Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/31/2007 Hearing 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .. 25 TOWN 9F SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x TOW N o F SOU THO L D Z 0 N I N G o F A P PEA L S BOA R D --------------------------------------------x Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York May 31, 2007 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Chairman GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member RUTH D. OLIVA, Board Member MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney f01ijGINAIJ COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I'm going to call the meeting to order. I'll ask for a resolution to determine Type II Actions (no further State Environmental Quality Review, SEQRA steps required for interpretations, dimensional variances, accessory special permits: accessory apartments or bed and breakfast uses) . (See minutes for resolution.) Our first hearing today And, Michael, that's CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: is for Dr. Lawrence Kelly. your application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is an application for a variance to have a sign identifying the doctor's office as a doctor's office. And what he is asking for is a sign that is 30 by 48 inches, and the current code calls for one that is essentially 24 by 12. The code is clear on this and I don't think I need to introduce it further. I assume we have Dr. Kelly or a representative here on his behalf. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, is there anyone here representing the Kellys? MS. WICKHAM: I am their attorney. I didn't know this was on and I didn't apply for it. I'm not sure I can answer any questions. We are in the process of working with the town on other aspects of the building. I will tell you I cannot help you on this particular application. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who applied for it? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Peconic Signs. If I can start with kind of a question, it's more of a leading question, if you will. The problem is a difficult one, it has to do with the code and it has to do with grandfathering and I think an argument has to be made frankly because while the sign that exists now has a lot of writing on it, useful writing, because it identifies the medical building, it is virtually impossible, I would be sympathetic to the candidate because it's simply impossible to read everything on that sign while going through at 35 or 40 miles per hour, which is the speed limit, and therefore the need for a large sign. However, the code says no sign larger than two square feet. What makes it even more difficult is all around the town, including right in that area are signs which are presumably grandfathered, which are much, much larger, and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 I'm not even sure whether all those signs that are larger are properly grandfathered. So I think that Dr. Kelly, they would want to argue -- I'm just sort of suggesting that he is at a special disadvantage, and I don't know why he asked for this particular sign, because by my calculation, this asking for a 500 percent variance, 10 square feet, two and a half versus 4 by 4 -- two and a half by four versus one by two. It's a huge variance, possibly some kind of compromise could be worked out whether it's in the form of approving it as-is, which the Board could do or in denying it and offering some sort of alternative. So I don't know if we want to keep the meeting open and ask for some representative. And that's my own view, and I'm raising the questions to be asked by their representatives. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Gail, could you contact Dr. Kelly, maybe we could hold the hearing open until this afternoon. MS. WICKHAM: Okay, I'll find out, and if not, perhaps we could just ask him too if we could close until the next meeting when we can have some realistic input and some alternatives and background explored. I mean, I'm not aware of it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I hope I'm speaking for the Board, but we have these hearings so that people can make a case, and if the building department turns it down, it's not our habit to simply review the application and overturn the application on our own. MS. WICKHAM: No. There has to be a presentation and I'll make sure that happens. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, in the interest of disclosure, Dr. Kelly's my doctor and also a customer, so. Does anybody else have any comments on this application? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I just agree with Michael. I drove by it yesterday and it's very difficult to see, but the sign he wants is a little bit big, something maybe three by two or something like that you could maybe go with. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a comment, Gail, on the site plan that was submitted, there was a setback and there was a proper location indicating from where the sign was to be placed from a 15 foot setback from the road. But there's . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 3 1 2 two call outs on that, one's a new sign, which is 48 wide by 30 high, two-sided routed wood with gold and then right under it it says 28 wide by six high, two-sided routed wood with gold leaf. So it's possible it sounds like he wants two signs. . 3 4 5 9 CHAIRMAN It's for the sign his phone number. application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just make a suggestion? Wouldn't it make sense if you're going to represent them or if Peconic Sign's going to represent that we just hold this over, and I don't think there's anything, quite honestly, in all true fairness to you, you've been before this Board for the 27 years I've been on the Board, so I mean we just can't thrust this in front of you at the moment. It was nice of you to do it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm just concerned about Peconic Signs showing up later on today and wanting to say something. And if they want to come down maybe at the end of the day, maybe we could just hear his testimony, and then we could go from there, okay. So we'll leave the hearing open for today and we'll take an action, whatever it will be, probably adjourned; is that okay? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I will entertain a motion to leave this hearing open until 1:00 this afternoon. (See minutes for resolution.) DINIZIO: I can explain that. that hangs underneath that has That's it, I read the 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Peconic Recycling and Transfer Corp. Michael, that's yours again. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, this is a complicated application regarding a Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed building and fence construction in a recently begun to be developed commercial area off of Depot Lane north of Route 48, and it's for a recycling and transfer corporation, which is a fairly sizable enterprise and the Building Department has raised a number of objections in their Notice of Disapproval, and among the issues have to do with the size of the building, whether a transfer station is a permitted use or whether we need special permission for this, and a whole range of issues 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 4 1 2 on this. . 3 So, I would like to leave it open to the applicant to try to present it, on the basis of the information we all have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, based on what you just said, and I can tell you that the Town Board has passed a law allowing transfer stations, defining them and exempting them from front yard setbacks, I believe is what it is? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, they're exempt 4 5 6 7 from 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so, I mean we know that they have that. Basically they're asking for lot coverage and some side yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And a height variance on the fence. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right and the fence. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Gail? MS. WICKHAM: Good morning, Abigail Wickham for the applicant. This one I do have quite a bit to say about. I have also here, Dean Kempe, who is the engineer on the project who has done a lot of the application, and has compiled paperwork this thick that's going to the DEC for their excruciatingly detailed review. It's a highly regulated facility. I also have quite a few members of the DiVello family who are here to answer some of the questions that I may not be able to. Unfortunately, our architect was unable to be here today due to a death in the family, and he is attending the funeral, but we are going to try and answer any questions that he might have been asked to answer directly. I have a lot of material to cover. I'm going to try to get to it as quickly as possible. We're at the 16 year mark with the DiVellos on this project. And in the early '90s they purchased this subdivision property with two other partners and paid a third of the cost to develop that ever since. There were long delays that were critical to the subdivision and the water hook-ups and just recently the map was finally filed. The other two partners had the lower portion of the subdivision and sold many of the lots. The DiVellos's plan from day one was that they would have these lots, 6, 7 and 8 up the north end and planned to move their Mattituck 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 5 1 8 operation, which is part of a residential area up here, to an industrial area and operate their transfer and recycling station. What they have done up until now on this particular site is spend an awful lot of time and funds in developing a site plan for the northerly lot, Lot 8, which is a larger lot and should not have the setback issues. They did reduce the size of the initial proposed building in order to avoid variances on that lot. In the course of negotiations and discussions with the Town on usage and location, it was determined that this would be a better location because this particular lot is more central to the facility involved with truck traffic. It's adjacent to the road that does enter the landfill, and so, they have spent a considerable amount of money reengineering the project to bring it down to this lot. Unfortunately, the size of the building is as small as it can be at this point to accommodate their operations, the DEe mandate and the type of facility that they want to engage in, which is a fully enclosed transfer and recycling facility. Right now, there are facilities in Southold town that are doing the construction and demolition debris recycling, but they are all outdoors. In order to have a building where the trucks can go entirely inside, which will be a building ground level on the floor, they will back entirely inside the building, they will unload or I guess they call it tip, onto the floor, there will be equipment and employees inside who will then sort and separate the material. There's big equipment in there and then eventually that day it will be loaded onto the recycle vehicles that are going to take the recycled material and the transfer vehicles that will take the remaining waste to a facility further west. Now each of their individual garbage trucks are having to drive all the way through town and out of town and come back and do it again because the facilities here are not sufficient in the town, and I'm talking about construction and demolition, we'll talk about what goes in the landfill in a minute. What this facility will enable us to do is reduce the number of vehicular trucks in Southold town because the trucks can come directly here, unload, they can consolidate 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 6 1 2 9 and about three, what we would consider garbage truck loads of waste can then be put onto one large truck and taken outside of town. So there is going to be a significant reduction of fuel and truck traffic and road use. Let me just describe their operation first, and then we will answer questions. There's a lot about garbage systems that I didn't know, and I'm hoping this background will help you with that. But let me give you a quick overview. And I have to mention these are not the only carter companies in town. There are other people that are doing this job, but this is the only one that will have a local facility to handle it. They have several different types of trucks. They have the trucks that pick up the yellow bags. They will leave this facility; right now they will leave Mattituck, they leave the facility, they will pick up the yellow bags and they will go to the Southold Town facility and stay out doing that work all day long. Now they come back to Mattituck at the end of the day. After this is built they will come back here. So those trucks will not be going in and out of the facility except first in the morning and last at night. The same with the trucks that pick up the recyclable materials that we leave out, our bottles, cans, et cetera. Those trucks will go in and out perhaps of the Southold facility but not come in and out of here. Then you have the municipal solid waste truck, front loaders, those are the ones that pick up the dumpsters behind our commercial establishments, my office, the insurance company, the bank, the restaurants and while that is what we consider real garbage, most of that is dry, it's not wet. You do have wet garbage with the restaurants, that's very seasonal as well, mostly three months of the year is when you have that volume, but most of the time you're dealing with a predominantly dry garbage picked up by these trucks at the various locations about town, brought back to the facility, tipped onto the floor, sorted, recyclables will be taken out of there, which are not being done now, now they just get thrown in the truck and out they go. This will enable more recycling to be handled in the municipal solid waste treatment than is now occurring. And then what is left will daily be . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 7 1 8 swept and picked up and put into a large truck and sent out. The trucks will not be on the facility with garbage in them; they will be empty. The floor is swept. There are no floor drains in this facility, the DEC doesn't allow it. It's swept and cleaned, and the floor is to be cleaned up every day. So that's what will happen with those trucks. They will consolidate those wastes that's left after the recycling, put it into a big truck, and I'm sure they could quantify that for you and then take it out of town. The construction and demolition debris is handled by roll-off. Those are the containers that are trucked to sites to clean out your house. Those roll-off trucks will leave this facility in the morning, go to the job site, pick up the full container, bring it back, unload it again inside, separate out the wood, metal, cardboard, concrete -- there's a whole list of materials -- put them in different piles and then what's left that can't be recycled goes in a big truck and the recyclables go in a recyclables truck and -- they're probably cringing over here at my terminology, but that's basically how I understand it -- and then that will leave again in a consolidated load of those various materials. Again, the truck will be emptied at the end of the day and the containers will be now empty, and they will be taken back off site to either the same site or the next site. While we do show on the plans container storage, there will be some containers on the site, but the idea is not to have containers on the site. They should be out at the job site. I have some small maps. I would ask that any of you, you can dispose of these when they're done (handing). BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the proposed dumpster storage is along the perimeter of the property and screened by landscaping? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. In the back over by Southold town. The composting facility that that's dropped off probably 10 or 15 feet and that's going to have to be screened in. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The tax map on there seems to be incorrect. It should be 95-2-5. MS. WICKHAM: Oh, he hasn't changed it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'll change it on 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 here? May 31, 2007 8 1 2 MS. WICKHAM: Yes. I will note that one of the reasons we are not looking for is height relief. The building does comply with the height requirements of the town, but the reason that it is the height that it is is because you need the ability to be able to back these trucks in, tip them up, have payloaders inside, conveyor belts, whatever they're going to use, to actually load and unload the trucks inside the building. So that's why they need the height that we have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Gail, could you just clear that up for me. You are saying that they do not need the height variance, right? MS. WICKHAM: They do not. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For the building. MS. WICKHAM: They do not. The building size is the size that it is because they have to have a certain number of bays and that's why we have the width, to accommodate those numbers of bays, not so that the separation can occur in compliance with their operating necessities and DEC requirements. I think the DEC will look at how the full operation works. So that is the need for the building, more to accommodate this stuff inside. The reason they want to do that obviously is to contain the waste, odors, dust and all that. I also need to mention, there's not going to be crushing or that type of grinding that you have had outdoors in this area at some of the other facilities, that's a problem that we will not encounter. The front yard setback is a variance that we are asking for on the west side, which is Commerce Drive. The front yard setback on the south side where the bays sit, which is called Corporate Drive is 163 feet, so we're well, well, beyond feet that the Town requires on that side. However, because of the size of the building that's required, we are under the requirement of the setback on the Commerce Drive side. The main building is 90 feet back rather than 100. And the one-story extension is 50 feet back. This again is complicated by the fact that it is a corner lot. And we have a big building that we're trying to accommodate on a lot that requires two front yards. The reason the one story office extension has to be there as opposed to the side where we have adequate front yard area is because they want . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 9 1 2 to keep it out of the truck backing area, maneuvering area and bay area. It also has to be in a location where the people in the office can see the scales that you will notice on the south end of the property. The truck can come into the site, they come in on one scale, they get weighed; that will be registered in the office; they unload; then they go back on the second scale to be weighed on the way out. That is necessary because the DEe and the town, as well as their own business requirements, require them to keep detailed tonnage records and also keep accurate financial records as well. The front yard, while it is insufficient on that side, is going to be heavily screened. You will notice from the Planning Board you received, I think it was the Planning Board, suggested a lot of natural screening. In addition, the code requires, and we will be providing fencing that the Planning Board is going to require of some sort of opaque nature. One thing that was suggested was black chain link fencing, you don't see it as well, and then stockade behind it, and then all of that will have to be screened heavily. The openings will be gated at night so that people will not get into the facility. It's going to have to be secure. And that will mitigate the screening and the fencing will mitigate the setback insufficiency, and the portion of the building that is much less than -- is 60 feet back rather than 100 is a one-story structure; it's not as big as the other building. You will also notice that in that area to the south, you are getting some buildings that are going to be of some size so I think they will be screened as well. Rear yard setback, the rear yard is going to be on the east side, on the town side, on the card it is 75 feet, it is proposed the 45 feet. Again, this is what was left on this lot when that building was relocated and there's no way they can make that building shorter. However, there will be screening back there as well and that side of the building is really not going to be visible from the setback perspective to a neighbor because the compost facility is down 10 feet. So we think that that is hopefully not going to create an . