HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/20/2007 Hearing1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------X
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
December 20, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Board Members Present:
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Chairman/Member
RUTH D. OLIVA - Member
MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member- (start-12:30 p.m.)
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant
KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney (9:40-1:45)
(4:00-end)
2
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 INDEX OF HEARINGS:
3 Hearing: Page:
4 End of the Road, LLC #6013 3-21
5 Brewers Yacht Yard #6102 21-23
6 Dawson #6101 23-28
7 Rosin #6099 28-31
8 Stanton #5948 31-32
9 Scheublein #6079 32-65
10 Witczak #6092 65-73
11 Samaras #6103 73-74
12 Stepnoski #6104 74-60
• 13 Southold Park District #6105 80-101
14 Crary #6108 101-117
15 Marron #6110 117-122
16 Francis J. Coutts Family Trust #6098 122-139
17 Romanelli Realty Inc. #6100 139-158
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
•
u
•
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I want to call a meeting
to order. We need a motion.
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
Hearing #6013 - End of the Road, LLC.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our first hearing is
Jerry's, the End of the Road, LLC. Jerry will
6 read the notice.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
7 "Request for Variances under Sections
280-49 and 280-78B-I, based on the Building
8 Inspector's November 19, 2007 amended Notice of
Disapproval concerning proposed construction of
9 two buildings (with retail, office and bank space
in this B-General Business Zone District. The
10 reasons for disapproving the building permit
application are: (1) one of the two buildings
11 will be less than 25 feet from the side property
line, after demolition of existing buildings, and
12 (2) the accessory parking area is located in an
R-40 Residential Zone District, which the code
13 states is permitted upon approval of the Board of
Appeals under Section 280-78-B-I. The existing
19 buildings are proposed to be demolished. Location
of Property: 11500/11600/11700 Main Road (NYS
15 Route 25) and John's (private) Road, Mattituck;
CTM 122-3-1.2, 2, 5.1 and 17."
16 And that should do it. I am not going to
ask any specific questions. I'm going to let Mr.
17 Mooney present it first.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Then, Mr. Mooney?
18 MR. MOONEY: Thank you. Good morning. My
name is Dan Mooney. I think some of you know me
19 or know of me. I represent an entity called End
of the Road, LLC which is a limited liability
20 company which consists of my three children. Two
of whom are here today, Brendan and Kiernan, who
21 own lots 17 on John's Road and my wife, Maureen,
owns lot 5.1 which is the parcel on the Main Road
22 which consists of the beverage store, the 11600
Main Road, the little blue house; next to it 11700
23 Main Road, which is my office and the LLC is in
contract to buy 11750 Main Road which is the
24 former Len Luwellyn (phonetic) fire extinguisher
business parcel and it would take title to that on
25 January. If I might explain to you what is there
at present, if you look at the Google
9
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 representation, you'll see this is the store which
is the fire extinguisher store, the single and
3 separate lot. This is an office building, my
office. This is the little blue building. This
4 is the beverage store at present with the
warehouse and although this is not an exact
5 representation, I'll show you a survey in a minute
which is, you'll notice that the warehouse and the
6 ice machine are right either on the border or
encroaching on Steve King's sporting goods store
7 which is lot 6. This is 725 John's Road which at
present has a double-wide trailer on it and has
8 had it for years and there's a boat there as well.
This is a vacant lot and there is one house here
9 at the end of John's Road, which is set close to
John's Road. John's Road, you can see on this
10 Google runs along here and the reality is it runs
pretty much up here but there's a little
11 encroachment there in the parking area. But
that's what it looks like if you look at it on the
12 Google sketch and if you look at it in pictures,
it looks like this. That is John's Road and you
• 13 can see the house at the end of it, you can see
the trailer here. This is the back of Steve Kings
19 property which has the sporting goods store. This
is a shot showing that the building is right on
15 the line. The warehouse is right on the property
line. There's a shot from the front showing the
16 same thing with an ice machine, right on the line.
That's the beverage store. That's 11600 Main
17 Road, 11700 Main Road, 11750 Main Road and this is
to the east of 11750 Main Road and this is to the
18 east of 11750 Main Road which is the Cardinale
(phonetic) parcel. If you notice, there is a road
19 that runs right -- you can see the red building
which is this one here -- this road would run
20 right up along the 11750 property. By the blue
house, if you look at the Google sketch, you can
21 see that at present, the road on the Cardinale
property comes right up here and goes right along
22 that house, basically. That's a proposed side lot
subdivision in the back. One lot in the front was
23 just commercial or business and four residential
lots. There is a road cut through here now which
24 comes right up along that property and that's the
one which is evidenced in this picture right here.
. 25 It's not open yet. See the various picture shot
of John's Road showing the house in the back and
5
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 these are the double-wide trailer. This is Steve
King's property next door to Six Kings which is
3 part of the sporting goods store. I think that
gives you a pretty good idea of what is presently
9 on the site today. And as you may or may not
know, I'll explain to you, each of those lots is
5 single and separate. This lot is owned by my
daughter, Deidre, it's single and separate and
6 this lot is single and separate, that lot is
single and separate and this is single and
7 separate. These lots have been merged. At one
time there were three lots here and we merged them
8 about ten years ago. What we hope to do with this
ultimately is to build a bank and an office
9 building and we have been before the Planning
Board on several occasions and done, made
10 revisions, several revisions to the plan in order
to acquiesce the request that they have made to
11 us. What we need from this Board today is asking
for 2 things. We need a buffer of only 15 feet
12 between the office building and the movie house,
the former movie house which is the sporting goods
13 store at present. As I explained, there is no
• buffer at present at all. Originally we had a 25
19 foot buffer in our plan and when we went to the
Planning Board and we talked to the DOT as well,
15 they requested that we change the entrances which
were originally over here to the project that we
16 change it and move it here so that it would be
exactly across the street from Pacific Street and
17 you can see this pretty much better on the Google
sketch that now comes right in here. But when we
18 did that, we had to reduce the size of the office
building and we had to move the office building
19 back so that we would have sufficient and safe
entrance and egress. So that's one of the reasons
20 we're asking for a 15 food buffer rather than a 25
foot buffer where at present there is no buffer.
21 With respect to parking, if you look at the plan,
I believe you all have a copy of that before you,
22 you'll notice the bank building is here and I'll
show you a sketch of the bank building in a
23 minute. The bank building has 21 parking places
provided for it in the business zone. There are 7
24 here, there are 7 more here and there are 7 more
here. If you look at any bank in Southold Town
• 25 today, there is no bank that uses 21 spaces at any
one time in any day or any week for that matter.
6
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Most people run into the bank and run out of the
bank, it's not an extensive use. There's also a
3 drive through and it's on the east side and this
property over here is zoned business so that if
9 the use of it would be basically in a business
zone 200 feet back and the Cardinale property is
5 over here and zoned for business as well. So that
the bank building basically is going to be
6 self-contained, has its own parking and does not
need any other parking. As you note, the parking
7 requirements under the zoning code at this Town
are very restrictive. Most towns require one spot
8 for every 150 feet of space. Southold Town
requires one spot for every 100 feet of space so
9 that you need much more parking than you would in
any other town. In order to do that and to do the
10 office building, we are asking for the second
variance, that we be allowed to use this area for
11 parking. Not for building anything. Just for
parking, for loading zones and a couple of
12 handicapped spots and just parking. There's
several questions. There's a house here,
13 obviously there'd be a buffer between 25 feet as
• the code requires and 15 feet here. I don't think
14 any of these parking spaces here are going to be
utilized because if you look at -- the bank has
15 sufficient parking and the office building and
most people that go to the office building are
16 going to park over here and not use that end
because it's further away, there's no reason to.
17 So I think that most of the parking would be best
in this area. An office building is unlike a
18 restaurant or a club. It's not a 24 hour or 18
hour a day use. It's mostly an 8 o'clock in the
19 morning until 6 o'clock in the afternoon use.
There is very little weekend use in the property.
20 On Sunday, there's probably no use in an office
building. And the bank will not be used on the
21 weekend except for Saturday morning when it opens
until 3 o'clock would be the use of the drive thru
22 on the weekend and that abuts the commercial
zoning so I don't think it would be a difficulty
23 at all. With respect, there are houses on John's
Road across the street as you can see from the
24 Google sketch, they're over here. There's one
here and there's one here and there's one here.
• 25 But if you look at the reality of the situation is
this, that we have a 25 foot buffer at the end of
7
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 this parking area here. We have a 15 foot
planting area. John's Road is 30 feet wide so you
3 then have 67 feet, 67 feet of space between the
nearest house and the end of the parking area and
9 you also -- the houses are set back about 90 feet
-- so there's about 107 feet from the end until
5 you get to any one of the houses on John's Road.
So I don't think that will cause a difficulty or a
6 problem for anybody. The Planning Board has
requested buffers and we're working on the
7 buffers. We're working on a full site plan. We
had a site plan and because of they asked us to
8 move the entrance over, we had to do a new site
plan so it aligns with Pacific Street. The bank
9 building that we have proposed and we've shown
this to the Planning Board and to the
10 Architectural Review Board and I have to say, it
met with rave reviews from the Architectural
11 Review Board. If you look at the Hudson City
Savings Bank which is in Greenport today on the
12 Main Road across from Riverhead Building Supply,
it's not the same architecture but a very similar
• 13 design. Stone on the bottom, hearty planting on
the top and architectural shingle. And the
14 Planning Board, the Architectural Review Board,
they really raved about it. We had a sketch of
15 the office building as well, which is a two-story
office building, and we had to change that sketch
16 because we had to make the building smaller in
order to comply with the Pacific Street entrance
17 requirements which the Planning Board and the DOT
have requested. At present, if you look at the
18 Main Road frontage, you'll note that there are no
sidewalks anywhere on this area of the Main Road.
19 There is no curving. There is 251 feet of
frontage without any curve cut, so cars come in
20 and out at various times from various places.
Under the proposed plan, we're going to put in
21 curving as the DOT requires. We're going to put
in sidewalks. We're going to have only one curve
22 cut for entrance and exit which will increase the
safety in the area and, of course, we'll be
23 directly across from Pacific Street so that you
have what the DOT would like to have for safety
24 purposes. So that's going to be a major
improvement. John's Road at present, as you know
• 25 from the Google sketch, has two lots which are
single and separate which could both be
8
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 single-family homes. The modular or the trailer
that's on there now is a home, obviously, and has
3 a Certificate of Occupancy for it. It's empty at
present and the building lot next door can also be
4 built upon. A year ago my children paid $10,000
or $15,000 to bring a water line down John's Road
5 so that they could build on each of those lots.
They're going to dig that up because we're going
6 to merge all four of these substandard lots into
one lot and that will do two things. It will take
7 all traffic off John's Road from those two homes
so that they're only going to have the existing
8 homes on John's Road and there's one other lot
that hasn't been developed that would be utilized
9 with traffic. So there will be no traffic on
John's Road. There will be a sufficient buffer on
10 that road to make it safe for everybody there.
I'm just trying to look at these notes. If you
11 give me one second, I'll get back to you. There's
cross easements provided for in the plan here onto
12 the next property to the west and also to the
property to the west and to the east. And that
• 13 will provide so that if people are using those
lots for a business, they don't have to pull out
14 onto the Main Road, they can pull back into
another parcel. They'll be able to go back and
15 forth across the back of the parking lot which is
also increasing the safety.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you just say that
again for me.
17 MR. MOONEY: The cross easement, the one
right here -- as you know from the sketch, I
18 showed you the road along the Cardinale property
is going to be right here so that that cross
19 easement will cut right into that property and it
goes in behind the warehouse here on the Steve
20 King property, 6 Kings property to the west. So
that we're going to have a cross easement pulling
21 in and out of the Main Road.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That next lot will have
22 to have a curve cut of it's own, right?
MR. MOONEY: Yes. That's correct. I think
23 we have to discuss what I can refer to as the
elephant in the room. We're asking to use R40 and
24 R40 parking for parking and everybody on this
25 Board and everybody in this town knows there is
another conversation going on about using other
R40 properties for parking and that consists of
9
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the ferry terminal in Orient Point and nobody
wants to talk about it but I think we really have
3 to discuss it. This is very different. That's a
marine zone, that is a destination use. People go
4 there to park. On the Main Road in Mattituck what
would happen if we get this variance, we're going
5 to cut down on traffic because people who use
Hudson City Savings Bank and who live in Mattituck
6 today either have to drive to Riverhead or they
have to drive to Southold in order to utilize that
7 bank's services. By having Hudson City Savings
Bank, and they've applied for, by the way, and
8 received approval from the State Banking
Department to utilize this site, we would be able
9 to cut down on the traffic from people using the
Hudson City Savings Bank. This is not a
10 restaurant. This is not a transportation use.
There's going to be an office building and the
11 people who rent offices in Mattituck generally
live in the Mattituck area. They don't live in
12 Riverhead. They don't live in Orient. They live,
generally, in the Mattituck area so that if people
13 utilize offices in Mattituck and are able to
• utilize the parking there, they will not be
14 traveling as far and it will cut down on the
transportation use of the Main Road going east and
15 west. And there is no detrimental effect to the
environment. We've already done a Phase 1 study
16 on the parcels and we have hired an engineer to do
a full traffic study and I don't believe that the
17 Planning Board would approve this if they found it
had any detrimental environmental effect. Also
18 offices and banks operate during the day. They
don't create traffic at night. The lighting on
19 the site is going to be LED lighting. It's going
to be in accord with the Planning Board request,
20 low and subdued. It's not going to light up the
whole neighborhood. We're hoping that if the
21 Planning Board goes along with it even, that the
R40 parcel in the back will not have to be paved
22 but can be finished in some sort of a composite
material. There's a complete drainage plan in the
23 area that we've done as well and we're going to
have appropriate buffers. We're not going to have
24 additional traffic. In fact, if you look at the
fact that we're closing John's Road to two
• 25 additional homes, we're probably going to have
less traffic in that area. It's not a traffic
10
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 creator. Offices and banks are not places where
people travel to. They usually stop there on
3 there going somewhere else. I think really even
more importantly and I'm going to hand up to you
9 if I could, two prior decisions of this Board
which where applications for similar relief but
5 not the same. Who would I hand these up to,
Linda?
6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
7 question, Mr. Mooney? You said the zoning goes
how deep?
8 MR. MOONEY: Two hundred feet, the business
zoning.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The business
zoning. Isn't that inclusive of a major portion
10 of that parking lot?
MR. MOONEY: It's inclusive of a good
11 portion of that parking lot but not -- it goes to
here. It takes part of the parking lot, this part
12 is zoned business up to here and then this back
part is zoned R40, about 125 feet is zoned R40.
. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How many parking
spaces would that be?
19 MR. MOONEY: Probably 65 to 70.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Percent?
15 MR. MOONEY: Spaces, would be. There's 93
spaces provided, 21 spaces are provided in the
16 business zone. So that would be 65 spaces that
would be in the back R40 parcel.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In this discussion
with the Planning Board and the use of that
18 parking lot in the back which is one of the
concerns, one of the major ones before us apart
19 from the side yard issue, is there any -- I'm not
asking you to -- you are an officer of the Court,
20 but just in an opinion, is there any way of making
that parking lot more country? I mean I realize
21 you are referring to it in more residentially,
apart from the aspect of the surface and the
22 lighting aspect, did they ask you to put more
larger trees in the buffer to buffer it from the
23 residential areas? What is the landscape plan
look like?
24 MR. MOONEY: At present, we have not
completed a landscape plan. The surveyor was
• 25 there Monday picking out all of the frees that we
can leave so that we can go back to them with a
11
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 full landscape plan. But I do know and we've
talked about this with the architects is that
3 we're going to have a full landscape buffer. If
you are aware of the Bridgehampton Bank building
4 in Cutchogue, the rear of that building, there are
red cedars that run the entire length of that
5 parcel and screen it from the next parcel, they're
about 7 and a half feet tall. And I think that is
6 something of similar screening that we're going to
have on this side and on this side. This, by the
7 way, is zoned all business. If you look at the
two decisions that I handed up to the Board, one
8 of those is from 1997 and that's Appeal #4463.
That was an appeal by the then fish market which
9 was located to the west of lot 6 which is the 6
King's parcel and they wanted, they asked for two
10 variances. One of them was a parking variance.
And this Board at that time granted a variance to
11 the fish market and allowed the fish market to
park on the 6 King's property, the back of it,
12 which was then R40. It was only after 1997 that
they applied to the Town Board and the Town Board
• 13 changed the zoning of the entire parcel all the
way back 340 feet to business. So this the
14 parking here on this side is all next to a
business zoned parcel. It's not near a
15 residential parking. It's only here and here that
we have people on those two sides so that this is
16 all now zoned business. But at that time, this
Board granted a variance and it didn't ask for
17 screening. It didn't ask for anything but granted
a variance so that the fish market could park on
18 that parcel which the fish market did not even own
owned. It was owned, at that time, by Harvey
19 Backshore (phonetic). The same is true of the
other application which was in 1987 for a
20 gentleman by the name of David Kapel (phonetic), I
guess we all know his name. He made an
21 application for the snack bar on the border of
East Marion and Greenport to use parking that was
22 owned by the town --
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It was owned by the
23 Village.
MR. MOONEY: -- for parking and it was
24 granted by this Board. So this Board, if it's
consistent, has allowed parking on R40 obviously
• 25 with necessary safeguards and there's no problem
with that. I would repeat that we're not looking
12
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 to utilize this area or to destroy this area.
