HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/02/2007 Hearing
1
.
1
2
3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
STATE OF NEW YORK
5 ------------------------------------------X
6 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
7
8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
9 ------------------------------------------X
10 Southold Town Hall
Southo1d, New York
11
12
August 2, 2007
.
13
9:30 a.m.
14
15 Board Members Present:
16
17 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Chairman/Member
18 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member
19 RUTH D. OLIVA - Member
20 MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member
21 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member
22 LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant
23 KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney (11:10-1:50
24 p.m.)
.
25
2
e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS:
3 Hearing: Page:
4
5 Katapodis #6027 3-26
6 Reeve #604 26
7 Dickerson Peters #6053 27-30
8 Dey #6056 30-44
9 Casey #6064 45-51
10 Seifert/Gerard Holding #6059 51-59
11 Bu1is #6055 59-62
12 Avdou1os #6060 62-68
. 13 Sherman #6063 69-71/115-116
14 Daneri #6029 72-115
15 Reinken #6052 117-125
16 P1anitzer #6057 125-126
17 Grebe #6043 126-128
18 Girzadas #6061 128-130
19 Lampl #6062 130-142
20 Landau #6033 142-158
21 Cingular at EM #5826 159-177
22
23
24
. 25
3
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'd like to call
August 2, 2007 ZBA meeting to order. We first
need a resolution for SEQRA.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion is made and
seconded. All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
**********************************
4
5
6
7
Hearing #6027 - Katapodis
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. The first hearing is
Nick Katapodis and that's Leslie's.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. So let me read
the notice for the record.
"Requests for Variances under Section
280-116, based on the Building Inspector's June
14, 2007 amended Notice of Disapproval for
proposed accessory swimming pool and related
equipment; (1) at less than 100 feet from the top
of the bluff adjacent to the Long Island Sound,
and (2) with lot coverage in excess of the code
limitation of 20%. Location of Property; 1540 The
Strand, East Marion; CTM 30-2-65." This
application, in summary, is for an in ground
swimming pool at 50 feet from the top of the
bluff. The code requires 100 feet and lot coverage
of 24.6%. The code allows 20%. There's some
information we have and I'm sure you have, Pat,
from soil and water?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Regarding the
condition at the bluff. The pool is, as proposed,
41.8 feet by 21.8 feet; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: No. It's been reduced.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm sorry. It was
reduced to 18 by 36 from the original.
MS. MOORE: The original was 30 feet from the
top of the bluff and that was increased to 50,
just for the record.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Now, we will
turn this over to your presentation.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Good morning. Thank you.
This morning I have with me Mr. Katapodis, who's
the owner. This is my side of the wedding party.
I also have a Cathy from Swim King Pools and Joe
Fischetti, professional engineer, who I've asked
also to come and speak with respect to technical
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
4
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
issues that I thought needed to be on the record.
So what I'm going to do is first deal with the
lot coverage issue since that is the least
technical of the two issues. Just first and
foremost with respect to the lot coverage, as you
all know, the lot coverage was just adopted the
last couple of months with respect to using
buildable area for determination of the lot area
that you're allowed to build on. The lot -- this
lot is a lot on Peeble Beach Farm. The Peeble
Beach Farm subdivision was approved under the one
acre zoning and it is a clustered subdivision that
the lot is in the -- a little over a half acre in
size. The adoption of the lot coverage change or
area calculation change, the legislative intent
behind that, and I'd ask to have it put on the
record, it was to address situations where there
were large lots and the houses that were being
built on those large lots were also including
non-buildable areas so that the size of the
structures, the principal structures, in
particular, were out of character with the size of
the properties and the community. What has
resulted in the adoption of that section of the
code, I would hope that this Board tries to
correct through legislative process, is that often
times now in particular these lots that have been
created, particularly water front properties on
the Sound, result in the lot, as in this case, the
lot becomes a 16,000, a little over a 16,000
square foot building area. That is, on a
clustered lot, a very restricted building area and
it affects, in particular, accessory structures.
So that has created a problem. It is creating a
problem and I'm sure you'll be seeing a lot of
area variances with respect to lot coverage as to
accessory structures. With respect to this
property, the accessory structure has been reduced
to 18 by 36 in compliance or in attempt to
mitigate the lot coverage issue. The house was
constructed prior to the adoption of the lot
coverage change. So the house, which is not --
it's a nice house but it's about a 3,600 square
foot house. The house, itself, in relation to the
size of the houses in that neighborhood are all in
that range of size.
With respect to the pool, these amenities; a
pool, a tennis court, it is not a structure that
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
5
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
sticks out of the ground. It does not impact the
volumes with respect to the intensity of the
property and it's impact on the neighbors. A
water front house with a pool is not an unusual
amenity and, in fact, there are many pools in this
subdivision as in all the water front subdivisions
in this town. So with respect to lot coverage, I
would ask you to please keep that in mind given
the change in the code and it's impact on
accessory structures and Sound front properties in
particular. I would also like to now address the
set back from the bluff. The set back to the
bluff has been increased to 50 feet. We did get
the report from Soil and Water. It was a very good
report. It did confirm what we could see from
visual observation, which is that it is a very
stable bluff. Mr. Fischetti will testify with
respect to the angle of repose and it's stability.
It is vegetated. The property, as it is presently,
and it hasn't been -- it's still partly under
construction. The site has not been graded and
it's still in the construction stages of rough
grade and the property right now does slope all to
the street. There is no issue here with respect
to changing the topography in any way so that the
water flows down the bluff which, obviously, is a
concern to this Board and to all the Boards
dealing with development on the water. We want to
protect the bluff and the surest way to protect it
is to keep the water off of it. The house will
have dry wells, gutters and the pool, all the pool
equipment will be properly drained. At this time,
I think I will have Joe Fischetti come and deal
with certain issues with respect to the drainage
and the topography of the property.
MR. FISCHETTI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Board. It's nice to see all of
you again. I don't come here often but it's nice
to see you. I have my office in Southold. I was
asked to analyze this property. I visited it
earlier this week and pretty much confirm what Tom
McMahon's results were in the letter that he sent
you from Suffolk County Conservation. The slope
is stable, very well vegetated. I did an analysis
of the topography and the present slope of the
bluff is 33 degrees, which is a very stable
slope, as you know. Those areas, the angle of
repose is probably around 38, 39 degrees. This is
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
6
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
33 so it's a very stable slope. The chances of
any erosion that would affect a pool close to the
bluff line is minimal at this point. The site
plan that was sent to you and the topography is
incorrect. John Metzger, I don't know where he got
those lines from but the slope of that property is
probably 2 feet higher at the bluff then it is at
the house line and it slopes directly back. So
drainage from the pool and again the affect of the
pool and the grading. The pool will have to be
installed and would continue to contain that slope
backwards. The site plan again that was sent to
you showed kind of going off to the side, which
concerned me too until I actually saw the site.
As Pat said, we were not able to get John Metzger
to redo the topo in time to do this. But it will
slope backwards. We will not change that
topography any. We have -- (off to the side)
should I talk about the propane tank? There is a
propane tank located on the east side of the
property. The propane tank is for house heating
and it will probably be used for heating of the
swimming pool. If this Board recommends that an
additional movement of that pool from the 50 feet
we have now -- National Fire Protection
Association recommends a 10 foot separation from
the propane tank to any structure. There is some
movement that could be but we still need to keep
ten feet from that propane tank. I think that's
about it.
MS. MOORE: With respect to the pool
equipment, where will it be connected for
drainage, typically?
MR. FISCHETTI: There was a question we
read the letter that was
MS. MOORE: Well, it hasn't been submitted
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
yet.
21
MR. FISCHETTI: We have a neighbor who's
complaining about back washing and most of the
time we do backwash into the roof drain areas and
it doesn't affect it because you're not back
washing at the same time that it's raining. Any of
the pool equipment and the backwash would be
placed into the dry wells of the roof drains which
are required by the Town.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a
question?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yeah, sure.
22
23
24
e
25
7
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fischetti, I
have to tell you that I accept anything that you
say as really very well pointed. About 3 years
ago we started with the insulating of pool filters
and placing them in facilities, small storage
facilities so the noise emanating from the filter
and so on and so forth -- I don't really know
what, we've enhanced it with certain words in some
of the decisions. That first decision was down in
Yennecott Park in that new section that runs down
on Laurel Avenue, the east side of Yennecott Park,
over on the creek. Now, in a lot of this
dimension, there's no question that this is a
magnificent house. But even with the stone work
or the exterior of the house, you may even get
more noise than if you had a wooden house, with
wooden shingles. I think it's probably necessary
to take that pool equipment and put it in some
sort of sound proof storage shed.
MS. MOORE: That's not an unreasonable
request. Actually, I discussed it with Swim King
and also the client. They have absolutely no
problem with that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So that's not
going to be an issue today?
MS. MOORE: No.
MR. FISCHETTI: You have an interesting
point in that if you buffered it with something,
it would still have the possibility of bouncing
off that wall. That's a good point, Jerry. But,
again, I have no problem with building a structure
that's maybe wood framed where you can get access
to it. I've seen that done often and that can be
done by insulating that.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Joe, how for back could
you get the pool without interfering with the
propane tank?
MR. FISCHETTI: From what I can see, I
didn't take a measurement of the tank underground
but I know where the fill line is, I think
reasonably, you could move that pool maybe another
12 to 15 feet back.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That would be good.
MS. MOORE: We would certainly have no issue
if the Board, in their decision, had us maintain
an FPH standard so from the edge of the tank,
maintaining the 10 foot separation, we would
certainly attempt to move the pool back to
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
8
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
whatever safe certainly there's construction.
We don't want to jeopardize the tank so 10 feet is
an FPH standard but we don't want to --
MR. FISCHETTI: What Pat is saying is don't
give us a distance. Just say keep the minimum FPH
because I don't know where that tank edge is.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: One other question. The
pool is going to be heated?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it going to be
covered then to use in inclement weather? Is it
going to be an exposed pool or open?
MS. MOORE: There will be a cover.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: A regular solar cover,
you mean?
MS. MOORE: Like a safety cover.
MR. FISCHETTI: Ruth is asking a solar cover
to keep the heat in while it's heated.
MS. MOORE: I think it's a safety, certainly
it's a safety. Is it also a solar?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It doesn't have to be.
MS. QUIGLEY: No, the safety cover is
separate.
MS. MOORE: Okay, so there are two covers.
BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI: We're not getting the
names and who is that gentleman who noded In the
back of the room?
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. The nodding is the
owner, Mr. Katapodis.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on a second. Number
one, the Board members, we go in order and I'd
like to continue that if you don't mind. When you
have questions, do it in your turn. Number two, if
you need to speak to anybody, bring them up to the
mic and introduce them, please. We don't want to
drive our new secretary away.
MS. MOORE: Are we trying to address Ruth's?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can now.
MS. MOORE: Cathy from Swim King if you would
come forward, please, and tell us what type of
equipment could be provided. Cathy, give me your
last name, I'm sorry.
MS. QUIGLEY: Q-U-I-G-L-E-Y, Cathy.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just wanted to know if
the pool is heated, is it also going to be closed?
MS. QUIGLEY: The solar cover is not a safety
cover. That's a cover when you heat the pool, it
goes on the top. It's the bubble. 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
9
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
9
insulated bubble that goes on the top to hold the
heat in. A safety cover is a separate cover.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There will be no actual
structural enclosure of the pool?
MS. QUIGLEY: NO.
MS. MOORE: No.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's going to be open to
the sky?
MS. QUIGLEY: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. That's what I
wanted to know.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, Mr. Fischetti, do you
have anything?
MS. MOORE: Well, no unless you have other
questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we're going to
start with Leslie. Leslie, do you have any
questions?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I do. When I was at
the site, I paced out the, based on where the pool
was staked because there's no call outs other than
on the survey by Metzger on certain kinds of
dimensions. For example, it doesn't say what the
distance between the propane tank is and the
proposed edge of the pool. But one thing that I
observed in pacing things out is that the proposed
placement of the pool is along the side of the
property, in a kind of parallel, you know, the
long edge of the pool is parallel to the property
line. I paced it so that at your proposed length
if you rotated it 90 degrees sideways instead of
longways, you would automatically gain half that
dimension in terms of an increased setback from
the bluff and you would not have moved it any
closer to the propane tank which I understand is a
safety issue. I'm assuming where it's sited now on
this survey is acceptable in terms of distance?
MS. MOORE: Oh, yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But we don't know
exactly what that is. However, how would you feel
about, you'd still have adequate side yards on
both sides if you rotated it this way, which will
then set it back --
MS. MOORE: That was one of the first
questions I asked Mr. Katapodis and he explained
to me and I went and confirmed it, you would see
from the site. He has young children. The way
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
10
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
this house is designed, the kitchen and the patio,
that is the elevated patio that's on the easterly
side of the house is where all of the house, all
the activity is and when Mr. Katapodis and his
wife are sitting or watching from the kitchen or
the living area, the line of sight is directly at
the pool so that their concern for the original
placement of this pool was to keep a clear line of
sight for the children. So obviously keeping an
eye on them at all times. That was the reasoning
behind placement of the pool here if -- I think we
would prefer to move the pool back a little bit
but keep that line of sight. I asked about that
preference being, if you had to choose between
pushing it back a few feet, again keeping the FPA,
the distance from the propane at an appropriate
distance, keeping it on the east side, that was
the important issue. So there was consideration.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the question then
really is, not knowing exactly what those
dimensions are, are you guesstimating, Mr.
Fischetti, that it's 12 to 15 feet?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, I'm pretty sure that
I'm being very conservative when I did that
because I paced it too and my understanding of the
size of propane tank, I'm saying, I could probably
get at least 15 feet, maybe even more but I can't
make that. But I think 15 feet is a reasonable
guesstimate and and it may even be more than 15
feet. A few feet more, not a lot of feet more.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would bring it up
to a minimum of 65.
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, I'm my professional
opinion.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. I just wanted to
clarify what the possible options where. I wanted
to understand the rationale for it being sited
lengthwise clearly clipping it.
MS. MOORE: That would have simplified
things.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you. No further
questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was also going to
raise the question about the orientation of the
pool. What we will have to do when we consider
this is to see is the reason for having the pool
of this size visable to the house be weighed
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
11
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
against the advantage or disadvantage of having it
a given distance from the bluff. It's a balancing
of two different kinds of considerations. Your
point is that you can respond to some of the
closeness of the bluff by moving the pool closer.
There are other ways of responding to the safety
issue such as having the pool at a different
place, different size, whatever it is. I'm not
saying these are realistic but there are always
alternatives. Regarding the lot coverage issue, I
agree with what you said and, I'm sure, you're as
familiar as I am with the discussion that lead to
the adoption of the 2001 amendment to the code.
MS. MOORE: 2007.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As it was originally
written as I understood, it was left open to
interpretation as to whether buildable area should
be, whether the lot coverage should be limited to
buildable area or not. And it had to do with
wetlands. Not necessarily very large wetlands. It
had to do with coverage and ecological
considerations regarding that. So now that may not
apply to this case. As I understand what's special
about this case, and this is happening to all the
Sound front properties, is the part of the land
from the edge of the bluff all the way down to the
water and that is different from the wetlands
consideration. So it does have a peculiar affect
on percentage of lot coverage. Now, having said
that, it is worth noticing that under the new
amendment to the code, the house itself without
the pool is nonconforming. It covers about 24% of
the buildable area. So, it's already nonconforming
given the 16,000 feet, if you do the arithmetic on
this, you'll see that even with no pool, it covers
more than 20% of the 16,055 feet that is left. Not
easy to do the arithmetic.
MS. MOORE: It's close. I don't know.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They don't tell you how
big the house is but you could figure out -- if
24% includes the pool, subtract the pool from that
and you get a number which is less than, which is
more than --
MS. MOORE: Yes, it became nonconforming.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's already
nonconforming. So what is being requested is
essentially an increase in the nonconformity.
Nonetheless, I think a case can be made, you've
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
12
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
done pretty well, at suggesting that this should
not necessarily keep them from having a pool and
provided certain other accommodations are made.
The fact that the law was just passed this year is
really not terribly important because it probably
should have been passed ten years ago for some of
its purposes. We could argue that. However, I
would take one minor exception to the point about
having a pool being a frequent common amenity for
waterfront property to have a pool as though it
were not an important amenity for places which are
not on the waterfront. One could, in fact, argue
that -- I wouldn't really lean too hard on that
point. If you're going to say if there's anybody
who needs a pool, it's not the people who are
already on waterfront property. Having said that,
I would wipe out that argument if I were rewriting
this for you. You can say a pool is a reasonable
amenity in the Town of Southold.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. I will amend my
comments to say a pool is a common amenity.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, I think I would, I
am concerned about trying to accommodate to the
closeness to the bluff and also noting the
willingness of the applicant to place the pool
slightly closer to the house. Whether this would
be done by size and shape of the pool, we will
certainly pay close attention to.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I think that the size and
shape has been reduced to a minimum standard but
yes, we do have a little flexibility as we've
already testified to.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you're all set?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How large is the pool?
MS. MOORE: 18 by 36.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anything else,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ruth?
22
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, thanks.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at this
23
time.
24
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just have a couple of
concerns. I think that we shouldn't exclude
waterfront lots from having normal accessory
structures. Just because they're on the water
doesn't mean they should be precluded from having
e
25
13
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
a pool. They are two different things. I live 500
feet away from the Sound and haven't been in the
Sound in 30 years. I look at it everyday. It's
really nice to look at but I don't go swimming in
it. I have a pool. And so I think when we're
doing our applications and we're listening to
people, we have to take into consideration that
these are residential lots and that a normal,
common residential use is a swimming pool. And I
think that's what you were getting at, Pat. Not
necessarily because it's a waterfront lot, it
needs a pool but rather it's just a lot and a
person resides in it and a pool would be a normal
and customary thing to have for a person on a
residential lot. I want to give you that. That's
my opinion at least that's what I'm thinking.
Number two, I'm a little concerned about lot
coverage and I understand that the law is new. I
didn't anticipate getting this type of application
with that law.
MS. MOORE: I think everybody was believing
it was going to be principal structures. I don't
believe accessory structures was really what that
law was trying to address.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: As I followed it, I
thought it was the same thing. That we were
getting larger houses based on 7 acres.
MS. MOORE: The New Suffolk is the example.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, we've ended up with
this. So I would appreciate any comments you could
forward to us on this.
MS. MOORE: I think this gives you a capsule
example of maybe very quickly a law that needs to
be tweaked and it comes apparent very quickly when
you start getting applications. And every law
that we pass, often times we try to address one
issue and don't anticipate other issues that might
come up. I would ask you to keep that in the
forefront. I didn't think that this Board wants to
entertain continuous applications for accessory
structures. The issue of setback to the bluff has
been the way to address placement of accessory
structures and that has always worked for this
Board. The lot coverage really does create an
extra variance that really -- it's a burden that
the applicant has to overcome.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And the Town Board
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
14
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
MS. MOORE: Absolutely. This Board has -- it
has nothing to do with this Board. For the record,
the Town Board passes them but Code Committee, I
think, is instrumental in addressing problems and
you as a Board are the first line of attack in the
sense that you will get the variances that are
created from the legislation. So really your
message back is the only way the Town Board ever
knows whether what they've adopted works or not.
The Town Board doesn't get any applications so
they really don't know the impact of what they
approve.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll have the discussion
on that. I'm thinking maybe increase the lot
coverage for waterfront lots from 20 to 30 or
something. I'd be concerned about granting an
almost 25% lot coverage.
MS. MOORE: Ordinarily that has been a
concern. I know the history when I've dealt with
applications for lot coverage on very small lots,
in particular, in like Greenport area where the
houses -- you're dealing with the lot coverage and
the sizes of principal structures particularly in
relation to the neighborhood. That has been
historically how the lot coverage issue has come
about and been treated and I know the Board's
unwritten numbers with respect to lot coverage. I
don't think you can use those numbers anymore
because of the change in the code.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you're right.
Anybody have any other questions? Anybody in the
audience have any questions concerning this
application? Mr. Fischetti, do you have anything
else to add?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good morning. My name is
Kevin McLaughlin. I'm an attorney here in Southold
and I'm here representing the neighbors directly
to the west of the property. I also got faxed to
me this morning from the neighbor to the east, a
letter that he has asked me to submit on his
behalf regarding the pool.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I just want to
mention for the record that that is signed by
Demis Karousos. Thank you.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I represent the Kutsubis'
(phonetic) who are here today. They own 1610 The
Strand. Again, it's directly to the west of the
subject property. We are opposed to the requested
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
15
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
variances for the swimming pool. As has already
been indicated, the buildable land area on this
lot is approximately 16,000 square feet and it is
already exceeded slightly the 20% lot coverage
allowance. I think if you had an application come
in through the Building Department today, for
exactly what they're proposing and they ended up
coming here for a variance as a result of being
excess lot coverage, there might be some thought
of reducing the size of -- there might be some
consideration to reducing the size of the dwelling
in order to reduce the amount, if any, of the
excess lot coverage. Unfortunately, we can't do
that today. There is a very substantial structure
on that property already and again it does already
exceed what the present lot coverage is. I
understand it's legal because it preexists but it
does already exceed the acceptable lot coverage.
When you buy waterfront property, particularly on
the Sound where there's a bluff, I think there's
an understanding of what you have. You have a
reduced building area and in exchange for that,
you get the benefits, obviously, of beautiful
views and waterfront property. But there are also
responsibilities that go with that. You do have a
reduced lot coverage amount because you do have a
reduced buildable area. And you also have the
concerns on the Sound of the bluff and the
stability and all of that. The application today
is for some pretty substantial relief. As it
presently exists, it's basically a 50% variance
from the 100 foot setback from the bluff and it's
basically a 23% variance from lot coverage. Lot
coverage being 20% and they're almost up to 25%
with this application. So these are not
insubstantial variances. They're quite
substantial and I think the Board has to look at
them very seriously. That's basically my legal
argument that the pool should not be allowed. I
think if -- you're going to get into this and I
understand that the law is relatively new but if
you allow this, then what's the next step? The
next person comes in and says I've already
exceeded the lot coverage and I want a pool and
that's going to result in 30% lot coverage or 35%
lot coverage. Where are you going to draw the
line? Perhaps the real remedy is for the law to
be rewritten so that maybe accessory structures
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
16
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
can exceed the 20% lot coverage. That's for
somebody else to decide. We feel that if these
variances are granted and this pool is allowed,
it's going to have a very detrimental impact upon
my clients and the neighbors to the east and we
would respectfully ask you to deny this
application. I think my client, Alex, would also
like to speak to you this morning.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on a second. Leslie?
We'll go through the Members first.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask you, sir, to
please elaborate a little bit more in what ways
you believe there would be detrimental or adverse
impact on the neighbors.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: These are very, very narrow
lots. They're 77 feet wide and there is going to
be a pool wherever it's located on that property
that will bring a lot of new and different
activity to that area that obviously will have an
impact particularly on the adjoining landowners.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you feel it's
primarily because there will be increased noise;
kids out there playing or whatever?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to
understand what your particular premise of adverse
impact was.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: In addition to whatever
environmental impacts the Board has to take into
consideration regarding the site of the pool.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie? Michael, you
have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm just curious. Also,
the people, I was just quick reading that letter,
have a concern about the water issue. Is it
public water up there?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: There is public water up
there. I don't believe -- again, I do not
represent the neighbor to the east.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I understand that.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: However, it's my
understanding from reading his letter that,
although there may be public water available, I
don't believe he is hooked up to public water.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Speak into the mic, sir.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
tit
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
tit
25
17
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He is really concerned,
then, with the backwash with the chemicals from
the pool?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's what I gleam from his
letter, yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other words,
and I was going to ask this question. This is not
a set-up question. If we were granting a storage
building, your clients would be less likely to be
concerned for this assuming it didn't block a view
or whatever the case might be. It's really maybe a
noise issue emanating from the pool?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I think they would certainly
have different issues with a storage building then
they would have with a pool, yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason I
said that Mr. McLaughlin is because this Board has
probably had every issue that concerns a pool
before it and we understand, I understand, where
you're coming from in reference to your
representation. However, I also see, I know what
Leland Cyprus do around the pool. I know what all
the things that stop noise do and I'm not saying
that I'm necessarily fixated on the size that the
applicant wants at this time because I know a
smaller pool would mean less lot coverage and so
on and so forth. So I mean if we need to address
those issues in reference to noise, those are an
issue that can be addressed also.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Obviously, my client's first
preference would be there be no pool there. If the
Board chooses to decide differently, then whatever
mitigation you could come up with that would
reduce the impact on the neighbors would obviously
be a benefit.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anything else
that impacts the neighbors that you would like to
introduce into the record?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I think my client might be
better able to speak on that issue.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you a couple of
questions first then we'll hear. Would it be fair
to say that a reasonable person reading the code
as it exists today would assume that a pool
wouldn't be allowed on that piece of property?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Would not be?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would not be allowed.
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
18
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, I think -- we're
talking about nothing on the property now or
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, we're talking about
that house as it exists with 22, 23% lot coverage.
I guess it's probably at least 22 now without a
pool.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, I think it's fair to
say it would require a variance in order to get
that and the question becomes whether or not it
should be granted. I think that, again, if an
applicant was coming in today and that was a raw
piece of property and they came in with a size
house that presently exists there and accessory
swimming pool or whatever, tennis court, there
would be some ability to work with the size of the
house to shrink it down so as to, at least lessen
if not totally do away with the need for a
variance and unfortunately we don't have that
situation here. We've got an existing, very
substantial building and now they're asking, on
top of that which already exceeds the now lot
coverage percentage, let us add more.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else have
any questions? Okay. So we'd like to hear from
your client.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name and
address, sir, to the mic.
MR. KUTSUBIS: Good morning, Board. My name
is Alex Kutsubis. I'm adjoining neighbor, 1610 The
Strand. I build this house about 7-8 years ago. It
was nice, beautiful area. I choose to live me and
my family over there. Since this gentleman he
came over there, he put a four-story building over
there. Very crowded. In the weekends, you have
about 10 cars over there. I don't know if he's
party person or maybe he's doing for business.
That the future will show but I keep on eye on it.
Excuse me, I'm being sick and that's kind of why
I'm -- last 7 months I'm dealing with the cancer.
Thank God, I'm recovered now that's why I'm a
little bit of shake. But I express my feeling.
I'm a family man and I like nice peace and quiet
and I'm sure in the future, if you go by and see
10-15 cars outside over there, you will understand
me a little bit better if you decide to give him
the right to put up the swimming pool. Which I'm
against it. Not me but ten other people in the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
19
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
area. They claim about the building how tall it
is. Doesn't belong in the area and who needs a
pool, ten kids screaming and yelling in your
backyard? When you chose this place to come and
rest and enjoy the beauty of the water and the
green. It's sad to put myself in this position
against somebody else but I'm protecting my
property. I have no hate of anybody. I don't
like to step anybody feet but sometimes the life,
it leads you to the situation that you have to
protect your family and your peace and quiet.
Other than that, if you want me to bring ten
neighbors, ten letters of neighbors over here
nobody likes the swimming pool because we have
another neighbor five houses far away from us in
the weekend they're screaming, yelling. Kids are
kids. I mean, God bless them but why should I take
somebody else's noise? And he has 3 kids. Very
wild. Very life. Healthy kids. Play soccer and
come in my backyard. They throw the ball in my
backyard. Enough is enough. I'm over here to
tell him respect yourself so we can respect you.
But unfortunately this person, he has been rumors.
They talking, with my money I can buy anything. I
can do anything I want. That's his attitude,
that's his mentality. That's all. Thank you.
Thank you for minute to hear me.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Does anybody have
any questions?
MS. MOORE: Well, we would need to put
something on.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, Kevin, do you need
to add something?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Not at this point.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Mr. Fischetti?
MR. FISCHETTI: From that letter that was
sent, I'd just like to put on the record that pool
backwash, according to Suffolk County Health
Department codes does not affect wells. There is
no regulations as to pool backwash as to distance
separation or even any mention of those as to the
affect of the wells.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That is acceptable because
it's just chlorinated water?
MR. FISCHETTI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else?
MS. MOORE: I want to -- it's my
understanding that the well, it's showing on our
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
20
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
property was actually a replacement well. The
owner put it there. It's encroachment. They have
not been asked to remove it or anything just so
you know it's there. It is not legally permitted
to be there but it has not become an issue. It is
an irrigation well. It's connected to their
irrigation system. So with respect to the letter
that was submitted. With respect to Kevin's
comments on lot coverage. I think you all know the
legislative history with respect to lot coverage.
Again, I would emphasize lot coverage is dealing
with structures and the volume of structures. An
accessory structure, tennis courts are a huge lot
coverage. I've come before this Board with tennis
court applications on the normal, a very normal
size property. It's ground level. Yes, it is a
lot coverage issue only because this Town
identifies a pool and a tennis court as a
structure for lot coverage calculations. Many
towns do not. So that's another point I would
like to make. I believe we've addressed the
technical issues. With respect to noise, all I
can tell you is that they're waiting to complete
this pool in order to complete the ground, the
landscaping. So as soon as the yard is graded,
I'm sure the children will be staying on their own
property and out of the street and so on. I'm
sure you will carefully watch the children so that
they don't meander beyond the property line.
Noise, I'm sure this Board has heard many of times
issues with noise. We all have -- any of us who
have children knows that they eventually grow out
of it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on a second. Ruth
would like to ask you a question.
MS. MOORE: Okay. For the record, he has two
children. They may make the noise of three but he
has only two.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Could you make the pool
a little bit smaller, say 16 by 32?
MS. MOORE: Okay. If you needed him to move
it, he'd rather flip it on a horizontal than make
it smaller. That's relatively small -- normal but
on the smaller size pool. He's already reduced the
size of the pool once in order to deal with
environmental issues. Again the lot coverage, I
would ask you to pull the neighbors building
permit. The house that he has is almost comparable
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
21
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
in area as are all the houses along The Strand.
They are of similar size and the lot coverage is
preexisting, nonconforming but only because of the
adoption of the 2007 ordinance. It is -- it's not
a 6,000 footprint. It is a 3,600 square footprint.
So I will hope that you keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you all set?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else? The only
thing I think we're going to need is a revised
topo map.
MS. MOORE: I spoke to John Metzger. I was
trying to get a topo from him. You have a topo.
The original application had the topo of the
bluff. That was already there. The problem is
that this construction topo right now so it's --
an inspection of the property would show you it's
2 feet differential all sloping down to the
street. It's not going to be the topo, the final
grade. I will provide that to you but it's an
under construction topo.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How's the Board feel about
that? Anybody?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Fischetti, how high
do you think it is, the bluff in that area,
MS. MOORE: Oh, the bluff height? That is
accurate. That hasn't changed because there's been
no disturbance in the area of the bluff. Let me
look here. The area that was inaccurate was from
the top of the bank down to the street. That's
where the topo that was provided really didn't
reflect the existing conditions right now when you
inspect.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I see it on the old one.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. If you need
a topo, we'd be happy to provide it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My thinking is this, that
if we ask you to turn that pool around and you're
going to have 36 feet going across that property
which slopes from west to east down, then you're
going to have to do some regrading. I think we're
going to need to know how far that pool sticks out
or how deep into
MS. MOORE: Obviously, we'd need retaining
walls at that point.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is it 4 feet, is it 10
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
feet?
MS. MOORE: I'll get it for you.
That's
22
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
fine. I'll leave it for you to decide how to use
it if you need it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's the thinking of the
Board that if you turn it around, you're going to
gain 20 feet that way just by turning it around,
getting it away from the bluff. If you gain 20
feet and move it back 15, we're talking pretty
good.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're not going to
make 100 feet.
MS. MOORE: No.
(Members talking at the same time.)
MS. MOORE: That will be significant
increase. I mean, we will sacrifice the view, the
line of sight if we have to.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll also need where
you're going to put the equipment too. In other
words, the pump and stuff. We'll need to know on
that map, we'll need to have that on there too.
I'm sure that will be part of the discussion.
MS. MOORE: I can provide that. At this
point, we would be at a point where we could
design something.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And dry well for
backwash.
MS. MOORE: The drywell's already there.
They're existing. They're going to connect.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just show where it is.
MS. MOORE: Do we know where they are?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You'll know because it's
going to the side of the house.
MS. MOORE: I'm wondering how John Metzger
will figure that. But he'll see the down spouts
that go in.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Linda, am I okay?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Jerry had talked
about screening.
MS. MOORE: Screening, yes. We have no
objection. We're planning, my client has a plan to
do landscaping there so there's no objection if
you want us to on the side of this gentleman,
there is a row a cedar trees. Are they still
there? It shows on the survey a row of cedar
trees. We will screen.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: There are cedar trees but
it's partial.
MS. MOORE: We will add but if we put
additional next to the others, I'm just asking.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
23
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you have a
landscape plan already developed?
MS. MOORE: No, not really. It was based on a
different house plan.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you make some
suggestions on the survey about screening?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Clearly, it would be a
great advantage to everyone if you can provide
vegetated buffering that provides not only privacy
but sound absorption.
MS. MOORE: We already had that in mind, yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I assumed you likely
would but if we have the proposal, it would be
hlepful.
MS. MOORE: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: If I could make one last
statement? If this Board was inclined to allow a
pool, obviously, from my client's point of view,
they would prefer it at it's present site as
opposed to getting it closer to their property
line by turning it. And I think some of the issues
as to the distance from the top of the bluff have
already been addressed by the fact that it can be
moved back apparently 15 feet without turning it.
That would be our preference if you were so
inclined to grant this application.
MS. MOORE: And the applicant's preference as
well. But again, it's, the Board can decide.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There's nothing you feel
you can do to reduce the lot coverage?
