Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/13/2007 Hearing 1 e 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK 4 ------------------------------------------x 5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 6 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 ------------------------------------------X 9 Southo1d Town Hall Southo1d, New York 10 11 September 13, 2007 12 9:30 a.m. e 13 14 Board Members Present: 15 16 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Chairman/Member 17 RUTH D. OLIVA - Member 18 MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member 19 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant 21 KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney (10:00-end) 22 23 Absent: 24 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member e 25 2 e 1 2 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 INDEX OF HEARINGS: e 4 Hearing: 5 Coffey #6068 6 Hayward #6054 7 O'Brien #6075 8 Hassi1dine #6072 9 Scripps #6069 10 Catania #6071 11 Manganiello #6066 12 Lomas #6067 13 Bebbe #6073 14 Brokaw #6070 15 Callahan #6038 16 Reeve #6041 17 Simon #6076 18 Sherman #6063 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page: 3-5 5-27 27-31 31-36 37-40 40-49 49-62 62-67 67-82 82-85 85-100 101 101-108 108-115 e 3 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I need a resolution to acknowledge the receipt of all submissions received for Daneri and Lampl. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor. (See minutes for resolution.) ************************************** 3 4 5 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess it looks like we're going to table Katapodis? Okay. We need a motion to do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor. (See minutes for resolution.) **************************************** 7 9 10 Hearing #6068 - Coffey CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our first hearing is for Richard and Eleanor Coffey and that is mine so I'll reed the Notice. "Request for a Special Exception in accordance with Code Section 280-13B (14) to establish Accessory Bed and Breakfast, as an accessory use in the existing single-family dwelling, with owner-occupancy, for the purpose of lodging and serving of breakfast for up to ten (10) casual, transient roomers in four (4) guest bedrooms, at 5705 Main Road, East Marion; CTM 35-2-16.1." In going over the application I noticed you had a previous variance granted for a setback and you also had a previous bed and breakfast approved at this site and you had a variance also for a building. And that may not have been you, it was 1999. On that property, another storage building. So I guess you just need to discuss -- you already have it a bed and breakfast. What is it that you need from us in addition to that? MR. COFFEY: I think we were told that the approval had expired. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you tell us how that came to be? MR. COFFEY: The construction wasn't completed so we let the original application lapse and now the construction is completed so we reapplied for the bed and breakfast. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So nothing has changed other than the fact that you had a worker's truck 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 4 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 parked out there because I drive by there mostly everyday for the past two years. MR. COFFEY: Yes. They are gone now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess I can turn this over. Leslie, do you have any questions on this? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I assumed that it must have been a lapsed permit or special use permit. It looks to me as though you have plenty of convenient parking. You're putting in a circular driveway and parking area so people don't have to back out onto the street which is very important. You clarified the purpose for the application so I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In a situation like this where there is a plausible explanation for the delay, I think it would depend upon someone being able to put forward some argument why it should not be extended. I'm not aware of any and if anyone here has some, that would be the only consideration that would leave me to do anything but approve this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This certainly -- the hearing leaves that open. So we haven't heard everybody yet so we might. Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. I've watched the progress of your construction as I go by there probably a couple times a day and I was just wondering, because I do like to corne inspect the different B&B's, I didn't see anybody there last weekend so I didn't call. But I was wondering if you were going to be there sometime this weekend that I could stop by? MR. COFFEY: Certainly. We'll be there. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. I will. Thank you. Otherwise, no problems. You've done a wonderful job. MR. COFFEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else you would like to add to this? MR. COFFEY: That's it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You want to get going. MR. COFFEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against this application? If not. I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 5 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: When's our next hearing date? 6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There will be a special meeting where they make decisions on September 27th in the evening at 5 o'clock they start in the other building. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we're going to deliberate then and probably make a decision on that day. MR. COFFEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: seconded. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Seconded then. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have Ruth and Leslie. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ****************************************** Will do. Have a motion made and 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hearing #6054 - Hayward CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for James and Judy Hayward. That's yours, Leslie. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's yours, Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Anyone here for the Hayward? MS. DOTY: Yes, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me read the legal notice. "Request a Variance under Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's amended June 20, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, updated July 17, 2007, which states that the proposed accessory garage will be located in a yard other than the code-required rear yard, at 1450 Three Waters Road, Orient; CTM 15-3-19." It would appear upon site inspection that there is no rear yard. That this house -- this property is located on, has two front yards and a waterfront property boundary as well there along Lands End Road in the neighboring development and fronting on Three Waters Road. So therein lies the dilemma. The garage is about 672 square feet in size? MS. DOTY: I think that's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Twenty-two feet high, one and a half stories tall with a half bath and an open covered entry on the first floor, storage and art studio on the second floor according to e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 6 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 the plan. Can you elaborate? MS. DOTY: I'm Deborah Doty. I'm the attorney for Mr.and Mrs. Hayward. Mrs. Hayward is here and Amy Martin is here from Fairweather Brown, the architects who prepared the plan and also the submission to the Board. I think the issue really is the location of that garage and as you said, Ms. Weisman, there are two front yards and there's a waterfront yard, it's on the waterfront. So it really doesn't have a side yard and it doesn't really have a rear yard and they need the detached garage in order to shelter the large van that's required for their handicapped son. It can't fit under the house. So they were looking for an alternate location which presented itself as this corner of the yard. That's all I'm going to call it is a yard because that's what it is. It's an M2 District surrounded by R40. The access is and always has been from Three Waters Road. They don't intend to change that at all. Because it's a waterfront lot, front yard location on an accessory structure is permitted according to the code. So the question is where? And we propose that the garage be placed within 25 feet of Lands End Road, the adjoining development, to which we have no access, to which we plan no access and which right now is hidden from view from Lands End Road and the other neighbor by shrubs, etc. It's setback there because of the size of the van, you need additional access to turn it around when you get it out of the garage. And that's why it's setback 10 feet closer to Lands End Road. If you look at the location of each of the houses surrounding this, you've got one house to the south which is not impacted because we meet that setback, if you use the 25 foot setback for that. There is an adjoining neighbor in Lands End but it's a miniscule adjoining. It's maybe 3 feet, 4 feet, 5 feet and his house, as I recall, is over on the other side of his property, away from this property. The premises actually really abuts Lands End Road, per se, and on the other side of Lands End Road is an oddly shaped waterfront parcel where, if there is a house and I couldn't tell when I was out there. (To audience member) There is none. Okay, thank you. If there were a house, I am willing to bet the Board it's not going to be put close to the 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 7 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 detached garage. It's going to be put up by the water. So they're not going to be affected by this garage at all. So in essence, we don't really have neighbors that are going to be impacted by that small 10 foot variance that we're requesting. Therefore, I'm requesting that you grant the variance and I think Amy is going to talk, Ms. Martin is going to talk about the interior of the garage and the reason that it has what it has in it. But if you have any additional questions for me? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just let me verify once again because I had wondered upon site inspection why the need for a second garage when there is a garage below grade already attached to the dwelling. You've clarified that this is for the van? MS. DOTY: Yes and I believe that's going to be the only garage as it turns out. We're going to eliminate the under garage totally but we couldn't get the van in there anyway even if we wanted to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Well let me listen to the architect who'll probably clarify some other odds and ends. MS. DOTY: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Should be fine. I have nothing else. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just wanted to clarify something. We did receive a letter from Mr. Doug Fleming and he thought Ms. Hayward was going to put on road onto Lands End Road which of course she isn't. I just wanted to have that in the record that that is not the case. That you're access will be only from Three Waters Lane. MS. DOTY: I said that early on that we will only have access from Three Waters Road. We don't want to go via Lands End at all. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just wanted to so that it's in the record that Mr. Fleming is assured that the only access is from Three Waters Lane. MS. DOTY: I believe that the owners would accept a condition that we don't have access from Lands End. We don't intend. We don't want to. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't think you could if you wanted to. MS. DOTY: Well, I don't know. We might be 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 8 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 able to but we don't intend to and we don't want to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Will you be leaving the vegetative buffer? MS. DOTY: We would be willing to. Not necessarily what's there right now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it's pretty rambled and difficult. She'd probably have to do a lot of cutting to excavate. But you'll leave some sort -- you'd do that as a condition? MS. DOTY: They intend to put in a privet hedge. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have anything? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have anything? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is there a 6 foot fence? MS. DOTY: There's no fence. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It was showing on the site plan, a 6 foot fence. MS. DOTY: The fence was approved. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Do you want us to revise the site plan? MS. DOTY: If we were going to put in a fence, we'd have to get a building permit for it. We do not, right now, intend to. We intend to do a vegetative buffer. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you. MS. DOTY: I'll turn it over to Ms. Martin. MS. MARTIN: I don't really have much to say after Deborah's presentation but I would like to just -- I'll refer to the one paragraph that I was going to say. The confusion about the driveway. There seems to be some confusion and concerns with neighbors from the adjoining development. The Haywards have never entertained having an entry onto Lands End Road. I have spoken on the telephone with Ivanka Puhalobic, a noticed neighbor to the east from the Lands End subdivision who's concerns were similar to those addressed in the letter to Mr. Dinizio from DH Fleming. I assured Ms. Puhalobic and at this time would like to assure the Board and the neighbors in the adjoining development that there are no doors on that side of the proposed garage and the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 9 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 Hayward's only driveway is to be that previously described as being onto Three Waters Lane. And the only thing that I did have to submit was I did a small mock-up of the actual location and the only thing that might change a little bit is the driveway will have a turn-around so that they can back the van out and not be backing onto Three Waters Lane. So there might be a slight change of the access to Three Waters Lane just to accommodate a gradual curve that they can get out of easily from both directions. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. You don't need a variance for that. It's much better. MS. MARTIN: It also gives you the idea of where the garage is in the woodland area. If you have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to ask to confirm that the garage is going to remain unheated? MS. MARTIN: I don't know. The only thought was it will be a wood working shop on the ground floor because Mr. Hayward likes to do wood working. There may be a space heater or something like that so he can work in the winter. But it's not meant as a residential area or a sleeping area and it's storage above and it's an art studio to finish work upstairs. It really is a garage with a work shop. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All right. I'm done. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any questions of Ms. Martin? Hearing none. Anybody in the audience? Deborah, are you finished with your presentation? MS. DOTY: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Come on up and state your name and address, please. MS. PUHALOBIC: My name is Ivanka Puhalobic and my address 1685 Lands End Road in Orient. I'm here today with a few of my neighbors because we have concerns with reference to this construction of this garage barn. It's fairly large and we have some points that we wanted to bring out. First, I have a list of different issues. First, I respectfully submit a denial for the variance that Mr.and Mrs. Hayward have requested for the construction of this garage based on the reason of hardship. The Haywards purchased the house on Three Waters Lane in 2004. The home does have a 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 10 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 two-car garage. They were aware of the size of the garage and the disability which they have was prior to the purchase. So they were well aware of what this home offered for them. The structure that they propose would be in the furthest corner from where their house is but would be the closest to my home. So in the front when I go in the front of my house and look out of my balcony which I will be seeing the back of their barn, their garage, which is very large. I don't know if you're aware of it, it's 22 foot high, which is closer to two and a half floors. Not one and a half floors as they propose. I really have questions with the size of this and this is going to be very unsightly for me to look at when I look out my front yard to look at the back of their barn. I don't think that's fair. It increases the value of their property but it's definitely decreasing the value of my property. There's also a few other things. The size of this garage, this barn, is going to be larger than three of the homes that are adjacent to them on Three Waters Edge. They're all little homes there and this barn is actually larger than the houses in the area. There's a few other things here. I have no problems with houses being built in the area or garages as long as they're abiding to the law and the regulations of the building department. This is an unusual situation because their front yard is right up against my front yard. They're saying it's only three feet but that's the view that's in front of me. When the first lady spoke, she said that it's all shrubs there and that it's a big buffer but that's not really true. Once this garage is to be built, all that will be cleared out. You're not going to have anymore shrubs there because this is so close to Lands End Road. So it will be a full view of this garage. Mr. Hayward had mentioned once to me and also once to my husband of the possibility of having an access on Lands End Road. So I question in the future being this garage is going to be so close to Lands End Road, will they be wanting to open up some area there where they can put their boats, where they can have their possibly garbage dumpsters and all of this which is so far away from their home will be right up in our community and I have questions for that. Because it would 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 11 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 be right on the road which leads down to the beach where people come from the -- it's a Town beach. They have stickers from the Town and they are able to park there legally to enjoy the beach. If they do open, where will these cars then all be parking? It's going to make a traffic situation in Lands End Road. Like I said, this garage will be closer to my home then to their home and I really feel that I don't have a problem with the garage. If it were smaller in size as a normal garage and if it was closer or some other position, not right up against the Lands End Road community. That's pretty much it that I have but I know that my neighbors are here and they also have issues that they are concerned with. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: question. Could I ask you identify on this map which want to be sure. MS. PUHALOBIC: I'm right here (indicating) BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're there (indicating). You're in this community? MS. PUHALOBIC: I'm in this community and my house looks out this way and this is what I see when I look outside. The structure will be here and this will all be cleaned out and this will be an eyesore. I also have here an open driveway. (All Members talking at same time.) BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can explain it. You're the house that is actually fronting on the neighboring development on Lands End Road which curves and terminates at the beach? MS. PUHALOBIC: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: top of this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Maybe I can ask a question. Approximately how many feet would you be away from that garage, your property? MS. PUHALOBIC: How many feet? I really don't know. Maybe three hundred feet. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hundred feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're just trying to get a description written down so when we read this we have an idea. When you first spoke, I thought you were the house next door which would have been 25 feet from the property line. But that's not the I'd like to ask her a to approach and just is your home? I just 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 It would be at the 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 12 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 9 case. If you're a house that's furthest back in a different development -- you're the Lands End development. These people are in Orient by the Sea. MS. PUHALOBIC: Yes. The house that you just mentioned that you thought I was, that would be they're adjacent to their backyard. But with me, it's my front yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. MS. PUHALOBIC: There's the difference. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else would like to speak on this application? State your name and your address, ma'am. MS. CUZO: Good morning. My name is Marie Cuzo. I live at 1500 Lathan Lane in Orient and I want to speak this morning on behalf of Ivanka Puhalobic and all of my neighbors. Naturally, we have a lot of concern for what happens in our community. We're a tight knit community and the issue of this new construction really does concern us quite a bit. Mainly, the structure we feel is too large and we just had some discussion about it becoming a workshop and you know possibly putting some heat in it and it may be a studio. When I hear the word workshop, all I can think of is noise. And because this structure is so close to Ivanka's house and all of us that walk down to the beach, we're concerned that we're going to lose our park-like setting there. We have a very open area there. The houses are all built on one plus lots. It's very wide open. When you come down Sound View Avenue which is in Orient by the Sea where the Hayward property is located, when you come down that street, you have a number of small properties. These are little houses that started out as bungalows and then you get up to the Hayward community. In our area in Lands End, we have very large houses. So we know that there is a public access there to the beach. We have a lot of people who walk up to the beach. We have children who are riding their bikes down there. We have motorcyclists. We have a number of issues to deal with and I think really what our concern here is is that we basically have been good neighbors. We respect the fact that there is a public beach and people are allowed to walk there, they're allowed to fish and do things. We have noticed that these people have not necessarily, in 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 13 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 my opinion, been good neighbors for a number of reasons. And what this is all building up to is we feel as though our property rights are going to be infringed upon. Basically what I want to say is that in my opinion, I think much of this is self-serving. My heart does go out to these people the fact that they do have a handicapped child. But when I look at the plans and I see that they're planning other construction to enlarge this house, to take away the garage. Put it in the furthest part of the yard away from their view. I think that that, in my opinion, could be a lot taken as being self-serving. There are fences going up. There were signs private property, keep off, public beach ends here. There's policing of the area every other week. They call the police to chase people off the beach. You know I believe in live and let live. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, ma'am. I would hope that you would keep this to what the application is asking for which is a garage in a nonconforming location on that lot. Everything else even though it may be important really isn't relevant to the application, okay. Of course, that's probably only my opinion up here but we need to just concentrate on that particular barn, what they're asking for. So if you could just address yourself to that, I'd appreciate it. MS. CUZO: Well, I think that some more of my neighbors would probably have more to say about this. But I think we don't want to make this a personal issue. I think our real concern is that when we look at this plan for construction, our concern is that we don't want it to escalate. Because you know maybe they're asking for this much today but you know after all is said and done tomorrow it might be a different situation and it might be too late to do anything about it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just respond that one of the things that is frequently done with variances when granted are placed with restrictions and conditions on the granting of the variance. We've already talked about some of them and so your comments can be, in some respects, dealt with by conditioning no access from Lands End Road, a very heavy planting screening to mitigate any views that are obstructed so that in future it will not be legal for them to have 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 14 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 access in any other way than what is described in this variance. So bear in mind that listening to your comments is constructive and helpful in that we can incorporate some of them in consideration of this application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'd like to add something but I don't want to interrupt you if you're still continuing with further remarks. MS. CUZO: I think I've said enough. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just maybe a bit of a general understanding of how this Board works and what we are limited by the law. You mentioned two phrases which are very important to people. One had to do with whether something is a personal issue or not and also the notion of property rights. Now, if something is not a personal issue, it must be a legal issue. And we're limited and this is another way of saying what Mr. Dinizio said. We have to be bound by the legal issues not by the personal issues however they fall. And the whole idea of private property is that you can do certain things within the constraints of law on your property. That's what your property rights mean. So the issue is going to be whether whatever the applicant is doing on the applicant's property is consistent with the legal constraints aside from the personal issues and I agree with him. And from a legal point of view, these things are not relevant to us. They are certainly relevant. As the code is written and we're bound by the code. We make a decision that must be consistent with the code. We're allowed a certain degree of discretion. When we go beyond the code, we're subject to reversal on appeal by the Supreme Court of the State of New York. And the idea is, they have for example, a 25 foot setback. What they do beyond that further in from that setback is pretty much their business and we could not control that. We could put some conditions on it with regard to the neighbors but a lot of us I think and, personally, had the problem of having people who are neighbors do things that we wish they wouldn't do. But unfortunately for us it's absolutely consistent with their legal right to do so. My own house, I had somebody put up a large garage which is blocking my view of Peconic Bay. Nothing I can do about it. On a personal issue, I say please don't 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 15 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 put up a garage blocking my view but that's about as far as it can conceivably go. The law, for better or worse, simply doesn't reflect all of the kinds of concerns that the last two speakers have raised. Maybe they should. But this Board certainly doesn't have the power to rewrite the code to prohibit certain kinds of things which we think should be covered by the code are not. The issue has to be focused on whether what they are doing is consistent with the words and the spirit of the code. And that unfortunately perhaps for people who want to comment on this limits the kinds of concerns that could be raised. Luckily, for us, we don't get into the question of who's the better neighbor or who's a worse neighbor. You can say so and so is a bad neighbor. Unfortunately, if you don't like -- if I don't like my neighbor because he's a bad neighbor, I don't have much option except to move away or buy his house from him. I think we can all be sympathetic to these kinds of concerns and it's probably useful for the applicant to hear about them because on a personal level they can be mitigated to some degree as long as it doesn't seriously interfere with what they want to do, their use of their own private property. That's just a statement about the general legal background of the whole system. Their points can have some great moral appeal but we can't deal with those. MS. CUZO: I have one comment regarding that. Right now under the guise of a garage, we're having a structure that will be built that will be almost the size of another house. So I mean, legally, are they entitled to put up something that large on this parcel? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Put it this way. If it weren't for that front yard, side yard, rear yard situation, they wouldn't even be before us about the size of the garage. That simply would not be an issue. We're here only because there was a Notice of Disapproval granted by Building Department because of the rear yard issue. If there hadn't been a Notice of Disapproval or had it been a different situation, there would be no opportunity for us or any court to review it. So these are matters but they simply don't come before us. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 16 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to point out that there is an accessory structure code relatively new that basically determines the size of a structure that is legally allowed based upon the size of the lot, the square footage of the lot. That will determine height, setback and square footage. And I will double check to make absolutely certain that on their 64,990 square foot lot, which is very large, that the code allows a structure of 672 square feet. I believe it does but I will be sure to double check that. I have to write the draft finding on this that we will be deliberating on. So we will make very certain that whatever variance we grant is within the limits of the code and the law and we will do everything possible to make sure that your concerns are taken care of. MS. CUZO: Thank you, Ms. Weisman. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, ma'am, they can build something much larger on that piece of property. Much larger if they attach it to the house. And I'm not saying that that is part and parcel of any reason to give them a variance for what they want but we are constrained by the law. We have to look at just the setback. We're really just looking at a flat piece of paper with markings drawn on it. We're not really looking at the final product, the hedge, the fact that you're going to look at this. People have certain rights. Certainly they should be neighborly and I think we all have not necessarily problems with our neighbors but we all have things we would like the way our neighbor to be. But other people have other rights. This particular application is constrained by the fact that they are zoned in such an odd way for a residential area, an M2. And I know what that used to be because I used to get the rowboats out of there. I used to go there. I used to work. It's very unique and at the time they wanted to preserve that. That's the way it has ended up. They probably should have switched it back to residential at some point in time. No one has bothered to ask for that. It doesn't seem like -- it was sold and someone built a house on it and they did it legally and now their constraint is that they have two roads on either side of their house and they want to try to put a normal -- anyone normally could have a 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 17 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 building. Certainly they are allowed up to 750 square feet with the new accessory code that we have. I'm sure that applies to M2 just like anybody else. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's a letter clarifying that in our file. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll try to mitigate things. Certainly the having access to two roads on one piece of property is something we can certainly restrict and that we should restrict. The privet hedges, they're nice but boy, they can grow pretty high too. But people can have those. Six foot fence is probably better because at least you know it can't go to seven. But people can have privet hedges. There's no law that says they can't. I have a lady who has a privet hedge behind me and I cut it because I want my height and she has no objection to that. But you'd have to get their permission to do that. Beyond that, we can't go any further. Ruth, do you have anything else to say? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd like to ask Ms. Doty one question. Why has the garage been placed -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. You want to ask Ms. Doty a question? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can we just wait till everybody has their say? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well I think it might answer their question. Is there any reason that the garage cannot be moved closer to the house? MS. DOTY: Closer to the house? I think that would impinge upon views more than where it's located in terms of views from the neighboring subdivision. I would suggest that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just to build upon that before we hear other things. All of you should be aware of the fact that every time we have an application, we all visit and inspect the site. In doing that, I not only approached from Three Waters but I drove around to the neighboring subdivision and drove down to the beach and past your house and stood there and looked at it from all angles. That's part of our responsibility is to look at potential impact. So when you're describing your experiences, I would venture to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 18 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 say all of us have done our homework and are able to understand what you're talking about because we've seen what kind of bramble and trees are there and how close things are and where access comes from and where circulation goes. So that is part of our job and we've done that. So we can understand what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It certainly a view over somebody elses property is not under the view of this Board either. Just to make that clear. So Ruth, you got the answer to your question? Does anybody else want to come up? Come up. Just stand to the microphone, please. Just state your name and address. MS. CASEY: My name is Lisa Casey. I'm the owner of 1370 Lathan Lane which is four lots east of the Hayward property. I'm also the president of the Lands End property owners association. At this juncture, I have a question. My neighbor has talked about the other neighbor stuff and I respect your limitations around that type of issue. If you grant this variance and you put in the language of no access to us which is, for the rest of us here, absent Ivanka, is of concern, and you have something about vegetation or a hedge, what is the mechanism to make sure that that happens? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You are the mechanism. Home Owners Association or anybody that would be hurt by that would go to the building inspector, file a complaint and ensure that that right that you've been granted which is not to have them have -- I should say restrictions that they have upon their property is enforced. MS. CASEY: Okay. And the fact that it's a Town access point is not material to that complaint? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm not a lawyer. You can probably ask Kieran. I can tell you that our restrictions are enforced by the code inspectors, our building inspectors. So beyond that, the way that it happens is someone complains. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Are you trying to say that somebody should not be allowed to access their own property from a Town road? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. Two separate developments here, Kieran. One is Lands End. The other one is Orient by the Sea. This house 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 19 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 straddles, not straddles that property but their property line, they are in Orient by the Sea. Lands End is another road that goes on either side of this house. They have two streets on either side of this property. And their access mainly is, the main access is from -- what's the name of the road Three Waters Road. However, there's nothing really to stop them from going onto Lands End Road. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No. Quite the opposite. They have a pretty unfettered right to use both if they're both town or public highways. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right, as a condition to granting a variance, we can restrict them to access to that road. They want the building, we can add that restriction. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Restrict the driveway, not the use of the road. MS. CASEY: No, it's the access to -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But access means the driveway. MS. CASEY: Correct. We do not want a driveway into Lands End Road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That can be in the condition. MS. CASEY: My question is because I understand I spend a lot of time with the code preparing for this meeting and I do understand that technically a property can have access to two different town roads. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It's not even so much a code issue. It's a State Law issue. It's a public issue. MS. CASEY: That was the reason for my question to the Chairman about how would this get written such that -- ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: They can definitely restrict that there shouldn't be a driveway from this new structure to the road. I think it might be overreaching to say that the person should not be able to access their property from this road. You know maybe the new structure. But I don't know about saying that they are not allowed to reach their house from this road. It's public highway. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No driveway. MS. CASEY: No vehicular access. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: They may be able 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 20 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 to drive to another part of the property from CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't see any reason why they can't park on Lands End and go in. MS. CASEY: That's not our point. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a driveway. MS. CASEY: Driveway. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They'd prefer to have the people enter where they've been entering and not have the additional traffic coming in to feed the barn, the new structure. That's all I mean. I'm assuming it wasn't -- MS. CASEY: It's been unclear in conversations with -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One thing that you should all know is after we deliberate, they'll be draft finding that I'm assigned to write in this particular case that we will be talking about and agreeing on or modifying changing, disagreeing on, discussing, two weeks from today at 5 o'clock in the evening in the conference room of the annex upstairs right above the bank. That finding, once determined, will be available through the Zoning Board office. So all of you can get copies of directly how it was written and then you can make sure that you're informed about follow-up on conforming with the requirements and any variance granted. Just so you know that you have public access to that information. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, at that point, you're next step is not to come back to us but rather file -- MS. CASEY: To the next. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But my -- I just want to clarify my sense of the restriction would be that there would no access by automobile. But beyond that I don't see -- unless you have them build a six foot stone wall and don't let them knock any holes in it. I don't know how you can do the rest of it. MS. CASEY: Vehicular is what we were. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, again, I can tell you that while that is a good restriction, you know I see both of those roads as being part of their hardship. Their lot does have a unique sense to it that it has two roads on either side of it. They are very constrained as to where they can put buildings on this piece of property. I'd like to see it built maybe closer to the house. I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 21 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 think we're probably going to address that as we go along here. MS. CASEY: Thank you for your time. I don't think any of my colleagues -- thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Okay, Deborah. MS. DOTY: I guess I want to start with saying or stop with saying -- I'm not sure which -- that we began early on in this hearing saying that we never intended there to be any access from Lands End Road for the van or for a car or whatever and my clients continue to say that and will accept a restriction. As far as vehicular traffic is concerned, I would propose that a bicycle be permitted if they want to go that way. The other thing to remember is the size of an ordinary garage is 24 by 24. The only reason this is a little deeper is because of the workshop. We have proposed screening and we will willingly put in screening. Mr. Dinizio, you mentioned that we could build a lot larger structure on this property. The code coverage is 30 percent which, if I calculated right is an excess of 19,000 square feet. We're not doing that. We're not even coming close to that. And we do have a compelling reason for this large garage. It's because we need to park this large vehicle for a handicapped child. One of the many reasons we can't use the existing garage is you all know waterfront, you know humidity and you know the extent of humidity the closer you get to the water and this van has a lot of metal parts in it that rust and corrode. I live on the water and I can tell the difference in humidity between one side of my house and the other. It's dramatic and I would suggest that parking this rather expensive vehicle in an area where things are going to rust is not a good idea. So it's important to get it away from the water and that's another reason to put it back in the back location where we proposed it. Where it's least likely to impact the neighbors. I believe the closest neighbor is, if I scaled it right today, more than a hundred feet away from the house. So I would request that you grant the application as applied for and if you have any additional questions, I'll stay up here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just have one. I mean 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 22 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 if you're just saying that climate has something to do with the reason why you need to park this van. 6 MS. DOTY: I'm saying that's another reason. I didn't say that was the only reason. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can we just discuss why you cant move it closer? I heard that it would block other people's views if you moved it. I heard you say that. I also know that the view is not really something that we can control. And I mean I catch myself wondering why, if you have a need for a van for a handicapped person, why you would park it some two hundred feet away from the place where that person has to go to live. Maybe you can answer that question. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You drive the van to the house. MS. DOTY: You drive the van to the house. There's going to be a ramp. A better ramp. If you've seen the ramp there now, it's not particularly adequate. There'd be a better ramp. It gets it away from the house. It provides a detached area rather than making a larger structure by the water either wider or deeper because we can't put it in our real backyard which is waterfront and we're putting it back in a currently unused portion of the property and we've done a lot of very nice landscaping in that property and I imagine they're going to continue to landscape accordingly when they put the detached garage in. I think it's just a matter of the logical location rather than plopping it in the middle of the yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And attaching it to the house is not -- MS. DOTY: That would make a larger more imposing structure I would suggest. Ms. Weisman can talk about -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: She can't testify to that. I'm asking you. MS. DOTY: It would enlarge the street scape. It would probably make it more massive as a structure. I think it's a nice building right now personally. That's not a legal opinion. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But it could be done without the need of a variance? MS. DOTY: No, because we can't go to the 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 side. 23 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The whole yard is a side yard from the house back. MS. DOTY: We have two front yards. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And a side yard on the other side. MS. DOTY: When you really come right down to it, the issue here is ten feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Listen, I'm trying to create a record here. I know there are questions in people's minds and they need to be asked. I prefer not to assume anything. I prefer to have you testify to that. MS. DOTY: The issue is basically ten feet too close to Lands End and we're proposing to put it there because we feel that it's the correct location for it in order to provide the turnaround for the large vehicle. You get too much closer to the road, then you're going to get a lot of driveway by the road and we're trying not to do that. What I would call the backyard which is the property adjoining the house on Three Waters is 25 feet. So we just have that one setback on the Lands End side which is 25 feet instead 35 feet. May I consult with my client for a second? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, go ahead. (All Members talking at once off the record.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They can locate this garage in that location because it's waterfront but they can't build it so close to, I believe, it's the house on Orient by the Sea. That is the nature of this application. MS. DOTY: No. That would be the rear yard and that's 25 feet. Your front yards are on Lands End and Three Water and that's 25 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To build it in the side yard, they don't have to conform to a front yard setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Then the Notice of Disapproval is wrong. Because it says side yard. It says proposed accessory garage and is noted as being located in the side yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. In a yard other than the code-required rear yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The Notice of Disapproval. That's what you have to base it on. That's what I've been basing it on this entire time. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 24 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 MS. DOTY: The issue is to the extent we abut a parcel to the south of us. That I believe because we have two front yards, is the rear yard. We meet that setback of 25 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. MS. DOTY: We meet the front yard setback on Three Waters of 35 feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you're wrong, Deborah. I think that when you have a waterfront piece of property, you can build that structure on the street side based on the dimensions of the setback of the principle structure. MS. DOTY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, that is still a front yard. (All Members talking at once.) BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a front yard, that's a front yard and that's a side yard. So you have a front yard, a front yard and a side yard. MS. DOTY: In the case of waterfront -- I'm quoting 280-l5F. In the case of waterfront parcel accessory buildings and structures may be located in the front yard provided that such building and structures meet the front yard principle setback requirement as set forth by this code and the side yard setback requirements for accessory structures in Section B. You go to Section B, it's 25 feet. Then you go to the bulk schedule and the front yard is 35 feet. We're talking about ten feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not insignificant. MS. DOTY: On one side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just on the Lands End 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 side. 19 MS. DOTY: And the reason for that ten feet -- it's not just because we want it -- it's because you need the space to back out. That's one reason why handicapped parking spaces are larger then other spaces. You need the space to move this vehicle. And yes, we could move it ten feet but then you got the turnaround spot right by Three Waters Road which, frankly, doesn't aesthetically make sense to me. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is that distance? MS. DOTY: What distance? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: From Three Waters Road to the front of this garage? MS. DOTY: It's 68 feet. It's 35 feet from 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 25 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 the turnaround. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's 68 feet from Three Waters and 25 from Lands End. MS. DOTY: If you look at it as Three Waters being our front yard, and Lands End being a backyard or a side yard, we meet our requirements. In other words, we have 25 feet from each. Perhaps we can move it five feet closer to Three Waters if the Board requests. I don't see this as a huge looming structure that's going to affect a lot of views or anything like that. It's a structure that's needed to house a garage -- I mean to house a car, a van. And as you know, we could put it almost any place on the property if we didn't want to put it in this corner which is the level part of the ground. That's another reason to put it there. It's flat there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, Deborah, I really don't see the need for a variance. There's plenty of places where you could put it if, I think the turnaround is not really an issue. I mean, I drive vans all the time. I know that they have to be a little bit bigger and I know that even the driver has to have something to do with that. But that could be mitigated in other ways, many other ways. By turning the door the other way so it goes between the house and the garage and pulling in that way. There's plenty of other ways for you to finagle that around so that you're not asking us for a variance which is the crux of this whole -- why we're here. MS. DOTY: It's ten feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You felt it important enough to come because you felt you needed that ten feet. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I think they need a variance because of the side yard issue because of the way the roads are aligned. Is there anywhere on the, I don't know if it's north or south here, the bottom side of that house, south side of that house, they're going to be in a side yard. So they need a variance no matter where they put the structure on that side of the house, I think. MS. DOTY: And I would suggest ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Even if they're right up next to the house, they'd still need a variance because it's still in a side yard. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 26 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, if they attach it to the house -- ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Well, that would be different, correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think I've got it. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That's probably why the Building Inspector didn't give a setback because there's no setback since it's not supposed to be in the side yard but they don't really have any choice here because they have a road on either side of their house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which is how I looked at it. It wasn't Lands End I was looking at. I was looking at the house next door. That's what I was looking at. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a 25 foot side yard setback. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No, because you're not supposed to have an accessory structure in the side yard, so there's no setback for that structure. So you guys have to decide where it should be. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Another way of putting it is, if the variance application is to put it into the side yard, it doesn't say a variance to put it in the side yard and obey the front yard setback. So it's subject to the side yard setback if we give permission. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: There's a difference between side yard setback meaning the setback you have to have from your side lot line of your principle structure and having an accessory structure in a side yard. Those are two separate things. When we say side yard, we're confusing them here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly the Building Inspector is the person that determines that. Quite honestly. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You need a variance to put it anywhere on that side of the house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's why the notice was written that way. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And certainly the setback that the applicant is offering certainly really hasn't got much bearing on this either. We'd be 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 27 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 talking about two or three hundred percent variances if we put it that way. So I don't think that that's relevant. Deborah, do you have anything else? MS. DOTY: No. I just request that you grant the application as applied for. And once again, we'll put in screening. We intend to put in screening. We've done a lot of landscaping. We're not going to leave it un landscaped and unscreened. And we have no intention and do not wish the Board to give us permission to use Lands End Road for vehicles. We don't want to do it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have anything to contribute to this application? Board Members? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor. (See minutes for resolution.) ************************************ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 Hearing #6075 - O'Brien CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, the next one, Ruth, is yours. Robert O'Brien. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-116, based on the Building Inspector's August 7, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, for the reason that the new construction will be less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead adjacent to Gardiner's Bay, at 1955 Truman's Path, East Marion; CTM 31-13-2." Is there someone here to represent? My understanding of your problem is that due to the angle of your house, the placement of it for the winds that are coming in off the water, the house has always been 28 feet from the bulkhead and you need to do some work on the roof line and then doing that making some extensions so you don't have the leakage that you have today. Is that correct? MR. O'BRIEN: That's my problem since I bought the house 15 years ago. Bob O'Brien, 1955 Truman's Path, East Marion. Yes. That's been a problem since I bought the house because the previous owner allowed the original roof to stand 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 28 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 under the new roof. So there's like three roofs that intersect and to determine where the leakage is, is almost impossible at this point. It just travels in all different directions. It doesn't always leak. It leaks when the wind comes from a certain direction. Many times I thought I had it fixed and a month later it would show up again. Right now we have pans in the middle of the living room floor. I like the craftsman style of the sloping roof, I really do, but it's just impractical on the water. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not working. So you really just -- that's all you're asking for. And your making a renovation to make a master bedroom/bath. MR. O'BRIEN: Right because we only have small baths in the house and the bath would go back -- it would be outside the 75 foot setback to begin with. And basically all we're doing is increasing 12 feet above the living room. That's the whole alteration and squaring up the second floor. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And, as I said, you're 28 feet from the bulkhead and it's always been 28 feet. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 MR. O'BRIEN: BOARD MEMBER can move the whole the whole house. MR. O'BRIEN: Well, yeah. My cesspool is right in the back of the house also. Plus I would have to take down trees which I don't want to do. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're well wooded back there. MR. O'BRIEN: I want to keep it rustic. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would appear that you're proposing to add a roof deck over your porch? MR. O'BRIEN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In what structural condition is that porch? Will you need to do any rebuilding of it to bear the weight of that? MR. O'BRIEN: What's happened in the interim is that they had the supports underneath the 4x4 columns and due to the salt air, they are To the OLIVA: thing porch. There's no way that you back without destroying 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 29 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 deteriorating. So I have to replace three of the columns. I'm going to put steel columns with stainless steel bases. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I thought. By looking at it, it would appear, especially if you're going to have some weight bearing on the porch. MR. O'BRIEN: I'm more worried about uplift right now. If we get a hurricane, it may be gone. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted for the record to understand that you're not changing the footprint of the building but you will have to do some renovation of the existing porch to accommodate. MR. O'BRIEN: That would need to be done anyway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But you're proposing to add a little deck on that? MR. O'BRIEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. I understand footprint is staying the same because the -- but there is an issue that I think needs to be considered. The 28 foot setback and that is because of the arm of the -- consisting of the porch at the moment, that reaches out closer to the bulkhead than any other part of the house. MR. O'BRIEN: That one corner point, that's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That whole side of the porch is, right? MR. O'BRIEN: No, it's on skue to the bulkhead so the closest point is 28 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it's still nonconforming. So the question would be how much -- this is a weight bearing question. If you had this porch which was sort of all by itself and you wanted to build a full two-story addition, you wanted to turn that into a two-story addition. MR. O'BRIEN: I originally proposed that to the trustees and that was granted based on doing that and then I decided to pull it back. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Aside from the Trustees, the question would be about the affect, since it would essentially be part of our jurisdiction, of additional weight on that nonconforming piece of land and I think it probably makes a difference that it is just a deck rather than a full 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 30 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 addition. We're not concerned with the particular Trustees reasoning but when we are granting this, this is under the general Walz interpretation and we take lots of things into consideration because what are the overall affects of increasing the vertical nonconformity at that time. And if your argument is that because it's already a porch and because what's being built above it is only a deck, then it's a relatively minor addition to the weight. Is that what -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you should clarifiy that. MR. O'BRIEN: Again, I dropped back from putting a full addition over the deck and decided just to put a -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For that reason? MR. O'BRIEN: For that reason. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the deck is a part of that house; 14 feet? Mr. O'BRIEN: Twenty-eight feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know it's 28 feet away from the bulkhead but you're going in not more than 28 feet. At what point do you start your addition? MR. O'BRIEN: At 40 feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that deck -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's between 48 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you're welcome maintain that anyway you need to maintain Michael, do you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I looked at your application as you're not increasing anything except you want to add something to the top that's going to help you with the roof. That's your major hardship. MR. O'BRIEN: I want to keep it don't really want a big, big house. to keep it to scale. We're going to and we need a little more room too. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody in the audience? You have anything else to add, sir? MR. O'BRIEN: First, I would like to thank you for hearing so quickly. When would I get a decision on this? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Two weeks from today. MR. O'BRIEN: If it's favorable, I have to 28. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 and to it. 17 18 19 20 21 to scale. I just want retire there I 22 23 24 e 25 31 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 order windows for the house which has a lead time of four to six weeks and I can't do that until I have the final decision. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have to see if anybody in the audience has any objections and then we have the hearing. Normally, we make our decisions then and we'll just have to see. I can't tell you yes or no now. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: He has an emergency with the weather and everything, right? MR. O'BRIEN: We'll get more pots and pans. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And hope it doesn't rain too often. MR. O'BRIEN: It rained pretty good the other day. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, I just need to ask you, we'll need for the record, the porch, how wide that is? MR. O'BRIEN: The porch is 16 feet wide. It's a little narrower than the living room. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So it's 12x16? MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, approximately. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the deck size will be the same? MR. O'BRIEN: It's going to be the same, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's really the roof and the porch? Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Anybody in the audience? No. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion by Ruth. Seconded by? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ******************************************** 16 17 18 19 20 21 Hearing #6072 - Hassildine CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Scott and Sara Hassildine. I have to read this. "Request for Variances under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's July 19, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, which states that the proposed construction (after substantial demolition of the existing building), with additions and alterations, for a new single-family dwelling, with less than 10 feet on a single side 22 23 24 e 25 32 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 yard and less than 25 feet total side yards. Location of Property: 2775 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue; CTM 110-5-4." CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Does anybody wish to testify? MS. WICKHAM: Good morning. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The existing front yard setback currently is 5.6 northwest side and 4.5 on the southeast side; is that correct? MS. WICKHAM: 5.6 on the south side and 4.5 on the north side. My name is Abigail Wickham representing the Hassildines. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, you have a previous variance in 1972 which was granted for the side yard setback, are you aware of that? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, on the south side, I believe I submitted that. That side is not changing nor is the height of that structure on that side. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now that is the 4.5 side? MS. WICKHAM: No, that's the 5.6 side where the one-story portion of the building now exists and that will remain one-story. The Hassildine's are here. They really have the numbers down cold. If I could just give you a quick overview. There existing home consists of a total of 1,105 square feet, one story. What they are proposing is a new structure partially having a second story with a total footprint of 1,585 square feet. However, the side yard on the north which is now 4.5 feet will be increased to -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 7.5. MS. WICKHAM: 7.5 feet. So while they are increasing -- and that 7.5 feet will, at that 7.5 foot mark, there will be not a full two-story structure but a one-story open porch for an additional 6 feet. So the actual two-story home will not start until 13.5 feet from the side yard. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm trying to write the numbers, check the numbers on the map. Off only by a couple of inches. You have 7.8 on the survey MS. WICKHAM: Mine says 7.5 on the master -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I have it right here, Linda. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. 7.5 there BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And 4.6 for the new step area. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 33 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 MS. WICKHAM: Yes. The steps are not included in that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: They are not included? MS. WICKHAM: I'm sorry, I just pulled the wrong one in front of me. Yes, those numbers are correct, 7.8 plus 6 feet from the porch would be 4.6 for the steps, 7.8 for the porch, 13.8, I guess, for the house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 13.6. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. Thank you. And the total size of the house with the second story will be about 2500 square feet. So it's not a large house. It's not a situation where they are taking a small lot and building a mega-mansion. But they are building a house that is modest in total size and fits their needs as a family. One thing the application did not mention is that this property is directly across the street from a marina zoned property so they do have those traffic and noise and other issues to deal with as part of their residential area. If the Board has any other specific questions, I'd be glad to try and address them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is a modular home? MS. WICKHAM: It will be a modular home, yes. They investigated Stick Build (phonetic) and this was the only way that they could afford to -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So it's less expensive to build that. What is the standard size for modular homes, do you have any idea? MS. WICKHAM: That's in the application. It's 26 feet wide. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So what is that, two sections, two 13 foot sections, I guess. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The length, is that also determined? MS. WICKHAM: Why don't you up here. Mr. Hassi1dine has been through this in excruciating detail. He can give you the details. MR. HASSILDINE: Scott Hassi1dine, 2775 West Creek Avenue. The standard for a modular home is 26 feet wide for two boxes. So what we're proposing is four boxes which would be a two-story structure and the depth, I guess in this case, can basically be whatever you want because it is a custom structure. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 34 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I mean, the 36 feet, is is that a standard? MR. HASSILINE: That's what we could fit on the lot so we didn't have problems with the rear setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Could you go less, more? I know it's a modular and I know it's going to be built somewhere and -- MR. HASSILDINE: If it was less, we wouldn't have enough room upstairs for the bathroom and for the laundry room upstairs. Unfortunately, I can't carry laundry up and down the stairs anymore after three back surgeries so that's one of the things we were trying to do is get a laundry room upstairs. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now the setback is at 5.6, the south side. That setback is created by your existing home. MR. HASSILDINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How does that remain the same when you're getting four boxes and stacking them on top? MR. HASSILDINE: Because that part of the structure will not be demoed. That's actually the newest part of the structure. I don't know when it was built, but it is the newest part of the existing structure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It was granted a variance. MR. HASSILDINE: Correct. So the foundation on that an everything else is structurally sound which is the reason why we did not want to remove it. There would be environmental impacts and things of that sort so what we wanted to do is just remove the structure that was in need of being removed and replace it with a new home. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What will that be? That piece that's existing and is going to remain, what will that be? MR. HASSILDINE: That will be a spare bedroom, most likely an office for myself and my wife and then downstairs is an existing entrance to that structure so we'll have another fire escape, if you will. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No garage? MR. HASSILDINE: There's a garage. Partially exterior and underneath the house so the garage will basically be half under the house and 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 35 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 half outside. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Attached to the house? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, part of the house. MR. HASSILDINE: Yes, absolutely, correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to clarify. That's a question I had, the garage and the foundation will remain? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you're going to essentially do a demo from the first living floor? MS. WICKHAM: Are you going to rebuild the foundation? MR. HASSILDINE: The foundation will remain under the section of the house that's there. We cannot add a new foundation without removing the side walls of the existing garage. So at the end of the demolition, there will be a small box, which is the part that says section to remain, that will be the structure and the foundation an that was it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I'm asking is, the existing garage and the foundation, well there's no foundation actually on the garage part. It's just a grade. And your house is currently built above that garage. That whole thing is removed. Are you building a foundation where the garage was in order to support the new modular? MR. HASSILDINE: That will be the new, essentially the way it is here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're recreating, rebuilding in place and in kind the garage that's there now as the foundation or the bearing walls basically for the upper portion to the new modular. MR. HASSILDINE: Yes ma'am. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: While you're there, I want to compliment the two of you for the incredible detailed staking and signage on this site. I resonate with this homework. It was just a pleasure because everything was so clearly labeled. It was very easy to understand. Property boundaries, where new additions were proposed, where things were to remain and if everyone was as conscientious as you, we'd be able to do our site inspections in a much more careful way. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 36 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think we should require everyone to do what they did. I love those little signs. They were great. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: Compulsive/obsessive, are we? MR. HASSILDINE: A little. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I so appreciated 4 5 that. 6 MR. HASSILIDNE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Aside from the perspicuity of the presentation of the house, which I also admire, I think it's a rather efficient plan to deal with an attractively placed overly modest house and turn into one less modest but appropriate. It looks pretty good so far. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just I know it's a difficult lot and I think you've done a great job and I want to reiterate what Leslie said, if everybody marked these out the way you did, we'd have a much easier time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I got the sense that you wanted to start building. Anybody in the audience who would like to make any comments on this application? Sir? MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntingon, President of the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association. I just want to comment that the Hassildine's have done a very good job of dealing with a difficult site and we can only give them praise for what they're doing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else wish to comment on this? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie, seconded by Ruth. All those in favor. (See minutes for resolution.) ************************************ 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to break for five minutes. So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. (Whereupon, a short recess was held.) (Back on the record.) e 25 37 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 ************************************** 3 Hearing #6069 - Scripps CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next application is for Robert K. Scripps. Michael, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's mine, right. "Request for Variances under Sections 280-l66B, 280-l22A and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's July 19, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed addition(s) and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling which will increase the degree of nonconformance under Zoning Code Interpretation #5039 when located less than 15 feet on a single side yard, less than 35 feet for combined side yard setbacks. Also proposed is an addition at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 2745 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue; CTM 104-3-6." The question has to do with the addition which will have only 65 feet from the edge of the bulkhead and, therefore, a variance for the 75 foot code requirement is being sought. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to hear the presentation from the representative first. MR. WEBER: Sure. I'm Fred Weber, 41 East Maple Road, Greenlawn, New York. I represent Mr. Scripps who is actually here as well. I'd first like to address the bulkhead issue. I have a couple of pictures here of the bulkhead with three copies. The bulkhead is actually a concrete wall wall and as it passes this corner right here (indicating), the bulkhead is almost in ground. I have an x at that corner shown on that picture with a little red mark. So the ten foot length of the bulkhead that runs parallel to the property line running to the base to the west, the majority of that bulkhead is actually in the ground and visible above the surface, probably 6 or 8 inches. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And well vegetated, I might add. MR. WEBER: So that's the issue as far as the bulkhead. I had a discussion with the Building Department. They said because the bulkhead is shown like this, we needed to include that as a variance. But to a large extent, it is underground. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the bulkhead were 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 38 - 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 flush with the ground, because there's not really a bulkhead, it's only a little tiny bit of bulkhead, then there would be no variance required for that particular aspect of the property? MR. WEBER: That's my understanding, yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's only those two inches that are triggering this? MR. WEBER: And the second issue is the dimensional variances. The lot itself is in an R-40 district which requires a 150 foot lot width. The lot itself is only 90 feet so it's a nonconforming lot as far as a lot width. And the nonconforming lot section of the code doesn't give any relief for side yards so they still maintain a 15 foot minimum side yard for one and a 35 foot side yard combined for both. What they would like to do is to add to a bedroom space that's on the south side of the property and extend out in the line of the existing house not coming any closer and that part of that addition is only a one-story. It's setback so it doesn't affect any second story portions. On the other side, they want to and an addition that would include kind of a den area that could be set off. The living area of the house is all open to one and fairly tight. You come right in the entrance and you're in the living room. The furniture is all tight. So they wanted to add a separate living area and a bedroom up above with a combined width of that, we fall, I think one foot short of the total combined setback. When we get all done, I think the lot coverage is 9.9 feet. It's allowed to be 20. We're not trying to overpower the site and we're trying to keep the house more or less in keeping with what's there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You meant 9.9%? MR. WEBER: Percent. What did I say? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Feet. MR. WEBER: I'm sorry. Yes, 9.9%. And we do, as far as the bulkhead situation, we actually do have already Trustee approval for that. I don't know if you want a copy of that. Is that of value for you to have? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. MR. WEBER: We do have the Trustee approval as well for that setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Michael, you have anything? You have anything more to add, sir? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 39 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just the side setback on, I guess it's the east side is only a continuation of the already existing setback of that side. MR. WEBER: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not decreasing the setback overall. MR. WEBER: No. It's not decreasing at all. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No just to say it's a lovely piece of property and I think you're doing a very nice job. The bulkhead is a non issue because of the vegetation around it. I don't see any problem at all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, just to reiterate what a beautiful spot you have there. It's quite something really. It would appear from this construction there'd be no additional land disturbance anyway because it's all kind of to the side and landward of the closest point to the water. MR. WEBER: There's a hay bail requirement that's going to be addressed as well. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. It's a quite clear presentation of what you're proposing. No further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions. Anybody in the audience would like to make a comment on this application? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name and your address, please. MR. DOMINICO: Robert P. Dominico, 2655 Pine Tree. I live next door to the Scripps and for lack of a better term, I probably would be the most affected by this addition. I'd like to speak in two turns, one for myself and my family, and that is we approve of this completely. It's a very thorough job and sensitive to issues that you're all sensitive to. Secondarily, informally, I'm a very neighborly guy. I chat with lots of folks and we all live around and everyone I spoke to, there wasn't one word of dissent that I heard from anybody. So I just want to add those comments that we're very much in favor of folks 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 40 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 that want to improve property and stay within the code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Anybody else wish to make a comment on this application? Sir, do you have anything else to add? MR. WEBER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hearing entertain a motion to close this weeks. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth, seconded by Leslie. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ****************************************** Thank you. none, I'll hearing until two 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hearing #6071 - Catania CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Joel and Donna Catania. That's Ruth's. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's mine. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-l24B, based on the Building Inspector's June 7, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an application for a building permit for an as-built deck addition to the single-family dwelling, for the reason that the requested construction will exceed the 20% code limitation, at 760 Oakwood Drive, Southold; CTM 70-12-26.2" You've got a problem. You are maxed. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, keep it relevant, 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 okay. 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Go head. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Kevin McLaughlin, I'm here on behalf of the Catania's. The Catania's purchased this property in January of this year at which time they became aware of the fact that there was no CO for this deck. However, they didn't realize the issue of lot coverage at that time being not attorneys and not really aware of the Southold Town code. So what we're doing here today is trying to rectify a situation that wasn't really of their own making. It was thrust upon them as a basically, take it or leave it proposition on the purchase of what, if you've gone to visit there, I think is a very beautiful house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It is. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Very well landscaped. Very well screened and we're here to try to see if we 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 41 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 can find a way around the problem of the excess lot coverage. I am only aware of one neighbor having any communication with the Board, the Goldman's who do not make an objection to the issue of the deck and the excess lot coverage. Their only issue is that there is a swimming pool on the site and they will hear some noise from the pool motor. I have spoken with my client about that. He tells me that he thinks the motor is running a little loud and his company is coming to investigate that and hopefully take care of that issue. Again, the lot is very well screened. The deck is there. When my clients went to the Building Department to try to again rectify what they knew was a deck without a CO, that's when they became aware of the fact that there was a lot coverage issue that would require a variance and that's why we're here today. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I agree with all that you said as far as it's a beautiful house, the deck is gorgeous, the pool, the wonderful landscaping. But we do have a problem with the lot coverage. Is there any way that the deck could be cut down to say meet maybe a 25% lot coverage? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I did discuss that with my client. He has come forward and given to me a proposal to cut down on the size of the deck. My calculations would show it would be a 35% decrease in the size of the deck from 1,155 square feet down to 752. My rough calculations would indicate that would be a 27% lot coverage at that point. What I'd like is for Mr. Catania, who is here, to come up and explain you how he arrived at that and I can give you copies of his proposal. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. MR. CATANIA: My name is Joel Catania. First of all, I want to preface this by saying I live in a hometown and have lived for 50 years in a community very much like Southold that has strict zoning board regulations, wants to keep their property under certain parameters. I do respect that. And I have always tried to be abide by the rules in that home and I expect to do the same things here and hope to do the same things here in Southold. Again, I became aware of this deck issue late in the process. I believed it to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 42 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 be an erection type mistake, the way it was built, a structural mistake. I was not aware of the lot coverage issue until it became an after-the-fact matter. My wife and I looked at some 40 houses and we kept coming back to this house. It is a very nice house. A low maintenance house. The size of property we wanted. We really loved it and that's why we went for it. Again, now we're facing an issue and when I became aware of the lot coverage being a problem and speaking to Kevin, I examined the deck and I have a proposal which you have copies of. It's color coded to help you. The red outline which is basically a rectangular area of 15 feet deep by 45 feet long is where I propose to bring back the upper level of the deck. You've seen the property, the deck is at a level with the house so you walk right out from the doorway onto the deck as opposed to having to step down three or four steps to a patio which again was an attraction with the house. We could just walk out. It makes it so much easier that way. The reason I went 45 feet and I did anything I could to cut it back as much as possible to make it reasonable and acceptable, hopefully, there are doors near both ends of the deck, there are three egresses from the house. There's that center bay which is the kitchen area to the left side where the wood steps by the chimney side. There's a door from the family room which is almost at the end of the deck and towards the hot tub side there is another bathroom door which is about a foot and a half, two feet off of that line there. So that's why I felt it necessary, if you will, to stretch it to that realm, so we could get access from all three egresses to the house onto the deck. The hot tub which is now set in the deck, I proposed to put it more on a platform. I realize that is part of the lot coverage but that will be in a platform but the deck will end right where the hot tub is. So that's only about a 49 square foot area plus two feet from the house there. I'm cutting back the entire, it had steps all around it. Now, you've seen I'm cutting back to just having three areas of steps. I propose a twelve foot wide area in the middle with railings will be built and two three foot steps on either end of the deck so we can at least get up and down the deck from the sides, if necessary. That is why I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 43 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 have these dimensions. I've done what I felt I can do to cut it back to make it reasonably usable and hopefully meet some acceptable guidelines that you can understand the use of the deck. I'm perfectly willing to do what needs to be done to get it within an acceptable regulation and hopefully an acceptable variation for you. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Why do you feel that you need three entrances to the deck? MR. CATANIA: Again, the hot tub would be the logical entrance because as you say, if you're coming up, the hot tub there -- first of all, it can't be all surrounded by deck because the excess lot coverage -- I just thought that would be a logical area to get down, go to my garage and get down by the pool area. The proposal for the other side by the chimney side again, there's a hose there, there's an air-conditioning system there if you want to get out. Frankly, are three necessary? Perhaps not. Perhaps I can cut one of the side ones back. It doesn't seem to make a big difference because you're only talking 3 feet by 3 feet, maybe a 9 foot square foot area we're talking about. It's a possibility. Certainly the 12 foot one in the middle going to the pool. I consider that kind of important to bring equipment and tables and things up onto the deck. The one by the hot tub I think is important. The one by the chimney, I just thought it's practical to go down that side if I had to bring something down that side of the house but it certainly could be eliminated, I think, if necessary. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd like to hear what my other Board members think. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I have to say I really appreciate your effort to redesign this and to bring it forth at this hearing rather than having us tell you how you can go about making it smaller. In looking at it myself, I realize the only way that you can mitigate what would a 50% variance, which is really substantial, would be to cut back the steps, perhaps reduce the deck size, get rid of the shed, which, you know, is probably something you don't want to do but that's an option. That's part of the lot coverage. I assume you use that for pool equipment and things like that. I think that frankly you've done a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 44 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 very good job in reconsidering how to design this in a way that really allows you to continue to use the things that you've already got there. I certainly think it will be a hardship to get rid of your hot tub. It doesn't have, because of the nature of the mature landscaping, in the back and then on either side and the location of the houses on either side. It really has no visual impact on your neighbors. It's simply more a matter of trying to have the least nonconforming variance as possible. So I guess I need to think about this but I think this is a very viable proposal. MR. CATANIA: As I said, I'm trying to bring it in line with whatever can be acceptable -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know, if you reduced the depth to twelve feet, then you have a really narrow, relative to the length and to the size of the house, you really have a very poorly proportioned deck. So I can appreciate why fifteen feet was selected. You can push it and say no, it's got to be twelve. Then you're starting to have back up problems with patio furniture, with chairs and things like that. It's a very large elevation and I think you've done, from what I can see a very good job of finding a balance. It's still a large variance that you're going to need you calculated it up to 27%. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Up to 27% percent. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Looks like it's almost less than that but we'd have to try and calculate it and ourselves as well and see what the actual numbers are. That's all. I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is not the first time we've had to deal with an as-built project. MR. CATANIA: I'm sure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One general rule of thumb and you may be an exception to this is that we are inclined to grant variances for as-built things if we would have been willing to have granted it in the first place had it been in the application. That wasn't possible. I don't quite understand quite how this happened. You said you bought this house at the beginning of 2007? MR. CATANIA: The beginning of this year, right? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I presume the CO that 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 45 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 was submitted at the time of this transaction was an outdated one? MR. CATANIA: My major concerns were, of course, the CO for the house and the CO for the pool. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, there was an unapproved deck at the time that the house was sold? MR. CATANIA: Yes, I did find that out at the time that the house was sold. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That was not discovered by the attorneys or by the banks. MR. CATANIA: Just to clarify, there wasn't a bank involved in the deal. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It was cash? MR. CATANIA: Cash. I went in at the last minute after the negotiations had progressed to the point they accepted my offer and I had an engineer come in to do an inspection report. He's the one that brought up the issue of the deck. But the issue he brought up to me was an issue of how it was built. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question was, could it have gotten a CO if they had taken the trouble to get a building permit and so on. MR. CATANIA: I understand your concern. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then if they had, going back on this thing because I think it's methodologically important, if the previous owner had applied for a building permit, he would have not gotten the building permit without a variance at that time. MR. CATANIA: I understand. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So we would have had an opportunity to do this. Since in a sense this is not your fault but in some ways this property was either intentionally or otherwise misrepresented to you at the time you purchased it. MR. CATANIA: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It was misrepresented at the time is that you bought a house with a deck for which there was no CO. MS. MOORE: Yes, I knew that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You were fully aware of 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that. e 25 MR. CATANIA: spoken to a number got the engineer's I was aware of it but I had of people, including, after I report and again at that point 46 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 I knew a CO was not existing, I knew about it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But you didn't anticipate there would be a problem with getting it. MR. CATANIA: After speaking with some people, I just got the impression, and again, having lived in a similar community, that some middle ground could be found and I was perfectly willing to say I had to restructure that deck, I would do it. MR. McLAUGHLIN: The point is he understood, let me clarify the whole thing. I didn't represent him when he bought this property. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: There's nothing against the law. MR. McLAUGHLIN: He understood by the time of closing that there was no CO for this deck and the sellers were not going to give him one, take the deal or leave it. He did not understand that there was a lot coverage issue that went along with being able to go to the Building Department to get a CO. So he didn't anticipate this step of things. He thought he could just go to the Building Department and get a CO for the deck. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine. So there was no sense in which he overpaid for the property because he didn't know that there was a problem. That the seller did know? MR. McLAUGHLIN: He was aware. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Let's not get too far off field here. I don't think it's entirely relevant to his variance application, all the details of his transaction. There's nothing wrong with buying a piece of property that doesn't have a CO. It's maintaining a property that doesn't have a CO on a structure and he's here to get it. We should focus on whether you're willing to grant a variance in the nature he's proposed or whether something further needs to be done. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fair enough. And I think and I'm coming up to the same general conclusion that other people have is and it wouldn't surprise you that some kind of a compromise looks like it's going to have to be worked out and what that compromise is none of us individually know at this time and I think it is very helpful for you to have made a proposal as to what, to you, would be an acceptable compromise. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 47 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 I just wanted to get clear the whole history and the background of this. Just one thing, which may be far off field but it's a general point. If you were the owner and you had built it without a permit and then you sold it to someone, no, then you decided you wanted a CO later on in order to sell it, then there would be a problem because you then would be the person who could have and should have gotten the CO. But you're not that person. MR. CATANIA: I understand. First of all, you don't know me, I would not have built a deck without going through the proper procedures. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the point is, you should be penalized to the same extent. MS. MOORE: That's why I'm hopeful. Hopefully, you're understanding of that. I went into this eyes open towards the end of the deal. But hopefully, there is that middle ground. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's why I was asking questions about the details of who knew what at the time. Thank you very much. I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I do appreciate the fact that he has come in with an alternate plan that we can deliberate on. You're willing if everything else fails to cut it back further at least in length, shall we say, not the width, keep the 15 foot width. MR. CATANIA: The length can't go too much because of those doors. There may be room for a foot, we could if it's going to make a difference. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If you just had the doors and we cut the deck, you'd still need steps from those doors to go down to -- MR. CATANIA: Yes, if the deck was cut inside the doors, then we'd have to step down and it makes it less practical to use. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are those steps calculated in lot coverage? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. MR. CATANIA: The steps are calculated in lot coverage and right now there are steps all around the entire deck which is why -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I couldn't calculate these in my head at the moment but if you chapter the corners of the deck on both sides and use one of the cuts for a set of steps on the diagonal as 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 48 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 opposed to coming straight out from the bay, it's possible you can reduce even more that lot coverage. Maybe to 25, 26%. Which would be a much lesser variance. Probably, I would propose it on the hot tub side since you really want the circulation area for where you have your furniture right now. MR. CATANIA: Furniture is on the chimney 4 5 6 side. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I would probably not -- MR. CATANIA: Those corners, that was one of the issues. I almost was going to cut those corners. Those corners probably could both be cut off. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you could probably squish it down to 26% by doing it that way. Every little percentage is important because it's less of a variance. MR. CATANIA: Like I said, I'll do whatever is practical and feasible for me to have a workable deck and make it acceptable to the Board. I'm here to try and find that middle ground. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I guess we could grant, if we were so inclined a certain percentage as opposed to a design and then you can work with it. Certainly, when I first looked at it, I said he can just cut the steps off and that would give him something and I would be happy with that. I understand why it has to be so long because those doors have to open up to steps by code. So there's nothing you can do with that anyway. So if we grant it, I would say we'd grant it by percentage. MR. CATANIA: I can definitely work within 7 8 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 that. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And this lot was created by a variance way, way back when, just so everyone is aware of that. The pool was built in '03. So as long as you admit that you went into it eyes wide open, there's not a whole lot you could have done about it and I'm sure there was some negotiations as far as monetary that you dealt with. Okay. Anybody else in the audience have any questions concerning this applications? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. 22 23 24 e 25 49 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion by Leslie, Second by Ruth. All those in favor. (See minutes for resolution.) ************************************** 4 5 6 Hearing #6066 - Magnaniello CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Peter and Sharon Manganiello. State your name please, sir. MR. HILL: My name is Ronnie Hill and I'm with RLH Land Planning Services. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just hold on, Leslie has to read the legal notice and then we'll ask you some questions. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: "Request for Variances under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's June 21, 2007 amended Notice for Disapproval concerning as-built deck additions to the existing single-family dwelling, for the reasons that the construction will be (a) less than 10 feet on a single side yard; (b) less than 25 feet for both side yard setbacks, (c) exceeding the code limitation of 20% maximum lot coverage, at 58315 Route 48 (a/k/a North Road), Greenport, CTM 44-2-12." As I understand it, you have an extremely small non-conforming lot. MR. HILL: Anything that would like be done to it -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pardon? MR. HILL: It was rather restricted from the onset. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: total side yard setback of that are really going from property on either side. MR. HILL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And a lot coverage of 50% where the code allows 20%. The lot area is only 4,850 square feet. So it's less than 1/8 of an acre. MR. HILL: Can I just interrupt here. A lot of that is because the area of the lot can only be calculated from the front of it to the landward side of the ripwrap. The property extends much further beyond that but that wouldn't be considered buildable area, therefore, it is Sure. Now you have a zero. You've got decks the house right to the 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 50 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 deducted from the lot area. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. Well, at the moment, I have some questions but I would like to point out that the survey does not indicate the setback of the dwelling from the ripwrap. It simply isn't noted on there and the LWRP does make a notation of it but it isn't showing on the survey. Moreover, the Notice of Disapproval does not include the nonconforming setback from the ripwrap. So, in a sense, there's some incomplete information in the application. I think we want -- MR. HILL: I would have to agree with what you just said but I'm not sure that they understood nor would I have understood that the 75 foot setback that you quote based on the zoning regulations would have required that to be from the landward side of the ripwrap. I can understand that it would have because that's as far as you can go regardless. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. For the record, I just want to enter that information and we'll go ahead and let you explain whatever it is you want to say. Does that make sense? MR. HILL: I'm not sure that I can add anything else other than the fact that from the onset, the property was rather restricted. The applicant is seeking to obtain variances for the existing decks. The necessity of the request is not so much a self-created hardship, I believe. In 1977 a 7 by 12 porch was constructed on the western side of the residence, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the property in 1981. It's assumed that the porch was legalized by the 1981 Certificate of Occupancy. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the eastern 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 one? 21 MR. HILL: On the western side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was already preexisting. MR. HILL: That was always there and I have pictures that can confirm that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it was there in '81 when the CO was granted. MR. HILL: When the CO was issued. So the assumption there is that in 1981, anything there at that time would have been legalized. Now, we could assume the same thing today because there 22 23 24 e 25 51 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 had been a Certificate of Occupancy issued for the decks after Mr. Manganiello purchased the property in 2004 and in 2005, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Unfortunately, some questions were raised because he was then looking to sell the property by a realtor. They went in, I guess the Building Department reviewed it and indicated the decks, themselves, were not clearly called out on the Certificate of Occupancy. It then led to the fact that the Certificate of Occupancy may have been issued in error and, as a result it meant that they needed to now make those decks legalized which is why we're here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it was 2004 when your applicant purchased the property with a CO that included the deck to the east as well. MR. HILL: That's correct. And I have pictures that can show you what they look like and I don't know, if we all lived around here for any length of time and prior to that, in driving past those properties you would have probably noticed that it was rather a dilapidated cottage then. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Wasn't there a fire in there? MR. HILL: Something. by it, it was an eye sore. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: other than these? MR. HILL: Yes, those are pictures that I asked him to provide if he had at the time of his purchase of the property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don't have those. MR. Hill: No, you don't. Those are pictures that he took at the time that he purchased the property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It looks like the decks are actually demoed. That one's there. MR. HILL: They were in very bad disrepair because the property had just sat there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was in MR. HILL: A survey that was dated of 2004 actually depicted those decks at and I'm not sure if that survey -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's on the 2004 survey also, both decks? MR. HILL: Yes. Now, I'm not whether or not that survey was done before their purchase or afterwards I know if you drove 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 Are those pictures 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2004. June 8th that time 23 24 e 25 sure as to at the time or when. I 52 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 have no way of gauging that and this is all based on the information that I was able to research and gather. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So your applicant went to sell this in 2005? MR. HILL: In 2006. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And that's when the issue arose of the legality of both decks. MR. HILL: Of both decks because they were not and a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued at that time but it was recognized then that it wasn't clearly called out and although the plans that were submitted for the building permit indicated the decks since there were no changes to it, he renovated and reconstructed the decks. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Let me pass these down. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Linda had emailed us a survey, questions concerning a survey that apply to this property. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The next door, the lot was a different size.. MR. HILL: So the only thing that I can say in addition to what we've already said and discussed about the property is that it was rather restricted from the onset. There was not very much that even under the best of circumstances could be done for the property given it's size and location. They all seemed to have been, those properties, at that time, meant to be nothing more than summer cottages and so forth and as a result, you know, it's I don't know. I don't know what else I can say except that to have a property like that on the water without a deck would seem like, to me, like having a house without windows somewhat. It just goes without saying that you want to have a deck there to enjoy some portion of what you purchased it for and that would be, as far as I would be concerned, the water. The front of the property, of course, fronts onto the north road, Route 48 and there's not very much that you can do there because just looking at the survey you can see where it's very close to the highway, to the County Route 48. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, it looks like we need a new notice and the information on the survey to include in whatever variance gets granted the nonconformity from the ripwrap, the 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 53 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 setback to the ripwrap. MR. HILL: Yes, no question. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And if you're going to do it, you have to make sure you have everything. So you need three variances. One is for the side yard setbacks which are zero. MR. HILL: Which is the one that we're here for today. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Another would be the lot coverage which is currently -- MR. HILL: If you took the total lot area of the property and took 20% of that, you get a lot smaller number. You get something like 24%. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure but the code now requires it to be the buildable area, so it's 50% lot coverage of the buildable. MR. HILL: 50 plus, it's 50.something but it's certainly 50%. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you need three variances really; lot coverage, and side yard setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we should, before we decide what we're going to do with the additional variances, we should have this hearing and then we'll make our decision based on -- not make a decision for or against it, but where we want to proceed. I'd like to just ingest all the testimony first and go from there. Are you finished, Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, a question. Now, what does the owner plan to do with the house now if he gets the variance? Just leave it as? MR. HILL: Yes. At the moment he's only trying to legalize the existing as-built conditions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What's confusing to me anyway was on the application it says for a demolition, describe areas being removed. It makes it sound as though it's a demolition and a reconstruction unless it's just an error on the application. MR. HILL: I agree with that but I left that off of there and I was instructed to put it back because it was a conversation that I had with Linda. She had indicated that there was some demolition so I didn't see how it was relevant to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 54 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 the as-built conditions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's the problem of the time period, the tense, of this because it's one thing to get an ex post facto variance including demolition and reconstruction which has already happened. MR. HILL: Which is a renovation which is why I refer to it as an as-built conditions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it's in the past because it would matter if we interpret it, maybe it's the wrong interpretation, is that looking at this right now, what they want to do is tear it down and rebuild it. That's a problem. That's a very different type of problem. MR. HILL: I can assure you that that's not the intent. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, that's what confused me. I have no further questions. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The site plan that you gave is the as-built conditions that are there now, right? MR. HILL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, are you all set? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, I just remember we had given a variance on the house, I believe, to the west of that. So when I inspected that property, and this is several years ago, your property that you're speaking of was completely covered by trees and I was able to peer through the trees and I saw the house and then I remembered, I believe, there had been some sort of a fire in the house and it had been abandoned or what have you. Then all of a sudden, because I drive by, I live in Orient, you live in Orient, then all of a sudden I saw the trees were taken down, the house was really reconstructed. There were new windows. The decks were reconstructed and I've seen a For Sale sign up there. So I'm curious as to whether the person who bought this property is going to live there or are they planning to sell the property and must get these variances in order to do it? MR. HILL: The intention of my client was to legalize the deck. I believe there is a contract currently for the property. I'm not sure if they intend on living there on a year round basis 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 55 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 because I'm not sure if it's year round conditions. If it's capable of handling year round conditions. I don't know. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think I understand. You need all the variances that have already been spoken for. MR. HILL: Right. Because now that the issue has come up regarding the legality of the decks, it is my clients intention to legalize on the C of 0 and have it shown that the decks were, in fact, constructed and now part of it so that there was no question in the end as to their legality. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: When I first looked at this, I said I don't even know why we're having this discussion. You made some statements, sir, that concerning CO's that you banked on as, I guess, evidence that can somehow improve these decks. I would like for you to -- I don't believe we're going to close this hearing today -- to go to the Building Inspector and get the information that we'll use to gain those CO's. MR. HILL: I did. I have copies of them because I went there and did the research myself. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You want to hand them in 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 now? 16 18 MR. HILL: I don't have anything but the one copy. I can certainly make copies and give them to you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to hold this hearing open until next time unless we decide on another thing that we might want to do. I tell you, I drive by that property and I've seen some changes on that property since I was a kid too. And I look at the property card and there's really only one building permit since in '72 on that thing and that was in '04 a month after these people purchased that property. MR. HILL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm wondering if you can tell me what that was for? MR. HILL: That was for the renovation of the way you see it today. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For the decks and all that? So that should be a fairly detailed building permit? 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 56 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 MR. HILL: That's correct. I have the number of the -- the building permit was -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I got it right here. It's 30450Z. I think we're using it as a basis to grant a variance, I think you ought to present them to us and let us have a discussion in open meeting to see if, not what you say is true, but certainly it jives with everything. MR. HILL: True. I will do that but I want to assure you that I do my research. I went to the Building Inspector's office. I not only talked with the Building Inspectors and the permit examiner, Damon, regarding this. I stood there on their computer and went through all of those files to pull that information and then paid for it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need to have that presented to us. MR. HILL: I agree and I will do that but nothing here that I've presented and said today is a fabrication. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not a fabrication. We just need to verify it. Nothing in the record indicates what you said and we need -- we have to build a case for or against anyway so we need that information. I wasn't quite -- from reading the application, I had a different connotation of where you were going with this than what you presented today. MR. HILL: What did you think I was looking 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 for? 17 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My assumption was you just built these things and now you want to do it. Now, you're saying that that isn't the case. That there are CO's for these. MR. HILL: What I'm saying is that in 1977 that there was a drawing that I have that shows a 7 by 12 deck. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's fine. There's no indication on the property card that there was anything that said that. MR. HILL: I agree with that because I went and I pulled the property card myself from the Assessor's office. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If you give that to us, was that the basis for another building permit? I mean, we need to tie that all in. Beyond that, and I think Michael says it a lot so I'll say it now, we make decisions on variances based on, 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 57 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 especially as-built variances, based on whether we would grant them if they were not there. And I can never recall in my 20 years of being involved with this Board, granting a zero lot line variance, let alone two, on a piece of property. This has more than that if you apply the Walz decision, which would be if you have a problem with the front yard, you have a problem with the rear yard, you have a problem with both side yards, there's ash lot coverage. MR. HILL: True but one of the things we would have to frame that and put it within the context that some of those things probably predated and were pre-existing, nonconforming prior to some of the zoning regulations that are currently in place. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly not 2004. If you were renovating something in 2004, now Walz was 2001, and Walz said if you were going to expand a nonconforming, if you were going to increase the degree of nonconformity on a house, which at zero lot line and you can't increase it other than go up, and you have to have a variance on that. MR. HILL: I agree with you but at the time that the building permit and the plans were submitted for the building permit, the applicant was certainly submitting those plans to the permit examiner, they reviewed them and it was for nothing more than to renovate what was existing. If it had been determined that there was a need for variances or anything else, I am certain that the building inspectors or examiners would have indicated that and then issued a letter of disapproval. But that was not the case. They actually issued a building permit for this. So the building permit was accompanied -- in order to get the building permit, a set of plans were submitted and the plans indicated what they were going to do. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we just need to see that. That information would be MR. HILL: And I understand and I'll certainly supply it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was 2004 that you're talking about. MR. HILL: That was in 2004 that the building permit was issued and in 2004 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 58 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Without notice of disapproval. MR. HILL: Without notice of disapproval, that is correct. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And the deck was on those plans that were approved under that building permit? MR. HILL: Yes. And part of what I found as research and documentation was a set of plans for the deck that had been asked for and done by Mark Schwartz. So I have all of those things that were there and on record and on file there in the Building Department. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We just need to see that. You're going to take care of that for us? MR. HILL: Of course. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, do you have something else? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a procedural question. If that information is submitted within x amount of days, would we then be prepared to deliberate in two weeks? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, can is going to be held open to the next available meeting. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The next public hearing. That's fine. I just wanted to ask procedurally how you wanted to proceed. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree. MR. HILL: I'd like to add one other thing. I hope and I'm quite sure that you guys will do this. In the process of considering the ramifications of giving a variance, the variances that would be needed for this to be legalized, these properties right there in that area were already, they never met zoning, from the onset. There was just no way that they could. So they were pre-existing, nonconforming so basically anything that anyone would have wanted to do, they would have been handicapped from the very moment that they thought about it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There's no doubt about that. I couldn't agree with you more but obviously, zero lot lines on both sides is not MR. HILL: But I hope that you can consider that for the area, for the neighborhood, those 4 or 5 lots that are there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, that would not happen. In any instance in this Town, zero lot 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 59 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 9 lines on both sides just would not happen. MR. HILL: I can agree with that because I tried to dot my I's and cross my T's and I did extensive research and I could not find one instance in which a zero lot line variance had been issued. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're not going to. So not to say that -- so, I'm looking more for a blessing by the Town in the past that says that this is okay, certainly is something that I'm looking for. MR. HILL: I couldn't find that so I can't provide that. (All Members talking at one time.) BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You've done a great deal. The research you've done is certainly going to be very useful to you. It means you have less to do now and better for us. If we're going to steer an original course leading to an approval and a variance, we want to do it on a complete fact base. That's what we're asking for. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Those are what you presented to us orally. You just need now to give us in written form. MR. HILL: I have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And let us review it. Give us a month to do so. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm just going to remind you about the setbacks to the ripwrap, we need that by letter from the surveyor or how do you want that? MR. HILL: Well one of the things that Leslie mentioned that's not there that I do have survey of asking for, I had initially asked him to make some changes. What we wanted to do was to include what the lot area was, the square footage of the area between the rear of the house to the landward side of that ripwrap and they didn't get that to me until late. What's missing from there and I did ask them to provide which is something that I always see as being very valuable is the distances from the rear of the house, including from the steps to the ripwrap. That gives you some idea as to the range of distances along that rear side of the house which will vary based on whatever is extending out the most. In this case, that would be the stairs. By the way, those pictures that I passed around, I'd have to get 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 60 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 copies of those and then I'll make sure you get some. I can't leave those. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We will need for the record though, sir. We will need them back. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's 7 photos. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Everybody asked their questions? Anybody in the audience wish to comment on this? MR. HILL: I just had one other thing to say. I also wanted to address the comments from Mark Terry regarding the LWRP and I would only have to echo the same type of sentiment that I said regarding the zoning regulations and that property and anything wanting to be done there. It's pre-existing, nonconforming so it never would have and never could meet the actual requirements of the LWRP. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I understand that. The LWRP sometimes can be confusing. MR. HILL: Outside of that, I don't have anything else. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Do you want to adjourn this then to October 18th? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's okay with me. Do we have room on that? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Probably not but we'll make room if you want. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion that we keep the hearing open -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Motion with a date, or actually, if it requires another variance for the disapproval from the Building Inspector, you're going to have them make a determination whether you need one or not. MR. HILL: You and I went through that. We would need now to go back, get the letter of disapproval, modify it to include the setback from the rear of the house to the ripwrap, the landward side of that, and then submit the paperwork for the area variance, for that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: For the additional variance for that. MR. HILL: And we won't have to pay for anything else because we already capped it to $600. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Well, yes but I 61 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 do have to re advertise it, Mr. Hill, and I would need to have that at least two to three weeks before that October 18th hearing date. MR. HILL: So October 18th is the next hearing date? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If we don't have it in time to advertise, then we would have to put it over another month. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to need it in about a week. BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI: A weak to ten days. MR. HILL: That's not an issue. I can easily do that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: October 18th with a date. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I'll make a motion. MR. HILL: Just to be clear, we need the additional variance, the additional documentation -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If the Building Department says you need -- MR. HILL: And I would like to make sure that we have all the necessary information onto the survey and that that survey also be sent out if we have to notice it again. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you, how long ago did you apply for this? How long has the process been from the Building Inspector to this point? MR. HILL: April 3rd is when I went initially to talk to the Building Inspector's about it and then as we started to go through it and I started to discuss it with Linda, that's when we started to realize that there were some things that were missing and it meant having to go back to the Building Inspector's office, get the letter of disapproval modified and then to go about the business of getting the information which included getting surveyors and everybody else involved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My concern was that the Building Inspector made a decision based on not enough information and I was just wondering how that happened? It was before -- we set another standard that you would not be able to come to us unless you had a survey that was accurate and that's not the case in this but that was before we 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 62 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 set that standard up. MR. HILL: One thing is for sure, it wasn't until after April of this year that it became apparent and only in June did Linda and I speak and it became apparent that I needed to now get a variance for the lot coverage because that would not have been an issue prior to April. But, unfortunately, all of that caused yet more paperwork to be generated and more information to be collected. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That because it's now relative to the building envelope. (All Members talking at one time.) MR. HILL: That's correct. Which did not exist -- that's why I continue to say from the onset with any changes that are likely to be made to the zoning and especially for an R40 district, these properties along there, and I can only speak relative to this one, will never be conforming in any way shape or form. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's fine. (Inaudible) increase that nonconformity. MR. HILL: Well, true. And I'm glad they didn't increase the footprint but who would want to? You get closer to the water and that would make more issues there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else interested in making a comment on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting until October 18th provided that we get all the information by 9/23. MR. HILL: Ten days from now. That's fine. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth made the motion, Leslie seconded it. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) *************************************** 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 Hearing #6067 - Lomas CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Wendy Lomas and Charlotte Greene. Ruth, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. "Request for a Variance under Code Section 280-15 based on the Building Inspector's June 18, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed reconstruction (replacement) of an existing 22 23 e 25 63 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 9 accessory building, in the same nonconforming location at less than the code required 10 feet from any property, at 500 Stephenson's Road (Private Road #1); CTM 17-1-6." Actually, it's more ten feet from Bird's Nest Road. MR. GARRETSON: I'm James Garretson residing at 1620 Village Lane, Orient, New York. I represent Wendy Lomas and Charlotte Greene. We propose just to replace, well pretty much replace, very little of the existing building would be there, it's early 20th Century accessory building that's typical of the North Fork in terms of style. It originally was called an ice house. It's not confirmed it was ever used as an ice house although it has some of the doors and things where ice was stored for the summertime. We're just restoring it as an accessory building, a little garden shed. It sits very nicely, as you can see from the pictures, in the hedge row and we would like to leave it in the same place if possible. Restore it exactly where it is. There doesn't seem to be anything nearby on the adjacent property. It's very much in the middle of nowhere. Basically, I did drawings based on my research close to what it originally looked like and you have a copy of that drawing there. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I really don't have any questions. I mean it's way up at the end of the property. It's right near the hedge row and that other private row. There aren't any houses anywhere near it really. Not a problem of objection to the site of something like that. In fact, I think people would rather enjoy seeing it reconstructed. I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We had a letter from a neighbor indicating, or was that a verbal, when I went to do site inspection, I ran into, I believe the builder and he mentioned that the neighbor who's on the property much higher above -- MR. GARRETSON: Yes, the Hahn property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. Is in favor of this reconstruction and has no objection at all. Certainly, it's not visible from anywhere other than that property. Normally, we wouldn't be entertaining a setback of 1.2 feet from a side 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 64 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 3 yard especially when you do have room to move it in a bit. However, because you're replacing it in kind exactly where it was and because it is an historic location and property, I think it's not an unreasonable request to leave it where it is. I don't think that it has much impact on anyone actually. It's 15'6" by 15'6"? MR. GARRETSON: It's 15'6" by a little more than 15'6". We're going to make it exactly 15'6" by 15'6" just to make it simpler for the builder. That's on the existing rocks that are there, the foundation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're going to rebuild it right on the foundation? MR. GARRETSON: Same size, same height, everything. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well therein is an argument for wanting to rebuild it on the existing foundation rather than moving the old historic stone which does have some historic value. MR. GARRETSON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. Calling this a reconstruction is plausible. I suppose it's a reconstruction whether any of the boards that are now there will ever find themselves any place except to land fill. MR. GARRETSON: I think it is possible that we would use -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the question, why, for example, if they simply took all those boards away today and then tomorrow they applied for a building permit, would they be able to make the same arguments about the starred site for building it 1.2 feet from the property line? MR. GARRETSON: That's a good question. If it were an actual land marked building, this is not an official land marked building, if it were an official land marked building, I think the Town of Southo1d, there would be an argument for replacing it exactly where it was even if you were restoring it totally brand new to the specifications of when it was there. I think, in terms of land marking, which it isn't but historic structures, it's always good to keep things where they were. If you're replacing it in kind to look very close to what it originally looked like, I 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 65 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 think there is an argument. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whether it's a land marked building or not. MR. GARRETSON: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then we need to, we may want to hear more about why it is sort of a de facto landmark building. I mention this because we often get applications for people who want to replace a building that they've demolished for the spiritual continuity from the preexisting building to the present one and sometimes we find these arguments plausible but more often than not, some of us don't find them totally plausible. So can you say more about why this building should qualify as a replacement of a landmark building rather than as a new building which will remind people of a building that used to be very nearby? MR. GARRETSON: Anytime you're trying to replace a building that has landmark significance, whether it's officially land marked or not, I think once it's completed whether it's renovated or totally replaced, it does have a positive impact on the community and that's what, basically, the whole definition of land marking is about. Is saving some historic value to the area and this particular building, if it's necessary, I've done research on this particular type of structure which is very much the North Fork type accessory building. You can see them on the North Road. Basically all we're trying to do is repeat exactly what's there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you know when it was built originally? MR. GARRETSON: No. I would say it was probably built in the early 20th Century. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would you apply that to any early 20th Century building which is in disuse? MR. GARRETSON: Only ones that had some historical significance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What gives it historical significance other than being 90 years old? MR. GARRETSON: The roof line. The roof line is non-gable. It's completely sloped all the way around. Normally, a roof line for a simple accessory building has two gables on the side or two gables; a front and back. This has no gables 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 66 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 and it is not peaked. It's pulled back. It's a rectangular structure so it has a slope, the same slope on each side so that it has a look about it that is unusual. When you look at the drawings I've shown you, it's not something you see everywhere wand and it happens to be, maybe it was one builder, I haven't been able to find it, that had drawings for this, and everybody said I want one that looks like that. There is a case for making this, you could make a case for making this a landmark structure, in my opinion. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You certainly have made a case for it being worthy of replicating but then the additional argument is not just replicating it but replicating it on exactly the same site. That I think requires a separate argument. MR. GARRETSON: The site because it's on the edge of the property which is typical of accessory houses at that time and it's within a hedge row that was also typical. And I think that it has a setting that it appealing to both neighbors that look at it. That's not landmark. The other two are landmark. The setting is part of your landmark. The setting and the way it's set off. Not in the middle of a yard but on a side of a yard within a hedge row is the typical setting. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you also have the existing old stone foundation. MR. GARRETSON: We have to be careful. I don't know how much, when I say preexisting, this isn't a fancy stone foundation. This is the way it was done where you put stones on the ground. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But they're there. Even rubble in some places constitutes historic artifacts. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you're done? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll give the Dinizio historical part of this. Stephenson's Road and all those roads up there when you turn off the Main Road in Orient is like going into another time. The houses are different. The roads are very narrow, some are dirt. This particular barn, which I watch deteriorate since I've been a kid, would just leave a hole if you didn't put it there in a neighborhood. I don't know if that's historical or if that's just the way you want to keep things. But you're doing yourself a much 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 67 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 9 bigger favor by building it there, hopefully emulating what they have. The one foot doesn't make or break, in my opinion, anything with respect to the neighborhood because this is part of that neighborhood. It has been since I was a kid. That's historical when you drive down these roads. When you drive down these roads or if you turn left when you're heading east, you're going back into another place and time, same if you go down the Village Lane, it's the same thing. That's what I think we ought to try to preserve. To my mind, the one foot is irrelevant. You couldn't tell anyway. The house is as close. So I think it'll be a nice addition if it gets approved. Anybody else have anything else to say on this? Anybody in the audience want to comment? Sir, do you have anything more to add? MR. GARRETSON: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until two weeks. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll make a motion. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ******************************************* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 18 Hearing #6073 - Beebe CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Constance Beebe and Sidney Beebe, Jr. Michael, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. "Request for Variances under Sections 280-l5B and 280-l5C, based on the Building Inspector's July 20. 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to an existing accessory building, for the reason that the new construction will be less than 10 feet from the property line and the existing nonconforming size will increase the code limitation of 750 square feet, at 24925 Main Road, Cutchogue: CTM 109-1-20.3." Now, I guess the question is that in having looked at the application fairly closely, there are two issues. One has to do with the continuation of an existing nonconforming setback in another direction that is not going to decrease the existing setback. The other one has to do with expanding a building to, I believe, 2,500 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 68 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 square feet where the zoning code calls for 750. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 2,800 square feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's 2,800 square feet as opposed to 750 which is what is now allowed. Also, given that the existing building is, I believe, approximately 1,300 square feet and it's a preexisting, so it's a legal nonconforming structure with respect to it's size and they wish to approximately double it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a height variance too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a height variance also on that? MS. MOORE: For the peak, yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I welcome your presentation. MS. MOORE: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Board. Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Road, Southold. I have the Beebe Builders and Sons, Tom and Sid are here. Earlier, the neighbor to the east was here and I'll present something further. She chose to go home, she was getting tired. But we worked something out in the hallway that they agreed to and were comfortable with and I'll present that as a modification. Before I get to that, let me give you a little bit of a history here and some correction of some issues. One was that when the Building Department gave me a Notice of Disapproval, they labled this as an R40 Zone and it really should be corrected that the parcel, the house and 200 and some feet probably to the previous property line in 2006, you granted a lot line change that changed the rear property line. I'm sure you remember the application. I have a section of the zoning map, I copied it for the Board to put in your file, and it reflects the old line of the property prior to the lot line change. The rear lot is R40 but the front is RO. I believe that that has a great deal to do with this property because this is very unique. It's a very unique application. One that I haven't had to deal with in the past and I know you don't get many of these, there may be one property in Southold similar to it. The property is, as I said, RO. The use is a permitted use by special exception. But since it's preexisting, it is a permitted use. The workshop is a special exception, it's under the RO zoning category. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 69 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 When the lot line was changed, the rear of the property became the rear of the previous lot and what we are attempting to do is to make the addition to the accessory building not change the character of the area in that from the road you will not see the addition. The whole emphasis here was to keep the residential look of the property the same and in order to build onto the garage workshop, the logical way of doing it would be directly behind it and the property slopes down. So it would be set down. There is a need for the first floor to have a pitched roof that is a little higher because of the nature of the use with plywood that you pick up, it can't hit the rafters. So it was believed that a little higher pitch on the roof line interior space was necessary. But also the bottom floor is open for their continued storage because, as I said, the property slopes down and they can get access to the basement level. So this will allow the space on both levels. The property, the Beebe family has owned this property, one of the Beebe family's heirs own the property since 1932. I made a copy from the 2006 application and hearing and there was -- that's in ZBA #5637 -- there was a title history and that gave you the whole lineage of this property and the historic title of this property. As I said the Beebe family has owned it since 1932. It was transferred ultimately to Beebe Builders or the Beebe Builders started their operation there in the 1960's. In fact, the Zoning Board granted a variance for a sign for Beebe Builders in 1966 that was in your records. So this has been a very long standing continuous use of this property and what the third generation of Beebe Builders would like to do is provide a space that will enable them to work safely and comfortably because equipment has changed. Things have gotten a little more complicated and the space -- if you got a chance to go into what is a very tight garage -- it is wall to wall of three generations of materials and equipment. So it is something that they need in order to keep their business going and they're trying to do it in a very proper way so that it doesn't change the residential look of the property. If you went to see the property, they're very, it's a manicured lawn. It's very neat. It's very nicely done and 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 70 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 as you go by, you really can't tell that the Beebe Builders operate from the back of the property. So it is something that they would like to continue. What we did, our neighbor or the neighbor to the east, Mrs. Harris, again they are long time, everybody has lived there a long time and the first thing that we always try to do is accommodate that neighbors and make sure that there's peace. That we can try to mitigate any concerns that they have and Mrs. Beebe and Mrs. Harris have been long time neighbors for a long time and everybody wants to make sure that they're not imposing on the other. What we worked out in the hallway, again, certainly, if this Board deems appropriate to grant the variance is to shift the addition over by ten feet so that, and I have it drawn and everybody signed off on it -- because she wasn't feeling well, I said, listen we'll put it on that. I'll be sure to submit it. You'll have my representation I will submit it. But we did it on a survey so that you would know what at least the neighbors and the Beebe's all worked out, again subject to your review and approval. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's shifted to the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 west? 15 MS. MOORE: feet which would 14.6. Yes. Shifted to the west by ten give the closest property line of 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just the addition? MS. MOORE: Of course, just the addition. By shifting the addition by ten feet, it doesn't encroach too much into the green space that exists between Tom Beebe's house and the Beebe property where this shop is. And it will work for everybody concerned. Everybody seemed to be happy with that and we're going to submit it to this Board and request that our application be amended to reflect it if, again, if it's accepted by the Board. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you'll still have the 7 foot setback that exists now? MS. MOORE: The existing garage remains, yes. The whole emphasis, the reason that this is designed as it is is to preserve the existing garage. Nobody wants to do anything with it other than clean it up. But the addition will satisfy their needs and provide the storage that's needed there. I also have so you'll have it in your file 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 71 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 in case you need to confirm it, but I have what I'm giving you is a copy of the zoning map and I highlighted the lot, again, as I mentioned before, it was prior to the 2006 lot line change. And I also took a copy of the lot line change map that I got from the computer and it appears that, you would think that generally zoning lines run 200 feet back where it's difficult to scale out the zoning map when you're dealing with such a large map and a thick marker. It appears that by the description on the zoning map that the zoning line went to the property line, the rear property line. It would seem to be logical and, in fact, the code does refer to zoning lines generally running along property lines. So I provided that for you. The property line runs 200, where the midpoint of the garage was, where the old property line was is 216.36. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The RO zone? Residential office. MS. MOORE: Res so I have five of each for you. Here is the title history so you don't have to go back to your previous file. Here's the title history provided in the lot line change. As I said, this is a very unique piece of property in that it's RO and the residence is in the back. The nature of this use has been a very long continuous use and the addition is being proposed in such a way that will retain the RO character which is defined in our code as attempting to preserve existing visual character, residential character of an area and the recognition that businesses are allowed in RO. I have the Beebe Builder sons and the owners here and if you have any questions, certainly, I will try to answer them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ask what an argument for extending the building rather than building a second accessory building further back toward the rear of that property. I believe that in the discussion in changing rules about accessory buildings, there was a sense in the Board, correct me if I'm wrong, Leslie knows more about this than I do, a sense to encourage more smaller accessory buildings rather than fewer large ones. MS. MOORE: I can understand that, but here 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 72 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 you have an existing workshop and what we're trying to do is keep the existing workshop. If we were to build a second accessory building in the back, it would significantly change -- first, it would further back in the lawn area and significantly change the character of this property and make it more commercial looking than residential. Constance Beebe still lives in the front house. Torn lives next door, that's the playground. It looks -- it's attempting to keep a very residential character. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you suggesting that one 2,800 foot building is more residential than two 1,400 hundred square foot buildings? MS. MOORE: In this case, yes, because what you have is, that addition is directly behind or we're now popping it over ten feet but still keeping it, ten feet won't really change it, from the street line which they are also throwing the term of scenic byway. With respect to the street line, there would, by keeping it directly behind, there was no change to the street scape. There was no change to the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Suppose it were directly behind, another 150 feet further behind, still with the same street scape? MS. MOOORE: I'm not sure if I understand. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have this building looking like a garage behind the house and then you put another building instead of building it directly -- extending that building to build another one near the back of the property which would be even farther from the street. MS. MOORE: They did consider that. It didn't work -- (INAUDIBLE FROM UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER) MS. MOORE: Yes. You would have to change access. It looks much more commercial. Also keep in mind -- I'll put you on the record here. You can respond to it on the record. That was Torn Beebe speaking. That just didn't work in this instance. Also keep in mind that the workshop is already in place. There is equipment there. It's already set up. It's been that way for a very, very long time. Also, I'm sorry, one more point before I forget, I apologize. Putting a building even if we were to, as you suggest, put a building 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 73 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 in the back, we would need variances for the size of that building as well. Either way we'd be before the Board on variances and really not accomplish what they need and looks wise, it would really make the property look much more industrial than residential. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason I'm asking this question, we're talking about a nearly 400% variance on existing size and that would be true, for example, I'm not recommending this, if they built the accessory building that was 750 square feet, then no variance would be necessary for them. MS. MOORE: They wouldn't do it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That wouldn't be practical. But it does answer this question about the size and so forth and you need, you need a variance any way but at least you wouldn't be -- in other words, why not get a variance for going from 750 to 2,800 rather than one variance to go from 750 to 1,300 and another variance for another 1,300. MS. MOORE: I understand. Well, keep in mind that this is a very unique piece of property. You have an RO property here. So the application of the accessory, the limitation on accessory buildings I think generally don't work in RO. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to have clarification. I'm not familiar with the relevant difference is. MS. MOORE: In RO? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. With respect to this kind of building. What would they be allowed in RO that they wouldn't be allowed in R40? MS. MOORE: No. They are applying the same accessory building limitations in RO but what I'm saying is because you're dealing with businesses at that point in the RO use, that it becomes difficult to comply. I think that in this instance, I've shown you why in this circumstance on this property it would be difficult to comply. Two buildings, just as a personal note, two buildings from my office is a house that has a gentleman who passed away, unfortunately, but he built a very large garage in the back. Mr. Goehringer is not here. He's one of the old timers that would remember it. Ruth, I don't remember if you were on the Board or not, he built 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 74 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 a very large garage because he collected antique fire trucks and you really don't notice that it even exists. I see it from the back of my property just because if I go back there, if I make an effort, I see it. But it doesn't bother anybody. It doesn't look industrial. It doesn't look out of place on the Main Road in historic district because it is precisely behind what looks like a very regular garage. So in a sense, what you see from the road makes so much more difference and our efforts at trying to address how to mitigate for the neighbor because they didn't want the addition too close to their property, we said well, we have no problem. We will shift it over. But our whole emphasis is what do you see when you're facing the property, where it's most visible, what are you going to see? And this addition you really wouldn't see very much different than what's there today. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the size - MS. MOORE: I don't think the size is relevant. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The size doesn't matter is what you're saying. MS. MOORE: Right. Other than the fact, obviously, that you need a significant variance and acknowledge this is a significant variance, but I think you can distinguish this variance from other variances in the sense that this is for a business. This is for a very long, three generation continuing a business. Their alternative would be to go find another property because they can't continue to operate as they are and that is very difficult on an existing business to be zoned limitations. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that that's the only alternative? MS. MOORE: Yes, for this family, this really is the only alternative. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could they buy another property if they couldn't do this? MS. MOORE: What's the choice? MR. BEEBE: If the building is not attached and it's not big enough, there'd be no point in putting a second building on the property if they're not attached to one another. What we want to do is increase our work area and increase our work area as one building not as two separate 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 75 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 areas. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, can you just come to the mic. Because I think you're more capable, not that you're not capable. MS. MOORE: They are certainly more capable expressing their unique -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Describing what you want to do on this business zoned piece of property. MR. BEEBE: Sidney Beebe, Jr. increase the size of our work space. space that we have is functioning now space and storage area. MS. MOORE: Residential storage area. MR. BEEBE: Right. We can no longer run our business, our workshop, out of this area. It's way too small for what we're doing. We're asking for, to add onto this building so we can increase our work area and make it as one work area as opposed to a separate building which would have certainly some functionality but not the functionality that we need. We need continuous work space not separate work spaces. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What do you do, Mr. Beebe? MR. BEEBE: General contractor. MS. MOORE: For the record, because some most of them know you but for the record. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want it on the record you're a general contractor. What are you storing in there that you need this much floor space? MR. BEEBE: It's not so much the storage as the work area to perform the work we do. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're making stuff there? You're customizing. MR. BEEBE: For the jobs we do. bookcases and screens. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's what I was getting at. The items that you manufacture and I'm using that loosely, are not birdhouses. They are things that need to have height and they need to be inside all the time because you don't leave them outside. It's not framing. It's finished work. I want to be clear on that because I don't think that we were clear on that in the beginning. Builders could be cement. Builders could be framers. They could be roofers. You're not that. MS. MOORE: I apologize. For the record, I We want to The work as a work 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 We build 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 76 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 3 should have given a lot more history of Beebe Builders are general contractors but his specialty is the fine specialized carpentry that if you do cabinetry, specialty doors. Things that are workshop. That's why this was called a workshop originally on the Certificate of Occupancy. It's exactly what has always been done. They just have to meet the needs of the community. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would have no objection to that work being done at that place just as a matter of carbine. These are not strictly speaking specified uses under RO, are they? MS. MOORE: Yes, they are. It's a -- there is specific, as a special exception, custom workshops provided that they shall not be all or part of a commercial center. So this is, again if you BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I thought the 0 stood for office. MS. MOORE: Well is stands for lots of things. Office is one of them. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not really -- MS. MOORE: No. That's different. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's more allowing people to do a business on their piece of property. Residential office you don't need a special exception. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine. So it would be -- it's not like a real estate office. It's a kind of business which is appropriate with special exception? MS. MOORE: Correct. And the reason the I believe we weren't sent in for a special exception is that we have the preexisting use. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's fine. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The point of difficulty in this application is it's not a typical -- the Building Department's applying an accessory structure limitation is not a typical accessory structure. It's a preexisting business use and it's almost a principle use. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask, Leslie, I don't want to put you on the spot but this is a law that you're very familiar with. Honestly, did you ever think that this situation would come this way? You were more concerned with -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Residential property 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 77 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 3 not legal business operation. That's why it's a very unique situation. MS. MOORE: Exactly. And I have to say it took me, I really had to search this out (Everyone talking at one time.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does she need to repeat 2 4 5 it? 6 MS. MOORE: I won't interrupt. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm going to repeat it for the record. The question was asked whether or not in developing the new accessory structure code anticipation of the impact it may have on accessory buildings in RO which allows for different uses was anticipated. And I answered no, it was not. That law was directed toward residential properties and the accessory structures that would be appropriate for those kinds of properties and the uses therein. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: And specifically not addressed for legal businesses. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is correct. MS. MOORE: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This would be a constructive comment. Would you want to argue that the 750 square foot limitation on accessory buildings on residential properties simply should not apply? MS. MOORE: Yes. I often times say that the code should not apply to certain circumstances. This is clearly one of them but unfortunately, my answer back from you guys is usually, "that's what the code says." BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That isn't what the code says here, particularly. MS. MOORE: No, it refers back to the accessory schedule and that was the only that when I looked at it, I said I didn't think it applied to commercial until I looked very carefully and by reference goes back to the accessory structure setbacks. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It certain applies to commercial. I don't doubt that for one minute because it applies to accessory structure. I don't think that we're here saying that this particular law doesn't apply here. It does. But I don't believe that this law had any anticipation of this type, specifically, an RO, the RO section of our code which has these types of uses in them 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 78 tit 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 that require more than a 750 square feet -- you couldn't do any carpentry work in that type of building yet it was allowed in the code. It just was not anticipated. I wanted to get that on the record. MS. MOORE: Thank you. I think that's a very relevant point. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do we need to -- Linda just had a question. I want to clarify this. This building and this use is not nonconforming. MS. MOORE: The building is nonconforming in setback and size. The use is conforming by special exception that preexisted. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Right. It's preexisting. It's not nonconforming, I guess because it's a permitted use. It just didn't need the permit. MS. MOORE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Michael, you're done. Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a couple of questions. In shifting the elevation over slightly, the actual addition over to the west, you certainly improve the situation with the neighbor to the east but you've also shifted the elevation and the impact of the peak from that facade from the road front and it would be helpful, I think, to see a new drawing with what that elevation is going to look like. MS. MOORE: If this Board is amenable to what we've presented so far, certainly I ask, unfortunately, Mark had a conflict so he couldn't be here. Mark said, if you tell me the box that I have to work in, then I will work within it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is on Autocad, it shouldn't be that difficult. MS. MOORE: No, it's not. Certainly, we can work on that. It may change the roof pitch. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It will because the grade is going to change. However, the other question that I had was the elevation of the garage entry and exit is toward the west; is that correct? MS. MOORE: (To Mr. Beebe) It faces your property instead, right? MR. BEEBE: It faces west, storage building underneath, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right now the front 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 tit 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tit 25 79 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 9 elevation has some garage doors on it but the side elevation to the west is where you're proposing to bring your driveway down. MS. MOORE: No, wait. That's not right. MR. BEEBE: We're not proposing to do any driveway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's just doors for so you can get in and out large -- so your putting in garage doors not for garage use. You're going to use the existing garage. MR. BEEBE: Yes. MS. MOORE: The front elevation you're going to open up on the first expand out, the addition is going to (Inaudible) . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: is where floor and expand out 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 You have to speak into 10 the mic. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. I'm trying to get 11 them 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: MS. MOORE: Sorry, Get them up there then. I'm pulling out my floor plan. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It shows on the floor plan. I just want to clarify it because when people see garage doors, they think it's going to be used for a garage and you're actually just using it as a means of ingress and egress for large objects instead of a standard -- MR. BEEBE: That' correct. So there wouldn't be any walk ways or driveway or anything. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the only impact essentially other than foot traffic is going to be on your neighbor to the west is going to be simply an encroachment on that setback now which would not have been the case, it would not have been increased. It would have been longer. It wouldn't have been any closer to your neighbor on the west. MR. BEEBE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So my question is, because that's a very open, grassy area back there and I know it's a kind of family compound but, for the record, because we have to take into account impacts on neighbors, I'd like to have some information about how the neighbor feels it would have an affect or not. MS. MOORE: It would, just to give the dimensions, the ten foot change would bring the e 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 80 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 closest point of the rear of the addition, it was 44.6. It would bring it to 34.6 at its closest point. It's greater as you go closer. But how does it impact you guys. MR. BEEBE: It doesn't impact me. It would be fine. There's still plenty of room there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Enter your name. MR. BEEBE: Tom Beebe, neighbor to the west. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a textbook question to help in this. Where, exactly, relative to the building is the boundary between the RO and the R40 on that property? MS. MOORE: From what I could tell from scale and that's why I gave you the zoning map and the old lot line because the old lot line had 30 feet from the old building as the original old property line, the rear property line of this property in the front. So the only place that it slightly, it may encroach the zoning line may slightly go through the building is the triangular portion in the back because the angles are different. It likes like the zoning line runs parallel to the street but the property line was a little bit different. So I can't give you exact, I would have to map it, but since we're moving it now over 10 feet, it may only be a slight. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm concerning with the rear end. The existing shop is entirely in the RO region? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And part of the addition would be in what is technically R40 but it would be part of the same building? MS. MOORE: I would say 90% of the addition is in RO because if you go back to the subdivision map, the piece that I gave you, it looks like the property line or it is that the property line of this property used to be 30 feet from the back of the existing garage. So given that's where the property line used to be, I would say that, again, it's slightly at a different angle but the 30 feet still keeps it in the RO. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the house itself is entirely in RO, right? MS. MOORE: Yes, that is. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the curious thing is that the R40 portion of that lot has virtually nothing in it and it will continue that way. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 81 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I have nothing. I think everything has been answered over and over. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, do you have anything else to add to this, Ms. Moore? MS. MOORE: No. If you're satisfied. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience with a comment on this application? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. MS. MOORE: Did you want me to give you an elevation? A change to the elevation? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I think that that would be important for the record since you're proposing to change the actual siting of the addition, I think you can submit a redrawn for accuracy. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like a precise answer to the question about how much of the addition is in RO and how much is in R40, if you can do that, roughly. MS. MOORE: I would have to ask the surveyor to re plot it. I don't know. I gave you the best that I could. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not asking for a drawing. I'm asking for, at least, a responsible figure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you do it in a letter? MS. MOORE: Yes, I will try my best. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Between 20 and 30% or between -- that's what I'm asking for. I'm not asking -- MS. MOORE: I'll have to do an on or about or more or less type of figure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm going to entertain a motion that we close this hearing until two weeks pending the information that was requested which was the zoning map and elevation. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, elevation? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: A letter describing elevation. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And the percentage of RO zoning to the new addition. MS. MOORE: You're going to get an elevation plan, drawing from Mark Schwartz and a letter describing the percentage of the addition within 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 82 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 the RO versus the R40. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Correct. MS. MOORE: Okay. That I can do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie, second by Ruth. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ****************************************** 3 4 5 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion for a five minute break. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor. (See minutes for resolution). (Whereupon, a short recess was held.) (Back on the record.) *********************************** 7 8 10 16 Hearing #6070 - Brokaw CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ladies and Gentleman, our next hearing is for Bennett Brokaw and Leslie, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. Let me read into the record the legal notice. "Request for permit is returned herewith and disapproval on the following grounds, the proposed construction on this conforming 3.16 acre lot in the AC district is not permitted pursuant to Article 3, Section 280-15 which states that accessory building on the structure shall be located in the required rear yard, proposed construction will result in the existing horse barn structure in a location other than the rear yard." Upon site inspection it was pretty clear what happened was that the barn was built before the house. The horse went before the cart. So clearly there's no house and there's a very nice barn in a very beautiful agricultural setting, I might say, and the barn conforms in every way other than the location which is now legal but will be not in a legal location once the house is built as proposed. So while I'm still searching for my notes, would you perhaps like to fill in the rest of this? MS. MOORE: Sure. This application really is very straightforward in the sense that it's a technical request to put an accessory building 11 12 e 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 83 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 3 that is existing in a front yard because the only logical place for a residence is in the building envelope that was originally proposed. We have the proposed house and the proposed pool all within the proper setbacks but as you said, the barn ends up being in the front. In its placement, it's logical but under the code, it ends up in the front yard. There was never any intent to put it in a rear yard in any case because you want to keep the agricultural use where it is which is with a horse pen is sharing both the front property and part of this property. The residence is tucked in the back where it is wooded and outside of the agricultural area. There was some thinking behind this, it's just unfortunately, our code did not provide for it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I found what I was looking for. So this nonconforming location of the barn was sort of inadvertently created during a subdivision process which didn't really notice that at the time. Is that part of your contention? MS. MOORE: Yes. They didn't really consider -- it made sense where it was proposed but otherwise -- I can't answer for the Planning Board but I think that it all made sense given the efforts to keep this agricultural looking. If you were to push the barn to the back, you would have been pushing the house towards the front and then you would have really, it would have looked more residential than agricultural. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I have to say I agree with that completely. It's a 3.1 6 acre parcel in the AC district and the barn and horse paddock which fronts along -- well, actually the right of way but the primary road which is Bergen Avenue also is a very appropriate look and I think it maintains, visually maintains the agricultural character of the area. It's certainly a very handsome barn and there really is no other place you could put this dwelling anywhere on that lot that is going to create a conforming location for that barn. MS. MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I also would like to say for the record that we received a letter from the neighbor, William and Catherine Hinderliter, neighbors on the east side of Mr. Brokaw, and all 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 84 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 they want to say is that, I'll just paraphrase, they do not object to the variance but they want on record that the neighbors, the Brokaw's, are aware of the use of their land which includes tractors, trucks, equipment operating on a daily basis as a working farm for over 100 years. I think the horse barn where it is and the use of the parcel that way is very much in keeping with 100 year farm next door and as long as the Brokaw's are aware of the neighbor's concern about the fact that the location of a house and swimming pool next to a working farm may cause some dust from time to time and a little bit of noise from time to time and I don't think it would have much impact on their decision as to where they want to site the house but I suspect that it's some information we may want to acknowledge for the record. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They're on the east. MS. MOORE: Yes, they're the easterly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They're pretty far 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 away. e 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, yes. I think it's an amenity to the area and I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I agree. I would say, I wonder if it would be more difficult but a question with the same answer, given the land, if the barn and the house were presented together, there still would be required a variance for this. But it's not clear to me that that wouldn't be a case for approving it exactly as they are planning it right now given the fact that that's the best place for the barn and that's the best place for the house. It all adds up to do with the fact that it's a flag lot and somehow the front yard of a flag lot in this case is not quite like the front yard of a house that's right on the street. So I don't have any problems with this. MS. MOORE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think it looks just fine. I had a little trouble finding it but once I did, I was fine and I think the barn looks great, the horses look great and I'm sure the house will look just as nice. It's well in keeping of the area. It's an attractive addition. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 85 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 MS. MOORE: Good. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions. Anybody in the audience wish to make a comment on this application? Ms. Moore, do you have anything else to add? MS. MOORE: No, I just would introduce you to Bennett Brokaw who's here, the applicant, he's in the audience, and just say hello. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything that you would like to say, Mr. Brokaw? MR. BROKAW: I'm glad you appreciate my barn. The horses love it and we love it very much. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One comment on the barn is the attractiveness of the barn gives us some confidence in thinking that the house will probably not be an eyesore either. MR. BROKAW: If you look at the plans for the house. MS. MOORE: Did you get a copy of the plans in your file? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We have a detailed copy of the horse barn but not for the house. MR. BROKAW: Basically, the house is a rendition of the barn. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I remember reading 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 that. 16 MR. BROKAW: It's basically a little bigger than the barn, it's a barn. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Having seen the barn, we've seen Exhibit A. MR. BROKAW: I think it's going to be very nice when it's all completed. MS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Hearing no more comments, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ************************************** 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hearing #6038 - Callahan CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for Ann Callahan. Leslie, that's yours again. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, let me read the e 25 86 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6 notice, please. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-122, based on the Building Inspector's January 30, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to an existing accessory building, with conversion from the existing barn use, to an accessory playhouse or similar accessory use as per code. The existing barn, plus the proposed additions, is proposed in the nonconforming front yard, instead of the code-required rear yard, at 21445 Route 25, Orient: CTM 17-4-15." Couple of comments and then I'll turn it over to you. This existing structure, accessory structure fronts on a 20 foot right-of-way which is not in the architectural front yard at all which is really Route 25. You're looking at an existing footprint of 28.6 by 20.3. We're going to wind up with 19.3 foot in height. Want to create a second floor storage with dormers lighting first floor outdoor shower, closet, water heater and closet, half bath to be used as, this is my question. The use is listed in various ways, from a garden house to a tool house to a storage building to a play house. It seems like a multi -- MR. FITZGERALD: As I'm sure you recognize, those are the listings of permitted uses for accessory structures in the zone. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name and address for the record. MR. FITZGERALD: For the record, I'm Jim Fitzgerald representing Mrs. Callahan. So as I was saying, the list of uses are those which are listed as permitted uses in that zone. The reason I submitted it that way is that it's hard to limit the possible uses which are not permitted, which are okay because they are not dispermitted under the code. For instance, one of the uses would be, one which I'm sure would get your attention, that would be a cabana or pool house and the reason for that is Mrs. Callahan owns another piece of property down the road on the Sound and what's happening now apparently is that the grandkiddies are coming back wet and sandy and coming into the house and that's the reason for the shower and the bathroom, the half bath. So it may very well be used for all those purposes not necessarily 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 87 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 entirely or at the same time, obviously. In the winter it would be different from the summer and so on. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the way the notice is written, the only disapproval is for the front yard location, an accessory structure which would be creating a greater nonconformity because of the additions and be 13 feet and 15.2 feet from the deeded 20 foot right-of-way along the property line. I did notice something that I just want to mention, the proposed dormers on the front are 3 which totals 20.3 feet, that's 70% of the 29 foot roof width. Now, you know the code does not allow 70%. The code, the new accessory code allows a much smaller percentage. It wasn't noticed but I do think I want to mention that as an inconsistency in the variances that might be needed. I don't know how you handle that. MR. FITZGERALD: In the disapproval notice. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They should have sited 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 that. e 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They should have sited that in the disapproval. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Actually, what they're doing is they're leaving it now up to the Zoning Board to say it's the new code and to ask the applicant if they wish to apply for a variance in that requirement instead of them writing a disapproval, they leave it up to the Board to redirect the applicant. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Well, I think it would be important to, since you're going to make changes under the new accessory code to try to at least identify compliance or grant a variance if it's not compliant. So, Jim, how do we proceed on this? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, honestly, I'm quite surprised by what Linda just said because it's really not our purview to say whether it's a dormer or not. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: They're saying they want a Board resolution before they would amend it to say they need it. The staff has asked a couple of the times because they had filed in August of 2006, which is over a year ago, that the Building Department doesn't address the new law. I'm confused by that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The procedure is a 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 88 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 little -- ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: We do address the new law. Well this Board has to address the new law. Whether the Building Department is willing or not to amend its disapproval to reflect the new law, you can only grant what's according to the current law. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even if it's unrelated to the specific issue before us? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm a little concerned about us defining what our notice of disapproval should or shouldn't say. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can send it back to the Building Department. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, but I don't want to say, tell them, wait this is a dormer, deny it. I don't think that that's within our -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just point out here that on the plan submitted by the architect, so let them speak rather than me, it says dormers on front total 20 feet 3 inches equal 70% of 29 foot roof. So by their submission there MR. FITZGERALD: That's my doing in response. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That wasn't given to the Building Department. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No, that wasn't given to the Building Department. Jim said that wasn't given to the Building Department. Not the March drawing with the calculations. So that would be the next step. Nobody has asked Mr. Fitzgerald to give that calculation to the Building Department. That's where we're at. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would think he should, that's what I'm saying. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because you have one or two choices. Either we have the option well, we can't do anything until there's a notice of disapproval on it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's under the old procedure, Jim, you know how some of the maps didn't have all the information and now we have a different procedure with better maps. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So this is January 30th. The Notice of Disapproval hasn't been amended since then. The law changed in the meantime. They need to go back. MR. FITZGERALD: How about if we take off 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 89 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 the two dormers and the reason I say that so quickly is that they're really anxious to get going. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean I don't want you to say that we denied them. I mean, I think we see a problem. MR. FITZGERALD: I understand and we talked about this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They're aware of this specific problem? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you're willing to resubmit another drawing to code, the dormers are to code, then the only thing before us is the setback and you don't need anything else except an amended submission. MR. FITZGERALD: We are willing to do that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can grant it as applied or not applied. We're not asking for more variances. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. We'll do that? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: As long as you're willing to. 14 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So can you get the architect to draw something? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We are we now? Leslie, you have your say on this, you're okay? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yep. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim, you have two sets of plans for the first floor on the uses. Which is the one that, the newest one, I would assume is the June 13th one instead of this one? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. No, this is the one with the -- no, I'm sorry. This one with the multiple use description. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Used as a garden house, tool house, storage house and a play house. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And that's the one that's dated June 13, 2007. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, so I don't get confused. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, so Ruth, do you have 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 90 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 anything else? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Carryon. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I did have one question, sorry. I just wanted to ask, is the intention here to keep this structure unheated and to use it seasonally? MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we can put in there must remain unheated. Water? You're going to have water, the bathroom. MR. FITZGERALD: Well, if that is a factor in the approval but toward what end would that be? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, she asked a question and you agreed. That's why. If you have an explanation for it. MR. FITZGERALD: Let me put it this way, as far as I know, but I think it would be unless you need to for some reason that it not be a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That it not be unheated. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That it be unheated. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie indicated to us, she asked a question, is it going to be heated? You said no. MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct but that's before you said what you said. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's why I'm saying it. I want to make sure you understand what you just said. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. May I change my answer then? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: Not necessarily. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it might be heated? MR. FITZGERALD: It might be at some time in the future. There is no plan to do that now but I would not want to make a commitment for the owners that would bind them forever more. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Leslie, are you satisfied or you need to follow up on that answer? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, usually the intent with an accessory structure -- well, I don't know. Most accessory structures are unheated. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can impose a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 91 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 condition without having him say fine or not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I know. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He expressed his concern for that and we certainly can take that into consideration. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Exactly. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's plumbing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If there's plumbing, then you have to drain it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There's heat, you don't want it to freeze. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't want the heat or no heat to become an issue with the question of whether or not you approve this, okay? And if that's the case, then tell me that now and I'll change my answer back to -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: get the approval. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Fitzgerald. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know, obviously, in part the concern, the reason that this comes up sometime is because when you begin to put plumbing in some places, as I'm sure you're aware, and you have all those permitted uses listed, if it's heated, it certainly can become livable space and in some cases it can become a small free space. It can become a little secondary dwelling. MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly. The DEC does that all the time. They say why do you want such a big dock? Are you going to buy a big boat in the future? They attribute future plans to the current situation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, to have to hash that out. It able to have heat in it, sir, time. Whatever it takes to 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 You're too easy Mr. 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I think we're going mayor may not be at this point in 20 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's up to us. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's something we might need to discuss. You seem amenable to either decision. You seem non combative to either decision we make. You would prefer not to have it restricted to not having heat if they're allowed to have heat by code. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's your stance? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but I would not like to have that become a deal breaker. 22 23 24 tit 25 92 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, I understand. MR. FITZGERALD: If that's the case, tell me and I will agree to say it will remain unheated. But if it's not necessary, then I would prefer -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll say this. I have no objection, personally, to you having heat in that building because you have water there. In other words, you don't want the pipes to freeze up. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you drain them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And as you hear, there are other sides to that story. And when we deliberate, one person or two people are going to come up on the short end of this. I can't tell you which way that's going to be, okay. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I heard what you had to say and I'll have my reasons for what I want to do and other people will have other reasons and someone will prevail. MR. FITZGERALD: That's all I ask. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any questions? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There is a neighbor. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Mr. Fitzgerald, are you completed with your presentation? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm done. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Just state your name and address, please. MR. HORTON: My name is Stuart Horton. My wife and I reside at 21335 Main Road, Orient and we are the adjacent neighbors to Ann Callahan on the west side. And we came here today to clarify a few things. Our primary concern is privacy because as this is constituted now, I've got to clarify the sketch, the architectural sketches. I'm still not sure which elevations are which. I assume and maybe you can help with this. I assume this is the west side, the right elevation? MR. FITZGERALD: This is the existing front 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 yard. 23 MR. HORTON: Now, if we were standing with our backs to that, this would the right elevation? MR. FITZGERALD: This would be looking north. This is the front door. I'm sorry looking west. MR. HORTON: You're looking -- your back and my back is the -- 24 . 25 93 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, you have to use that microphone, okay. Maybe Mr. Fitzgerald, you can use this one. I don't know but you can't have a discussion in front of us. We're the ones that have to ask the questions.. MR. HORTON: We stopped in see you folks the other day and we still had this question of which elevation is which and it makes quite a bit of difference to us. Because if the right elevation is facing us on the west, we really don't have an issue. If the left elevation is on the west side, then we got extra windows that aren't there now looking down into our bedroom and our back patio and backyard. So that was our first concern. The second concern is the cupola. Is that accessible? Is that going to be a spyglass area? That definitely spans all of our property and my wife and daughter like to go out and sunbathe. My suggestion, perhaps to rectify that, would be to louver the window lights and not have window lights there. We don't want Ann to be prevented from what she wishes to do but we have a family concern with the privacy. MRS. HORTON: Not only that. I feel that -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, your name, MRS. HORTON: Florence Horton. I feel that with all those windows, I feel that you're taking away a lot of our privacy. It's so close to our property. MR. FITZGERALD: The left side is the one that would be facing you. MRS. HORTON: And it also depends on the size of the windows and it also depends on the widow's walk that you're planning. Is that all glass up there? MR. FITZGERALD: This is not accessible. It's just an architectural. MRS. HORTON: And it can't be changed into glass for the future? Because that would be awful. It would be like having Big Brother looking right down in our yard. And it's so close. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. Hold on. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Jim, we're not picking you up. We don't get your answers. MR. FITZGERALD: The first, the cupola is not accessible and, as far as I know, there are no plans and it has never come up in my discussions 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 94 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 with the owners that it would be any different from what it is now. And that is that it is simply something intended to be an architectural feature. MRS. HORTON: Right now the picture looks like it would be, right now it appears to look like it would be glass so they can get a higher view of the water. That's the way it looked like to me. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Excuse me. Can I clarify this because I can read these plans. The cupola is just decorative. There are no stairs on the inside at all. It's only to let light in the middle because the second floor as proposed has a kind of opening in it with a railing so that you can go up to the second floor but the cupola is going to shine down to the first floor, the light. But there's no stairs going up. MRS. HORTON: Can they put them in later? Because that would invade our privacy. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not -- well, you can do anything architecturally, if you want to badly enough. MRS. HORTON: But if it is stipulated in the present plans then it can never be put it and it would not take away our privacy. Not only our privacy but the people on Lyle's property, Lyle Suttle's property, on the east side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We can condition this as, if you're agreeable, as uninhabitable, non-habitable space strictly a decorative element. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Non-habitable but non-accessible. MRS. HORTON: I know that they are not going to be living there, I understand that, but I know of other places where they do have a staircase and they can go up there and they can get the view. I object to that because it is an invasion of our property and I feel it would an invasion of the east side property. And the other thing okay, let him speak. MR. HORTON: I want to hark back to the elevation again because now Mr. Fitzgerald just told us the left elevation is fronting us. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. MR. HORTON: The right elevation we -- MR. FITZGERALD: Your property is to the west; is that correct? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 95 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 MRS. HORTON: We're on the west side. MR. HORTON: The right elevation is basically as it is today. There are two small windows and a bigger window above as it exists today and that is looking at us. Now, they changed it around and put four windows in. It seems, and again, on the higher elevation -- the left elevation we have a greater height. Again, boom, right down. MR. FITZGERALD: Can we look at the pictures that are in your -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pictures of the actual elevation? MR. FITZGERALD: The photographs. The reason I'm asking -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We're not picking you up, Jim. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here we go. MR. FITZGERALD: This is the side that faces 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 you. 12 MR. HORTON: That's correct which I hope is going to be this. MRS. HORTON: You see that has two windows and a window there. I don't want. MR. HORTON: We would object to that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. That's enough discussion. Mr. Fitzgerald. MRS. HORTON: They had mentioned that we had mentioned this was our side but now we've been told it's the other side and that I don't, I disapprove of highly. MR. HORTON: Ann, Mrs. Callahan told us. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Horton, please. We're trying to hold a hearing here. You guys want to negotiate, that's fine. We will listen to Mr.and Mrs. Horton. You don't need to satisfy them in any respect at this point in time. We'll listen to what they have to say. We'll listen to what you have to say and then we'll make our decision based on that, okay. But we're not here for negotiation. You have an application. Your application has been submitted. We're going to accept it as it is. Mr.and Mrs. Horton have brought up very cogent points. Certainly not ones that I had thought about and we're going to use them to the best of our ability to make a decision, okay. So Mr. Horton, do you have anything else to add to this? Now, we e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 96 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 understand that you have the four windows on the side and you don't like that. You think your privacy is going to be invaded. MR. HORTON: In closing, if they use the right elevation facing us rather than the left elevation, just turn things about, that would be fine. 4 5 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: good about that? MRS. HORTON: Well, right presently, if you look at the pictures he has, on the west side there are the two small windows and a larger window up above. MR. HORTON: that elevation. MRS. HORTON: And that's what we were told that that was what -- I just didn't want big windows and everything invading our privacy. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And the cupola thing is another. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What they've done is added one small window to what's there. Right now, there's three windows. They've added one window. MR. HORTON: windows. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They've repositioned it but they still have one more window. MRS. HORTON: Still takes more privacy away. MR. HORTON: The other things is -- MRS. HORTON: We don't care -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. This lady over here has to transcribe what you're saying. MR. HORTON: I know she does. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And then, guess what, we have to read it. So one person at a time needs to speak and try to speak into the microphone and we'll go on from there. MR. HORTON: All right. Just in closing, Mrs. Callahan, Ann, said that they were not going to change anything on the west end of the barn. So that's why we thought the right elevation was what she meant. But now Mr. Fitzgerald says it's reversed. We would prefer the right elevation on the west end. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: MR. HORTON: Thank CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. You feel pretty 7 8 Basically, almost a mirror of 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 The positioning of those 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 Okay. you. Thank you very much. Mr. 97 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: The right elevation, you will notice, has a door in it on the drawing. The right elevation has a door in it and it is not the elevation that faces the Horton's property. The one that is indicated here as left elevation is the one that faces the Horton's property and as the Board said, the only difference in this drawing from the photograph is the addition of a small window in the upper left hand part of that elevation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you this, Mr. Fitzgerald, what utilization do you get out of that small window? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What utilization do you get out of that small window? MR. FITZGERALD: I have no idea. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is supposed to be, number one, an accessory structure. So windows aren't supposed to be of utmost importance. Do you think you can take that window out? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I'm glad you asked 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 that. 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Could you just submit to us another map that doesn't have those windows in it. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, the cupola. MR. FITZGERALD: Wait. I'm sorry. The one window that is added, you're talking about? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. MR. FITZGERALD: Leaving the three other windows as they are. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. It looks almost exactly like what they are looking at right now. Now, the cupola. You need to somehow convince your neighbors that they are not going to be climbing up there and peeking allover the place. Now, is there a way to put opaque type window in there or something, not glass but something that's opaque that you can get light through but you can't see through? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure that we could but then perhaps the Horton's would say couldn't that be changed later on? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But they would see it being changed. You wouldn't see a stairwell going 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 98 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 in. 3 MR. FITZGERALD: What I would suggest is that the cupola be simply added on top of the existing roof or the rebuilt roof with no connection between the interior of the cupola and the interior -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My understanding was that you wanted to gain the light from this thing. You have this hole in the middle. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It gets the light in. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no objection to that. I mean you just replace the windows with something that is glazed, that allows light in but you can't see out of. Is that a possibility? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would you be opposed to us making that a restriction? MR. FITZGERALD: No, I would not be opposed to that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is everybody happy with 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 that? e 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One question. Just to make sure we have this, you're going to resubmit a plan that is going to show compliance with the dormer code, percentage that is allowed by code. You're going to resubmit an elevation for the west that shows no changes in that elevation relative to windows, okay. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And I think if we condition the cupola as non accessible through any interior or exterior stair, that as far as I'm concerned, noone will be able to see out of it no matter what you put in it whether it's translucent or clear. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you can't get there, you can't look out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you can't get to it, you can't look out of it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I think the concern with that, Leslie, is anybody, you can tell anybody that but inside a building you can do just about anything you want and get away with it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, if you look at this floor plan, it would be pretty doggone difficult for them to put in an access stair based on what they're being approved on. There's a hole in the middle. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 99 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you on that. Honestly, the only verifiable way of doing that is so that when someone looks at this thing, they can tell whether you can see through those windows or not. It's probably a $60 fix as opposed to spending $5,000 or $6,000 building a stairwell inside. But certainly it's something that's verifiable and certainly that's something that may make the neighbors feel a little better. That's only my opinion. MR. FITZGERALD: We will indicate that the glazing in the cupola will be translucent glass or plastic. MRS. HORTON: May I have one more? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure. MRS. HORTON: I was also told that there really wasn't going to be a lot of change made on that barn but the dormers, the cupola, all the windows, the doors on all the sides, north and south side, the east and west side. That's a lot of changes for an old antique barn. That's what I feel. I don't care about Ann utilizing the barn. That's hers. That's fine. But I think when you start talking about all these things and now we're having some problem with a cupola which could easily just get one of those wrought iron winding stairs they could put it at any time they wanted to. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, we're taking care of that now, Mrs. Horton. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The one thing I want to point out again is the size of the cupola is such that if you put winding stairs up to it, there would be no -- MRS. HORTON: I'm just mean one of those small ones like in a lighthouse. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes but there would be no physically big enough space for anybody to do anything with. You'd be going up standing on a stair landing and looking out. You couldn't put a chair in there. MRS. HORTON: No. What they use them for is just to get the view of the Sound and the Bay. That's all. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: To walk up a flight of stairs and to look out? MRS. HORTON: Yes, they will. I know somebody who already has one. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 100 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Listen, I think we ironed most of this out. The applicant is entitled to make changes to this building and they're entitled to enjoy to some respect even entitled to enjoy a variance, you know, if it's a hardship. I think we've covered this enough. If anybody in the audience has anything to say, say it right now. If not, I'll entertain a motion -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I have a question. A clarification of the record on the use of the building. What it will be used for? What is it proposed for Is it going to be sleeping or any overnight purposes and intent? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can ask that question. Mr. Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Could you hear me? I was talking kind of low. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Come up to the microphone, please. Are you going to have sleeping quarters in this? Any intention? MR. FITZGERALD: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So it's not going to be inhabited in any way? MR. FITZGERALD: It's not overnight. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No kitchen? MR. FITZGERALD: No kitchen. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else that you would need, Linda? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I think that's good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Subject to receiving BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Subject to receiving those changes that we talked about; the dormer, the indication on the elevation that the glazing will be translucent in the cupola and that you will remove one window on the west elevation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So we got that down. Motion made by Leslie. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Seconded by Ruth. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ****************************************** 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 Hearing #6041 - Reeve 101 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for Valerie and Foster Reeve has been withdrawn. I don't think we need to do anything on that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Just a resolution to confirm that, that she's withdrawn. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'll have a resolution to confirm the withdrawal of Valerie and Foster Reeve's application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ******************************************* 3 4 5 7 8 9 Hearing #6076 - Simon CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next one is Robert K. Simon and that's mine and I'll read the notice. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-122 and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's July 24, 2007 Notice of Disapproval and Zoning Code Interpretation #5038 (Walz Application), disapproving an addition with alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, for the reason that the new construction at less than 40 feet from the front lot line, which will increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the front yard setback. Location: 3715 Main Bayview Road, Southold; CTM 78-2-14." Sir you wish to be heard, just state your name and address, please. MR. SIMON: My name is Robert K. Simon, property owner of 3715 Main Bayview, Southold. First of all, good afternoon. No relation to Michael, whatsoever. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Disclosure, right? MR. SIMON: Disclosure CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The way you said it. MR. SIMON: Anyhow, I've been trying to, I put in an application to improve this property March 2003. It is now four plus years and I gave a brief history synopsis in the application with my application. I have been rejected because of my first application was to move the house and make it in compliance with you people, move it back and attach the house to the garage. This would put it back about 50 some odd feet from the road. Denied. Reason? Board of Health. Board of Health said you must have a septic system that 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 102 tit 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 is tested and approved because that's what they require from the Building Department before they will give you an application. Had the system tested. Denied. Why? Their reason was that they could not get a substantial sizing of the application because there was no C of 0 submitted with the house. The house was built in 1932 to the best recollection of neighbors and myself. No existing C of O. Applied for a C of O. Rejected. Why? Three violations; dormer upstairs which is put on the house in 1932 only has a six foot six ceiling height. Okay. Please give me an application to repair the dormer. Can't do it because you need the certificate from the Board of Health. After meeting with Mike Verity many times, he suggested repair the house where it is. I submitted the application to repair the house where it is. Rejected. Too close to the road. Back to four years ago, all right. So submit an application for zoning variance. That's the brief history. There are other little incidents that have happened along the way. My plan is to restore the house exactly as it is except with a new ceiling height upstairs of seven feet six inches which requires a new roof. By the way, the back roof could be put on because it's more than 40 feet. The house is only 22 feet wide but the house because it has a front porch is 27 feet from the road plus the front porch which is approximately 8 feet. So now the front part of the slanting roof falls less than the 40 feet. So, I'm here appealing to you people to approve just the repair. The house is not being any bigger. There is an outside stairway which is another illegal thing that had been put on someplace in the 40's or 50's. That will be removed and actually, the house is going to be smaller with that gone. I don't know what else to tell you. Please help. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do you have approval from the Health Department to just renovate the house that stands? MR. SIMON: I don't need an approval from the Health Department because it's an existing septic system that has been tested by an engineer and approved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Very good. MR. SIMON: But to move the house, I would 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 103 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 need a whole new septic system. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we all understand that. But basically the reason why you're before us is because this Walz decision says that if you increase the degree of nonconformity which is, you have to raise that roof a little bit on a nonconforming side of your house and that's why you're here. You need that very minimal variance. So let's see how it goes. Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're proposal now is to leave the house where it is? MR. SIMON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not to move it back. Poor guy's been caught in every kind of circular double bind. With regard to the other structures in the rear yard that are really dilapidated condition, what are your plans for those? MR. SIMON: Refurbish them. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're really going to be able to do that? MR. SIMON: Actually, the back house, there was an illegal residence in the back house, actually it was legal at the time, I guess. Mr. McCaslin (phonetic) who owned the house lived with his girlfriend and I don't know, somebody who lived in the front, that was originally a scallop shucking shack and, believe it or not, I would like to return it to a scallop shucking shack rather than -- there is a bathroom in there but it's certainly not in any kind of condition that you would want anyone to even. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, they both look like if you blow on them and they're about to fall over. MR. SIMON: And getting rougher. Every time it rains, I can't keep the water out. I've tried to patch the roof superficially and it's just treading water at this point. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So your plan is to renovate in place and in kind both of the structures that are there? So your plan with regard to the original oyster shucking structure 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. SIMON: Scallop shucking. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Scallop, to refurbish that. Will it be heated? Will it continue to have plumbing inside? MR. SIMON: No. It has an existing toilet. e 25 104 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 I would like to leave the existing toilet that's been in there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, that's not the subject of this. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to understand potential lot coverage, potential impact. MR. SIMON: My basic plan to answer your question is to move the house back, to finish the house in its -- this is what Mike told me to do. Get the house done as it is where it is. Once that is done, I can apply for the C of O. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Wait, sir. Let's just talk about this particular application. MR. SIMON: That's what I'm talking about, the front house. I'm not talking about anything else. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just go as far as getting a CO for this house. Don't go any farther than that. We don't need to discuss scallop shops. We don't need to discuss lot coverage. We don't need to discuss any other setback other than this 40 foot dormer. And I'd like for that to be just part of that record. MR. SIMON: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, you have anything else you'd like to add? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just to clarify that you're dealing with an existing 27 foot front yard setback and the increase in nonconformity is going to be simply as a result of renovation which will create a second floor that will go from a nonconforming six foot six inch ceiling height to a seven foot six inch ceiling height. There will not be two houses on the property. MR. SIMON: No, correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. Question. I think the question of the moving of the house is relevant to part of the reasons for justifying, for giving the variance for the 27 feet. If you're planning to move it, that has some relevance. Now, would it be less expensive, if it were legally permissible, would it be less expensive to move the house first and then do these repairs? MR. SIMON: With due respect to the Chairman, if we don't want to address the problem 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 105 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 but I will be glad to address the problem, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'd prefer that you did not. 4 6 MR. SIMON: It would definitely be smarter to move the house first because first of all, the original plan that was submitted to the Building Department included a whole new foundation. So now we're starting from something substantial. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The problem with it, Mike, is that we have to hear certain information pertaining to what we're going to make the decision on. We're not going to make a decision that he can't put this dormer on based on the fact that he can't move the house, okay. I prefer not to have that as part of this hearing. It's not relevant. It's not relevant to our decision. shouldn't be made any part of our record and we should make a decision just based on what we see which is a very minimal increase, about a two and a half foot increase, in height that is not nonconforming to this particular building. What Mr. Simon does after that will probably be the subject of another hearing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was trying to pursue that a little bit further. In the discussion as to award, I think the relevant variance, is whether to give him the thirteen foot variance for the front yard setback and one of the things that makes that more attractive is an understanding that that's going to be obliterated when he applies to move the house further back. So somehow there ought to be, the idea of giving someone a variance with the understanding that they're going to remove the house that requires the variance in the first place seems to be really bizarre and isn't' there any legal way in which we could link these two things together so that he could then do both things at once? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Michael, he's applying for one thing. He's applying to raise the roof, essentially a foot and a half or whatever it is. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: front yard variance. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: result of raising a story by a not applying to move the house It 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 He's applying for a 24 e 25 Right, as a foot, right? He's back so I don't 106 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 4 think -- I'm going to try and answer your question. I don't think you can condition the variance of raising that roof a foot on him moving the house back in the future. That's not what he's applying for. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that but 2 3 5 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: So my answer is 6 no. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me try one more paraphrase. Given the history of this, which I think is of some relevance and it certainly makes me, at least, more sympathetic to his particular plight, is the decision to give him the variance whether I think Walz is a silly technicality or not is going to be, based on the fact of whether there's going to be a house in perpetuity 27 feet from the road. And the only reason he's doing this is because he wants to move the house is because it's what he wants to do. So we can't force him to move the house again after he does this. He could sell it after he puts in his dormer with a 27 foot variance. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Exactly, so he should just -- we should rule on the variance that's applied for then as if there's no intention to move it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, he's not asking for a 27 foot variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He's asking for a 13 foot variance. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He's not asking for any variance increase or decrease in variance whatsoever. That exists already. He's asking to raise his roof two and a half feet in a nonconforming location. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But is he applying for a front yard variance? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He is according to Walz. It increases the degree of nonconformity but not 7 8 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The front yard variance is for the whole house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's existing. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: He's not applying for a front yard variance. There's already a . 25 107 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 nonconformity in the front yard setback. It's a nonconforming setback. He's applying to increase the degree of nonconformity within that setback. So you're not granting him a 27 foot setback. You're granting an increase in the degree of nonconformance, of existing nonconformity. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Increase in bulk. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: If you choose to grant it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not convinced. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just one quick thing. In doing this, the foundation which exists now, is really cinder block. MR. SIMON: You're looking at only the front porch. The front porch. The rest of the foundation is poured concrete. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay and it's in decent enough shape for you to proceed with construction without having to tear stuff down? MR. SIMON: Okay. To answer your question, if you look at all the windows in the house which happen to have plywood on them now because of the Building Department. All the windows are square. You look at the lines of shingles not on the porch because it was built on piers and they have all -- they will be repaired. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. That's sometimes an issue when there's renovation going on. Okay. Thank you. MR. SIMON: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else wish to make a comment on this? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Of course you can. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Gee, thanks. I just want to really compliment you on having the patience to go through all this because the buildings are in horrible shape all of them and it certainly will, any little improvement, will be an improvement to the whole neighborhood, which is a little more classy. MR. SIMON: I do feel bad for the neighbors because it's been -- you cut the grass but you can't prevent kids from going in. If I lived next door to it, I'd be very worried about something going on that shouldn't be going on. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I thank you for trying to clean it up. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 108 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 MR. BENITEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Roberto Benitez. I am a resident in Southo1d. I have known Bob Simon for over 12 years and I empathize, sometimes at 6:30 at the Grateford Deli (phonetic) of all his trials and tribulations in this process. Is that a fact? So I have grown older with Bob and I would really appreciate it if you give your utmost consideration and grant this variance so we can enjoy the rest of our lives with safety in mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You seemed to enjoy this meeting, sir. I watched you back there. You were very entertained by this. MR. BENITEZ: I listened to every thing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don't have an easy job, do we? MR. BENITEZ: I've been a Board Member so I've been at your seat. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else which to make a comment on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ******************************************** 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 Hearing #6063 - Sherman CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sherman. MR. BOHN: Good afternoon. How are you? I'm Robert Bohn. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on just a second, sir. Who's application is this? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's mine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, it's your turn. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You'll have to explain to me exactly what you want to do. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You want to read that notice, please. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, let's see. "Request, as amended, for Variances under Sections 280-10 and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's April 12, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed deck addition which: (1) will be less than 10 feet on a single side yard; (2) will be less than 35 feet total side yard setbacks; and (3) will exceed the code limitation of 20% lot coverage. Location: 260 Founders Path, Southold; CTM 64-2-24." 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 109 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 MR. BOHN: You need to know what we're proposing then, right? You're unclear on what we want to do? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I'm not clear at 4 all. 6 MR. BOHN: Okay. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Your name? MR. BOHN: Robert Bohn, 95 Terry Court, Southold. We propose to, if you'll grant it, a five foot setback on the side yard instead of the three that was proposed. Eliminate the shed and to shrink the deck down to 20 by 30 overall to will then be, I think, a 33% lot coverage but every residence in the neighborhood, if you look into it, can pretty much guarantee that they all exceed. This is an old neighbor with very small lots. The area we want to improve upon is kind of a dead area in the yard. The rest of the yard is complete, planted, beautiful. All the neighbors are in favor. We plan to put a deck at grade with a set of steps down from the residence to the deck. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What is the deck going to be made out of? MR. BOHN: CCA framework and a composite decking, wood. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's going to be at grade level or it's going to be raised? MR. BOHN: Because of the grade situation, it's a gradual slope, portions may be out but we're going to keep the decking at grade as much as possible. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's on the diagram that you submitted. MR. BOHN: Yes, it's on the side of that very simple diagram but it should explain. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth, do you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And how many steps 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 down? 22 MR. BOHN: It should end up being at least three or four from the house to grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Onto the deck at grade coming out of the sliding. MR. BOHN: Out of the residence, yes. All conforming to Town code. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What are the steps going to be made out of? 23 24 e 25 110 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 MR. BOHN: Same material as the decking, wood. 3 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What's the top deck? Cedar? MR. BOHN: Cedar, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's just the underlay with the joist that are going to be CC. MR. BOHN: Yes, for brick ground contact. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you finished? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think I am. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, do you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nothing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If it's going to be at grade, I'm just wondering how you get to us. MR. BOHN: The Building Department has issues with the wood structure at grade. They're afraid we're going to build a residence on top of this wood structure which we're not going to do which we'll put on paper and commit to on paper and get it notarized. For the life of the residents of the home, they're not going to make any attempt. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to say, must remain open to the sky. MR. BOHN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Any reason why it can't be concrete? MR. BOHN: They are against concrete, the people who own the residence. They wish to have a nice softer look. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's kind of fairly impervious, I would say. Water runs through it. MR. BOHN: Exactly. They have some neighbor issues there, the low spot. It's better to have spacing between the decking so water percolates down. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How wide will the boards be on the decking? MR. BOHN: Your typical 5 foot by 6 board, five and a half by an inch and an eighth, spaced a quarter inch. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're still going to sink some, dig and put in some concrete footing to tie in the joist. MR. BOHN: We're going to have to put some 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 III . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 3 kind of load bearing -- we'll dig them into the hill. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's no water there so therefore, there's not going to be an environmental impact on digging. MR. BOHN: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. I'm sorry. I was talking to Linda. I didn't mean to cut you off. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I got my -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You did? What did you 2 4 5 6 7 say? 8 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I asked about the fact that he's going to hand dig the footings and pour the concrete into the hole in order to set the floor joists. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: To the grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: At grade and the answer was yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, Mr. Bohn, the record has been somewhat confusing because of all the different applications on this. And I'm wondering if you would have any objections to us granting a five foot variance on that side? MR. BOHN: On the side yard? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're not going to say the deck can be this big. A five foot variance at ground level. That's basically what we'll come up with. Five feet from the property line. MR. BOHN: Side yard setback, correct? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. That's what you're asking for. That's what the notice of disapproval says but there are so many different maps in there that I can't rely on any of them. But I can rely on this. If we say five feet and the Building Inspector goes out there and it's four feet, we know there's a big difference. MR. BOHN: We'll make sure it's five feet from the side yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's something we can verify. We don't have to fight over well you granted a 22 foot deck MR. BOHN: We'll make sure it complies with the five foot. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just so that's probably, how it's going BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: voting on it right now. you're clear to go. They're not on, 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 112 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, we're not voting. It's going to be two weeks. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just, how big the is deck altogether going to be just to refresh my memory. MR. BOHN: Average out 20 by 30. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's the only 4 5 part 6 MR. BOHN: Showing 21 foot on the drawing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You might want to, just be clear on that. MR. BOHN: We'll make sure we hold -- if you want more, we do a little more. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You better have an accurate. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: When I was looking at the site map, the survey and it looks like it's 18 by 30. MR. BOHN: It's got kicked around a few times. We'll make sure it's set in stone before we do anything. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're responsibility is that five foot mark. If it turns out to be nineteen and a half, you have to deal with him about the wood that you purchased that you can't use. MR. BOHN: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the removal of the shed because that impacts lot coverage. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You said you were going to do that. MR. BOHN: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We'll just put it in there. So what percentage of lot coverage does he need? Not much if it's supposed to be at grade. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim, don't you want to know exactly the size of the deck? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. I don't exactly the size of the deck. I want setback which is what we are supposed dealing with. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Five foot. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The size of the deck is irrelevant in my mind. MR. BOHN: The side yard setback is the issue. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. That's what we grant. I don't care how big the deck is. want to to know to be know the 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 113 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 3 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Now, he said at grade. There may be a difference of opinion with the Building Department as to what at grade means. Do you want -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: figure it out. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: grade. MR. BOHN: Mr. past it's been rule lawn mower over the grade. But they're anymore, so. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Does that mean this is at grade? No, it's not at grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The little sketch over here is what he proposing to do now structurally. See this little hand drawn thing on the side? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No, I think there's a misunderstanding. That's the old one. MR. BOHN: This is what they did not pass. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the one. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: This is the one you're before us on that was denied on August 30th. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the alternate proposal right here. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We didn't get one since then though. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What's this on here? (All Members talking at one time.) BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We never got the That's up to them to 4 5 We're going to say at 6 Goehringer told me in the of thumb, if you can run a top of the unit, that's at saying it doesn't apply 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 one. 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We should get it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We never got one is what Ruth is saying. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We should have it. MR. BOHN: If I coordinate the Building Department as well as you on paper, would that suffice? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, really, specifically, they are going to make the decision as to whether it's at grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Jim's right. We don't need it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to say at grade because that's what you asked us for and 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 114 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 9 we're going to say it's going to be five feet away from that property line and you're going to have to live by that. If you did come before us again, please don't end up before us again. You know what I mean? MR. BOHN: No, absolutely not. long enough, yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If I were you, I'd work really closely with Mike over there and I'm sure this is going to be a very nice enjoyable little project for you, if it passes. We'll know in two weeks. MR. BOHN: Thank you. Okay. I think perhaps Mr. Sherman might have something to say. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, sir. State your name and address, sir. MR. SHERMAN: David Sherman, 265 Lungier Lane (phonetic), I'm the property owner. I'm very confused by all of this. I mean, I'm not a lawyer or an architect or anything although I have spent most of my life in professional government. I've been a resident for 14 years in Southold and now that I'm retired from my full-time employment and I'm part-time employed, I'm looking at making this my full-time residence and that's why I wanted to do this while I was still young enough and healthy enough to enjoy it. I think I understood exactly what just happened but I thought I understand what happened back on the last hearing on August 2nd and then it was turned down. So I will have faith and move ahead. I just wanted to say one thing really and that was, I wanted to thank Mrs. Kowalski because I had made a call which I've done many times in my professional career for public information and I wanted a copy of the transcript, I requested a copy of the transcript from the first hearing and usually in some government that could became a very complicated thing. I just wanted to publicly thank her for her cooperation and her efficiency and her very nice manner because it doesn't always happen. So thank you very much. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We should applaud you for that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Sherman, you know that she worked very hard at getting too. I know that you appreciate that but It's been 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 tit 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 should that I want 115 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 6 you to know that is not a simple request. MR. SHERMAN: That is why I wanted to recognize it publicly for the record. MRS. KOWALSKI: Thanks to Erika too because she did it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else wish to make a comment? All right. I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) ************************************** 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 (Whereupon, the examination of this witness was concluded at 2:20 pm ) 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 116 e 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 2 C E R T I FIe A T ION 3 I, Erika Nadeau, a Notary Public of the State 4 of New York do hereby certify: 5 THAT the testimony in the within proceeding was 6 held before me at the aforesaid time and place. That 7 said witness was duly sworn before the commencement of 8 the testimony, and that the testimony was taken 9 stenographically by me, then transcribed under my 10 supervision, and that the within transcript is a true 11 record of the testimony of said witness. 12 I further certify that I am not related to any e 13 of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, 14 that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the 15 matter in controversy, nor am I in the employ of any 16 of the counsel. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___~_~__ day of ~~~ 2008. -ifJL-~ Erika Nadeau 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25