This is my children's investment in the future of
3 this Town and we're hoping that we can complete
this. One of the things that I would like to say
4 in closing and if other people would want to
speak, I'm not sure, is that I got the impression
5 that everyone wants to work in tandem with the
Planning Board and this Board and that's fine and
6 I understand that but one of the difficulties when
you have a family project like this is we don't
7 have a development budget. If we don't get the
zoning for this parcel, obviously, the plan is
8 dead. There's no question about that. And you
may not be able to decide today whether or not
9 you'd like to grant these two variances but one of
the things that would be really helpful is if we
10 had some indication that this is possible or
probable so that we don't continue to spend on
11 architects, we spend on engineers, we spend on
traffic studies, we spend on all sorts of things
12 trying to get this thing a little further on and
each time our children are laying out money. So
13 if we can know that this is probable or possible,
. it would be really helpful. If you don't want to
19 decide today, that's okay, I can understand that.
But if we had some indication, that would be
15 really helpful rather than just keep spending
money on a project that may be dead after three or
16 four months from now if this Board decides they
don't like the proposal. If you can give us some
17 indication that it's probable or possible or
whatever that will be helpful. I know in the past
18 you usually vote on things almost immediately. I
think things have changed in this Town over the
19 last year or so.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can tell you Mr.
20 Mooney, I just want to go procedure-wise, we
wouldn't leave you with any impression today for
21 or against. We need to deliberate on the
application. So I don't think we would want to
22 give you an indication. I'm sure the Board
members approve. You know you need to present
23 your evidence. You have. We need to listen to
other people in the audience. We don't know how
24 far this will go. We may close it today. We may
decide not. It depends on what we hear. Besides
. 25 that, if you meet whatever criteria there is for
parking, I think you're probably considered, I
13
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 would think. We know you have to come directly tc
us for that. You stated your reasons fairly
3 clearly. Perhaps you'll know in a couple of weeks
what goes on. Anybody else have anything to add
4 to that?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I have a couple
5 of questions but I can wait.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I lost my train of
6 thought.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Go ahead, Kieran.
7 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Just a couple of
questions for Mr. Mooney. The parking that's
8 proposed in the residential zone, how far is the
furthest parking away from the business zone that
9 it's accessory to?
MR. MOONEY: 125 feet.
10 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Okay. Because
our code allows it within 200 feet. I wanted to
11 establish that upon approval of this Board. Are
there any, as we broadly refer to them, sort of
12 natural protected features, beach, bluff, creek,
wetland that the parking would encroach upon or be
13 near to?
MR. MOONEY: There are none. The closest
14 area is James Creek which is about 350 feet away.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: And there are
15 other lots in between this lot and those?
MR. MOONEY: Yes.
16 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Which are already
developed?
17 MR. MOONEY: Yes.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I just say that,
18 in any event. I know SEQRA is being undertaken by
the Planning Board and they'll consider
19 environmental impact but this Board does need to
consider what's around. Obviously, it might be a
20 different story if you were right upon, proposing
parking right on a beach or wetland and that
21 doesn't seem to be the case. On the, I guess the
west side of your road frontage there is also a
22 business use or business zoning?
MR. MOONEY: That's the sporting goods
23 store.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: What about the
29 east side, what's there?
MR. MOONEY: The east side is a parcel owned
• 25 by the Cardinale family or by Cardinale entity and
the front 200 feet of that is zoned business all
14
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the way into the Plaza which is about 400 feet.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: So it's
3 essentially an uninterrupted business zone
corridor. It's back part that abuts residential
4 zoning that we're dealing with?
MR. MOONEY: That's correct.
5 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That's fine. In
terms of your request for this Board to give you
6 an indication, now clearly, this Board, they
usually follow the practice of not making
7 decisions from the dais anymore. They'll meet
subsequent. We have a little bit of interplay
8 with the Planning Board because we have SEQRA that
needs to be done. Certainly, it's not
9 inappropriate for this Board to tell you of any
concerns it has with the application or if they
10 have any problems with it that they wanted you to
address. I think Jim is rightly saying the
11 Board's not in a position to give you something to
take to the bank and reply upon, a decision we're
12 going to grant it or we're not going to grant it.
But it's probably an appropriate time if anyone
13 here has any major concerns, to let you know about
• it.
14 MR. MOONEY: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to
15 address anything on the side yard variance for the
office building?
16 MR. MOONEY: I already had mentioned that if
you look at the present building, you will notice
17 that the building warehouse and the ice machine
encroaches on the 6 King property. The warehouse
18 is built right on the line, the back of the
property and built right on the line and you can
19 see and what we propose here, this one had a 25
foot buffer, we're now asking for a 15 foot
20 buffer. So where there is no buffer, we're going
to give a 15 foot buffer under the present plan.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just didn't know
if there was anything else you wanted to expand
22 upon. I am aware of that. I'm aware of this
property for 30-40 years, there's no question
23 about it. I think that's basically the situation
at this point for me, so I'll go on to my
24 colleagues.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
• 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With regard to the
side yard variance, it is not self-created. It's
15
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 a consequence of the DOT and the Planning Board
for safety purposes.
3 MR. MOONEY: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Otherwise, you
4 originally had a side yard which didn't require a
variance.
5 MR. MOONEY: We would of had a bigger
building as well.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would appear to me
that the buffering that the Planning Board has
7 required that you got on this preliminary site
plan is quite substantial and there is no access
B to John's Road which would have a very different
impact on the residential area. Also as an
9 architect I should tell you that the scale of what
you're proposing is very much in keeping with
10 residential scale, actually. I think that's a
benefit. Have you ever discussed with the
11 Planning Board land banking any of those parking
spaces in that residential zone? Assuming it got
12 granted, land banking would allow it to remain
essentially a grassy area.
13 MR. MOONEY: We have discussed that with the
• Planning Board and I think they are amenable to a
14 suggestion like that and I think it would probably
be the parking spaces on this side that would be
15 land banked. But we have gotten to that point yet
because the parking requirements are substantial,
16 as you know. So we haven't gotten to the point
were we can say we'll land bank these. That's one
17 of the reasons we thought about not changing that
whole area. It also cuts down on skateboarders
16 and things like that if you don't pave it, so that
you don't have kids hanging around. So that was
19 one of the things that we wanted to do. We're
hoping that wouldn't have to pave most of this in
20 the back.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was done very
21 effectively with McDonalds, they land banked that
entire west side.
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because that
addresses a series of issues but obviously land
23 banking is moot until you have a variance to do
anything. So it's a kind of chicken and egg
24 situation to some respect which I think you
described very well in the letter you submitted to
• 25 us. First, I want to thank you for your very
comprehensive presentation. You left absolutely
16
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
•
2 nothing, no stone was unturned and I think that
all of the issues have been addressed. So other
3 than the issue of land banking and what percentage
of cars would be in the R40 zone relative to the
4 total on site requirements, I don't really have
any further questions. You've covered everything.
5 MR. MOONEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a couple of
questions about traffic and parking. You
7 mentioned that the number of parking places that
you are allowing for exceed the typical number for
8 a bank. The reason for that is because there is
also an office building, correct?
9 MR. MOONEY: A bank and an office building.
The code has two requirements. There's one
10 requirement for a bank and there's one requirement
for office or retail space and you have to follow
11 the greater of the two and on the site plan that
we're now preparing, we have both computations on
12 it for the Planning Board to see. We did provide
for 21 parking spaces near the bank so that the
13 bank should not use any of those spaces in the
• back.
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason for the
question has to do with since the hardest question
15 and it may not be all that hard for the Board, has
to do with the amount of encroachment onto the R40
16 and whether the -- my questions have to do with
how much parking is actually associated with the
17 office building. How big is it? How many offices
is it going to be? Is it conceivable that if the
18 Board does decide not to go to give you pretty
much exactly what you want, whether a reduced
19 parking area, to some modest degree, would help to
mitigate any objections to the encroachment on
20 R90?
MR. MOONEY: The office build as proposed at
21 present is 9,986, 10,000 square feet, and that
would require without taking out for the
22 mechanical rooms, things like that, 100 parking
spaces under the Town code. In most places it
23 will be less, it would be 75 spaces. But in this
town, the code is that. So we did cut down the
24 size of the building but even with that we're
still a little bit short on parking. I think if
• 25 you see it on the site plan, it will tell you how
many spaces are provided, how many spaces are
17
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
.
2 needed so that most of the spaces in the R40 in
order to meet the current code would have to be
3 utilized. We're hoping to land bank a bunch of
those because I don't think we're going to need
4 106 parking spaces for an office building and a
bank when you have 21 spaces by the bank as it is.
5 If you look at the parking lots in Cutchogue or
any place where there are offices, this Town has a
6 plethora of parking which sits empty most days
almost every place, Greenport or any where else,
7 not in the Village. The parking requirements are
a little bit oppressive almost and unnecessary and
8 hopefully that may change in the future but we
need this Board to say that we can park here in
9 order to do that up there. If you look at the
entrance to the business area in Mattituck, that
10 bank and that office building is going to enhance
the entrance to Mattituck. Someone said to me in
11 the Post Office the other day, are you going to
have sidewalks? And I said, yes. She said, oh,
12 thank God. That's the problem with this Town,
there's no sidewalks, nobody can walk. I think
13 eventually everyone's going to have sidewalks but
• this is a good size, 250 feet with curbs and
19 sidewalks.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it's been done in
15 Cutchogue.
MR. MOONEY: Yes. If you live in Cutchogue,
16 there is parking there.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The other question has
17 to do with anticipating future traffic.
Generally, I don't think it's a terribly good idea
18 to lean too hard on expectations of future traffic
which is okay because without that -- I mean the
19 argument about the bank being adequate to the
service, the customers, presumably Hudson City
20 Bank is not just interested in attracting Hudson
City Bank customers from other parts of Southold.
21 Presumably, there will be some new customers. If
they're successful, they'll want some new
22 customers. So that will, maybe only a small
amount but to some degree will have an effect on
23 traffic. So you may be unnecessarily optimistic
or pessimistic, depending on what view you're
24 looking at, it has to do with what the traffic
requirements are going to be on the area. On the
25 other hand, I do think that the plan shows a good
• detail of attention to concern of this and thanks
18
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 to the Transportation Board, in fact, that may be
accommodated. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't be
3 too optimistic about the possibility that there
will be no increase in traffic. The idea of
4 building a business is to increase traffic. You
don't do business without traffic.
5 MR. MOONEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. I thank you very
much for you excellent presentation. I really
7 enjoyed it. My question had been also if you had
the 15 foot buffer on the west side, why couldn't
8 you move it over. But you explained to me that
the DOT required to have the curve cut in that
9 place and that's what I thought it must be.
That's why you had the 15 foot which makes sense.
10 Also, I do like the idea of land banking the
parking spaces on the east side.
11 MR. MOONEY: I hope that you convey that to
the Planning Board. Thank you.
12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't know how much
weight we have. But it looks likes like a fairly
13 good plan to me.
MR. MOONEY: Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want to kind of go
over it to make sure we got it. Basically, you're
15 asking for a set back from an existing set back.
You have an existing set back of 0 feet and you're
16 going to make that set back better by moving the
building 15 away from that point?
17 MR. MOONEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You are allowed to have
18 those two buildings on that piece of property and
the reason why you need the variance is because
19 the DOT said we would like to align the traffic up
with the street that's across the street. Makes
20 sense because then, you know, you don't have to
look down the road. And that gives you your
21 hardship and place and in that location. And the
second thing is that you are required by having
22 the size of that building now to have more parking
than the business lot will allow you to.
23 MR. MOONEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you are allowed to by
24 Town code to have parking on a residential piece
of property that you own if we grant you
25 permission to do so. There doesn't appear to me
to be any restrictions or special exception
19
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 criteria that you have to meet to get that other
than us saying yes.
3 MR. MOONEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Besides maybe the
4 landscaping part of it, buffering part which you
must meet by going to the Planning Board and
5 something that we don't necessarily need to
concern ourselves with other than perhaps we have
6 some concern that we're going to see a sea of
blacktop back there that maybe we can comment on
7 in our decision. Does that make it clear as to
what we're looking at right here?
B MR. MOONEY: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. That's all I have.
9 I didn't mean to preach at you but I wanted to
understand it and I think we have a pretty good
10 idea, certainly allowing the traffic to go from
parking lot to parking lot is certainly a good
11 thing for us, for the Town also, whenever that
happens.
12 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: May I preach for
5 seconds only. I agree with pretty much
• 13 everything you just said. I just don't want it to
be inferred from the record that this Board is not
14 basing this decision to allow parking in a
residential district with no standard or criteria.
15 I think the code may be somewhat unclear whether
you apply normal variance criteria or special
16 exception criteria or what. I think in the past
your decisions have used area variance criteria.
17 I don't think that's set in stone but I do think
you need to use your general public health, safety
18 and welfare and impact on the surrounding
community criteria and I think you covered most of
19 those; impact on the adjacent residential area,
traffic, considerations, environmental
20 considerations, general neighborhood
considerations. I just didn't want to leave, have
21 us all leave with the impression that we can just
say yes or no based on an inference.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have one further
question and that may be to you. The building,
23 the entire project requires 100 parking spaces and
he is not going to meet that.
24 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Planning has
ability to waive that.
• 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that's not something
we need to consider?
20
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No. You just
look at the plan that he's proposing and whether
3 you can allow that use on the property.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The spaces haven't got
4 that much --
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That will be for
5 the Planning Board to decide.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
6 question of Counselor? In effect, what you're
saying is that this is not a use variance.
7 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Not a use
variance. I think that much is clear.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's because it's in
the code.
9 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It's an approval,
a generic -- permitted -- if this Board says yes.
10 MR. MOONEY: If it would be helpful, I can
leave these exhibits.
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We have copies those.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have most of the
12 copies.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Very full documentation
13 here.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You did a nice job.
19 MR. MOONEY: The Google is not exact though,
I want you to understand that, because it comes on
15 an angle. It's not exact but this house is not
encroaching on the parking area, okay. But I can
16 leave that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But they are very
17 helpful anyway.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask if anybody in
18 the audience has anything to comment on this
parcel? Public parking? No comment. Can you
19 just come up and state your name?
MS. MOONEY: I'm Maureen Mooney and I'm one
20 of the people involved in the End of the Road
project which means it's the end of a road, it's
21 our last project.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's your hope.
22 MS. MOONEY: You had made a comment that you
didn't want to see blacktop and that's something
23 that we're trying to avoid too, that's why we're
saying the back part of the parking lot especially
24 in the R40 portion, we're trying to really --
either it will be gravel or some other kind of
. 25 substance that doesn't give the look of a massive
semi-mall kind of look to it.
zl
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My comment wasn't that I
didn't want to see it. It appears that you're
3 going to be required to clear that land. To my
mind it's not --
4 MS. MOONEY: I just wanted to let you know
that we're trying to do everything to make it look
5 appealing as much as possible.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The Planning Board will
6 speak to that.
MS. MOONEY: I'm sure they will.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anybody else have a
comment for or against this project? Hearing
8 none, I'll entertain a motion closing this
hearing.
9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor?
11 (See minutes for resolution.)
12 Hearing #6102 -- Brewers Yacht Yard
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is
• 13 Brewers Yacht Yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's mine. Good
14 morning. I'm just going to read the notice into
the record before we get started.
15 "Request for Variances under Sections 280-15
and 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector's
16 September 24, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
concerning a proposed accessory pavilion structure
17 at an amended height which will exceed the code
limitation of 22 feet as per amended plan and in a
18 location at less than 75 feet to the bulkhead, at
500 Beach Road, Greenport; CTM 43-3-2. Zone
19 District: Marine II." Welcome back. We saw
you for a variance that was granted for this
20 accessory pavilion this summer on July 14th, I
think. Now you're before us because you changed
21 the design slightly and you want to -- it's the
same footprint as previously granted and you
22 simply want to increase the height by a little bit
beyond what is permitted which is 22 feet. I have
23 a question actually. On one document, the
notation of the height is 22 feet and 6.25 inches.
24 Whereas on the elevation drawn by OCG Architects
dated 9/14/07, we have 22.1 1/4 feet. So can you
• 25 begin by telling me precisely which document we
ought to be looking at, exactly how high you want
22
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 this to be?