MS. MOORE: What we can do to reduce the lot
coverage?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. There's nothing you
feel like you can go --
MS. MOORE: You're asking -- obviously, we'd
rather if you come up with a consensus that we've
got to have a smaller pool, what can we do? The
reality is that the size of the pool is a minimal
size. Once you start getting into a very small,
it's like a little pond. It's a jacuzzi. So what
we're asking for, again, is not an unreasonable
request given that lot coverage has been -- 16,000
square feet of this property has been eliminated
with stroke of the pen not based on anything other
than -- I think that the way that the code was
written did not address accessory structures.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, I'd like to get
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
24
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
going on this but I have to say that the Town in
its infinite wisdom did have public hearings, did
consider this and they have now basically said
that this is what they would like to have the Town
people follow which is eliminate that unbuildable
part and base the house and everything else on
that lot on the buildable part of the land. I
think that we have to respect that regardless of
the time when it was passed. And I realize how
restrictive it is but I'm sure that the Town's
people on board felt that way too. They wouldn't
have passed the law.
MS. MOORE: With all due respect, I sat
through Code Committee. They did not discuss
accessory structures certainly to no level of
degree. And I know when they look at the law they
don't take lots as examples. They just look at it
on a general based on their zoning, on a one acre
lot on circumstances and situations. They don't
take an existing subdivision like Pebble Beach and
pull one lot out as an example and say how will it
apply here? I have rarely seen them do that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That law does include
Pebble Beach.
MS. MOORE: Of course but this is already a
clustered lot.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A jurisdictional
question. Regardless of what was actually said in
the Code Committee or said in the public hearings,
that was an opportunity to address what to many
would seem to be an obvious change in the law;
namely having to do with accessory structure. That
has been bedded or not bedded, that has been part
of a public forum. The Town Board decided not to
distinguish between principal structures and
accessory structures. So that was their right,
that was through jurisdiction. We had the due
process for that. I don't think it will be
appropriate for this Board to try to introduce
such a distinction just on the basis of our small
committee vote where it was more or less
specifically rejected, or at least implicitly
rejected, in the previous thing. This is not the
kind of thing that the Zoning Board should be
MS. MOORE: I understand that but when
you're talking about making a change to the size
of the pool, 100 square feet on a 16,000 is not
even 1%. So you're dealing with -- a pool in
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
25
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
particular is such -- the reduction of it is so
miniscule in relation
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If you can reduce
the size of the pool, it could be related to the
setback to the bluff. It might not all be lot
coverage. I just wanted to mention that.
MS. MOORE: We've already addressed
alternatives for setbacks from the bluff.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The question was
can you reduce the size of the pool and it wasn't
the reason for lot coverage. It was for any reason
at all. So you're answer is?
MS. MOORE: My answer is that please keep in
mind that the lot coverage, reducing the size of
the pool impacts, as far as zoning standards go,
adversely impacts the applicant much more so than
the benefit that it aims to address. So when
you're looking at the standards for this variance,
I would ask you to look carefully at the standards
because they have already come to this Board and
reduced and tried to mitigate to the extent
practical and addressed the issues and the impacts
that are obvious as to this property. So I would
hope that your good judgment prevails.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Does anybody
have anything to add? Sir? Just state your name
again for the record.
MR. KUTSUBIS: Again, I would like to
express myself. That I'm against totally not to
give any rights to this person to put a swimming
pool either this side or that side. Swimming pool
is swimming pool. Trouble is there. Parties going
to be there or business will be run. You will
realize next year when you're going to stop by on
the weekend. You will see ten cars outside of
this house which is four stories high and 20
people make a party. With all due respect I have
to the Board, if you will pass by a year from
today from there then you will understand how I
feel and because already I have a taste in my
mouth how they're going to run these people. As
far as people that drink the water, yes, there is
a well over there. They drink water because the
city water comes in last 4 or 5 years, 6 years, I
will say. Before that, all these houses that have
been built, they have a well water and they drink
from that water. So all these came because he's
going to let it go to the ground. It'll come back
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
26
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
to the people. Please take that into
consideration. Thank you. I respect you to hear
from me. Have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir. Okay.
Anybody else in the audience have any comments?
I'd like to entertain a motion on this.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What are we going to do?
I'll close this hearing until --
MS. MOORE: Subject to -- I'll just reiterate
what you've asked for. Equipment location,
topography, topo map, the connection to the dry
well shown and screening.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, screening.
MS. MOORE: Anything else?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you please
indicate the distance between the propane tank --
MS. MOORE: Equipment location, pool
equipment location goes first. I'm sorry. The last
item?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Callout the distance
between the proposed siting of the pool and the
propane tank.
MS. MOORE: You want me to try to locate edge
of propane tank?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're going to have to do
that. It's a standard size probably.
MS. MOORE: It's either one size or another.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not going to know which
way it's placed in the ground.
MS. MOORE: We pretty much know that. It's
going towards the left.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. We got that all
straight. Now, we have a motion made by Leslie.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Seconded by Ruth.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
****************************************
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Hearing #6041 - Reeve
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Reeve. Looks like we're going to have a resolution
to grant the applicant's request for an
adjournment to September 13, 2007 at 9:30.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll grant that.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
23
24
e
25
27
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
*****************************************
3
Hearing #6053 - Dickerson/Peters.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Dorothy Dickerson/Peters. That's Michael's.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
"Request for a Variance under Section
280-124, based on the Building Inspector's April
23, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a
proposed single-family dwelling at less than 40
feet from the front lot line, at 2280 Deep Hole
Drive, Mattituck; CTM 123-4-6" This is going to be
new construction involving a 35 front yard set
back where 40 is required. Mr. Olsen?
MR. OLSEN: Good morning. My name is Gary
Olsen. I'm the attorney for the applicant, Dorothy
Dickerson Peters, having my offices at Main Road
in Cutchogue. This application is for a variance
under Section 280-124 concerning the construction
of a proposed single family dwelling at less than
40 feet from the front line at 2280 Deep Hole
Drive, Mattituck having the Suffolk County Tax Map
number 1000-123-4-6. This is parcel of real
property that fronts on Deep Hole Creek. The
applicant has approval from the Southold Town
Trustees, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and an exemption
letter from the local water front revitalization
program coordinator to locate a proposed house as
shown on a survey last dated April 20, 2006
prepared by Stanley J. Isaacson, surveyor. Copies
of all the approvals and the survey have been
submitted as part of this application. The
proposed development is situated in an existing
developed water front hamlet community and will be
consistent with the character thereof. This
property has been owned by the family of Dorothy
Dickerson Peters since the 1930's. As shown on the
survey, the applicant seeks to set back her house
35.7 feet on the northeast corner from Deep Hole
Drive and 36.4 feet from the northwest corner Deep
Hole Drive. The required set back distance under
the current zoning code is 40 feet. The square
footage in violation of the zoning code is only
approximately 200 feet. The reason the house
cannot be set back the required 40 feet from the
road is the result of accommodating the set back
requirements from the wetlands of the Town of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
28
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
Southold Trustees, the New York State Department
of Environment Conservation and the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services. This results in a
small building envelope. The only way the
applicant could comply with a 40 foot set back
would be to reduce the width of the house from 21
feet to 16.68 feet which is not a realistic or
viable width for a house in this day and age. The
applicant has no other recourse but to seek a
variance to locate the house 35.7 feet from Deep
Hole Drive rather than the required 40 feet. It
is respectfully submitted that the requested
variance is minor since the proposed house
location is only 4.3 feet at most closer to Deep
Hole Drive than the required 40 feet. The total
area of the parcel is 20,560 square feet. If the
parcel was 560 square feet west, i.e. 20,000
square feet, the required set back under the
zoning code would be 35 feet and this variance
application would not be necessary. Under the
Southold Town zoning code, the Zoning Board has
the power to grant a variance where there are
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
and the way of carrying out the strict letter of
the zoning code so that the spirit of the code
shall be observed, public safety and welfare
secured and substantial justice done. It is
respectfully submitted that the granting of this
variance will not result in an undesirable change
in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties. This is an
established neighborhood with improved parcels and
the proposed house will be in keeping with the
character of other houses in the community. The
benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved in
any other method other than seeking a front yard
set back variance because the building envelope is
restricted caused by set back requirements from
Deep Hole Creek and wetlands. The relief
requested is not substantial because the square
footage of the area in violation is only
approximately 200 square feet and as stated
before, if the total lot area was 500 square feet
less, the set back, the permitted set back would
be 35 feet and this application would not be
necessary. The applicant is 90% in compliance
with the code set back requirements. The variance
will not have an adverse affect or impact on the
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
29
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood because the other appropriate
governmental agencies such as the Trustees, the
DEC and the Health Department have approved this
project. As stated before, this variance is not
self-created because of the constraints imposed on
this water front parcel. The applicant has made
every effort to comply as close as possible to the
permitted set back and only needs a minor variance
from the code. It is respectfully submitted that
the requested variance is the minimum that is
necessary and adequate but at the same time
preserves and protects the character of the
neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of
the community. I respectfully request that the
Board grant favorable approval to this application
since it's the last hurdle that the applicant must
cross before construction can begin. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question. When you
talk about the width of the structure, 21 feet,
are you referring to the depth?
MR. OLSEN: The depth, from the road to the
water.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a pretty
comprehensive statement and argument. I
we might have a copy of your statement.
writing this myself. I think some of it
helpful because there are some facts in
are noted --
MR. OLSEN: I'd be happy to provide a copy. I
may have to clean it up a little bit.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not going to be
published.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you answered
when you did the area variance reasons too.
pretty much follows that. Michael, anything
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I noticed you really
have a 3 story house with a 10ft or is that --
MR. OLSEN: It's a 2 story house.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just attic space above
wonder if
I'm
might
their
be
that
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
that
It
else?
20
21
22
23
it?
24
MR. OLSEN: I didn't really look at the
plans that carefully because that really wasn't
the issue that was addressed here. But obviously,
whatever they build has to meet the code.
e
25
30
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The peak at 45 feet.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth, anything
3
else?
9
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really have no
comment. The only thing that I did want to say
that I suspect that all of the issues referred to
roof drainage have been addressed in all of the
approvals that you have garnered.
MR. OLSEN: All the requirements of the other
governmental agencies would have to be met when
the house is constructed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OLSEN: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think this is a very
compelling argument for a most reasonable request
for a very minor variance in order to comply with
a very important set back regulation from the
water. I have no questions.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We're not hearing
too well.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have to speak into the
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
mic.
24
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I never even knew they
were on. I was only saying that I don't have any
issue at all with what I think is very compelling
case for a reasonable minor variance to mitigate
any adverse impact on the water front and so I
think that it's perfectly reasonable and I think
it will be a very nice house. I have no questions.
MR. OLSEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't have any questions
either. Can I ask if anybody in the audience has
anything for or against this application? Mr.
Olsen, are you complete with your presentation?
MR. OLSEN: I am.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: With that said, I'll
entertain a motion to close this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
*****************************************
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
e
25
Hearing #6056 - Dey
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is Doug Dey.
That's Jerry's application and he'll have to read
31
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
the notice.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
"Request for Variances under Section
280-121, based on the Building Inspector's amended
May 22, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a
proposed additions and alterations to the existing
nonconforming building (garage with apartment
above, as an accessory to the main building) for
the reasons that the proposed construction is not
permitted to be enlarged, altered, extended,
reconstructed or restored or placed on a different
portion of a lot.. .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 building was erected in
1965 under a permit to alter and add to an
existing garage with apartment above; the current
plans indicate reconstruction of windows and
doors, with decorative dormer addition at 9 feet,
and upper deck and storage structure at 15 feet,
from side property line. Also, the interior
living area will increase with conversion of
garage to recreation space in addition to the
apartment above garage (also see Building Permit
#2867-z and c.o. #Z-242l dated May 31, 1966 for a
private one family dwelling and garage building)
Location of Property: 1000 Paradise Point Road,
Southold; CTM 81-3-24.2."
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. DOTY: Deborah Doty, for the applicant.
Let me start to clean up a couple of things and
then I can go into the presentation. The permit
for the house which is under construction expired.
I have a new permit which I will hand you. It was
issued yesterday. I also received yesterday from
the Building Department a pre-CO for the garage
with the apartment above. Does that take care of
those two? Therefore, I need to ask the Board's
indulgence to amend the application slightly. We
should also check on the application the box
before reversal and the reason I'm bringing that
up is that the Notice of Disapproval is actually
now incorrect in that it states that the structure
was erected in 1965 under a permit. It preexisted
1957, therefore the structure itself was not
erected in 1965. Rather, in 1965 there was an
alteration and an addition to the structure. So
the sentence "this structure was erected in 1965
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
32
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
under a permit" should be deleted. The next
sentence should read "the 1965 permit was to alter
and add to an existing garage with apartment
above."
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you use the
word apartment, this is my file, it's rather
ironic -- I went back last night trespassed
probably and left the file in the car. That's the
reason that I just asked for the main file. I saw
no kitchen in the facility. Are we referring to
the apartment as an apartment with kitchen
facilities?
MS. DOTY: There is a kitchen. It's on the
northwest corner.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I must have missed
it. It has a heating system. I saw duct work
downstairs.
MS. DOTY: It's heated.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a heated
structure, right?
MS. DOTY: The pre-CO says oil hot water.
There's a kitchen. There's no refrigerator, no
dishwasher because the tenant who just moved out
about a couple months ago took them with him.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I make a statement
here first. I'm a little concerned about what
you're saying about the Notice of Disapproval not
being proper and us having to rely on your
research for something that the Building Inspector
probably should have taken care of.
MS. DOTY: You have the pre-CO right now. It
was issued yesterday. I just got the
documentation necessary to apply for it recently.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You applied for it
after you filed with us?
MS. DOTY: Yes. I think last week or the week
before. I had to get an affidavit.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You had to get an
affidavit about the building permit?
MS. DOTY: Yes, uh-hum. So I apologize. I
would have gone back and amended it but it was
really --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm just concerned about
amending the Notice of Disapproval on the fly, so
to speak. I'm wondering if we shouldn't have the
Building Inspector review your information.
MS. DOTY: First of all, the Building
Inspector reviewed it yesterday. Not yesterday,
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
33
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're relying on what you
say and we're supposed to rely on the Notice of
Disapproval basically. We can't amend that in our
hearings. We either need to have the Building
Inspector amend it according, based on the
information that you present to them or we, I
don't think, we are legally --
MS. DOTY: There are two problems with that.
Pat Conklin, who prepared the Notice of
Disapproval, I understand is out sick. So she
can't do it. I did talk with Mike Verity
yesterday.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're stating what you
said. But honestly, we can't rely on that. We
have to rely on a Notice of Disapproval. That's
what we rely on when we have a hearing and I'm not
so sure that -- perhaps maybe we should adjourn
this hearing until this afternoon so you can go
there --
MS. DOTY: Mr. Verity was supposed to be
here this morning.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can't help you there. If
you want, I can subpoena him for the next meeting.
But it's not our purview to make sure the Building
Inspector is here to correct any mistake you feel
may have been made. I haven't reviewed it and I
think that if we're holding a hearing, we should
hold a hearing based on correct information. If
you're saying it's incorrect, our responsibility
is to rely on the Notice of Disapproval. If you're
saying the Notice of Disapproval is incorrect, we
need to have that amended. That means you should
go over to the Building Inspector and have him
amend the Notice of Disapproval. Now, I think the
Board is perfectly willing to fit you in this
afternoon or even before lunch, if that's the
case, if you can go over there and present your
information to him and let him base his Notice of
Disapproval on the information that you currently
have. That would be my -- I don't know how the
Board feels about that. But maybe your
presentation is better spent based on the Notice
of Disapproval that's correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How would it be if we
heard testimony subject to an amended Notice of
Disapproval and we could proceed
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Here's my problem with
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
34
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
that. The Building Inspector may be looking at
the information and interpret it differently from
the applicant.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's not a problem.
We're not making any decisions, we're only having
a hearing.
MS. DOTY: If Mr. Verity were here, would
that make a difference?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yeah.
MS. DOTY: I just asked Mr. Burger to see if
Mike can come over.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How about if we adjourn
the hearing until he comes back and we'll go on to
the next hearing and we'll put you in the next
when the next hearing.
MS. DOTY: Do you have any idea? I mean,
this morning, if I can find him?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You'll be pending, that's
all. Is that okay?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Can I just ask
one question. At this point, the way our file is,
if you're saying that this Disapproval is
incorrect, it kinds of causes a floor on our whole
appeal that's before the Board. Could you give us
a little paragraph as to how you feel it should
have been written or how does it affect the legal
notice.
MS. DOTY: I just did.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Write it on a
piece of paper.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: She just testified to
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
that.
18
MS. DOTY: You have existing evidence issued
by the Building Department in the Town of Southold
reflecting that the structure was built prior to
1965, in fact, prior to 1967. I'm just asking you
to take what we would call in court judicial
notice of a fact that just arose. That's all I'm
asking.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One person at a time.
Linda?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The only reason I
ask that is because you're still before the Board
for a variance because it's a nonconforming use
built before 1957. The jurisdiction of the Board
does not change just a matter of the year. I just
want to be sure about it.
MS. DOTY: I'm trying to clear up -- do a
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
35
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
little housekeeping which I apologize, but if you
look at that pre-CO, it was faxed to me at 14:58
yesterday afternoon, which I think actually was
two minutes to four.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And you weren't
able to get that before you filed with us, right?
MS. DOTY: Yeah. I had to track down
somebody to get what I needed. So, I apologize for
the delay and the reason you got the building
permit was because they were holding the pre-CO
hostage.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Here's the thing. We
can close the hearing and say it's going to be
contingent on reception of the Notice of
Disapproval that says what you say it says before
we can make a decision. If for some reason it
doesn't say in sum and substance what you said,
then we will not be able to make a decision and
then you have to open up the rehearing and do the
whole thing over again. So it would be easier if
we had all this today.
MS. DOTY: I understand that and I will
exceed to the Chairman's request that we adjourn
the hearing until I track down Mr. Verity.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You said yes, you would
agree to that?
MS. DOTY: I'm exceeding to it. I'm not
saying yes. I'm exceeding to it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still need you to
reduce that statement where you said that there
are inconsistencies because it's my file and I
need to address those issues within that
situation.
MS. DOTY: Do you need it today in writing?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No that can be between the
time we have our hearing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I'd like it by
early next week.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, here's a gentleman.
Come before the mic, sir, and state your name and
address.
MR. MILLER: My name is James Miller. I'm one
of the adjacent neighbors and I object to you
adjourning this meeting so that testimony may be
taken now. It would be extremely inconvenient for
me to come back later this afternoon. I would
like the hearing to continue and at least take
testimony from the adjoining neighbors.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
36
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I think that's not a
problem, sir. Anyone else?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, would you like to
make your statement now?
MR. MILLER: My name is James Miller. I own
the property at 1610 Paradise Point Road and I own
the property across the street from the existing
dwelling. Mr. Dey is a very valuable member of the
community. He's building a beautiful home, an
asset to the community and I urge you to go
forward and give him the permits necessary to
complete the dwelling as designed. I think he's a
a very, very upstanding member and his approval
should be granted. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Miller. Okay. Deborah, the Building Inspector is
here. Do you want to make your presentation or do
you want to have him?
MS. DOTY: I did not hear what Mr. Miller
said but all I heard was approval should be
granted.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He said he'd love to see
it there.
MS. DOTY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Verity to
bring you up to speed, as they say, as to what was
happening, I suggested to the Board that the
Notice of Disapproval be amended to delete the
sentence that said this structure was constructed
in 1965 under a permit.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we know what
we're talking about. We're referring to the
amended May 22, 2007 Disapproval.
MS. DOTY: The one that accompanies my
application.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
keep this
MS. DOTY: And the reason I was requesting
that that be deleted was because we just received
the pre-CO which reflects that the structure was
built prior to 1957. The sentence does not belong
there. The next sentence should read the 1965
permit etc.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Would you like to
see the file, we have the Disapproval in it if you
want to take a look at it.
MS. DOTY: I just handed him the Disapproval.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: I need to see all
the paperwork if I could.
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
37
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want to continue
while he's doing that?
MS. DOTY: Sure. I'm sure he can multitask.
He might want to listen to this also. My
understanding from my conversation with Mr. Verity
yesterday that we're really only looking at 3
issues on this application. The doors and windows
that are "being reconstructed" are, in fact, being
replaced and changed out for new doors and
windows. The 3 matters that are before the Board
are the decorative dormer on the north side of the
structure which has no practical use. A small
portion of this semicircular exterior staircase on
the eastern side of the building away from the
street and the conversion of what has been a 3 bay
garage to recreation space. That's the only
interior work that causes the problem with respect
to the garage and the apartment. According to
Mr. Verity, the other interior and exterior work
does not require a variance. The apartment is not
being enlarged or expanded and there's no change
in that use. It's a pre-existing, nonconforming
use. The dormer is purely decorative. It has no
practical function. It's small but unfortunately
it encroaches on a preexisting small side yard.
That side yard would not be decreased as a result
of the dormer and I'm not going to focus a lot on
the dormer if that's all right with the Board
unless you wish me to talk about it. The exterior
staircase which is semicircular and mimics and
mirrors the house, that encroaches, according to
my calculations, less than 210 square feet into
the side yard and that is taking a rectangle, not
a semicircle, but a rectangle on the size of it.
We, however, are not diminishing the 8 foot side
yard that currently exists as a result of that
addition. I think probably one of the biggest
reasons to have that addition is that it provides
a second emergency access to the apartment in the
event it's needed. The 3 bay garage, as I said,
we don't need it. We have a 3 bay garage in the
house and it's unnecessary now. For safety
reasons among others, we're abandoning the garage
use down below. However, what are you going to
do with it because it's space, it exists, we can't
just cut it out. We're removing a potential
hazard. Nobody wants a garage under living space.
And while it might be categorized as living space,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
38
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
it's not habitable space. There's no increase or
change in the use. According to Mr. Verity, the
only reason this is part of this application is
there's a door that links the hallway with that
recreation, interior door. I'm asking the Board to
grant this variance because there are a whole
bunch of different reasons but there are safety
and health issues that this variance application
addresses. You're going to have immediate access
to the apartment from the street on the western
side of the property. You'll have a second exit
and entrance on those stairs on the eastern side
of the property. We're getting rid of the
potential safety hazard of the garage under the
apartment. We're going to put in proper egress
(phonetic) windows in the apartment, obviously and
we'll have code compliant and energy efficient
windows, doors, etc in the building. All of the
additions when you come right down to it are
nonhabitable. They're just additions to a
preexisting dwelling.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You say that but
let's discuss the affect of heating the lower half
which was not heated before. That's a significant
change. This is not a sarcastic statement, Ms.
Doty. That may have been construed in your mind
not to be a significant change. But the question I
was going to ask you in the middle of this
presentation was, is the reck room going to be
heated?
MS. DOTY: It's already heated.
(Unidentified audience member speaking.)
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We need your name
please, and to use the mic.
MS. BERGER: Eugene Berger. I just want to
point out that that space is heated now. There's a
modaine (phonetic) heater in that space.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that what I'm
looking at when I look at the door, the furthest
door to the right through the duct work, Gene?
MR. BERGER: Well, you know, I have
construction stuff, shingles and stuff stored in
there for the main house. You may not have seen
that heater but it is definitely in there.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MS. DOTY: Does that answer your question?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Uh-hum.
MS. DOTY: Therefore, I'm asking you to grant
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
39
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
the variance. I'm doing going to go through all
the criteria on an area variance. It's already in
my application. If you wish me to, I will. The
Board is already running late this morning and I'm
sure we'll keep on talking so I will stop.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael. Do you need a
little more time or are you all set?
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: I'm good, Jim.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you come up. We just
want to discuss the Notice of Disapproval and
whether we can get just get an amended one.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Mike Verity,
Chief Building Inspector, Town of Southold. It
could be cleaned up a little bit, Jim. The one
statement -- sentence that was highlighted. It
could be cleaned up.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Based on the information
that Ms. Doty presented today, it would be
different from what you were writing the Notice of
Disapproval for when you did.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: No. I mean you
have how many people up there? Everybody is going
to write a paragraph a little differently but it's
going to mean the same thing. It's either one plus
two equals three or two plus one equals three.
That's what Pat intended to come out a little
differently than that. I would not have worded it
that way. It needs to be changed, long story
short.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Heres my concern and this
is the reason why I asked and what not, it's
because often times people will come in and say
you said something and quite honestly, I can't
take that as your testimony. I know we hunted you
down this morning and I appreciate the fact that
you came in and people have to know that if
they're going to make statements that are
attributed to you, that I feel it's fair to you to
hear what you have to say.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: I appreciate
that, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think your need to
set your time aside. But I know Eugene is
extremely pit bullish when it comes to getting
things done. I knew it would get done as soon as I
saw him go out that door.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: I was at a
Department Head meeting. I mentioned yesterday
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
40
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
that I would try and get here if I could.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know that you did. I
appreciate that. So we can have that in a couple
of days, we'll put that in our file.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: We can do that
immediately. It's just a couple of words that
need to be changed. It was a preexisting building
and it was altered under a 1965 permit. That's
the way it should be.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's my concern that we
publish something they may have not been the full
information. People read it in the publication
and think, oh, well it was built in '65 when it
really wasn't. I'm just concerned about that part
of it.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: This is actually
to their benefit to have it done prior to. It
would be a harder decision to make if it was built
in '65. But it was definitely pre-'57 and the
alterations were made under a permit in 1965 and
that's the way the sentence should read if that
does help.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. And it was
certainly my impression when I read it and it was
going to be a question from me.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: If you look at
the supporting documentation that's in your file,
you can see that that's incorrect and it should be
worded differently.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thanks Mike.
MS. DOTY: While Mr. Verity is here, I said
that he said a couple of things yesterday and I
just want to make sure that he said them so the
Board is happy.
One was that the reconstruction of the
windows and doors, they're really replacements and
they're not being reconstructed and they do not
require a variance, correct?
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: That's correct.
Our biggest concern would be, if any, would be the
area below as Jerry pointed out. The use of that
area. Everything else, in our eyes, is basically
minute. Just an increase in area.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question would
be then -- I'm not running a hard nose situation
-- I have to write this, it has to be reduced to
somewhat of a passage to be voted on. How do you
segregate the two of them? Gene says there's a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
41
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
modi em (phonetic) heater in there. The question
is, is that heater going to stay or is there going
to be a more sophisticated heater placed in there.
Noone doubts that this applicant, after seeing
what is constructed there and seeing the builder
that's constructing it, that it's a magnificent
place. There's no question about it. It's a
magnificent place in a magnificent location but we
don't know what's going to happen in the future.
He may decide to sell it and so on and so forth.
So that's the reason I'm a pinned on that issue.
How far can we go in reference to the construction
of a rec room and based upon a decision of
converting a three car garage into a rec room. It
was moderately heated, I assume, at one time. So
what's your suggestion?
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: We have to keep
in mind too just by removing as she did repeat a
statement that I did make. If you remove the door
and stop the flow between the second floor and
first floor, and technically that could be
accessory to a pool and it could be in a pool
house, which is a permitted use, she wouldn't even
have to be here at all. It's just a matter of a
door equivalent of a few hundred dollar item. You
would not have the internal access anymore. If you
have the flow by design, you're increasing the
nonconformity upstairs. You remove the door to be
an accessory to a pool which is a permitted use.
Again, they wouldn't have to be here. The dormers
are for aesthetic purposes only. They're not
something that you can go up and stand in. And
the only thing then would be the staircase and
that could be removed to a point and pushed out of
the way to possibly avoid any variance issues as
well. There's other sections of the code that do
allow encroachments on yard requirements for
access to a building. So that could be open to
interpretation as well. What they're seeking, I
feel, is basically the increase in the downstairs
area which could easily be changed by removing a
door.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're just really
considering the flow. Allowing that staircase
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: By design, that's
correct, by design. If you're going to allow that
to remain or make an outside. But I mean the life
safety issues that are going to be corrected there
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
42
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
are, I think in my mind, paramount.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: With cars being parked
under --
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Exactly. The
potential of having four cars in that area is a
hazard. Not only because of fire but carbon
monoxide and other issues.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, do you have?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I was going to ask or
point out that there is a proposed pool location
right there and when you say recreation space,
what kind of recreation? It could clearly be in
relationship to pool storage, a cabana of some
sort or another. That to me is still a
recreational use and you can just change the name
on the floor plan or you can call it recreation in
relationship to pool use.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No the problem comes with
having access to that from the apartment.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I totally understand
that. That's not where I was going. The question
that I have was since the applicant stated that
the tenant above will not be using the
recreational space proposed below, and there is
egress (phonetic) through the existing one car
garage from the interior.
MS. DOTY: There's also a direct access out.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the proposed
circular stair. There's also an interior
relationship between the apartment and the
existing one car garage which they use. So why
then is the door that connects that foyer into the
recreation space included. If, in fact, the
applicant is proposing a segregated use from the
tenant space above? What's the benefit of having
that door?
MS. DOTY: Maybe Tom Samuels, who designed
it, can explain it. Can you?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels. It's purely
convenience. To have two spaces that are not
connected is a little frustrating at times. It
isn't intended as a living room for the upper
space. It was just because it kind of makes sense
to have the link other than for zoning reasons.
Obviously, for zoning reasons it may be
impossible. To not put a door between two spaces
that are in the same building and force people to
go outside and around is a little bit awkward.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
43
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
It's not fundamental to our need but it would make
things easier at certain times.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I would agree that
it's awkward if, in fact, there is a relationship
among the spaces. But if there is no relationship
among the spaces, segregating them is acceptable.
MS. SAMUELS: It's acceptable, I agree.
MS. DOTY: I believe my client would
reluctantly.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Again, the intent is
to clarify use. Use is part of the variance. So if
it is meant to be used as an external, inside to
outside relationship to the pool or the
inhabitants of the principle dwelling and they're
recreational purposes, then the connection though
awkward spatially in the total use of the building
is perfectly justified. Then that variance goes
away.
MS. DOTY: With the staircase there would be
the stairs going down to the western side of the
building as well as the staircase, so there's two
different access.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was a little
confused, one of those bays for the garage is
still going to continue?
MS. DOTY: The one on the northern part of
the building. It's a four car garage. There's the
three bays and then there's one on the north side
of the building. That's a single that the tenant
uses that right now, to get into the apartment you
have to go through the utility room, go outside
and go up the door.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question. The part
that nonhabitable, it's just a recreation room,
right?
MS. DOTY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Obviously, you're not
talking about a nonhabitable apartment. Then you
could argue in response to the question about the
availability of getting into the recreation would
be something like availability to a nonhabitable
attic.
MS. DOTY: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's no problem with
having stairways going up to a nonhabitable attic.
MS. DOTY: Or a nonhabitable basement. There
are basement doors, there are attic doors. You're
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
44
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
absolutely correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The doors cannot be an
obstacle to a room.
MS. DOTY: I would hope not and I would hope
that it would remain open because it makes sense
to have it there. But I'm not demanding that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, are you okay?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have anything
to ask?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm done.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm pretty good.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. Anybody else
MS. DOTY: Once again I'm going to request
that you grant the variance as presented and we
will provide you with a new Notice of Disapproval.
I have no problem with it being amended at this
point. It doesn't do anything to what I have
submitted to you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Thank you. Eugene,
do you have anything else to add?
(Non audible response)
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I'd like to
thank the Building Inspector for coming.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you again, Mike.
Anybody have any comments against this
application. Hearing none, I will entertain a
motion to close this hearing until the 16th.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHERINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
****************************************
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm going to entertain a
motion for five minutes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
(Whereupon, a short recess was held from
11:20 - 11:35 a.m.)
(Back on the record.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need a motion to
reconvene.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
20
21
22
23
.
25
45
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
3
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
*****************************************
2
9
Hearing #6064 - Casey
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Janina A. Casey. Application 6064.
"Request for a Variance under Section
280-116B, based on the Building Inspector's June
17, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
additions and alterations to the existing
dwelling, which new construction will be less than
75 feet from the bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap
or similar structure adjacent to tidal water body
(Hog Neck Bay), at 275 Waters Edge Way, Southold;
CTM 88-5-58."
I understand, sir, that you're asking for a
set back from the bulk head of 63 feet.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can start your
presentation with your name and address.
MR. OLIVER: My name is Dennis Oliver and
I'm the architect for the project. My address is
924 Newbridge Road, Bellmore, New York 11710.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Board. The case this morning is concerning 275
Waters Edge Way. As stated this is under Section
280-116B distance to bulkhead not the required 75
feet for the proposed construction. The proposed
construction is a second floor addition over the
main footprint of the house with a one story rear
screenroom and a deck above that. We're also
proposing to construct a front roof over porch in
addition to the above items I've already
mentioned. The existing house was constructed in
1960 and is currently a one story ranch. The
house currently contains four bedrooms, one and a
half baths, a kitchen, a dining room, a living
room and a dining room combo and a garage with an
enclosed breezeway. The bedroom sizes currently
go from 11.9 by 12 feet down to a 8'5" by 9'7".
As far as the proposed construction on the first
floor. Most of the work that we're looking at
would be interior of this area. We are going to
enlarge the existing kitchen, remove the bedrooms
and relocate them to the second floor. Hence the
reason for the proposed construction. We are
going to cut back the line of the garage in the
front and set that back to give the font of the
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
46
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
house a little personality and create a two car
garage by taking the area of the existing
breezeway. The house currently has a one car
garage on it. We're looking to increase that to
two cars. The addition on the back for the
screenroom, because it's a tidal area, the client
felt that it might be more conducive to be able to
sit outside and have a screened porch. Hence the
reason for this area in the back. It is a three
season room. It will not be heating in any way.
Strictly constructed of screening. The set back
for that area would be 67' 4" from the bulk head
to that screen room. We're proposing on the
second floor to construct three bedrooms and two
baths with a washer/dryer closet. The bedroom
sizes would be increased significantly owing to
the fact that we do not require a kitchen or a
dining room on the second floor. The master
bedroom would go to 22'4" by 19'10" with a
separate sitting room and two other bedrooms which
would be 15 by 12 and 16 by 3. The proposed
construction square footage wise would be
approximately 1700 square feet with the existing
house construction of approximately 2000 square
feet which would give us a total square footage
wise of 3700 square feet for that house. The new
construction on the second floor is the primary
reason we are here for this variance. The set
back as stated would be 63'3". It should be
pointed out that the house as it currently exists
has a set back to an existing rear addition of 55'
1". Now this house as I stated before was
constructed in 1960. We are not proposing to
build over that portion that projects so far out.