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 10 1 2 5 eyesore of any nature to any other property. The side yard, which is joined on the north, is 30 feet, and that is conforming, that will be largely screened. The building length, as I understand, while that is addressed in my application, I think we are able to pass on that because of the legislation that was passed by the town recently. But the other item I need to discuss is lot coverage. The lot coverage in my materials which the building inspector looked at was 29 percent rather than 20 percent. We have recently computed this again. It was just quickly to begin with to give the actual lot coverage is 28.5 percent. Which is eight and a half percent over the 20 percent requirement. However, I have to note that you're in an LIO Zone, which was part of a one 20,000 square feet. Twenty percent lot coverage is not very big and it just doesn't seem to make sense for that size lot to be required to have when you have that kind of building. It really creates an economic hardship to applicants. I hope that is something the town is going to look at in the LI zone, which is immediately next door, you're allowed to have a 30,000 square foot property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Percent you mean? MS. WICKHAM: No, size, I'm sorry, I went blank. It may be 40,000 square foot minimum size, but 30 percent lot coverage, so you have a third of the size of the property with a larger, so the two things aren't in sync. So I would ask that in this case because again, we do need the large building to accommodate the indoor operation, that you accept that lot coverage, and I believe the Planning Board has expressed indication that they are in support of that. And lastly, we have the fence. The fence is required to be six feet by code when this project was originally started. They decided eight foot fence, and while they got a very long way through the planning process, including Architectural Review Board approval on the building, nobody picked up that the fence was eight feet, Again, we can reduce the size of the fence, if you are not inclined to grant the variance. We are told by the Planning Board and the Town Board that an eight foot fence would . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 11 1 2 perhaps be more effective for screening, noise control, et cetera, and again, opposition of the fence and screening of the fence is going to be looked at very carefully by the Planning Board because they do want to be sure that those aspects are addressed properly in the site plan review. The question of noise and odors was addressed in the materials and Mr. Kempe is an expert in that field. He has designed an odor containment system. There are several different aspects that he can use, again, this is a heavily scrutinized, DEC regulated activity. They're going to be allover this. Mr. Kempe indicated that the DEC will inspect everyone to two weeks, initially; so they're going to be looking at this very, very tightly and DEC inspectors are quite rigorous in their inspections. The noise, again, will be abated by the fact that the operations will be indoors. It will be contained by the fencing, screening. The compost facility and the town, they call it recycling facility, landfill, provide a large buffer over to the east side and the -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask one question, Miss Wickham? Regarding noise, which that's Mr. Kempe, I have absolutely no problem with this application, but I always like to cut to the chase when there is a particular issue. We're talking 1,100 feet to a residential district and so on and so forth. It's been my opinion that the normal debris, whatever it is, is brought into the building in a truck that's powered by diesel. Those doors remain open so that you can drive through. They drop the debris on the floor, whatever it is, and then they proceed out. Will we then switch to a propane generated type of machinery to pick up? Which by the way is much quieter, since it's internally kept in the building, to take that recycled material and either dump it into a hopper or whenever, it goes in the specific spot of the building, and that's a particular question that I am just thinking of that would lessen the impact of the noise. MS. WICKHAM: I'm going to let Ben answer that question. I will say that I don't think there's going to be the volume of truck traffic at this facility that people may be envisioning because these trucks do have to go out on the . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 12 1 2 route, pick up, again, the yellow bag and recyclables will not even come out of here except at the beginning and end of the day. The big trucks will only come in and out maybe once a day and the roll-off will only come in and out as they pick up. So we're not talking about a line up of trucks going in and out all day long at a huge rate. But in terms of operations, John DiVello, John, come up to the mike. MR. J. DIVELLO: I'm John DiVello from Mattituck Sanitation. There's two points that I want to make right off the bat. The first is we can legally process C and D outside of a building. We want to do it inside; that's the reason it's so big. We want to contain the noise; we want to contain everything. We can legally put it on the ground on a concrete slab and pick through it just like people in this town are doing now. We want to keep it inside. We want to keep the trucks inside, the machines inside. If you guys said, no, we don't want to do that, we could shrink the building and do some of our operations outside, that's not what we want to do. Secondly, we're next door to a wood processing facility that has grinders, tub grinder and concrete crushing and pay loaders and excavators running all the time. I would say if you were next door to this building and those machines were running inside this building, I mean there's concrete push walls and then there's walls outside of it, I don't think that the noise decibel level will be anywhere near where you think it will be. About the propane operated machinery, I don't know enough about that to answer that question to tell you the truth. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, what are you going to be using, John, inside? What kind? MR. DIVELLO: One CAT payloader and one excavator. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. So it's a fairly large piece of equipment, right, big wheels? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DIVELLO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just didn't know if it was going to be similar to what the Southold town facility is where they actually pick . 25 May 31, 2007 13 1 2 it up into what is like a small dumpster, which is like a hopper, and you know, once it goes on the floor? . 3 5 MR. DIVELLO: No, we won't operate like that. I don't know if Gene knows anything about propane operated equipment. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I think that's where you were going, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. I think it's going to be picked up with a propane, particularly in the winter time where you may want to close it up a little bit because of the wind situation or even the cold situation. MR. DIVELLO: I would say that most of the time most of those bays will be closed. MS. WICKHAM: The other thing I wanted to mention is the reason the building is oriented that way is because the bay will face south. It affects the least amount of neighbors and it also keeps the wind out. Right now, if you develop up to the landfill recycling center that faces west, northwest, it's like a formidable wind tunnel. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the south is County 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . Road? 14 MS. WICKHAM: Yes. One other thing I want to mention. I mentioned the DiVellos have been out there for a while. There are eight family members in business now, three generations. They also employ about 20 other people, not just at minimal wages but the truck operators and what not have good salaries and benefits. So this is a large employer that you don't find too many in Southold town, tax benefits which unfortunately for the DiVellos, but good for the town, and so we're hoping that you will recognize that fact. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? It's your application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: question that covers a great to hear more about the fence fence is desirable. MS. WICKHAM: An eight foot fence is desirable because it's two feet higher than a six foot fence and can therefore contain, I guess noise would be the primary advantage. To some extent it will help screen the building, particularly I guess on the south side where the I just have a deal. I would like and why an eight foot 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 14 1 2 6 bays are, but that would be -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me sharpen -- MR. DIVELLO: It doesn't make a difference about the fence as far as I'm concerned. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me sharpen the question. I'm not asking so much for a justification for the eight feet, but why it is in the interest of the company to have an eight foot fence rather than the six foot fence or are they the same? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think -- MS. WICKHAM: Six and a half -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on a second. The town allows six and a half feet. And they're asking for eight. Is there a reason why they need the extra foot and a half? MS. WICKHAM: It just happened to be on the plan that way so we left it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This gentleman wants to answer I believe. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Rocky, come up. MR. V. DIVELLO: My name is vito DiVello, and most people know me know me as Rocky because I've been called Rocky my entire life. But folks, the one thing I would say is it's just to contain. It makes it that much neater and cleaner, to make sure no debris escapes from the site, which you know, sometimes happens, look at Southold town. So it's just that much easier and easier to monitor and contain everything, that's what I would say. And I think it's not a bad looking thing, and basically that would be it. And security also, I would say, but basically that's the two main reasons. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you done? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I direct? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How many trucks will be stored on site? . 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. V. DIVELLO: we can't honestly answer do not know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. And how high are those trucks? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They're 11'6"? MR. V. DIVELLO: 11'6". BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason I'm Right now we have 17, but that question in such we 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 15 1 7 asking of course is because it is related to the fence because the more you can screen the height of the trucks, the more unobtrusive the whole visible impact will be. MR. A. DIVELLO: There you go. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Some of the trucks will be stored inside as well. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We just need your name? MR. A. DIVELLO: Anthony DiVello. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Another question, how high are the dumpsters? MR. J. DIVELLO: Forty. We don't usually send the 40 yarder out except maybe recycling because you can't really put that much material. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How high, Rocky? MR. V. DIVELLO: On the trucks somewhere around 12 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It won't be on the truck; on the ground it's what about six feet? MR. J. DIVELLO: 40 yards, somewhere around seven. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All right, I mean those are all elevational considerations that mitigate the fence -- the fencing height would mitigate the appearance. MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It seems to me that the essence -- and just for the record, I want to kind of restate what I believe the essence of your application, your case is. This building is a subsequence of nothing more than its function, right? 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 MS. WICKHAM: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It it needs to be to do the job that this business operation. MR. J. DIVELLO: is strictly what is essential for 19 20 Do the job correctly and neatly. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I think it's very commendable that it's an indoor facility for all the obvious reasons, not only noise abatement and visual pollution. MR. J. DIVELLO: I don't know if you folks know, but as truck drivers and in the winter time with diesel equipment it's very hard to start in extreme temperature and cold weather. So it's to everybody's benefit to keep your equipment inside because, number one, it doesn't weather, it's 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 16 1 2 easily started in the winter time, it's better for your equipment, it's better for service, it's better all the way around to keep your equipment indoors. . 3 4 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: These trucks are going to be stored inside at night? MR. J. DIVELLO: We're going to try, especially in the winter time. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. The other comment that I had was you have six loading bays on the east elevation, south elevation? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. In addition it cannot be any smaller to do the job in the way you want it to be. Okay, secondly, the hardship is created primarily as a consequence of negotiations with the town that ask you to move to a different lot for various reasons? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You could have built this without variances on the lot that you originally proposed. So this is not a self-created hardship. MS. WICKHAM: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is a very important point that I think we should make for the record. It has also been examined not only by the Planning Board but the Architectural Review Board committee and they're okay with it. One final question, I don't see called out on here because it isn't required, but I think it would be important to note, the kind of lighting that you will be using in this facility, night lighting in particular. MS. WICKHAM: We have been asked by the Planning Board obviously as we get closer to do light cuts I think they call them? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. You're going to have it for security? MS. WICKHAM: And yes, there will be lighting for security, obviously we'll have to shield it, whatever the town requires. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They will have to be shielded, that's not really -- they will take care of that, but it is related to the overall impact of the site. Sometimes ambient light at night in places that require night time security has an impact. So I just want to make a note for 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 17 1 6 the record that that's something I'm sure the Planning Board will address and the architectural review committee but that's something as far as our balancing test relative to visual impact has some consequence. MS. WICKHAM: Oh, I agree. It's one of my pet peeves is excess security lighting. MR. J. DIVELLO: We have been through this on the original proposed lot on the north, we did all the lighting allocations, so I don't see any reason why they would be any different here. If you want it, if you have questions, we have that. 2 . 3 4 5 7 8 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually I would be interested and if you wouldn't mind submitting it to the office, if you've got it, I'd like to have a look at it, so we have a complete picture of what the facility will look like. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We need one for the file. How many copies do we need? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just need one for the file. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no further comment. I just want everybody to be aware that I'm sure if it will be used as a truck depot, and as Rocky mentioned, I'm sure they will put the trucks inside as much as they can in the winter and some of the equipment's going to be run on propane, which is a much quieter operation. It's only understanding that you're not going to run diesel trucks inside all the time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right, Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just want to say having been in the garbage business for a number of years previously, this is one of the best plans that I've ever seen about containing it. The building is neat and clean, especially with C and D debris, it goes allover the place. I think it's an excellent plan and I'm delighted that you're doing it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on just one second, I guess just to recap this whole thing, basically you are not going to have any other businesses run out of this property that's not a DiVello operation. I mean, I understand there may be some corporate type of decisions might have to be made concerning some things, you're not 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 18 1 7 building this building so you can rent out some space to an additional income kind of thing? MS. WICKHAM: There won't be room. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just wanted to get that on the record. I don't know, let's see how the hearing goes. Gail, are you pretty much done with your presentation? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. I just want to mention that the trucks coming in or out have to be enclosed or covered, that's in the materials, but I want it specifically in the record. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Now, is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak for this application? Okay, sir, would you like to speak? State your name, please. MR. GOODWIN: My name is Jim Goodwin. I live at Depot Lane. I have known the DiVellos for years. I got no problem with them. I have a problem with their business. It's right in my backyard. The reason it was moved down south is because of my many meetings with supervisor, my wife and I. I think it's good it's moved down there, but, there's trucks coming in and out of here now late at night, early in the morning, making noises; the traffic is going to be horrendous because they're going to add to what we have already with the self storage. Foster doesn't cover any of his loads, these people do, yes. You know, and the other businesses was going to come in there on the corner, I couldn't come home, I had to go up the block and on down Oregon Road, which these trucks are going to find out, they can't get out of Depot and make a left or go across; so they're going to have to go up my house to Oregon Road to get out to go to Cox's Lane to the light but they got to make a left. I mean, I've known John, I know Rocky, I know them all. I got nothing wrong with them but the business. And as far as the fence, the higher the better. It could be a thousand feet for all I care. I wish it was. But like I said, as far as the trucks making noise, and inside and everything, are they going to leave garbage in them overnight? The height of the truck like he said are so many feet, what about the ones that's carting the trucks out, like the town landfill; are they going to sit outside like the town's does that's not supposed to happen and leak all that liquid out? And like 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 19 1 2 Gail said, there's other people in business doing it, no. The other ones are Bob Fluger, who deals with junk, he don't deal in garbage, wet garbage or building debris or none of that. Roy Schlean, he deals with mostly in C and D. Donald Rimm is all junk, cars, metals. Yes, they're outside, but it's not raw garbage. I work with for the school. I see the trucks come in and they will squeeze that garbage back, the juices are running out, and as they go out there's a trail following them and this is at school, okay. So, you know, go to Riverhead and take a look before you okay anything. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody have any comments on that? MS. WICKHAM: Very briefly. The traffic is a concern. We, as I said, have a more limited number of trucks than I think people might imagine. We have to still go to the Town Board and get a permit. They will require the submission of a route plan. In terms of where they are now, they are in Mattituck, they are getting out to Route 48, the Wickham Avenue, which granted has a light, but that's a very dangerous intersection, and they're also getting out at the Main Road and Wickham Avenue, which is very dangerous. So they have had to deal with traffic situations before. These are good drivers. It's probably the other drivers on the road that are a problem, but, yes, we are concerned about it, and we're going to have to review all that with the Town Board in terms of the big trucks he mentioned. Those will be kept inside, and they will be leaving on a daily basis. We don't expect them overnight with stuff in them. The facilities they mention in Riverhead is a perfect example of what these people are not going to do. This is a much different and much better facility. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is the facility in Riverhead, anybody, can you just describe it? MS. WICKHAM: I think they may -- without putting anybody in trouble, I believe they're talking about Crowns'? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Where is that located; do you know? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 MS. WICKHAM: BOARD MEMBER landfill. I don't know. GOEHRINGER: Down by the May 31, 2007 20 1 9 MR. DIVELLO: Very small with a lot of truck traffic. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham, before you sit down, the question of access on County Road 48, as you know they have just activated the light at Cox Road and 48. For several months we have been in Mattituck, the light at Wickham Avenue has been there for years. It was of the first light we ever had. The light at Westphalia has been there for quite a bit of time, alleviated some accidents. Is there any anticipation that they will activate a light at 48 and Depot? MS. WICKHAM: I can't answer that. I don't know what their plan is, but I'm sure that we'll have to address that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I might also point out that your landscape scheme does not specify what kind of vegetation you're looking at. MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's schematic. I understand, but I would assume that we could in relationship to that fence height variance suggest mature kinds of evergreen screening that will go well beyond the height of the fence which would more than cover the height of trucks, dumpsters, it could, in fact, practically cover the height of the building, depending on what kind of evergreen you put in. MS. WICKHAM: I think we're going to spend a lot of time with the Planning Board. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Moreover, properly done, various forms of vegetation not only create visual screens, but they can also create acoustical barriers and they can also oxygenate the air, which is a very good filter for removal of odors. So I would suggest serious investigation of how to reduce impacts on your neighbor, which clearly you're very concerned about. Those kinds of additional things can be considered. That's another reason I asked about the lighting, because if you require any kind of overnight lighting for security purposes, you'll want to make sure that it has very low impact on property boundaries that are beyond your own property. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly our town code 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 21 1 2 9 does handle the lighting as aspect of this and even the screening. Michael, did you have something you wanted to ask? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Gail, can you give us how you calculated the lot coverage; what structures on the property you used to come to that conclusion? I would tell you, I would like that in writing, if I could. MS. WICKHAM: I think the map I gave you has it. It has a building of 34,210 square feet, divided by 120,000.285 square feet. So it was the perimeter of the building. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Only the building, right, nothing else? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What about the scales? MS. WICKHAM: I was told that the scales are at ground level, they're equipment and they're not figured as part of lot. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That was by the building inspector? MS. WICKHAM: That was by the architect and he did discuss it with the town. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes, because I believe the Building Department had mentioned to us that they would count it as lot coverage because it's actually occupied space, and it's a structure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let's just get this over to them. I'll drop it off, okay? I'll take this over to them. MS. WICKHAM: Could I say for the record, if they are going to deem it lot coverage requirement, we would ask that our variance incorporate that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We don't have the percentage. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What we'll do is I'll bring it over to the building inspector and I'll have them calculate how they would have calculated it. MS. WICKHAM: They have seen this map, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for them to see it again. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is there a dimension or anything we can add to this? May 31, 2007 22 1 2 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can measure them with a scale ruler. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I know, but I'm just asking for the record. MR. J. DIVELLO: I just want you to know that when I did meet with Mike, he said that it wouldn't be counted because they're ground level, they're flush with the ground. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That certainly is his decision, John, there's no doubt about that. And I just want for our record that it actually states that. . 3 4 5 6 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We wouldn't want you to have to come back here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't want five months from now you coming back because these scales have done something that didn't mean to happen. So I'll bring that over to him and I'll do that today. Are there any other questions, sir, do you have some more to add? MR. GOODWIN: Jim Goodwin, Cutchogue. Also, I just wanted to add I have well water. I don't have city water or town water, they have. I've been there almost all my life. I'll be 62 in December. All that sludge is going to go into the ground. My understanding is groundwater runs north and south. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How do you know that's going to go into the ground; what is your basis for saying that it's going to go into the ground? MR. GOODWIN: Because when the trucks are sitting there waiting to get unloaded, the trucks are being unloaded, the stuff is coming out of the back of them, like I said, I see it every day as they go down the road. It's going to go into the black top or whatever they're going to have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Looks like gravel. MR. GOODWIN: Okay, it's going to seep into the ground water, that's me. Not them. They couldn't get their what do you call it because they had to get city water first. They said the wells wouldn't pass. I can't drink my water now, I got to go buy water. I can bathe in it, but I can't drink it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, well, that's a 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 concern. . 25 MR. GOODWIN: Do you know what I'm saying? MR. V. DIVELLO: Can I come up? May 31, 2007 23 1 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. MR. V. DIVELLO: The water's not drinkable now; it has nothing to do with us. MR. KEMPE: Eugene Kempe, Kempe Engineering, based on my experience in closing these facilities, I've closed three solid waste management facilities in the last two years, part of our closure operations, we have to take samples, soil samples of the surrounding soil of the facilities. And normally we go from 0 to 20 feet, and I have yet to have an impact on the soils that are below the guidance documentation of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that say those levels would impact groundwater. They are right on top of this. If we have potential groundwater impact, they're going to make you remediate it. And these facilities have been operating 20, 30 years. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do they come periodically to check the groundwater? MR. KEMPE: Not routinely in this type of operation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that has been addressed. Because I see these trucks, I see them driving and you know, what comes out of them, but that has been addressed what, through the DEC or Transportation, or whatever, New York State? MR. KEMPE: It's really probably the DOT because the DEC doesn't handle outside their other than the actual transport of physical transport of hazardous materials. It's outside the scope of their solid waste management operations. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: These aren't necessarily hazardous materials other than household garbage, right? MS. WICKHAM: I also just want to add, we also obviously have to go through health department review. And just to make Mr. Goodwin somewhat relieved of his concern, it's been well documented with all the monitoring at the landfill that the gradient of the groundwater flow in that water is to the northeast, so it is not in his direction in any event. It goes over in the other direction. His property is to the northwest. And his property is also zoned LIO, for the record. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, does anybody else have any comments concerning this application? 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 24 1 2 8 MR. J. DIVELLO: I have one and I'll make it brief. We have been operating out of the heart of Mattituck town for 37 years. You can't get any closer to Love Lane and most people don't even know where we are. And we don't have any complaints from any of our neighbors at all. I just want to make that clear. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody else? Mr. Goodwin; do you have any more to add? MR. GOODWIN: Yes. I can't believe John just said that; that's why they're getting out of Mattituck. They want them out of there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, well, we haven't heard testimony to that fact. Okay, is there anybody else? So hearing none, what would the Board like to do? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth made a motion to close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pending the information on the scale situation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: From the Building Department, right? Okay, so we'll close it; if it goes the other way, will we have to open it again? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, just change it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, that's fine. So we have a motion made by Ruth, seconded by Leslie. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for is for Roger P. Smith and Constance A. Smith. This is Jerry's application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Request of this variance is number one, based on the Building Inspector's January 22nd Notice of Disapproval saying the former code Section 280-15 and (2) based on the current Code Section 280-15 concerning the proposed accessory garage construction which will exceed code limitation by 40 percent of the dormers. The Notice of Disapproval cites the former code provisions concerning setback and height requirements (citing 10 feet as a minimum setback and 18 feet as a maximum mean height). Current Section 280-15 as amended by Local Law states that the accessory buildings shall not exceed 22 feet to the highest point to the ridge and setbacks shall not be less 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 25 1 8 than 20 feet (when located in the rear yard). In addition, the variance requests to locate an accessory pergola in a side yard (rather than the code-required 20 foot setback when located in a rear yard). Location of the property is 60015 Main Road, Southold. We're ready for you, sir. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Roger Smith. I am one of the owners of the property. With me is my wife Connie, the other owner. I am also the architect of record for the project. I think we have two distinct structures in which we're requesting variances for. One is for the proposed pergola that we are proposing to put on the patio, a raised terrace. The raised terrace was constructed during the time frame we were renovating the house and to our knowledge, when the Building Inspector came and did the final inspection, we thought we were building a patio, but in essence it became a raised terrace I think in the definition. And our understanding is it projected forward into the front yard beyond the rear line of the house. Therefore, the pergola needs a variance because it is projecting into the front yard beyond the rear line of the house. But I think the raised terrace needs a variance, and I don't know if the terminology of this particular hearing says that yet, but I think it should be both the raised terrace and the pergola. And that's really pretty much the variance consideration for the pergola. The other is to construct a barn/garage, as we have been calling it, in the back yard. There is a structure there presently. It is the remnants of a garage or a small barn. It is presently just about 20 feet by 20 feet. It's a foot and a half to four feet off the existing property line. We are proposing to build a 24 foot by 40 foot barn garage in the same general location as the little 20 footer by 20 footer, but hauling it five feet off the property line giving some relief and the ability to get around the structure. And really its placement has a lot to do with how the property has been formed and used. We believe over the past 150 years that was the location of the structure. We're trying to keep the character of the house and all the structures that we're proposing on the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 26 1 9 property in the general keeping of the original ideas that were there. So to put it back in its place seems to make sense to us, I hope it does to you. The variances that we are here for also have kind of a mixed edge to them. We submitted our application on January 16th, which is the same day the Town Board passed new local law which affects accessory structures as the one we're proposing. It was the Building Department's intention that day to assume that we would be grandfathered underneath the previous regulations because we were submitting on January 16th, not knowing that later that evening we would be affected by another local law. What we did was with the help of your department, we have amended the application as if to say, yes, whatever the Building Department was regulating previously that's fine; and also whatever the new town ordinance is, we'd like relief from that too. You have plans in front of you that indicate the architecture and design of what we're proposing. Also the one of the other reliefs we're looking for, not only that five foot approximate, the side variance went from I think from 10 foot to 20 foot as a requirement of the change in the local law and that dimension increases as the size of the lot increases, which is kind of interesting, typically you have a larger lot size and you would be able to get closer to the property line. And I think the concern of the local law is really to do with the character that's maintained within a residential community. We are on the Main Road, as you know. Our adjacent neighbor really has a number of larger barns and structures to it. And then our two residences to the east of us don't have that same character, and then you end up pretty much down at the marina The other piece we're looking for is the height. The local law is 22 feet, and we're proposing 24, and also a dormered area on the rear of the building. The local ordinance calls for that to be 40 percent of the width of the structure; ours is 80 percent or the majority of the rear of the building and a lot of that has to do with the architect and the use of it. As an architect and my wife, we have a lot of hobbies 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 27 1 9 and things that we do, both art and other things that we would like to be able to do to use that loft for the purposes of a workshop and work space without increasing the footprint of the structure. I'm not sure when the regulation was determined if anyone was thinking architecture when they said let's put a dormer on the back of the building, but a 16 foot dormer on a 40 foot piece of a building would look a little bit misplaced wherever you put it. So we have been proposing to do that as pretty much the full-length of the structure. And we have our adjacent neighbor, if I could put on for the record, which is Cathy and Ira Haskell, have written a letter to you stating that they have no objection to the proposed construction. Could I read this for the record or would you prefer -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure, please read it. MR. SMITH: "To the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town of Southold. With reference to the proposed construction of accessory building at 60015 Main Road, Southold New York. "To whom it may concern: We are very happy to have Roger and Constance Smith as our neighbors. We have reviewed the proposed construction of an accessory building approximately five feet east of our east property line and have no objection to the proposed construction. If there are any questions, please call. Thank you, Ira and Kay Haskell." If I could give you that (handing). Okay, thank you. Generally I think that's pretty much the variances we are seeking and if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Smith, I do apologize, for some strange reason, I didn't realize this was my application, I will be back over on Saturday to see the property again. Let me just, and I don't have any specific questions regarding the pergola or the raised patio at this time, but based upon the new law in reference to the placement of the barn/garage, you certainly do have more room that you could pull that away from the property line, that's number one, I think. And I think you should consider that based upon the new law. You should give this Board, and I'm not imploring this from you in any way, but you 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 28 1 5 should give us some options on that, meaning as alternate relief or very simply, we might be forced to deny the application if the Board cannot agree on the five foot setback that you're requesting. That's number one. Number two, as for the 80 foot dormer across the back, you -- MR. SMITH: 80 percent. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 80 percent, I'm sorry. You could build a gambrel barn and you could put sky lights in the roof of it rather than building a cape-style barn. And I have to tell you again, this new law has not been in effect for a long period of time, however, 80 percent is extensive and again, alternative relief would be the suggestion. My suggestion is you change it to a gambrel, if you want light. I'm not telling you to change construction, I'm just telling you I don't think you're going to garner my vote and that's the story because of the 80 percent situation. And the question is what type of utility will you have in this building? Will it be the utility of electricity only; will it be a building that you're proposing to have internal insulation as opposed to external insulation on the outside walls; will it have heat in it? will it have any other type of lavatory type of facilities? Those are all information that we kind of need to know. If you don't want to tell us today, you can do it by letter, and I would recommend to the Board that we close the hearing on that basis or if the Board needed to ask questions regarding the additional utilities that you would be requesting. MR. SMITH: Would I have a moment to be able to respond to your request? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course. I think part of what we're trying to do is truly respect the existing property, its old uses and where things were situated. The existing building is right now one and-a-half to four feet off the existing property line, and we're proposing to stay somewhat within that characterization and pull it five feet off. Yes, we could pull it further. But part of what makes our property a little bit tough to use at least as we see it is the little piece that's been cut out of the front of it, and what that's done is it's limited the 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 29 1 9 width of the property, the house and driveway as you get to it. And the house was always a house on Main Road with use behind. You drove past the house to get to the structures behind. We debated, my wife and I, whether or not that structure, that garage and barn should be on the east side, but what that does is that automatically begins to box in your way to get to your own back yard, which is hundreds of feet to the rear. So, respectfully I understand your point, and I'm not saying today that we wouldn't change your mind, but I'm hoping to maybe influence the way you visualize it because we're really seeing it as that is the most ideal place to put the structure. We had the opportunity to do a gambrel. This is a wonderful old house. I think we have done a fairly good job of bringing it back to life, and I hope on Saturday we can meet you there. As the architect it was important for me to not feel that architecture of the old house and then throw a gambrel in the back. A gambrel is really -- yes, it is a barn structure, but it's kind of a hidden agenda to accomplish the dormer that we're trying to do to keep the roof pitch is 12 on 12 so that when you look at the house and then you look at the garage, they both be in the same context pretty much as the pitches were originally on that old structure in the house. And I'm not sure that we would benefit from what you're offering us, but in essence, I'm not sure it's going to look to what the characterization of what we're trying to accomplish because in essence, if we did move 20 feet off, we could build a much larger thing with a lower roof trying to stay within all the regulations, which I think would look pretty horrible in reference to how we're trying to pull the piece of property together. We would be happy to give you the list of what's going to be inside, electric, I would love to be able to insulate it from the inside, would not have permanent heat. We have no intention of hanging out there in the winter, but we want to be able to utilize it, and no plumbing facilities. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What about electric, for outlets you mean? MR. SMITH: Yes, obviously for service and 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 30 1 7 electric, I've got things I'd like to be able to do, workshop. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Full service? MR. SMITH: Full service, insulated from the inside, if it could be I think that will do us much better benefit than doing it on the outside. That's going to lead me away from doing wood siding the way I want to do it. Non-permanent heat. The ability to have some kind of temporary heat and no plumbing, no water. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What do you mean by temporary heat? MR. SMITH: Maybe electric heat, like electric heat. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can plug in electric heat. I don't think that's a problem. MR. SMITH: There's no boiler plan. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're not going to grant you heat. I don't think that that's a problem. MR. SMITH: No boiler plan. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right, we're not going to grant you heat. And I mean the plumbing I suppose you could have a spigot if you chose, outside. Leslie, where do we go? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing I didn't address, excuse me, Jim, I apologize, is the height situation. Are you calling for a 10 foot ceiling on the first story? MR. SMITH: Nine. And if I did drop that to eight, the ridge would come down again probably by another foot. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, perhaps I can address that also by being an architect. First let's get the easy part over with. As far as the patio is concerned that's an as-built structure and clearly what you have done is contained the highest part with a brick wall that is also above the surface somewhat. So I think it's fine. I mean, I think that it's perfectly safe and I have no objection to that. Neither do I really based upon the vegetation that exists between your house and the neighbor's house have much objection to the pergola, which is going to be proposed on the patio on the east side. When it comes to the garage, however, whatever you're calling it because it's far more than a garage. It's my understanding that you want a clearance of that 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 31 1 5 nine feet to the finished ceiling on the first floor for antique cars and trucks and so on. It would appear that the dormer that you have put in here, which is 100 percent variance is a consequence not so much of the 12 on 12, which you have on one side, you move it to 12 on 6 simply because that gives you full height clearance on the interior. The header is eight feet to the window. So what you're doing is creating a full use on that second floor. I can explain to you the part of the reason the limitation on the height of a dormer was a consequence of attempting to deemphasize the utilization of a second floor in accessory structure. So it was not just a matter of some whim about aesthetics, it had to do with head height, clearance for use. Second floors in garages are generally for storage purposes and not necessarily for people to actually work on them. So that was what the law was about. You certainly could reduce that somewhat and still have the same configuration that you now have roof-wise. You could get away with a slightly lower height. I don't mind a two foot cupola because the diameter is very minimal if that's what you need the variance for, essentially a two foot variance, essentially a decorative element, it's not functioning as a solar tower or any other purpose; it's primarily an architectural element on the roof. So you can lower it slightly. My primary concern is the side yard setback. It's a very large structure, you have a very small structure now. I believe you have said that you wanted to build on flat rather than on a slope, but as I paced it out, even if you move it to the east, you have a good 10 feet before you get any kind of significant grading change on the topography. It can be slid over, you will have to reconfigure your driveway slightly. And there's a very large tree there that I know you're attempting to save. Even where it's located, if you were to relocate it exactly where you're proposing, you will still need to cut one of those big branches off. MS. SMITH: Yes, the one that's coming down over the driveway, hopefully that is all we were hoping would be disturbed on the tree. It's magnificent. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a beautiful 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 32 1 2 6 tree. It's very old. You can also avoid that by setting it back slightly. MR. SMITH: We have six foot over. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very, very close to your neighbor. I mean, you have a large lot, which is the only reason that you're allowed to build such a big structure as an accessory structure according to the new code, even according to the code, but because of the size of your lot, you can build a larger structure square foot wise, but the law requires a 20 foot setback and you're proposing a five foot setback, that's a huge variance. You're at the maximum height plus two for the cupola. You have no problem with lot coverage. So I think at the very least, we ought to consider alternate relief for an additional side yard. MR. SMITH: Would you mind if I continue to address that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure, by all means. MR. SMITH: I'm a pretty big guy and I am the chairman of the New York State Building Code Board of Review. Often we get cases to us where someone is looking for relief on a basement or first floor or second floor for something that is 6'6" or 6'8". I set this up obviously because it wasn't for my wife's purposes but for me that we would get that kind of height on the second floor, and I wanted you to know that. What disturbs me bluntly is on the 16th I was a 10 foot side yard on the 16th at seven p.m. I was a 20 foot side yard, which I find, and I find the dichotomy of that, the bigger the yard, obviously you can get further away, and I think a lot of it has to do with the residential character of what you were surrounding yourself with. The neighbor that would be most affected has no objection and has looked this over completely and has full ideas of exactly what we're doing. Our other neighbor to the north is the railroad tracks; our neighbor to the south, obviously is a vineyard, and Main Road, and our neighbors to the east -- and I don't know if they're here today have not commented back to us. To keep moving it I think changes the original intent of the property and that's not what I was trying to do. We're trying to stay as close to what was there originally. Without an overall disturbance by . 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 33 1 5 pulling it 10 feet, 20 feet, throwing it somewhat in the middle of the lot. If that little piece wasn't there, then we'd have a completely different view of how to utilize the property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think when you have a major demolition, it's a tear-down and you're going to rebuild on the footprint and add considerably to it, you are scooting it over slightly a couple feet in your proposal. It's a very different structure. If you want to talk about the original character, it was a small little accessory structure. MR. SMITH: As far as we know it's the only piece that's left. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I think you have lost that historic memory when that thing is demolished and you're starting de novo. So my opinion, you're building a very large additional accessory structure and at the very least, we need to look at some reasonable compromise. The law is there for good reason. The relationship between height and setback had to do with proportion so that accessory structures would not overshadow the principal dwelling on a residential property. More and more we're seeing cabanas being built that are basically secondary homes; they're just overscaled. So this law was attempting to address those relationships of mass, essentially volume to setback and lot coverage, you know, the size of the lot. So I think that you have ample leeway to tweak this a little bit and essentially accomplish what you're looking for. Height wise, I might also point out, that as drawn the full height that you're proposing on the second floor is considerably higher than the eight feet, that's the lowest point. That's where the dormer comes down, right? MR. SMITH: Typical eight foot ceiling. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. You're going to leave it open, I presume, you don't have it drawn in sections as though you're going to put a flat ceiling. MR. SMITH: We were hoping to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See this is not in 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 here. . 25 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your section simply shows the dormer and the removal of the other 12 May 31, 2007 34 1 2 6 by 12 roof pitch. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Quite honestly, Leslie, we're not concerned about the inside of that building. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I am. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're concerned about the height of the building. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm concerned about all of it. You know the height on the outside is relative to the height on the inside. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, only if you are looking for a way to reduce that height. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He argued that he needed higher height and looking at his proposal. MR. SMITH: If I could, it's also 12 on 12 . 3 4 5 7 8 9 pitch. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you this, Mr. Smith, why do you need that 12 by 12 pitch? MR. SMITH: I want it to match the house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Architecturally, is this building that you're building appropriate for the site? MR. SMITH: I think so. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because why? MR. SMITH: I think there was a structure there though smaller, it was in the same siding and color and shape as the original house when we got to it. I think it is keeping with the agricultural look of some of the properties adjacent to me where the barns are two stories high and more. And I think I can make it look like it blends right in with the house so it isn't obtrusive. And again, before we leave you, we don't want to leave you with nothing, we would rather leave you with something. You were talking about where it is in proportion to the house, this is because the way the property is set and then bellows out, that's why it's back. If we were wider, I'd be asking you to pull forward, pushing it east. I just want to keep saying this, yes, I can push it down the slope and then by pushing it down the slope, I'm going to regrade the property more to get in it, whether I get it in vehicularly, which is not the way the property was originally set up, or get in it as a human on the other side, and I think that's going to make it look more obtrusive as it stands up out of the property. 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 35 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because you're going . higher? 3 5 MR. SMITH: Well, I'm going to wind up two or three feet out of grade or I'm going to drop one side of it, and I don't think though that may have been characterizations you may have found on an older barn on a piece of property, again, this is year 2007, we're trying to bridge the gap between what looks right and how it works. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Leslie, do you have anything additional? I'm sorry I interrupted you. 4 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I could, but I think I have mostly said what I need to say. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think Leslie has anticipated some of the points that I make. First I have maybe a relatively easy question. I notice that your pergola contains a bathroom, on the plan? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, that's an open structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Oh, because on one of the plans I saw a toilet and a bathroom in there. MR. SMITH: That's part of the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. That's the bathroom that's in the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's part of the 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 house? 17 MR. SMITH: That's part of the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the pergola is just what a pergola is. MR. SMITH: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. That's the bathroom, that's the house (indicating). BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, then that's not a problem. As far as the setback on the east side of the house, that to me does seem to be a rather minor issue, and so given the fact that the house is set properly back. However, like other people, I do have some questions regarding what's going to happen on the west side of the house. And a lot of architects come before this Board, and my understanding, I'm certainly not an architect, but one of the things that architects at least in the town of Southold do is they typically design houses within the constraints of the laws, rather than to argue that the laws are inappropriate for 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 36 1 8 them to practice their trade, and particularly with regard to the 80 percent rule on this or the interpretation of how close to the boundary it could be. I was interested in what you said, I thought you thought maybe the larger the property that the less the setback should be. That struck me, from what I understand, and just the opposite of what the Town Board had in mind because one of the reasons why someone might be allowed to have a smaller setback was there just simply wasn't enough room on the property to build their structure. Here you're dealing with a property that's one and a half acres in size, so it is exactly that kind of property for which the 20 foot rule was put in, whatever it means for architectural sense; that was more a point than a question. But I'm saying you're getting some indication of how some people on the Board may feel about some of these issues. As far as the question of rebuilding, please take Leslie's questions more seriously about the reason for their being constraints on there being a rebuilt structure on a demolition. Certainly if it's a main dwelling, if you demolish a nonconforming house and you want to build a brand new house, you cannot build it on the place where it was demolished, if it was nonconforming. The tradition, historical tradition simply carries no weight at all with regard to if you're demolishing. Yes, you can rebuild within the footprint if you don't destroy it and so forth, the rules about houses not being more than 50 percent renovated and so forth. So it's very hard to make an argument based on the fact that this is the way it used to be, the way it is now, and in a way you sort of acknowledged that argument because if you were arguing and making a plausible architectural argument that a taller building would be much more in character, much more appropriate to that, then it sounds as though what you might be saying is that the smaller building as it now exists, which you're drawing on to protect you is, inappropriate because it's much, much smaller. So if yours is more appropriate then the existing one must be inappropriate. So for a whole lot of reasons one wonders exactly what the substantive bases would be for insisting on this variance of a 75 percent reduction in the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 37 1 2 setback. As far as the dormers are concerned and the height -- and those are both cases which have been considered for various reasons -- you might very well have voted against those rules had you been on the Town Board or been a participant in the public hearing on those type of things, but that is a problem. As far as my final point, the question of being sort of sandbagged by the fact that the rule changed while you were in application, that seems to be a legal question as to when does grandfathering begin. Does it come when the permits are granted or does it come when you first get the idea of a plan or when you first submit your preliminary plans? MR. SMITH: There the Building Department. grandfathered. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I was involved with that a little bit. They felt that they wrote a decision based on the plan and they didn't have to make another decision, but the issue of the new code was deferred over to the Zoning Board to rule on. It was not that it was exempt under the new law it was only that they didn't need to write a disapproval on the new law. The Zoning Board could advertise it and this is why we're on, there was no exemption involved that I'm aware of. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. And in any case I think it's a legal question as to when grandfathering begins and when it doesn't begin. If it's a gleam in your eye, voluntary law could decide that, but as far as I know, it doesn't. So I'm not sure what force there is to that argument. What I am really saying is whether you want to keep it open or come back with more alternative plans. I think you're going to need some additional arguments other than the ones you presented in order to make the case for having it very much like the way you want it because I find problems with many of the arguments. There are some good ones, but some of them probably do -- in my view -- you do more harm than good. MR. SMITH: We would rather have it open, and I would rather not have to consider a gambrel, if you don't mind. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, you don't have was confusion between They felt that I was . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 38 1 2 to consider that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was only a suggestion. MR. SMITH: I understand but I don't want to falsify the space in order to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. I'd rather consider it in other ideas with you and your department to try to get a sense of what might be a more justifiable solution. MS. SMITH: Also, if I could speak to this, if you look at the plan and my husband will speak to the buildings and I will hug the trees, so, if you look at the plan, we really don't have a lot of large mature trees on the property, so where the structure is being placed right now saves the trees that are there and to move it that far off, you know we are an acre plus but we are narrow and we were made even narrower when that lot to the east was cut out. So that has placed so many constraints on us, and as we are working backwards to the property and having restored the house and now we're trying to do this and are trying to plan out how we plan the yard and gardens and things because we are hoping to do all of that, to move it would almost put it to the center. It would have to be so far back it's almost inaccessible. In order for it to clear that tree, it will make it so far inaccessible as to be a garage because everyone's idea of a garage is park your car and carry the groceries into the house so to get it that far back so that it clears the tree, and now we're putting it more into the center, it doesn't really make it that accessible to the house for now, 2007, speaking historically, but it also then leaves very little ability to develop the property as far as its landscaping so that it is an outdoor extension of our home, which is how we're hoping to live. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Smith, excuse me, just a minute, I don't want to upset the plan and the view that you're trying to garner out of the back of this building, but we have many of these applications before us, and some of the people turn the building the opposite way, and I don't think that's going to work in this plan, but in turning it the opposite way, it pushes the garage, the portion of the barn or the building or the garage, closer to the house, you utilize one . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 39 1 9 single area of the upstairs looking out going north, northeast, and it gives you much more room. Rather than placing it across, you do it in the north-south direction as opposed to the east-west direction. MS. SMITH: The only problem I would have with that is that then we lose more of what is the green space to add more hardscape to bring the driveway around because we would have to swing the driveway around the tree that way, so we lose more of what we are hoping to -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me try to summarize the essence of the concerns because as an architect you clearly understand my strategy and the consequences of give-and-take. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, hold on. Let 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 her go. . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All right, I'll summarize after. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: To put it very succinctly, I think the building's too large. I think it should be 20 foot off the line, and I think it's a bit too high, frankly. I mean, that's our new code, and I think we should adhere to that new code and also 80 percent of the roof for dormers is absolutely too much. You have to get it over and reduce it. You're an architect, I'm sure there are ways of figuring it out that would be very pleasing. MS. SMITH: We were hoping for a lot of north light for painting and doing -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know. But you can do it in a way that can cut it down somewhat. It really is too much. The code says 40 percent, 80 percent, that's like 100 percent. MS. SMITH: I understand and I don't want it to feel like we were flying in the face of codes, but this was a process of 18 months in development and as we submitted it that morning, the code was changed that night. So it's not like we were bringing it, it was submitted to you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Actually we got it two months after, you filed it two months after the law went into effect. MR. SMITH: January 19th is the date we submitted. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's not the date you filed with the Zoning Board, it was March. 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 40 1 9 MR. SMITH: BOARD SECY. Department, that is MS. SMITH: BOARD SECY. clear that up. MR. SMITH: Let me address that. If I had known that I was going to be facing a variance for a dormer of that size, I might not have even started here. The problem is I have spent a year and a half designing this to get it to where it should be, and that's the point of the 16th. We went in, and, no, I hadn't been reading the paper, I didn't know I was going to be facing that, so yes, I wound up facing it and that's the dormer. One of the things I want to make sure is my wife I think has hit on there's a couple issues, we were trying to stay up to reduce footprint. We don't want it to go further east. I know you really want to do that but it's just going to make it more obtrusive, and it's going to eat up more property, and it's going to be effectively more problematic. What I'd like to do it is find some happy medium between 20 foot and five, and if we can't dormer and I don't want to build a gambrel, this will look like someone dropped it, which it could look like that if I wanted to, like adjacent properties. What would make more sense is we could continue out the back, and I would stay all on one story, but then that means I'm going to hold more building line to a property line. But that takes the dormer out of the question, so I'm not standing here fighting with an ordinance that was put in place whether, we like it or not, 24 hours on top of us or to keep moving 20 feet, you need to come to the property, stand at the walnut and see when you drop that out, she's three and a half feet away. Now all of a sudden I'm going to fill my yard to drive my car in; I don't think that's what you're hoping for; that's not what I'm hoping to do. I want to keep the initial character. So if we could keep this open and discuss some dialogue that might work to what the property really is. It's not just there because we're looking to be big, that's not the point. I know enough about what I do that that's not the way to present. The building permit. KOWALSKI: For the Building a separate department. So we were like well -- KOWALSKI: I just wanted to 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 41 1 2 5 MS. SMITH: And truly when planning it we rode the north fork, we read the books, The Barns of the North Fork. And we tried to keep it more in keeping with the structures that are already in there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Did you want to . 3 4 ask? 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, but I do have some comments after this. So you should go in deference to the applicant. You should summarize and then I'll have my comment. Go ahead? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, if that's what you want, summary usually goes at the end. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, you asked to make another comment, make another comment and then I'll have my say. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, fine. At this point it's pretty clear to me that you understand what the issues are relative to the new law. You haven't had an opportunity to really reconsider and reflect upon, you're still going to request a variance; the question is to what extent are you able to now rethink the scale and the setbacks and then come back with an alternate that you find meets your needs. Clearly you don't want to move it more towards the east, not just because of the trees but because it's going to start to block your view from your patio, and you don't want to be looking at a building; you want to be looking at a landscape. So, I would like to suggest that the best thing to do rather than recapping this one more time, which is not necessary and we will do this by vote after Jim has his comments, that we allow you the opportunity to go ahead and pursue -- having heard our feedback -- alternatives and come and present them to us given the new law, and we'll see where we go from there. I was going to recap some other things. MR. SMITH: Are they separate issues, the pergola and the -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think she's done that pretty much. I mean, she doesn't have any objection to that, just the building. MR. SMITH: I didn't know how you can separate them in the hearing for both. 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 42 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can't, we can grant one and deny another alternate relief. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: After you submit the new plans of course. We would have to see the new plans with the alternatives first. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A procedural matter is if we see a hearing, actually have a hearing, an application involves say two variances, it's possible to say deny the variance with respect to A, but grant it with respect to B. So we are empowered to separate them as we wish. MR. SMITH: Can you grant with A and hold . 3 4 5 6 7 8 B? 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Well, no, actually we have never done that before. I have to say I think it's a procedural problem with that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We would have to make a decision on it. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You would have to sever it and then have a new application for the second. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You could do it, it's just a little more costly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Perhaps you want to just leave it open. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I ask that my comments be taken in their entirety and that no comments be made by the Board until I'm finished; is that all agreed? I didn't interrupt and I would not want to be interrupted here. You are going to be taken by surprise here, sir. I just find a decision that this Board made last month concerning a building almost exactly the same size located in exactly the same area on a larger lot than yours, the variance was a 100 percent variance from the new code. And I just want to read one thing here because this is the Board's feeling: The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The Board would not grant placement of a garage of this size at five feet from any property line, however, the size of the proposed building is behind the applicant's dwelling, and does blend architecturally with the character and size of the primary building, your building, and surrounding homes and accessory buildings in the 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 43 1 2 neighborhood. Now I read that because that's a decision made after this new law, and I asked you concerning the appropriateness of this because although our law does not consider appropriateness, the law doesn't state that our decision was based on that for another applicant. Now we're welcome to ask for the decision, I suppose it's been filed, and I am completely surprised by the comments that I heard from this Board concerning your application, sir. And angry to the point of shaking right now because I cannot believe that this Board would do -- members of this Board would ask questions that they asked considering this application. So, if you could, please, Board, reconsider your comments and see if you can, I don't know. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I comment on that? Let me just point two things out. The placement of this present application that the Chairman has just read was in consideration of 250 year old trees. Very similar to your situation in some respects, but I haven't seen it, when I discuss something with you I have to be able visualize it at the same time I'm seeing it. that is the reason why I told you that I have come back and uniquely this happens to be my application again, that's number one. Number two, we did not grant the dormers in excess of the current new law on this application. Number three, what is unique about this past application is the fact that the person also wanted to store historical vehicles in the garage; what is also unique about this application is that just as I mentioned to you to your very nice wife, they turned the building around and it's now running the property is in a different direction. It's running opposite of what they wanted to build, okay, to give them more room and to keep it away from the trees. Yes, the property line was a little bit bigger, but I have to tell you in comparing this and mentioning this to the Chairman, you can never compare apples and oranges. Each piece in this town is extremely unique, and what is more unique about this piece is -- and I will phrase this and everybody must understand this -- this is described property, and your piece is a described piece. It is not part of a subdivision. So that makes it even more to And to . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 44 1 2 unique and more -- and you know what, more beautiful. And your piece is beautiful and this piece is beautiful, but what is also very, very unique about your piece and this piece is the fact that the house that's related to this particular application and this decision that the Chairman read is much, much, larger than your house and there is no objection, there's no upset. This is a tremendous Victorian with a huge addition on the rear that was placed on some time later by a Vermont company, and it even made the house more ostentatious and larger. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just want to add to the point just for the sake of completeness. I understand the Chair's point. I don't know how relevant it is, but I think it is. The Chair should mention that he himself voted against the granting of the variance in that case and the rest of the Board found by looking at the property as Mr. Goehringer suggests, is look at the specific features of the property. So in the case of the other property, I think the Board has been consistent. The Board was willing to look at each property by itself and see what conditions warranted a favorable decision on that one, and therefore, the Board is also free to look at the unique characteristics of yours. As I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, it's because you believe, the Board made the wrong decision the last time, we should stick with our decision without distinguishing the two properties; is that fair? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just one comment. Each application that we receive, we are obliged by law to consider independently of any other set of circumstances. The only time in which precedent takes place is within an existing neighborhood. You look to see what the character of the neighborhood is and if there are similar structures in that neighborhood then it's applicable. These are two different hamlets, and it is not an appropriate thing to make comparisons between one application and another. Because those are subtle decisions that are taken on a case by case basis, and I think we will do exactly that with your unique piece. It is our 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 45 1 . 3 responsibility to review all the circumstances including the tree and your property boundary conditions and other kinds of structures in the area. All of those things that will be taken into account, and I really go back to my point that I'd like to see you have the opportunity to reflect upon the particular testimony and come back to us with some sort of alternate proposal that still allows you to accomplish what you want. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I agree with Miss 2 4 5 6 7 Weisman. 8 MS. SMITH: I don't understand the process so I don't know who may have come to look at the property or not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Everyone of us has been there. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We all have been there and your house is lovely but if you describe sizes, actually your barn/garage is almost three quarters of the size of your house where I'm not even going to mention the other property where the house was so huge. I mean, it's lovely, I love your grounds, it's beautiful, but it doesn't meet code, and I think you have to have some sort of alternate relief. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would caution you, Ruth, that the size of this building is not a question in this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know that, I'm just mentioning it. MR. SMITH: Many of the barns around and garages and accessory buildings are much larger than the homes as you drive up and down the road. 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: just hold on one minute, make a statement. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I just want to make a comment it's directed to the Board and I don't want anyone to try to read in because I have no feelings, and even if I did they wouldn't be relevant as to the merits of this application. You're sort of both right. But every parcel is unique. You have to look at it individually, et cetera. But your decisions do have to be consistent with one another. All things being equal and all things are never equal, but let's say many things being equal, if you make We understand. Can you our counsel would like to 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 46 1 8 a decision on one property and you have a very similar property -- I'm not saying this is a similar property, I don't know -- but if you have a very similar property with similar characteristics, you have to make a similar decision. That goes to the essence of whether a decision is or is not arbitrary and capricious. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Does anybody else have any more comments on this application? Mrs. Moore? MS. MOORE: I don't know these people but they seem like lovely people. Pat Moore, I'm an attorney here. They are not represented by counsel and there are just two issues that are important that you should keep in mind, one is that when the law was adopted that evening, there's still a publication requirement by the secretary of state. So the law itself is not in place. The fact that it was adopted does not mean it was being effective. And given the amount of time, and it seems to me that when somebody has spent thousands of dollars to do architectural plans and an overall plan, and I think you already had your house under construction and renovation that it should have been looked at a little more carefully before it was brought to this Board, so you wouldn't have to make these kinds of decisions on someone that obviously already had construction plans in place; that issue is one, and it could have been avoided here. Secondly, the law that was adopted I think was trying to address garages in residential neighborhoods. This house is on the Main Road. Had this law been adopted, we would have a different character of Southold because I am personally very much in favor of architectural styles where barns are predominantly the design choice of people on the Main Road. We have from my office to east of their home, if you look at the houses that are there, there are many, many barn structures. The Haskells are one of them that have beautiful barn structures and the difference between existing and new quite frankly, we should have as many barn structures because everybody that comes to visit this area, the agricultural look, the character of Southold is somewhat described by the barn structures that you see throughout. And many of them have been 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 47 1 5 demolished and rebuilt, not that many have been reconstructed. So I welcome their design choice for the Main Road. It's certainly something that you should look at. One hundred percent variances, well, look at the neighborhood and look at Main Road as compared to little houses in my neighborhood where somebody wants to put a huge barn structure with quarter acre, half acre lots next to them. So I think you can look at it differently that way, and I know you will do your best to do that. The third question was I don't know if they're in the HALO or outside the HALO. 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They're outside. MS. MOORE: Okay, so certainly very close to where the HALO line falls, which is John Nichol's office, you have got flexibility of design that has been implemented in the old HALO and hopefully in the new design standards for the HALO, so again, a step one foot off and you've got less flexible a design. So, I don't know these people, I wish them luck, but I feel very strongly that we should encourage barn structures wherever we can. 10 11 12 13 . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it's important to suggest, no one on this Board was in any way suggesting otherwise, by the way. Certainly I believe that that's a perfectly appropriate comment but the suggestion was in no way to redesign their original intentions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no, that was just a suggestion I had. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I think there was a suggestion from this Board for a gambrel roof. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to make a statement this is a democratic society, if you can't make a suggestion to an architect who is a professional, who you are, sir, you are the nicest people I have seen and would love to speak to at anyone time regarding any architectural situation, but I am telling you mirroring that decision that the Chairman read, that we denied that dormer and that was the reason why I made that suggestion. I wasn't making it for any other reason. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is there any confusion whether the law is effective as of this 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 48 1 2 application? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. I don't think there is. MR. SMITH: I didn't think it was either, I thought you had to file with the Secretary of State. . 3 4 5 9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I can clarify it for you. What's important for you now is whether the law is in effect now, it is. Now, if you had gotten a permit before the clock struck 12:00 on this law and it became effective, you would be fine, you would have a permit and you'd go on your merry way, but it seemed like you needed variances in any event, and you did not have a permit to do what you wished to do, so you need to abide by the new law. That's the state of the law, it's very clear. The decisions are made at the time the permit will be granted. If no permit is granted you've got to go by the laws in effect. The Town Board could have said, everything in the pipeline right now, you're exempt, you're grandfathered, they didn't do it. They considered it, they decided not to do it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, we just have a little housekeeping to get you going here. How much time do you need? We're going to need seven sets of plans whatever you're going to propose. MR. SMITH: If I know what I'm going to be able to get. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, we can't get you 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 that. 19 MR. SMITH: I can have these plans drawn in 24 hours. I have enough people to do it for me, but what I'm saying to you is I'm not seeing 20 feet as where I'd like to be, I think it complicates my property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That means cutting 20 feet off your barn or moving it over; that's what 20 feet would be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Or requesting a variance for a side yard variance. MR. SMITH: Which is what we were doing. The way I do business is sometimes a wink to try to get a sense if I'm heading in the right direction. If I take the dormer off, I might be giving away the store. I'm still going to want that property, that building area, because otherwise, I'll just build a garage and it will 18 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 49 1 9 look like one. So I want to push the back of it out, which means I would probably still want to be 10 feet off the property line, if it works, but 16 feet deeper. So it's going to be even more of it along the property line, which is why you need to see the adjacent structures to get a sense of I'm just the same as what's living next to me. I'll be honest with you, we don't want to be 20 feet off the yard. I probably could get to 10, but if I take the dormer off, I need more of it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: A larger building? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A larger footprint. He's going to reduce the height. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is something we can't enter. We cannot approve hypothetical plans. MR. SMITH: But you are -- I know that, but you are able to comment on what's in front of you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the comments are -- first of all they're individually based. They're no more than suggestions. If one person suggests how about a gambrel it doesn't mean that the Board -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's more about procedure because if you came to the office today for the first time, I would tell you to try to submit plans that would conform to the code the best that you can. If you can't conform to the code because of a difficulty, you can submit plans A, Band C, just do rough diagrams, you don't have to do the full scaled map; do a Plan A may be 10 feet; do a Plan B may be 12 feet; do a plan C may be 15 feet. See what you can do with different alternatives. MR. SMITH: We can be prepared to be on for next month. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Only thing we need is we're going to need that a week before the hearing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we're going to adjourn the hearing until around 10:30 on June 28th. So will I will entertain a motion to adjourn this hearing until June 28th at 10:30. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would like to entertain a motion for a five minute break. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 50 1 2 9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The next application is for Cheryl and Erik Hansen. This is a request for a variance under Section 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector's November 21, 2006 Notice of Disapproval and applicants' request for a Building Permit, concerning proposed reconstruction and relocation of an existing sunroom at less than 75 feet from the easterly bulkhead. At 445 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. MS. HANSEN: Hello, I'm Cheryl Hansen. We reside at 445 Elizabeth Lane in Southold. And we would like to reconstruct the sunroom that we have now with a setback of between 52 inches, between four or five feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you're coming back from the original? MS. HANSEN: Yes. The room would be the exact same size. The only thing we would like to do is what we found is it's a 40 year old room from the south, we're getting the water from the wind and what have you, so, if we had an overhang. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, I see, so in other words, the sunroom is still 16 by 60, you just want an overhang on that to protect the windows. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 MS. HANSEN: Yes, to -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a five foot 17 deep overhang? MS. HANSEN: I have a five foot but I think it's 52 or 55 inches. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The point is you're not going to be building any more seaward than what you have now? MS. HANSEN: No, further back. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: follow the procedure here. in order; is that okay? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. We had given you the permission for the garage, that's very nice spot down there. I hadn't walked around the front before. I don't think I could have. I think you had a boat down there. It's very nice so it's just the sunroom, the 16 by 16 sunroom with a five foot overhang, correct? MS. HANSEN: Correct. if anything, we're moving 18 19 20 21 Can I ask the Board to Letting the members go 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 51 1 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Which will make it about 36 feet from the existing bulkhead? MS. HANSEN: Yes, I think. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It says 39 on the plans; does it mean five foot closer? MS. HANSEN: Well, the overhang would probably be at the 39, then the room would start like 52 inches behind that. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Okay. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All right, sounds 2 . 3 4 6 7 good. 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No objection. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions or objections. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a clarification, I don't have an objection. Is the sunroom itself just exactly, going to be exactly where it was or is it moved back? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Moved back. MS. HANSEN: Moved back, exactly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in other words, the edge of the overhang will not be any closer to the canal than the existing sunroom? MS. HANSEN: No, the edge of the overhang will probably be at the same -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, if you had rebuilt the sunroom exactly as it is with the same overhang, exactly the same but maybe newer materials, it still would have been denied by the Building Department for just a very technical reason? 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it wouldn't. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Why was it denied, because of the overhang? MS. HANSEN: No. Because they said any time we're building within 75 feet of the bulkhead, they're denied, so we had to corne before you. That's the only reason. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, I can clear that up for you. If this person, the applicant was proposing just to replace that in-kind, she wouldn't be before us, but because she's moving the foundation of that building back a little bit, then naturally they will destroy it, 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 52 1 2 nonconformity, so they're before us. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even though she's decreasing the nonconformity. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Even though she's decreasing the nonconformity. No matter what you do there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: MS. HANSEN: To be thought even if we left it had to come before you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, I'm not so sure, but if they told you that. We don't ever see the work. We don't see -- you know what I mean? But I realize what you are doing is you're trying to make your situation better with that little roof. You're not increasing the room size any, other than the roof. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You do have some sort of overhang, do you want to just show me? Because I have to write this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, do you have anything else to add to this? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? I'm going to ask you some questions specifically, okay. Our plans indicate that you have an existing setback right now or at that point, can you tell me, 36 feet on this side, you're on the canal, you're on the corner of the canal -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 61 from here to So that's why. honest with you, I in-kind I would have . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 here. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. And you don't intend to increase that. The only thing you're going to increase is this 39 feet somehow. MS. HANSEN: No. We're not changing anything at all. We're not changing anything. The only thing we're doing -- it's still going to be 39 feet, and it's still going to be 61 feet from the other side. The only thing we're doing is taking that -- this is the house the way it is now. What we're going to do is take this room and move it back. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Five feet? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Is that correct? You have on there five feet plus 16 for the sunroom, so 21 feet altogether that we're dealing with. 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 MS. HANSEN: Okay. May 31, 2007 53 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So does everybody have that straight? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. HANSEN: We're actually going away from the water. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, we don't want to put a number in there and find out you have to change your plans. So five feet is going to be that porch, then 16 feet is the building. Okay, are there any other questions for this applicant from the Board? Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application? Okay, hearing none, I will entertain a motion that we close this hearing. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (See minutes for resolution.) 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Susan Emanuele. I would just like to state for the record the LWRP came in, one of the most unusual ones, it actually was consistent with the LWRP. 11 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I've never seen one 13 yet. . 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, the next hearing is for Susan Emanuele. Jerry, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a variance under Section 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's January 30, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, for the reason that the new construction will be less than the code required minimum of 15 feet on a single side yard, at 1585 Breakwater Road, Mattituck. Pat? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Road, Southold. I'm the attorney for the applicant. The applicant apologizes, she couldn't be here. She's a physician, oncologist from Greenport. She's at the hospital today so she couldn't be here. What she is proposing to do is just add a home office and gym on the southwest of her existing structure. The addition is at 13.4 feet from the property line. The code requires 15. She just couldn't make that 15 because in order to do that she would have to eliminate the closet. If she were to add a closet, certainly she might 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 54 1 9 lose some of her window space. So, you have the interior design of the proposed addition? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. MOORE: She had the architect, Mr. Ebert, design this and he said this was really the only logical position for this addition. I asked her if any other locations were considered and she said this was, in looking at the house, if you had seen the house, and I'm sure you have, that house is pretty much in its place on the east side is the garage. The garage, the entrance, the living area is centered and in order to create the privacy for her home office, she wanted to segregate it from the bedrooms. So that's the way it was designed the way it is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the nature of the home office? MS. MOORE: She's a physician so she takes work home. This is where her computer is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, no patients? MS. MOORE: No. She won't be seeing patients. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, I live relatively close to this site. I was over again this morning to look at it. I have absolutely no problems with this reduction of setback. MS. MOORE. Yes. It's heavily vegetated. You can't even see if there's a house next door. Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually a comment, if it's appropriate for me to go next. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I agree completely. I think she also indicated there is no other reasonable location for this; that's number one. And number two, it's a single story and that's the right side for that to be a single story. And I have no objection. There is one small thing in the application, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to bring up, but I'd like to put it into the record anyway, and that's that you would be moving the shed to a conforming location. And as far as I'm concerned that shed can stay there. You know it's in the right location. You're going to mess up the landscaping and you're going to ruin the patio and you're going to drag it to the other side of the grassy area, and it 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 55 1 7 has no impact on anything. If there was a way to support, at least in principle, that it would not be necessary to move that shed because it's not going to be on top of the addition. So it affects nothing, really. But I do think it would require some action on this Board's part in order for that to take place. So I simply want it added into the record that should this Board consider that that I would certainly support it. I have no problem at all with the application. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a question, the papers we have say that it will have a 13.6 setback, I believe in your remarks just for the sake of the record, I thought you said 13.4. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. The angle of the property line seems a little bit off or the house is just slightly ajar so it's 13.4 on one end and 13.6 on the other. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just for the sake of the writing. MS. MOORE: Then make it 13.4 because I don't want to be here for a .2. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And I have no questions at all. So any other comments, Ms. Moore? MS. MOORE: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Any comments from the audience for or against this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 (See minutes for resolution.) . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for David Berezny, Jr. That is Ruth's. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's a request for a variance from Section 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for a Building Permit to construct a swimming pool with a lot coverage in excess of the code limitation of 20 percent of this 13,888 square foot lot. The location of the property is 680 Westview Drive, Mattituck. Hello. MR. BEREZNY: How are you this afternoon? My name is David Berezny, and I'm just here for a variance. 19 20 21 22 23 24 May 31, 2007 56 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's an above ground . pool? 5 MR. BEREZNY: It's an above ground pool. It's over by .8 percent. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: When we were down there we thought that perhaps you could make it maybe a little closer to the house. MR. BEREZNY: Where we're at now is seven and a half feet I think. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, seven and a half 3 4 6 7 feet. 9 MR. BEREZNY: I think that actually that was the closest possible it's going to be. It looks like it's going to be a foot closer. The reason we didn't want to get too close to the house, we ended up with a decent amount of yard. We're trying to spare most of that for the children and everything to run around. We have a young daughter who's eight years old. We want to keep as much of the yard as possible. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you want to move it back at least a foot? MR. BEREZNY: Sure. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Can we make it 10 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 foot? 15 MR. BEREZNY: Ten foot we went over Ten foot comes way too close to that patio also want to put some nice shrubbery down We want to make it look nice but I don't encroach on the house already. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What do you say 8.S? MR. BEREZNY: 8.5, we just didn't want to encroach on the house, it's so close already. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you're saying 8.S? MR. BEREZNY: What did we originally have? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 7.5. MR. BEREZNY: Can we just do eight; is that possible? It's encroaching so much. I know it sounds like a little amount. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Do you want to look at the map? If you moved it over a little bit, it might be able to get more. MR. BEREZNY: Oh, that way. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There's an angle there, see that angle? MR. BEREZNY: We're ultimately going to put a fencing all the way around. But two things, you have to meet the fact that you need a water 16 that. and we there. want to 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 57 1 5 alarm at all times that you can hear from the house; and secondly, you need to have around the ladder itself, not only locked up, but there has to be a fence that's at least four foot high with a self-locking gate and that meets all the New York state laws. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I worry about this all the time. MR. BEREZNY: So am I. I'm a physician's assistant. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't care how many times the kids have been great, there's always that one time, I have grandchildren. MR. BEREZNY: I totally agree. The safety is of our utmost concern actually. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How far over the code 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 are you? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One percent. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually it's less -- .8. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, dear, I don't know, sir, if we could do that. It's really going to be very hard. Would anybody of my fellow Board members like to comment? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you done? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no particular question. My colleague is going to and I don't want to ask her question -- what you do with the pool water. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Normally when you put in an accessory structure like a swimming pool, you have to drain the water at some point or another and I don't really know the answer when you have an above-ground structure like that; what do you do with the water when you drain it? MR. BEREZNY: The uptake on that is that you cover it in the winter, you just take off a small percentage and put the chemicals in that keep it from overgrowth, and then when you open it -- you reopen it, you reopen it with the proper chemicals. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're worried about the backwash, sir; is there a containment for that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You never drain the water ever? You have to. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I don't, not on 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 58 1 2 mine. . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not on an above ground, you never drain the water? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not on any pool, you don't have to. Leslie, I'm thinking you're concerned about the backwash; is there a dry well for that? I believe we have a code that says you have to do that. MR. BEREZNY: I can put a dry well in I'm certain without a problem. There's all cesspools in my yard so I'll just put a dry well. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're probably going to put it on there if we make a decision on the affirmative. MR. BEREZNY: Is there any particular 4 5 6 7 8 9 size? 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think the Building Department will do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It will be small because you have a small pool. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have a problem, but I would just for the record say that it's my understanding that the only issue before us is the lot coverage, and if it weren't for that .8 percent you wouldn't even be before us. I haven't seen any connection between the lot coverage issue and the question of the location of the pool. So I'm not even sure that it's within our jurisdiction from what I understand of the state law regarding attaching conditions which are not relevant to the particular point at issue. I wouldn't raise it, I would certainly support -- kind of a redundant statement that whatever he's done must be in accordance with town code, building code. So that's my own position on this. So I don't have any objections to what you're doing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that it, Mike? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, the location of your pool is not the subject of this hearing, sir. And I am certainly not going to consider that and encumber you to move it any place, any conforming place. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels; that's certainly how I feel. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He's not going to 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 anyway. May 31, 2007 59 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean, I don't know why we had to ask that question. Any further questions? MR. BEREZNY: I just have a question with the dry well. Since I have cesspools there, is it possible just to tap into CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Oh, I wouldn't do that, no. You don't want to do that. Chlorine kills bacteria, you want the bacteria in there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Something as simple as what you would have a down spout come into rather than have it run down your driveway. MR. BEREZNY: I totally understand. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just so it didn't run down your road. MR. BEREZNY: I got you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you finished? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so it's a .8 lot coverage that we're concerned with here. Okay, is there anyone else this wishes to comment on this application for or against? Hearing no one, I'll entertain a motion that we close the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next application is for Thomas Byrne and Veronica Kaliski. Leslie, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Just for the record I'm going to read the Notice of Disapproval. Request for variances under Sections 280-116B and 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's February 20, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for a Building Permit to construct an as-built and new additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, which are less than 35 feet from the front lot line, less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, and less than 10 feet on a single side yard. Location of property 2345 Bayview Avenue, Southold. Good afternoon. Let me just encapsulate a couple of things and then we'll hear from you. You have a fairly oddly shaped lot and the road that you front on, your primary front, Bayview Avenue, carries around to your side yard and kind of dead ends at the water, therefore giving you two front yards. You currently have a 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 60 1 9 front yard setback of 35 foot plus and 16.3 feet from the northern front yard. What you want to do is put a new deck; actually you're doing a renovation, partially second story and you're going to be adding on a deck to the seaward side, wrapping around your garage and so that new deck is going to change the existing side yard setback from six feet, where your garage is, to 4.5 feet for a portion of the deck and then it resumes a more conforming side yard. MR. BYRNE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the other variance has to do with setback from the bulkhead. Right, you have 60 feet from the steps of the bulkhead at the corner, the nearest corner of your proposed deck and then you have 73 feet from the new addition to the bulkhead. MR. BYRNE: Wouldn't be a new addition, it's the existing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Existing plus the second story. MR. BYRNE: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. And your side yard setback is fine at 16'3" on the edge of the property that comes around the corner. Okay. So you're here before us for basically setback. MS. KALISKI: I have the affidavits here (handing) . MR. BYRNE: The name on the letter is Raymond Strong. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much. It will be in the record. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, could you just state your name for the record, please? MS. KALISKI: I'm Veronica Kaliski. MR. BYRNE: And I'm Tom Byrne. Primarily we're looking to put a second floor on the home. We're looking to make this our permanent residence when we retire from the school system which may be in five years. We have also invited my mother to come live with us. She lives in southern Florida and we'd like her to be closer. I'll give you a little history. We looked at the envelope, the possibility to build within the envelope, and it presented such a bizarre looking structure that we really felt we didn't want to go along with that. So working with Frank 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 61 1 2 Uhlendahl our architect, he came up with another structure. There will be a bedroom on the first floor and then two bedrooms upstairs, which would be my daughter. Her friends would come over and us when my mom's in residence with us. And I believe the decking changes that he's proposing really steps down, and it's more for landscaping purposes just in order to have a flow of the house rise with what's around the lay of the property. I'm totally new at this, so I have no idea what to say. So ask me anything you want. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean, we could actually grill you and you wouldn't know that we were grilling you? MR. BYRNE: I wouldn't know, but I would be very honest and say I have no clue. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You would know if you're grilled. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me carry on. Frank Uhlendahl is a very good architect and I congratulate you on your good choice. He makes wonderful, clear drawings that lay people can easily understand, such as this. So it's really a very small piece of the deck. One of the things that I'd like to point out about this proposed deck extension is that although it's very close to your neighbor's property, property is very open, there's no vegetation, there's no screen, which is kind of nice, I mean. And I'm sure you want to keep that. Their house is set closer to the road than yours, so by the time you add your deck piece, you're actually past their house so that the impact is rather inconsequential on their property. The fact that you're putting the second story on the road side also has no real significant impact or the least impact possible on that side of the property, leaving the garage the one story piece. The bulkhead issue, the steps really are very small you know going down to the bulkhead. It's a couple of feet difference and I don't think has much of an impact either. The height is within the code, you know there's no variance required for that. And maybe my colleagues will have some questions for you, I don't really have any questions. I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the record what it is you're requesting. It's just mostly these yellow ends over here. And . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 62 1 8 this setback right over here (indicating). This is pre-existing. You're not increasing the degree of nonconformity, you're just creating two foot additional here by virtue of the deck, which is still fairly narrow at four and a half feet. Jerry, can you -- at six feet you can just get emergency equipment through? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don't have to worry about that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They have got a big yard on the side yard. I think it's more aesthetic, you know canalling that edge off certainly can be done to keep it at six feet, but you know it's just going to be a bitsy little piece. You know it's simply creating continuity on the elevation and since it's not that obtrusive and hasn't got a great deal of impact, this is a situation where I personally -- and I don't know how my colleagues feel -- but I wouldn't particularly object. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let it go. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a small deck. I think what you would lose would be more than you would gain. You lose more than you gain basically. I don't have any further comments or questions, perhaps my colleagues do. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, the portion of the deck that is behind the garage; what is that going to be used for? Is that just to extend the deck? 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 19 MR. BYRNE: Just to extend the deck. Also as the garage doors open on that also. We're looking for garage doors on both sides so that if we're in the exercise room or in that area, we'll be able to have a view of the water. It will just be a few steps down. It actually raises the -- the floor of the garage is above ground level. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which side are the doors of the garage? MR. BYRNE: They're both sides. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They're not garage doors on that side, they're door doors. MR. BYRNE: We're putting on the old barn door-type garage door. I grew up with those. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it looks like the same type. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: These doors will not 18 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 63 1 2 9 face Bayview Avenue. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, no, they will. Here, Michael, they're going to keep those, they're going to add those, so you can go through it. So in order to step out of the garage, you need to step on a level platform, you see what I mean? When you come out of the doors, because this is up higher than grade so they have to step out onto something. So it's a landing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's basically for pedestrians to get from the garage to the house. I guess the only thing, part of the garage is only six feet from the property line and this deck reduces that further to four and a half feet, but as you say, it's an aesthetic question. We have at times asked people to simply shave a deck in order to not increase the nonconformity. I assume that this would be the sort of thing that your neighbor would object to, if anyone. MR. BYRNE: Actually the letter I brought in was from Ray Strong. He is the neighbor in that house, and he said he has no objection whatsoever. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, that's important. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Do you see the one plan, it says deck should be removed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, they're going to take down what's there and they're going to rebuild it. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, where you're putting the deck now there is something. You're just going to extend it a little more? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mostly steps down. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Michael, are you complete on that? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. It's fine. You have a lovely spot. MR. BYRNE: We have been going there for 30 years on that street, and then the house came up about 14 years ago, so we jumped on it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't blame you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comments. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 64 1 2 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I have no comments either. Do you have anything to add? MR. BYRNE: Frank Uhlendahl gave me a note. He will be delivering slips that may have come in. They came in from other names. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're talking about the green cards? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think you're okay on that. There's one other card we were waiting for. . 3 4 6 7 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Is there anyone in no further comments, I'll close the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) Okay, we'll get that. the audience? Hearing entertain a motion to 8 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for Scott Kruk. Michael, this is yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a request for variances under Section 280-15, based on an application for a building permit, and the Building Inspector's April 19, 2007 and February 21, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, concerning a proposed accessory swimming pool and accessory garage locations in a yard other than the code required rear yard at 40135 County Road 48 in Southold. As I understand it, this pool is going to be behind the garage and so the fact that it is in a side yard is somewhat less a point. If that's a problem it's mitigated by the fact that it's behind the garage in any case. The question I have and I'm just puzzled, I don't see anything on the application applying for the variance for the garage whereas the published notices that the variance includes the -- 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it does and 21 accessory. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It says here but it doesn't say it in the application. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: He submitted an amended application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I see, okay. The most recent one I have is April 19th. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here. Here's the second one, February 21st. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess I don't have that. Okay, I see. So I guess I don't remember 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 65 1 9 reading in the application the argument for why the garage should be there. I understand the arguments for putting the pool there once the garage is in place. In my papers I didn't see anything about that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The house, the noise from the road would be. MS. BYRNE: The garage is being proposed in the front yard to keep the house as close into the rear yard as possible to keep it off the North Road and take advantage of the vineyard that is behind the property. So therefore the house is being pushed to the very back setback. And in order to do that to keep the garage in the rear yard, we would have to drive by the entire property basically to get to the garage. So therefore, we were looking to put the garage in the front yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any problem. One of the things that troubles me about the code is the very antiquated practice of insisting that the garage be in the rear yard. And there's an interesting history to this. Why if you look at houses that were built before say 1948, before World War II, the garages were way back, before they started having attached garages. The answer seems to be that a long time ago there were barns there, and people kept horses in them, and that's where society decided that garages should be. Otherwise I could see no reason at all why we have this historical relic of having the garage behind the house, and I think as a matter of policy this part of the code ought to be amended because I see no good reason for doing it. Most people solve the problem by attaching their garages. But in this case considering the circumstances the distance from the North Road, which you're interested in maintaining and keeping open the back of the property I don't have any problem. And I have a problem with the code. And in this case, if my colleagues are willing to grant a variance because of a silly clause in a code, I'm all for it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's 110 feet back. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This seems to be a case where the code is stupid. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, with that said, 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 66 1 2 how about Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think you made a very wise choice as far as being on the North Road. You kept the house as far back as possible and I see no problem with your pool or your garage or what have you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, technically it's possible to turn the garage and move it into your side yard instead of your front yard, you could reorient your swimming pool by making a 90 degree pool putting it in the back yard. It's only partially in the side yard. All that would mean would be that you would lose a back yard and that's significant because that's where you're going to be hanging out all the time overlooking the vineyard. You have no impact on either neighbor on either side. One side is woods, which may not stay woods; the other side you're very well screened. So given how noisy that County Road is, I don't have a problem with it. It's not going to impact anybody visually. So it seems all right to me. Okay. I need to get the green cards from you. Just hand them up to Linda. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And notwithstanding the fact that you look exactly like my daughter, you won't get any sympathy from me. I thought she was sitting back there, I didn't have my glasses on. And she made the same comment, so I wasn't going crazy. I think if you could, where the garage is right now, you could still build the house forward and still not need a variance. The property is large enough so that you have this option, You're on the Main Road and it's a noisy road. So I have no objection at all to your plan, plan here. Do you have anything to add to this? Does anyone else have any comments for or against this application? Hearing none I'll entertain the motion that we close the hearing until the 14th. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Thomas and Mildred Toivonen. This is yours, Leslie. . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: For the record, request for a variance under Section 280-15 based May 31, 2007 67 1 2 on the Building Inspector's March 21, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for a building permit to construct an accessory hot tub/gazebo structure in a yard other than a code required rear yard, and proposing it in the front yard adjacent to Cedar Lane. Location of property: 1065 East Gillette Drive, East Marion. . 3 4 5 6 Let me just summarize this. Your proposal is to locate a gazebo, which is 10 foot high and 10 foot in diameter, which is a kit you're going to get, in what is a second front road along a private road that is a part of Gardiners Bay Estate, very small private road, that's Cedar Lane; which then, because you front on East Gillette, gives you two front yards. Your setbacks are fine for accessory structure. The issue is that it's in a front yard and also that it's partially, just a couple of feet, in a side yard as well, as a result of this setback on the south side of your property. We have all been there and visited, as I mentioned when I saw you nice people at your home. One thing that became clear to me is the reason you want to site it there is there's no conforming location that you can put this in. You're going to need a variance no matter what. But perhaps -- I have lots of notes -- but perhaps I should let you summarize for the rest of the Board why you want to put your gazebo and hot tub where you want to put it. MS. TOIVONEN: Well, when we first applied and we were told that we had two front yards, it was suggested that it would be on the north side and that there would be no privacy afforded because everyone on East Gillette when they went by would be very visible. And the place that we had in mind would be the most unobtrusive place because it's right out of our door and we have arborvitae there, and we're planning to put another row there around the perimeter. So it would be unobtrusive. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So by perimeter you mean screening it from Cedar? MS. TOIVONEN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your house will be screening it from East Gillette? MS. TOIVONEN: Yes. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 68 1 2 MR. TOIVONEN: Also makes it closer to the back door, so you come right out rather than going across the entire yard and picking up all the sand and grass and bringing it in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. It's not on your survey, it doesn't need to be, but when I went there and realized -- because my first reaction was well, okay, how about just scooting it over just a little bit more behind your house in the same location so that it's not at all in the side yard, just you know, in that front yard, and then I realized why because of the landscaping that's already there and the pavers. You have it paved and obviously you have a little nook there where you would logically like to place it. I don't have any questions other than the fact that I did observe in driving up and down Cedar Lane, which I did after we happened to run into each other, is that there are other structures, pools and saunas and so on, in this area, many also in the front yard because of this unique condition. So I think perhaps you have already explained, I think you also mentioned that you want to keep a little bit of open grassy area for your grandchild to run around. So I don't have any other questions or comments. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, Leslie. Approximate Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have no questions either. I think it fits in very nicely and it will be nicely screened and have fun with it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I travel Cedar Road a lot so I understand that you have got two front yards. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. TOIVONEN: We never knew that 22 before. 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Most people don't consider that really, especially as it is a private road. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I do have one other 24 . thing. 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure, Leslie, go ahead. May 31, 2007 69 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think you were here when I asked the question about an above ground swimming pool, and I just learned that they hardly ever drain water out of it, but as you know, I have a spa myself and you do need to drain that maybe every six weeks or so. MS. TOIVONEN: Really? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. It depends on how frequently you use it but they will advise you to drain it and do a fresh fill, but it's a small one. Do you know how many gallons it is? MR. TOIVONEN: 250 gallons. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not a lot of water but I would suggest if you would be amenable to have some sort of very minor dry well or something so that you don't have the water spilling out on roads or even saturating your own property when you do drain it, you get a little sump pump with a hose attached and you suck the water out, but then that water's going to spill allover the place. You're going to drown your plants and screw up your lawn. So you're going to need a little someplace to discharge. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it possible that the manufacturer would be able to help with this? MR. TOIVONEN: When I asked the fellow down the road who was buying it, he said you never drain it, you just have the filter you change. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, Bud knows you have to change it. You have to put in a little sump pump, they're this big, so as long as that's okay with you, you're probably using bromine or something like that, and that's a chemical you don't want spreading around your property. MS. TOIVONEN: I want to make this point, we did our homework and we found the smallest hot tub available, we went to many places and they don't make them smaller. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. I don't have any objection. I just wanted to tell you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, that wasn't the subject of this application either. I would say that I think our code addresses drainage of these devices, so -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Does it? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A hot tub? Swimming pools but -- . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 70 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, there is a building code. I'm concerned if we tell them we have to put some kind of dry well in -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just say as per . 3 4 code. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I understand because if we say dry well, they're going to end up digging. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, do you have anything else you would like to say? Anybody on the Board? MS. TOIVONEN: Does anyone have an objection? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Doesn't appear to be. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We all want to use the hot tub. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, hearing no further comment, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until the 14th of June. (See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for Alessi. This is yours, Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Request for a variance under Section 280-15C based on the Building Inspector's February 20, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed swimming and related equipment in their front yard with a setback of at less than the code required 50 feet from the front property line on this 53,244 square foot parcel, at 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, in Southold. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just want to say I was down there, I met Mr. Alessi and frankly, I don't know where else you would put the pool because of the contours of the land and your wetlands and so forth and so on, probably the most environmentally safe place to put it. MR. LOHN: Just for the record, William Lohn, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of the applicant today. You're very correct, Miss Oliva, that pretty much was going to be the basis of my entire case. The DEC, for that purpose the DEC for that exact reason has placed the pool in this location as the only conforming location with respect to wetlands on the entire lot. Basically for that reason is why we're here. It's a very . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 71 1 2 simple application. If this pool were to meet the required principal setback it could be located in the front yard but because of the dimensional constraints of the lot, which does have water on three sides, it's located 12 feet from the front lot line while 50 is required. At this point that does only leave 10 feet between the existing dwelling and the proposed pool. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And it says you have the proposed dry well there for it and pool and equipment right there too. MR. LOHN: Yes, ma'am, and for the record I would just like to state prior Decision 4922 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals did grant a variance for a 24 by 24 garage in approximately the same location which never ended up being built. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I know. I went there first. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing I'm concerned about, Mr. Lohn, is the noise emanating from the pool filter. I'm not speaking for the Board I'm making a generalization. I am concerned about the noise. We are requesting -- I am requesting that the filter be put in a soundproof cabinet. MR. LOHN: I would imagine my client would have no objection to that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right next to the property line. I know that Cedar Point East is a paper street, but your neighbor is relatively close. There will be some noise. MR. LOHN: No problem at all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. I should mention when I came over there your neighbor, Mrs. Sullivan, was there and was very helpful and she was very accommodating. She even offered to come to the hearing if she thought it would be necessary, obviously not objecting. The thing that is puzzling to me is this is one of those cases, it took me a long time to figure out why it was said to be close to the road because you can't find the road, there is no road there. This is not even a paper road, this is a green and leaf 11 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 72 1 2 road, but I guess the only question I have is some of that is going to involve taking down some trees. . 3 9 MR. LOHN: Yes, some small vegetation will have to be cleared. No large trees. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions on this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, does anyone have anything else to add to this? Sir, do you have anything to add to this application? MR. LOHN: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. We have a motion by Ruth, seconded by -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: To close the hearing and make a decision on June 14th. (See minutes for resolution.) 4 5 6 7 8 10 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next application is for Linda Sanford. Michael, that's your application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a request for a variance under Section 280-14 concerning a request to amend a permit concerning a new dwelling under construction with conversion of the third floor attic area to a finished floor area, determined to be a third story under the Building Inspector's April 2, 2007 Notice of Disapproval. The property is located is 780 Private Road Number 17 in Southold. In any case I found my way there, it is so big and so grand, I came in and the dwelling I saw didn't look like the pictures, so I figured I was in the wrong place, drove around, parked up someplace else, then I saw it from another angle through the woods, climbed down, walked down through the woods to find it, then I couldn't find my way back to my truck. Anyway, it's a magnificent home and as I understand you're here only because you decided to put a ceiling in that second and a half floor making that a third one, right? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Could you state your 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 name? 24 MS. BERTANI: MR. NAPLEY: the architect. MS. BERTANI: I'm going to refer all your questions to Mr. Napley. Linda Bertani. And I'm Charles Napley, I'm . 25 May 31, 2007 73 1 2 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there any external change to the building or is it only internal? MR. NAPLEY: It's only internal, the insurance company required sprinkling the entire house, including the attic space, mechanical space, when it reached a certain dollar amount that they were insuring. So while we had an attic space there, it was unfinished, but once we put sprinklers in, they said this could be a livable space and not only access to the air conditioners on the flat roof or air handlers in the other parts of the attic, we chose to make that small area livable, habitable by sheet rocking it and having it sprinklered. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is very curious how putting in an interior ceiling turned a two-story house into a three-story house as far as the Building Department was concerned, but it doesn't change anything from the outside? MR. NAPLEY: Doesn't change anything on the outside. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is interesting because this is a case where the code doesn't necessarily fit real life. Because there are good reasons for there being a two and a half story limit on houses, often having to do with towering over neighborhoods, and if there were ever to be a case where a third floor variance would be granted, it would seem to be one on a large piece of land, isolated with other properties, that doesn't require any additional construction in order to do so, and that describes the house that's before us now. I have no objections. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I don't have any problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sir, were you the gentleman that did the original presentation on this with the PowerPoint? MR. NAPLEY: Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tremendous job and I commended the builder when I was down there, absolutely magnificent structure. I had the distinct pleasure of going up to that third story room with the builder, and he explained to me the reason for this application. Probably one of the . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 74 1 5 most well-done structures I have ever seen in my life. It is truly magnificent, and I have to commend you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many square feet is the house? MR. NAPLEY: About 8,000, that includes overhangs and porches. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. Only to say it's exactly what I guessed it was. I'm an architect too. You can look at the plans and figure that out. It's already sprinkled, that's what we would condition it according to code. So it's proforma as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, any other comments, sir? MR. NAPLEY: No. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: May I make a very brief comment? Again, with no point of view on the merits of the application, just to respond to Michael's comment. There are lots of times we make distinctions in the code on what's going on inside the structure. We do it all the time with accessory structures. It is a matter of use. And it's a matter of what's going on inside that determines what it is. So, whether there's a ceiling or not, or whether it's finished does in this instance decide whether it's a third story or not. I don't know whether that affects your decision. I don't think you can take the blanket view you haven't changed what the outside looks like so it's fine in all instances. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine. My point should not have been made to sound as general as it did. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is the third floor going to be used for? MR. NAPLEY: Wrapping Christmas presents, 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 crafts. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Crafts? MR. NAPLEY: Crafts. It was going to be that anyway, but it was going to be attic space. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There's no bedroom, no sleeping quarters? MR. NAPLEY: No. There's no facilities for that. There's light and ventilation; there's a door out to the flat roof. 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 75 1 2 . you're CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: here because of the MR. NAPLEY: State My assumption here state code. code allows three is 3 story. 4 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: With the sprinklers. MR. NAPLEY: State allows three story buildings, sprinklers everywhere. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. I'm assuming that's why the Building Inspector made that decision. MR. NAPLEY: And the height requirement is established as the midpoint of the slope of the roof, and if you don't mind, Mrs. Sanford said from the beginning that she didn't want a giant two story thing. So we covered a lot of the first floor with a very big very steep roof which created levels inside technically attics, three levels within that big roof and one of them is what we happen to be asking for the variance for, calling it the third level. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is that third story habitable; can you sleep in it? MR. NAPLEY: It is habitable, but not for sleeping. There's windows and there's doors, there's exiting. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How large is it? MR. NAPLEY: Seventy square feet, it's a big attic, but the septic is limited, you're limited by the amount of septic. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a lavatory on that third floor? MR. NAPLEY: No. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Storage? MR. NAPLEY: That's it and storage. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If we grant it, it's livable space you can use it. MR. NAPLEY: Up there before it was storage without sheet rock. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean you can have a TV, if you want in there, a couch all those things. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The only thing is the Board would put that in a decision because they have limited in the past; they would confirm that it would be 70 square feet. MR. NAPLEY: We're habitable now, we're habitable living space. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, this is not 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 76 1 5 storage, this is going to be living space if we approve it. Does anyone else have any questions, comments on this? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, sort of. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, now is the time to ask the questions. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, I can't tell you to take the top story off. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, let me explain this to you, as it is the extreme peak of the left-hand side that you're looking at, and it's only a small portion, a very small portion of the house based upon 8,000 square feet, it's less than 10 percent; isn't that correct, sir? MR. NAPLEY: Yes. And it's not a story that has a set of walls and it's only the roof on it. It's a finished attic with no change in height. So it's considered a story because it's a third level, but it's not considered a normal story that has eight foot high walls. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Finished ceilings. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the definition of a half story? I mean, you're allowed two and a half stories. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The half story I think is anything seven and a half feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's defined by 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 height. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's defined by state code, international code. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it has nothing to do with how few square feet they are -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If this is 70 square feet and the floor below it is let's say 1,500, that doesn't matter? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, really just the ceiling height. That's what makes it livable space or not. We're not granting a variance for the height of the ceiling in that particular area. He's going to create that. MR. NAPLEY: Right. You're granting a variance for a third level. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The house is already built, you don't need a variance for the height of the house right now. So, Ruth, do you have anything else? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 77 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else, anybody in the audience? Sir, are you okay now? Okay, I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing and settle it on the 14th, we'll be making a decision. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 ------------------------------------------------- 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for the Astleys. Ruth, this is yours. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a carryover from the last hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. Request for variance under Sections 280-10, 280-15, 280-124, 280-116 based on the applicant's request for a building permit and the Building Inspector's December 26, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning one, a screened porch addition proposed at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff adjacent to the Long Island Sound; and two, proposed additions to the existing dwelling which will be less than 40 feet from the front property line. I really compliment you on what you have tried to do with what we have requested. You took away the pool; you have moved back the screened porch. It's really nine point something feet from the top of the bluff, and I give you much credit. I think they did a really good job. MR. REILLY: I'm Bill Reilly. I'm here with Chris and Amy Astley. So that we did that to the porch and also we were conforming to the new regulations about the building of buildable area, not the lot area. So we redid that, and I have the new surveys you didn't specifically ask for them, but we had Joe Ingegno change all the stuff that we did on the architectural plans too. So I'm going to give that to you too. They show you they work it out to 19.47 percent is what it comes to of the buildable area after all this is said and done. In addition to moving the porch back, we also made it smaller. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have enough 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 copies there for us, MR. REILLY: BOARD MEMBER sir? Yes. WEISMAN: Actually, we've got 24 . them. 25 MR. REILLY: I'm trying to think if we covered all the issues that you guys raised. I May 31, 2007 78 1 2 want to say about the screened porch, even though on the survey it shows the porch 26 feet from the bluff, not 29, which is what the existing house is, actually the foundation -- which is the hand dug sonatube foundation -- is 29, even a little bit further back because we cantilevered the porch four feet out. And also this porch, as you can see, is being built above already an existing concrete patio that's on the land right there. So really I feel that we're having no negative effect on the land whatsoever. Also you can see we have set the porch to be sure that it's exactly 15 feet away from the property line to match Johnson to the east; so we're not asking for any variance in that. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd really like to make the comment, it was really a difficult piece of property to do anything with, and considering our comments at the last hearing, I think you have done a really good job. I compliment you. MR. REILLY: Thank you, any questions for 11 12 us? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the roof line on the front porch, gable end? MR. REILLY: No. On the porch, on the outside, when you're looking at it from the outside it will essentially look flat, but actually it does slope back towards the road so that the water can be entirely captured and go into that dry well that you see on the plan. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you've moved those too away. MR. REILLY: Actually the house right now does send water allover the place but we're capturing all of it from the existing and the new, and putting every last drop into dry well. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would concur with Ruth that this is a really reasonable response to a merciless interrogation. MR. REILLY: As we said, we like the rules, we didn't know about all of them until the day before, so I think we are number two with the new -- . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Drainage code. MR. REILLY: And the buildable area too, but I'm very much in favor of all these rules, and it's about my responsibility to figure out how to do all these things. . 25 May 31, 2007 79 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Simply to support what my colleagues have said, it's an excellent example of good cooperation between a zoning board, architect and a client, and I think the outcome will be satisfactory to everybody, including your neighbors in your neighborhood and all of the other variables that you had to deal with. It's quite clear that the heavy equipment line is going to be very far away from the bluff and there will be absolutely minimal land disturbance, which was a big concern. So I think all of the questions have been properly answered and I certainly support this proposal as amended. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I have no questions. Is there anyone in the audience that has any questions, anything they want to say? Okay, hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until the 14th. (See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have one other hearing for Kelly. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have Kelly, they just submitted, the Kelly's have just submitted this and I'll read it. "The Kelly's had asked the sign company to defer or withdraw the application so they can redesign the sign. Can the Board table it for today pending a new application or withdraw if they design a conforming sign?" That's Gail Wickham, Attorney for the Kelly's. So I'll entertain a motion that we defer this application until our next meeting, our next regular meeting. (See minutes for resolution.) . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 May 31, 2007 80 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 C E R T I FIe A T ION I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related by blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of May, 2007. ~.. / /UJi" I Wiles May 31, 2007