MR. ANGELL: Yes, ma'am. Members of the
3 Board, good morning. My name is Ted Angell, Alpha
Consulting on behalf of Brewer Yacht Yard. We're
4 here this time and hopefully for the last time to
talk about 7 inches. That is the height above the
5 22 foot limitation. We have a 6 inch elevation
for the floor which would be a pervious base and
6 there was a question of keeping the louvered area,
the structure on top of the roof, keeping it as
7 designed and as manufactured rather than starting
to chop it up for the difference of an inch and a
8 half here and a few inches there. So we're taking
about 7 inches in height at a site that is not in
9 view of any residential property. It's well
within the marina area. It's a pavilion but not
10 to agrandize it, it's basically a covered sitting
area and it's a fairly simple arrangement. So
11 we're here now for the 7 inch difference because
the applicant would like it to be as designed and
12 I don't think anyone from any location or vantage
point would be able to tell whether it's exactly
• 13 22 feet or 22 foot 7 inches.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree.
14 MR. ANGELL: But we're here as a matter of
requirement because the Building Department does
15 not have that jurisdiction to grant it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Very clear. I
16 don't have any further questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have no questions
either, it's fine.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions
either. Do you have anything else to add,
21 Mr. Angell?
MR. ANGELL: Nothing to do with my
22 application but this gentleman who was here, it
was a pleasure to hear not only a complete
23 presentation, but a very decent one.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We agree.
24 MR. ANGELL: The decency of that gentleman
was an absolute pleasure. That was worth my time
• 25 coming here.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Have a Merry Christmas.
23
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Better than a soap
opera.
3 MR. ANGELL: But he said it as it should be
said and everybody is supposed to be on the same
4 side here.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else in
5 the audience have anything to say about this
application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a
6 motion to close this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
8 All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
Hearing #6101 -- Dawson
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Patricia Dawson. Michael, that's yours.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay.
"Request for Variances under Sections
12 280-114 and 280-116B, based on the Building
Inspector's October 11, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
13 concerning proposed as-built additions and
• alterations to the existing dwelling, which
14 construction is less than 75 feet from the
bulkhead and less than 20 feet on a single side
15 yard. Location of Property: 7940 Indian Neck
Lane, Peconic; also known as Lot 2 on the Map of
16 High House Woods; CTM 86-7-7.2."
I will like you to proceed. I'll delay my
17 questions.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Good morning.
18 We're here because the property is in contract and
these issues came up when the search was going on
19 as to compliance with Certificate of Occupancy
with existing structures and it became clear that
20 when the house, when the Dawson family built this
house, the husband and wife, the husband passed
21 away now and the wife is living in Florida, I
believe. So we're waiting to close until all the
22 Certificate of Occupancy issues are resolved. But
in 1981 when this house was built and the decking
23 was built and the outdoor shower, because you can
see from the drawings and from your own
24 inspection, there was an outdoor shower that was
placed there on the side and all the structures
• 25 were built in '81. Thereafter, and the timing is
a little unclear, it may have been right after the
24
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 husband died or right before, the decking was
extending along the same line as existing
3 connecting the outdoor shower to the existing
decking. I actually pulled from the Building
9 Department record the plans, the floor plans, so
that I could identify precisely the area of the
5 variance which is the small portion of decking
that extends on the west side of the property and
6 connects to the legal existing outdoor shower. I
have it in here. The property is well screened.
7 It was kept very natural. I saw the LWRP report
and, in fact, if you walk around the property, it
B was not manicured. There's not a lot of grass
there. Along the edge of the bank there are some
9 mature trees. There is one large pine tree that
separates the back of the house from the bank.
10 The bank is protected with bulk heading so there
are no issues with respect to the erosion of the
11 bank and the proximity of the existing house and
the decking to the top of the bank along Peconic
12 Bay. It is a very stable property. My client
tells me that the decking, the screened in porch
13 had been a trellis and what they did is they took
the trellis area and they just made open screen
14 enclosure. So you can see from the photograph
that I took of the property inside the existing
15 decking, the decking that was constructed in 1981,
there is a small screened in porch which doesn't
16 appear to be structural in anyway. It's just an
enclosure on top of the original 1981 decking.
17 Everything there is existing and it's stable and
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
18 have. We almost meet the side yard set back. The
requirement is 20 and it's 18.2 or so. She has nc
19 issue with respect to compliance with any of the
recommendations that were made. As I said, there
20 is no turf along the bank. It's peebles and it
looks like old, the white stones that were used
21 that are pervious and it's naturally vegetated.
So there are gutters on this house and if she or
22 the new owner have to put in dry wells, it's not a
problem. Just holes with stone to collect the
23 water. There's been no evidence of erosion here.
It seems to be a very well drained piece of
24 property to begin with. I will answer whatever
questions you might have. It's already
. 25 self-explanatory there.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. It is
25
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 self-explanatory and I think what is
self-explanatory is potentially but maybe not
3 actually problematic. As you know, the Board and
the Town to whom we report is not happy about
4 as-built arrangements. The question is what can
one do about it? And not a whole lot in many
5 cases. However, am I right in saying that this,
if there is a problem, it's a problem of the set
6 back from the bulkhead and that would never have
been triggered but for the as-built extension of
7 the deck which was simply grandfathered?
MS. MOORE: I want to clarify that really as
8 of two years ago did we consider a sideward
expansion of decking where you're not encroaching
9 beyond what is the historic setback to require a
variance. So at the time that this was done,
10 clearly done more than 5 years ago, they could
have come in for a building permit just to extend
11 the deck slightly over to the side and at that
time, they probably would have gotten a better
12 survey that would have given them a better
dimensional setback from the side because it looks
• 13 like they tried to conform because the old survey
that they had would have shown approximately 20
14 feet. This survey, John Ehler's survey, is much
more precise so it's 18 point so on. But the set
15 back of the decking was already established in
1981 and the rule with respect to increasing the
16 degree of nonconformity, I think was the Walz
decision more than anything else and that is a
17 relatively current decision.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree with that. I
18 was just saying that we wouldn't even be
considering an application for a variance for the
19 set back on the water side had it not been for the
need for the variance for the deck. And if you're
20 right that no variance would have been necessary
had they applied for a permit in the first place
21 for the deck, then it shows sort of the problem
about different pieces of the code being enacted
22 at different parts of time and different
interpretations. I don't have any further
23 questions on this, just on the point, my
understanding was what determined the size of the
24 deck was not the surveyor but the fact that the
shower was already there and that that's how far
• 25 the deck had to reach.
MS. MOORE: Yes. And it looks like the
26
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 shower was placed at approximately 20 feet from
the property line but the angle of the property
3 line was slightly off. So I think that at the
time, they thought they were conforming.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far back does the
shower go, do you know?
5 MS. MOORS: It's right attached to the deck.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The deck was extended
6 to meet the preexisting shower, wasn't it?
MS. MOORS: Right.
7 BOARD MEMBER SION: So when was the shower
built?
8 MS. MOORS: In '81 when the house was built.
They just connected things that were already
9 existing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further
10 questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. It's just one of
these as-builts. Pieces that people have done
12 things in the past that perhaps they could have
gotten a permit, maybe to change something and
• 13 been conforming. But they didn't. I doubt if we
can tell them to take that deck down and so forth
14 and so on. Even with the LWRP it's inconsistent,
it's as consistent as we can make it at this time.
15 I have nothing else to say.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as it
remains open to the sky.
17 MS. MOORS: Except for the screened in
porch, it all is.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pat, do you know
19 approximately what percentage of the as-built deck
doesn't have the CO?
20 MS. MOORS: Just a small portion.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you know or can
21 you figure out about what?
MS. MOORS: I mean, I can get that. I don't
22 know that I trust my calculations.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Hold on. That's the
23 piece that's from the screened porch over to the
shower; is that right?
24 MS. MOORS: Yes. It's on the - about 15 by
15 in approximate distance.
• 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll get it off the
plan. It just helps to know what percentage.
27
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 MS. MOORE: From the plan I can tell it was
12 feet because the existing deck according to the
3 plan is 12 feet in depth.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll look at the
4 survey.
MS. MOORE: Look at the survey because the
5 plans are a little bit off.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll look at the
6 survey to figure it out. It's easy. I'll make a
note to do that. That's all. No questions.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, on that vain, I
thought the covered porch, the roof part of that
8 is part of the subject of this application, right?
MS. MOORE: Yes. That doesn't have a
9 Certificate of Occupancy.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because they covered the
10 deck?
MS. MOORE: Yes. It was a trellis and they
11 turned it into -- but if you look at it, it's very
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're talking
percentages, Leslie, you got to include that.
• 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, you're right.
MS. MOORE: The funny thing is actually
19 that's sitting on top of legal decking. So, in
fact, it's actually -- well, under Walz, you're
15 right.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If Leslie is going to put
16 a percentage in there, you probably should include
that.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're right.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions, no
18 further questions. Anybody else? Pat, do you
have anything else you'd like to add?
19 MS. MOORE: No. Other than the fact that it
really has no environmental detriment here. The
20 property is very stable and it's vegetated and
left quite natural. There's no evidence that it's
21 caused any kind of impact to the bank and it
remained pervious, for the most part, except for
22 the enclosed screened in porch, it remains
pervious.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have
everything you need?
24 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Do you need to go
.
25 to Trustees for this?
MS. MOORE: I did actually and got a permit.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Great.
28
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
•
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That is part of our
record, the Trustees permit.
3 MS. MOORE: I think you have it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm making that
9 statement.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I have it. Let me verify
5 -- I have a permit.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any
6 comments on this application? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion to close this hearing.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor?
9 (See minutes for resolution.)
10 Hearing #6099 -- Rosin
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
11 Heinz and Brigitta Rosin. Ruth, that's yours.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA:
12 "This is for a permit for as-built
additions and alterations to an existing
13 single-family dwelling at 5610 Peconic Bay
• Boulevard, Laurel; CTM 128-2-10. The as-built
14 construction on this nonconforming 21,533 square
foot lot in a residential R40 district is not
15 permitted pursuant to Article III, Section 100-244
which states that nonconforming lots measuring
16 between 20,000 and 39,999 square feet in total
size require a minimum single yard setback of 15
17 feet and a rear yard setback of 50 feet. The
as-built construction resulted in a single yard
18 setback of 10.7 feet and a rear yard setback at
16.5 feet."
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good morning. What
would you like to tell us?
20 MS. GEASA: Good morning. I'm Janet Geasa,
Wickham, Bressler, Gordon & Geasa. I'm Gail
21 Wickham's partner. She couldn't be here
unfortunately today so she asked me to step in. I
22 reviewed this file with Gail and I just want to
say, first off, this may not have any legal
23 bearing but it's quite an attractive decking
situation? We provided you with photographs. I
24 think the problem here is, it's all set forth in
the application, but I think the problem here
• 25 originated because the preexisting house is set
back so far from the road, you see the garage in
29
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 front, it's a little unusual, but that's the
way --
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do you know when the
house was built?
4 MS. GEASA: They acquired the property in
1965. I have the tax card in here, I believe, so
5 that would tell me. The tax card just shows the
1965 sale. It does not indicate, I'm sorry.
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's all right.
MS. GEASA: The upper decking has been in
7 place for approximately, well more than 20 years
without any complaint from anyone. The lower
6 decking for more than 10 years without complaint.
The property is heavily screened with landscaping.
9 The neighbors directly behind the decking and
towards the water have a garage in front of their
10 house just as my clients do. And their residence
is then behind the garage so it's not really
11 facing them. The preexisting house also is close
to the side yard and is actually much closer to
12 the side yard than the decking is. So
comparatively speaking, it's not quite as bad. I
13 understand fully what you're saying about the as
• built situation. Unfortunately, my clients were,
14 believed that these permits had been taken care of
by the people that had put them up. And there's
15 presently no sale of the property envisioned.
They just want to clear things up at this point in
16 time. They're at the point where they'd like to
know all of their affairs are in order and take
17 care of things with the Town. So they've asked us
to take care of that with you. If you have any
18 questions.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's fine. I was down
19 there. I did walk around the whole property.
It's is beautifully landscaped so really no one
20 could see it from the side especially in the
summertime and the decks are gorgeous. They are
21 very well done, they're solid, well constructed.
Just the way the property was built, they put the
22 garage way up there. I think it looks further
away on the survey than it actually is. And it's
23 as-built. Can't tell you to take it all down. So
if anybody else has any questions, but otherwise,
24 it's a well done piece of work.
MS. GEASA: Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same as the last
30
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 one, as long as it remains open to the sky.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have any
3 questions. I just have a comment which is this
house is preexisting and it's set back so far from
9 the road that anything you built behind it would
require a variance because of the set back. Your
5 rear yard is so constricted size wise and it's
very apparent that it has no visual impact on
6 anybody. Just for you to enjoy, basically. I
appreciate your interest in legalizing things. I
7 think if more people were proactive and did that
as a matter of course, we wouldn't have so many
8 attorneys hysterical when they go to contract. So
I commend your concerns.
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a comment, I don't
have any problem with it. But a C of O is kind of
10 like a birth certificate. It's a good idea to get
it shortly after the birth rather than much, much
11 later. But people have -- my grandparents
generation, it didn't necessarily go that way. I
12 have an aunt who when she was a teacher decided
she wanted to go to Europe and she needed a
13 passport, this was in the 1920s and she didn't
have a birth certificate, so they made one up.
14 They had to because she couldn't get one without a
passport. Then, of course, it had a false date on
15 it because she was an unmarried women and wanted
to lie about her age and the US government gave it
16 because there was no evidence of this. However,
to get back to the point, the history of this
17 house I was wondering, was the house, was the lot
originally one lot from Peconic Bay Boulevard all
18 the way to the water, do you know?
MS. GEASA: It was.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Did the building of
this house predate the sale of your portion of the
20 property? If so, that would explain why it was
put so close to the rear of the boundary. It
21 could have been an accident of the drawing of the
line when the lot was created, two lots from one
22 lot.
MS. GEASA: I see you're thinking that
23 perhaps it was actually in the middle of the lot,
all one piece down into the water.
24 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It likely
predated zoning.
. 25 MS. GEASA: It did predate zoning, of that
I'm sure.
31
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would be a reason
why did they build this house at the edge of the
3 lot. I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have none. Ruth, are
9 you satisfied?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm satisf ied. I'll
5 make a motion to close the hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded
by L eslie. All those in favor?
7 (See minutes for resolution.)
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We want to take a break?
I'll make a motion.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make the
motion.
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So moved.
11 (Whereupon, a short recess was held.)
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll make a motion to
reconvene.
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second.
• CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All in favor.
Hearing #5948 -- Stanton
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, we have to talk
about Stanton. I understand we have received some
16 information on that. Ruth, do you have anything
you want to read? Do we need to open it first?
17 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We need to open
the hearing and then address --
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, you want to read it
first?
19 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It's a carryover,
just reopen it.
20 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's a carryover,
Ruth. We don't have to read it. Ms. Moore is
21 here.
MS. MOORE: We requested an adjournment
22 because my clients have been waiting to close on
the property next door to them, the large 8 acre
23 piece and until I know what their plans are with
respect to this barn, they actually have held off,
24 now that they bought the house next door, that
they are going to concentrate on renovating that
. 25 one, probably leave the old house in tact but they
really, this barn is really dear to them and they
32
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 may want to move it over to the main house next
door. But given that I don't have a final, they
3 don't own the property and they haven't yet met to
decide on what they want to do, it seems to me a
4 kind of a waste of your time and their time to
proceed at this point without knowing what the
5 plan is going to be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You want a motion to
6 adjourn?
MS. MOORS: I requested the adjournment,
7 yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any
8 comments on it?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll make a motion to
adjourn.
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Without a date.
12 MS. MOORS: I'll re notice it once I know
what the Building Department says we can and can't
13 do, then I will have to either re notice for this
. one or another. We don't know what we're doing
14 yet.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We have a motion.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie,
second by Ruth to adjourn without a date. All
16 those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
17 ~~+~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hearing #6079 - Scheublein.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next one is Kenneth
Scheublein. Ruth, that's yours, the carryover.