We are holding the addition back over the main
portion of the house in reference to the zoning
requirements. We have also set the second floor
in on the east side of the property so that we
would not require a side yard variance. In all
other respects in reference to zoning, we have
done as much as we can so that we would not
require any variances for height or side yard or
front yard. In reference to the neighborhood, the
house itself as proposed, the neighborhood has
been extensively developed. There are other
houses in the area which appearance from the
street are going to be higher and will have more
street presence. The client was just looking to
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
47
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
increase the size of a little area. She was not
looking for a monument to herself. The house has
been owned by the family since 1998 and she's just
looking to increase the living area so that she
would be just a little bit more comfortable. As I
stated previously in all other respects, the house
itself is in compliance with all the other zoning
requirements. It will not be a detriment to the
neighborhood. It will be lower than most of the
existing houses there. It obviously will be higher
than the house next door because that house is a
one story house but it will not overpower it in my
opinion. I would request that the Board please
consider all the options as they were presented
and if so, please grant favorably. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is all the roof
runoff contained on site?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, it is. We have taken
that into account and done calculations for dry
wells and we have plotted those on the site plan
for the Building Department.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what did you
say for the record that the height to the ridge
is?
MR. OLIVER: Height to ridge will be based
on an average grade at the house. That would be
27 feet and that's to the ridge not to the
midpoint.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you
at field inspection, of course the house to the
east is two story. It's hard to superimpose a
second story on that. However, the property
itself gives it a little bit of an air. There's
room there. It's not a tight situation. And by
the mere fact that you're not necessarily
increasing anything there except for that set back
which is not being increased to the bulk head
except maybe inches.
MR. OLIVER: Inches. Our intent is to stay
within that main line of the existing house. We're
not going past that line. We want to make sure
that it fits the character of the neighborhood. We
don't want to overpower anything. Again, like I
said, we're trying to keep the design simple and
just give the owner the basics of what she was
looking for.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
48
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Lelie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to
clarify. The application says you will be 63 feet
from the bulk head? Did you not just say that the
current set back is 55'1?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. That's for an
existing rear one story addition. We're not
building over that. We're not touching that in any
way whatsoever.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay.
remaining. This portion remains
actually increasing the set back
head with new construction.
MR. OLIVER: That is correct, yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you guesstimate
what pecentage of new construction there will be
relative to the amount that will be demoed?
MR. OLIVER: The demo for the most part will
take place on the interior of the house because
we're just moving walls around on the inside. The
biggest rip out would be the area where the
screenroom is where we're increasing the size of
the garage. Percentagewise based on the existing
floor area, it's no more than 8 to 10% at the
most.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One other question. I
don't know whether this is operable or not and I
don't know whether to comment or not but I
observed on site inspection a sprinkler head
within some Junipers along the bulk head -- not
the bulk head but the top of the bluff. Is there
an irrigation system, do you know an underground
irrigation system on that property because the
property slopes just slightly towards the bluff.
I'm just curious about that.
MR. OLIVER: To the best of my knowledge I
don't know if there is an irrigation system in
place. I can find out.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I only saw the one
sprinkler head.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would say there
would have to be because the grass was pretty
plush when I was there.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's not before us
but it's an site observation. One last thing, the
gravel driveway that's there now, it looks as
though you're going to leave it the way it is?
MR. OLIVER: It is going to say. We may just
So that's
and you are
from the bulk
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
49
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
dress it up and add some more gravel to clean it
up and make it nicer.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that the front
elevation essentially remains -- other than
elevational change obviously the architectural
but that set back remains the same?
MR. OLIVER: That is correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No,
good job.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions. I
guess I would just like to state if you do tear
this down at some point in time, you know you'll
need another variance. You want to be very careful
about that.
MR. OLIVER: It's not our intention to take
the house down at all. The four exterior walls
will remain.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
anything to add?
AUDIENCE MEMBER:
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO:
State your name please.
MR. QUARTARARO: My name is Thomas
Quartararo. I'm representing Crown International
Trading Corporation, the owner of the adjoining
property to the west. It's referred to as Lot 59,
House 439. For the record, the house number is 435
not 439. And the company's name is not Crow, it's
Crown International. Having heard Mr. Oliver's
statements, I'm relatively pleased with the
application before you. However, there was a bit
of a mix up here and I just want to bring it to
the Board's attention. The drawings that were
presented to myself and I assume the adjoining
neighbor do not reflect the construction that is
being proposed and the variance request that's
before you. And I'd like to present that to you
right now, if I may. I want to qualify I'm not an
architect but certainly anyone addressing that
drawing would be confused as to the nature of the
variance request.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm not sure what's
different from what's been handed to us?
MR. QUARTARARO: Again, I'm not an architect
I think he's done a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
Anybody else have
e
13
14
Yes.
Sir,
you
can come
on up.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
50
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
but as a layman looking at that, it only seems to
indicate that the proposal for variance only
covers a deck and the back room not a dormer.
Now, can you find a dormer on that drawing because
I couldn't. I had to assume there was. They do
indicate what's proposed.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It does say proposed
second story addition.
MR. QUARTARARO: How do you determine that
from that drawing?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The cross-hatch.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The cross-hatch is what
they're proposing we look at. We're only concerned
basically about set backs.
MR. QUARTARARO: Again, I'm looking at the
drawing here that refers to this room and that
room. Not this.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's the subject of this
whole application is that gray spot.
MR. QUARTARARO: I see.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: To let you know,
we have a file with more information that you're
welcome to look at.
MR. QUARTARARO: That's quite all right.
Basically again, being a next door neighbor to
this property I have no objection and I think it's
going to be a benefit to the community and to our
area. The only other comment I'd like to address
is the proposed propane tank location.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What would you like to
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
say?
18
MR. QUARTARARO: I would like to say I'd
like to see that a little bit further from the
property line if at all possible.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can ask the applicant.
I don't think there's any restriction on that in
our code but perhaps if you're offended by it --
MR. QUARTARARO: I think with the price of
propane it might be an issue. All right. That's
all I had to say thank you for your time.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If I can just ask
for the spelling of your last name.
MR. Quartararo: It's Q-U-A-R-T-A-R-A-R-O.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, Mr. Oliver. I was
just wondering if you could address the propane
tank in some way.
MR. OLIVER: We would be more than happy to
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
51
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
relocate that or move that further off the
property line without a problem.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How much further, any
idea?
4
MR. OLIVER: The only thing I'm concerned
with is just the location of the tank to the
driveway. I want to make sure we have sufficient
clearance for that. I would say at least another
five feet minimum. We'll push it as far as
possible.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Thank you very
much. Anybody else have any other questions of
Mr. Oliver? No. Anybody have anything for or
against this application? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion to close this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
****************************************
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hearing #6059 - F.J. GERARD HOLDINGS/SEIFERT
CONSTRUCTION.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
F.J. Gerard Holdings, LLC/Seifert Construction.
That's Ruth.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for Variances
under Se~tions 280-64, based on the Building
Inspector's June 4, 2007 amended Notice of
Disapproval concerning proposed construction for
use as a custom workshop in this LI Light
Industrial Zone District. The reasons stated for
disapproving a building permit application are
that the new construction is: (1) less than 100
feet from the right-of-way; (2) will have a single
side yard at less than 10 feet; (3) will have a
total side yard at less than 40 feet for both
setbacks; (4) the rear yard is less than 70 feet.
Location of Property: 11780 Sound Avenue,
Mattituck; CTM 141-3-44."
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ms. Moore?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. I have with me
today for the this hearing John and Fred Seifert
who are the principles of Seifert Construction.
Mark Schwartz is the architect on this project.
They are all here to assist me and answer
questions that you might have. This property is
in fact LI zoned. It is proper zoning for this
use. The use that we've proposed here is a
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
52
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
permitted use. The LI zoning presumes a one acre
lot. However, this corridor here is preexisting
nonconforming with respect to the lot sizes. This
parcel is 11,517 square feet in size. We do meet
the lot coverage criteria of 30 not exceeding 30%.
So the size of the building is in compliance with
the code. However, set backs obviously are an
issue. There is an existing residence on the
property. The residents had previously sought to
run a business of a tower. I believe you have a
long record of that -- the Rosen property. That
was denied. And the house that is presently on
the property, in fact, is a preexisting
nonconforming use because LI presumes the
residences are not to be in that zoning. It's a
business zoning, industrial zoning. Mr. Seifert
provided me photographs. Some of you probably if
you were smart did not enter the back end of the
property. The house is in very poor condition and
I will provide photographs for you for the record
just so it shows this is the back of the house
that probably none of you were able to access. So
if you can put that in your file. We provided for
you a site map that shows the set back of the
other structures along Sound Avenue and you can
see from the site map that has the average set
back showing -- which is one of the maps you have
in front of you -- shows that you have Cold
Mechanical that is to the west of this property is
at twelve and a half feet. You have two houses
that are again to the west between Cold Mechanical
and this property. They are set back a little bit
further thirty-two and half and fifty-eight and a
half. Then this property which has an existing
set back that is nonconforming. And our proposed
building is to begin at the location of where the
house is. But we have a front porch, a covered
porch at the start of our building which tries to
create a nice design, somewhat residential looking
structure. So it doesn't look like an industrial
building as Penny Lumbar over to the east. Penny
Lumbar is only three and a half feet from the
property line so that the properties that have
developed along Sound Avenue are certainly very
close to the property line. The average set back
of these properties would be 23.9. We provided
that number for you. We are at 22.9 in order to
push the building towards the front and keep the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
53
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
parking in the back. The Long Island Railroad
abuts on the back of the property and it seemed
appropriate to have all parking be in the backside
of the structure. I provided for you a very
recent landscape plan prepared by Briarcliff which
has the proposed landscaping. The Planning Board
had seen the same drawing that you had in your
file when we submitted the application. Their
suggestion was that two of the large trees that
are presently -- that we try to preserve those.
We've included them here in the landscape plan and
to the extent we can, we will certainly try to
keep them. The two trees are the one right in
front of the existing house now and the one over
to the west of the property line. The placement
of this structure certainly could be moved over if
the Board wished to even out, create greater set
back to the property owner on the east. We have
to maintain a driveway that is adequate for the
truck vehicles to come in and turn around and go
into the building. The building has garage doors
in the back. Again, because we are cognizant of
the continued residential uses adjacent on both
sides, we have tried to design a building that is
fully insulated, fully heated. I've asked if they
would mind including air conditioning as well for
the entire building in order to keep noise and
disturbance from the residential property owners
and they certainly had no issue with providing air
conditioning for the entire building even the back
end which is the workshop storage area. We have
provided, as you can see, the landscaping site
plan but we are, again, our reasons for pushing
the building closer to the front rather than
pushing it to the back and make it a lesser
variance is that it would unfortunately place all
our parking towards the front and that we thought
was not the best site plan for this property. So
given the size of the property, the variances are
a preferable way of building out this site than to
try to conform to the set back code. Finally, we
show you the arborvitae to protect against
intrusion into the neighbors. So I'm sure you
have questions and I'd rather entertain the
questions than -- my written application talks
about the area variance criteria. It think this
time is better suited for questions.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it the reason that
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
54
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
you're keeping the one side yard 27.94 the big
trucks that might be coming in?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Twenty-seven point nine.
The driveway is actually 5 feet less so it's 22.9.
We hope that it's both for the truck vehicles and
also to be able to if a car is parked along the
driveway, it provides access for a car to pass or
even if a car is coming out, a car to come in. So
it does allow for two-way vehicle movement so that
was the design.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Actually as a whole, I
think it's a good way of dressing up the whole
area.
MS. MOORE: This will be a significant
improvement.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It looks really nice. I
like it. Maybe somebody else doesn't but I think
it's a very good job.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay Ruth? Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only issue I
have is in the mix use, not mixed use of the
zoning but mixed nonconforming use area. The
issue of air conditioning is important for the
noise factor with the houses around.
MS. MOORE: Personally, I thought so. I know
that they are insulated building windows keeping
window size, insulated windows are proposed here.
The access point being in the back, the garage
door, so it seemed to me that since they were
making already such a significant effort, that the
air conditioning would make his dad, who is the
one employee who's going to be working in here,
probably more comfortable but also keeping in mind
the noise abatement to the property.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: First of all, it's in
a mixed residential area, it's very appropriate to
put parking in the rear. I think that residential
scale of the front elevation is very, very nice in
terms of being able to retain some of the
character of the mixed use neighborhood and
placing parking in the rear is also a great
amenity in terms of retaining the character of the
street scape. Is there anyway that -- I
understand now that the width of the driveway and
you want two-way -- it's actually safer to have it
that way than to have to backup. But is there any
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
55
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
chance of reducing the width of the actual
building by a few feet simply to increase the side
yard from the other neighbor? It's called out at
40 feet wide which is not an unreasonable size for
an industrial building at all but if it were 38 or
36 feet wide, a couple more feet gives you just --
I mean the landscape plan shows just one single
line of arborvitae which is not a very substantial
vegetative buffer even when they grow over time.
If you just simply could scoot it over slightly,
you would have room for larger more mature
plantings, perhaps, and I don't know whether you'd
be compromising the floor plan any by a few feet
but perhaps you could address that while we're
here.
MR. SEIFERT: Hi. I'm Fred Seifert. As far
as the size of the width of the building, we
wouldn't have a problem going down to 38 feet and
maybe making the asphalt less wide but the storage
space, the size of the lot being so small and the
building -- we were hoping to maximize our storage
space in that building. But we wouldn't be
objected to taking a few feet off and maybe a
little less asphalt in the width of the driveway
to the back to give us more of a border for
plantings and screenings. We wouldn't have an
objection.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can scoot it over
altogether with reducing. How many feet do you
think?
MR. SEIFERT: Say maybe we took two feet out
of the building and took another two feet out of
the pavement, that would give us another four feet
in screenings that we could put along that east
side of the property.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be great.
That's then a 14 foot side yard which I think is
quite good.
MS. MOORE: If I may suggest, the building
would be your prerogative. The blacktop we can
certainly send internally a memo back to the
planning. We're willing to do that. My
suggestion and I thought pushing the building over
since we don't have any, other than windows, we
could possibly increase the vegetation a more
mature vegetation and push the building away so we
can increase in the open area the screening. I'll
leave you to deliberate, but yes, we have a little
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
56
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
flexibility.
MR. SEIFERT: One question I have, are you
talking about the west side or the east side?
Because I'm talking about the east side of the
property. I thought it would be more important to
have more screenings on the east side being that
that's the driveway and where deliveries might be
coming in and what not. Where on the ten foot
side, the west side that we're proposing could be
all plantings. It's going to be grass and it's
going to be vegetated rather nicely. If I was the
neighbor, I would prefer to see more screenings on
the east side of the property. If we took two feet
out of the width of the building and then took
maybe another two feet out of the width of the
asphalt driveway through the back, I would prefer
to add it to the east side for more screening for
that neighbor.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And then retain your
ten foot siding.
MR. SEIFERT: And retain the ten foot.
Another thing for the Board to take note of, this
is a storage and a cabinet shop is what we want to
do here. We are custom home builders and we build
cabinets for our own projects and what not. This
isn't a high end ten employee type shop where this
is all we do and it's a lot of traffic in and out.
If we have one truck delivery every two weeks with
some lumbar, that would be a lot. Our main
business is, like I said, custom home buildings
and we're just looking for a place to have our
offices. We build, like I said, some mantles and
some bookcases for our projects. It's not even
though we're calling it a cabinet shop, it's not
per say a high end manufacturing, people walk in
and we have a showroom to show them cabinets and
what not. We build our cabinets strictly for our
homes that we build.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Will you be doing any
of that cabinet making on the premises? Will you
have power equipment there or are you just doing a
showroom and storage?
MR. SEIFERT: There will be some equipment
in the shop. It's probably about half storage and
half equipment but it's very light stuff. We
don't build kitchens.
MS. MOORE: Let me clarify that, it's not a
showroom.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
57
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
MR. SEIFERT: Not a showroom.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No retail anything.
MR. SEIFERT: No. It's not retail. They'll
be no cash register there. It's really for our
storage and storing some of our lumbar equipment
and we will be having a small area that will be a
shop with our offices.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I assumed there will
be a shop in there but it didn't show that on the
plan.
MR. SEIFERT: It is a shop. We're not
trying to hide that fact. One thing my brother and
I as we looked for properties, we were very
cognizant of looking for a property that was zoned
correctly. As you're well aware of, there's a
million barns that we can just go and put
equipment in and run and not really care if we're
zoned right or not. We were very cognizant of
buying a piece that was zoned correctly and wanted
to do it correctly. So that's how we ended up
here being that we're in the right zoning and we
are very cognizant of the fact that there's
neighbors next to us and we will make every
attempt to please them.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How might the noise of
the equipment, assuming windows are closed,
because you're air conditioned, in the winter you
wouldn't want them open. I'm sure you'll ventilate
your space properly for indoor air quality. How
might that noise of the equipment impact the
neighbors, the residential?
MR. SEIFERT: Like I said, we are not a high
end manufacturing facility. Basically right now
we're just a one man shop, which is what my
father does. He runs the shop for us. He works
probably half a day. He comes in his van. Works to
12 o'clock and he's done. Not really very heavy
equipment. We have some table saws, chop box. It's
pretty standard as the neighbor who would be
building something in his garage. We're not a high
end cabinet manufacturing business.
MS. MOORE: I think what you were asking and
I mentioned it earlier, is that the building is
insulated. It's going to be heated. They're going
to be insulated windows as well. Mark, maybe you
know what your plan is for the materials? But
everything is intended for sound covering.
MR. SEIFERT: Yes. The building will be
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
58
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
heated and air conditioned so it will be closed
other than the times the doors open up to bring
deliveries in. So I think to the best of our
ability, we will keep the noise down. Again,
just wanted the Board to realize, it's not a
end manufacturing facility that we're trying
put here.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One last question. I
assume that you will be discussing any kind of
security lighting or anything with the Planning
Board?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Probably just motion
detectors in the back for security. But very
little lighting is needed there.
MR. SEIFERT: We don't intend to have
anything more than that's needed. Whatever
Planning Board wishes us to have. I'm not looking
to put lighting up on the property.
MS. MOORE: The other businesses, Cold
Mechanical and Penny Lumbar, really don't have a
lot of lighting. Southold is still pretty safe.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it's an
interesting plan. It raises an interesting
question and I think you're dealing with it pretty
well. Namely, a 100 foot set back required for
LIL. Here we have a case which is preexisting
mixed neighborhood and I think I would agree that
to expect new businesses to conform to the
basically industrial park problem would be quite
inappropriate. I certainly applaud the idea of
making it look to fit in with the residences and
the parking behind. With the suggestion that
Leslie made and the possibility of altering this,
I'm interested in what you were saying about the
warehouse. So I'd like to ask a couple of
questions. When you say warehouse, what kinds of
things are going to be stored there? Basically
uncut lumbar?
MR. SEIFERT: Uncut lumbar, scaffolding, pump
jacks, those types of things.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Equipment used for
variance building functions. It's going to be your
center of operation?
MR. SEIFERT: Exactly.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was wondering whether
since you were willing to consider making the
I
high
to
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
59
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
building a little narrower in order to have
greater set back on the east side, would it be
useful to lengthen the warehouse in compensation
that you're losing room in the warehouse. The
question comes in, I notice you have five parking
spaces.
MS. MOORE: I honestly don't think they need
it and I would suggest when we get to the Planning
Board, I would suggest reducing the parking to the
minimum that is really necessary.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That is what I'm getting
at. If you were going to lose the parking spaces
because of Planning Board consideration, then you
would have more room to extend the warehouse and
perhaps it can be easier for you to accommodate
yourself to a slightly narrower warehouse.
MR. SEIFERT: Well, as of right now I don't
think losing two feet in the width of the building
would need to add it in the back. We're happy if
it was just a matter of making it two feet wider,
we'd be happy with what we proposed. We do
appreciate that.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody have
anything else to add?
MS. MOORE: Not unless
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No,
in the audience that would
on this application for or
I'll entertain a motion to
August 16th.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
**************************************
you have a question.
I don't. Anybody else
like to make a comment
against? Hearing none,
close this hearing to
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Hearing #6055 - Bulis
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is Eric and
Maria Bulis. Who's is that?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mine.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth. You get to
22
23
read.
24
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for a Variance
under Sections 280-l22A and 280-124, based on
zoning Code Interpretation ZBA #5038 in the
Application of R. Walz, and the Building
Inspector's April 3, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
.
25
60
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
concerning proposed additions to the existing
dwelling, which will be an increase in the degree
of nonconformance when located at less than 40
feet from the code-required front lot line, at 490
Aquaview Avenue, East Marion; CTM 21-3-5."
CHAIRMAN DINIZO: State your name, please.
MS. DWYER: Nancy Dwyer. I did the design
work for the plan. The Bulis family is here with
me. We are proposing to add 25 feet off to the
side of the house for a growing family. We are
currently 24 feet from Aquaview right now and
where we're going to be adding on is actually
getting further from Aquaview. Even though we're
increasing the area of nonconformity, we are
getting further away from Aquaview. The adjoining
neighbor, because of the angle of the property and
all the existing houses are all in line with one
another, the adjoining neighbors are actually
closer to Aquaview than this existing house. So we
feel that the request sought is minimal due to the
existing properties that are up there right now.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. That's all you
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
have?
14
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do you have any response
to the original Notice of Disapproval and the
denial that was given back in 1997 about putting
something on the front of the house, a deck
addition, at the front of the existing building
which was turned down by the Zoning Board?
MS. DWYER: No, I was actually unaware of
that, a denial from a variance.
MRS. BULlS: Maria Bulis. We were denied. We
wanted to put a deck on the front of the house not
knowing anything about the restrictions to
Aquaview Avenue and we were denied that and we
just dropped it at that time.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. So basically you
want to go out to the side and not come further?
MRS. BULlS: Correct. We'd like to go west.
Trying to keep in line with the design of the
house and it actually takes the house back from
Aquaview Avenue just because the lay of the road
itself.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What would be the square
footage now of your new addition?
MS. DWYER: The addition is 500 square feet
first floor and second floor. So a total of 1,000
square feet. Not all of that is habitable being
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
61
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
that we are keeping within the existing roof line
of the house. So it's roof across the front with
a couple of dormers and then a full second story
across the back of the house.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? Anything else?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, not right now.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really don't have
any specific objection to this plan at all at this
time but we'll see how it goes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just to point out that
the addition that you are proposing is headed
toward the right-of-way which is very heavily
wooded and vegetated and I think has virtually no
impact since they happen to be owned by the Bulis
family and they have houses up there. Just two
houses altogether, correct? So I think that it's
a well placed addition that certainly doesn't
affect any neighbors in any way. It doesn't
encroach any further on the front road and it will
certainly retain the visual appearance of your
existing house and enhance it. So I have no
questions or problems with it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I also noted that this
heavily vegetated right-of-way is on the side.
Strictly speaking, as I understand it, the
right-of-way is owned by a Home Owners Association
and if anyone were to object to that, it would
presumably be the Home Owners Association and we
haven't heard from them yet anyway.
MR. BULlS: My name is Eric Bulis. I'm the
son of the owner. We have a tenant with us Vincent
Gerosa, the President of the Home Owner's
Association.
MR. GEROSA: Vincent Gerosa, G-E-R-O-S-A. I'm
President of the Aquaview Home Owner's
Association. Six of our members are along the area
covered by the projected. No owner objects this.
Just a comment so you know the neighbors don't
obj ect.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any
questions up from the Board? No? Hearing none,
ma'am, you're company is Design Consulting Inc, of
Miller Place, correct?
MS. DWYER: Yes.
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
62
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else
to add?
MS. DWYER: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll just ask if anyone in
the audience has any comments for or against this
application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion
to close this hearing to August 16th.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
******************************************
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hearing #6060 - Avdoulos.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next application is
Spyro Avdoulos and that's going to be Michael.
Hold on, that's Jerry's. Sorry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Request for
Variance under Section 280-ll6A, based on the
Building Inspector's amended June 13, 2007 Notice
of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and
alterations to the existing single-family dwelling
with a setback at less than the code-required 100
feet from the top of the bank or bluff adjacent to
the Long Island Sound, at 54985 North Road,
Greenport; CTM 44-1-5."
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Pat?
MS. MOORE: Mr. Avdoulos has a two-story
house there. The house has a full basement and
when we started this project, the first thing
Angel Tourno (phonetic) is the architect. The
first thing that he did was to check with the
Trustees and say would you, when we're designing
this, would you prefer that we address the portion
of the house that is in the coastal erosion hazard
area? So the first step in this process was to
eliminate the corners, the triangular portions of
the house that went beyond the coastal erosion
line. So in order to do that, it was taking an
existing house with an existing foundation and not
demolishing the foundation, not doing anything to
the foundation but taking the portion of the
house, the first floor and cutting off those
portions that are encroaching in the coastal
erosion hazard area. This particular house
appears to have been built sometime in the '60's.
I see from photographs in the tax assessor's
records that the back -- a lot of the house was
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
63
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
covered porches that over time got enclosed so the
portion of the back end of the house, the
waterfront portion of the house that is being cut
off is being cut to a point where the roof line
makes sense. Where you can cut what appears to be
a small nonstructural element. Then keeping again
the foundation that is there, cutting the building
back in order to provide for a patio or a deck
area, taking the foundation, converting the
existing foundation to decking. The house then
is, the first floor, required renovation. The
first floor wall, obviously that you're cutting
off, is gone and you have to rebuild the
waterfront wall. The second floor are dormers
right now and what the owner wishes to do is
increase the second floor and essentially put a
full second floor over the house. At the time
that this project started, the intention was to
build all new structure, landward of existing
structures so on the landward side of the house
was any new construction, any new first and second
floor. So that was the overall design plan at the
time that we started this project. There is
bulkhead. The waterfront also has a lot of
natural stones, rocks, so that the waterfront is
very stable at this site. The bank is only about
19 feet above sea level and then the top of the
bank we have already addressed nonturf buffers
with a nonturf buffer area, new dry wells and
gutters. Essentially, this is putting a typical
second floor over an existing house. What made
this a little more complicated is trying to
correct the nonconforming portion of the house
that was in the coastal erosion hazard line.
Obviously, keeping the house, the first floor
exactly where it was, was the most, would have
been the easiest solution here. But in attempting
to satisfy this Town's goals not to build in a
coastal erosion area, we addressed that first and
that's why that portion of the, the corners of the
house were being removed. I will answer any
questions that you might have. I have Angel here
that can answer you any structural issues. The
client wants a garage, another garage. The old
garage there is a one-car garage. This actually
conforms a little. Instead of expanding the
existing garage, which would be another variance,
we have actually a conforming request for a garage
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
64
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
and the client wants to have the two garages with
a walkway so that it creates a buffer from the
North Road and creates a visual barrier so it
creates more privacy.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much of the
first and second story, we'll refer to the second
story as a partial second story, is going to be
torn down? Is this a rip down to the foundation
Mr. Tourno?
MR. TOURNO: We keeping the basement. We
keeping the exterior walls of the first floor
except for the front and back. The front because
we adding ten feet to increase the size of the
house. And the back where the water is because we
demolish the existing enclosed porch or whatever
and we don't have any wall. So the first floor
will have a new wall from the water side and a new
addition on the street side. Now, when a second
floor, if we tried to put the second floor over
the old first floor, we would not comply with the
setback for the second floor on the right side of
the property. At the time I went to talk to the
Building Department and they told me that if I do
the second floor with a right set back on the side
yard, then I would be complying and everything was
fine because the other is existing and it was
acceptable. But adding to that would not be
acceptable. So we pushed the second floor and
allow all the right side of the first floor to
make like an encroachment in the design. So the
design has a little odd shape but the reason is
that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: When you refer to
placing the front of the building or adding to the
front of the building, you're taking off the
existing front porch that's in the front of the
building; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: The front door, there's no sense
for it. Are we talking about the waterfront side?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: You're taking that
off and making that a porch, patio. Right.
MS. MOORE: Is there basement under it?
MR. TOURNO: No that's -- we're just filling
up to the height of the existing footing and
putting a patio there and then the steps around to
get out of the patio.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's 19 feet
measured on the easterly side of that to the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
65
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
bulkhead and it's 20 feet measured --
MS. MOORE: There's so many lines here, I'm
sorry.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Twenty-one foot, seven
inches from the bluff. The concrete patio over
the existing foundation should be at 21'7" from
the bluff.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's showing 19
right here.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the steps.
MR. TOURNO: We have to modify the plan in
order to add those steps so we can
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is at it's
closest point.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I don't see 21 on
the map. I see the old step is 20.5 but the old
step is coming out. If you had two or three feet
to that, it would make it --
MS. MOORE: Well because the angle of the
bluff that alters, so it's really -- all the
measurements are almost --
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's 19 then on
the corner, right?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go a little bit
farther, Linda.
MS. MOORE: Nineteen is the closest point to
the end of the step on the east side. That's the
measure.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I see that. What
was the 2l?
MS. MOORE: Twenty-one is the foundation. The
existing foundation.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: At what corner
MR. TOURNO: Which now is going to be the
patio.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's coming out?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it's staying. Just
being poured in, filled in.
MS. MOORE: It's being filled in.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's solid.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: But it's not
labled on here but it's written somewhere.
MS. MOORE: Yeah, it is. It says existing
stoop to be removed. Proposed steps -- it's
identified as proposed patio. Nathan put it all on
the left side of the drawing, on the west side of
the drawing.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So that includes
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
66
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
that new step area?
MS. MOORE: Yes. The step down.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So then we're
putting, when you refer to one and a half story,
it's really going to be two stories over the rest
of the house?
MR. TOURNO: Except on the right side which
is nonconforming. We're not putting a second floor
there.
MS. MOORE: On the east side of the house is
presently at 12'2". In order to make it a
conforming 15 foot side yard, it means that the
second story can only start at the 15 foot set
back.
(Everyone talking at once.)
MS. MOORE: We really tried to make as much
of this conforming. When we started, it was under
the interpretation of landward of existing
structure. So we were trying to make everything
landward of existing structures.
MR. TOURNO: I went to the Building
Department asking what do I have to do for this to
comply I said without any variances except for the
front, the waterfront. He told me all the
instructions. I did all what he said and then when
we presented the drawings, he said, no, you have
to go to Zoning anyway. That was Mr. Verity.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because of the water.
MR. TOURNO: Any property in the water has to
come to you, I understand.
MS. MOORE: It would have probably made sense
to do a variance for the side yard at 12'2" but at
that point the design had already been approved by
the client.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a 22 by 23
foot garage.
MS. MOORE: That requires no variances.
That's compliant.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Twenty-three by twenty
foot wide.
MR. TOURNO: It's a replica of existing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With a 15 foot door
clearance. Is that unheated? It's got a half
bath.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
MR. TOURNO: It's just a garage.
bath because of the people using the,
the beach. But it's not heated, no.
Has a half
coming from
67
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Unheated. And the
sink and counter is handwashing, cleaning fish.
MR. TOURNO: Fishing and things of that
nature. It's not habitable. It's not intended to
be.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for
explaining that.
MS. MOORE: There are a lot of lines, I'm
sorry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's kind of
narrow, the property and you fit everything in
that area. Just for the Board's own
identification. Joe Ingegno (phonetic) sold his
office and Nathan is now the new owner. Do we know
Nathan's last name?
MS. MOORE: Corwin. Nathan Corwin, III.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So Joe will be
there until the end of the year.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I had a question about
the driveway. Right now, who's driveway is that
when you come in? It looks like the neighbor's
driveway.
MS. MOORE: There is no driveway.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's no driveway on
your client's side.
MR. TOURNO: It looks like initially the
neighbor's driveway was shared by both.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would appear so
because then suddenly you have to veer off to your
client's property and I was wondering because it's
not clear on the -- I guess it would appear as
though you're adding a gravel driveway on your
property. Makes perfectly good sense. Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I guess not. Yes.
What kind of condition is that foundation in after
four years?
MR. TOURNO: The existing basement is fine
including the sort of crawl space that this porch
had.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Part of it is crawl
space.
MR. TOURNO: And that's going to become a
patio so actually there's no issue there.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So it will support the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
68
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
second story without any problems?
MR. TOURNO: Oh, yes, yes. Definitely. It
has a second story now.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else? I just
have one question. It says existing steps to be
modified. I know you weren't turned down for that
but I'm assuming that's because why? On the east
side?
MR. TOURNO: That's modified by just pushing
towards the street.
MS. MOORE: The stoop out the door?
MR. TOURNO: The father of the owner is
somewhat handicap and he goes to his bedroom
directly from the beach so he doesn't have to walk
more than is absolutely necessary. So those steps
are going to what is going to be his room.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This looks like about 16
steps.
MS. MOORE: Is it going to be more of a ramp
or steps?
MR. TOURNO: No steps but only three steps.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think on the east side
of the house, the 12.2 set back.
MS. MOORE: This side?
MR. TOURNO: Yes that's the doing of the
surveyor, I guess. If you look at my drawings
they're only a few steps there.
MS. MOORE: Oh, yeah. A stoop and three
steps.
MR. TOURNO: Three steps, that's all there
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
is.
18
MS. MOORE: He probably didn't see it right.
MR. TOURNO: I don't know why he put that
many.
19
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So it exists already?
MR. TOURNO: It exists but we are moving it.
It's almost a replica of what exists but moved
because of location of the door going to the
bedroom to help the parents.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Everybody satisfied
with that? Do you have anything else to add?
MS. MOORE: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion to close this hearing to August
16th.
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
69
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
(See minutes for resolution.)
****************************************
6
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need a motion to
recess.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. Got a
second.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second.
(Whereupon, a short lunch break was held
from 12:35-1:05 p.m.)
(Back on the record.)
