finished? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: For the minute. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, you can go . 3 4 ahead. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's discuss the proposed entrance, the stairway addition. Without the new deck that's proposed on that, if you pull that farther east -- MR. RYALL: Yes, east in the direction of the bluff. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, east parallel to the bluff, farther into the house, closest to the existing irregular brick patio. That's the best way for me to describe it. It would take you farther away from that property line over there, farther away from the bluff itself because of the proximity of the way the house is positioned, and with the elimination of the deck, which I didn't know; is it a raised deck? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. RYALL: I think it's the wrong word to say it's a deck, it's not raised at all; it's the front porch, and it's really at grade as close to the grade as possible. So it's probably a six inch step. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How much grading are you going to have to do? MR. RYALL: I think there's going to be no grading at all. I mean, nothing as far as regrading the land. I think it's almost entirely just a matter of putting in the foundation, the poured concrete foundation underneath the addition along the perimeter. But there's no regrading in terms of recontouring the landscape at all. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The point in question is that if it's at grade, maybe you can limit the size of it, and it would be conforming thereby allowing this whole shrinking a little and allowing it to be pulled in that direction and giving the Board a little more control over the housing aspect and not spreading it out to the point it's spread out. MR. RYALL: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's just my suggestion. MR. RYALL: How close -- I mean, what would it actually have to technically do to have . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . ,~ r::: /.:.J April 26, 2007 54 1 2 to conform to the new environmental setback? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a very difficult lot. MR. RYALL: I know but they all are, in terms of numbers what are you guys trying to work with? . 3 4 5 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The maximum amount ever setback from the road, the maximum amount of setback from the bluff and keeping the house in a more conforming circumference rather than having these flags coming out allover the place. And I'm no engineer and no water expert, but I can't physically see -- and this is not a discourse back and forth, you're a very nice man and I'm sure wonderful at what you do -- but I can't see how you're going to take that water off that screened porch and put it into a leaching pool all the way in the front. MR. RYALL: It's very easy because the screen porch, will be the floor of it, which is the wood deck, is at the elevation of the house, which is 106 feet above sea level and the roof of it will probably be eight or nine feet above that and it's going to drain let's see to the southeast corner, the corner that's closest to the house, which is where the water is going to be forced to drain, going to a downspout there and it's only, I'd say 12 feet from there to where we have located the dry well. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My rain gutters take less than 40 percent of the water off the roof of my house. MR. RYALL: Where does the rest of it go? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Out of the gutters, overflow. The minute you put something in to restrict any leaf containment, I would say I'm down to 33 percent. It just rolls right over the top of the gutters, and if you don't use the leaf containment, it clogs up the gutters and they're totally not functional anyway. MR. RYALL: Well, there has to be a leader, and there has to be a screen there anyway to keep the leaves out of it, obviously it's going to get clogged up. I mean, all gutters get clogged if people don't maintain them. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There are ways to maintain them. 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 MR. RYALL: It helps, but everyone has to April 26, 2007 55 1 2 . 3 check their gutters, they have to and often they don't check them until they see the water running down the side of their house or -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Down the cliff. MR. RYALL: Or into the house under the roof. I mean, I understand that maintenance is part of the deal, but I don't think that we're creating a maintenance problem any more than an existing structure or a new structure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's just my suggestion, I'm done. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In reviewing these plans in some detail, I have to say that I think the method of construction is the least intrusive in terms of excavation that I have seen in a long time. It is very environmentally responsible to build this way. The problem that I agree about the swimming pool, we all know that there is potentially very serious impact because pools do require significant excavation; it is the only thing on here that is requiring significant excavation. The proposed screen porch from a construction point of view will have minimal impact on any kind of change in topography or anything else. But it does set a precedent for construction on the bluff even with your suggestion that because it's done by hand and so on it mitigates. The problem here is with something spread out, and I think the elevation is very handsome and very much in keeping -- I know the C and Rs, there's C and Rs for height restrictions in Browns Hills anyway. MR. RYALL: We have a story and a half, whatever that means. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My concern is, (A) with a pool, I think you have handled runoff in a way that is very informed; the plan says that the total lot coverage lists a new addition, with the new addition it's going to be 8.26 percent; did I read that wrong? MR. RYALL: It's probably correct because the lot is .8 something of an acre, so, you just don't -- more than half the lot is the bluff hill side going down to the beach. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's why -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not the buildable. MR. RYALL: No. They always ask for it as 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 56 1 2 a percentage of the whole lot in very low on all these lots BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: building envelope is so small. MR. RYALL: In reality, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But well, their deed does not go out into the water. MR. RYALL: Goes to the high water mark. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Goes down the bluff. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know if you're aware of this, clearly anyone looking at this would say clearly it's, oh, my God, it's wall to wall house, given the size of what your lot looks like, given the terms of the building envelope, then there's this very steep bluff that's heavily vegetated with brambles and I think keeping that vegetation, as I'm sure you realize, is very important in terms of maintaining stability. MR. RYALL: It's critical. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. And of course, you'd have to do a lot of clearing of that if you were to put the pool where your proposed location is on that side, and that is even though it's an artificially created condition that your neighbor built in a ravine, not the ideal building site, but there it is, it's a fact. MR. RYALL: It should never have built, but that's not what we're here to BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Exactly. there are potential consequences for you is how the domino effect in neighborhood development takes place. But I want to make it clear to my colleagues and I guess for the record that the new legislation essentially defines what a building envelope is and calculates lot coverage based upon a percentage of a buildable area and that's because of a situation like this where many, many properties are right under water. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wetlands. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it could never be built upon because of the environmental constraints. So you get what looks like these huge houses on these little lots when in fact that's not really the legal definition of the size of the property. So we're trying to look at ways to be more sustainable in our analysis of impacts. So the house looks a lot bigger on this so it always comes then you wonder Because the . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 been discuss. And now and this 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 57 1 2 site than what it really is. MR. RYALL: I think when the plan rather than it becoming blown up balloon or elephant. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very small and it's very horizontal and it doesn't have a lot of multilevels, and I don't think, frankly, that you know, if you start pulling that stairway closer, you're going to have a mean little space with no light, no ventilation, no view. I don't have a problem with the way it's proposed. The only thing that I certainly think would be worth thinking about is if there's any way, any other location for that screened porch, which I think there are other locations, look at the layout, maybe not as desirable from views in three directions, maybe cutting off some interior view from a particular room. There's a lot of possibilities. It could be a second story over one piece. MR. RYALL: I mean, I realize that you guys are not making decisions in front of us, you have to discuss all of this, but we did wonder about that, and we thought one possibility would have been outside where the kitchen is, but that technically does put it on the bluff side of the existing house, but it's also quite flat up there too. you look at it a big kind of on . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the setback would be -- MR. RYALL: Really no different than the existing house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean, I'm very sympathetic to not wanting to block ventilation and light and view, and there are other factors here when you do a good piece of architecture. MR. RYALL: Well, that's kind of what we're there for, the light and the view and the air, and you don't want to go into a dark room and have to turn on the light in the middle of the day, you know, there are windows on all sides. You know, we're calling it a stair hall, but frankly, I would have called it a breezeway that could be closed in. It's really to let the air flow through the house. There are just sliding doors on both sides. I mean, at first we just thought of it that way, just as a breezeway and then we thought, well, let's be real, we're making 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 58 1 5 this house so a person could go out there in the middle of the winter if they wanted to and walk from the bedrooms to the house enclosed and of course heat the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I think it's really in the spirit of what this sort of seasonal feeling is like. You know, I just think that the building, it looks as though it's going to spill off this little hill. That's going to be flat, where your addition is is flat. I don't have any problem with those little flags, I can imagine what it will look like when cleared, and I'm sure you're going to want to do some screening from the road because your driveway's moved over so you don't have to worry about that. Whether you put a pool there or you don't, you're still going to want to have some screening. So in a sense it's almost like even though it's a front yard, it's sort of going to appear like a side yard from the elevation and so on. MR. RYALL: The road is down below and even now there's no grass lawn that comes down to the road and we have no intention of ever having it that way. Chris and Amy don't really go to the country so they can cut the grass on the weekend. And frankly, big lawns are the worse thing we could plant. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who wants to have a big lawn anyway? MR. RYALL: Well, it seems like a lot of people want them, but they're not very good for the groundwater at all. And in this funny situation, I mean, this is an aside at Browns Hills, now we have Suffolk County Water Authority, which we never used to have. We had our own well. It was private. We owned the well, we owned the roads. So now we're Suffolk County and Suffolk County put everybody on frontage, rather than metering their water, so they have no incentive to conserve the use of water whatsoever. So those who have swimming pools up there, which there are pools, pay the same price as the retired single person who lives two doors down, who uses about 50 gallons a day. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, not fair. MR. RYALL: Then there are others who have the sprinklers going off when it's raining. I think it's something between the Town and Suffolk 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 59 1 2 County Water Authority. asked them and they said to meter. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, can we kind of keep this to the subject at hand? MR. RYALL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I'm done. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. MR. RYALL: I'm happy, of course, very happy to answer any questions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to see a lot coverage number based on the new code provision regarding what counts as a building envelope. MR. RYALL: The legal lot? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Based on the legal Because I have already they don't want to bother . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lot. 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, we have a new code, sir. And we need for you to base it on that new code. Looks to me it's going to be more like 30 percent. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, whether it's 30 percent or 20 or 15 percent is something that we need to know, I believe. MR. RYALL: How do you actually define the building envelope? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll give you a copy of the law. MR. RYALL: This came into effect? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: About a month ago. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The notice of disapproval was not written on that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the application was not done at that time. MR. RYALL: Of course we're conforming to the new code because we didn't have approval before that came into effect; is that right, we're old code? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not necessarily, we can grant a variance, it's just, you know, we'd like to know 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What exactly we're granting for a variance. For example, if you were to apply today, you might have to apply for a lot coverage variance, we don't know this because we don't have the numbers. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Essentially, you'll be excluding unbuildable land. You'll be 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 60 1 2 excluding the beach, you'll be excluding the bluff, you'll be excluding all those natural protective areas that are regulated by our code from the denominator of the equation. So the denominator would no longer be total -- MR. RYALL: So we would exclude everything from the top of the bluff down. I suppose that's for sure. Then do we exclude the side yards and the front yard too? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, it's not a building envelope issue. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not the yard. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It's not a building envelope issue, that's a little confusing of terms. It's your structure area as your numerator, and your buildable land as your denominator. Which is total acreage minus sort of build the natural protected areas, environmental protective features, bluff, beach, coastal erosion if there is any, which I don't think there is any. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. RYALL: Well, since this has come into effect, we should actually do that calculation and send it into you. Have you seen one yet? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You're not the first one before us. There's been one before. MR. RYALL: I thought we could say we were the first one, but I guess not. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Somebody had to be the first one. MR. RYALL: I'd rather be the last one on the last code. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so does anybody else have any comments on this application? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I too am concerned about the proposed screened-in porch. You say that some kind of digging is going to have to be done, even if it's done by hand. Something, then there's the problem of avoiding the slippery slope of arguments of the setting of a precedent say in a year or two there will be a new technology which doesn't require hand digging but in fact some kind of machine, and is that going to be allowable or not. So we want to look a little more closely at this because it is the case that some impact is going to be made on that sensitive area on the bluff. I'd like to know more about that. I . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 61 1 2 . 3 myself am not particularly worried about the structure with the bedrooms placed behind there. I think that's a fairly imaginative idea. I believe the plan tends to be as reasonably environmentally sensitive as you could. Another issue regarding the swimming pool, I think we all have some doubts, if you could provide or help provide some kind of technical information regarding how much of a hazard, a side from the gunite versus lined pool, is a swimming pool. If there were some kind of substantive argument that said that building the pool at that place would not in fact potentially impact the neighbor, it would be useful for us to have that because we don't have complete information on how dangerous that might be. MR. RYALL: Well, I think aside, you can see from the survey, yes, it's slightly sloped there, but there's not a substantial slope where that pool is proposed at all. So I have never really thought of what danger the pool could cause. I mean, if it was built into a hillside where it was part of a retaining wall, yes, but it's the ground that's holding it in place. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Some people have flagged that as an issue, I don't have an opinion on that. There's the question, one could argue and there is good legal precedent, that if your neighbor built in a ravine and bad things happened to him in consequence of legal development above the ravine, that may be his problem rather than yours, but I doubt if his lawyers would see it that way. MR. RYALL: his own problem. I approved. You know approved located 10 property line. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Can on? I have a conversation over here. I saying this, and I have us talking about another yard. So can we just keep the conversation to this issue? Well, he actually is creating have no idea how his pool was he has a pool that's been feet on the other side of the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 we hold have you a pool in 22 23 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is what impact if any could the pool on your property have. I don't care about the other pool, but if there's good evidence that it would not have any impact over any threat beyond leaving it the way . 25 April 26, 2007 62 1 2 it was or just having a big pool, we'd like to know that. MR. RYALL: Well, it's on a fairly flat piece of property, so I just don't know where the pool would be inclined to move. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could you have a pool there at all, is the terrain such that a pool is a hazardous construction; I don't know the answer to that. But the reason that people have flagged the notion of a pool and the neighbor is that it sounds as though it could be potentially more threatening. I'd like to know whether that's nonsense or whether there's something to that. That's what I'm saying and you say one thing and he says something else. MR. RYALL: You realize that we're here at this meeting a month later than it was first scheduled because the neighbor wanted to attend the meeting. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There were other reasons too. MR. RYALL: Is his highness here? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure that's relevant to the question. MR. RYALL: Well, we could ask him the question rather than asking me. MS. SIRICO: I'm here to represent the Winters, and I take offense to that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let's get it off the personal level. Michael, let's hear all the testimony first and if we have questions, then we can get the answer to those questions. I understand what you're trying to do here. MR. RYALL: I understand the question. I have never had to say how a pool would potentially cause problems to someone else. I mean, it's in the ground on a fairly flat piece of property, we're not having to build retaining walls or do major earth moving to cause a pool to be put there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is if somebody has a lot that's at the edge of a bluff and let's say it's 50 feet from the edge of the bluff, and they want to put a swimming pool 10 feet from the edge of the bluff, I'm not sure I want to argue that that could not have any effect on the stability of the bluff as opposed to leaving it alone. And that's the kind of question . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 Apr i 1 26, 2007 63 1 2 that I have in mind here. Is that respect to potential environmental all I'm saying. MR. RYALL: Okay. doing it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Calls for an neutral with impact that's . 3 And I don't think it's 4 5 engineer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just going to make a broad statement and that is from the most recent hearing that we had that is now presently at the Planning Board that we're holding in abeyance, I am not voting, and I'll make a blanket statement that I'm not going to vote on anything unless it's gunite on a waterfront piece of property anymore. From the ability of having any type of movement on any piece of property, and I'll make that statement based upon anything that has smaller than 40,000 square feet landward of the tip of the bluff. It is just too small to put a regular liner pool in based upon any type of movement that may exist. I don't care if it's in the front, I don't care if it's in the back. And I'll make one other statement, we were granting pools over the years no closer than 45 feet to the top of the bluff and we were requesting small machinery to go in on those areas to dig those pools. The smallest possible backhoe possible and that was at 45 feet. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Most of them were 70 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's potentially vulnerable. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No matter how stable it looks now. My wife just sold a house on the Long Island Sound that was moved back 135 feet, 140 feet in 1983, it was one of the biggest moves they ever made, her parents made -- she did not sell alone she has three sisters -- that house dropped four inches every week until they moved it back. And that was all done by cliff score, by the nature of the storm. And I'm not saying that's going to happen to this piece or any piece in Browns Hills, I'm just telling you that that was something that they had to do. The house was between 2,400 and 3,000 square feet and it was one composite move along with the chimney but that's 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 64 1 2 what they had to do. MR. RYALL: In fact, along those same lines, Chris and Amy were really wondering at first whether they should add onto the house or accept that there is a limited life span to this house and then move. So they considered that very seriously, particularly in light of the problems that were caused by runoff next door at Marshall Johnson's house. So it was really after the assessment was made next door and we received an engineer's and environmental report over there that Chris and Amy decided that, yes, this was a safe thing to do and go ahead, but obviously with the idea of doing it with the least impact possible on the land. And that's really been our attitude about it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, could you stand up and go to the microphone, state your name, please. MS. ASTLEY: I'm Amy Astley and my husband Chris and I own 460 Northview in Browns Hills. Chris and I respect all your decisions and certainly the pool. And we would not have actually even thought to ask for the pool if we had not seen that our neighbor the Winters were granted the approval to build a pool next door to us in the ravine that we have been discussing. If the pool can't be built -- maybe I'm speaking out of turn -- it can't be built and that's fine. We have lived there 10 years, we love it. Our kids swim in the ocean and with the jellyfish they can't swim. We're not contentious about the pool. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Chris, if there's jellyfish in the Sound go down to the Potato Dock. Because my grandkids go down there. MS. ASTLEY: They go to Potato Beach and the pool's not -- I'm just speaking from the heart here, and may be it's not politic, but we don't -- the pool doesn't make or break our property or our love of Orient. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You basically need . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 more room in the house. MS. ASTLEY: Yes, that's desire to keep our family there. selling our property and we just go. We just love it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: MS. ASTLEY: I don't basically our We looked at couldn't let it 24 . 25 I don't blame you. know why I'm on the April 26, 2007 65 1 2 verge of tears, this is ridiculous, but we just want to keep the family there as long as we can, and we would not want to fight with anyone about a pool, and we chose not to fight with the Winters when they approached us to say that they wished to build a pool. We never wrote you any letters opposing it or gave them a moment's grief because we want to be neighborly, and we love Browns Hills, and we love Orient, and we love the north fork and we're from Manhattan and we love it here because we don't want to come and fight with people, and we certainly don't want to fight in our neighborhood or with our neighbors. And when we saw that they could have a pool, we thought as we finally were able to afford to consider enlarging the house for us and our kids, we asked Bill to look at putting it in, and we knew that there was a strong possibility that it wasn't going to work, but we thought there was a precedent that our neighbors had the pool. And I don't know the details of their pool or the size of their pool or anything, and I wish them well. And Chris and I had no desire to write any negative letters or show our faces here to fight about their pool or their property. I'm just putting it out there. We have no desire to have a fight about a pool or a porch, right? I mean, we love the porch, but MR. ASTLEY: I think that porch would be like a place, if we were granted permission to do it, that we would spend all our time out there. MS. ASTLEY: Yes. You know it's beautiful. You look at the water, the porch in the back of the house is not terribly useful. I probably should just sit down. It's just not something that we should spend two hours talking about. If the pool is highly objectionable, I don't think we should even -- Bill will redraw these plans with the BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Does anybody else on the Board here have any more questions of the architect? I guess my only comment on this is I thought that the porch could be put someplace else, that screened porch, but the pool I didn't have any objection, but if you want to take it out of there it probably may be helpful to you. Does . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .. 25 April 26, 2007 66 1 2 anybody in the audience have anything to contribute to this? Ma'am? MS. SIRICO: Hi, my name is Vera Reed Sirico, and I reside at 275 Baldwin Place in Cutchogue. And I was asked by John and Nina Winter, who live on Northview Drive just to read this letter in their absence. "Dear Chairman and Members of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals: "In our absence today we, John and Nina Winter, direct neighbors of the applicants, respectfully ask the Board to allow our representative Vera Reed Sirico to address and read into the record our present concern brought about by the applicant's proposed construction plan. "According to our earlier March 6, 2007 letter and attachments provided to the Board, we have received an amended March 22, 2007 revised site plan for our immediate neighbors, the Astleys. The plans state that the footings for the 212 square foot screened-in porch at the northern edge of the bluff's property shall be excavated by hand in order to minimize land disturbance. We support the Astley's consideration of land management. "Architect Mr. William Ryall stated to me during our cordial April 9, 2007 conversation that the ground to peak maximum height of the addition shall be 19' 8", enclosing one bedroom and one bath on each level. We noticed that the new plans propose a larger addition in lieu of the deleted deck; provided this proposed addition remain within such height constraints at around 675 square feet, we support our neighbor's expansion. "In addition, we additionally support the planned placement of two dry wells to catch rain water runoff. Our concern is still the proposed location of the inground swimming pool. The original site plans of November 16, 2006 had the pool five feet from our property line. The present plan is to move the pool so that it is 15 feet from our property line. "As it is presently proposed, the pool would be 14 feet higher than our property level. It is estimated that for a four foot deep pool, the mass of water is 30 ton in addition to the weight of the pool walls, and as such, we are . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 67 1 2 extremely concerned about the stability of the applicant's soil directly above our property. Thirty tons is the equivalent of stacking 20 automobiles on top of one another. Any increase in pool depth would add even more load to the land. Potential soil collapse along with tons of water damage would be catastrophic to our personal safety, property, the bluff and environment. We wish to avoid such liability. Please reference the applicant's architectural drawings which indicate falling contour elevations directly west of the proposed pool. "As a point of further information, the ZBA, the Board of Trustees, and Building Department have granted us the permit to construct our 16' by 32' inground pool, which is contracted to be built 10 feet from the property line, way below the applicant's proposed pool site. Our side is staked and we should be starting the process soon. We believe it is inherently dangerous to have two pools in such close proximity given the slope of the soil and little room on the westerly side of the Astley's lot. "We respectfully recommend that the Astleys consider placing the inground pool in the approximate location of the proposed driveway therefore not affecting either ourselves or their easterly neighbor. My discussion with Mr. Ryall arrived at the agreement to relocate the pool equipment away from our property line and closer to the street to minimize the noise impact of a running one horsepower pool motor on both our residences. This would be mutually beneficial. The present proposed location is exactly adjacent to our outdoor patio entrance and living room. In addition, Mr. Ryall agreed to move the proposed location of the pool dry wells away from the sloping property line and closer to the street. "Please find the following documentation attached supporting our position that the proposed pool site be moved considerably away from our property line in order to better distribute the loading of the land. Please find that we have made available to the Board seven sets of copies of this letter and its exhibits several weeks prior to this hearing. We defer to the Board our safety concerns regarding the proposed pool site. Thank you very much for your consideration of our . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 68 1 2 views. . "Most Sincerely, John Winter and Nina 3 Winter" 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. anything else to add? Okay. Anybody have any comments? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are we going to do about the hearing? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I am thinking we may leave it open. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, in view of obtaining more information about the potential lot coverage relative to the new code, which you'll need a little bit of time to figure out, in view of your very clearly stated consideration of building responsibly in the environment that clearly you all live in and your neighbors and are concerned about in terms of impacts, perhaps reconsidering one or two possible alternative setbacks for a screened porch. I totally support your desire to have one. What we're trying to do is obviously not encroach any further on that bluff line than your existing house already does, and that will take a little bit of doing and finagling to look at alternatives. I would like to suggest the possibility of keeping the hearing open until next month, until the next hearing so that additional materials could be considered and submitted so that we can then adjudicate with the most information. Do you have else anybody 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And also they should revise their plan, and I would also concur, just to reconsider that porch. Put it in between the house. 18 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Look at alternatives and let us know what the lot coverage is, and frankly, if you are willing to forego the pool, that should help considerably with the lot coverage issue. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: count toward lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean there is no other location for the pool on this site as far as I can see. And if you are really willing to say that that was not the most compelling thing for you, that can only be helpful. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In really helpful to show a spirit Yes, because pools 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 general that is of compromise and April 26, 2007 69 1 9 also ordering your priorities for us, which so your remarks I think were very constructive to your project and also to our ease in making a decision. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's also very clear that you are good neighbors and that you have a lot of support from your neighbors, and I do understand the Winters' concern about that possible hazard, so I think it behooves all of us to do it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we'll leave this hearing open until -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The date is May 31st, and we would need to ask for a cover letter with seven sets, and you could give it to us about 10 days before that if you can. If you need more time, we can always give you another date. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so do we have a motion to that effect? (See minutes for resolution.) 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for Joseph Gulmi and Susan Braver. This is a request for variance under Zoning Code Section 280-105, based on the Building Inspector's December 11, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning an as-built fence exceeding the code limitation of four feet in height when located in or along a front yard area, and under former Section 133 (now 280-15) for relief from condition under ZBA number 5340 concerning the location of an as-built swimming pool at less than 30 feet from the front lot line. Location of the property: 250 Pine Tree Court, Cutchogue. Is there anybody here representing this application? Yes, sir, can you state your name and address? MR. GULMI: Joseph Gulmi, 250 Pine Tree Court in Cutchogue. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, is this yours? It's a carryover hearing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Briefly, since we have already had sessions on this hearing before now, we don't have to go over everything. The notice of disapproval has to do with the as-built fence, which exceeds the code limitation. We have heard testimony regarding the need for that exception and the deer and the leaping of the . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 70 1 9 fence and consideration of that. So I assume what we are hearing today is further discussion of that particular issue. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: had something and we wanted to opportunity. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: and from the neighbors. MR. GULMI: At the conclusion of the last hearing, Mr. Simon, you asked if I could obtain evidence of the deer population in our area. I went ahead and tried to do that. I would like to supplement the record that was developed at the last hearing with photographs. May I approach? These are photographs of the deer tracks throughout the property. All of them are in the front of the house and in the proximity of the driveway and the pool area. Some are in the back as well, but on the side of the house. I also, as evidence of the deer population took photographs of the various plant material that we have growing on the property. The deer seem to really enjoy the rhododendron. They have eaten just about everything outside the pool area. All of that is really circumstantial as to the size of the population, but I believe you, Members of the Board, actually visited the property and are aware of how many deer frequent the area. We are right next to the wetlands. In furtherance of our application for a variance we also are going to address again the height of the fence, which is a six foot high fence, both cedar spindle and it joins a black chain link fence. What I did with the original application, I made photographs of the fencing from the right of way which is the area our neighbors would see it from. There are three photographs of the spindle fence, the cedar spindle fence, which are all shot along the right of way, the west side, I'm sorry, there are four, and what I'd like to call the Members of the Board's attention to the fact that I left in along that right of way the oak trees that were growing in the area. You'll notice that all of the oak trees that are growing in the area, their lower branch structure is several feet below the top of the height of the spindled fence. When these plants are in leaf, the top of the fence is not Well, the give them neighbor an 2 . 3 4 5 From the applicant 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 71 1 . 3 visible, certainly not visible driving in a car riding by or standing out on the right of way. My intention was to further landscape the area at the time the fence was completed was the latter part of the summer. I do not intend on screening the fence with evergreens, although I will use some of them selectively. I'd like to give you now photographs of the property opposite my property along the right of way where there are the indigenous cedar. And what one can observe in looking at those photographs is that the cedar have a tendency when they're in the shade to die out on the bottom, so essentially, I'd be planting an evergreen which would get higher and higher, but wouldn't effectively screen the fence. What my intentions are to plant, if I can find it, an evergreen that the deer don't seem to like, I understand and know that licotia's one of those plants; however, on my property they eat it all the time. Andromeda is another; they also seem to enjoy that. I intended on clustering it. I don't think that I need to screen the entire fence, but I do intend on front planting it. At the last hearing -- let me just also hand you a photograph of the northwest corner of the right of way where there are indigenous, I think Russian olives. Although I understand that this is not an excuse or a justification to having a fence that's six foot high, I did look at the surrounding community in which there are a number of fences right here on Pine Tree Road, which is even with the front of the house. I understand that that's different than my property. It shows a six foot stockade or privacy fence. Here's one that's five feet that's along I think it's Lukin Drive, there's the stockade fence that surrounds I'm not sure what. These applications I understand are dealt with sui generous. So if you take a look at my property, I'm living on a corner lot. I live off a right of way. I've tried to design the property so that I could maximize its use. That's why we requested a swimming pool which had to be placed in our front yard because I don't seem to have a rear yard. I don't believe that this fence changes the character of the neighborhood. I think that the fence is tasteful. I think if it's properly landscaped it's an asset to the area. I 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 72 1 9 don't think it detracts from my neighbor's property, and I don't think it detracts from the character of the neighborhood. And it's essential to have a fence at least as high as this one because I have deer everywhere. They have not gone into the pool area, and we discussed this the last time, since I put the higher fence up. I had a temporary fence around it, which was a four foot vinyl fence during construction, and I had deer in and around the pool on a continual basis. So I think given the circumstances of where my property is located, I don't have much of a choice. A four foot fence is really not a deterrent to deer. I'm not sure that a six foot fence is, but they seem to be lazier. They graze around the pool area all the time, and the tracks that I made photographs of are the surrounding area. They're on the driveway. They walk around the back of the pool. They're in the front of the house all the time. They're constantly looking for food. So I think in order to preserve and protect the property, especially now given the fact that I have a pool there and I have a solar cover which is solid, my concern is that if the deer gets into the property, that it will wind up in the pool, they're not the smartest of all animals. So, I think it's necessary. I don't think that it's excessive. I certainly don't think it changes the character of the area. I do intend on landscaping more in front of the pool. I'd like to do it with plant material that works with what already exists. I left the oak trees there purposely because the branches were lower than the top of the pool so it -- top of the fence so it does obscure it. And I think that the variance should be granted. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody on the Board have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All your questions have been answered? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this application? MR. WALKER: Peter and Eileen Walker, 75 Pine Tree Street. We do find that the fence is overpowering, and as far as the immediate area, there are no fences in our immediate area that you can see. I also took pictures and I agree, we do 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 73 1 2 have a deer problem. I mean, I see could be 10 or 20 at a time in our backyard. We have a pool, we have a four foot fence, and we have never had any problem with deer going in there. As far as changing the character of the neighborhood, you know, when we drove down, I have an aerial photo before this went in (handing). You can see where we drove in. This is where we put the tennis court. This is where we buffered that (indicating) . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pass that down, . 3 4 r J 6 7 please. 9 MR. WALKER: We have never objected to any of the variance requests that just driving down every day in and out and seeing the fence and the structures beyond the fence we would have no problem if they were buffered, and we did not see it. That's the main reason we bought and built where we did when we did. It was very private. You could hardly see any houses of any of our neighbors and there are no fences that you can see within our immediate area right there, the Pine Tree extension, which is seven houses. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a question Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can it be buffered in the original position or the position it's in now, or would the fence have to be moved back in your opinion? MR. WALKER: I think it could be buffered where it is, and you know, you have, fine the oak trees are there, but the oak trees are deciduous, so more than half of the year we're looking right through it. And we have had no problem with cedars, or, you know, something else. Again, if we don't see it, we have no objection to it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would it only be on that road area of what we refer to as the road frontage coming in, if the Board was so inclined? MR. WALKER: Pretty much. I've put cedars on the other side and I plan to put more on the other side. But that immediate area where you come in and you look at it, it stands out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's with the wood fence? 