19 Just state your name and we'll get going.
MS. DOTY: Is this on? Deborah Doty, I'm
20 for the applicant, Kenneth Scheublein who is here
with us again today. I'll try to keep this brief
21 because we went through a fairly lengthy meeting
the last time. As the Board knows, one of its
22 primary goals is to grant the minimum necessary
variance while at the same time preserving the
23 character of the neighborhood, the health, safety
and welfare of the community. And I would suggest
24 to the Board that what we have proposed is, in
fact, the minimum necessary. It's in the logical
• 25 architectural rear yard of the property. If it
were relocated to the north side of the property,
33
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 that would mean that the structure would be in two
front yards as opposed to one. And I have a
3 schematic here of the front yards on the property
which I submit to the Board. I did review this
4 with Damon at the Building Department once again
on Monday. There is -- if it were located in the
5 north part of the property, it would be in two of
the front yards if it's in the location that was
6 suggested by the neighbor. And I'm not going to
repeat what was said at the prior hearing but any
7 access to and from that structure by either
Pequash, Old Pasture or West Creek Avenue would be
8 close to corners that are fairly heavily
trafficked and I could not recommend it from a
9 safety point of view to put it there. We have
already considered and if you look at the
10 transcript, various alternatives. My client
actually wanted a three-bay garage and instead
11 what he's proposed is a two-bay garage with no
second floor so that using a hobby lift, he could
12 store a third car there. And as a result of the
hobby lift, there would be no second floor and it
13 would not be habitable. Nobody would be living on
• that second floor. We've also advised the Board
14 that there would be no water to the structure and
it would not be heated. There, obviously, would
15 have to be electric. Using a side yard set back
of 15 feet, which is what we had originally
16 proposed, the southwest corner of our proposed
garage would be 115 feet from the northeast corner
17 of the neighbor's home. If we built what we could
build as of right, which is 15 feet off our south
18 property line, that structure would be 110.9 feet
from that same corner of the neighbor's house. We
19 feel that putting up a detached garage in the
southeast corner is the logical place. It's the
20 safest place. It has the least disruption for the
neighborhood and we are, again, recommending that
21 the Board accept our second proposal which moves
it up so it's 23 feet from the south property
22 line. There would be no adverse impact on the
neighborhood. I have some pictures here which I
23 will submit to the Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask Ms. Doty
24 a question?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Certainly a
consideration from my vantage point of the
34
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 adjustment, the question basically is, how can you
screen the building from the neighbor is a
3 concern. Not to the point where you block the
view backing out but to the point of view of
4 screening.
MS. DOTY: Which neighbor are you speaking
5 of?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The neighbor
6 that's present in the room.
MS. DOTY: Okay. It sort of throws off my
7 order here.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, Ms.
8 Doty.
MS. DOTY: But I'll be flexible.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Doesn't mean I
need an immediate response. I don't need an
10 immediate response. Just think about it.
MS. DOTY: Okay. The first picture is from
11 the southeast corner of my client's property
looking directly across at what's known as the
12 Bebbe property and you'll notice that there's a
telephone pole and a large tree there. It's right
13 -- our lot is virtually right on that property
• line. When you go to the next photograph, I moved
14 up approximately 15 feet and took a picture across
at the Bebbe property and that's approximately the
15 dividing line between the Bebbe's vacant lot and
their house lot. That area is not buildable
16 because of setbacks. So we're not going to have a
garage staring into some bodies front door. The
17 next photograph is a photograph of a house on the
corner of Holden and Eastwood and Northcross.
18 It's a triangularly shaped parcel. They have a
large detached garage in, what I would call, their
19 backyard. The next picture is at 990 West Creek
Avenue which is a waterfront parcel, a large 20x30
20 detached garage. I don't remember the setback but
I want to say it's 12 feet from the northern
21 property. It's a smaller lot. It's only .33
acres. And the next picture is 1030 West Road.
22 I'm actually standing on Holden which intersects
with West Road. That's a picture of a 24x28 foot
23 detached garage on the road. It has a building
permit, it has a CO. So there other large
24 structures, large garages, detached garages, in
the neighborhood and I didn't go and take pictures
• 25 of many of the others that exist, some of which
are preexisting code and others that are not.
35
r 1
L J
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 These are just a sampling. In considering the
neighborhood, the Board really should also look at
3 the neighboring property. Once again, I have
photographs. You'll note that there's a shed in
4 the northwest front yard less than 2 feet from the
property line. There's a gazebo on the next
5 picture in the southwest.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hold on one
6 second. We didn't get the pictures.
MS. DOTY: Oh.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't want to
disrupt your presentation.
8 MS. DOTY: The first picture is of a shed.
It's in the northwest front yard of the neighbor's
9 property. It's less than 2 feet from the property
line. The next picture is a gazebo. It appears
10 to be in excess of 100 square feet. That is in
the southwest front yard of the neighbor's
11 property. The next picture is of the shed in the
northeastern corner of the neighbor's yard which
12 is also a front yard. And the final picture which
I apologize for the quality but I didn't want to
13 trespass, is a hot tub that's not attached to the
house. It's located in the eastern front yard of
19 the property. None of these structures has a
variance and the two that seem to require CO's
15 don't have CO's, particularly the hot tub which
presents some concerns because it combines water
16 and electric. Also in looking at the
neighborhood, and I did not make extra copies of
17 this and you can see why, I took the tax map for
Fleet's Neck and I decided, we're almost 100 feet
18 from his northern property line. I'm talking
about the neighbor. Let me take a look at the
19 parcels in Fleet's Neck and see which one's are
100 feed wide or less and I've highlighted them
20 for the Board. There are three sections of the
map. I'm sorry I don't have a copy. This is the
21 subject parcel. Pat, if you want to come up.
This is the subject parcel (indicating) and all of
22 these are 100 feet or less which means that any
structures on those parcels would be very close tc
23 each other and we're almost 100 feet away from the
neighbor. Down the street, once again --
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I just ask you a
question? What variances are you asking for?
25 MS. DOTY: I'm asking for putting the garage
in --
36
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
. '
2 m thinking
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, no. I
why are we discussing size of lots when you're
3 asking for a side yard variance?
MS. DOTY: I'm suggesting to the Board that
4 the lots in the area are small. The neighbor's
complaining about having a structure too close to
5 his house and yet the entire neighborhood, almost
the entire neighborhood is made up of lots that
6 are smaller or about the same size as a setback
from his house to the north property line.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's establishing
character of the neighborhood relative to the side
6 yard your requesting.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If you could read
9 off the section of that you're addressing.
MS. DOTY: I'm looking at Section 103,
10 Section 110, and Section 137. And I'm only
focusing on the areas that is known as Fleet's
11 Neck which is down Pequash or Fleet's Neck Road
and down Still Water. There's a letter that was
12 submitted to the Board by the Fleet's Neck
Property Owner's Association and I notice nobody
13 is here from the Association or at least nobody
• who's on the Board unless Vinny is on the Board.
19 I'm a member of the Association but I'm not on the
Board. Very quickly, I have no problem with the
15 first paragraph of that letter, I agree with them.
This Board is, it's purpose is to grant equitable
16 relief from the code and that's why we're here.
In paragraph two, the setbacks listed are those of
17 the primary structure as opposed to an accessory
structure and, in fact, it's 15 foot for a side
18 yard setback. And as a result of that change, the
numbers in paragraph 3 would change because you're
19 adding another 5 feet and it would be 62x205 and
the square footage would be 12,710. We've already
20 discussed the natural resources which are all
plantings that are on the north side of the
21 property. We have proposed a location for this
structure that is as far down Pequash as possible
22 to avoid what is a dangerous intersection, that's
in paragraph 5. Paragraph 6, there is no second
23 floor, therefore, it can't be made part of the
computations on the shed. And what he intends to
24 do with that area up above is basically put
pullies and string up his deck furniture and lawn
25 furniture. He's not going to put a second floor
• up there and never intended to. At least that's
37
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 my understanding. With regard to the drawings,
we're seeking a location variance. It would be
3 unreasonable, I think, to request my client go and
get complete building plans and specifications to
4 get a location variance. He obviously is going to
have to submit those to the Building Department
5 once he gets the variance and at this point in
time, if he were denied the variance, he's
6 probably going to do what's as a right which I
would suggest is more onerous to the neighbors
7 than what we propose. Finally, I have views from
my client's property. First one is looking south.
8 These were taken recently after leaves had come
down. When you look at them, you'll notice that
9 there's screening on neither side of the line and
that the primary structure that is seen in the
10 first and third photographs is the eastern shed
belonging to Mr. LaRocca and his kayaks and a
11 ladder. Then I have some street scapes and then I
have, the last photograph is views of the
12 backyard. Mr. Goehringer, did I answer your
question?
• 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You did but, you
know, the difference between wild screening and
14 cultivated screening, we'll use the phrase, of
nice, pine trees that grow big, they reduce noise
15 and there's no comment here that this gentleman
runs a very nice hobby and there's no concern on
16 my part that he's not going to be the good
neighbor that he presently is, okay. I mean it
17 depends on how far you want to stretch it. But
the point is, if you clean it up and put a real
18 nice row of 5 to 6 foot evergreens in there and
you continuously maintain them and they grew to a
19 maximum height of say 12 feet eventually or even
farther, that's a permanent buffer. All the rest
20 of this is very nice vegetation but it does not
meet that criteria and that's just my opinion on
21 the situation. I'm not speaking for the Board.
We built landscape plans through the years of this
22 Board that far exceeded some people's
expectations, particularly swimming pool landscape
23 buffers, and I'm just suggesting it. I'm just
throwing it out there.
24 MS. DOTY: I believe during the last
hearing, I had suggested that we would plant a row
• 25 of Leland Cyprus along that line and my client has
no problem with that. It would screen him from
38
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the adjoining shed, for example. So we've already
offered that, Mr. Goehringer, and we stick by that
3 prior offer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not talking
4 about small Leland.
MS. DOTY: Well, Leland Cyprus start out
5 small but they grow very fast.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They grow about 3 to
6 5 feet a year. Depending on the sun.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Depending upon
7 water too.
MS. DOTY: But they grow very fast and they
8 are used typically for screening.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had just seen
9 them installed as a buffer between two houses on
Bray Avenue and these were well cultivated
10 magnificently expensive Leland Cyprus, okay, and
you're absolutely correct. In no way was I
11 disclaiming that this gentleman wouldn't do that
if he was willing to do that. I'm just saying,
12 it's a very expensive plant to plant. I can't
tell you how much this buffer cost. I'm going to
• 13 say $15,000.
MS. DOTY: Well, I'm not going to confine it
14 to Leland Cyprus. It's entirely possible that we
would want to switch out Leland Cyprus for Holly.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It doesn't matter as
long as it's Evergreen and dense and grows high.
16 That's entirely up to the property owner.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: These bushes were
17 $800 a piece.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Everything is site
18 specific.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can discuss that in
19 our decision. Ruth, do you have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Have you moved the
20 garage at all? I don't have my original plans.
MS. DOTY: We gave you -- the garage isn't
21 built. We agreed to 8 feet further north of the
property line.
22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And this sketch shows
that, this one you gave us?
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, that's the old one.
MS. DOTY: No. There's another sketch that
24 should be in your file that's marked submitted --
what day did I give it to you Linda, the 18th?
• 25 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I thought they
were the same map. The Board members are just
39
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 getting it today, some of them.
It's the same location just shifted to the
3 northeast?
MS. DOTY: Yes. We're, again, trying to
4 save that oak tree.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you all set?
5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Let me hear some more.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, you have any
6 questions or further comments?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I was shot
7 down with the bushes so we'll go onto Leslie.
MS. DOTY: You weren't shot down. We agreed
8 with you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know you did.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can discuss that, what
kind of bushes you guys want to plant. Leslie?
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The concept is
correct, Evergreen screening is a very reasonable
11 one that the applicant is willing to pursue that
you recommended and they've agreed to and I think
12 it's perfectly sensible. I had a question, have
you got an idea of how many feet from the
13 intersection of Pequash and West Creek your
proposed garage would be?
19 MS. DOTY: West Creek doesn't connect to --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean Old Pasture.
15 MS. DOTY: Well, it was originally proposed
approximately 200 feet. So if you move it 8 feet
16 north, it would be 192.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay.
17 MS. DOTY: It would be a little bit north of
the Bebbe current driveway.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moving that over
then creates a different alignment with the
19 property owner, the Bebbe property.
MS. DOTY: But it puts it across from their
20 unhabitable area.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: An empty lot as
21 opposed to their house. Secondly, it would appear
from this plan that locating it where you're
22 proposing would be the only location in which
short of just shifting it a few more feet, a few
23 more feet and a few more feet to the north that
would be in one front yard as opposed to any other
24 location which would then place it in two front
yards?
•
25 -
MS. DOTY: No. If you put it on the -
honestly, if you put it on the western side, you'd
40
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
• '
2 be in only one front yard. But that doesn
t make
sense.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Where?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Old Pasture.
4 MS. DOTY: No, if you put it over on West
Creek Avenue, that would only be one front yard.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't see how.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Suppose it was 35 feet
6 from Old Pasture because it's got 3 front yards.
It's going to be in 2 front yards no matter where
7 you put it.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you would have
8 horrible setback problems.
MS. DOTY: That is~correct. You said that
9 is the only place you could put it with it only
being in one front yard and actually, you can put
10 it in the southwest corner and be only in one
front yard.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But if it were here or
here or here, it would be in 2 front yards.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Anything from this
side of the house -- anywhere in here is two front
13 yards.
MS. DOTY: Essentially, yes.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Just want to
clarify that. That's it. Thank you.
15 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We have a diagram
that marks out the front yard in red if you want
16 to see.
MS. DOTY: Sorry I don't have a color
17 copier.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. As I understand
this, the reason that he needs a variance is
19 because it's scheduled for a second front yard, a
35 foot setback is what the variance is required
20 for, so it would be -- we're here because --
MS. DOTY: We're here because it's going to
21 be in a front yard.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It looks as though that
22 the only place that would not have it in a front
yard would be to put it in a place where there
23 simply wouldn't be room to build it, on the south
end of that other.
24 MS. DOTY: Which would be right on top of
Mr. LaRocca's driveway.
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wherever it goes, it's
going to be in a front yard, any plausible place.
41
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 MS. DOTY: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The only plausible
3 place would be actually closer to Mr. LaRocca's
property.
4 MS. DOTY: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then where it is
5 planned now.
MS. DOTY: Closer to his structure.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then the question, is
it's going to be in a front yard somewhere or
7 another, what are the constraints on this? Does
it have to have setbacks of another front yard?
8 Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't. But in any
case, what I think we need to know, I want to hear
9 from the neighbor if the neighbor is here to speak
as to what beyond that is the objection to the
10 place being put as either where he originally
planned it or where you are now planning it given
11 that the front yard argument is not a subjective
objective to the placement of it. It seems to be
12 an objection to the building of it at all. And
it's a technical point. So I would like to hear
13 because without hearing an explanation of that, I
. don't see a whole lot of problem with the plan,
14 the revised plan as submitted by you.
MS. DOTY: If I can just add one more thing
15 and perhaps the neighbor will speak. We have a
plan before the Board of what we can do as of
16 right. I submitted it in the last meeting and
certainly that is much closer to the neighbor's
17 home than what we're proposing and is more onerous
as far as he's concerned. And we're trying to
18 accommodate his concerns while also addressing my
client's needs.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. That's an
answer to the question which I thought I was
20 asking you before.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have some questions
21 first.
MS. DOTY: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have some concerns
about this. Number one, I'd like to make these
23 statements so perhaps you can address them to my
satisfaction. One is, we have and you have stated
24 that this is a very well traveled road, both of
these roads. Intersections are bad. The corners
. 25 are bad. Yet you're asking us to add another
source of traffic to Pequash, to my mind, an
42
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 illogical place, for that lot because the front
yard on that lot is West Creek and West Creek, to
3 my mind, when you drive through that location,
would be the most logical place a car would come
4 out. So I'm not at all satisfied with the
reasoning that this must be in this particular
5 location when by right, you can attach this thing
to the house and not be before us. The oak tree,
6 to my mind, and I'm not an expert, is not a
specimen tree. It doesn't look to me like it's
7 even been really taken care of or trimmed or
something that someone has grown and nutured from
8 its very beginning. It looks more to me like a
tree that someone planted and left. So, I'm not
9 buying -- if you can explain to me why this oak
tree just can't be taken down and this garage be
10 built in a conforming principle location. You
know, I'm not seeing that argument. If you can
11 explain that to me, I'd appreciate it. If you
think this tree is so valuable, please show me
12 some evidence of that.
MR. SCHEUBLEIN: My name is Kenneth
13 Schoenbein, Route 105, West Creek Avenue. I
bought this property four and a half years ago.
19 To look at the property from any one of these
streets, it just looked like a massive mess of
15 vegetation. In the four and a half years that
I've been there, I've tried to save the house
16 rather than bulldoze it and put up a new house.
I've done a majority of the work myself and as I'm
17 doing that work, I started at the house and I'm
working my way out to the edges of the property.
18 This back corner of the property I have done
virtually nothing to. It's an existing tree. It
19 is one of the few existing trees in that corner
that I feel is worth saving. Most of the other
20 stuff back there, if you've seen the property, is
broken down pine trees that are virtually
21 valueless. I can take this tree down, like you
say, it's not really a specimen tree. But then
22 once I build the garage, all I'm going to have is
all brand new vegetation. No mature vegetation.
23 What I'm looking to do is try to retain a little
bit of the mature vegetation that is on that side
24 of the property. And that's my only reason to
want to save the tree. Otherwise, I'm going to
. 25 end up with all ten foot trees and stakes next to
them and quite frankly, I didn't think that was
43
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 what the East End was all about. I've always
envisioned the East End as being country-like.
3 Cutting trees to me doesn't fit the picture. And
that's solely my reasoning for trying to save that
4 tree.
CHAIRMAN Okay. Thank you. I want
5 to follow-up on the traffic.