*****************************************
3
4
5
7
9
Hearing #6063 - Sherman
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next is Hearing #6063 -
David Sherman. Ruth, that's yours.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Requests for Variances
under Sections 280-10 and 280-124, based on the
Building Inspector's April 12, 2007 Notice of
Disapproval concerning a proposed deck addition,
disapproved for the following reasons: (1) the
deck will be less than 10 feet on a single side
yard; (2) the deck will be less than 35 feet total
side yard setbacks; (3) the deck will exceed the
code limitation of 20% lot coverage; (4) the shed
is proposed in a yard other than a code-required
rear yard; (5) the shed is less than three feet
from the property line and exceeds the code
limitation of 20% lot coverage. Location of
property: 260 Founders Path, Southold."
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, your name and
address.
MR. BOHN: Robert Bohn, 95 Terry Court,
Southold. There's been a few changes if I could
ask you to listen. If we remove the shed
completely and then drop the deck to grade, will
that suffice?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Drop the deck?
MR. BOHN: Down to grade.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Down to grade.
MR. BOHN: Keep the deck at grade.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Instead of 4 foot
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
high.
23
MR. BOHN: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That will eliminate the
need for a variance.
MR. BOHN: There was a bit of an error on my
part from the beginning. If we can go forward with
that, if I submit a new diagram with regard to
that, will that --
24
e
25
70
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What else would you need
besides that?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it lot coverage
issues?
MR. BOHN: That's part of the issue, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would depend on how
big the deck is.
MR. BOHN: The proposed square footage of the
deck would be --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Same?
MR. BOHN: Same square footage of the deck at
grade.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 18'2" by 32.
MR. BOHN: Twenty-three to the line. Looks
like we're going to have overall 20 by 19'6";
excuse me 32 by 20.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: About 430 square feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say
something? I'm the one who has said in the
beginning forever that no lot is flat. I'm telling
you, Rob, that some section of that deck is going
to be out unless it's built subterraneum.
MR. BOHN: I understand what you're saying.
Some part of the skirt board will be sticking
above grade.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So just make sure
that it fits in with the Notice of Disapproval
because if you're going to be out, you're going to
be out and you're going to be back.
MR. BOHN: With regard to at grade
application, the skirt board and frame touching
the ground is considered at grade or the decking
itself?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The decking is being
joyced.
MR. BOHN: Yes. Is the joyce buried at grade?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you would be
better served by having the Building Inspector
tell you that. I'm thinking maybe perhaps you
should find that out first before you have us
consider it. We may say you can eliminate even
the lot coverage part of it. But it really should
be calculated by the Building Inspector so we know
what the Notice of Disapproval will finally say.
Maybe you can run down there now and see -- we can
have you, when you come back, we'll hold the
hearing until you come back.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
71
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
MR. BOHN: Wonderful. I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you'd be better
served by that. What does everyone else think?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's the only way
to do it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Tell him what you want
and maybe he can either just write it down or
however they have to do it to convey to us when
they come back. Something in writing would be
nice.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I wonder if before he
does this he should address another question which
could conceivably make this moot. As I understand
this, there's already 28% lot coverage. So it
might be argued that the applicant has no business
asking for a variance for the deck at all because
it's already over minimal lot coverage.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But if he drops it down to
ground level, it would eliminate that need for a
variance.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They wouldn't need a
variance for the deck at all?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If he can convince the
Building Inspector.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the only thing
that's contributing to the variance?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Amongst other things.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Lot coverage, he's 4
foot above the ground.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So why don't we just hold
this hearing open. I'll entertain a motion to
hold this hearing open.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Do you have a
time, approximately.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Until, I'll say 2:30.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Is 2:30 too late
for you?
MR. BOHN: No, it's fine. Whatever is good
for you guys. Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we have a motion made
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
by?
24
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Me.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Seconded by Jerry. All
those in favor?
ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
e
25
72
tit
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
(See minutes for resolution.)
************************************
3
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is
Daneri.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We're 10 minutes
early on that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're early on that one?
So we have to wait 10 minutes. Okay, so we want to
entertain a motion to take a break?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor?
ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
(See minutes for resolution.)
(Whereupon, a short recess was held at 1:10
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
p.m. )
11
(Back on the record at 1:20 p.m.)
************************************
12
Hearing #6029 - Daneri
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Katherine Daneri.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Legal notice is as
follows:
"Request for Variances under Sections
280-114, 280-l5B, D, F, and 280-116 based on the
Building Inspector's October 31, 2006 Notice of
Disapproval amended on June 19, 2007; concerning
two proposed buildings after demolition of the
existing building: (1) a single-family dwelling,
after demolition of the existing building,
proposed with a single side yard at less than 15
feet, less than 35 feet total side yards, less
than 75 feet from the bulkhead; and (2) an
accessory garage with proposed roof dormers
exceeding the 40% width limitation, with a setback
at less than the code required 15 feet minimum
from the side property line, and with a height
exceeding the 22 foot code limitation. Location of
Property: 200 Private Road #17, or Terry Path
extending easterly of Camp Mineola Road,
Mattituck; CTM 123-6-14." That is it, Mr.
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. My name is
Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicants, Gene and Katherine Daneri.
You have in front of you -- a good guide would be
the survey of the property prepared by Nathan Taft
tit
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
73
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
Corwin, previous surveyor, Joe Ingegno. It's
important to note what we have on this property
today and that is, we have a dwelling that's ten
feet from the bulkhead and that's indicated in
dashed outline. We have a second cottage which is
in disrepair that's 95 feet or so landward
thereof. We have a canvas car port and we have a
frame shed. The existing dwelling to be
demolished was 1142 square feet. Again that's
about 10-11 feet from the bulk head, 25 and a half
feet from the knee high water. The existing
cottage behind it measures 820 square feet and
that's 127 feet from the bulkhead. The existing
frame shed is 168 feet and that's noteworthy that
that is 1.6 feet from the easterly side lot line
and existing canvas car port which measures 334
feet for an existing lot coverage of 6.1. This is
in an R-40 zone and although the property contains
in excess of 40,000 square feet, it is still a
preexisting nonconforming parcel because in the
R-40 zone, minimum lot width is 150 feet. This is
of course a waterfront parcel. Of interest to note
that the southerly lot line, the lot line facing
the bay is 67.18 feet in length and the northerly
property line, which is the property line adjacent
to the right of way known as Terry Path, measures
62.26 square feet and so --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lineal feet?
MR. ANDERSON: Lineal feet, I'm sorry. So
the property slightly narrows as you go from south
to north and that's my point.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What did you say
the width was at the bay?
MR. ANDERSON: At the bay? 68.18 feet. So
the principal constraint in this property is its
width. The variances, I think folks
misunderstand, deals with side yard and total side
yard relating to the proposed dwelling. The
survey will show you 8.8 feet from the bay window
along the easterly face of the building. The
actual foundation will be 10 feet from that side
lot line. Please take note of that. Our total
side yard even including the bay window which is a
cantilever in structure will be 16.8 feet or 35
feet as required. The new dwelling would be
setback 30 feet from the bulkhead. The existing
dwelling being 10 feet to the bulkhead. So we're
relocating the principal dwelling an additional 20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
74
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
feet back from the bulkhead in comparison to where
the existing dwelling is today. The garage is
24.58 feet in height and that's -- understand with
the garage, the garage designs, all that occurred
prior to the enactment of the the Town's accessory
building law and I've discussed with the client
that the height issue, we would redesign to comply
with the maximum height for this structure to be
22 feet and not the 24.58 feet. So I'd like to
sort of take that off the table. The dormers we
will leave to your discretion because we think it
makes for a more attractive building. There is a
dormer limitation on accessory structures at 40%
and that's measured along the width of the
building and in this case, the dormers that are
laid out in font of you are showing a 77.8% of
roof width. Now, I'm going to hand up to you,
because I know you guys don't like me to go on and
on, this is essentially the factual data relating
to the character of the neighborhood.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You want to use
one of these for the file or do you have an extra
one for the file?
MR. ANDERSON: Not on me. I can get you
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
one.
15
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'll use the
Chairman's copy.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, fine. The first thing
you notice with -- I've provided an executive
summary which you can read while you're
deliberating on this. We've defined this
neighborhood to be sort of the Camp Mineola
neighborhood. We're very familiar with this and
what we know -- and page 1A will be an aerial
photograph of what comprises the neighborhood --
and the first thing that needs to be known about
this is that the entire neighborhood consists of
lots that are preexisting nonconforming. Most are
nonconforming with respect to lot area and lot
width. There are only two, perhaps three lots that
would conform with respect to lot area but they do
not have the required 150 foot lot width which is
required in the R40 zone, which the neighborhood
is zoned. And there's a long history before this
Board in recognizing that fact. So that aerial
photograph follows with a synopsis of the relief
that has been granted in the area. You may know
that I was here not too long ago. I guess it was
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
75
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
last year in the application of Paul Long and
suffered similar constraints and those variances
were granted. When completed, the total lot
coverage on this line will go to 10.1% where 20%
is permissable in this zone. So we're about half
of what the required zoning is. And then we take
you through the neighborhood and we shoot and show
you what every house looks like. How it sits on
the land and what their relative setbacks are. I
invite you to take your time and look through that
at your leisure.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Excuse me. On the aerial
overlay, which one is the Daneri property?
MR. ANDERSON: It's the one in yellow. I'm
sorry. On the Daneri property, we've already
shown you how that house sets up on that lot and
how the garage sets up. What you can see there
is, number one, among the waterfront properties,
the Daneri house would be setback further from the
bulkhead than any house in the neighborhood and
that's important to note, and number two, that
when we look at accessory structures, we'll note
that nearly all accessory structures would be
nonconforming with respect to the accessory
structure law in this Town. So we think it sort
of fits the area. A great deal of time and
expense has gone into designing the house and
designing the garage and this is something that
I'd like this Board to consider because people's
pocketbooks are not unlimited but clearly, it's a
big upgrade to the parcel and it's a big upgrade
for the neighborhood. And it's not dissimilar to
the types of upgrades we've already seen in this
neighborhood. So when you go down there, you'll
see many of the houses, many of the parcels have
been similarly redeveloped and that's important to
note. And that redevelopment is by and large
supported by the neighborhood. Now, so we've
defined what the character issues are and that the
change to the neighborhood will actually be a
desirable change. I think we satisfy that first
variance criterian. Obviously, we have to come
before this Board because we're dealing with a
preexisting nonconforming lot with respect to lot
width and that's why we're here and that's the
benefit that can only be achieved with your help.
Again, we're talking about a lot that's
approximately 1/3 of what the required width
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
76
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
should be. The variances are not substantial in
our view because when you look at this
neighborhood and you look at what we're asking
for, what results is the development pattern that
fits right in. In other words, it's not really a
physical, a substantial alteration to the
neighborhood with respect to lot setbacks and so
forth. And finally, you should know that the
applicant has applied for and received all their
other required environmental permits including the
DEC, the Town Trustees and also the Health
Department. At the end of the day, the interests
of the environment are served in this application
statically, as I think I just explained.
Understand that we would be eliminating two
noncomplying cess pools and we would be
constructing a new compliant septic system. So
that's an important land use control that is
favored by the regulations because it protects the
bay among other things. Critically important is
that we are compliant with the objectives of
wetland regulations and that is to retreat from
the water. And what we've done is pulled our
structure back 20 feet so that'll be 30 feet back
from the bulkhead. Today the existing structure
is 10 feet back. That separation distance would be
the largest in the neighborhood. I think that's
worthwhile noting. Finally, the dwelling would be
constructed in compliance with all applicable FEMA
codes, a FEMA A zone requires a first floor
elevation of 8 feet. We intend to comply with
that. We ask for no relief for that. And then
finally, the survey will also show you the
placement of dry wells. The house would be
equipped with gutters leading to down spouts and
dry wells. The applicant would comply in every
respect to the Town's newly adopted drainage law.
We are in receipt of 3 letters of support and I'd
like to Board to take note of that. The first one
comes from a William Laskell and Elizabeth
Richards who write, "we as property owners on
Terry Path, aka, Private Road #17, wish to provide
our reaction to Katherine Daneri's intent to
appear before the ZBA on August 2nd in order to
secure the necessary variances for the
construction of a new single-family dwelling and
accessory garage. We have reviewed the materials
supplied by the ZBA and have also reviewed a set
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
77
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
of building plans available through the ZBA
office. We find the design concept of the new
structures to be acceptable and expect it will
enhance the property and will provide an aesthetic
quality to the shoreline profile. It should fit
nicely in the neighborhood." So they urge the
approval of the variances as requested. Our
second letter comes from a Mary Hallock Smith who
writes this Board saying, "this letter is in
regards to the permit submitted by Mr.and
Mrs. Gene Daneri for the renovation of their house
is Mattituck. I am a neighbor and I have known two
generations of the Daneri family. It is my opinion
that the proposed renovations will be in good
taste and in keeping with other existing
residences in the area. Indeed, it will be an
asset to our community and I strongly urge you to
grant this permit." She goes on to say she cannot
be here because she'll be out of town. The final
letter that we're in receipt of, and you may have
more, comes from an Adeline Sieverson who writes,
"I am writing this letter on behalf of Mr. Eugene
Daneri who resides at 200 Terry Path. We are aware
of the project Mr. Daneri has presented before
your Board and want you to know that we are in
favor of his request. Mr. Daneri has been a valued
and respected neighbor for many years. We have
seen the plans for his new dwelling and are
convinced that it not only conforms to the
neighborhood architecture but will increase the
value and aesthetic appeal of all the homes on
Terry's Path." So there is a fair amount of
support for this and obviously if you've been down
there, you'll see that this is a neighborhood that
is undergoing a redevelopment. It's being upgraded
one by one and there seems to be community support
for those upgrades. I'm here to answer any
questions you may have and I note that the
Daneri's are here. I note that we have some
interested neighbors that are here and again, I
make myself available to answer any questions you
may have.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Anderson, we
asked Mr. Lund to give us the most recent survey
which is an August 1st survey.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: July 25th.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We received it
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
78
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
August 1st, excuse me. Indicating that it
appears that the steps go out about almost 3 feet
or protrude out almost 3 feet. Your actual
setback, since the steps are more than the
required zoning amount, we're talking 27' 2" to
the bulkhead. Would you like a copy of this?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I have a copy of that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we have the
wrap arounds on both sides which restrict it back
to 6.6 feet and 7 feet on the westerly side. I
was looking at the floor plan of the house.
Uniquely, you know my opinion regarding access to
at least the rear yard in some respects when you
look at the floor plan, standing in the rear yard
closest to the bulkhead, you're looking at the
front of the house and you have a bay window in
the kitchen, you have steps on the west side. On
the east side, you have bay bow type of window in
the pool room and again you have the wrap around
steps on both side which restrict the access.
MR. ANDERSON: Those steps are limited to
the deck, right?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. I
would be requesting whatever maximum setback you
could give us I don't really care which side but I
think it's probably easier on the east side
because the only thing you have really obstructing
it is a shallow bay bow window.
MR. ANDERSON: You mean the elimination of
those steps on the east side?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes and the
elimination of those steps.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think that's a
problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Meaning the return
of the steps which is really what they are.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand what you're
saying.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know what
that depth is calculated but you know if we could
get like 8.8 feet on that side clean. Ideally, as
you know, we'd like to get 10 but I could probably
live with 8.8 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's reasonable.
Your concern, for the benefit of the applicant is
-- Mr. Goehringer is very involved with fire
protection in this town. His concern is emergency
access around the perimeter of the building.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
79
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
That's what he's talking about. On behalf of the
applicant, I think that's entirely reasonable.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The other issue is
if you're going to come up with a figure of 27.2,
I would rather see 30 feet clean if you want to
leave the steps for the 30 foot setback from the
bulkhead which would put you back at 32.8, 32.10.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry. Say that again. Now
you're losing me.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The steps protrude
into 30 feet at their closest point showing us at
27.2 not clean to the bulkhead. So if we wanted
to be clean to the bulkhead, you would have to set
the house back 32 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, but you know, that's
fine. I don't think the steps are much of an
issue of harm to anyone. I understand your
argument on the side yard and I would say to
simply say let's move the house -- I don't know
that I'm going to fight you on that but I would
point out to you that as we move to the north, the
side lot line setbacks are going to become less
because the property slightly narrows from south
to north. I don't think we have a concern with
that but you might as a Zoning Board member.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not speaking
for the Zoning Board, I'm speaking for myself now.
From my understanding, the frame one story summer
cottage is going to be destroyed?
MR. ANDERSON: Yup.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the garage is
requested at 5 feet; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion to
you on that is that you give the Board alternate
relief because I don't know if we're going to
grant -- I don't know what's going to happen under
the new law.
MR. ANDERSON: I've advised the client of
the concept of this alternate relief and Mr.
Daneri is going to speak to that so I'll let him
answer that question. Again, the concern being to
get around the garage.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to hold
here Jimmy and let everyone here run through Bruce
first?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. If you're done with
your questions, then Leslie, do you have any
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
80
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
questions?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Two. You indicated
earlier that you're going to try to comply with
the height of 22 feet. So at this point we're not
looking -- if you wanted to just get it allover
with, we could grant alternate relief at 22 feet
in height. In other words, just deny the height
area or do you want to reapply?
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. We didn't want
to change it. You know, you're an architect,
correct?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am.
MR. ANDERSON: So you know that cost money
to design everything. Frankly, it was all designed
before the change in the code so it would have
complied under the previous code both with respect
to the setback of 5 feet which is by no accident
and the heights. But my feeling is if you're
going to drop the height of this roof 2 1/2 feet
and I've spoken to the Daneri's about this, not
really materially affecting it and it's probably a
variance that you might not want to grant because
you might not need to. You just simply drop the
roof. That was my thinking behind that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But the dormers you
want to try to retain as is?
MR. ANDERSON: To me it makes it more
attractive. That's an aesthetic concern and I'll
defer to this Board to make that decision.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My other question was,
it's very, I think it's an excellent move
attempting to move back as far as you feel
reasonably possible from the bulkhead for the
property owners sake as well as the sake of the
shoreline. Let me ask you why, since it's a
teardown just for the record, I think I know the
answer but I'm going to ask you to say, why you
feel that that is the optimum setback that you can
accommodate rather than pushing it back even
further. You know that if you went by the law,
that still since it's new construction, a very
substantial relief from the 75 foot setback. So
I'd like to ask you to explain for the record why
you feel that that's the place where you can
locate it?
MR. ANDERSON: The first point again is that
the property does narrow. So the further you move
it back, the more you diminish your side yards.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
81
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
The second point is if you actually were to move
it back to that degree, you would have all the
houses looming in front of you. And I think if
you want to preserve characters of the
neighborhood, there has to be some relationship of
dwelling setbacks. Not only the streets and stuff
but also the bulkheads. This lot and the entire
neighborhood, if you go down there, they're all
focused on the waterfront. If you go down there
today you'll probably see at least half of them,
you'll see people milling about. They'll all be
milling about in front of the house on the beach
for the most part. If you move it all the way
back, you certainly detract it from the
neighborhood. You're discouraging the kind of
upgrades because you've taken the benefit of the
property away. And you're saying to people maybe
you should just expand your cottage. We felt
that this approach was reasonable given the
neighborhood conditions and it is, in fact, a
balancing act and a lot of thought went into that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted it for
the record. I know it will have an impact on view
of the water and so on.
MR. ANDERSON: Which is kind of what the
bulkhead setback is about, in my opinion. That is
to say that absent of this, if I were to go into
the neighborhood and everyone was setback 75 feet
from the bulkhead, absent of that restriction if I
was able to get a Trustee permit and a DEC permit
perhaps because I had a broad beach and the
setback being from high water, if you didn't have
that restriction, you would have situations in
this town where houses could actually be placed in
front of other houses. My feeling on bulkhead
setback rule, that one of its purposes, was so
that houses could line up, so that people wouldn't
be impeding upon on others views.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no more
questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have questions that
partly go on this. As I see this, first of all, I
don't find it at all surprising that there is as
much support and agreement with the Daneri's for
this because given the law and the setbacks and so
forth, I think what is really being asked, this is
essentially a neighborhood variance. What I'm
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
82
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
saying here is, and you mention yourself, is there
going to be redevelopment of houses and people are
going to want to tear down their houses if not
this year, next year, and they're going to want to
rebuild it. This would be a very important
precedent for people who want to rebuild their
house at 30 feet from the water instead of 75 feet
from the water. So a lot is at stake in this and I
understand the enthusiasm. The idea of having
these 10 foot setbacks which are allover the
town, there are also lots of places in the town
where people are setback a lot more than that.
You don't have to be 10 feet or 30 feet from the
water in order to enjoy your property.
MR. ANDERSON: The point here though is
we're not analyzing this town wide. We're trying
to analyze the redevelopment of this property
within the neighborhood that it exists.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is that
we are not analyzing this town wide either nor are
we saying that each neighborhood is a world unto
itself and that because the law is town wide law
and there are reasons why you could never build
any of those houses today if they weren't already
there. They're grandfathered.
MR. ANDERSON: You wouldn't develop that
property. The point here is that the entire
neighborhood is compromised of preexisting
nonconforming lots.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you're saying is
the whole neighborhood is effectively
grandfathered. Is that what you're saying?
MR. ANDERSON: What I'm saying is because
they are preexisting, nonconforming lots, they all
enjoy practical hardships and that's why we've
come before this Board.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They have hardships
because they are so narrow. They don't have
hardships because they are not deep. They're all
very deep.
MR. ANDERSON: That's not true.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is something like
600 feet from the house to the --
MR. ANDERSON: That's true on this
particular lot, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And some of the others.
MR. ANDERSON: That's right.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, there's no room on
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
83
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
the property to build a house. If this house, I'm
not recommending this or saying this but God
forbid, as people say, if this house burned down
to the ground and they wanted a permit to rebuild,
just a building permit, could they rebuild it 30
feet from the water because after all the other
houses that haven't burned down or haven't been
torn down are that close? It's a tough question.
It certainly would be setting the measure for how
close to things it can be. We have cases having
people wanting to build very close to the bluff on
Long Island Sound and the argument is well
everybody else has been doing it.
MR. ANDERSON: You're trying to argue
precedent here and I've already given you the
zoning history of this neighborhood.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm talking about this
as precedent here. I'm talking about future. I'm
talking about this as precedent and certainly a
powerful argument for doing more things. There are
several ways of looking at it. These properties
have been here for eternity and therefore they and
their replacements should also be that close to
the water. The other argument is that if we had
our druthers, we wouldn't have houses built that
close to the bulkhead, but of course we can't do
that without taking people, making people move
their own houses which would be unreasonable. So
here we're talking about a demo and the rebuilding
of a house pretty much where it used to be.
MR. ANDERSON: The flip side of that is to
say we would favor expansion of nonconforming
cottages as long as they are in the landward side
and you would accomplish nothing. In other
words, they are also presented with a choice to
renovate and expand the existing house which is 20
feet closer to the bulkhead then what we're doing
today.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you're saying is,
under the law, they're entitled to rebuild their
house without replacing it?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is true. I'm not
sure how important that is.
MR. ANDERSON: The important thing is that
we are trying to balance a setback issue with the
character of the neighborhood and the geometry of
this particular lot. That's why that's important.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
84
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
And to say that well if you just expand on your
cottage, that's not serving -- that wouldn't be a
very good balance between community and individual
needs.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What counts as a balance
depends on, one, the weight of the items and what
kinds of things you take seriously. People will go
to all kinds of lengths to save 30 square feet of
a house in order to take advantage of a current
nonconforming setbacks. Whether that's our domain,
our responsibility to worry about loopholes that
people exploit --
MR. ANDERSON: It's not a loophole. It's
stated in the code.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a loophole. As you
know if you go to some of these hearings, we have
cases of people who totally demolish a house and
then save just a little bit of it so they can
build -- that's not what the code says. That's not
what writers of the code intended and it's
probably going to be changed. There are broad
issues here which go to this -- the reason I'm
mentioning this now is we're talking about the
next ten rebuilds or demos along places like Camp
Mineola where houses are going to be in perpetuity
there until they're washed out.
MR. ANDERSON: You need to see the
neighborhood because there has already been a
significant amount of redevelopment in this
neighborhood. We're not talking about the first
one through the door.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So what you're saying is
we're already at the point of no return. Is that
what you're saying?
MR. ANDERSON: What I'm saying is that we're
in the world of zoning and we're trying to take
into account the character of the neighborhood and
arriving at some sort of rational design that
attempts to balance these factors.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The character of the
neighborhood is certainly very important. Zoning
and new zoning and increased setbacks from the
sound and bay are also new things we are taking
into account. Characters of the neighborhood
sometimes come in conflict with one another when
it comes to a matter of how you rebuild a house
when it's no longer there. The grandfathering is a
step in the direction of accommodating houses that
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
85
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
are already there. Is policy ever going to be
changed in a way that was intended when the code
was changed to pertain setbacks? That's a broad
issue and I know you don't represent your client
over those issues.
MR. ANDERSON: No but we're in the world of
zoning and our presentation, because that's what
the zoning's about, is centered around the
character of the neighborhood. That's the whole
point of this.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One thing I can say is
nowhere in the zoning rule accepts as one of
several factors that we are operating under does
character of the neighborhood turn out to be
primary of zoning decisions. If character of the
neighborhood was the only thing, we wouldn't even
have to have zoning laws. We would have to say --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes you would because you'd
have to define what the character is in order to
make a determination.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The character of the
neighborhood is not defined by the zoning law. The
character is defined by real people on the ground
and people like us who go out and look at them and
say this is the character of the neighborhood.
Nobody would be foolish enough to try to write a
sanction around defining character. What I'm
saying is that's not the only issue. It's an
important issue and it does make this hard. I
think the idea of moving 10 feet to 30 feet is a
very constructive step because it means the next
rebuild is probably not going to be closer than 30
feet. Whether it's going to be 30 feet or 40 feet
or 50 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Won't the next rebuild depend
on how deep the lot is and things of that nature?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think when we get
applications, where it's going to be built is
dependent on how close the ZBA will let them build
to the water. I mean that seems to be the
principal.
Aside from the setback, the discussion of
the dormers and the change in the law regarding
accessory buildings, as you said, you know very
well the height -- that you're willing to go back
to the original height. With regard to dormers,
that's something to be -- that clearly is an
aesthetic issue presumably one of the reasons why
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
86
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
the Board may have changed this dormer issue may
have been something to do with aesthetics, I don't
know. Another one has to do with the 20 foot
setback instead of the 5 foot setback. I would
like to hear you address the question of whether
that 5 foot setback for the accessory building
ought to be increased in the light of the
accommodation to the change in the code.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think what you're
saying is why the need for the variance at all?
Is that what you're saying?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. I understand why
there's a need for a variance. Why change the
code if we're going to ignore the changes in the
code --
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not asking you to ignore
the code. I'm asking you for variance relief from
the code because the lot is a preexisting,
nonconforming lot with respect to lot width. This
lot is 60 some odd feet wide. It's supposed to be
150 feet wide. If it were 150 feet wide, believe
me, I wouldn't be here.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I suspect you would not.
Not on that issue. I think that's fine. You're
right. The fact that maybe the 20 feet is
unrealistic, this side setback, is unrealistic in
a lot like this one.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you feel that --
MR. ANDERSON: That's what I said, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A decrease in the
required setback of 75%, from 20 feet to 5 feet,
would be warranted in your view when it comes to
the side setback of the garage?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure, for a lot that is 66
feet, not to split hairs, wide that's supposed to
be 150 feet wide. Now, the client is here and he
will speak on it because I think there probably is
some flexibility but certainly relief is warranted
in this case due to the limited lot width and then
we go on to point out by showing you that in many
cases, if not most cases, if not every case, you
don't have accessory structures that are setback
20 feet from property lines.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not yet.
MR. ANDERSON: I have to go on what the
character of the neighborhood is today.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We're getting more and
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
87
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
more of them as time goes on since the code was
amended. Twenty years from now, there will be a
lot -- it wasn't the intention of the Board when
it went from 5 feet to 20 feet that it would not
make any difference over a period of years. So the
fact that it hasn't made much difference yet is
not a very strong argument.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is. We're here in
front of a Zoning Board talking about an accessory
structure setback from a side lot line created
because the property doesn't have -- has
insufficient lot width. That's why we're in front
of the Zoning Board.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a matter of degree.
It's not 5 or nothing for you?
MR. ANDERSON: No, no. I think
Mr. Goehringer already raised that point. I think
what I said is I would let Mr. Daneri address it
because it is his property.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any
further questions.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, did you need --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. One quick comment
which is I think the very well documented
characterization of this neighborhood will show if
you look carefully at what is submitted that there
already is substantial renovation of a number of
structures along there which is already defining
a character of the neighborhood as existing. Not
future but as it is today.
MR. ANDERSON: I agree with that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Secondly, on a 24 foot
deep garage on such a narrow lot, 24 feet is
required actually for the depth of a garage, it
does not seem unreasonable to consider relief from
a side yard setback on an accessory structure.
MR. ANDERSON: I agree with that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The most unusual kind
of a nonconforming lot. There are a whole series
of these slices that are extremely long and deep
and very narrow and they do characterize the
property really along Terry's Path almost in it's
entirety. I think it is not at all an unreasonable
request to take into serious account the nature of
what is there. Primarily, environmental impacts
have been addressed already by variances from
other Boards that have jurisdiction to some extent
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
88
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
over water and I just wanted to go on the record
as having made those observations.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Since you're doing a
complete tear down, I admire the fact that you're
going back 30 feet from the bulkhead, but it's a
very substantial house. We gave permission to
somebody to do almost exactly that and we had to
go down there on a different occasion and I was
really appalled just at the 30 feet setback with a
huge house, it just doesn't make sense, it doesn't
look right. You know, you're talking about the
character of the neighborhood. To me to set it
back 40 or 50 feet would be far more reasonable
for the size of the house and the property even
though I know it's long and it's narrow. I don't
have any trouble with the accessory garage, but
the house, I would really prefer seeing it back
just a bit further. I admire you going back as far
as you have. Having seen what happens with a large
house such as this is and the other one that we
did grant, I would be much happier with a 50 foot.
I think the scale of the whole thing is just
better and it'd be a good example for the rest of
this community. We do have storms and you know
that Mr. Anderson and I'm looking for the
interests of the property owner too. We've had
people who've had to move their bulkheads back,
they've fallen after a lot of erosion. So to me,
you're safest at 50 foot and you have an elevation
of 8 feet. How high are you going to have to raise
that house?
MR. ANDERSON: We're not raising it at all.
We're at 8 feet. This house would be flood
compliant. That's the point. I'm not going to ask
for any relief and you're not the relief Board to
grant it anyway I don't think maybe you are. But
our intention is to construct a dwelling that will
conform in all respects to the regulations of the
Federal Emergency Management Act.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would basically like to
comment on all three of these. Number one, the
reason why the Town makes buildings nonconforming
is because when they get beyond the usefulness of
the owners, they want them to be more compliant if
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
89
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
they're going to be building. I understand about
if they're going from 10 to 30 feet that may be
more compliant but quite honestly, the 75 foot
setback in my mind and as I can recall from how
this discussion came about is that is an
environmental reason and I'm thinking because
we've had laws passed recently that become much
more restrictive, we should, when a person, if
they just want to add a room to a house that's
there already and it's in the same place and they
just want to make it and they can continue to live
in it the way it is, I have no objection. But when
you're taking a house down, a single-story cottage
house, and making it a two-story house, a full
two-story house, I think there is a good reason
to move that thing away. I'm not worried about
floods. I'm not worried about anything other than
the fact that our code says it should be 75 feet
and when the opportunity comes to make it 75 feet,
is when you tear that house down. So, with that
said, the accessory garage and that wall that
we've created has been punctured by this Board to
the point that it's a pin cushion. The 5 foot
setback that you request is for you so that your
lot can be complied with but the law in the height
of that building were made for the neighbors, to
protect the neighbors. To listen to the debate on
accessory structures, there were people
complaining that other people were building these
high structures too close to their property line,
the neighbors property line and I think that if
we're not willing or maybe we are, I certainly am
not, willing to have two buildings 10 feet apart
from each other in the face of this new law, then
we've got to hold the line on how close we'll
allow these structures to be and how high we'll
allow them to be. Now, the dormer problem, that's
a problem. I understand that that place would
look a lot better with a 70% dormer. It will look
nice. But the law is 40%. All our Town's fathers
made this law, had a public hearing on it and
voted it in. I think for us to say now no we're
going to allow 100% variance of that particular
law, I think flies in the face of every person who
came to that meeting and requested that something
be done about structures that are so close to
their house. Again, I think that it's more a law
for the neighbors and not necessarily for this
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
90
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
applicant or any applicant that would like to
build a structure that's 22 feet high 5 feet away
3
6
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think as I said, we
don't need to beat this to death, but I'll defer
to you on the dormers. I'm not going to beat that
to death. As far as the maximum height is 22 feet
and it's divided at 24.58 feet. We've already
said we'll redesign that. You have what you have
before that because applicants go through a year,
a year and a half of permit misery and expense,
architectural included.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I couldn't agree with you
more, Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: It costs a lot of money. You
need the patience of Job to get through this
process. But at the end of the day in the world
of zoning, I look at things, because this is what
the zoning law tells you to do, is how does this
fit with the neighborhood. You seem to say that
that doesn't matter. We're just going to disagree
on that point.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Bruce, I can't let you get
away with that. I don't think that it doesn't
matter. I do think though that we have a law, the
law is in effect and for us to take that law now
that should be 20 feet regardless of how narrow
the lot is, you should be 20 feet away and say it
should be 5 feet and because before that law, you
weren't allowed to have that.
MR. ANDERSON: Here's where I disagree with
you. If you look at the height provisions and the
setback provisions of accessory structures, you
will see that their height and their setbacks are
indexed relative to the lot area of the lot in
which it sits at. In other words, if you have a
larger lot, you can build a higher accessory
structure but you gotta set it back further from a
property line. That's how that entire law is
drawn. It's a balancing act between the height
and the setback of an accessory structure relative
to lot area. Lot area is not our problem here.
Our problem is lot width and the law is silent on
what to do with lots that conform with respect to
area but do not conform with respect to lot width.