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . out, MR. yeah. WALKER: Yes. Yeah, I mean it stands Then you're looking through the wood 25 April 26, 2007 74 1 9 fence and above the wood fence at the structures that were put in. It's not the way it once was, and I don't expect it will be. If we don't look at it, that will be fine. Whatever we have done we've buffered. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, your neighbor has testified that his intention is to do that and to mitigate; he probably doesn't want to see through it either to the road? MR. WALKER: I would hope so. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I suspect that you are probably both on the same page in terms of your mutual desires for privacy and screening, and it's a matter of a landscape plan being developed. You clearly understand plant materials; you are familiar with various species and so on, and given the current landscaping that you already have included, I should think it would be tastefully done and done in a way that doesn't have visual impact from the road; is that fair to say? MR. GULMI: It is. I don't want to continue to debate this because I think that in the end Mr. Walker and I are both in the same place. We live in a kind of unique area. We're off the main road, and I think it's both our intentions to enjoy the seclusion that the area creates. But there is a logical inconsistency in the position he's taken. I fully intend on landscaping by the pool area. But if you had me reduce the height of the fence, you expose more of the cabana and the garage. So a six foot high fence if it's tastefully landscaped in front of it, I guess creates the screen. But if I reduce the height of the fence, that just opens up a visual view into the property, which is -- the reason that the fence is six foot high is both aesthetic, and as I said, I'm not sure why the deer don't go into the Walker's pool area, but they're around mine all the time. I do intend on landscaping it, and I'd be more than happy to work out some solution with regard to that. Not because I needed to be pushed to it, I intended to do it in any event. If that's really what the concern is, I can address that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just so we're close, and I apologize for jumping the gun, my feelings have always been constructively, and this sounds like we have a possible constructive 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 75 1 5 situation here. We are referring to between the right of way and/or the road and the fence. You're talking on the inside of the fencing or you're talking on the outside? MR. GULMI: I'm talking about on the outside of the fence. The inside of the fence is right now landscaped. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand 2 . 3 4 6 that. 9 MR. GULMI: the right of way. I of way, they created would be planting on along the berm. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now the next issue is that of some sort of a drip system to allow that to be -- or would you irrigate that? MR. GULMI: I already have put -- because my intention has always been to landscape that area, I have already put the sprinkler heads or line out there. I think the fence went in some time, it was in the summer, the plant material that I wanted wasn't available, and I didn't like what was available. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's then discuss what you think the time constraint would be to put this in or a timeline. MR. GULMI: Well, now is the time. I have already put some plant material, so it would be this spring that I could get the plant material that I want, and I should get it in the ground within the next month, maybe five weeks, I don't think it would be more than that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And necessary, not that this is not a court of law, but in a very diplomatic manner in a way I'm presenting this, but I know you both are gentlemen, so it wouldn't make any difference if there were two ladies standing in the same situation, it's the same situation, okay. MR. GULMI: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could we expect that you could give us some specifications of the type of plant that you would be putting there so we might couch that in the decision? MR. GULMI: What I intended on doing I would prefer for the most part to use evergreen and groupings, but the deer eat most of the good Yes, it's on the road side of guess when they cut the right somewhat of a berm. So it the road side of the fence 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 76 1 9 stuff, and the plant material that I could put in there that they wouldn't eat would be the pines and spruce, but it's just on the wrong side. It's a western exposure; it's on the other side of the fence. I gave him photographs of my neighbor's property, where you have an indigenous stand of cedars, and they're all dying out from the bottom, which is somewhat what that plant does. I would probably use some Licovey, which is a low growing plant, which would be in the frontal part of the slope. Some holly, which will withstand the shade and the deer don't like. Andromeda, which I bought some three and a half foot andromedas, I'm not suggesting that I'm going to buy six foot high rhododendrons, I was going to use some Leland cypress. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Don't buy rhododendrons, they love them. MR. GULMI: Oh, I know, I've got one in the front of the house, some Leland cypress, which I was told the deer don't like. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Deer will eat anything. MR. GULMI: I have some choke cherry that I planted in there. It's a deciduous plant. But I was going to mix some deciduous and evergreen plants. If there are areas that are most offensive to the Walkers as they drive in, and I can appreciate that, the fence in the corner, it does kind of stick out, it is underplanted, but I could do that. Then I would address that with them. I don't want to start planting spruce plants, spruce trees under the BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not going to 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 grow. 24 MR. GULMI: It's not going to grow but I would put andromeda and evergreen and perhaps Carolina rhododendrons. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I summarize this because it's clear that we can grant a variance for the height of the fence with a condition the landscaping scheme be developed that camouflages the vast majority of that fence seasonally, throughout the season. We don't have to specify the type of plant. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: All year round? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All year round, throughout the season, all year round. But they 20 21 22 23 . 25 April 26, 2007 77 1 2 may do it differently during different seasons. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Four seasons? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. That then is up to you to go ahead and develop a landscape -- I don't want to delay this any longer, your goal is to make sure you're not confronted with a naked fence all the time. goal is to landscape for the same purpose. MR. GULMI: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think what we need to do is decide whether we want to grant the variance on the height with the condition that that approval be met, that you agree that you will camouflage the fence with a vegetative buffer that will prevent its being visible throughout the various seasons and work it out. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm the opinion that we have Your . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 writing species. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: specify minimal height. MR. GULMI: Five foot high rhododendron is a very large rhododendron. Five foot high red cedar is not. So I'd like to use -- the last thing I want to have is a wall in front of the fence, I'd like to be able to cluster in group plants. My idea and thinking was around and among the oak trees, I would plant andromeda because rhododendron the deer would eat, andromeda they don't seem inclined to. I can buy those plants at three and a half feet. I can't tell you that I can buy them at six and seven feet. There are stretches along the fence that are open, and I have no problem putting a juniper or Leland cypress plant there. Because those plants you can get the six feet they're not terribly difficult to locate. The rhododendrons and andromedas and laurel and some of the more the broad-leafed evergreens at six feet are not so easy to come by. The conifers, the arborvitae and is the pines and the Leland cypress, those at six feet, they're pretty available. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Would you be satisfied with that, knowing that any variance we grant will be subject to a visual screening? MR. WALKER: Yes, that would be fine, that not sure in to specify what 10 11 But can always 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 was our main concern. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And are you Apr i1 26, 2007 78 1 2 satisfied with that? MR. GULMI: I intended on doing that all . 3 along. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So we'll just put it in the document and we don't need to know the list, the wonderful list of species that you gave us. We need to limit it to the size and scope of the project, number one; and we also need to use the phrase "continuously maintained." BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which he's going to do anyway. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But the scope of what you require is really I think the important issue here because we all kind of agree in general, but I think the neighbors are saying -- and I may be wrong -- but we don't want to see the fence at all. And I think the applicant is saying, I will do some clustered landscaping, in various areas, but what I'm hearing is that you're going to see the fencing, but what I intend to do is soften it, camouflage the scale of it, but you will see landscaping and fence. So, the Board's got to be clear what it's going to ask the applicant to do because at the end of the day, the neighbors may still be unhappy with that, not that that will rule your decision, but I think we don't want to all walk away thinking we all agree when we don't. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, that's the reason we need to have a review by the Board after most of the screening is done, and we may need to have a further enhancement of it. Secondly, and again in a very diplomatic manner because we have definitely dealt with the Walkers before, they have been before this Board and there may be a little patience involved here in reference to the growing of these things to the maximum height of the fence, just so you're aware of that situation, and I think that's what I'm reading in this particular case. And I'm just throwing that out. MR. WALKER: Maybe the solution would be also if the fence were a continuous chain link and light would be coming through and plantings would be coming through and plantings could come on, without worrying about anything, that's a possibility also. MR. GULMI: That's about $11,000 in cedar 4 6 7 8 9 l(1 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 79 1 2 fence that I've put up there and the idea that it would be acceptable if it's black chain link fence versus the cedar spindle fence, but if that's what the Board is going to rule, I have no intention of taking away the cedar fence, I'd rather lower it to four feet, and then the landscaping would be whatever it is. I am prepared to make concessions, but there's only so far that I'm prepared to go. I am not prepared to take that fence down and put up a black chain link fence because someone else thinks that's not as offensive. To me the black chain link fence is totally utilitarian in an area it wouldn't be seen, but I have no intention of surrounding my pool with it. So, I have every intention of landscaping it; I have good taste; I have a design eye; I know what I'm doing when it comes to the planting, but if that's not acceptable, then make your ruling and I'll deal with it. A four foot fence will only expose more of the property, and I would be disinclined to landscape it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, did you have something else to add to this, Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don't think so. I think the point that the applicant was making was that, you know, if I decide I'd rather go with the route of a four foot fence, I don't have to landscape anything. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Oh, and I thought there was something about the pool and we would need to be unanimous about that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There was a variance on that. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Oh, the pool, thank you. The pool, if you're seeking relief or modification of a prior condition on the pool, this Board just needs to make sure it's unanimous in its vote. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have to consider that. Okay, so is there anybody else, I mean, you have said what you had to say and you're satisfied with that. Do you have anything more to add to this? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. WALKER: I have nothing else. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment on this application? Hearing none, I would like to make a motion that we close the hearing, and with such . 25 April 26, 2007 80 1 2 time with deliberations on May 10th. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: May 10th with a meeting at 6:00 in the other building. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, we need a resolution to take a short recess. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our first order of business is Daddona. You were going to come back and give us some information. Did you have anything else you need to add? MS. TOTH: Yes, briefly, I was able to contact the pool installer and he informed me that what they're doing with this pool is that it's a Stay Right Mod Free System, that's what it's called. It's right on the survey, I wrote everything down on that for everybody so we know. So there's no backwash at all. There's no backwashing on this system. Then what they do is they put down a four by six concrete pad and they use a special four inch thick deadening piece so that when that pump is running, there's no noise. The Daddonas will landscape around that anyway. As you can see where the location will be right on the side of their house it's right next to where the gas hook-up is so they will landscape around that. But the gentleman from the pool company assured us that there will be no sound whatsoever because of that new, that four inch deadening piece. So I guess they have new-fangled stuff. Also we moved the pool. MS. TOTH: He said there's plenty of room for that, and we provided for some screening in the back on the rear property, and the four foot high fence. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Continuously four foot high? MS. TOTH: Correct. With self-closing, self-latching gate, and I don't know if you had any other questions. I just wanted to clarify if you did. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. Thank you very 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 much. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Any deck around that you're putting in is going to be flat, it's going to be at grade? MS. TOTH: Correct. . 25 April 26, 2007 81 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. we'll go on to the next hearing. resolution to close this hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) With that taken, We need a . 3 4 ------------------------------------------------- s CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, our next order of business is Beninati. Mr. Arnoff? MR. ARNOFF: Before beginning, I am filing with the Board a supplemental, because I think Members of this Board know me well enough to know through conversations we have had how sensitive I am with issues of ethics. I am filing a supplemental affidavit on behalf of my client. The original's on top, Mr. Dinizio, and there are other copies underneath. I don't believe your Town Code provides for this, but the disclosure affidavit that's submitted deals with the date of application. The Board should be aware that since the date of the application the Beninati's position has changed in that a Town Board member is now an independent contractor working for them, that being Mr. Edwards, who is working as a salesperson in their office; that has happened recently, and just so that no one can ever be heard to complain that we didn't tell anybody about it, we're here to do that here today. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you. MR. ARNOFF: It's nice being a Johnny-come- lately because most of my work is already done or has been done prior to today. I sent a letter to Mr. Dinizio, I don't know if you all have a copy of it, I faxed it to your office on April 11th, which was delivered because Mr. Beninati had modified the plans that were brought before you. There are, and you will have to excuse me, but I believe there are four variances that we're talking about, rear yard, side yard, height and the issue of the coverage on the dormer being 50 percent, approximately 50 percent and the 40 percent. I think it's a good idea to try to address and work around the issues, I'm not going to, unless the Board wants me to go through the five issues I will, but we all know what they are and I think perhaps I can short circuit that this lovely afternoon, and we can get out of here. The building was turned around from the original plan. It's now narrower. There's going to be two doors, one on one side and one on the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 '" 82 1 2 other. Why would you say to do that? Well, Mr. Beninati, one of his cars is such that it cannot go up the driveway, it's too low to the ground, so he's going to have to come in off of Middle Road. So that's the reason for the rear garage door, otherwise it would make no sense. If the Board has a question about it that's the reason behind it. The side yard variance and rear yard variance, this is a very unique piece of property for many reasons. It's treed with 150 year old trees. The house is built in 1850 or 1860, it's a lovely old house and it's kind of weird that it sort of has no rear yard or may have a rear yard, no one knows where the rear yard is, so I'm going to leave that up to you. I don't think that there's an issue of rear yard variance here, technically it needs to be granted and I think that the Board can deal with that. The side yard variance is such that there really is no other place and I know Mr. Goehringer was there, I'm not sure how many others of you I would have guessed that Miss Oliva was there. When you go onto this property, there is no other place where you can put this garage, and there is no garage on the property. So it's not like he's tearing it down and moving it someplace else. Or anything else. He could put it somewhere else -- in all fairness, he could put it there and destroy these 150 year old trees; he doesn't want to do that. And if any members haven't seen it, I invite you to go see it, they're magnificent. So you know what we're talking about. The issue of the height and the dormer coverage, I'm going to call it dormer coverage. Mr. Beninati tried through the trim detail and the design of this building to keep it somewhat in conformity of what's there. He doesn't want an eyesore any more than anyone else. And if you recall in my letter to you, we would agree to covenant, and I believe I was not here at the last meeting but there was a question about potential use in the second story of this building, we will covenant if this Board so wishes that there will not be habitable space. It's storage space or loft area but no one's going to be living there. There's no plumbing going up there, so I don't see that as a potential problem. Mr. Beninati is here to answer any . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 83 1 2 questions. I'm doing this rather quickly based upon the hint I got when I stood up, and I will answer any questions or he will. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my file, I just need to ask you by the virtue of the first presentation from Mr. Beninati and the present most recent change in the plans, the building virtually has stayed the same, the only difference is that the garage door, there are three garage doors in the front, that has now turned around to the back. MR. ARNOFF: The building has turned, I believe the building has turned from the original plan. In other words, it was, the wide part is now lengthwise. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're from 48 out on the longer part of the MR. ARNOFF: That is correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So facing Peconic is the shorter end. MR. ARNOFF: That's right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's the side of the garage. See, I don't think we have clear let's have a look at the new. I just want to make sure we're reading it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And he drew the trees on this one too. coming garage. in . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the garage doors on there are on either side now. MR. ARNOFF: Two doors on one side and one door on the other. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. This is the old one. What we have are the new site plans. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing has changed in reference to the size of the actual building, it's just been turned around. MR. ARNOFF: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Arnoff, an issue came up and it was actually -- this was interest because this very rarely happens, when Mr. and Mrs. Beninati bought this property there was an active application from the prior owner to divide this piece of property and Mr. Beninati and I discussed this briefly the day that I was over there, and he graciously showed me the entire aspect of this building that he wants to build and low and behold, the next day I'm on the Cross Island Ferry with the prior owner. And I said to 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 84 1 2 him, Ed, I had the distinct pleasure of seeing your prior house. And he said, yeah, I remember he's asking me that question, do you remember when we brought that application in and I was going to divide the property; and I said yeah; and he says well, I was going to do that because the property was just too expensive for everybody so I was going to actually cut the lot off. MR. ARNOFF: Sure, the lot on 48. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because there was a question that came up regarding this and that's the reason I'm bringing it up on the record. And he said when they approached me he said there wasn't any need for me to do that because they just bought the whole piece. So, the question is, it's still one piece of property at this time and I just wanted to clear that issue up. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. ARNOFF: It is one piece of property and there's no application pending for any subdivision of this property before this municipality. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Well, we have a variance of record, though, creating that other lot, which goes with the land. So, I guess the question is is it going to be something that he's going to follow-up with later. MR. ARNOFF: At this point there's no intention of doing that. MR. BENINATI: I could have approached that situation a long time ago. To me the property is valuable as it is. I have no intention to divide or sell. MR. ARNOFF: And if he does that, the whole rear part of this building becomes useless. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ARNOFF: Because he has a garage door to nowhere. MR. BENINATI: I couldn't get my car in 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 anyway. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the variance for? 23 MR. ARNOFF: It grants a second lot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It grants it, but it has not been divided. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted everybody to be aware of what the situation was 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 85 1 9 there. We knew we granted a variance to Mr. Dart, and we know that the Beninatis bought the property subject to that and that was it. That's the way it sat and that's the way it is. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That variance will never expire. For example, if he decides that he wants to subdivide later on. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which means his driveway is on someone else's property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's a buildable lot if they wanted to sell it as that? MR. ARNOFF: Right. It has been and it is. It's a very weird situation. In one breath, if you don't look at the property, it makes sense to cut it off, when you go there it really doesn't. It's very weird. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know if anyone else has any questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have a comment, Ruth, are you okay? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm still a little concerned about the fact that we have a new law here on accessory structures and we're going to right away grant a considerable variance to that law, and I wonder if you can address that in some way. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 . 25 MR. ARNOFF: Well, I can, because when I started my thing before, you recall the five issues that this Board has to determine as to whether or not you should grant a variance: Is this an undesirable change to the neighborhood; well, it's not, the next door neighbor's building is closer to the side yard than ours is. All the buildings are built right up on the side yard. It's actually in conformity with the neighborhood, not creating an undesirable change. Is there any other method that this desired result can be accomplished? That's the second test. Well, the second test on that says, well, I discussed that sort of indirectly and tangentially, by saying could we put this garage in the middle of that lot on Route 48; yeah, we could. It would make absolutely no sense because it would be so far from the house who would want to use it as a garage, and to put it closer to the house requires tearing down these 150 year old trees, and if you look at the property visually, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 April 26, 2007 86 1 2 that's the place the garage should go. You drive up the driveway and you're in the garage. It's kind of like a logical flow. There's no adverse effect that will come to the environment as a result of this. There's no tremendous lot coverage issues or anything like that. And is it self-created? Yeah, he wants a garage, there's a garage, it's self-created. So there are your five tests and I think we've done everything we can to soften the blow, and you're correct, and you're absolutely right, you changed the law and these are substantial variances from that, but ultimately, we may be the first people here, but we've got a problem, there's nothing else they can do short of not building it, and I don't think that's what this Board wants to see happen. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, how about making it smaller? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He's got those antique cars. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I understand. MR. ARNOFF: I tell you what, if we make it smaller, all you're going to do is instead of granting five feet off the line, you're going to grant seven feet off the line. It's not going to be like we're going to get really close to being in conformity. So to change this and to destroy the kind of architectural similarities we're creating to the main building, is kind of not what anybody really wants to see happen here. It's sort of an odd situation. I've been before this Board and other boards where we've made the building smaller, turned it, moved it, whatever to make everyone sort of happy and to grant the minimal amount of variances. I think in this case we're there. I mean, could we, sure we could go buy a pre-fab building on Route 48 and have it moved on the property, that's not what he wants to do, and it's not going to accomplish anything. It just makes some ugly building, ugly thing in the back yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I might just add one comment as someone who advocated very strongly for this new law and helped in its early discussion and drafting. This is a situation where part of the concern behind that new law had to do with accessory structures being in relative . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 87 1 9 proportion to the scale of the principal dwelling and the neighborhood. This is a case where I believe this is fairly much in scale with the existing house. It's a very large historic property, and, the house, the principal dwelling and the accessory structure that's being proposed now given its reorientation so that it isn't so broad on Peconic and all of that, I think is sited reasonably for its use and is not overscaled relative to the house. So there is some mitigating possibility to the new setback and height variances based upon the character of the property itself. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you're saying is that the provisions of the law actually work in favor of this because given the size of the house that counts in justifying that size of the garage? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I'm saying, thank you. MR. ARNOFF: It is what you're saying? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Quite honestly, that's not why we're here. Quite honestly, we're here because the lot in that particular area is narrow. We're supposed to be granting minimal variances. Am I correct? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We're supposed to be granting variances. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, minimal BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Minimal that can accomplish. MR. ARNOFF: Site specific, Mr. Dinizio. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's correct. And they are site specific, and I couldn't agree with you more. But there are limitations on this lot and that limits what you can build. And quite honestly, when you're supposed to have a 25 foot property line setback and you're asking for five feet, to me that is not minimal. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Twenty-five feet, you mean the new code? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The new code is 25. MR. ARNOFF: What is the setback currently asking for? 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: MR. ARNOFF: Five CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: to turn down someone else the same thing? Five, sixa feet. I mean, how am I going that comes in and wants . 25 April 26, 2007 88 1 9 MR. ARNOFF: I can answer that. Because as two members of your Board have said, this particular property is sort of a special piece of property. It's not like a lot of other pieces. I know the argument that every property is special and each one is individual, and that's why you guys sit here because if it was a carbon copy we'd have a stamp and we wouldn't need you. But we come before you because you have here a house that's a magnificent home in this town that was built in 1850, or 1860; to put a little tiny building up next to it to house a garage that's not in conformity with the building itself, just merely to squeeze this into the constraints of the town code is not what the code is meant to do. That's why you're here, you're to soften the hard edges of the code when it becomes obvious to you, and I think this is obvious. There's no question about it. That's really your issue. If I come before you tomorrow on my property to build something that's right on the next door neighbor's line, well, I know Mr. Goehringer's familiar with my property, I've got all kinds of room to put an accessory building up, there's no need to put it next to Donny Gatt's property and right on the line. He wouldn't object, but I wouldn't do that, and I'm not going to be here to bother you because there is another place to put it, and if I came here you could say, Arnoff, get out of here, you're not going to get this variance because you have got some other place to put it. You have another thing you can do. They don't, and that's the problem here, they don't. And you're right, could it be smaller? Yeah, it could be smaller. But smaller doesn't really do anything except make the side yard variance 18 feet instead of what, 20? I mean, what are we accomplishing here other than making everybody miserable, and that's not what we're supposed to do. I can't answer that any other way. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I suspect what I was trying to point out is that there is the letter of the law, which is we interpret dimensionally, and there is the spirit of the law, which was to create nice neighborhoods and not have accessory structures that overshadow the size of the principal dwelling or the adjacent property. And so, that's really I guess the point 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 89 1 . 3 that I'm making. Because I'm very well aware of the dimensional scope of the variance being requested and it's very substantial. But it's only one of the requirements that we have to look at. 2 4 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I think I can say is what your argument does -- and this is really directed to Jim. Jim is worried, I believe, that granting a variance in this case might be used as an argument for granting very unacceptable variances, and what you're saying is if people have their wits about them, they could never use this, almost never use this kind of positive decision as an argument because it is very special and as anyone who is paying attention will point out, you can't use the Beninatis' example to point out, to demonstrate, to justify something else which doesn't fit. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, that is not the reason why, quite honestly, the reason is that I heard a lot of discussion during this accessory law concerning building large structures on the property line. And how offensive they were, and the moment we have an opportunity to enforce that law, we're going to say that this one doesn't count. Now, I don't think we're supposed to be making our decisions based on how it looks. Quite honestly, that is the last thing I need to worry about and our code doesn't address that. Setbacks are setbacks, and when you grant a variance that's going to be upwards of 80 percent of what you just created as a law, I think you should not do that. I think that you're injecting a lot of subjectivity when you say, oh, no, this one's an exception because it looks like it fits with the house. 