MS. DOTY: May I? I'll continue with what
6 he said and then I'll qo back to the traffic. The
word specimen really refer to the rhododendron
7 that are on the north end of the property near
where or where the neighbor has proposed that the
8 garage go. Those are mature. They're very large.
I'm not sure you could transplant them if you
9 wanted to. I know the library has some like that
and they tried to transplant them and they fell
10 apart and they died. So that's what the word
specimen referred to -- to mature oak trees.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I was referring to
the oak tree, okay. To be quite honest, if you
12 look at the oak tree, no work has been done on
that oak tree for a number of years.
13 MS. DOTY: I understand that and you said we
alleged it was a specimen.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I didn't allege that.
I'm asking you for something of value. The only
15 value -- if Mr. Scheublein's only value is that
it's the only tree on the property and the
16 specific spot that he wants to build a certain
size building that he needs a variance for and
17 that this particular tree must be saved and he
must have this variance because of that tree, you
18 haven't convinced me.
MS. DOTY: We are suggesting it as a mature
19 tree. I am a tree hugger and I would prefer,
personally, to save it if at all possible and I
20 think that's what Mr. Scheublein is suggesting.
We don't want to clear cut the backyard. We're
21 trying to maintain what had been there and
maintain the appearance of what was there when my
22 client bought the property but cleaned up.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you this, say
23 we give you a choice, either cut down the tree and
have the building or save the tree and you don't
24 have the building. Which one is it?
MS. DOTY: Where are you putting the
• 25 building?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can attach the
44
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 building to the house.
MS. DOTY: I'm aware of that. Then we don't
3 need a variance.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's what I'm saying.
9 If you can answer that question for me, maybe I'd
know how important the building is.
5 MS. DOTY: We could attach a garage to the
house without touching the tree.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You didn't answer my
question.
7 MS. DOTY: I'm answering your question.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm asking you how
8 important the tree is.
MS. DOTY: Mr. Scheublein, I believe, just
9 said that he would take it down if he had to.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. That's the answer
10 that I want.
MS. DOTY: But we don't recommend it and we
11 don't want to see it happen because of the quality
of that tree, which yes, it's just an oak tree but
12 it's an old oak tree. But it is an old oak tree
and we would like to keep it. With regard to the
13 traveling on Pequash, I'm not sure where on West
• Creek Avenue you're suggesting there be an
14 entrance and exit to the garage and perhaps then I
can address the question.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll say where the
driveway is right now, you can put -- you're
16 saying that you wouldn't even be before us if you
put a garage attached to the house where that
17 driveway is. You wouldn't need another entrance
onto your piece of property. It would be the
18 same, everybody in the neighborhood would expect a
car to come out of there because they have for
19 many years and it would just be status quo.
MS. DOTY: Mr. Dinizio, in our plan that we
20 submitted at the last hearing, we did put a
driveway out Pequash, I'm sorry, out West Creek
21 Avenue from the attachment to the house.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All I'm saying to you is,
22 that's not a reason to grant you a variance. I'm
looking for a reason that this one particular
23 corner of a lot that's four times the size of most
lots in this area, that particular building must
24 be there and we must grant them a variance because
there's no place else on that piece of property
• 25 where you could as of right have a garage. Or
wait a minute, or if you're reasoning is on the
45
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 traffic, that it would be reasonable for us to
grant you another area on your piece of property
3 in which to egress the property. I understand
that you can do that anywhere you'd like on that
4 property. I understand that. But aren't we then
encouraging more traffic on Pequash when the
5 logical egress for this lot is on West Creek?
MS. DOTY: Your first statement was there's
6 no place else on the property where we could put
it.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, you're saying that.
MS. DOTY: Put a detached garage. And
8 that's true. I spoke to Ms. Weisman about this
just a few minutes ago. Wherever else we put it,
9 it will be in a front yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I couldn't agree with you
10 more.
MS. DOTY: Okay. So we need that variance
11 one way or another. With regard to the ingress
and egress, prior hearing we spoke about the fact
12 that it was 200 feet from the intersection of Old
Pasture and Pequash and the cars travel very
13 rapidly up and down that road. We would like to
• maintain that distance so that it would not
14 increase the risk of accidents. Any place else on
the property if there's ingress and egress closer
15 to Old Pasture either on West Creek Avenue or on
Pequash would present more of a hazard then what
16 we're proposing. Also at the prior hearing, we
discussed the fact that this was an inactive
17 driveway. It's not going to be used on a day to
day basis for Mr. Scheublein to get in and out of
18 his property. The primary access to the property
will be on West Creek Avenue.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Naturally, that goes
along with this particular applicant owns that
20 garage. That's not to say that someone else
coming in couldn't use that as an active garage.
21 MS. DOTY: But a garage is a garage. That's
what we're asking for, a detached garage.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you 100$
there, Ms. Doty, and that's why I'm saying to you
23 it seems to me like the logical place on this
particular piece of property is on West Creek.
24 And I'm going to make an argument, when we make a
decision, therefore, I'm giving you that argument
• 25 right now so that you can present to me the
reasoning behind adding additional traffic to
46
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Pequash when the logical place on this lot is your
established front yard which is on West Creek.
3 MS. DOTY: You're saying the exit and
entrance on West Creek Avenue?
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's a front yard, if you
look at it, drive by the house, anybody driving
5 down the road, they don't even see the house from
Pequash.
6 MS. DOTY: If the concern of the Board is
that there's access on Pequash, then it would be
7 possible to turn the garage around and have the
driveway run along the south property line of the
8 premises and we could then use the current ingress
and egress. I have to suggest to the Board,
9 however, and to the neighbor, that he may not want
that. With respect to going as of right, I think
10 that is less neighbor friendly for the entire
neighborhood to build an attached garage. I think
11 it would be closer to Mr. LaRocca's home and would
make the current structure larger than it is. So
12 I would urge the Board to locate the garage in the
southeast corner where we proposed. If required,
13 I suppose we could move the driveway but I'm not
• sure it makes sense.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me do a follow-up
here, Deborah. Doing that, means a driveway goes
15 over cesspools, okay. On your plan you note that
behind the house are existing cesspools.
16 Mr. Scheublein, don't you use this driveway to
actually access a garage that you use for the cars
17 that you drive on a regular basis?
MR. SCHEUBLEIN: Xes.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So in order to place
a detached structure in that corner which would be
19 the only other one front yard as opposed to two,
you would effectively block access to an existing
20 active garage; is that correct?
MS. DOTY: No.
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here, look, that
corner right here (indicating). There's the
22 house.
MS. DOTY: I'm sorry, you're talking about
23 the southwest corner.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, this is the only
24 other location for another detached garage in just
one front yard with access off of West Creek.
• 25 There are cesspools over here, are there not?
MS. DOTY: Yes.
47
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So, you certainly
wouldn't be able -- let's say you proposed a
3 detached in this location so you could access your
existing garage and you ran it this way along the
4 southern property line, you'd be going over
cesspools, existing cesspools, would you not, with
5 a driveway?
MR. SCHEUBLEIN: It would be very close.
6 I'm not sure that it would actually be over.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to understand
7 what's underground in order to figure out what's
feasible or not feasible.
8 MS. DOTY: I'm sure, Ms. Weisman, the as of
right submission that was made at the last hearing
9 and is granted this month by --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the building
10 envelope.
MS. DOTY: That's the building envelope. In
11 the building envelope and there's the driveway
going out this way. It appears to miss the
12 cesspool.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where would that garage
13 be?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here (indicating).
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that area.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In that building
15 envelope.
MS. DOTY: That is an attached garage.
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's attached by
the corner.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If this garage were
built there unattached, it would still be in a
18 front yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it looks as though
any detached garage will have to be in some front
20 yard or other. Than the dispute is, which front
yard.
21 MS. DOTY: Correct. And Ms. Weisman's
drawing is quite elucidating because it shows that
22 that's not a logical location in the southwest
corner of the property.
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I put in a
question?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I add one
quick question? What's the difference if you're
• 25 driving over cesspools? I drove over three of
them a day. You put drive over covers on them.
48
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 It has no bearing --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One at a time, please.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question is that the
only way to build this garage as of right is an
9 attached garage, correct?
MS. DOTY: So then if the issue is a
5 detached garage, then it will have to be in a
front yard. And if it were going to be near the
6 other driveway, the main driveway, then it would
be closer to the neighbor's property then it would
7 otherwise be.
MS. DOTY: Correct.
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So then the issue
comes, and the Board has a history of this, is of
9 the value of preserving trees which have not been
taken care of. And nobody has argued that because
10 the trees in the national forest are not taken
care of by hand, that, therefore, they can be cut
11 down if they fit with some bodies reason. So the
question is and the Board has a long history of
12 taking seriously people's efforts preserve
preexisting trees including some very large trees.
13 I've never heard the argument before that these
preexisting trees shouldn't be taken seriously
14 because people aren't caring for them by hand.
I'm not sure how seriously that argument really
15 has to be taken so it becomes the issue
apparently, as I understand it, there are two
16 possibilities before the Board to take the
neighbor's consideration seriously. One is that
17 there be no -- either that there be a variance
which would allow a garage which would allow the
18 cutting down of a tree, would require the cutting
down of a tree or having a detached garage. The
19 reason for this is no longer the question of what
is for the benefit of the neighbor but it has to
20 do with the value, which the Board is used to
addressing, of preserving a particular tree. So I
21 don't see exactly what the argument is. First of
all, I think I need to hear from the neighbor
22 because his interests, his concerns, are one of
the forces that are driving this inquiry and I
23 think we need to take it very seriously.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to ask one
24 question that I hadn't gotten to ask which is, at
your proposed 23 foot side yard setback, the
• 25 existing tree is preserved. The code requires a
15 foot side yard setback for an accessory
49
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 structure so you wouldn't even need a variance for
a side yard, not even at 15 feet.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, hold on a minute.
You are misrepresenting the application. She
4 wants an accessory structure in a front yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand that.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you don't go by
accessory structure --
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a minute, the
issue was brought up about would you cut down a
7 tree? The point is before us is a front yard and
it's not the specific setback that would impact a
8 tree or not. That's all I'm saying. So if the
debate is about whether that's the right corner to
9 place it in, the tree is not really relevant. It
can be done if this was approved tree or no tree.
10 It's basically whether or not that orientation off
Pequash is the least nonconformity that we can
11 grant. It's going to be in a front yard for sure.
But the question is which front yard? That's all
12 I'm trying to do is clarify that it isn't about a
tree or a side yard or anything else. It's about
13 which front yard.
MS. DOTY: And I would suggest that if it
14 were moved 23 feet as suggested in the proposal
that I handed it this week, earlier --
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Moved to 23 feet?
MS. DOTY: Yes, 23 feet from the south
16 property line, the access to the garage could face
south an'd then you wouldn't have cars backing out
17 of the garage into Pequash. However, if it faces
south then it's facing Mr. LaRocca's front
18 property. And we are suggesting that it face away
from Mr. LaRocca's property.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let's move on. Who wants
to go?
20 MR. LAROCCA: Vincent LaRocca, 185 West
Creek Avenue. At the last hearing, there were a
21 lot of things said about my yard. I asked you all
if it was at all relevant, I would be glad to
22 consume your time and address each and every one
of them. I guess I'll ask that again. If any of
23 the issues relating to what I have on my yard are
an issue, I am very glad here to go over the
24 history of each one if any of you think that that
•
25 be relevant at your Committee meeting whatsoever,
I'm glad to do it. I just won't tire you with it
if attacking things on my yard are completely
50
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 irrelevant. But please don't say not to cover it
and someone bring it up at your next meeting
3 together.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I suppose I could
4 ask the Board that. I mean, my personal feeling
was not relevant but other Board members may not
5 want to comment on that. It's a personal thing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think we need to
6 address the application before us.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. So, I don't think
7 it's relevant.
MR. LAROCCA: So none of the issues related
8 to my yard need to be addressed here and they will
not be brought up at the next meeting. Okay.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can't guarantee that,
Mr. LaRocca. It is a discussion and it has been
10 introduced as evidence.
MR. LAROCCA: Am I being remiss not to give
11 you --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, you have every
12 opportunity to do what you feel is necessary to
tell your side of the story.
• 13 MR. LAROCCA: Let me then, very briefly
touch of each one of those then. As to my shed in
19 the back. My shed in the back is an 8x12, 96 foot
shed. It was my understanding at the time, I
15 purchased it, did not build it, that as long as it
was under 100 square feet, it didn't need a
16 building permit.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, hold on. You said
17 96 feet.
MR. LAROCCA: Square feet. My little shed
18 in the back. I have a little shed in the back
that, again I want you to understand, the picture
19 you have from through the woods and the picture
you have from Pequash, from Ken's yard, it's a 9
20 foot high, standard 96 square foot shed that sits
about 55 or 60 feet off the road and that it was
21 my understand at the time, when you buy a shed
that's under a 100 feet, you don't need a building
22 permit for it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it's supposed
23 to be in a conforming location.
MR. LAROCCA: Right and I thought that was
24 50 feet back. In fact, when I asked my attorney,
if it's not and I need a variance, then I'll get
• 25 it. But it's a small shed placed 50 something
feet off the yard that's 9 feet high. I guess
51
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 that's the same with the gazebo. I purchased the
gazebo. It's 70 feet off the road screened by a
3 bunch of trees. I really never thought that a
gazebo would need a variance set that far off the
4 road. If my gazebo needs a variance, then I'm
glad to get a variance.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What it needs is a
building permit.
6 MR. LAROCCA: My gazebo?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I think the law
7 states that you can have these structures, as long
as they're under 100 square feet.
8 MR. LAROCCA: The gazebo is 12x12.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're allowed
9 one.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can have as many
10 accessory structures.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You need a building
11 permit.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, you don't.
12 (Everyone talking at one time.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One person at a time.
• 13 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Can I say one
thing? I know the Building Department has
14 different rules for each situation and yours is
something that maybe the Building Department has
15 addressed or hasn't.
MR. LAROCCA: Okay. I'll just make a point
16 of fact, the shed in the back is over 50 feet
setback off of Pequash, it's 9 feet high and it's
17 96 square feet. It's 8x12. The gazebo is about
70 feet off of West Creek Road and is again a
18 one-story shed. The one that's 2 feet off of my
neighbor's property is what was actually called a
19 doll house and the history of that is my neighbor
before Ken took down ewes between our property and
20 she put up a fence. I think it's a 6 foot fence.
I said I'm going to put a little 6 foot high shed
21 there to store my stuff and she said there's no
problem with that. If you drive down West Creek,
22 you can't see it because from West Creek, there's
an 8 foot row of ewes. My earlier neighbor agreed
23 after taking down her ewes that separated us and
putting up a fence herself that she did not have a
24 problem with it and my current neighbor stores his
boat there and cannot see it from his yard.
• 25 That's the history of that. So there was no
egregious behavior here and intent not to be
52
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 considerate of my neighbors, even without knowing
I needed a variance, if that's what I end up
3 needing. I still set them way back except for the
little doll house, which is what they call it
4 which is 6 feet high and that was agreed to with
my neighbor when she took down the buffer between
5 us and she put up a fence between us. So that's
the brief history of my yard.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn't really make
too much difference. I think we've covered that.
7 Does anybody have any questions concerning that
might bear on this application?
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As long as you're
addressing that, what about the hot tub?
9 MR. LAROCCA: The hot tub is on my patio.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. That's all.
10 That's all I want. You started on this course.
MR. LAROCCA: That's fine. I don't
11 understand why we're talking about my hot tub. I
have a hot tub on my patio and it's made like
12 reckless endangerment and I'm befuddled
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, Mr. LaRocca, we
• 13 see some of the most unusual decisions from some
of the most unusual places. So, I'm glad that you
14 made the comments on them. They certainly clear
up some. You may want to, because of an
15 accusation, you may want to go down to the
Building Inspector and do your thing with them.
16 But again as far as I'm concerned, they have no
bearing on the application at hand. You want to
17 continue?
MR. LAROCCA: Yes. To this variance, first
18 of all because I'm the only adjacent landowner and
I have the same situation with these two yards
19 that we are now discussing, anything I ask for
here, it's not like I'm the neighbor from down the
20 road that has no dog in this hunt. I have another
dog in this hunt which is anything I say here, I
21 don't have any garage and I will probably want a
garage. And I will probably be standing here
22 before you asking for a detached garage someday.
So the words I choose here are careful and not
23 frivolous as to what I think is fair and
reasonable of someone in my situation that has a
24 yard that's my backyard but it does affront the
road. So I'm not just pulling this stuff up. I'm
. 25 going to have to may well be presented with my own
words at a future date. The Chairman asked at the
53
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 last hearing, he said, "why can't you just attach
it to the house?" And Ms. Doty said, "We could.
3 I'm just not sure it's as neighbor friendly as
this is." So there's no ambiguity. I would much
4 prefer that he have an attached garage. He does
not need my permission nor your permission and he
5 should do whatever is legal and whatever the code
provides him to do. I have no objection to an
6 attached garage, nor do I have any right to have
an objection. I would prefer he have an attached
7 garage rather than a detached garage.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would that be on either
8 side of the house?