It's silent.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: As well it should be.
MR. ANDERSON: Leaving that matter to the
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
91
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
4
Zoning Board.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: He's forgetting
that there's other land available that's included
in that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm trying to figure out
why can't it be 15 feet away from the property
line? Why does it have to be 5?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to let Mr. Daneri
speak to that and I suspect there is some
flexibility but to say that it's -- the problem is
that you have these long bowling alley lots in
this particular neighborhood. So it's unique.
It's not that you're setting a precedent town wide
for these types of variances. Although, when the
next guy comes in with a lot that's 60 feet wide
or whatever, my sense would be, I would tend to
give him that variance because he's got an obvious
practical hardship.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You know this is not
unique. It happens to be unique to Mattituck
perhaps, even that part of Mattituck. But you go
down to Beach Road or you go to anywhere along the
bay, it repeats over and over again. There are
long narrow lots all the way from Laurel all the
way through to East Marion. So, it's not unique.
MR. ANDERSON: It is unique.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unique meaning one of a
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
kind.
16
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know how to address
that.
17
18
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is this
is not pertaining to just Camp Mineola. It's
familiar to hundreds of lots around the Town.
MR. ANDERSON: In a Town comprised of
thousands of lots.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. That's not very
unique to me.
MR. ANDERSON: This lot -- this doesn't
sound unique. I think it's very unique that we are
dealing with a lot that's 600 plus feet long and
only 66 feet wide.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON:
type of lot have to be in
being called unique? If
would it still be unique?
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there are 100 such
lots, when we get these cases every month of
How rare would that
order to qualify as
there are 100 in a Town,
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
92
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
unique lots, sometimes --
MR. ANDERSON: You're supposed to get the
applications that have the practical hardships.
People should not be coming to this Board -- if I
have a lot 150 feet wide, I should not be coming
before this Board for an accessory structure less
than 20 feet from the side lot line. I agree with
that.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Everybody with a 60 foot
lot comes to us with the same kind of hardship
that the Daneris have.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And there aren't just 3
or 4 of them. There are a lot more.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I think the
uniqueness is fairly weak as an argument unless
you're saying we should subdivide lots and say now
we can amend the code and say if they are less
then 75 feet in length, then they qualify for
different treatment. But not on grounds of
uniqueness.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm in front of a Zoning
Board. I'm not in front of a Planning Board here.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. So we're only
applying the zoning law. The zoning law doesn't
make the kind of distinction your begging us to
make for Camp Mineola and for, whether you know it
or not, hundreds and hundreds of other lots around
this Town. It's not in the code.
MR. ANDERSON: This neighborhood is Zone
Do you realize that?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Many of them are.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. That's 40,000 square
foot minimum lot area with 150 foot minimum lot
width. That's what R40 means in the Zoning world.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Again, you have to realize
that that is what the code says. If this zoning
map says that it's R40, then it's R40. It's as
simple as that. It's not that you get an exemption
from R40 because your lot is so narrow.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not asking for an
exemption, I'm asking for a variance.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But I'm looking for
statement of hardship concerning why it has
5 feet? Why it has to be 36 by 24? Why it
R40.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
some
to be
has to
93
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
be 22 feet high? You know, there are limitations
to the lot and perhaps that size building doesn't
belong on this lot.
MR. ANDERSON: Let me -- if 24 feet bothers
you. Twenty-four feet is a standard depth for any
garage. They're built to 24 feet and I think
that's how big a car is because you need to walk
around your car. Now, if you were going to drive
a little mini or golf cart or something, yes, you
can have that. But most cars require --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What about 36?
MR. ANDERSON: Thirty-six has three bays.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Why dormer?
MR. ANDERSON: The dormer was done for
aesthetic reasons. I explained to you before that
it was designed prior to the adoption. I'm not
going to fight you on the dormers. Let's move away
from the dormer issue. We're not fighting on the
roof. If you want us to lower it, fine, we'll
lower it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is the roof that high
because of the width of the garage?
MR. ANDERSON: What I said is we will lower
the roof to 22 feet so we don't need to talk about
that. So what controls the setback here is, I
think we can all agree that garages are all 24
feet deep. I think we can all agree that there
has to be room to turn it around. So there's a
parking area next to the garage. Mr. Daneri will
speak on that. I suspect there is some flexibility
there. If you're asking for the rational as to why
it was laid out, it was laid out with those
constraints in mind during a time when the code
said 5 feet was adequate and that the height
complied. We understand that. We put it in so
that, to give you a chance to comment on it. We're
not fighting on the height of it. We're not
fighting on the dormer of it. But we didn't want
to go through the exercises of yet again going
through more, no offense, architectural fees. I
defer to the Board on that issue is what I'm
saying.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Can I ask a
question? Is there a second floor on the car
beds?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
MR. ANDERSON: There is a
floor. It's shown on the plans
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI:
partial second
submitted with you.
For storage?
94
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, a little 10ft area.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I couldn't
remember.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any
questions for Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson, would you like to present
somebody. I think the owner wanted to come up. Are
you the owner, sir?
MR. SMITH: If Mr. Daneri wants to speak in
favor of his application which is what I heard, I
think he should come before me. But if he does
yes, otherwise, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you're Mr.
MR. DANERI: (From the audience)
Daneri and I'd like to hear what Mr.
say.
Daneri?
I'm Mr.
Smith has
to
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. We'll need your name
and address, sir.
MR. SMITH: My name is Thornton Smith. My
address is 37 Sandpiper Lane in Greenport, New
York. I have two prepared documents prepared
before I listened to this discussion. I have
copies of both of them, sir, which I'd like to
present to you and I have copies for the Board.
I'd like to read them both after which I have just
a few comments based on the discussion that I've
heard earlier today. If I may give you those two
copies.
The first document is the document addressed
to the Zoning Board dated July 30th and signed by
my four children, five children, one of whom is
here. "We are the owners and tenants in common of
the adjacent parcel to the east of the above
referenced property. We strongly oppose the
granting of the variances requested by the
applicant. We hereby appoint Thornton E. Smith as
our agent with full authority to represent us in
the matter. Attached is a copy of the deed
indicating our ownership in the property." My
second document starts, "My name is Thornton
Smith. I am an immediate neighbor of the Daneri's
to the east. In 2006, I transferred my property
to my 5 children and I appear here as their agent.
My sister, Shirley S. Anderson, owns the next
property to the east. Our lot numbers are 15 and
16 on an aerial photograph filed in this manner.
My number is erroneously listed as 19. The
Daneri's own the second of ten lots that are all
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
95
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
in a row in this community. They are characterized
by short dimensions on the bay and at the north
end and long 600 feet dimensions in the
north/south direction. On the northern 400 feet,
nothing is built on any of them. The land
contains only driveways. Along the bay, these
houses were all constructed to architectural
designs that were in keeping with the customs at
the time with special attention to setbacks and
landscaping. We have known Mr. Daneri for many
years and his late parents before him. I'm a
professional engineer registered in New York State
inactive status. I'm also registered in 3 other
jurisdictions. I'm a fellow of the American
Society of the Civil Engineers and I'm on the
retired list of the Core of Engineers. In the past
in other jurisdictions, I have served both as a
building inspector and as a member of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Last August I appeared before
the Board of Trustees on this matter. I pointed
out then, "on the northern 500 feet, he is
abandoning about 400 feet of pine woods in order
to put a driveway next to the one which already
exists." I don't see any reason why he should make
a change. More importantly, I also raised the
issue of the side line building setbacks. I
stated, "I do believe that they could design two
structures which would be suitable for the
property. Allow them to have whatever area they
might want and be able to meet the building code
requirements and that will not have to be a
violation which they will have to take to the
Zoning Board." Obviously, for the current owners
of my property and we believe, or at least some
members of the community, the issues of setbacks,
sideline setbacks, is the controlling issue for
this application. While my practice as a civil
engineer has been mainly as a constructor, I have
on several occasions also controlled the design of
both buildings and land development including
projects in the Town of Southold. Professionally,
I strive to achieve high standards of design that
are compatible with the area. This project as
presented violates these standards. The house has
a single setback of 7 feet whereas the code
requires 15. It has a total setback of 14 whereas
the code requires 35. I will discuss the garage
as I knew it yesterday. The garage has a setback
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
96
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
of 5 feet whereas the code requires 20. It also
has a height of 24.58 feet whereas the code
requires a maximum of 22. The dormers encompass
73% of the roof width whereas the code limits them
to a maximum roof width of 40%. There is a reason
why these requirements are incorporated in the
code. That reason is to protect the legitimate
and recognized interests of neighbors not to have
houses built too close to their structures or too
high. As neighbors, we care about these issues.
The plan is not an appropriate solution for this
site or this community nor is it in keeping with
the standards which the citizens of the Town of
Southold wish to maintain as indicated by the
approved building code of the Town. As an example
of the sensitive treatment of a similar site, I
submit the development of our own adjacent
property. It is of similar width. The house is
L-shaped with the base of the L on the water. The
vertical part of the L stretches to the north
where there is effectively no setback limit. The
east side has a single setback of 19 feet on the
southern side of the building versus the code
requirement of 15 and a 29 foot setback on the
northern portion. On the west side, there is a
setback of 22.5 feet. Thus, on the southern
portion of the building, the total setback is 41.5
feet versus the code requirement of 35 and on the
northern portion of the building, the total
setback is 51.5 feet. We submit that this layout
is an excellent solution to an admittedly limiting
problem of the width of the site. We achieved
functional requirements for the building without
breaching or even reaching the limits of the
building code, thus we encountered no hardship.
With competent architectural design, the Daneri
property on the western boundary would present no
hardship either. We ask for a compatible solution.
The Board of Zoning Appeals has responsibility in
the first instance to monitor adherence to the
accepted standards of the Town. Since it is
apparent that Mr.and Mrs. Daneri do not intend to
adhere to the code, we express our strong
disapproval of this application and plead with you
to disallow it in it's entirety and therefore
force them to adhere to the code. That is my
prepared statement.
I'd like to make comments and I hope to make
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
97
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
them brief on the discussion I've heard so far
today. First, Paul Long is not among the ten
houses which are in the Camp Mineola East
Community. The height of the garage has already
been discussed here. The distance back from the
faller line, if there had been any discussion of
this application between me and the Daneris and
there has been none, I could easily support them
in the position in which the building has been
setback. It's behind the A-E line as opposed to
the V-E line that has to do with flood control. It
happens to be in line with the next two structures
to the east in terms of setback from the water
which are mine and my sister's and, as a matter of
fact, the next structure too who's owners are
here. On the west side, the house existing is a
little further forward then where they would be in
that new location and the idea of setting them
back further then where they are now would be, I
believe, an unwarranted burden on the site. I have
not had a chance to communicate this before unless
I did discuss it in the Board of Trustees meeting,
I didn't remember. On the matter of preliminary
plans, the fact that Mr. Anderson says a little
money has been spent on preliminary architectural
plans, of course without the intent to follow the
code, and that has lead to other proposals before
other Boards, just as a professional does not cut
any ice with me. I happen to remember in the case
of the structure which I designed next door. It
took me 17 sets of plans before I could get my
wife, who is here, and my late mother to agree on
a set of plans. And I finally got a set of plans
which not only met their requirements but, of
course, did not require that I appear before you.
With regard to the 3 sites from which letters have
been of returned; Colonel LaSalle of the Army,
Mary Hallock Smith and Adeline Siverson, they are
lot 6, 7 and 8 in this line of ten lots of which
Mr. Daneri is 2 and I am 3. The Siverson site is
very unusual. It only has a 26 foot width. The
next one has a 46; 26, 40 and 50 are those three
lots. Those lots are fully built out sideline
wise. I don't think, and I think this statement
applies to most of the houses in the area, there
has been construction over the years. I don't
think I see any intention with one exception way
up north at the east end to attempt to renovate
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
98
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
the buildings and in all cases, as I think I said
in my memorandum, those buildings are in
accordance with the code. They have grandfathered
certificates of occupancy. They are in accordance
with the code that existed at the time. As I
mentioned in my memorandum, they were constructed
with adequate reference to the sidelot setbacks
and in each case they have as attractive side lot
setbacks and landscaping as the lots would allow.
The elimination of steps, I think the elimination
of steps is not a serious problem and I will leave
it for now. There are many details here which if
there had been competent architectural design
under the direction of an owner that wanted to
meet the code, those discussions should be taking
place not in this venue. The demolition of the
entire house does allow an opportunity, as I said
in the Board of Trustees, the demolition of this
house would be a good thing provided there's
adequate, which I didn't say then, provided
there's adequate architectural treatment of what
they're going to put in it's place including
setbacks, sidelines and the provision thereafter
of adequate landscaping. Mr. Anderson mentioned
that there's some room for flexibility. So far I
have not seen any flexibility here and that's one
of the reasons that I'm here representing my five
children. I think the comments of Ms. Oliva and
Mr. Dinizio are in line with our concerns with
regard to this property. We are the closest
neighbor. We think that a competent architectural
design could be obtained which could meet their
requirements. Whatever the square foot area they
wanted this house, ladies and gentlemen, they've
got 600 feet north in which to build it. Which is
exactly what I did in my situation to make sure
that I limited the frontage of the house in the
front and had what I considered to be an excellent
side lot that exceeded the code and that is an
excellent solution. We must leave it to you,
ladies and gentlemen, to do justice to this
problem. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir. Does
anyone have any questions of this gentleman?
Thank you very much.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anybody else wish to
speak?
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
99
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
MR. TOPPER: Yes. My name is Louis Topper and
I'm a neighbor of the Daneri's. I prepared a
letter. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
here. I made sure that I had the time to come
because I know a lot of the other neighbors were
not available and I wanted to tell you exactly as
I see it. I live two houses down from Charlie and
Kathy. I recently purchased my home which sits
right on the bay and although I'm not part of that
Terry Path community, I directly abut all the
houses on Terry Path. Even though I'm Camp
Mineola, I appear on the east side of the
right-of-way which really puts me more part of the
Terry Path community then it does the Camp Mineola
Community. I could read my letter and then I just
have a few other comments to make, "Dear Members
of the Board, I'm writing to express my feelings
regarding the proposed development of the new
Daneri residence. Almost all of the properties
that abut the waterfront have been constructed in
proportion to their lot size and in many cases
have been completely rebuilt or substantially
remodeled and extended. The Daneri property is the
only one that is disproportionately undersized and
has never been improved. I am fortunate to be the
Daneri's neighbor and I am very pleased for them
that after all these years they plan to build such
a beautiful and appropriate home on their
property. Their plans call for an elegant building
substantially setback from the water and as a
result a structure that will not be raised on
pilings. They have been quite thoughtful in
choosing this location and construction method.
As a result, their immediate neighbors will have
better views of the bay. Further, their structure
will not have an elevation that begins 5 feet
higher than the adjoining properties. My home at
3605 Camp Mineola Road is just two doors down and
I have a substantial amount invested in my
residence. There is no doubt that the Daneri
project will enhance the value of all of the
properties in this small waterfront community. I
believe it is important for the Board to act as
quickly as possible because the present cottage is
not a suitable habitation for this family and as
their friend, I feel it is very important for them
to be able to reside in a new beautiful home both
reflective of the kind of people they are and
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
100
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
consistent with the character of the
neighborhood." I understand I'm not well versed
in variances but obviously I have a vested
interest in this project and I frequently find
myself as was described earlier sitting on the
beach and just looking across the sorted and all
different types of homes that comprise maybe 20
different homes on the waterfront. It's not
logical to me to see anybody push their home too
far back because then basically what they do is
they eliminate themselves from the community. They
become invisible from the overall scheme of
things. It makes it look like a checkerboard from
the water. And so I think it's great that some of
the houses are pushing somewhat back from the
water and I think this is a real positive, from my
point of view, it's a real positive thing, but not
so far back as to create gaps and other
decisiveness from being able to communicate or
actually sit on the beach where most of us spend a
lot of our social time. Of course, if there is
anyone that spends a great deal of time on the
waterfront, it's Charlie and Kathy. They
appreciate it probably more than anybody else.
They're always out there. They're always
socializing. They're wonderful neighbors and I've
seen the plans for their home and I think it's --
and truly I live two doors down. The next house
is an abandoned cottage. It's an extremely old
structure. It's actually falling apart as we speak
and it happens to be right next to my residence. I
don't mind the fact that it's 10 feet away. I have
a privet that gives me the privacy I need and
precludes me from looking at it. I would be much
happier if I could be looking at something that is
clearly more appropriate for the neighborhood and
for the amount that I invested in there. It's
obviously a good thing. We all want to support the
community. We have no problem paying more and more
taxes. This all seems to me to be an economic
benefit and I think it will be a real plus for
everyone. I just wanted to be present to let my
feelings be known. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir. Anybody
else who would like to speak?
MS. ARNOLD: Very, very brief. I'm speaking
on behalf of my parents, Margaret and Joseph Best.
My name is Eleanor Best Arnold. I'm speaking on
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
101
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
behalf of them. They are 83 and 84 and they are
the current owners at the house. I will be the
fourth generation, my siblings and I, to own that
house. We love the home. Our neighbors, we all
call them aunt and uncle because we grew up there.
I'm writing this letter on behalf of Mr. Eugene
Daneri who resides at 200 Terry Path. "We have
known Mr. Daneri from his youth to adulthood. He
has always been a considerate neighbor and shown
an interest in our small beach area. We
understand he is requesting to make changes in his
home and we feel these changes will enhance this
beach front area. By moving this house back, it
will increase the bay visibility for all of his
neighbors. We are in support of his request. If
you have any further questions." I'll give you
this letter. It has our phone number and my father
is with me to verify. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Anybody else?
MR. DANERI: Yes, I'd like to have a few
words.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the
Board. My name is Gene Daneri and it's my
application that you have before you today. First,
I'd like to say what I have to say and then I'll
answer whatever questions that you may have of me.
My parents purchased this home in 1967. Initially,
it was a summer home. Ultimately, my parents
retired there and they passed away. My mother
passed away in the house. My father passed away in
a nursing home shortly after he moved out. I
currently reside in this house on a full time
basis. My office is in Riverhead. I submit to you
this application in order to construct a home that
is more comfortable for myself and my wife and our
family. Now, unless you live on the water or had
any experience living on the water, you don't
really understand what it's like to be a
waterfront homeowner. The focus of everyone who
owns a piece of property on the water is the
water. It's the proximity of your home.
Obviously, you don't want to be too close but you
want to be able to see the water. You want the
best view you can have. Now, one of the things
that I can guarantee that any person who owns a
home would come in here and tell you is that the
side yard view is not the asset of the property.
No one would tell you I got a great view of the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
102
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
side of my neighbor's house. That's not a
reality. Now, I think it's important for you to
know there are a number of concessions that I'm
making by bringing this application to you. My
house right now is 10 feet off the bulkhead and
when it's stormy, it's close. One thing you can't
dispute, I can sit on my porch and I can see from
Jamesport Point to Nassau Point all the way down
the bay. My house is the closest to the bulkhead,
closest to the beach of anyone else's. I have an
unbelievable view. Now, in presenting this
application, I'm pulling my house back. Pulling
my house back. It's going to be 30 feet from the
bulkhead. Those of you who went down to the
property, if you stood where the front of the
house is going to be, you'll see my view which was
once this (indicating) will be this (indicating).
That's a concession. That's a serious concession
for a waterfront property owner. Now, in addition
to that, our plan involves the destruction removal
of a second smaller cottage on the property. When
I was a kid, my parents rented that house. If our
application is granted, that house will no longer
exist. I will no longer have the right to
construct that house. Now, what we're looking for
here is to appease you, get what we want and wind
up with the maximum view that we can. I submit
that there are a number of benefits that our
proposal has for all of the neighbors's including
Mr. Smith. He hasn't mentioned this and apparently
doesn't recognize it but when we move our house
back, he's no longer going to have to look at the
side of it. His view, the critical part of
waterfront ownership is going to get better. Same
for the property to the west of us. In addition to
that, obviously, we're going to have the renovated
structure or a new structure that's going to
increase my property value and the surrounding
property value. Now, by eliminating the second
structure, that also produces a benefit to the
community in that I'll no longer be able to rent
that second structure. That will reduce traffic in
the area. Now, Mr. Anderson has already covered
the environmental issues. I just want to recap
them. Obviously, the construction of this home
would involve an updated septic system, an updated
septic system that's going to be further from the
bay then the present septic system is. In
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
103
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
addition to that, there will be the installation
of dry wells or run off from the house which will
also be further from the bay. As Mr. Anderson
indicated, the removal of the second cottage also
eliminates the second septic systems. Now,
despite all these things, Mr. Smith stood before
you this afternoon and tells you he objects. He
objects to the project as a whole, everything
about it and he even insults my architect, Mark
Schwartz, by implying that he's not a competent
architect. I submit to you that the objections
he's raised are not reasonable.
Now, everyone knows that there's reasons for
the zoning requirements but there's also a reason
for variances to the zoning requirements. If there
weren't, you folks wouldn't be here nor would I.
It would be the strict letter of the law and the
zoning law would be applied without any type of
flexibility. I put to you that this property cries
out for variances for the reasons already stated.
Yes, one of the things that Mr. Smith has
mentioned is that apparently he thinks I should
construct a house that looks like his. Well, how
my house looks is my choice, not his. Yes, I
could build a house that fully complies with all
the zoning requirements and what I'd wind up with
would be a long, narrow trailer house. That would
not be a benefit to Mr. Smith, to my neighbor to
the west or any member of the community. Now,
it's also significant to note that Mr. Smith and
all of his children who own or hold title to the
property to the east of mine, not one of them
lives there. Mr. Smith lives in Peconic Landing.
Neil Smith, his son right here, lives in
Massachusetts. The most these people ever spend
in this house is two weeks out of every year. Yet
despite these things, they come before you and
state they object. What's the hardship to them two
weeks a year compared to the hardship to me. I
live here year round. Now, you have a number of
letters in front of you. I don't know if you
received a letter from Dorothy Uldany (phonetic).
She indicated to me that she was going to be
mailing one. I spoke to her. I spoke to all of my
neighbors with the exception of Mr. Smith and they
all support the present application. I think it's
also significant to note that I think Mr. Smith
indicated this himself, that his sister lives on
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
104
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
the east side of him; immediately adjacent
property. She hasn't objected to our application.
Now, these letters, Bruce Anderson, the neighbors
in support of our application, I submit are the
voices of reason. I also submit to you that there
is no legitimate purpose to denying this
application. That's basically all I have to say to
you folks today. So if you have any questions,
I'd be happy to answer them.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing
we're discussing Mr. Daneri was the issue of the 5
foot setback for the garage. And I think Mr.
Anderson said you were going to address that.
MR. DANERI: Yes, well, honestly, as Bruce
had indicated when the plans were drawn up, it was
before the code was amended in January. I
honestly don't know how far we could move the
garage from the side yard, from 5 feet to whatever
and still be able to get in and out of the garage.
One of the concerns that I have is that you have
the 5 foot setback, you have the 24 foot of the
garage, then obviously you need a certain amount
of room in order to be able to maneuver into and
out of the garage. I don't know --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
suggestion for you?
MR. DANERI: Certainly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you put a
stake at that 29 feet and see how the turning
radius is?
MR. DANERI: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And see if you can
give a little on the turning radius?
MR. DANERI: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think my
colleague who is better suited than I am had
another suggestion.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There are a number of
ways -- clearly, this is not something you've had
a great deal of time to reflect upon and there are
viable alternative solutions that will still allow
you a 3 bay garage with a slightly larger side
yard setback and I don't think that's the crucial
issue that's before us here. I think if you're
given some time to talk to your architect, you'll
come up with something a little better. One
answer is to rotate it so that the 3 bays face --
obviously, you don't want to necessarily obscure
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
105
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
the entire elevation of your house which is a
consideration. But those are the kinds of things
you can discover in reevaluating the site and it's
strict limitations. I think probably the primary
focus of your presentation has been about the
placement of the dwelling itself, the proposed
dwelling, and I think that testimony has covered
all bases on that score. That's all I would say.
Perhaps, Jim, I don't know what the protocol would
be but maybe you might want to have the time to
take a look at perhaps an amended site plan
relative to the accessory garage. That's up to
you, I guess.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly we could, if we
want, felt so, just grant him whatever side yard
setback we want to grant him and he could deal
with it in any way, any fashion he'd like. If he
went 15 feet, he could have the same size building
just turn it around and come in on the front. You
know, that's a compromise between the --
MR. ANDERSON: I want to make one point that
with regard to issues of fire protection. We're
talking about trying to get 10 feet. If we
increase the setback of the garage from the side
lot line beyond that which the house is setback, I
don't know that we're accomplishing a whole lot in
that regard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It figures out, if you
just twist that thing around, you could have like
20 feet on that one side which is more than --
you're welcomed to have, that's what you need.
MR. DANERI: I'm certain that if the sticking
part of our application is the garage, we can
reconcile that issue in a manner that will be
satisfactory with the Board. We are not quite as
inflexible as Mr. Smith would lead you to believe.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that quite
honestly when you present it in that way, and I'm
glad that we heard from you but in all honesty, I
would like to see what would be acceptable to you
and if that's the case, we probably need to hold
the hearing open until we get that and have
further comments on it if we're going to change
it. But if you're saying to us, your application
stands, we'll make a decision on it based on what
we feel the Town can handle.
MR. ANDERSON: My preference, because we've
been at this so long, would be to simply provide
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
106
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
you with alternatives in writing and let you make
the decision rather than prolong this.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We don't know what
you're priorities are, it might be that you would
prefer, the one option might be to have a two car
garage instead of a three car garage. I'm not
recommending that but that's among the kinds of
options to think about and the idea of turning it
and so on. All of which can be considered. We
think that the idea of options A, Band C makes
our job a lot easier and we can come a lot closer
to satisfying your order of priorities. Coming as
close to it as we can.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think if I can't get
from you that it would be okay to turn that thing
around and keep it 15 feet from that side yard,
that's still basically granting a variance.
MR. DANERI: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And if I can't get that
from you today then we have a discussion and it
goes one way or the other. Now, I gotta say this
to you and I'm sure Bruce will tell you, that if
you heard me speaking 5 years ago about
applications like this, you would not hear me
speaking about asking you to do things. But it's
a different time now. The Town has made different
decisions and some of the decisions, although I
don't agree with them, are part of our law. If
people go into the code book, they read that code
book and say this is what I can do. They don't
say, oh, I can get a variance for this. Most
people just say okay, here's what I can do with my
piece of property. And what you hear from me now
is we're trying to apply a Walz decision, which
this certainly falls under, an accessory structure
decision we just got. And I know you got caught up
in the middle of. I'm trying to at least adhere
to the spirit of what the Town Board is trying to
get us to do and not overgrant variances. I
realize that they are minimal when compared to
what they used to be. But what that are now, the
maximum. You're supposed to be 20 feet away and
you're asking for 5 feet, that's a 100% variance
from the code. That's a lot and I think in
percentages. Some of us up here don't. But I do
and I just can't reconcile myself making a
decision for you at 5 and then having to say to
someone else you can only have 10 or you can only
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
107
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
have 15. I realize that there is a problem with
the narrowness of that lot but you can put the
same size building, we can grant you a variance,
but I think the 5 feet is just not going to fly as
far as I'm concerned. I would like to see if it's
okay to you to have those garage doors facing the
street, you're driving into it, if you think that
that's okay, then I think the conversation that we
have on the 16th will probably be a lot less
contentious.
MR. DANERI: I can tell you that I don't
have a problem with what you're saying at all, but
you have to understand, I'm not an architect. I
haven't had a chance to talk to my wife about it
and make sure that it's okay with her. I think
what Bruce has said, we can leave today and submit
something to you in writing that we believe given
what we've heard here today is more in the form of
what you're looking for I don't think we're going
to have a problem.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. We'd need that by
the 13th by 1:15.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: We'd actually need
it the Friday before the deadline. That's the
public hearing date, if we adjourned it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're not going to adjourn
it. We're probably going to close it. So if you
can give it to us by the Friday before we make our
decision which is the 16th.
(All Board Members talking at the same
time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: A week from tomorrow.
MR. DANERI: I don't think that'll be a
problem.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Same with the dormer
thing. If you could just go by the 40%, that
would be nice. If not, let me know.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I would say, use the
same criteria for the setback. We're giving you
over a 50% relief from that setback of 75 feet. I
would like to see it moved back a bit. It's a nice
house but it's a 50 foot wide house with a
cantilever. That's a big house.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Move back from
where though?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Move back from the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
108
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
bulkhead to about 50 feet.
relief.
MR. DANERI: The additional distance is
considerable if you go and look at the property
and you look at the view of the water.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Daneri,
the views of the water, believe me.
here to protect or provide views of
We're here to protect what the code
allowed.
MR. DANERI: Well, you're here to protect the
interests of the community. Certainly, I'm a
member of the community as are all these people
here. I can tell you this, that if my neighbors
were to see my house 75 feet back from the
bulkhead, there's not one of them that would be
happy about that. Not even Mr. Smith.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Daneri, I'm not
telling you 75 feet. I'm saying 30 feet is over a
50% variance.
MR. DANERI: And I understand that but the
one thing that I would like to say with regard to
that is that obviously that's code. That's new
construction code. I don't think that you can
apply it strictly into a neighborhood with
preexisting structures that are considerably less
than that from the bulkhead.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It has been done.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Actually, sir, that's the
problem with the new way of thinking. Is that,
quite honestly, it used to be you wouldn't even be
before us at 10 feet if you just replaced in kind.
But now that's all out the window and it all has
to do with bulk and there's no more preexisting
nonconforming. So I agree with you that from going
from 10 to 30, that is a good thing. I probably
can, myself, live with that. But don't think for
a moment that you're doing the Town any favors by
asking for that. The Board has to really stretch
when you tear down houses. If you were adding
onto that house, the Board doesn't stretch so
much. It's there, it's existing, you put another
room on. But you tear it down and then you read
our code, our code says if 50% of that building is
in any way blah, blah, blah, burnt down, missing,
you gotta start new at 75 feet and work your way
back. That's what we're looking at. We look at
the code. It's not your fault, it's not anybodies
That's an over
50%
2
3
4
6
I appreciate
But we're not
the water.
says is
5
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
109
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
fault other than the code's there and the code
does exist. We try to apply that to everybody in
a fair manner. I think it would be a travesty to
be 75 feet back because the way the houses are
there.
MR. DANERI: Absolutely. That's my point.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But consider what we have
to look at because we have to look at it from the
opposite way. You're tearing it down therefore you
no longer have an existing setback other than 75
feet. We're granting you now about a 60% variance
even when you say you're moving it back. So
that's how we look at it. We do try to
accomodate, but again, and I certainly understand
the confusion, the amount of money you've spent
and the merry-go round that you have been placed
on in this Town. I understand that and I think
everybody up here does. I wish there was some
other way to alleviate that but I don't have the
hours to spend, quite honestly. So, Ruth, are you
done?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anybody else wish to
comment? How about out in the audience?
MRS. SMITH: Shirley Smith. I'm Thornton
Smith's wife and we're the house next door. I
think there initially has been a misunderstanding.
We are not objecting to them tearing down the
house, building a nice house next door, the
setback seems fine. We didn't object to the
setback from the bulkhead. I'm surprised Charlie,
wherever he is, that he never talked to us. He
never came over and asked us how we would feel if
he put his new building as close as he is
intending to do. What Thornton has really been
objecting to is the side lots and the side lot to
the east which is where we are, front, back, the
garage, the height of the garage. I'm glad that
you sort of resolved that that's a little too high
beyond the zoning. But I think to equate, we've
been there well over 50 years. We love the house.
Our children love the house and because they live
at a distance and aren't here all the time is
really not the point. Charlie has, I think, two
houses in the Mattituck area and he's free to go
back and forth. Our children are further away.
I'm sorry that someone from the house next door to
us, our sister, is not here. She is not here
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
110
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
because she agrees to it. I'm not saying she
objects to it. I'm just saying she chose not to
engage in this thing. I liked what Ruth said at
one point about the scale. I think the scale is
overly large, pretentious but truly we were not
objecting to the whole house. It was the side
setback.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I ask a question?
Can you tell us what your side yard is from the
adjoining property line?
MR. SMITH: Twenty-two and a half feet on the
Daneri side and it's in the paper. Nineteen feet
on the east side, 22 1/2 feet on the west side.
The entire dimension on the west side is 22 1/2
feet.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What
is see what the distance between
house would be, the side of that
side of your house.
MR. SMITH: They're 10 feet on the west side
so and it would be 32 1/2 feet of which only 22
1/2 feet are ours.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But I'm saying you're
about 32 feet away from each other.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think that that's
fair to base the distance of the house on their
property.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
understand visual impacts.
MRS. SMITH: We tried very hard to make sure
when we did our renovations that we stayed within
the code. What we object to is having the code
exceeded and not having to neighbor come to us and
say, this is what we'd like to do. We've never
had any approach from them.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir? Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH: Maybe all of those comments are
not completely professional but at least you've
heard them. You, madam, are an architect. So are
obviously architectural solutions involving
layout, the facade of the house is not an issue as
far as we're concerned. It can't be under the
code. But there are architectural solutions with
regard to layout which would allow them to build
whatever they want to build on the property. But
they've shown, up until now, I'm happy that by
virtue of being here, we have got some signals
that maybe there's some flexibility here. But up
I'm trying to do
the proposed new
house, and the
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
I just want to
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
III
tit
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
until now and I still think our future on this
matter rests in the monitoring of your Board.
With regard to Mr. Topper, I'm pleased that he
agrees with the front line setbacks as we do agree
too. The bone I have to throw Charlie, and once
again, I think I threw it to him in the Board of
Trustees, I have those notes of my presentation
but I'd have to go back and look at it.