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Character of the area. 21 MR. ARNOFF: That is only a factor, that's not the entire picture in this case. Most respectfully, what you have here is not that. You have a very special -- Mr. Simon said -- piece of property. It doesn't fit into the norm. It doesn't fit into anything that you are trying to suggest here. And yeah, is it bad timing that this might be the first one since the passage of the law that you have to deal with, maybe it is. And that's why you guys sit up there and you make 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 90 1 9 decisions, but ultimately the decisions have to be couched in reason. I've said this many times to boards when I have opposed zoning applications, and that is an appeal to the Zoning Board is an appeal to ask the Board to exert their discretion and to vary from the strict adherence to the law. That's what your job is in simple terms. And that's what we're asking you to do. Because the strict adherence to the law renders this property unbuildable in this spot with any degree of reasonableness. Could he build a place for his motorcycle if he owned one? Yeah, but not much bigger than that if he wants to make use of the actual constraints of the law as it actually applies to him. He can't do that. If those trees weren't there, I think you'd be right. But you're asking him to tear down trees that are 150 years old to put his garage in. He doesn't want to do that, and I can guarantee you Ed Dart will have one thousand people in here at the next hearing to oppose that happening. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: a trade-off of the trees, there's about it. There really no question is 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Moreover, there's nobody in the neighborhood that testified in a negative way about it. In fact, we have some letters supporting it from the neighbors across the street. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And Peconic Lane has some beautiful old homes like Home Port, it's gorgeous, like a twin. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's also right in the Hamlet Center. And that has sidewalks that has a very different character than many of the properties and it's traditional to have those kinds of accessory structures located where you're proposing it. That's what I meant by it's not to disregard what the current law represents, but it's essentially to interpret the full scope and meaning of all the jurisdictional considerations, all of the balancing tests that we have to look at. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can say neighbors haven't spoken, but the trees have standing. MR. ARNOFF: Absolutely, and they are standing and will stand beyond our lives. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Very cute. Well, I 24 April 26, 2007 91 1 5 don't have anything. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, you haven't convinced me. Okay, so does anyone else have anything else to add to this? Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing and we'll make a decision on May 10th. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 . 3 4 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Linda wants to read this letter; does anyone object to that? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We need to open the Bower hearing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is Bower. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Kathleen Bower 5981, Mrs. Bower's not present. She has delivered a letter to us earlier at the meeting today when we were holding other hearings. One of the things that Mrs. Bower said to me when she handed me the letter, was she would prefer to move the shed and pay $350 than to have to spend an excess of that for diagrams or surveys. And then she submitted this letter and said, "I do not understand why you have not acknowledged my letter of February 23rd to Mr. Dinizio. For the record, I was prompted to write the letter after a conversation I had with a Town Building Inspector on another matter. The Building Inspector was refusing to issue a certificate of occupancy for my swimming pool for no reason except that he heard that I would not be receiving a variance for my shed and that I was in violation. When I asked the Building Inspector to put whatever his reasons for not wanting to issue a CO for the pool he would not. I find this quite disturbing. A person in another town department seems to know the outcome of my variance petition before the final public hearing has occurred. "I received a letter from Mrs. Kowalski dated April 6th stating the Board granted me additional time so I could obtain a site diagram from a licensed professional. But the letter did not mention the myriad of other requirements mentioned by the Board at the February 22nd hearing. "As I mentioned in my letter of February 23rd, I have investigated a number of licensed professionals, and the cost to hire them is almost as much as the shed originally cost. If Mrs. Kowalski knows of a licensed professional who does 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 92 1 9 this type of work for a nominal fee, as she seems to have indicated, then she could let me know his name and number; it would certainly save me a lot of time and trouble. I have complied with the variance procedures, however, the requirements are stacked against me. I see no point in having another hearing unless I bring along a lawyer. cannot meet the additional requirements due to a financial burden. I have to hire laborers to dig up several shrubs and move the shed at a cost of $350. In my back yard it would have been logical if the Building Department had done a site inspection before issuing a permit for the pool. They would have noticed that the shed was in violation since it was there first before the pool. We could have worked it into the swimming pool landscape plan. We would not be digging up the yard at this point. "In conclusion, the reality that a property owner cannot achieve favorable results from a Zoning Board without the help of legal professionals is a sad commentary. The Board members seem to be quite elastic when property owners are represented by lawyers and quite unbending to property owners who represent themselves. "Sincerely, Kathleen Bower." BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what do we reach? I mean, that doesn't say It basically chastises us. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Well, she said to me that she would rather move the shed than have to submit a diagram to meet the Board's requirements. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is that a statement of opinion or is that something BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's her I 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 conclusion anything. 17 18 19 20 statement. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: she'll do that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: thinking maybe what we can thing and then go on. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not vote on it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, maybe make a motion and vote one way or another whether the shed can stay there or not. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: She hasn't said 22 Right. So I do is just was vote on the 23 24 . 25 If you hold it up April 26, 2007 93 1 5 indefinitely then enforcement will be indefinite where there won't be any -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in other words, we've given her enough time for her to respond to the various invitations. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's what you have to decide. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And whether we have reached an end to that time and then we can simply close the file. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should close it on the 10th. Maybe she'll have some other thoughts. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They seem to be pretty 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 final. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I would move to close it and to deliberate on the 10th and let her know that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that a motion? MS. WINTERS: Can I ask a question? will she have to move it then or not? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, that would be up to the Building Inspector. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it would be up to us whether we will grant it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Whatever we decide to do, the Building Inspector will have to enforce. 11 12 13 . 14 15 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Can I have your name for the tape? MS. WINTERS: Penny Winters. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The procedure will be that we close the hearing. We are voting to close the hearing. If that takes place, we will hear no further testimony from anyone on May 10th, and if we do that, that means we make a decision at our next special meeting at 6:00 in the evening based on everything submitted thus far. If we deny the variance, she's going to have to take it down or move it. If we support the variance, she can leave it. We've heard everything we need to hear; we've made lots of suggestions; we will consider all those facts. You're welcome to come to that meeting, as is she, where we will be discussing the facts and making a decision. If you don't want to come to the meeting, you can call the ZBA office on May 11th and Linda can verbally tell you what the decision is. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 94 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We won't take any testimony from anyone, you or her; we will make our decision based on the record, including this letter. . 3 4 MS. WINTERS: I'm just here in support of Mrs. Tartaglia. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. We're going to close this hearing now. Do I have a motion? (See minutes for resolution.) 5 6 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next we need a motion to open the hearing of Mary Zupa. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All made and seconded all in favor? (ALL AYES.) BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I just received by fax a copy of a letter that was mailed to our office, and it was just opened late this morning when we received it at the other building, and the letter says, IIDear Mr. Dinizio," -- it's from Patrick Henry, attorney for the Zupas -- "thank you for your letter of April 19th concerning the captioned matter. It is our desire to adjourn the application until the various questions of law in fact pending in Supreme Court are resolved. Accordingly, our application for relief will be submitted at a later time. Very truly yours." CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so we can adjourn without a date. So I will entertain a motion to adjourn without a date. (See minutes for resolution.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 April 26, 2007 95 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 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 26th day of April, 2007. Florence V. Wiles April 26, 2007