MR. LAROCCA: Yes. And I don't believe that
9 I would have any right to challenge it on either
side. I would rather him have an attached garage.
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you say why?
MR. LAROCCA: Well, it's my preference that
11 I would prefer that. Do I need to say why?
Because she's saying that I would prefer not to
12 and that's not correct, I wouldn't.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're absolutely right
• 13 to say that no one should impute preferences to
you that you don't have. On the other hand, it's
14 also unreasonable as a party with an interest in
this who objects to what is being proposed to want
15 to have reasons for this and that's what we're
waiting to hear.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to fast.
Michael, are you completed with your comments?
17 Let's go in order and try not to pepper Erika.
Her head is spinning. Okay, Mr. LaRocca.
18 MR. LAROCCA: I am only stating, countering
what the attorney said, I would not prefer a
19 detached garage over an attached garage. That is
not correct. Also, the Fleet's Neck Property
20 Association submitted a diagram that said they
don't want to see a detached garage within 50 feet
21 of Fleet's Neck. So I do not think it's an unfair
presumption nor I think it's even a presumption to
22 say the Civic Association that I live in would
prefer he have an attached garage which conforms
23 to the code than a detached garage within 50 feet
of the road. And lastly, the neighbor across from
24 me behind us who is also affected by this, the
Bebbe's, at the last hearing, the attorney said
. 25 that she, and I believe it's a quote, she said,
"she couldn't say it would make her happy to have
59
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the detached garage where it's being proposed".
So then I will presume there she would be happier
3 if it was way up by the house. So the community
and the two most affected neighbors, in fact,
4 would prefer, with one, I'm making a presumption,
the Bebbe's, an attached garage over a detached
5 garage. By the way, having said that, I don't
object and haven't objected that if my neighbor
6 prefer a detached garage, I don't object to that
in and of itself, if he wants a detached garage.
7 Even though if he put it directly behind his home,
which I also then wouldn't object to, if it were
8 directly behind his current home, he has 110 feet,
if he honored the 50 foot setback would leave him
9 60 feet there to place his detached garage. I
have no gripe with that either. If he wants a
10 detached garage directly behind his own home 50
feet off of the road, I have no gripe with that
11 either. I don't object. And even though everyone
else that puts a detached garage in their backyard
12 as to exit out their front. So that's what you
do. You have a detached garage in your back, you
13 drive out your front. And then the attorney, the
applicant, the applicant's friends/neighbors have
14 all told us that that would be dangerous and the
applicant went on to say that, in fact, the car he
15 chooses to drive has poor visibility and would be
even more dangerous for him exiting off of
16 Pequash. Having said all of that, I don't object
to the Pequash exit driveway myself.
17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You mean you don't
object to him having the detached garage on
18 Pequash and exiting on Pequash?
MR. LAROCCA: I don't object to a detached
19 garage, personally, that exits off of Pequash. I
don't understand it given all these safety
20 concerns and the type of car he drives. But me,
personally, if it were where I've asked in the
21 building envelope and I'll get to it, that's for
the Board to decide is my point, Ms. Oliva. I'm
22 not going -- it's outside my skill base where that
goes. So I'm not even griping to that. What I do
23 object to, is if the applicant wants to meet all
his own preferences and seems indifferent to the
24 concerns of other people. He seems indifferent to
my concerns. He's indifferent, and I'm
• 25 extrapolating from what his attorney said, he's
indifferent to the Bebbe concern and he's point of
55
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 fact now indifferent to what the Civic Association
has said. And that I have to say is frustrating
3 and condescending to say, here we moved it 8 feet
over and 0 feet further back from Pequash and we
4 made our big compromise and I'll calm down, but I
think that is condescending. I honestly don't
5 understand why we even take the risk of this
issue, what the impact of that garage is, the
6 road, the size of the structure. A 22 foot high
structure as large as it is. I don't understand
7 why there's even a necessity to chance, if the
Fleet's Neck Association and LaRocca are right or
8 those of you on the Board are right or if Ken's
right and it's all not a problem. I don't know
9 why we need to take that chance. I'd like to now
pass something out.
10 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: This is Google
picture and a diagram that revised 12/17 by
11 Mr. LaRocca.
MR. LAROCCA: If we could first look
12 briefly at the aerial pic, a Google aerial from 8
years ago, I guess. And please note that the
13 applicant's house is under the letter, large
• letter C and Creek. Everybody got that? The box
14 I've drawn there is approximately 130 feet by 60
feet and as you see there there's a line with 2
15 red dots on it going from Pequash to that box.
That represents according to Google, it's not
16 exact, that would be 57 feet back. Please not if
you look to the left of that of his house and that
17 box and that 50 foot setback, you will see all the
other houses along that road and they are all
18 setback over 50 feet. As are the houses across
the way, okay. You're also going to note this
19 tree issue. If it's put up where the applicant
proposes, the only tree that's there ars a buffer
20 his yard and that road are going to be taken down.
There's 2 or 3 enormous pines, granted they are
21 mostly dead as a lot of them are on the property,
not his fault, obviously, but he's got to take
22 down trees to put it where he's requesting and
upon taking those trees down, now there's no
23 buffer between his yard and Fleet's Neck.
Whereas, if he puts it in that box area, you can
24 see between that box and the road there would be a
substantial buffer. So it's not consistent with
. 25 the facts on the ground that there's somehow by
taking down trees close to the road and putting
56
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 this garage right up by the road creates a better
buffer than keeping his house 50 feet off the
3 road, by the way, like everyone else, and he has
more of a buffer to the Pequash Avenue. Does
4 everyone follow that? I want to go fast but I
don't want to -- it's an important point. More
5 trees would have to be taken down to put it where
he proposes it then the find another place for it
6 or attach it and there will be more buffer to
Fleet's Neck in this other zone which would honor
7 all the setbacks. So if you could look now at the
-- and I've taken the applicant's revised filing.
8 First of all I do want to say that of a home with
a attached garage, there's not another in Fleet's
9 Neck that I could find, which doesn't mean there
isn't one, but I couldn't find, with an attached
10 garage and a two-car detached garage and a
two-story shed, and by the way, I'm not objecting
11 to that. But if you grant it, it'd be the only
one in the whole community with that much
12 intensity on the yard. Now, you see here, he
would have a building envelope of 130 by 60 feet.
13 He would honor the setback, and by the way, I've
• done a dotted line in the back of his house. The
14 dotted line is what I'm saying is I don't have a
gripe if he wants it there, but he said he'd
15 prefer it not directly behind his house. Fine by
me. There's still an enormous envelope of which
16 he could build that house.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Garage.
17 MR. LAROCCA: Thank you, yes, garage. Now,
you'll also see smiley and unhappy faces on this
18 perimeter. The unhappiest face would be me
because I prefer not to have this by me. I tried
19 to draw the neutral face which is the second most
affected house, the Bebbe house, who has said, "I
20 can't say it would make me happy." The smiley
faces are the neighbors, one submitted by writing
21 and one came in and said that they think it's just
fine for him to have whatever he thinks he needs.
22 So as you can see by moving the garage into that
zone, he wouldn't be pushing a problem onto
23 somebody else that doesn't want it and everyone
would have, if I'm right and I'll get to the
24 refurbishing issue later, but in case I'm right
that it'll be more intense than changing oil, is
. 25 now further away from everybody so nobody is
absorbing the blow of this and the screening is
57
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 more substantial.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Vincent, will you just
3 remind me again, how many feet is the garage as
proposed from your house?
4 MR. LAROCCA: You have it, 100 feet?
MS. DOTY: The proposed garage is
5 approximately 115 feet from the northeast corner
of his house.
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The corner of his
house.
7 MS. DOTY: It was at 15 feet, it was a
setback of 15 feet. It's 115 feet from the
8 northeast corner of his house to the southwest
corner of the proposed garage.
9 MR. LAROCCA: Thank you. If you also jump
back to the other page where the aerial is, you'll
10 see, and again, you'll see across on Pequash, you
see two sets of hash marks? You see two hash
11 marks in black? The little black ones. The one
is the driveway to the women to the house, that's
12 evident. And the other cut out is, the Bebbes use
that as a circular driveway and often exit and
13 entrance their yard and, it's my word and you want
• to check my voracity, you'll go see that it's all
14 dirt there because what they do is they use it as
a circular driveway and come in often, very often,
15 come in and out of their yard from where I've
indicated those hash marks on the edge of the
16 Bebbe property. So I'm not going to address any
more of the recklessness and safety issues but
17 there's one neighbor that exits there, Officer
Bebbe exits right there. So I don't think it's
18 with merit that putting it there instead of 100
feet down creates a safety hazard one versus the
19 other at least. Whether or not off Pequash is not
for me but two neighbors right there exit and
20 entrance right across from where we're suggesting.
And again, finally, I'm not weighing in on it. If
21 he doesn't even want that, then exit off of West
Creek Avenue like everyone else that has an
22 attached garage. Now, there was another issue
raised at the last hearing and I need to ask you
23 to jump back now to the site plan that that
wouldn't be possible because there's a storm drain
24 that wouldn't facilitate an exit from that
envelope I'm suggesting on and off of West Creek.
• 25 If you please see in green along West Creek and in
red words, storm drain. I went back to see where
58
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
•
2 the storm drain was. So you can see where the
storm drain is and let's state the obvious. That
3 storm drain does not interfere if they felt it
necessary to take a second driveway from his rear
4 garage off of West Creek. That storm drain, which
was brought up as in impediment to doing that, is
5 simply not correct. At the last meeting, Mr.
Chairman asked if you move the garage, you may
6 have to take down some trees that you want to
keep. The attorney responded, "I think the
7 neighborhood would want to keep these." Well, I'm
the next door neighbor and I don't agree with that
8 because I think there's more trees would have to
come down there than if he finds many other spots
9 within his yard to put it. The Fleet's Neck
Property Owner's Association doesn't agree with
10 that because they have submitted to you something
that says please keep it 50 feet off the property
11 or attach it. And as I said, if I'm overstepping,
I don't think so, the neighbor across the street
12 said, "I'm not happy seeing it there." So the
statement that moving it and taking down a
13 different tree, maybe a different tree, is not a
. community expressed interest here. In fact, quite
14 the contrary. And I'm not allowed on the property
but in 130 by 60 foot area, and I've looked in, as
15 legally I can, the peering neighbor, and I am
convinced that you can set something there and not
16 have to take down more than two large trees. I
don't think you have to take down any trees. The
17 last thing I do want to go back on and this is the
one place where I cannot address you on point of
18 fact but I'll try to. But we are considering and
I've agreed to almost everything he wants, I hope
19 when you guys convene, you also consider the
neighbors concerns. And I'm telling you it will
20 and has affected our quite enjoyment. I'm not
here just to be the meany next door neighbor
21 because I have nothing better to do. He stated in
his application and stated at the last hearing
22 that he intends to refurbish cars and to put a
lift in that garage. Ken is a retired
23 professional mechanic. My dad is a retired
professional mechanic. A professional mechanic
24 does not call changing oil or doing an occasional
tune-up refurbishing cars. Refurbishing cars is
25 much more intense than changing oil and a
professional mechanic knows that and would never
59
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 confuse those two terms. And so I have a great
deal of concern about the increased intensity of
3 use right along my property line as does my
partner. He has personally -- these aren't
9 judgments, I wish I had his ability. He stated
today himself he does tremendous work and he
5 enjoys doing it himself. He has single-handedly
changed all the windows in the home, torn down all
6 the siding and re-put up shake shingles. He's
added an extension to the back himself. He built
7 his deck by himself. This is a very actively
engaged handyman. That's not a negative moral
8 judgment. It's a point of fact that we have lived
with and that's too bad on us. He has a legal
9 right to do all those things. I have no gripe on
those. He's also, by the way, I sort of giggled
10 out of concern about painting. He custom painted
a lawnmower that he refurbished from non-working
11 conditions, in a custom paint job with custom red
flames on it. My concerns are not unfounded.
12 Those are points of fact that I ask that you
consider. So my neighbor is asking for more than
13 anyone else in Fleet's Neck has. He doesn't want
it behind his house, that's fine. He doesn't want
19 it attached to his garage, fine. All I am asking
for is that I get the 60 feet from the property
15 line to behind his house as my buffer. He's asked
for a number of things. I am asking for that.
16 I've also asked that it please not be set close to
the road as now the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's
17 Association has spoken for itself because I
thought that was common sense. I'm asking for 60
18 feet out of 270 feet of property line he has and
then I have no gripe. I think I've tried to
19 really compromise on that. I appreciate your
time. I would like to just thank the Board
20 Members for the comment about a buffer. And
because I planted whether it be 20-30 Leylands on
21 my yard. I have a Leland I planted in full sun
that as was discussed, is a son of a Dickens
22 grower and it's now like 30 feet and full and
robust. I have other Leylands that are in the
23 shade and my direct neighbor, you can go see,
planted at the same time, there's a Leland if you
24 face my house to the left, that's fantastic. My
neighbor down one, if you face my house to the
• 25 right, planted a whole screen himself of Leylands
between myself and him at the same time,
60
•
•
•
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 thereabout. But they are in the shade. They've
barely grown and are very thin. They are nice but
3 they are thin and very slow growing. I'm
guesstimating 5 years and you'll see they really
4 haven't grown much at all. To the extent
screening is contemplated in addition to space,
5 and you're deciding amongst yourself what side is
appropriate. In a dense shade, Evergreen
6 screening is very difficult and very slow growing.
So they will need to be a substantial size to even
7 come close to screening structures as large as are
being proposed by the applicant. And that's it
8 and I appreciate all of your patience with my
comments.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on a second. I just
want to see if anybody has any questions of you.
10 MR. LAROCCA: Thank you. Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not now. I have to go
12 back and look at it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Because I thought
15 that you wanted to hear from him.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That I did? I was
16 asking for what your reasons are, what you prefer
and what you don't prefer. I think I understand
17 that what you really -- part of this is a
statement. You're not as concerned for the safety
18 issue on Pequash as other people are, Fleet's Neck
Association, for example. What you're concern is,
19 you would like to have his structure, his garage,
at least 60 feet from your property line and
20 that's your primary motivation; is that correct?
MR. LAROCCA: If it is to be a detached
21 garage.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's a legal
22 question. But yes, you would like to have it at
least 60 feet away from your property line, not
23 from your house.
MR. LAROCCA: Yes. I would prefer that if
24 the community grants him this waiver, that it sit
behind his house and not join other structures
25 that are right on my property line, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they be more than
61
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 60 feet from any structure on your property line?
That wherever his garage is, you would like it to
3 be at least more than 60 feet from any structure
on your property?
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, Michael. The
application concerns a side yard line, not a
5 structure. He's talking about setbacks.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He has a proposal as to
6 where he would accept this garage.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right, 60 feet from his
7 property line.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right and it's not
8 clear -- it doesn't matter whether that's what's
before us. What's before us is whether he can
9 build it in the front yard and you don't have a
problem with him building it in the front yard
10 provided it's far enough from your property.
MR. LAROCCA: And in the interest of the
11 community, I've also expressed there is no reason
why he and I can't keep with the size properties
12 we're both blessed with, we can't keep it 50 feet
off the road like everyone else does on the road.
13 There is no reason for either of us to need to
even risk jeopardizing the aesthetics or other
14 implications. So there's two - -
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand. It's
15 primarily your aesthetic consideration and it
determines where -- you don't object to the
16 variance or a front yard garage. That's the issue
that's before us. What you are saying is that you
17 want to have your preference for where he places
this front yard given that you don't oppose the
18 variance; is that correct? You're concerned with
where he places it if he gets the variance, not
19 with whether he gets it or not?
MR. LAROCCA: No. I'm trying to compromise.
20 I'm trying to say -- I don't want to say nothing.
If he wants it and doesn't want it attached, then
21 could you please, in thinking about his interests,
also consider others interest.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. That answers my
question.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Now, does any
Board Member have any request of this gentleman?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? I hear you wanted
• 25 to go see it again. Is that a possibility?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just got all this
62
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 information about two days ago. I would like to
go back and look again.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I would like from
Ms. Doty is a response to the recommended location
4 which would give the variance but a variance with
advice to put in a certain place.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we need to speak
one at a time. Michael, are you completed?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I just was asking
for a response from Mr. Doty.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Would you like to?
MS. DOTY: Do you want me to respond? If
8 you want me to respond, I'll respond. Are you
finished with Vince?
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can always ask him to
come back up. Thank you, Mr. LaRocca, I
10 appreciate your comments.
MS. DOTY: I believe Mr. Simon was asking
11 about having the garage somewhere in the building
envelope that apparently is 60 feet from the
12 southern property line. That would make it 170
feet from Mr. LaRocca's house as a preliminary
13 matter. It would put it --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Deborah, I was wondering
14 if you could just address the side yard as opposed
to Mr. LaRocca's house because that's really the
15 concern here.