Mr. Topper is not a member of the Camp Mineola
East community. He is member of the West End
Association of Camp Mineola and he's not one of
the ten houses that have these long lots. His
depth is very short and there are several houses
behind him on the same piece of property. It used
to be 600 feet long but it's not anymore. His
house has been renovated twice in the last ten
years. It's an excellent house but it has very
short side lots too, as does the one next door to
it which is a violation of the building department
now. It will have to be worked on. What will
happen to the house, we don't know. It has a 15
foot setback from the Daneri property at it's
closest location; even more than that on the water
but 15 foot at one place in the house. The
Daneri's have 10 now and they're reducing that by
my numbers to 7 on the west side. Also, the
proposed plans of this house, are not something
that you have jurisdiction over, but the proposed
plans of this house are 35 feet in height. My
house 24. It will be the highest house in either
direction, I think, for maybe 10, 15 houses in
either direction. This is a humungous structure.
With regard to Charlie's comments - we call him
Charlie, his name is Eugene. I think he said that
he was giving me a concession with regard to the
front line setback but I believe the reason the
house is there as I said before has to do with the
flood line and if he hadn't put the house there,
he wouldn't have gotten past the Board of
Trustees. Let's put it the other way, the Board
of Trustees accepted his proposal because he put
the house where it was and I'm not sure that that
was a concession to me. I happen to think it's the
proper professional solution but he happens to
have gotten in the process of putting the house
where he proposed to put it because of the
approval of the Board of Trustees. My wife has
covered the issue of lifetime occupancy. My
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
112
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
sister and I have been on these two sites, one
since 1932 and the other since 1965. How far they
will be in our family in the future is something
that I do not have control over but everybody in
the family likes the site and we hope to be there
a long time. My sister has seen my presentation
here and she has, whatever objections she had to
this presentation, I have made them before they
were given to you. She has no objections, to my
knowledge, to the presentation. She's probably
seen 3 drafts of my presentation. I hope that
maybe this discussion here today will lead to some
serious discussion about solutions to this problem
which essentially would require that they don't
have to come back here at all. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anybody else that
wishes to comment on this application?
MR. LASALLE: Very quickly. I live in Camp
Mineola, several houses. My name is William
LaSalle, 540 Terry Path. This house has the same
architect, this building, as Paul Long's house.
If it's anything like that, it will be a very fine
house and we welcome it. You heard all the other
arguments.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir. Bruce, we
can expect that information by the 10th, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And so we'll get that
information. Anybody else? Okay. I'll entertain a
motion that we close this hearing pending that
information from Mr. Anderson.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
(See minutes for resolution.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Here's what we're going to
do. We are going to reopen this hearing right now
and we're going to, I guess, leave it open until
the 16th.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: To the next hearing.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The next hearing is
September 13th.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't really like that
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
idea.
24
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
suggestion to you please?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, let's hear a motion,
that's all.
e
25
113
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here's the motion.
The motion is to reopen the hearing. We need a
unanimous vote which we probably do have.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let Mr. Anderson
have at least two weeks or ten days to do what he
has to do and then let the remaining -- Mr. Smith,
let him react to it at which point they can, in
writing. The purpose of the motion today and my
suggestion is to take no more oral testimony at
this hearing and therefore, not taking any oral
testimony will then give you the right to produce
any further letters that you want. Pick a drop
dead date to stop the letter writing and that's
it. We address the issue in September when
everything is done. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm just a little
concerned about the time. I don't think anybody
objected to us making a decision on the 16th. I
just think that what the both sides wanted was to
be able to comment on --
(All Board Members talking at one time.)
MR. ANDERSON: Honestly, if you -- I don't
want you to rush it either. If you're trying to
cram this stuff in so you can -- I appreciate your
trying to accommodate but I want a just decision.
What's the next date?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The 13th of September.
MR. ANDERSON: Why don't you make your
decision on the 13th? That way you're not under
the gun. Now, here's my only concern. We're going
to come back with an alternative that you've
requested and that they're going to comment on the
alternative. I'm fine with that. I will not be
fine if we use that opportunity to introduce all
other kinds of stuff that may be factually
inaccurate. So if the understanding is I'm going
to come back with an alternative and Mr. Smith
wants to submit comments having to review my
alternative, I'm perfectly --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can limit it to that.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'll send him a copy.
That's fine.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Bruce, you're willing
to waive your rights to respond --
MR. ANDERSON: On the provision that he's
going to simply respond to my -- and not introduce
other.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
114
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
MR. SMITH: Let me get this clear. You're
going to give me some comments --
MR. ANDERSON: One more time. They've asked
us to submit some alternatives, for example, the
garage. We're happy to do that. We're agreeable
that you can comment on those but limit your
comments to the alternative, what's in front of
you, that's all.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're going to give us --
what you would like to give us with regard to what
we ask.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: In writing or
orally?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to give you a site
plan and I'm going to give you a letter. I hear
the garage, I've heard about the steps, I've heard
about the bulkhead. I've heard about all these
things. I have a good decent memory, not perfect.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If you're going to
resubmit that, how long do you need for that?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll take ten days.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ten days will get us to.
MR. ANDERSON: Make it two weeks.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That will be the 16th.
We'll receive your stuff on the 16th. It'll be
available to you on the 16th. We will receive
stuff from you till the 31st, in writing only.
MR. SMITH: Of August.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Of August. And we're going
to have a hearing on the 13th and after reviewing
this information, we're going to close that
hearing.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not coming back on the
16th, right?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, we're just going to
leave it open for written comments.
In any case, on the 31st, we're done with
this application as far as anyone handing anything
into us. Now, so how do we -- what do we have to
do first? Open the hearing?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Just amend the
resolution.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to amend the
resolution. Anyone want to make that amendment?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make it.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: To August 31st.
MR. SMITH: I'm available September 13th but
a couple of days thereafter, I'm sort of out of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
115
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
action for a while. So I guess you're going to
have on meeting on September 13th and whatever has
to happen then, you're going to make a decision
then.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don't need to
appear. You don't have to be there. There won't be
anymore testimony. You're going to do it in
writing beforehand. We're going to talk about the
whole record amongst ourselves.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're not going to take
any further testimony.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just written comments.
MR. SMITH: By the 31st.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: After that, we'll do
something. The decision won't be made until the
middle of, the end of September. That's when we'll
make a decision.
MR. ANDERSON: I will deliver him a copy at
Peconic Landing. My father's there as well so I'm
there all the time.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want me to do
anything, Counselor, other than amend that
resolution?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Just amend the
resolution.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to
amend the resolution to extend the written record
to August 31st. Resolution on 9/13 will close the
written comments. We offer that as a resolution.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
******************************************
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Hearing #6063 - Sherman
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Bohn. Do we have to
reopen this hearing?
MR. BOHN: It's still open.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. What was the result?
MR. BOHN: I went to the Building Department.
They said now it's different from what Mr.
Goehringer told me. Cement or brick at grade is
acceptable. Wood structure is not. But this house
is 78 years old and there's a lot of lots around
there that are very small. So nothing that's
built around there, I can pretty much grantee you,
conforms to any kind of zoning laws. What I'm
asking you to do, if you could, is give me a 5
foot setback for the side yard because he has two
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
116
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
frontages. A 35 foot setback would give him
nothing of a deck but this table. If we could
fill in that outside corner at a 5 foot setback to
achieve, we'd lose 2 feet of our deck but he would
still get a usable area. It's a dead area now.
All 4 neighbors are in favor of the project. They
love his plantings. The house is beautiful. This
would be a definite positive note for the
neighborhood. Would you give us that on a wood
structure? Because the house being a wood
structure doesn't comply with pretty much any
setback because it's so old.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At grade?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Wood structure at
grade? And what would you do about access from the
sliding patio doors? Will you have steps down to
the lowered deck?
MR. BOHN: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And what about the
existing shed?
MR. BOHN: Gone if that works for you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who's is this?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mine.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You got that, Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just go through it once
more for me.
MR. BOHN: We're going to take 2 feet off the
deck to achieve a 5 foot setback on the side yard.
Enclose the outside corner which will give us,
still have a 32 foot long deck that will be 21
foot east to west. Lose the shed completely and
have a set of steps from the slider down to the
first level of the deck and maintain grade in two
steps. If that's acceptable.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will you do a
little sketch on that for us, please.
MR. BOHN: Yes, I will.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bring it in by the
early part of next week.
MR. BOHN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else you want to
add? I know it's been a long day for you. Anyone
in the audience that would like to make comments
on Sherman?
Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion
to close this.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
117
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
*****************************************
4
Hearing #6052 - Reinken
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Richard and Cathy Reinken. Whose is that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's mine.
"Request for Variance under Section
280-ll6B, based on the Building Inspector's May
24, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning new
dwelling construction, after demolishing the
existing construction, disapproval for the reason
that the new construction will be less than the
code-required 75 feet from the bulkhead, at 1935
Pine Tree Road (at Little Creek), Cutchogue; CTM
98-1-11.1."
And how are you, sir? Would you state your
name for the record.
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of
EN-Consultants, 1319 North Sea Road in
Southampton, New York. I'm exhausted from the
prior hearing. Mark Schwartz, the project
architect is here and Gene Berger, the builder and
Mr. Reinken is here from Arizona.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my file but
I just want to. Mr. Schwartz, what are you doing,
moving around?
MR. HERRMANN: He's avoiding your deems. In
case you didn't have enough discussion of the demo
and rebuild and bulk head setback on the Daneri
application, we can revisit it here. Ruth probably
remembers from conversations I've had with here in
the past, this is my least favorite section of the
code. This is the 75 foot from bulkhead setback
which I've addressed with this Board an the Town
Board in the past. It's a troubling section of
code that I think is worth putting in the context
of this application for a couple of reasons and
sort of the spirit of this section of code was
discussed at the prior hearing. I think it's
problematic because if it's viewed as the Chairman
mentioned as sort of an environmental protection
section of the code, it's in the wrong chapter of
the code. I think it's an antiquated in that
sense ini that it was written at a time when the
Town did not have as sophisticated a wetlands law
as it has know nor a Trustee Board that was as
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
118
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
active in environmental protection and wetlands
protection as it is now with these sort of upland
projects. Threw the years that I've done this,
I've gotten a sense from various people in the
Town that it was in part what Mr. Anderson had
said, to try to make sure that people weren't sort
of having these sort of stepping stone approaches
to the bulkhead but also more appropriate for
sections of shore line where you had long
stretches of bulkhead like on Peconic Bay as
opposed to areas like this where not only are not
all of these properties bulkheaded but this
property in particular is not really bulkheaded.
It has on it a section of very low bulkhead that
could almost be deemed a retaining wall at the
bottom of the bluff. So interestingly, if the
Building Department called this a retaining wall,
we wouldn't be here. Interestingly, if the
Reinken's chose to get rid of this section of
wall, we wouldn't be here. But troubling, if you
look at this section of code not just as an
environmental protection piece but also from a
pure zoning perspective, it also has the
opportunity, as I discussed with prior Town
Boards, to be discriminatory but in an illogical
way. What I mean by that is if you had two
projects that were immediately adjacent to one
another, same setback from the water, same scope,
demo and rebuild, each requiring Trustees approval
under the Town wetlands law, each requiring DEe
authorization under the State wetlands law, each
requiring Health Department approval, if you had a
property where there was no bulkhead, you could go
straight from that year long process to the
Building Department and get your permit. But if
you have a bulkhead or in this case a section of
bulkhead, you then have to come before you folks
for yet another approval. Now sometimes we want
our code to be discriminatory not in a prejudicial
sense but in the sense that you want to have more
extensive review for certain kinds of projects.
But my problem with this section of code is that
it's backwards. It says that somebody who has a
completely undeveloped shoreline with pristine
wetlands need not come before you. That decision
is left strictly with the Town Trustees. But
somebody like the Reinkens who have a partially
more developed shoreline insofar as it has a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
119
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
bulkhead as to come for this additional review.
Which to me seems a bit backwards because you're
taking a property that's somewhat more developed
and saying it requires two environmental approvals
from within the Town and I've always been curious
as to how the Zoning Board finds itself in a
position where somebody has an approval from the
State, somebody has an approval from the Trustees.
In this case, two approvals. The Trustees have
seen this project twice. Once in its original form
and then again in its more recent form where we
took the one section of the house and kind of
weaned it away from the shoreline and added some
additional environmental mitigation. But how does
the Zoning Board then make a decision that's
anything other than approving the same thing
without effectively usurping the Trustee's
authority? Having said all of that, it is as the
Chairman has mentioned, the code and that's why we
are before you. So with that as a context in the
back of your brains, I want to discuss the
specifics of this project. What we did for your
reference is we added to the survey the adjoining
houses so that you could see with respect to the
Zoning spirit of the Code that these houses are
essentially in line. And what the Reinken's are
proposing to do is in effect construct in the same
area as the existing house a larger house that is
designed to sort of step its way back away from
the water. The hardship that the Reinken's face,
I mean they do have all the same desires as
discussed in the prior hearing, to maintain the
views, maintain the proximity to the water, etc.
It's a bit of a different application because,
number one, they are on an embankment here. Not
the entire property but a portion of it is an
embankment and that's the section that's
bulkheaded. But despite the adjacent property,
it's actually very well vegetated and very well
screened from the water and the plan calls for
nothing to change that. What creates a bit of a
hardship here is the sense that what the Reinken's
are trying to do is recreate and expand upon the
existing house in between existing structures that
they intend to leave in place. As you can see from
the survey, the existing house fronts up to a
existing wood deck and set of stairs that goes
down to the bulkhead. On the roadside, there is an
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
120
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
existing framed garage and an existing paved
driveway all of which is intended to remain. So
what they are doing is building within what is the
presently cleared and developed area of the
parcel. A larger house, again designed to step
back toward that existing driveway without
encroaching too much upon the existing garage. The
other use for that space is the upgraded sanitary
system which obviously is an ecological
improvement to the property in that they are
taking a preexisting nonconforming septic system
abandoning that pursuant to Health Department
regulations and establishing a new system landward
of the Trustees wetlands regulated area that is
more than 100 feet away. We saw a couple of
comments from the LWRP coordinator with respect to
to consistency of this project and what we
actually had done and submitted and what I hope
you have before you is a plan that was approved
just last week by the Trustees that actually
relocated one of the dry wells that's proposed as
part of the drainage system to capture runoff to
the landward side of the house as Mr. Terry
suggested. And it also implemented a nonturf
buffer in areas which previously were not
established as such. When the Trustees had
originally reviewed this, there was no nonturf
buffer imposed because as I mentioned, unlike
adjacent parcels, there is very heavy screening
vegetation in front but what we've done is expand
upon that and I have just shown in yellow the
areas here which currently are not part of that
vegetated embankment but which would now be
comprised of a nonturf buffer and again that it's
unusual on the property and sort of falls away
from the embankment here, runs down the lawn to
what again is a natural shoreline which I would
repeat if the whole shoreline were like this, we
wouldn't be here. So we are looking to protect
some additional areas of the property that are not
vegetated now that will enhance what is already
there. I will just hand up a few photographs.
This is the property to the north. The second
photograph is the property to the south and this
is the Reinken's piece. You can see the difference
in the view from the water of that shoreline.
Because of the configuration of this house, the
view of that from the water really will not change
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
121
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
much. This is the dash line on the survey, the
footprint of the existing house so most of the
expansion here really is heading in the landward
direction although we're not going to get into
that discussion here. The porch on the corner here
and again originally this section of the house
kind of went more north/south and it was
redesigned by Mr. Schwartz to bring it back away
from the water which the Trustees thought was an
improved scenario here. I don't think I have
anything else to offer but I'm certainly here to
answer any questions the Board has. And again,
Mr. Reinken is here and the builder and the
architect are here as well if you have any
questions specific to the design or the building
itself.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you
that I was to the site twice. It is truly a
magnificent site. There's no question about it. I
just don't understand why the applicant doesn't
want to move the house back a little bit farther
away? That deck is like a little parapit out
there and I can see it go back another 20 feet and
I realize that the driveway area is very, very
nice and it's very unique also. I think if I was
building it, and this is just a statement, that
I'd go back at least another 20 feet.
MR. HERRMANN: I'll let Mr. Reinken speak to
part of his intent but again I know this plays
upon the themes of the prior hearing but I want to
stay focused on the Board having some specific
purpose of why to do that other than just because
that's what the code says. Because if we were to
move back 20 feet, this house would then be
setback beyond the line of the adjoining houses
and the house to the south is a rather newly
renovated structure and again it's hard to tell
from the water but I don't believe this property
has a bulkhead. So this house is as it is with
respect to the water but with much less screening.
This house here again is actually much closer to
to water in terms of the way the shoreline curves
in where as here, in some corners here you're more
than 100 feet from the wetlands. The only relief
we're looking for is, again, less than 75 feet
from what is a section of bulkhead. So I think it
bears repeating that the Town Trustees who are the
Board and the Town that are politically elected
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
122
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
officials and their hired staff people have looked
at this twice and felt that this is a reasonable
and approvable, as they've approved it twice,
development or redevelopment scheme on this
property with respect to the setback. There are
no flood issues here. We don't really have an
erosion issue here. The house as it would be
reconstructed is in line with the adjoining houses
certainly within the character of this shoreline
community. And we have a situation where there is
a combination of the aesthetic desire to try to
maintain the way this house has always existed in
its location with a minor setback of several feet
but also to maintain and keep it tied into that
waterfront deck and be able to tie into that
driveway without compromising the area that's,
number one, required for the septic system and,
number two, required to maintain that accessory
garage. As discussed before and I feel like this
argument, it may fall on deaf ears with the Board,
but all of these applicants have the choice of
leaving these older structures in place and
expanding in a landward direction with the same
dwelling. But here, it's almost because they have
the where with all and the desire to rebuild it,
it's almost as if there's a suggestion that they
should be penalized for that. If they want to
add an extension, that's fine but if they're able
to knock down the house and reconstruct a new one,
then they should be held to all of these new
standards even if it puts them in a completely
different location with respect to the water. I
don't want to spend two hours like the prior
hearing debating the philosophies of that because
I know that it is being debated within the Town
and there is a lot of debate. I'll focus on this
one section of code. Both the idea of building a
landward of preexisting structures and also these
preexisting setbacks both to the bluff and to the
bulkhead. I think we all and you all are just
caught in a bad spot at this time because it has
yet to be ironed out. But I think you have to look
at each site and I think if you look at this site
and you look at it relative to the adjoining
parcels, I don't think there is any downside to
the Reinken's doing what they're doing in terms of
just trying to maintain that most seaward portion.
In other words, if you look at the site plan, I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
123
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
mean there are portions of this house that are
entirely outside the 75 foot setback. Most of the
portion of the house that's within 75 feet is the
area of the existing house that already is within
75 feet and it was designed specifically to sort
of hold the line only at that most seaward point
and then jog backwards in a way that doesn't look
stupid.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it's very
nicely done. I just want to say this and I said
this at the last hearing which will be a final
hearing hopefully today on Soundview Avenue in
Mattituck and that is, seeing storms that we had
in the '80's and the height of the water in the
'80's, I was subject to that as a public official
and it actually destroyed 800 feet of bulkhead on
the Peconic Bay and I realize that this piece is
not on the Peconic Bay. I realize it's much more
protected than Peconic Bay and affords almost the
same view as on Peconic Bay but that water was
extremely destructive and I don't know if I was
going to invest that kind of money, I'm just
saying that I would probably set it back just a
little bit more. I have no real significant
objection to this plan, Mr. Reinken, at all. I
just wanted you to be aware. There's nothing I'm
saying that's either distasteful or destructive to
anything about you, your builder or your wonderful
architect.
MR. HERRMANN: Rich, did you want to speak a
little bit to your rationale?
MR. REINKEN: Couple comments but I'll be
brief. I don't know how you folks sit up there
from 9:30. My wife and I are working very
diligently to try to move back to the Island. Work
took us away. We're trying to come back and as you
said, this piece of property is just magnificent
and the house is positioned optimumly. We looked
at any number of options and possibilities and
where the ideal location would be for a rebuilt
house. As Rob said, we could have just renovated
the house, if you will, and try to bypass this
whole step. In our hearts, we knew the right thing
to do, this is going to be our forever dream house
that our grandkids will come back to and so on and
so forth. We wanted to do it right. And one of
the reasons for not moving it back any further is,
one, we have a very wooded lot. There's just
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
124
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
magnificent oak trees. I think we have one oak
trees that may be the oldest oak tree in
Cutchogue. To touch any of those oak trees
unnecessarily would just break my heart, quite
frankly. We can reuse a lot of the
infrastructure. It's just such a unique layout
that you hate to change anything significantly
from the way the house is structured right now. We
are blessed to be up 14 feet. So to your concern
about being so close to the water. I hear you. We
went back and forth on that, my wife and I, but we
feel it's adequately protected. It's just a very,
very special spot to own a home. Also on the
landward side, we have a detached garage and
moving it back anymore than it is right now, that
garage is staying, would basically create almost
an urban feel if you really want to retain that
courtyard and those of you that mapped the site
know that there's actually a courtyard area
between the house and the garage and squeezing
that would basically ruin a lot of the charm of
the property. We really did look at all the
different options and in my heart, I think from an
environmental standpoint and practicality
standpoint, environmental, not even talking about
the views which will stay basically the same. That
really was just one of our criteria. I think the
house is in an ideal position and we'd like you to
consider that and hopefully approve my request and
get me out of trouble with my wife. I told her
this was going to be simple. Boy, did I lie to
her.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else wish to
comment on this application? Board members?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Two questions. We
don't have a foundation plan. Can you talk to us
a little bit about the foundation of the house and
land disturbance.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect of
the project. The foundation will be a standard
concrete foundation 8 to 9 feet deep. We're
intending on using, obtaining the existing
excavation because there is a full basement
underneath what's there now. Disturbance would be
as minimal as possible.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's a full
basement and you're leaving what's there now or
reconstructing in place and kind or what?
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
125
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. It's probably going to
end up being a new foundation by the time we're
done. The existing hole that's there is going to
remain. We're expanding from that point on.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The other question is,
what use do you have in mind for the existing
framed garage that you proposed leaving?
MR. REINKEN: Actually, it's got a couple of
uses. It's partially, I do a lot of woodwork, so
I'd be doing woodworking there as well, and it is
actually a full garage for storage of a car or
could be used for equipment for mowing the lawn
and things like that. I haven't decided what is
going into what garage at this point in time. It
actually adds to the charm of the property if
you've seen it and we would not want anything to
happen to it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're adding an
attached garage for your cars so I just wanted to
will it remain unheated?
MR. REINKEN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to say
one thing after seeing Mr. Dey's house yesterday,
I do apologize Mr. Berger. You are a wonderful
builder also and Mr. Schwartz is a wonderful
architect and I do apologize.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion
that we close this hearing until the 16th.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
*****************************************
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
Hearing #6057 - Planitzer
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Russell E. Planitzer. Michael, that's your
application.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance
under Section 280-15, based on the Building
Inspector's June 8, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
concerning proposed additions and alterations to
the existing dwelling which result would change
the conforming rear yard to a nonconforming yard
for the existing swimming pool construction, at
Ocean View Avenue, Fishers Island; CTM 9-11-3.1."
I understand the pool isn't being built but
20
21
22
23
.
25
126
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
the house is being added onto. This is on Fishers
Island and I invite the representative.
MR. HAM: Stephen Ham, 38 Nugent Street,
Southampton for the applicant. That's correct. The
pool was built around 2001. Mr. Planitzer had
acquired the property in 1999. There's a CO
attached to that memorandum I just distributed for
the pool. At the time, I guess they didn't forsee
that this was an issue if he decided to add onto
the house. So what we have here is a legal
existing pool and a legal proposed addition that
needs no setback relief. Just a definitional
quirk that throws the pool into the side yard as
opposed to the rear yard. The alteratives would
be possibly flipping this addition to the west a
bit which would satisfy the definitional
requirement but be much more obtrusive from a
sight point of view, create an odd V-shaped
structure that would be closer to the westerly
property line and of course the other alternative
is moving the pool or getting rid of it which is
silly. It's a functioning pool. It was built only
6 years ago. I hope this is an easy call for you
but if you have any questions, I've laid out the
legal arguments in that memorandum.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't. It's fine.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions. It's
pretty straightforward.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience
wish to comment?
MR. HAM: You probably wish I came here two
hours ago.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion to close this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I already made the
motion.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth made it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
*****************************************
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
127
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
Hearing #6043 - Grebe.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is Albert R.
Grebe, Jr. That's Ruth.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for Variances
under Section 280-114, based on the Building
Inspector's April 9, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
concerning proposed rearrangement of lot lines for
three existing nonconforming lots. The
rearrangement of lot lines will change the size of
nonconforming lots located in the R-40 Low-Density
Residential Zone, and will change the size of
nonconforming lots located in the R-80 Residential
and Limited Business (LB) Zone Districts. Land
area shown as #14 with an existing dwelling will
be increased in size; Lot 15 with an existing
dwelling will be increased in size. Land area
shown as 17.1 will be reduced in area to 69,428+/-
square feet. Location of Property; South Side of
Avenue B, and the north side of Fox Avenue,
Fishers Island; CTM 6-2-14, 15, 16 and 17.1."
MR. HAM: The only thing that you have to
decide is whether we can reduce a 71,000 square
foot lot to 69,000 square feet and add the land,
reduced area to make a nonconforming lot less
nonconforming. So we're making a nonconforming lot
more nonconforming but we're, at the same time,
we're increasing the conformity of the adjoining
parcel. There are some other swaps going on to
rationalize the use that's in here. We have a
flagpole section that stands alone which is tax
map 16, you'll see. That will be added to the
property that Raferty is getting from Greevy, this
parcel that's coming out of the 71,000 foot parcel
to create a more rational flag10t and the owner of
14 will get some land that's now owned by 15 which
adjoins its property. But that's before the
Planning Board. The only variance that's necessary
is the reduction of tax lot 17.1 from 71,000 to
69,000 square feet.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have a problem
with that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comment.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have a
comment?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Now that I understand
what you're talking about.
MR. HAM: It's part of a larger swap and one
variance is needed. The neighbors are changing
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
128
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
their lot lines to perform a more rational basis
of the way it's used.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Should we look at it
while we're going over next Tuesday?
MR. HAM: If you like. Are you going
Tuesday?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But I think that we don't
need to hold the hearing open.
(All Members talking at the same time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on, one at a time.
The basic hardship is you got a piece of land
that's an R-80 and you have other pieces of land
that are in R-40.
MR. HAM: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So basically, that's what
it comes down to.
MR. HAM: All of which are nonconforming in
their respective zone districts.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Three zones
actually, right?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So anybody have any
comments on this hearing?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only comment is that
this is pretty straightforward but it's worth
having a hearing on because if one of the
nonconforming lots was made more conforming down
to a ridiculously small size, then it would be a
problem. The point is, these are relatively minor
changes.
MR. HAM: Yes, 1,647 square feet and the
nonconforming lot is going from the reduction in
conformity is from an 88% nonconforming to only an
86% nonconforming. So it's not substantial.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion
that we close this hearing until the 16th.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
******************************************
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Hearing #6061 - Girzadas
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
application 6061, Chris Girzadas. Who's is this?
That would be Michael's.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance
under Sections 280-l22A and 280-124, based on
Zoning Code Interpretation under ZBA #5039 in the
24
.
25
129
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
Application of R. Wa1z, and the Building
Inspector's June 13, 2007 Notice of Disapproval,
concerning proposed additions to the existing
dwelling, which will be an increase in the degree
of setback nonconformance when located less than
35 feet from the front lot line, at 600 Mill Creek
Drive (a.k.a Mill Creek Road), Southold; CTM
135-3-42.3."
As I understand, this is a lot that
potentially has three front yards but only because
of the curvature of the road.
MS. GOLDING: Correct. My name is Agnieszka
Golding. I'm here to represent the client. We are
in essence proposing an addition to an existing
cottage. The existing cottage, we have reviewed
and have also looked at the conditions of the
structures -- basically we are proposing a brand
new addition to the existing cottage. It's
completely beyond the foot print of the existing
cottage but it's attached by a passage. The reason
being so and that is actually putting us in a
nonconforming front yard setback off of Mill Creek
Drive as close as 27'10" and another location of
34'2" instead of the allowable 35 foot setback on
the front yard side setback, excuse me. The
addition is going to house a great room and a
master suite up above that with clipped ceiling.
So we're expanding on the foot print of the
existing house without touching any of the
construction of the existing conditions to be
honest with you. The house does not have a
foundation wall beneath it. It's an older cottage.
The owners would like to keep it intact as it is
and still expand on their living space by adding
an addition to the side of the house. I almost
want to say the back of the house towards.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Architectural rear
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
yard.
24
MS. GOLDING: In essence being the front yard
setback of the nonconformance that we are
creating.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Since you've made it
clear that the application says what I suspected
it said, I have no further questions.
MS. GOLDING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
21
22
23
.
25
130
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the reason
why you pulled it out so far and didn't push it
back a little bit toward the rear or toward the
architectural rear of the existing cottage?
Ms. Golding: The reason we didn't push it
out towards the inside of the land, if I just may
explain it in that aspect, is Mr.and Mrs. Girzadas
have recently renovated their kitchen and there's
a window facing out and if we were to go any
farther over to meet the 35 foot or even come any
closer to meeting any beyond going a little closer
than the 27, we would be blocking that view into
the backyard and they would like to, they have two
children they would like to be able to look at the
backyard through the kitchen window.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're maintaining the
27'10" setback, so there's no increase in that.
It's a very modest addition. Very much in scale
with what's already there. I think it will enhance
the house and have no significant impact on the
neighbors. It's still going to retain it's
character. I have no questions.
MS. GOLDING: We're trying to do, if I may
quickly just express, we're trying to keep it as
low key as we can due to the existing cottage
elevation that's there now.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Plus it's very exposed
all the way around.
MS. GOLDING: Very much so.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions. Do
you have anything else that you would like to add?
MS. GOLDING: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hearing none. Anybody in
the audience would like to add? No. I'll entertain
a motion that we close this hearing until the
16th.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
******************************************
22
23
.
25
Hearing #6062 - Lampl
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing
and Patricia Lampl. That is who? Leslie.
here for that too?
is Mark
Are you
24
131
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: "Request for Variances
under Sections 280-116A(1), 280-122, 280-124,
based on the Building Inspector's June 5, 2007
Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
additions and alterations to the existing
dwelling, disapproved for the following reasons:
(1) the new construction will be an increase in
the degree of nonconformity when located less than
15 feet on a single side yard, and less than 35
feet for total side yards; and (2) the additions
and alterations are not permitted at less than 100
feet from the top of bank or bluff adjacent to the
Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 910 The
Strand (Lot 127 at Pebble Beach Farms), East
Marion; CTM 30-2-81."
Okay. Rather than my summarizing this, why
don't we just have you proceed.
MS. GOLDING: I'll take you step by step.
Basically, we are proposing the following
additions to the existing dwelling; an attached
two car garage which is creating a new side yard
nonconformance of 14.4 feet and 13.6 feet along
with a proposed new roof pitch over the entire
existing structure of the home which is, again, an
existing nonconforming setback of 13.6 feet of the
side yard setback. And so forth going towards the
rear which is the waterfront of the property and
proposing a second floor deck addition in place of
an existing fireplace which is proposed also to be
demoed which is at the closest proximity to the
top of bluff located at 86 feet instead of the 100
foot setback that is required. There are two side
yard setbacks along with waterfront side setbacks
that we are requesting from you.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You will be
maintaining the existing setback fundamentally
from the bulkhead.
MS. GOLDING: We're maintaining the existing
setback based on the fact that we do have an
existing fireplace that's in place and it's a very
large structure. I don't know if anyone has gone
to the site. So in essence, what we're doing is
removing the concrete block and proposing two new
footings which will probably actually lay in place
of the existing block that's there now after being
filled in to begin with. At least that's what
we're hoping for. It's intact by all means. And
the deck is going to be located off the second
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
132
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
floor master suite basically a small deck just
overlooking the rear.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I was also on the
inside of the structure. It happened that the
home owners were there when I made the site
inspection and clearly they have a cathedral
ceiling now and with a mezzanine, you're simply
going to extend that out so that the master
bedroom will fill in that second story volume.
MS. GOLDING: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On the interior. And
the exterior differences will be minor elevational
changes; a window and a removal of the chimney.
There's no front yard setback variance required
for the addition of the garage. It's simply
maintaining existing side yard setbacks of the
house.
MS. GOLDING: Correct. It is in line with the
existing house if you were to shift the line back
as it does say on the site survey. But it is
nonconforming close towards the street.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And almost all the
other houses in the area have an attached garage
as far as I know.
MS. GOLDING: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Let me just
look. I don't think I have any other questions.
The pool now has a dry well, correct? The existing
pool has a dry well for backwash?
MS. GOLDING: Yes. I can have that -- I
don't know if it's sited on this survey from
Mr. Nathan but I know that Mr. Lampl has a very
big concern about drainage and things of such.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There is one on the
survey. The one thing that I am concerned about
that Soil and Water reported on was the problem
with erosion on the bluff is being created by the
existing outside shower.
MS. GOLDING: Right.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With brick patio.
There was some concern from Soil and Water about
that structure. It is not a part of this
application, per say, but since we automatically
get feedback from them on any waterfront property,
have you or your client talked about that in any
way? Have you had an opportunity to see that
letter?
MS. GOLDING: No.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
133
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I wonder if the
applicant saw that.
MS. GOLDING: I spoke to Mrs. Lampl
yesterday. She didn't mention anything to me.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Actually, it came
in late.
MS. GOLDING: It's a matter of containing the
water runoff that's created when --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Either moving it
closer to the house and tying it into the existing
pool backwash, you know the dry well or the pool
backwash which is located fairly near the pool.
MS. GOLDING: It's small enough of an issue.
I think we'll be able to accommodate.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it is causing some
erosion. It's clearly causing some problems to the
bluff and there are mediation suggestions made in
this letter. What protocol can we follow to see
if perhaps in writing --
MS. GOLDING: May I ask who am I responding
to besides the Board? Is this a neighbor's
concern?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. It's strictly the
County's response to our request for an
interpretation --
(All Members talking at the same time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He basically says he would
like you to mitigate that problem that is created
by water running.
MS. GOLDING: May I ask a question? Would
it be feasible for us to propose a dry well near
the location of that shower more landward or is
that out of the question?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can propose that.
I think what we should do is give you a chance to
reed that, talk to your clients and make a
suggestion as to how you'd like to respond.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: She can also
contact the County --
MS. GOLDING: It was never to be honest
with you, I've seen the shower, I never gave it
any attention.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It just came in.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are aware that
this office sends, this Board sends that technical
information to any construction that's on Long
Island Sound? You're aware of that, right?
MS. GOLDING: Yes, I am.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
134
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
3
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You just didn't
the letter.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We got it late.
bunch of things. I don't think we need
up on this. We can close the hearing.
MS. GOLDING: We will attend to it, of
see
2
It's a
to hold her
4
5
6
course.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you in writing
provide something to the office about how you mean
to address the issues raised in that?
MS. GOLDING: Yes. Can I have a few days.
(All Members talking at the same time.)
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You have a week from
tomorrow. Just something in writing which could
then be read by the Board at the time of the
special meeting.
MS. GOLDING: I can come by and get that copy
of the letter.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that okay, tomorrow?
MS. GOLDING: Yes, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So I'll entertain a
motion if we haven't got anything else to say on
this.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Unless Gail wants to
comment on this. You don't want to comment on this
application, do you?
MS. WICKHAM: I do.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, you do.
MS. WICKHAM: I'm not here to enjoy the air
conditioning.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. WICKHAM: Good afternoon. My name is
Abigail Wickham of Mattituck and I'm representing
Mrs. Carsonas (phonetic) who owns the vacant lot
to the west of this property. They are planning
at some point in the near future to build on that
lot and live there and so they are concerned, very
concerned about the renovation that is proposed
and a few specifics that I'd like to address. The
request is to decrease the existing or expand the
degree of nonconformity of the side yard setback
on the west side and just going to a broader
overview first. The lots in this Peeble Beach
subdivision are too narrow to begin with. This
pattern in and of itself, I think lends
construction to have to curtail the size of
buildings to accommodate the fact that the lots
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
135
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
are very narrow and even beyond that, if you have
a 15 foot allowable setback and you're dealing
with a two-story building, that's not a very big
side yard. What's happening here is there is
currently a small one-story structure which is
really not much bigger than one room on the west
side. They are seeking to make it two story to
then expand a large length toward the street for
the entire garage and additional front extension
towards the street and as I read the map in the
file for the old survey, it is actually a foot
closer on the northeast corner than the house now
exists. Further, they're seeking to put an
entryway which is only 9.8 feet from the line.
What that means is that the lot to the west, my
client's lot, will now have this huge edifice less
than 15 feet from the line as close as 12 feet in
one spot and it will contain not only the edifice
itself, the side elevation, I guess is the
architectural term, there is going to be an
entryway with steps on that side of the building
which will create noise and disturbance. There's
also going to be a basement ramp and entry on that
side which will create the same type of noise and
disturbance and I, frankly, looking at the file
and hearing the testimony today, I didn't see any
reason why the house has to be that large. Why the
garage addition towards to front has to be that
close to the line. Why they can't just move it
over, it's a new addition. Why can't they move it
closer to the center of the lot within conforming
setbacks and put the entry -- move the side entry
and the side basement entrance into the garage or
somewhere else so that it's not interfering with
the neighbor's peace and quiet. For the same
reasons they are concerned about the encroachment
towards the bluff as not really being a good
reason, I don't think in response to Ms. Weisman's
question that they actually are maintaining the
existing setback. They are mirroring or running
the line from where the fireplace extends now to
just a small box like structure and they are
greatly increasing the degree of nonconformity by
adding that upper deck, some additional steps and
an entire outdoor living area in terms of the deck
area overlooking the Sound. I understand why
they're doing it. It makes absolute sense and
certainly people should be allowed to increase the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
136
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
size of their house and maximize the waterfront.
But I don't see anything in the record as to why
they have to encroach on that side yard when they
are basically rebuilding the house. Let them
conform. If you have any further questions, I'd
be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess Leslie, you can
ask any question you'd like.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to make
sure I understand the dimensions correctly. I've
got the survey in front of me and I see that the
setback, the front of the garage on the street
side is 14.4 tapering to 13.6 and then finally
down to 12.5. Are we?
MS. WICKHAM: I was sent a different map;
13.6 on the.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm looking at the
west side side yard that you're talking about
where the ramp is proposed.
MS. WICKHAM: It shows 13.6 feet from the
front corner of the garage to the side yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And at the closest
corner to the road, it's 14.4.
MS. WICKHAM: I don't have that map.
MS. GOLDING: That may not have that on
there. The survey was updated to include more
dimensions. I would like to reflect. I don't know
when I can.
MS. WICKHAM: May I see the correct map?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. This is July
24th.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
MS. WICKHAM: I'm reading from the map that
was sent to the adjoining owner.
MS. GOLDING: We had to update the map about
two weeks ago as per the request of the Board in
order to provide more adequate information to
explain the site more.
MS. WICKHAM: This moves the house over
slightly but it does maintain the entryway and the
ramp to the basement, again, on that side.
MS. GOLDING: May I comment on some of the
things. First, if I may address the issue of the
two story addition on the left side which is
existing one and a half story section where there
is a kitchen and a bathroom. We're just resided
and reroofing with a new pitch. We're not going
up. We're not doing anything other than that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's on the west
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
137
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
side.
3
MS. GOLDING: That's on the west side. So
there is no new second floor being proposed on
that side at all. The house, in fact, the whole
outside is being kept. We're renovating it in the
sense of applying new siding and a new roof pitch
with a new overhang but that's about it. We're not
creating any more height construction.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Did you say a new roof
pitch?
MS. GOLDING: Roof pitch as applied for, yes.
That was one of the main reasons why we were
applying for the other side yard setbacks because
the whole roof is getting replaced in kind. Not in
kind but it is getting a new roof pitch. The
clients want more of a slopier roof with a bigger
overhang and that's what we've come up with over
the existing footprint and I think as a whole
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much bigger is
the overhang?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is the overhang on the
new roof pitch encroaching on the existing side
yard?
MS. GOLDING: About a foot.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One foot. On the east
and west?
MS. GOLDING: Yes, it's all around.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the new roof pitch
will cause, not on the ground but in the air, a
one foot sofet.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that the setback that
we're looking at.
MS. GOLDING: You're looking at the existing
setbacks of the house.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Of the house, not the
sofet. So we're going to add another foot that
way?
MS. GOLDING: You'll be adding 24 inches of
sofet not the house because the existing is, I
believe, it's about 14 inches. Please don't hold
me to that measurement exactly.
MS. WICKHAM: If I can interject, I think we
need to know exactly what they're doing.
MS. GOLDING: I can provide that information.
What I'm asking for is not quoting me on it later
on when I submit a letter to it's affect and it's
not 14 inches. That's all I'm saying.
MS. WICKHAM: So we're talking about 24
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
138
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
inches that would bring the northeast corner down
to ten and a half feet.
MS. GOLDING: Roof line.
MS. WICKHAM: Side yard setback.
MS. GOLDING: As far as the -- there is an
existing side yard entry there. Now, in fact, we
are reconfiguring it and there is an existing
steps and walk to be removed.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We don't have the
setback to that step area. Could you furnish that
also please.
MS. GOLDING: Yes, by all means.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question please. What is code required; 18 inches
code required, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The sofet is exempt from
the side yard setback.
MS. GOLDING: We can keep it at the 18
inches.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can?
MS. GOLDING: By all means. I apologize
not noting that. We'll go back to 18 inches.
don't want to delay or cause any hardship to
neighbor, of course.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO:
subject of anything.
MS. GOLDING: We'll keep it at 18 inches and
it's not even a problem. But as far as the steps
on the side, I guess I have to speak with Frank.
When Frank and I sat down and looked at what is
really nonconforming, we figured that since steps
were never an issue, we just assumed.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I didn't realize
they were new steps. We can include that in the
decision. It's not an issue.
MS. GOLDING: It's something that the client
would be willing to do but again, it is exact
location. It's not rebuilding in kind of what's
there because how the steps come down now, you can
lead right up and make a right and go into the
laundry area. Right now you'll have a 3 foot 6
path down into the basement which is a ramp,
uncovered with a dry well on the bottom and the
steps are beyond that. So the steps existing are
about -- I would have to measure. I can get that
measurement to you, that's not a problem, and I
can let the Board know exact of how we are
extending that new platform over from the existing
for
I
any
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
That sofet is not the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
139
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
step area.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What's there is going
to increase the nonconforming side yard.
MS. WICKHAM: And the platform which is not
there now, they're flush with the house now. And
the steps to the basement are not there now and
that will be within the required side yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So will you be able to
address that stuff in writing and Gail maybe
you'll need to see that information also.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What about putting those
steps inside the garage. Any reason why you
couldn't do that?
MS. GOLDING: The access down to the ramp is
actually through the garage.
MS. WICKHAM: The other point is that they're
rebuilding that whole part of the house so why do
they have to design the steps on that side?
They're starting with a new structure. They can
design it better, I think, with preserving the
privacy of the neighbor significantly. And I have
to repeat, I don't understand why the extension
has to encroach on what is already a very small
side yard.
MS. GOLDING: May I? We have a bedroom, if
I may point it out on the survey and I can also
show it on the plan. There's a bedroom on the
first floor that's done and we're just utilizing
it and moving the windows over. It's within this
section right over here so the closer we move to
the garage towards conformance, the less light we
have coming into that room. I don't know, in
addition to the fact that we have a bedroom in the
garage. We're at 22 feet. There have been cases
made in front of you as to a garage being a
minimum of 24 feet. We're making a compromise
that 21 feet is good enough for that garage.
MS. WICKHAM: You have room to move into the
middle of the lot so I don't see that as an
argument.
MS. GOLDING: Is it doable? I'm sure if we
were to redesign that and go back to the client
but the entry is where it is because of the garage
conflict with their existing entryway as well
which we are trying to contain.
MS. WICKHAM: I just think there's a
tendency these days, people want to make big
houses and they go to their architects and say
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
140
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
that is what I want, the architect will come up
with a plan and say this is the best way do it
architecturally but we can't do it within the
legal building envelope. What happens is people
say well let's go to the ZBA and see what we can
get. Forget the neighbors and drop it in your lap
and I just think that if they're redesigning an
entire house on a narrow lot with already narrow
setback, there's no reason they can't comply.
Certainly more so than they have and I would
really like to see the comparison of the actual
existing house. The map that I read indicated it
was further than twelve and a half feet from the
side yard to the existing house. There was a map
in your file.
MS. GOLDING: You might of not had -- we had
the map updated to give more dimensions of the
existing. That was something that was addressed by
our office and submitted to the Board. If I would
have known that I had to submit to anyone other
than the Board, I would done so. It's so easy to
obtain copies right away.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's always best
in the beginning when you know you're planning a
second floor --
MS. GOLDING: The Building Department was
fully aware of that.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Better to wait
until after you know it's approved by the client
and then the Building Department. It saves a lot
of this for everybody down the road.
MS. GOLDING: If I may, the Building
Department was fully aware of that. Simply did not
know the facts -- they were fully aware of the
fact that the closest proximity to a second floor
deck was what it was. Simply not noting it. Again,
that's my fault for not reading the Disapproval
right. Closest proximity is what we applied for.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm just letting
you know it's easier.
MS. GOLDING: By all means. I try not to
make the same mistakes over and over again.
Every site has their own can of worms.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Look, we did change the
way we do things around here and we try to address
the fact that when you come to a hearing and you
bring a different thing than the Building
Inspector has seen, what we changed was the fact
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
141
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
that we're not to look at any map that hasn't been
seen by the Building Inspector. Whether you change
anything or not, that shouldn't make any
difference. If we don't have something from the
Building Inspector that says, okay, I've looked at
this and I'm hoping that that's what happened.
MS. GOLDING: What I'm saying is that's not
the case. That's what I'm trying to explain.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now they have. They've
seen it and everything else is good. We got an
amended disapproval.
MS. GOLDING: I understand that it's
irrelevant to the fact that they had known about
it to begin with.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It is irrelevant.
MS. GOLDING: I know. That's obvious. I found
that out two weeks ago when I was scrambling for
the surveyor to do me a favor now. They took it
off the closest proximity and that was good enough
for me. That was good enough for an application
submission at the closest proximity to what I'm
applying for on the bluff.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Basically, the jist of
your argument is, you'd like for them to comply
because they're building new construction.
MS. WICKHAM: They're building new
construction, they have ample room within the
legal building envelope in the front of the house
and they don't need to build structures on the
side which are going to create additional noise
and disturbance where they have another way to
design it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that's your objection.
MS. WICKHAM: I'm not going to repeat the
prior hearing and say it three more times.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm trying to get to the
endpoint right now.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The request is made
and it appears you have no problems with providing
additional dimensional information explaining
specifically what, where, why in addition to
addressing the Soil and Water report.
MS. GOLDING: By all means.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That will then be
available in the file. You can take more comments
in writing.
MS. WICKHAM: I would like to have an
opportunity to comment in writing prior to the
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
142
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
next hearing.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So that's
expanding the written record.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll have to then close
the hearing except for written comments.
MS. GOLDING: May I just ask if I should
respond to Ms. Wickham from our office or would
you like to pick it up?
MS. WICKHAM: I assume you would want her to
send it to the Board and send a copy to me.
MS. GOLDING: I just don't want anyone not to
get a copy.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time do
you think you'll need to do all that?
MS. GOLDING: I'll need at least to Tuesday,
if I may. I have to meet with the client. I have
to contact the surveyor.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Do you think you
can have it to Gail within a week?
MS. GOLDING: Definitely.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Why don't we just do the
same thing we did with -- which will be you've got
until the 17th and you've got until the 31st.
MS. WICKHAM: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion.
What's the Board's pleasure? We're going to close
the hearing --
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Extend the written
record until the 31st of August.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
************************************
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to take a five
minute recess.
(Whereupon, a short recess was held at 4:30
21
p.m.)
22
(Back on the record.)
*************************************
24
Hearing # 6033 - Landau.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have Landau now. Jerry,
that's yours.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. What would you
like to show us?
MR. PASCA: When we left the last time --
23
e
25
143
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You were going to move
the 14 foot back.
MR. PASCA: Right. We had 2 inches to move
the upper section back, rotate it back, and to
turn the lower section to breakaway. We developed
some new design suggestion and the architect will
take you guys through that.
MR. NAROFSKY: It's pretty straightforward.
Can I put that up for you guys. This is the
original and then, again, the two items that we
discussed were we're trying to get this upper
section back as far as it made sense without
compromising the client too much. The diagram here
shows it pretty clearly. This was the original
proposal last month. The upper section which at
the time was 25' 4" floor from top of the bluff.
Now, we slightly rotated and moved it back and
it's 37' off from the top of the bluff. The
character and the design is a little bit simpler.
It's not as intricate on this side. It's a simpler
form which I actually think in some way improves
the side elevation a little bit. On the lower
level, part of what we submitted was techniques
for breakaway construction with that lower
section. Those are the two main areas.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, on the lower
section, how far are we away from the bluff?
MR. NAROFSKY: From existing footprints, that
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
was
17
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's 14.
MR. NAROFSKY: No, 19, 19'5."
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This point is still
18
19' 5 n .
19
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But that's now
breakaway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What do we
breakaway up to now? How far?
MR. NAROFKSY: It's the entire volume. What
we do is set up structural posts and do the
breakaway wall construction. One of the techniques
that was submitted to you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we say that
breakaway is from here all the way over or is it
actually a little deeper than that?
MR. NAROFSKY: It's deeper.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's deeper than
that. It's really like this. You see that Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So how many feet?
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
144
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
MR. NAROFSKY: Of the whole volume?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Can I ask you a
question? Is it 37 feet to the breakaway wall from
the top of the bluff? What is the setback to the
breakaway wall from the top of the bluff?
MR. NAROFSKY: The setback to the breakaway
wall from the top of the bluff is 19'5", the
closest.
BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI: The one story is how
2
3
4
5
far?
9
MR. NAROFSKY: The structure is 30 feet so it
would be about 49 feet.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that entire 49 feet
was the interior space, will be constructed as
breakaway?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure they
understand.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI:
the breakaway on the site map.
identifying it for the file?
MR. NAROFSKY: Our first floor plan and the
follow-up construction cross sections and details
that will be submitted to permitting will show
breakaway and will be defined in what I'll say is
the northwestern section of the house.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Okay, but on here
for our Zoning Board decision, we're talking about
in the end, in order for us to write it up so we
can describe exactly the difference in setback
between the one story, the second story, the
breakaway, the nonbreakaway areas, if we can
clarify it on the site map, would you be able to
submit something.
MR. NAROFSKY: Yeah. The remaining footprint
of the existing residence is completely graded.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Even the existing
one story section that's going to be demolished?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we can in effect
say that the entire building will be demolished,
the existing house?
MR. NAROFKSY: We're still working with the
existing foundation that's there. Nothing we can
see right now is forcing us to remove that. I'm
sure there will be some remediation and again,
some of the existing floor structure. It appears
to be in fine shape. Our intention is to keep the
existing foundation area other than what we're
cutting off. Keep as much of the floor space as we
It doesn't show
Is there a way of
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
145
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
4
can and frame up new structures in the existing
area.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we explain that
to the Building Inspector? He just walked in.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jerry? You asked for 30
feet, right?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I asked for 30
2
3
5
feet.
9
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, it's
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
misunderstanding about that.
MR. NAROFKSY: From my recollection, Jerry
was honest and said he didn't know where he came
up with the number but he was looking to make it
38 feet. Well, the 37 worked out well. Wasn't it
depicted randomly? It wound up being the corner of
the existing building just wound up being the
perfect juncture to take off, from a structural
point of view, to take off the view of the
structure. In other words, this point right here
that the existing southwestern corner, we lined it
up and it happens to be by survey 37 feet.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Okay, then this
point is how far from the top of the bluff?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's still 19.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So you were
talking about this corner, not this corner?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that's
where the misunderstanding came in but I have to
tell you that the whole breakaway technique, in my
particular opinion, is a positive step in general.
If you have a cliff score and you have a slide, it
doesn't make any difference what it is as long as
that breaks away. You understand, Ruth? I'm not
taking that away from -- there was a
misunderstanding.
MR. NAROFSKY: The logic and why we're moving
forward in that direction is that that existing
footprint that's there that we're trying to
utilize it's location and for some of the presence
making it breakaway, that does accommodate some
future concerns. It's a fair straightforward
construction. If moving the second story back
gives it 37 feet, I think, you know, I haven't
compromised the design nor the existing pool
location. And, if anything, they got more depth.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is this water
now 37.
not.
think there
was a
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
146
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
runoff going right now?
MR. NAROFSKY: The dry wells.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The dry wells in
the back of the house?
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes.
MR. PASCA: That was one of the issues that
was raised because there are more dry wells
showing on the site plan.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. You gotta
understand, Tony, that we've been in session today
for eight hours and it's been a little much.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We're trying to
understand what the change was from the last map.
The setback was modified or it was not?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not really.
MR. NAROFSKY: The existing one story
section, no. We left that footprint exactly the
way it was.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we thought you
were going to do and I'm just going to raise this
and this is the reason why Ms. Oliva is raising
this. We thought you were going to pull this
whole thing back right into here. That's what we
thought you were going to do.
MR. NAROFSKY: You asked that and not that
I've seen the visual record.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, actually, Jim
asked that.
MR. NAROFSKY: And I actually mentioned that
that would be a problem. That with the existing
pool location and their desire to have an exterior
viewing deck. That is where I recollected the
conversation of breakaway construction carne about.
That if we were to utilize the existing footprint
-- I'd really have to redesign the whole structure
and I'd have to relocate the pool.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll comment when
everybody else is done.
MR. NAROFSKY: Listen, I apologize and you
can speak to Tony, I don't recollect that that
condition was discussed but to summarize that at
the last hearing, the direction was pretty
specific. Because at that point why consider
breakaway construction? If I move the whole thing
back
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you don't need
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be honest with
147
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
you, it's either/or. You understand. And I'm
confident that as long as the water is being
retained in the rear, which I knew it was but I
needed you to say it.
MR. NAROFSKY: Totally. All the hardsurface
water runoff is being retained.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then if we have the
slide, we have the loss, we have the undermining,
then it's not going to affect the three quarters
of the principle dwelling which is what I'm
concerned with.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I think we've had
different requests and you responded to one and
not the other. So that's where the
misunderstanding comes in.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think maybe if we can go
one at a time, we can get through this. Ruth, do
you have some questions you'd like to ask at this
time?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, specifically, I
wanted the whole thing moved back. Nineteen feet
even in the corner to me is too close for a bluff
which is supposed to be 100 feet back and we're
doing 19 feet? I mean, I might be the only one but
to me -- even though it's lovely architecture of
the house and everything else but I really have
great difficulty with that 19 feet. Knowing the
condition of the bluff and especially knowing the
condition of his neighbor to the west. It's a bad
condition. Not his, his is fine.
MR. NAROFSKY: The existing foundation area
which is stable, has been structurally reviewed
and --
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't doubt that at
all. It's just, again, the bluffs in that whole
area are not good. They're going to have to take
their chances but I'd hate to be the one saying
yes, and have something happen.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the only
reason why, Ruth, you can predicate the entire
decision based upon the breakaway. I'm not pushing
for it, we did have a misunderstanding, but that's
it. We can predicate it on a breakaway.
MR. NAROFSKY: From my understanding, I
thought that's what it was predicated on. To take
that extreme section of the residence and build it
out in type of construction that would in no way
create any additional casualty to the balance of
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
148
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
the home.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you done?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, do you have
anything to add to this?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just if we backtrack
for a moment to start with the initial premise
which was perhaps a misunderstanding about what it
meant to rebuild from the original point of
setback from the bluff based on conversations with
the Building Department. The generation of a
design strategy which essentially retains certain
sight elements to a different understanding where
it was considered primarily a demolition and
therefore we really had to consider setback, in my
opinion professionally not as a Zoning Board
Member particularly. As a ZBA member, I would be
very loathe to grant setbacks so close to the
bluff. When you look at the entirety of this
design proposal the way it's built being built out
of steel. Being built upon very little additional
land disturbance, if any. Retaining some aspects
of the house. Building the part that's close to
the bluff in a way that is environmentally very
responsible and setting back the upper story which
is new construction 37 feet away, it seems to me
that the design without total compromise as
progressed substantially to what I would feel far
more confident in endorsing as a compromised
situation. I don't think we're going to come to an
ideal situation. For you to really remove it
substantially farther back really will require
losing the pool and losing the design concept.
From all I understand, I think that this is a
responsive proposal relative to requests that were
made whether it was fully -- you know, we're all
on the same page about it, is another story. I
think it's very clear what you're intending to do.
I don't have any question about it, particularly,
in terms of what you're proposing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only comment is first
of all, I have no competence whatever to assess
the architectural aspect of this. I essentially
have a linear one dimensional mind so I can only
focus on, dispute over what the code says and how
we interpret it and how do we deal with the point
that Ruth raises is on one level, and it's a
popular level as well. Whatever the code allows
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
149
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
with regarding to a place that is existing too
close to the edge, it's not a good idea to allow
very much that's going to be too close to the
edge. The other side is, what you're trying to do
and you think you're doing a really good job of
trying to see how we can accommodate the words and
the spirit of the code as it exists with trying to
save as much as possible. Otherwise, you get into
hard choices, such as, do you want to remove the
pool or do you want to make the house smaller so
you don't have to remove the pool? Those are
really major expensive decisions. I just see kind
of a paradox in a way or conflicting values about
the whole thing. There is something funny about
almost every detail in the code. As long as you
retain one corner of the existing house, you can
do whatever you want, even if it's only one inch
from the edge of the bluff. The common sense
approach says there's got to be something wrong
with that. So we're trying to work somewhere in
between there.
MR. NAROFSKY: I think from the first meeting
through the inspections, from our first meeting
here to where we've evolved, we're not -- at this
point, we're asking for relief from the code. So
we're not trying to interpret or get into that
battle, we're past that. What I'm trying to
balance now is what is as environmentally
respectful as possible and as budget respectful as
possible because I think the reality is to shift
things back, to remove the pool, build a new pool,
to even move the rest of the existing basement
that's there, it's not a large home. We're not
talking about a large home so even if it's 1/3 or
slightly less than 1/3 has to be demolished and
rebuilt and new construction, rebuild a new pool,
scopewise the cost of the construction, that's a
huge part of their construction budget. One of the
things that I have to answer relative to this, I
tried to stay away from any new -- we're doing
slab on grade, we're doing very little
disturbance. One of the reasons for steel
construction besides making the structure able to
stand up to wind condition or hurricane condition
is that it is a point low condition (inaudible).
So, you're not putting a lot of pressure on
this ground especially that all of that new work
is at this point 50 feet back and then we have one
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
150
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
point at 37 feet now and if you start to look at
the fact that it's all diagonally based, most of
the structure is almost 47 feet and 50 feet back.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's what I was
trying to figure out in my mind.
MR. NAROFSKY: You're talking about, because
of the diagonal nature relative - thank God, the
one thing going for us is that the bluff is not
doing this. The top of the bluff is doing that. So
we're actually working, we get better as we head
eastward on the bluff. Look at the top of the
bluff here relative to this. So, I think trying to
find that balance to accommodate the client and
accommodate the site as best we can and hearing
some of the discussion at the first hearing, I
really think that it begins to address some
serious concerns. Even as far as the breakaway
construction, I think it does make it practical.
The design allows for it. The whole section here
is floating on columns. This bottom section is
independent on the upper section. So if we do that
kind of construction, it is truly breakaway
construction. We're not forcing it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it's also
single story load. That's the only true advantage.
You've got single story load which is the
breakaway and that's it. As long as there's not a
slider on 2/3's of the house, God forbid something
happened. Because I couldn't live with myself.
MR. NAROFSKY: Again, I think the client
doesn't want to spend all this money, effort and
time and construction to do something that may be
compromised in the future to begin with. With many
of the discussions we had since the last hearing
describing to them what the breakaway was. They
were puzzled about what that way. It was
explaining the benefits. Let's not look at it as
something that's anchoring this project. Let's
look at it that maybe it has practicality in its
incorporation into the design.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll tell you, I expected
something a little different myself. I'd like to
go back to the verbatim and just refresh myself as
to the conversation we had. I don't know how long
that's going to take me. As I recall, I know that
breakaway construction was something that was
considered. But I was under the impression that
you could move that back some into the underneath
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
151
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
where you have the second story currently and not
have too much trouble. I'd kind of like to see
that. I think that 19 feet is not good and if
you're demolishing the entire thing anyway, so
now's the time. You're assumption because you have
something existing means that you have that
forever is just not so anymore. There is no such
thing, I said it once today, of preexisting
nonconforming. Anything that's nonconforming is
just nonconforming. You don't get to do a thing
without getting a variance.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's on page 46 of
the transcript. I'm going to take the excerpt out
of it. "Member Goehringer: I don't have to tell
you as many years as I've been on this Board and
have had the honor of sitting at the hearings and
this whole aspect of having setbacks so close to
the top of the bluff is something I have great
difficulty in understanding particularly with
virtually almost brand new construction. This is
virtually almost brand new. Even though we're
talking about wrap around renovations for an
existing house that may have been there for 35
years, I just think that you can take a more
favorable approach and move this entire
construction back at least 20 feet to give us like
a 38 foot setback. When I say us, I'm referring to
the Town in question and I'm speaking for myself."
And then Mr. Narofsky says, "most of the
construction is 50 feet and beyond." Then Member
Goehringer, "that's the opposite side. Having had
relatives that owned property on the cliff and at
77 feet, they had to move their house back 140
feet."
MS. PASCA: That's when the dialogue
occurred. Talked about the changes occurred a
little bit later.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Here the Town
Attorney starts talking about the interpretation
of the law. Okay. Chairman Dinizio, "so if you can
commit to say 38 feet right now and you can give
us the drawings and all the stuff to accompany
that when we meet on the 12th, you can give us
that information beforehand." Member Simon, "I
have a question though, the number 38 was first
introduced by Jerry Goehringer and I don't know
whether we have a consensus with that number."
Chairman Dinizio, "no, but I think it's as far as
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
152
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
he's willing to go". Member Goehringer, "I figured
we needed to go back a minimum of 20 feet to make
it a total of 38. I'd rather have it straight on
at 50 but if you can create the breakaway which is
what you need at the top of the bluff, then I
would be happy with limiting it to 38 feet".
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that's
where the disagreement happened.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think there's any
misunderstanding. I know that that's what I
recommended. That's just a completely different
thing then what I was expecting.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's a little
more. Chairman Dinizio said it would be another
month and I mentioned that if you're not able to
submit that plan, maybe you'd like to submit plan
A, Band C. You've done that before. If you find
that 38 feet or 40 feet isn't working for you.
Chairman Dinizio, "so if we grant, we move the
existing setbacks back." That's basically how it
ended. Mr. Narofsky, "can I just answer to that.
The Building Inspector had a question about
stabilization of the bluff." Mr. Narofsky says,
"behind the current home there is a dock on many,
many piers and the land for quite a bit of
distance under that deck is quite disturbed right
now. Once we remove the deck, the area that we
will be waterproofing would only improve the space
the way it can. I appreciate the technical idea
but if you look under the deck now, we're going to
do a good thing by moving the existing deck behind
the house."
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Is that on the
first plan though?
MR. NAROFSKY: It was at the very end before
we walked out the door.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's the way it
"is there anybody else that would like to
comment? If not, we'll leave this open."
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Flip back a couple of
pages.
MS. PASCA: I know we did go through it, what
we though our assignment was.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The assignment was
you could give three alternatives if you'd like
rather than just one. You've come back with one.
The Board is saying maybe they have a consensus,
maybe they don't. So your option then would be to
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
153
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
go to plan C and come up with an alternative so
maybe you can get a consensus on plan C.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think there may be a
consensus on this one.
MR. NAROFSKY: I have to say, I know the
concept of options came up earlier but -- I really
do think that to take this part out and redesign
this to remove the pool is going to mean not
coming back with an alternative plan. It's that
I'm going to be coming back with an entirely new
home. Done for very different reasons. Asking for
a variance for a pool which is now going to be
very close to the driveway. It's going to be a
newly configured house not functioning the way
they wanted it to and I have to say it's not then
a matter of an alternative, it's a matter of
whether my client gives me the funds and the
ability to redesign the house. It's not, I'm not
saying there's a consensu here. It seemed pretty
clear to me, our attorney and other people present
that the goal here was to get a significant part
of the construction back and build breakaway
construction. I wouldn't have come up with the
idea of breakaway construction in any alternative.
By moving this back, there'd be no reason for it.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: In defense -- it
says move the entire construction back to 88 feet
and now it's up to him to speak on that, I guess.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I gotta tell you, we're
running a little long and what I think we ought to
do is go over that record and either close the
hearing now and make a decision or if you would
like to have a second shot, come back and take
another shot.
(Everyone talking at one time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, I remember
differently. What she read to me confirms what I
remember. I want to go through the record to see
if I misunderstood anything that you said. I don't
think we have the time to do that today.
MS. PASCA: I know we had a very clear
discussion of what we thought he was going to do
and maybe some of you had a different idea, maybe
all of you had a different idea. This is a plan
and ultimately, we have two arguments. One is, we
can do construction based on interpretation of the
code. Second argument is, give us a variance to
allow us to do this construction. Any time you're
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
154
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
in variance context, there's a weighing. The
weighing of benefits to the applicant versus the
detriment to the community. We tried to present a
lot of reasons to try to get to a point where that
balancing act, we think, comes out in favor of
granting it. I think at this point, we should be
entitled to a decision on this application.
(Everyone talking at one time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I was just thinking you
wanting to look at the record. But certainly if
you're willing to close it, I am too.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I can explain why
it does make a difference procedurally. You're
saying you won't accept alternative relief,
correct? Alternative relief would mean that the
Board would not accept that. They would alter and
come back with another setback. Then you go back
to the drawing board and try to meet that setback
the Board grants. I'm asking if you'd accept
alternative relief and if you don't, then if the
Board denies the application, you need to reapply.
MR. PASCA: We're saying this is alternative
relief that we are willing to accept. We
originally applied with one set of plans. We came
back and thought we made compromises and this is
what we call the alternative relief.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So there's no
other alternative relief at this time?
MR. PASCA: There is no other alternative
relief.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll make a case for our
record and we can go from there.
MR. PASCA: The reason I say it shouldn't
matter is that whether you said something formally
or not, that's not going to dictate whether you
have to approve it or don't have to approve it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, none of my comments
are informal. All of my comments are on the
record.
MR. PASCA: All I'm saying is if you had said
we'd like to see 38 feet and we came back with 38
feet, you wouldn't say I'm bound by what I said,
right? So it's still part of a give and take
anyway. I'm not sure -- if that's the only part of
the transcript, I don't think it's correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I'm offering to
review that.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to say
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
155
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
4
something about how this process works. We've had
cases where people have tried to sue our decision
on the basis of statements that one Board member
made which was out of order, wrong. And to try to
get a decision overturned on the basis of what one
Board member said foolishly regretted and the
Court said that's of no relevance because what any
one of us says in discussion is simply not of the
force of legal significance as to turn the
outcome. I agree with Mr. Pasca that a lot of
things have been considered and in a sense it
doesn't really matter because we have considered
the alternatives, some of the alternatives, and to
base a decision based on what is and what is not
in the past transcript is simply ducking or
dropping the ball. Because we cannot turn on
something so frivolous, if you will, as to whether
somebody misremembered because we've expressed our
opinions and we expressed different opinions then
and now and I think we can go ahead with the
record as we now have it regardless of who
misunderstood or not. We can get past all the
possible misunderstandings and look at it on its
merits. If the applicants are willing to do that,
I would think that we would be also.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I certainly agree with you
100%. My offer to look at the record was to
actually confirm what this gentleman is saying.