MS. DOTY: Okay. It's 60 feet from the side
16 yard, okay. That is well in excess of what the
code provides for a side yard setback on a lot
17 this size. The side yard setback is 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For what?
18 MS. DOTY: An accessory structure.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: In a front yard?
19 MS. DOTY: Side yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're not in a side
20 yard, you're in a front yard.
MS. DOTY: But we're taking about the side
21 yard. We're talking about the difference between
his northern property line and his location of
22 this building envelope, the south side of that
location and it's 60 feet between the south side
23 of his building envelope here and our property and
the property line.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think that's what
we're addressing in this application.
. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's relevant, Jim.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Why?
63
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the issue is if
he's going to be granted the front yard variance,
3 what is the applicant's response to the question
of, okay, we can grant you the variance but we
4 would prefer that you place it 60 feet from the
boundary rather than 15 feet which is what the
5 code requires.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. Well, I'm sorry but
6 that is not the application. The application
before us is to build a building that is not
7 allowed in a front yard. Regardless of how close
it is to any side yard, that particular building
8 is not allowed by our code.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We have to take Mr.
9 LaRocca's argument seriously.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have to address --
10 Mr. LaRocca, in my opinion is saying fine, build
it but put it in a place that I don't object to.
11 Which he has every right to ask and, quite
honestly, we should consider that if we grant this
12 particular building in this particular location,
wouldn't Mr. LaRocca then be able to build the
13 same building 30 feet away from that building in
• that location? And are we willing to start to go
14 down that road? Because you can have more than
one accessory structure on a piece of property.
15 And I think Mr. LaRocca's argument for having the
egress far away on West Creek is fine but he's
16 also stating which Ms. Doty is telling us that it
wouldn't be good for the neighborhood to put the
17 building attached to this man's house. Now, we
just heard the neighbor say he has no objection to
18 that. I mean we heard that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He can's object to
19 that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But she's saying that he
20 would object to it because it wouldn't be the
proper place, it wouldn't look good in the
21 neighborhood and that neighbor is telling us, "I
have no objection to that."
22 MS. DOTY: I believe what Mr. Simon was
asking though is how do we feel about putting it
23 in the building envelope that Mr. LaRocca proposed
today which is 60 feet from the southern property
29 line.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which still requires a
• 25 variance.
MS. DOTY: Yes because it's in two front
64
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 yards.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: A much less variance than
3 you're asking for now.
MS. DOTY: It's in two front yards though
4 and it is right in the middle of the mature pine
trees and the mature rhododendron. That is where
5 those bushes and trees are. With regard to having
to take down a bunch of trees out of the southeast
6 corner of the property, I encourage the Board to
go look at the property. They are all dead pine
7 tees. They have to come down anyway. In fact,
the tree just fell from my client's property and
8 hit a portion of Mr. LaRocca's shed. Fortunately
there was no damage.
9 MR. LAROCCA: Or lawsuit.
MS. DOTY: We called and said can we take it
10 off. But those trees need to come down, those
mature pine trees, and that's where the proposed
11 garage, what we propose will go.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Doty, didn't
12 you testify to this same thing at the last
hearing?
13 MS. DOTY: I believe I did. I'm responding
to taking down a bunch of trees.
14 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Well, I think
we've heard hours of testimony from everybody and
15 I think this Board as got to, at some point, take
it upon itself to decide if it grants the variance
16 for accessory structure in a front yard, where
should it be? Considering the neighborhood,
17 considering all the things we've heard the last
few times.
18 MS. DOTY: If I may, may I just respond to
two things that Mr. LaRocca brought up. One is
19 what relevance do the structures on his property
have with regard to this application? We are
20 seeking a variance from this Board. We're seeking
that this Board does equity and grant us a
21 location that's reasonable and logical on our
property. In locking at what has happened on the
22 neighboring property, those structures where built
without any application to the Town or any
23 consideration, in essence, of the Town code.
Mr. Goehringer said it has to be in a conforming
24 location. Two feet off the property line in the
front yard is not in a conforming location. A hot
• 25 tub be it attached or detached has to have a CO.
It is in the front yard. It's a dangerous -- I
65
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 delete that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Too late. Let me ask you
3 this. Are you saying to us then that we should
grant this variance because he has --
9 MS. DOTY: No. I'm saying you should
consider what was done next door in the fact that
5 he does not have, in essence, clean hands. The
other issue that I would like to address is the
6 size of the Leland Cyprus. The ones on the south
are shaded by other trees. The northern part of
7 Mr. LaRocca's property is full of sunlight and
it's just north of that we would be putting Leland
8 Cyprus. And depending on what Mr. LaRocca does in
landscaping that corner of his property, those
9 trees should grow very rapidly. Assuming we get
the variance.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anything else?
MS. DOTY: Ken, do you have anything you
11 wish to say?
MR. SCHEUBLEIN: No.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'll entertain a
motion that we close this hearing.
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth,
seconded by Gerry. All those in favor?
15 (See minutes for resolution.)
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion to
adjourn this until 1:00 o'clock.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie,
seconded by Jerry. All those in favor?
19 (See minutes for resolution.)
(Whereupon, a short recess was held.)
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll make a motion to
21 reconvene.
22 Hearing #6092 -- Witczak.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is a
23 carryover, Charles Witczak. Don't have to read
it, no and I guess they have someone present.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And Abigail
. Wickham is present.
25 MS. WICKHAM: And guess what, good
afternoon, Abigail Wickham. I'm here for the
66
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Witczak/Poluchick (phonetic) family. But they are
here also to answer questions. I just got this
3 Notice of Disapproval about two days ago and I was
I guess shocked is an understatement because it's
4 never been my understanding and I think most of
the people in Town's understanding that
5 agricultural usage and residential usage of this
type on a lot is incompatible regardless of the
6 size of the lot. I did, however, speak to Mike
Verity at length about it. He explained to me his
7 interpretation of the code and why he felt the
Notice of Disapproval had to be written this way.
B I would like to ask the Board for two alternative
reliefs. First of all, the nature of the
9 agriculture on this particular property is fairly
minimal. Sangely farms on a year-to-year basis an
10 acre or two of the property for field crops.
There's no farm stand. There's not a winery.
11 There's not any of those greenhouses or other
things that would require regular permits. And
12 that's the first thing I wanted to bring up. The
second thing is that we did go to the Planning
13 Board and the reason this -- at the prior hearing,
• did you get an explanation as to why the property
14 was configured this way?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I read the result of that
15 hearing but it didn't really make much sense,
MS. WICKHAM: Okay. Mrs. Poluchick in 1974
16 drew a will that said that on her death the house
and one acre of property, 40,000 square feet would
17 be given to one daughter and the remainder of the
property would be split among the two daughters.
18 That's why we ended up with a subdivision with one
acre clustered with the house and 3 acres
19 containing the barn and an acre of clustered
non-yieldable calculated area and 2 acres to total
20 the 3 acre lot. It was always the understanding
of the Planning Board that that would be a house
21 lot despite the agriculture or without the
agriculture. So it was always contemplated that
22 this would be a residential lot. But the reason
it was divided, 1 acre, 3 acres was because of
23 that will that was drawn in 1974 before the 2 acre
zoning came into effect and we wanted to continue
24 the wishes of the woman who drew it, who is
incidentally, Charlie's grandmother and Irene's
• 25 mother.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm a little, I'm
67
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 just curious to know the interpretation of the
Building Department. I wouldn't ask this question
3 if you weren't an officer of the Court because
it's hearsay, but in your particular case, you
4 just had a discussion with the Building Department
regarding this statement. Is there anything other
5 than what you just said that you could shed a
light on why this Disapproval came out this way?
6 MS. WICKHAM: Well he very simply said there
are two principal uses. There's farming and
7 there's a dwelling proposed and therefore, he's
allocating 80,000 per use, we don't have it,
8 therefore, we're before you on an area variance.
I would like to ask that, first of all, in the
9 alternative, we ask you to interpret the code to
state that in the circumstance like this and I'm
10 talking about a very narrow circumstance on the
facts we have that farming usage and residential
11 usage are not inconsistent and don't require
separate area calculations for the two uses
12 because you just have field crops. If you were
going to have a winery, you have other attributes
13 to the code that have to be appended. So it's not
• going to be a precedent for somebody that wants to
19 squeeze a winery on 2 acres. If you have a farm
stand, you have other farm stand regulations in
15 the code. This would not be a on precedent for
anybody that wants to stick a farm stand on the
16 property. So I would ask that you make that
determination. If you feel unable to do that,
17 then I would ask in the alternative, that you
grant the area relief as requested because they
18 certainly do have a difficulty in having an
interpretation of the code this way which would
19 preclude them from having a house on a 3 acre
piece of property which allows 2 acres allocated
20 for a building use to 80,000 and not being able to
have a farmer farm a portion of this property. So
21 we would ask that you grant a variance on the
matter as applied for as the alternative. I'm
22 sorry. That sounds very confusing and it is very
confusing.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm wondering if you
could reduce that to writing for us?
24 MS. WICKHAM: Okay. I will do that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll tell you why.
• 25 Because when I read this Notice of Disapproval,
the first thing that popped into my mind was, it
66
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 has a barn, it has an accessory structure on it,
why can't you put a principal structure on that
3 piece of property? That doesn't make any sense to
me.
4 MS. WICKHAM: Because then we would be here
for a variance for an accessory structure in a
5 front yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. You're building a
6 principal structure which has an accessory
structure. That building permit would be issued
7 in no time. And the only problem now is that
we're growing something on it. I don't consider
8 it as a use.
MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Verity would take the
9 position that, and I'm quoting him, not my opinion
of what he would say, is that would require a
10 variance for having accessory structure in the
front yard.
11 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The result of
that also is they'd be boxing themselves in a
12 little bit because if you consider the barn
accessory to the house, then it needs to meet the
13 accessory structure law. If you consider the barn
• an accessory to the farm, it's allowed to have
14 principal yard set backs, meaning it can be the
height of a principal yard, it can be expanded,
15 there's a lot more liberal use as a farm structure
than as an accessory structure to a house. I'm
16 not saying you don't want to go that way.
MS. WICKHAM: All we're asking you to do in
17 my first line of thinking is to approve the
variance allowing a house on a piece of property
18 less than 160,000 square feet where the only other
use is a barn and field crops.
19 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Right, that's the
simplest application. There's a larger question
20 -- you can answer that without answering the
larger question of whether farming or agriculture
21 should be considered a second use or not.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, what do we do?
22 Make an interpretation?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You wouldn't have
23 to if you had answered that first question in the
affirmative. If you wanted to grant the area
24 variance, you wouldn't have to do an
interpretation, you could just grant the area
. 25 variance.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean I'm thinking an
69
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 area variance is a much easier way to go because
we can then restrict it to a point when you
3 couldn't get a winery if you wanted to.
MS. WICKHAM: That's fine. Philosophically,
4 I object to the Zoning Board having to grant an
area variance every time somebody wants to do
5 this.
(Everyone talking at one time)
6 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I'm sorry. That
argument is an issue the Town Board, I think, is
7 proposing to take up. Obviously, I can't promise
that on their behalf.
8 MS. WICKHAM: It should be addressed in the
Code Committee. Maybe this would force them to do
9 that because then they'd see what people are going
to have to run into. This is an issue that could
10 come up again. I don't think it's come up often
or at all before.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anyone else have any
comments on this?
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I do have a couple.
First of all, this is a case where you've done the
13 research as a lawyer and you're in a better
• position then say, the Building Department is,
19 with respect to law in general but not necessarily
zoning code. The idea of the multiple use is,
15 first of all, I don't know where it says that the
multiple use would be divided 50/50 or anywhere
16 else. To say that that calls for an
interpretation sounds as though a lot more work
17 has to be done before that because, I mean, if it
was decided 2 acres and 1 acre for the farm, then
18 you wouldn't be here, this particular decision.
However, I am sympathetic to the idea of let's do
19 it the easy way but I don't know how often this is
going to come up again. If Kieran is right that
20 it's going to be addressed by the Board, I can
understand and be very sympathetic to not just
21 simply want to sweep the hard, general problem
under the rug and let somebody else deal with it
22 later on. I hope that it will be dealt with
appropriately before we have another case of this
23 sort. This is kind of an interim case as I would
see it that we may have to consider it just as an
24 area variance.
MS. WICKHAM: And do it as the Chairman
25 suggested and that's fine.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As far as you and your
70
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 client are concerned, that's fine.
Philosophically, if you will, I'm not happy with
3 just simply ignoring the hard problem just to get
a solution to the easy one. But if we can --
9 MS. WICKHAM: Well, I'm here to represent my
client and he needs a decision quickly, so --
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll go on the
record and I'll say that I am very happily and
6 would love to address it today, right now, right
at this second as an area variance. But I don't
7 know how my colleagues -- and I'm putting them on
the spot. I would like to address it today, right
8 now as an area variance.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have
9 anything?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I would agree with
10 Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you're talking about
11 making a decision today, I'm not prepared to do
that. Sure, we do have a draft.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have a finished
draft and I don't even have it in front of me. We
13 don't ordinarily make decisions at hearings but
since this is a second hearing, I suppose it could
14 be argued that it's a little bit different but I
would be a little bit happier to have a full
15 discussion. One person was here for most of the
meeting and is not here now and she'll be here at
16 the next meeting. So I would rather have this
discussed at our regular special meeting where we
17 can circulate and read and discuss the opinion.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I just have one
1B comment on one or the other. In the past, this
Board has made decisions trying to force the Town
19 to do something and it wasn't pretty. It still is
not pretty and although I agree that this type of
20 situation isn't addressed in our code, we have the
power to grant what we feel is necessary. Some
21 members of the Board would say no one decision is
decisive of another decision. They don't depend
22 on each other and they're not precedent setting
because we can make our decisions based on the
23 facts before us. So, I too, like Jerry, would
like to address it today. I have read, heard
24 enough on this. I did think that perhaps we could
hear from the Building Inspector that is here so
25 maybe if you wanted to come up and answer a couple
of questions, no grilling.
71
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's Christmas,
there's no grilling.
3 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Michael Verity,
Chief Building Inspector.
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Basically, I'd just like
to hear your explanation of the Notice of
5 Disapproval. How you see it and why it's written
the way it is? So if you could.
6 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: The way it was
presented to us that there was a farm on the
7 property and they wanted to put a single-family
dwelling. Strict interpretation of the code,
8 there's 4 permitted uses in the R-zone, I think
it's an R80 or an AC zone, and there's 9 uses
9 allowed. Technically for each use except for a
winery, you need 2 acres for each, you need it for
10 a farm, you need it for a single-family dwelling
and then the winery would need the 10 acres and
11 there's also public buildings Town related. Any
use like that would require a minimum of 2 acres.
12 There was an established farm on the property.
Now they want to add a single-family dwelling.
13 The easy approach would be to grant an area
• variance for this. A tougher approach would go
14 for putting a principal use now on the property
considering the other's accessory. Now you have
15 accessories in the front yard where they can't be
so you'd have to also give set backs from a front
16 yard as well. So that is the angle that the
Building Department took. This is the first case
17 that I've seen, I've researched it at length and
couldn't find anything like it. It is somewhat
18 precedence setting but I feel it's the best way to
handle this now and for the future until the code
19 can be modified, if it's going to be modified.
It's really a simple process, you hate to put
20 someone through it. I probably shouldn't make a
statement like that but you have to follow the
21 letter of the law, it's black and white, I feel.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The nice part
22 about putting someone through it is if the Board
does grant the variance and they ever wanted to do
23 something else with the property, at least the
variance is in place.
24 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: That's correct.
And there's no question in the future. Because if
• 25 it was left untouched, it could definitely be
questioned in the future whether it was
72
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 transferred or whatever to another member of the
family or sold it could definitely be questioned.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It would have to be in
its entirety, this lot. It couldn't be split
9 again?
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: I don't know if
5 you have a copy of the convenance restrictions but
that kind of puts it between a rock and a hard
6 place as well. That really didn't help the
situation.
7 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I don't think it
can be split again right now without a change in
8 zoning because of the clustered open space.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we're not worried
9 about segmenting this house?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It would be
10 difficult to do.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: You have land
11 preservation, not saying that land preservation
worked on this project but that's the same
12 situation. You have problems with land
preservation granting things and then the code not
13 supporting what's granted. And I understand the
. intention, what they wanted to do there but one
14 agency is not helping the other one when they're
granting decisions. Unfortunately, they got
15 caught up in that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. That's all I have
16 of Michael. Anybody else?
MS. WICKHAM: I have one question and maybe
17 while Mike is here. If the area variance is
granted, he would be authorized to build the house
18 as applied for. If he wanted to have an accessory
to the house such as a pool, would that be
19 encompassed in this variance assuming set backs
and everything else were okay? I assume it would
20 be but I just want to clarify that now.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Any accessory to
21 the single-family would only have to comply with
set backs. It wouldn't be another use.