Honestly, I'm willing to make a decision and it
doesn't really make a difference to me only that
I'm offering to give you another chance at swaying
me or perhaps maybe I did misremember. That's not
something that is wholly unreal for me but quite
honestly, I'll review the record and I'll base
myself certainly on that and if I find that I'm
wrong, I'm going to certainly make that decision.
(Everyone talking at one time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The problem is with that
is that when I make a decision, it's going to be
based on that record.
MR. PASCA: That's up to you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And I would have thought
that you would have wanted to at least have the
opportunity to say, no wait, we can move it back
one feet.
MR. NAROFSKY: I'm not trying to delve into
what the record says. I will say for the record, I
am confident in what I understood my direction was
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
156
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
maybe that was not on -- of the Board. But I will
say relative to the broad comment of moving it
back to that point of 20 feet and the concern --
if this was a new construction, I can understand.
However, picture coming into this site and that
existing home. Now, completely removing that home
which has a full basement, digging out that hole,
all that new construction that is proposed to be
set either up on poles or on minimum slab areas
because the downstairs plan is very minimal
compared to the upstairs plan. Small mechanical
area and segments of the old house footprint
leftover. Picture this completely being removed
and have the old basement sit there that I now
have to bring in filled to reconstruct. Now, I'm
having to rip out the pool and have another hole.
Demolish or create an excavated area which I'm
doing none. And I think as much as there is a
future concern with the existing footprint area,
one story construction proximity to the bluff, I
actually think you would be forcing us to cause
more damage on the site. You go back to the site
photos again and see the trees, the foliage, the
plantings that we are leaving undisturbed and
picture those gaping holes 30 foot by 50 foot
holes, 14, 15 foot by 32 foot hole and all the
disturbance. I think coming in and tubing that
breakaway construction and alluding to the fact
that God forbid that there is some storms and
major rough erosion, that this segment, this
studio area of the house can fall away but the
rest of the structure which is setback, is intact.
I really find that, in fact, moving it back and
working in this realm would actually be more
detrimental to the site. The other think I can say
is, it's a steel structure. One of the areas
without redesigning that could accommodate us to
say if you accept the breakaway area, accept it.
There's a house there now that's been there, it's
substantial. It's not architecturally substantial
but it's there. It's in good shape. It will be
there for a long time. The steel part that I'm
floating, I don't have to put my column at the 37
foot corner. I can put my column further back. You
want me to have the first structure that touches
ground to be 40 feet back and the rest is floating
over. Again, it's only pinned down by columns so
you can see in the model, it floats. So unlike a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
157
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
stately colonial flat construction and basement, I
put a light sensitive footprint on here and I
could and that's why I would be accommodating. Let
me do the breakaway construction on the existing
remaining portion of the footprint which is
roughly 60, 65. Again, it represents a small
percentage of the new construction. I'll pull the
structural columns back on the new less unique
construction portion. Cantilevering over two,
three, four feet and now I'm easily behind that 40
foot line then any of my significant
reconstruction. But at least the basement,
existing basement, stayed. I don't have to dig it
up. I don't have to fill it. I don't have to touch
the swimming pool. I think those are more
significant disturbances than being concerned
about this one section out on the bluff.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have a
comment on this?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I just want to
mention that the transcript I read is a draft. We
haven't had time to double check it and file it so
it's not in official form yet.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll review that when it's
official. Okay. I'll entertain a motion that we
close this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Not yet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before we vote, can
I just ask a question? If this gentleman had said
that he would move the plan back, should we have
that from him in writing prior to us making a
decision?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it makes a
very compelling argument about environmentally
responsible construction stronger.
(Everyone talking at one time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have a motion on the
floor.
(Everyone talking at one time.)
MR. NAROFSKY: We'll certainly put in writing
that the single point column can be moved back
beyond the 40 foot line.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we have that by
next Friday?
MR. NAROFSKY: Easily.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we'll close
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
158
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
the hearing -- do you want to close the hearing
pending that or do you want to close the hearing
on the 16th?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One other thing that
could be helpful simply because there is some
confusion of how to read setbacks of various
points of the seaward elevation because it's a
complex, compound elevation, that for Linda's sake
and the rest of the Board's sake, also in writing
or perhaps just marking up on the survey, you can
circle it by hand, whatever way makes it a very
clear simplified diagram, all of the setbacks as
they receed from the bank.
MR. NAROFSKY: The key points. (Inaudible).
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We do but I believe it
would be easier if you would just do an overlay.
Something very simple. Don't show a volumetric
relationship. Simply linear dimensions, okay?
That's what the Board is used to seeing.
MR. NAROFKSY: By the way, that is a minor
enhancement of this diagram. We clearly by color
and shading are showing the bluff, first floor
setback from the bluff, second floor setback from
the bluff. So we can enhance.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Fill it in with
numbers and written word.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let's be clear on that,
please.
MR. NAROFSKY: The key points. The first
floor section to the setback, second floor, the
point of the column at the base where it's going
to be touching the ground, the point of the corner
that the cantilever is in, right? Those are the
key. Now just to be clear too, the site plan
itself is extraordinarily messy. You just want
this as a separate diagram, right?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Remove all the -- the
data is too visually complex.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We'll need the top
of the bluff line.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Now we're on to the
motion that we close this hearing pending the
resubmission. Who wants to make that motion?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry made it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie seconded it. All
those in favor.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
159
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
(See minutes for resolution.)
******************************************
3
6
Hearing #5826 - Cingular.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
Cingular. It's a carryover. We don't need to read
anything. Michael, let's get this over with, will
you.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What do you have?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I have a letter that
I'd like to read first and then we'll just go from
there. I want to get this into the record. It's
from Artemis Lekakis. He was the gentleman that
was here the last time and submitted that four
inch thick volume of information that we all read.
It says, "Dear Chairman Dinizio and Members of the
Zoning Board of Appeals,
This letter supplements my July 26, 2007
letter requesting adjournment of the hearing which
did not fully explain the reasons for requested
adjournment. In addition to reasons set forth in
the July 26, 2007 letter, the adjournment was
necessary because my family and other neighbors
are interested in retaining experts who would
present evidence to the ZBA as to the impact on
property value, an appraisal expert, and public
necessity of the proposed installation of a
wireless communication tower, an engineering
expert. Both of these factors have been recognized
by the Federal Courts as appropriate relevant
grounds for local zoning authorities to consider
with regards to cellular communication tower
application. See Albepoin (phonetic) vs. The City
of White Plains.
That affirmed the local board's decision to
reject cell tower application for the zoning
variance based on interalia (phonetic), demutation
of property values and a lack of public necessity.
Several of the neighbors who's property is in
plain site of the tower advised that they did not
receive notice of the June 28, 2007 hearing. In
addition, some of the neighbors are contemplating
retaining an attorney to represent them with
regards to this matter but have not yet done so.
Because these matters did not receive notice of
the prior hearing, if the August 2, 2007 hearing
is not adjourned, it would deprive these neighbors
of their opportunity to be heard with regard to a
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
160
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
decision that would have a very significant impact
on them. Conversely a one month delay will have a
diminutive, if any, real impact on a multi-billion
dollar corporation such as Cingular.
As previously noted, this is a first request
by my family on behalf of themselves and certain
neighbors for adjournment of this hearings. Your
consideration of this request is greatly
appreciated. Very truly yours, Artemis Lekakis,
Jr."
We received this on August 2nd. It was
written on August 1st. I'd just like to know if
the Board has any comments on that particular
letter?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He hasn't requested
one prior to this?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He wrote a letter
earlier.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: He wrote a letter
on Friday, the 27th.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I gotta tell you, with
respect to this application, the tower has already
been approved. The real estate value has already
been affected and this application doesn't propose
a tower. We have already made that decision, a
decision that he would like for us to consider.
For that reason, I think that we do not need to
grant an extension on this.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Here's my reply to that
point. At first, I was skeptical of his request.
The Federal Law, Federal Court, Second Circuit did
note that people's concerns about loss of property
values can be legally sufficient reason for a
zoning board to take this sort of thing seriously.
It isn't whether he's right or wrong or whether we
can preempt that issue.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, Michael, I'm not
saying that. I'm saying that this gentleman is
asking us not to build a tower that we're not
being asked to build.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wait, wait. He's asking
us to have a hearing on this because it may very
well be, you may say that people are irrational
but there's a certain amount of irrationality that
is recognized by the law. If people know that part
of this tower is being used for a cell -- when
that's known it could have an affect on the
property values. I don't care how far fetched you
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
161
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
believe, that is something that might be
sufficient to get us to extend the hearing for
another month even if nobody is going to be
persuaded by that argument.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For the record, I did not
say what Michael just said I said. I don't care
whether it's ridiculous or not. But what I'm
saying to you is that the real estate part of
this, the demutation of their property value comes
from seeing the physical tower. The health part of
this has already been decided for us through the
Federal Government. So if he's saying that the
actual sight of this tower is going to diminish
his property value, he's at the wrong hearing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, what I'm saying is
something a little bit subtler than that. It's not
the tower itself which might, like a flagpole,
would not lower property values. But if people
know or believe that there's something in that
flagpole that is going to lower their property
values, that is, however foolish or wonderful you
think that claim is, that's a very different claim
from having decided that the existence of a tower
is no cost to property value. It's what people
believe about what the tower contains.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have another just
additional take. Yes, I did say previously that I
agree with Mr. Rey that our jurisdiction does not
incorporate concerns for health issues whether we
have them personally or not is not related to
anything that we can act upon.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's preempted by the
Federal Law.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I did say that
and I uphold that statement. I think in fairness,
however, to the fact that we need to balance our
decision based upon (a) science and (b) impacts on
community that hearing as much from the community
as we possibly can is a kind of due process or
democratic process which I think is something that
we should take very seriously. There has not been
a request previously for an adjournment. I know
that it certainly is a concern to Cingular in
they'd like to get this done. But it's a
substantial investment and I feel that our taking
the appropriate amount of time necessary to make
sure we make the correct decision is a reasonable
approach. I'm not saying how I would vote or how I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
162
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
would feel but I think just hearing full testimony
is simply a part of what this democratic process
is about.
The other thing that we need to examine is
the conversation that has not been concluded yet
about the possibility of an RF Engineer evaluating
the necessity for co-location by Cingular at that
site relative to other sites that may be pending
or that may already exist and so on and we need to
also address that, I think, at this point. At
first I thought there was probably since it was,
the tower was already approved and there was no
visual impact or additional impact by co-location
that perhaps it was not a necessary thing to have
at this point, an expert consultant come in. In
thinking that through more fully, there is nothing
to be lost by having someone able to evaluate the
cumulative effect of co-location and coverage from
the point of view of wireless communications, not
the emergency communications but wireless
communications. So I think there is potential
value in having the consultant that we had talked
about take a look at this and that would, if we
met Mr. Lekakis' request and gave that consultant
an opportunity to do so, I don't think it would
create an extremely long process. I think it could
be done in a fairly swift way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say one
thing. The issue of taking testimony is an issue
but the issue of taking germaine testimony is the
issue here.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This has to address
the co-location, not the tower. If that's what he
wants to do, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He's not asking for that
though. He doesn't mention that in his letter. He
mentions a tower being a detriment to his
property.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But this is how it
could be handled and I'm sorry counsel isn't here.
I certainly applaud and completely affirm Leslie's
concern about having the cumulative effect
evaluated, that's number one. Number two, I also
think that if we sent a letter back to him and
said, yes, we can have a hearing and we can allow
you to come but we are only going to entertain
germaine issues and those are the issues. Those
are the issues that concern co-location and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
163
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
nothing else. And that's it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd be happy with
3
that.
4
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the way it's
got to be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is what the
application is for. The rest is accomplished.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that if he had
asked for that, I'd be willing to grant it, but
quite honestly, he didn't ask for that.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, you're taking that
sentence in which he --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I'm reading his
letter, Michael, and I'm understanding what he
says. If you can show me without saying you mean
or some other thing and putting words in there,
then please explain it because I'd love to hear
it. But what I read from this is that he wants to
make points that are not relevant to this
particular application.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we won't
accept them, that's all.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I say there's no reason to
give him what he wants, quite honestly. Now, I'm
one member on a five person Board. I won't be
angry one way or another on how you vote on this
but you should at least discuss coherently why we
need to have this besides saying we want to hear
more testimony. Because I'm saying that this
particular letter is asking for something that is
not relevant to this particular application.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then what you do is
you send a letter back saying to him what I just
said that if you're not going to give us germaine
testimony that is germaine to this case, then we
are not going to grant you the ability to come
before us. And we have the time to do that right
now. You can leave this hearing open.
MR. REY: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes.
MR. REY: You have to remember, this hearing
was held in June and Mr. Lekakis came to the
hearing and testified at length against the
application and came very well prepared with about
300 pages of documents that he submitted to the
Board. Then it was adjourned for some housekeeping
issues and the issue Ms. Weisman just arose and
from then no others. We were pretty much at the
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
164
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
end of the hearing and to debate as to whether it
was closed or left open. Now, the day before the
hearing, more than a month later, he suddenly says
he wants to retain an expert on an issue that's
totally not germaine. I think it's quite obvious
it's just a ploy to further prolong the
application and the hearing. If he really wanted
to retain an expert, he would have done so before
the last hearing or he would have retained an
expert between June and now and not suddenly come
up with the idea the day before the resumption. I
think it's patently unfair to the applicant to be
the subject of these whims. He had the opportunity
back in June. He had actually the opportunity when
the fire district brought the application last
year. He didn't bring it then. He didn't bring any
expert to our hearing nor did he mention retaining
an expert at the hearing nor did he write to the
Board in June saying he wanted to do it or even in
July. He wrote August 1st and as the Chairman
indicates, he still insists on calling this the
proposed tower. Personally, I find it an affront
and I feel that it would be patently unfair to the
applicant to have an adjournment again to allow
this gentleman who is remise in his -- if he
really wanted to obtain an expert, he should have
done it back in June. I don't think the Board
would stand for the same action on our part if I
showed up months later and said, oh I forgot to
bring my experts and I want to adjourn it again.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First of all, that fact
that in his letter he said only the pole and
rather than having given the gloss on it which I
tried to give before, doesn't completely
disqualify it. But it does disqualify him I would
say to to say what is germaine and now you say,
you've asserted that he had nothing germaine to
say about what kinds of objections he was going to
raise and I don't know how you can make that
assumption.
MR. REY: No, I didn't say that. I said that
he was here in June and argued at length and
raised all kinds of issues mainly the health issue
but he raised other issues. They had the full
opportunity to testify and he knew when the date
was, the adjourned date and he knew the whole
situation. Now, on August 1st, the day before the
hearing, he suddenly writes a letter saying I want
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
165
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
to retain an expert.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we just be fair
with you and say, and unfortunately we don't have
Counsel here, okay. He left. I think we need the
Chairman to speak to Counsel regarding this to see
if we need to answer this man or not answer him.
Certainly, in one way or another, he needs to be
answered.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Well, there is
some other information that you're not aware of.
MR. REY: There was a moratorium so that if
this is adjourned --
(Everyone talking at one time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Let Linda speak.
This gentleman has introduced other evidence that
I don't know if the Board has had time to read
yet. Quite honestly, I find his letter not to be
relevant to this and I'm comfortable with voting
in that direction. Also, if I could just ask our
Board members of what they thought of the 300
pages that Mr. Lekakis submitted to us.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want my
opinion?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yeah, I would like to
know. I mean I could go down each one of these
segments that he gave us and basically say that
most of the stuff that he handed us had to do with
RF transmission towers. Not cell towers. Most of
which -- and a study by a school class in space.
So, I'm a little bit skeptical, not to say that he
doesn't have concerns, he does, but so far he
hasn't been the shining light of information as
far as my concerns are in this particular
application which is something inside a tower
that's already been permitted by us.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. But the
question is, do you agree that we have to answer
the letter?
BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI: There's more
conversation that involved the ZBA office that I
wanted to enter into the record. I had a
conversation with Mr. Lekakis to confirm that we
received his letter. I spoke with him on Monday or
Tuesday because I was off when the letter came in.
I wanted him to know that we were not ignoring the
letter, we received it and it would be entered
into the record and that we did not expect and
adjournment just for that reason he gave in his
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
166
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
July 27th letter because I believe that the Board
was very near closing the hearing. They had enough
testimony. It was just an issue of whether or not
they were going to hire an engineering expert to
review the documentation and also another member
wanted to know what the count was of other towers
and where those towers were located. But they
weren't sure if they really needed that
information to make a decision. So we adjourned it
to August 2nd. I reminded him that he was present
and he said, well I did ask the Board for an
adjournment at that time because I knew I'd be in
Pennsylvania on August 2nd and I could not make
it. They did not answer my request. And I said
well, when they don't grant your request, that's
the answer. No answer is usually no, they're not
going to adjourn it. I then went to what do I do,
I'm in Pennsylvania. I said well, today's a couple
of days before the hearing. What you can do and we
tell this to everyone, is you can have someone
represent you, family person, friend, let them
appear for you and explain why you need an
adjournment. At the same time, if you have
somebody present, they'll know whether or not
there were any changes since the last hearing. If
there are changes and new developments, there may
be many reasons to adjourn it. If there are no
changes and everything stays the same and the
Board does not require anymore new information,
they'll probably close the hearing at that time.
But you want to have somebody there on your behalf
if you can't make it. He said he could not do
that. And that's where we left it and the letter
came in this morning by fax and I thought he'd
have a representative here.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, to follow up on
Jim's comment about the packet of material. I read
it too. I have to say I agree with you although I
have read peer review journals which were not
included in there particularly where there is
irrefutable evidence that there is potential
health risk with using cell phones, cell towers.
The point I made earlier was that that is not
within our jurisdiction to discuss. So, for us to
sit and debate the relevance of what he submitted
in some respects is moot because it is not within
our jurisdiction.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree. I'm just going by
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
167
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
what we're faced with.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am more concerned
about the possibility of whether or not it would
be a reasonable thing to do to, number one,
request a radio frequency engineer to inform us as
to whether or not the co-location in East Marion
is necessary relative to coverage. There is, I
believe, a permit on the tower in Orient Fire
Station that AT&T has.
MR. REY: We're operating on that site.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you co-located on
that now?
MR. REY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You are already
co-located on that, okay. Then what that engineer
could tell us was given that location and your
coverage, they could interpret the propagation map
you've already submitted. They can give us their
own -- there's also a tower I think that you're on
in Greenport which is 390
MR. REY: Yes, we had the witness here last
time who explained all of that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We've heard a lot of
testimony from Mr. Schidel (phonetic) and others
and the bottom line is we are not experts. When we
hear testimony from an applicant's expert, it's
very clear that while we thoroughly consider it,
it is the applicant's expert. That's why as a
Board, not just in your application but in future
applications we thought that it was a reasonable
thing to do as we do with Soil and Water on
environmental impacts on bluffs and so on. We
would have someone available to help guide our
interpretation of the information and testimony
you've presented. I think we still want to look at
that. We adjourned, in part, to examine that
possibility. We need to continue that conversation
today.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Personally, I buy Mr.
Rey's explanation. I asked him when we left here
give me an explanation as to reason why. I buy
that. Mr. Schidel (phonetic) I don't believe ever
really testified for a cell phone company. He is
all fire radio person. I don't think he testified
to cell phone.
(Everyone talking at one time.)
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Didn't he also testify
in the second hearing?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
168
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, he doesn't build those
types of systems.
MR. REY: My point is and I certainly respect
your opinion. There's always a weighing and if we
were here before you with an application to erect
a tower, then there's a difference weighing that's
involved. Here we're putting antennae's inside a
pole and so the detriment to the community is
virtually nil. So our position is is it worth
another adjournment and then being delayed by the
moratorium in addition and the additional cost to
weigh whether we need the site if we've already
indicated by pretty clear evidence that we do need
the site. We wouldn't have all these experts here
and spent tens of thousands of dollars if we don't
need the site. It's apparent that we need the
site. I wouldn't be here if we didn't need the
site. It would seem to be unfair to the applicant
under these circumstances with the moratorium, the
delays involved and so on to use the expert in a
site like this as opposed to where we're coming
before you under different circumstances.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly Michael, you're
going to address that part of this, right? The
moratorium part, is that why you're here?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No, I don't think
so. Actually, I had copies of the moratorium for
the Board Members and we were advised by the Town
Attorney that the moratorium does not affect this
application because they have a section in there
that says that co-location on towers that have
already been permitted are excepted from the
moratorium.
MR. REY: That must be a different version.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It is. It was taken care
of Tuesday. That's why I thought Michael was here.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not affected by
the moratorium but Michael had something else to
add.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: No, that's it.
I'm agreeing with you, Linda.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I took from your letter
that because the Town encourages co-location and
this is a co-locate, the tower already exists.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it doesn't exist.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, it does. The tower
exists in the minds of --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In the minds. It is
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
169
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
not an existing tower.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It is an existing tower.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it's an existing
permit.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, could this person
build that tower tomorrow?
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They can build it but
it isn't built.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It isn't built now. It's
not an existing tower if it hasn't been built.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn't make a
difference. These people aren't asking for a
tower. Don't misunderstand that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not
misunderstanding. You can't locate on a tower that
isn't there. It's not there.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There asking for
co-location in a tower when that tower is built.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. But the tower can be
built tomorrow without our permission.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it won't be.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This man doesn't seek our
permission to build that tower. We can split hairs
on that but quite honestly, this is not a tower
application. The Town encourages co-location and
that's what our law says. I think that we've heard
enough information on that that an expert would
not help us in that respect because what an expert
would say is the tower needs to go there or the
tower doesn't need to go there. Guess what, we're
not making that decision now. It's already been
made. Wait for the next tower then you can say it.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You may think this is
splitting hairs but when you say the Town is
encouraging co-location, that is not the Town law,
that is a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, it is in the law that
we encourage co-location on towers.
MR. REY: In fact it says that if I were to
come here with a proposal for a new tower, I would
have to prove that I was unable to co-locate on
existing towers.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay so it gives a
preference. It doesn't guarantee that any or all
applications for co-location will be granted.
MR. REY: No, there's no guarantee. It says
it's the purpose of the Town to encourage.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
170
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I guess, Mr. Rey, do
you have anything else to add?
MR. REY: No, I don't. I think my letter
responded to the various questions that were asked
at the close of the last session in June provided
the information and the articles and the map.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The reason why I asked you
to do it is because it's easier than me trying to.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd like to clarify
something. The granting of the tower by the
Planning Board and by the Zoning Board had to do
with a request, an application that was from the
Fire Department for emergency equipment. That is
what that tower was granted for. It was not
granted for a tenant to come in and co-locate.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That is not our
consideration.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's why he's here.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a minute. I'm
asking a question.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We both sat through
the previous hearing that granted the tower. I
want to clarify for the record that the tower was
not granted for co-location of a tenant. Though
the code as written says that when a wireless
company is to propose a location that's on
municipal property, that is the preferable
situation. I'm just saying that the tower that was
granted was for emergency equipment and fire
department. The fact that the fire department is
now supporting a request from someone for
co-location is a separate application and a
separate situation. That's all I'm saying, okay.
Let's not confuse what we granted the tower for.
We didn't grant it to Cingular. We granted it for
emergency equipment for the fire department.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this the first
or the second co-location?
MR. REY: The fire department brought their
application, got their permit and this is the
first cellular. There's space for other carriers.
In effect, this application is a lot like the
application that we had before the Board to go in
the church in Orient because we're going inside
something that's already there serving another
purpose.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we at least go
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
171
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
3
down on record saying that assuming that this
application goes forward that the next time people
come in, that we can discuss the possibility of
favorably getting a consultant or something of
that nature.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. I would applaud
2
4
5
that.
6
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think that's what we
were trying to do the last go around, after
Orient. That's why we started researching it
because it was too late. We would have held that
application up at nauseum and that wasn't fair.
Now, we have another one and we said going
forward, we would do this.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know why you can't
understand this. This is not a tower application.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why are you suggesting
we can't understand it?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We never claimed it is.
We don't think that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is some merit
to say that the tower doesn't exist.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The tower isn't there.
Will it be built? Will it be built without a
tenant to underwrite it's construction? Will the
tower be built for the fire department?
MR. REY: Mr. Coranacia (phonetic) reminds me
that his report actually addresses the cumulative
emissions of the fire department's antennaes and
cellular telephone company's antennae's, Cingular
rather. The net effect is that it's less than 1%
of the FCC standard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You testified to that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate you
saying that but again, you work for the company,
that's the problem. You're an expert for the
company that's making the application.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Frankly, on most
respects, I'm ready to vote. That's the bottom
line. We've heard lots of testimony. I don't want
to hold the applicant up unnecessarily. We've been
granted a situation where the moratorium doesn't
affect you. We need to make some decisions on
this. However, all I'm trying to recall here is
that we as a Board made an agreement that we
wanted to, going forth after the Orient
application, have the opportunity to have
additional science from an outside disinterested
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
172
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
6
party as we do with environmental impact. Now,
we're saying we don't need it, we don't want it.
So in some ways we're contradicting ourselves and
I feel we ought to say what we really mean and do
what we really mean.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We were also
looking to see who is the agency that would do
that. There's a question as to whether it would be
the ZBA or another town agency or state agency.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: May I comment again on
this. I'd love to sit here and talk about this all
night long and I will until we're clear. This
particular application whether you want to
acknowledge the fact that even if the tower
doesn't exist, this is not an application for a
tower. Now, an expert can only testify to the
placement of that tower and how it will affect,
how much transmission it will propagate. Now, that
is not the subject of this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But he can testify to
the use of that tower.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He doesn't have to. That's
not before us.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But he's not barred from
doing that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Wait. You're the one
who said and please correct me if I'm wrong, it's
important for us to know whether or not this
location is necessary to Cingular.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I never said that. I
don't know where you got that from. I've always
been convinced because I look at the propagation
of each tower and I accept that fact that we're
talking about the transmission from the hand set
to the tower as opposed to the tower itself. I
said that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you talking about
emergency?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm talking about cell
phones. And I believe their propagation maps. I
believe that we have had and I did a map and I
wish I had brought it in of all the ones in
Cingular. They gave it to me. I outlined them all.
Every single one of them is almost an identical
propagation to the next one, okay. It covers about
three miles and they are on the edge. The only
thing I can tell you is if we hired an expert, he
would just verify that fact. Now, that would be
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
173
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
fine if we were to say to him somebody wants to
build a tower in this location. What do you think?
Is it necessary? That's all he can answer.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What's the tower going
to be used for?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That doesn't make a
difference.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It makes a hell of a lot
of difference if you're the expert doing the
investigation. It could be a tower for putting up
a flag and then he'd give different testimony then
a tower sending UV Rays for example. What it's for
is crucial.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Oh Michael, come on. What
it's for is what they're asking for. That's what
it's for.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well that's what can be
addressed.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well I'm not going to vote
for that. However you guys want to do it is fine
with me.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fact that their
expert and you are absolutely convinced that there
is no other point of view is not an argument
against getting it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I just believe what
they say. But you certainly can do whatever it is
you feel like you want. You just got to vote on
it, that's all.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only thing that is
a little confusing and I hear what you're saying
and I hear your frustration.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm not frustrated at all.
What I'm trying to say is that we heard so much
testimony concerning the reason that the towers
need to get built. All we seem to concern
ourselves with is that tower and it's not that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I want to make
this clear. I don't know how else to say this in
simpler terms, Jim. I am not concerned about the
construction of the tower, it's a done deal when
it gets built. It isn't there now but it will be.
It's not the subject of this application.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So that means the
co-location inside the tower is the only area --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the only area
that I would want an expert to say yes or no, they
really need it. They don't have adequate coverage
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
174
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
6
and yeah, they need it. Which is what I wrongly
apparently understood your comment. That's the
only purpose. Otherwise there's no use for a
consultant in this application.
MR. REY: I go back to the fact that we're
balancing and in this situation, since we're going
inside, there's very little to balance and to take
the time to hire an expert to determine whether
we're here for a reason or whether we've hired all
these people just for fun seems like it's not
appropriate for this kind of a balancing. If we
were here before the Board with something that
would affect the community more so, then the
responsibility of the Board increases and perhaps
it would be worthwhile. Under these circumstances,
it would seem to me that if the carrier has gone
through the expense of being here to put
antennae's inside the pole, that we're going to
need them.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that it
doesn't matter whether you say that, what you just
said, or if an expert says exactly what you said?
MR. REY: No, that's not what I'm saying.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is the strength of your
convictions and your arguments are one sided. You
get an independent expert who might very well
agree with you but it's not an idle task to find
out whether there's somebody who's livelihood is
tied to -- whether he comes up with the same
answer or not.
MR. REY: I understand your point but in this
situation where the balancing is such that we're
going inside, is it worth the expense and time?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Well, I don't mean
to cut you off but do you have anybody you would
need to have testify right now?
MR. REY: Only if you have questions.
MR. CORNACIA: We are to an extent -- we are
independent. We certainly have -- and the
extension to that fact is that fact that we
constantly are in touch with Ed (inaudible) who's
just under Cleveland and the office of technology
and with Richard Tell who wrote that manual and we
are helping in redlining the new manual because
the FCC doesn't have the funding to do it outside
our organization. We are an extension of the FCC
and we are reminded of that every time we speak
with them. We are providing a service to the
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
175
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
wireless industry but our responsibility is to the
health and safety of the community and to the
compliance with the FCC manual. We also include in
our study constantly reminding the Board and the
community that the FCC in their manual requires
that every time a study is done at a co-location
study is included in that the next time that a
carrier were to wish to attach or mount to that
tower. It would have to be the same thing we just
did. Include not only the fire department but this
applicant as well as themselves. Anyone and it
must be continuous effort to provide a co-location
study. I just wanted to make that point. I hear
this quite often but the truth of the matter is,
we are as independent as we can be and at the same
time provide a reasonable study for the Board and
the community to assure the Board that the site
will be in compliance with the FCC standards.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what you're
saying is it's really a shared statement that
you're making and you're really representing not
only the client but you're representing the
community at the same time.
MR. CORNACIA: That's correct. That's our
responsibility. As I said, if the Board wishes to
verify that, I can give you phone numbers.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you provide that
in just a written letter?
MR. CORNACIA: Sure, I can.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would help us
out tremendously.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would help address
community concerns. If we're not going to extend
the options for other members of the community who
feel that they are going to be adversely impacted
by the co-location an opportunity to be further
heard, in other words, no additional testimony,
then it would at least be helpful to have letter
indicating what your role in this process is as an
expert so that we can in the finding quote from
that letter.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would concur with
Leslie. In your independent capacity, could you
imagine that were there another technology related
and you could be in the expert working for a
citizen group or working to advise a citizen
group, would you as an expert felt differently or
are you permanently assigned to the industry?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
176
.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
9
MR. CORNACIA: We are for example providing
pro bono support to the City of Stamford,
Connecticut continually. In assisting them to
understand the applications. To understand the
impact that that site may provide or create and to
overview the results of the studies that were done
and to provide the health department with a sense
of comfort that the report of the application is
correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it would be
helpful if you can put that kind of information in
this short statement that Leslie called for.
MR. CORNACIA: I can't name the city --
(Everyone talking at the same time.)
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're not just somebody
that's assigned by the Federal Government to work
with Cingular and Verizon. You are a professional
with the independence that professionals have.
You're not employed by the industry.
MR. CORNACIA: I'll give you a fine example.
We did some work for the Town of Rockaway, New
Jersey who wanted a hand radio operator to
disassemble his miniature tower that he installed
in his backyard with antennae's. I not only did
speak with that tower owner but I did an analysis
of that tower and I also contacted the FCC on that
issue and I didn't know this for a fact but the
fact of the matter was, that particular individual
had a safeguard in that he did not require a
permit nor was he in any way responsible for the
town's demand taking that tower down because he's
considered to be the last bastion in the case of
civil disobedience and civil unrest. He's a source
of information. So that's the sort of interplay.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you're saying he
wasn't required to cease and assist his operation?
MR. CORNACIA: That's correct. He's
continuing to operate. But he was within the FCC
guidelines because he did the study himself.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to ask you
this last question. I know you testified very
nicely before us, are you duly licensed as an
expert?
MR. CORNACIA: I'm a degreed electrical
engineer and I worked in the microwave industry
with the defense department for at least 25 to 30
years.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's all I wanted
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
177
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
3
to ask. I apologize for asking.
MR. CORNACIA: Certainly. My curriculum vitae
is in the report.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I've reviewed
it many times, I just haven't seen it recently. I
do apologize for asking you that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that sometimes I
know that you think I get frustrated but I used to
hold a Class 2 microwave license and I know that
this gentleman knows what that means. During my
past career, I built plenty of microwave links for
Cablevision. So if it appears that I'm frustrated,
I'm frustrated only because I understand what
these gentleman are saying to the point that any
of the things that seem spurious (phonetic) to me,
do annoy me. I apologize if I intimidated anybody
but I do thank you all for tolerating it. I just
hope that any vote that is made here is made in
consideration of what you've heard from the
experts. That's all I can say. If you guys have
nothing more to say, I'd like to entertain a
motion that we close this hearing pending a
decision on --
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: August 16th.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: August 16th. I'll make
that motion.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can we also do so
based upon the receipt of this information we just
asked to have in writing?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly that will help
you in writing that decision.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't want to delay
the decision and if somebody else wants to write
it.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Does anybody want
to make the motion?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I made the motion.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it
based upon us receiving this information.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Motion made and
seconded. All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
****************************************
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at
6:30 p.m.)
.
25
178
e
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2, 2007
2
C E R T I FIe A T ION
3 I, Erika Nadeau, a Notary Public of the State of
4 New York do hereby certify:
5 THAT the testimony in the within proceeding was
6 held before me at the aforesaid time and place.
7 That the testimony was taken stenographically by
8 me, then transcribed under my supervision, and that the
9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony
10 given.
11 I further certify that I am not related to any
12 of the parties to this action by blood or marriage,
e
13
that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the
14 matter in controversy, nor am I in the employ of any of
15 the counsel.
16
IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
R N
____It_____ day of __l~~~_ 2007.
17
hand this
18
19
20
81 f1NutifA
~~~---------------
Erika Nadeau
21
22
23
24
e
25