22 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That's the
benefit. I won't belabor it.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That would be two
different things. One is use, there is a farm use
24 and a principal living quarter residential use and
then accessory uses are accessories to the
• 25 principal.
BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Which would be
73
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
•
2 the single-family dwelling, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Thanks, Mike.
3 Does anybody else have any questions? Does
anybody in the audience want to comment on this
4 application? Hearing none, no one wants to make
any further comments, I'll entertain a motion to
5 close this hearing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved.
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
7 All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
Hearing #6103 -- Samaras
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
George and Efstratia Samaras and that would be
10 Ruth.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's me.
11 "Request for Variances under Sections
280-122 and 280-294, based on the Building
12 Inspector's October 26, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
concerning a proposed second-story addition to the
13 existing dwelling, which new construction will
. increase the degree of nonconformance when located
14 less than 35 feet from the rear property line.
Location: 2100 Naugles Drive, Mattituck; CTM
15 99-5-25."
Is someone here to speak?
16 MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore. Hello.
This is a very straight forward application. They
17 are putting a second story over the existing story
of the house so it is an increase in the degree of
18 nonconformity because we are, our rear yard is
23.3. So we're nonconforming with respect to rear
19 yard. The house is there. They are just putting
a simple second story. Do you have any questions
20 about it?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: When I went by there,
21 it doesn't show on the survey, are there some
other buildings in the back of that house?
22 MS. MOORE: It looks like there's an old 10
by 10 shed. That's it. The house faces Naugles.
23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I thought I saw
something up, I'm looking from Naugles on the
24 right hand corner. It was snowing that day.
MS. MOORE: Oh. I don't remember seeing
• 25 anything there. The survey, they haven't done
anything since the survey of 2005 was done. I
74
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 think the only thing they have there is the shed.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All right. Otherwise,
3 I didn't see any big problem with it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth? Jerry?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any
problems with this.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions.
6 CHAIRMAN bINIZIO: And I have none either.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I won't prolong it.
7 Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else in the
8 audience wish to comment on this application? Ms.
Moore, you're okay?
9 MS. MOORE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll make a motion.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion to close the
hearing.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth,
12 seconded by Jerry. All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution)
Hearing #6104 -- Stepnoski
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Anne Stepnoski. Jerry, that's yours.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
"Request for Variances under Sections
16 280-122 and 280-124, based on the Building
Inspector's September 27, 2007 Notice of
17 Disapproval and Zoning Interpretation #5039 (Walz)
concerning a proposed second-story addition and
18 alterations to the existing dwelling, which will
be an increase in the degree of nonconformity when
19 the rear yard and front yard setbacks are less
than 35 feet. Also proposed are additions at less
20 than the code required 35 feet rear setback and
front setback (new nonconformities) under the code
21 requirements. Location: 1025 Cedar Road,
Southold; CTM 78-7-35."
22 What would you like to tell us, sir? State
your name for the record.
23 MR. STROMSKI: My name is Robert Stromski,
I'm the architect for the client. I do have the
24 green cards. I'd like to submit them at this
time. My client and the owner of the property was
• 25 to be at this meeting. She may be running a
little late. She actually has the Affidavit of
7s
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Posting because they did it themselves. As soon
as I get it, I will bring it to you. The proposed
3 addition that we're looking to do is to do a
second floor addition to the existing residence.
4 The existing residence currently has about 943
square feet of living space on the first floor
5 with 3 small bedrooms. The addition is looking to
put a second floor on the existing house primarily
6 on the same footprint. There is a small bump out
of the building on the second floor merely to help
7 out the size of one of the bedrooms upstairs and
also for aesthetic reasons to be able to have a
8 reversed gable on the back elevation so it just
doesn't look as a one solid volume. The addition
9 would end up tacking the house from a three
bedroom to a four bedroom house. And I have
10 elevations of the building, if you would like to
see, that, in fact, what we are proposing is to
11 have the house be in character as far as
aesthetics to what is in the neighborhood and I
12 feel that the size of the house with the addition,
the total living space would be slightly over
13 2,400 square feet. It would not be seen as out of
character to what the neighboring size of the
14 homes are around in that area. Due to the fact
that the existing rear yard is fairly small, doing
15 a second floor addition pretty much requires the
rear yard variance and also a front yard to Cedar
16 Road as it be. I was also handed a letter that
was submitted today but one of the property owners
17 that I believe is directly west of the parcel.
Just being able to take a look at it, I do
18 understand that they may have some concerns and
some questions. I would like to state that it is
19 my clients' intention to have this as their
primary residence. They are a fairly young couple
20 looking to eventually start a family and so forth
and that was the need to increase the bedroom
21 sizes. As far as their indications of rumors
perhaps, I don't really think that we can state
22 rumors as being something that would be part of
this application. It's not my knowledge that they
23 are looking to sell this house. Like I said, they
are a young couple looking to start a family and
24 their intention is to do the addition and live in
the house. There is no intention for an
25 apartment. The floor plan does not allow for an
apartment or any sort of space to be rented out.
76
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Beyond that as far as I do rasoect that their
neighbors would have some privacy and so forth but
3 one of the situations that we have is the property
that this oro~ect is on is higher in elevation
4 then theirs. With the event of doing any sort of
a second story, I really can't take the second
5 story and bush it forward to get it further away
from their property. It's kind of a factor of the
6 existing house being where it is and trying to get
the structure to line uo on the existing
7 foundation. Beyond that, if the Board has any
other questions or if you would like to see the
fs elevations, I could ~oresent them to you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The colleague
9 that's not here today is an architect and I'm sure
she would love to see the elevations. So voi.i can
10 give them to us today or you can forward them to
us at another time. The reason why I'm hedging on
ii that, Mr. Strorr~ski, is because the neighbor is
requesting a short adjournment so that they may be
12 able to ask some questions. But I just to ask you
a question regarding the use of the existing
13 foundation. We have run into some interesting
• situations regarding the reconstruction of these
14 itcuses. I~ this a Lutal tear down to ail the way
to the plate or are you going to utilize the first
15 story as it presently exists?
MR. STROMSKi: The existing exterivc wdii5
16 are going to be utilized. What we are planning to
do is to actually fur them out. They're existing
17 2 by 4 construction and due to the new energy
codes, we need to get a larger installation value
18 so we are furring the exi
ting walls out. The
s
t
~~
rUOf WUUld be delitOllJiled ULLt {JL llr{ai11V L[Le
19 existing exterior first floor walls would remain.
The garage would be teared down on one side
20 i;e~ auNe tite aupiicatvn is ai~o iookiny_ for the
existing attached garage to be widened by a foat
21 or so without additions within the allowable
setCl .l l:kJ tt3 t.(e ;i i1.3e 4'(2rd.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What about the
bump out in the back or whatever the case might
23 be? Are you going to tear any of -- there's a
basement in this house as I can see, right?
24 MR. STROMSKI: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIi3GER: Fire VtJti uvittQ to
25 tear any of those wails down at ail`r
i~iK. Si'KOtiSi~7: ine roundarion wrn;ld nor b6
77
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 removed at. all. The bump out only happens pn the
second floor and does not happen on the first
3 floor. The first floor is within the exact
footprint with respect to the rear yard. The only
9 bump out occurs on the second floor itself. The
only foundation that will be redone is on the rear
5 of the property. There is now, I guess V_ou can
call it a screened in porch that doesn't have any
6 sort of heat. That foundation is going to be
removed and a new foundation is goirto to be poured
7 in its exact place. It's not going to be moved
further to the rear yard. And the reason for
8 doing that is because it currently has a slab.
That space will be reclaimed as interior space for
9 the kitchen area so I need to have a crawl space
in order to get installation, electric and
10 plumbing to that area of the house.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Again, the
11 reason why we ask you those questions is because
if the Board is so inclined to grant this
12 variance, we need to embody that within the
decision so that the Building Department doesn't
• 13 come back with particular issues that may require
additional variances. So maybe if it's not an
14 imposition you can reduce that particular issue tc
writing for us so that we have it in front of us.
15 I'm talking about whatever you're doing to the
existing foundation. Clearly, what you -lust said
16 to me. And just depict that on the survey or the
site plan so we know exactly what you're doing so
17 we can encompass that within the decision itself.
MR. STROMSKI: If you would like, I can put
18 a demolition plan as part of the application
because I don't think i can easily do that on a
19 site plan. But I do have a demolition plan that
would show the existing foundation to remain and
20 as I explained, that one covered porch area would
be removed. That's the only thing that would be
21 done. So I can definitely submit that.
BOARG MEitBER GOc,HF.iNGER: That would %i~
22 perfect.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We would need 7
23 copies of tha~.
MR. STROMSKI: I can do that. What I have
24 here is, I did have one copy of the proposed
elevations that are signed and sealed. I could
• 25 submit at least this one copy. If you would nice
~ addit~onai, i can do ti~at as well. Hs you ca,~
78
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 see, this is the section of .*_he second floor that
was bumAed out and it's really done more for an
3 aesthetic reason lust so we don't have a flat
two-story across the back o£ the house.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only other
thing you may consider is some type of screening
5 on that. standing in front o£ the house on the
left hand side, which would be that westerly side
6 that you're referring to?
MR. STROMSKI: The rear prooertV line. I
7 believe it's to the west. They border the rear
property of this subject lot.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever it is,
you should consider some screening in that area.
9 MR. STROMSKI: What would the Board look at
as far as that?
30 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Evergreens.
MR. STROMSKI: Evergreen screen.
11 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm -just
wondering if I could mention, the plans are A7 and
12 A8 and you'll also be giving a demo plan?
MR. STROMSKI: Yes, the demo plan would be
• 13 D1. The reason why they're numbered in that way
is they're part of a working document set so
14 that's why you would only have A7, A8.
15 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I believe you
1.6 gave these already for the record.
17 MR. STROMSKI: I believe they might have
been. I didn't remember. But if that is the
18 case, they are the exact same drawings, the v_
haven't changed.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We have the elevations.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thank you and I
20 apologize for monopolizing all of your time.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further
questions.
22 MR. STROMSKI: The only thing that I ask is
it the Board's intention to adiourn the meeting or
23 could we possibly just close the public hearing
and allow additional time for written comment?
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going there right
now. This Victoria and Timothy Abrams, I see a
• 25 little note here that says he would like to
~"`(1m m, Pnt T rr i~p ~c_ T,i nr-j? V(]1.] h?d ? r9i c(`iiSci(??l
79
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 with him.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: When he handed
3 the letter in, I just read the letter quickly and
I saw on there that they had auestions and I
4 explained to him that we're not going to be able
to answer his questions unless he participated at
5 the hearing or puts those questions in writing.
He hasn't done either one. We could handle it two
6 ways. We could ask him to put his questions in
writing and extend the time in writing for you to
7 respond and then we would send that onto him. Or
the Board may adjourn it to next months hearing
8 for oral testimony instead.
CHAIRMAN DINIZZO: We have in the past, if a
9 neighbor asked for an adjournment, we have in the
oast a_ranted them that courtesy
10 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Yes and I
mentioned to him that we would adjourn it and he
11 said that would be fine. He'd participate in the
next hearing,
12 MR. STROMSKI: If we were to have an
adjournment, would we be rea_uired to do additional
• 13 certified mailings or would the posting of the
property suffice?
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. It's all part of the
same hearing. He just submitted a letter. You
15 made some comments on it. He can't be here. We
always have in the oast granted the neia_hbors an
16 opportunity to come in before us and he asked for
that. So I guess I would put that out to the
'' Board and I'm sure near the end of this we'll
either vote to hold. it over or close it. I guess
18 we still need to hear if there are any other
comments. Are -you finished wtl: youL
19 presentation, sir?
MR. STROMSKI: Yes, I am.
2^ CHAiRi~tAN Diiv'IZIv: Anybody else iri tYie
audience who would like to comment on this
21 application before us? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion from the Beard.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a motion
that we leave the comments for the neighbor open
%oi weeks and whit:h would then give hir. Stromski
2 weeks to reply or respond and not adjourn the
24 meeting.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Is that an
• 25 additional two weeks:
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
80
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll need a seconc.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I speak to that?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, sure you can.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I recognize the
principal that we allow people to have the hearing
5 extended. But I assume there's going to be some
reasonable limits on this case. We got the letter
6 about an hour ago and just a written, noted
request to have an adjournment. I would think
7 that in a case like this we wouldn't feel
ourselves bound by our past practice by allowing
8 people when they apply duly to have something
extended. So I would support Jerry's motion that
9 we leave it open only for the subsequent
submissions but not to adjourn the hearing.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'd like to comment. I'd
like to give the neighbor the opportunity to come
11 before us and state his case. But we have a
motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
12 (See minutes for resolution.)
. 13 Hearing #6105 -- Southold Park District
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
14 Southhold Park District. Michael, that's Vours.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay.
15 "Request for a Variance under Section
280-14 based on the Building Inspector's November
16 9, 2007 amended Notice of Disapproval concerning
proposed additions and alterations to an existing
17 building_ at less than the code-reg_uired minimum of
60 feet from the front lot line. Location: 5395
18 South Harbor Road, Southold; CTM 87-1-18.7."
I defer to the representative to make a
19 presentation at this time.
MR. BOYD: Thank you for the introduction,
20 Mr. Simon. Edward Boyd, Southold, New York
representing Southold Park District. Knowing this
21 Board as well as I do I'm sure that you've all
thoroughly emersed yourself in this file and
22 you're very familiar with what you're looking for
and you're also very well acquainted with the site
23 as it's been there for, I think 1919 was the date
it was given on over to the park district, 1921,
24 excuse me, two years off. What the park district
is attempting to do here is to make the site a
. 25 little bit more user-friendly. We have to do some
adaptation to the building for handicapped access.
81
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 While we're doing that, we'd like to increase the
storage area which is always needed when you're
3 running any sort of an operation, whatsoever, and
put in a small roofed area that people can get out
4 of the weather or out of the sun or out of a storm
that might come up very quickly. Presently, we
5 have approximately 296 square feet in the buildina
_
that exists. We're looking to add another 296
6 feet immediately to the north. If we follow the
side line of the building as it exists, that is
7 going to increase the degree of nonconformity that
we're dealing with and we're actually going to
8 wind up about 17 inches closer to the road then we
presently are. Right now we're 34.8 feet from the
9 road and if this addition were to qo through the
way we have it planned, we would be 33.4 feet from
10 the road. There's 60 foot requirement in that
particular area. But I point out the fact that
11 we're dealing with over 200,000 square feet of
park land here, 4.7 acres. Lot coverage is
12 absolutely minimal at the present time. If we
were to build to the east, the location of the new
• 13 building and the small roofed area that we're
going to put up would have a very great visual
14 effect, or a much greater visual effect on the
people who's houses ring the park district because
15 it would, in some way, decrease their view right
down toward the beach and toward the open water.
16 Where we're doing it, the houses will not see any.
They won't have that view diminished at all. The
17 new building that we're going to put up will
simply be between them and the woods which exist
18 on the west side of South Harbor Road. A lot of
thought has gone into this trying to make it as
19 unobtrusive as possible and at the same time
fulfill the requirements and the mandate of the
20 park district to take care of the handicapped
access that we have to go to for the bathrooms and
21 the very real need for some more storage. So I'm
hoping that this Board will meet with favor the
22 application to infringe, if you will a further 17
inches on an already nonconforming use and allow
23 us to expand the building the existing buildina
that has been there. I will be happy to answer
24 any questions you might possibly have.
•
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there other
disadvantages other than the effect on the view o~
82
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the eastern neighbors of putting it on the eastern
side of the property?
3 MR. BOYD: There are cost advantages to
connect to an existing structure rather than build
4 something brand new. We already have the water in
that existing structure. We have the electric
5 service that comes to that structure. All of that
would have to be created from scratch to move
6 further to the east. We also think that by
expanding in the northerly direction and making a
7 linear expansion to the building, it's going to
really limit the size of the intrusion upon the
8 area and preserve as much open space as is
physically possible for what we need to do to the
9 building.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will the addition be
10 any taller?
MR. BOYD: No. I don't believe it's going
11 to be substantially taller. I think we're lookina
_
at a 14 foot roof line, a pergola line. It's
12 what's going to be there now. It's not going to
be anv taller.
• 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. I have no
further questions.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Looks fine to me. I
15 think you need the extra space.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: After retiring as
a park district commissioner in Mattituck for 30
17 years, I understand the need for handicapped
facilities. I do want to mention to you,
18 Counselor, however, you are aware that in prior
applications before this Board, we have taken some
19 significant testimony from the neighbors regarding
any additions to this building and I don't know if
20 you need to put stakes up or whatever or I don't
know if many of them have seen the plan and that's
21 one of the concerns I have. So if you want to
adiourn for a couple of minutes and show it to
22 them. It's only a suggestion on my part because
we had taken about an hour and half of testimony
23 regarding anv addition to this building and there
was great concern about that.
24 MR. BOYD: If there is anyone here who has
not seen the plans, we'd be happy to show it.
25 Mrs. Bertani, I think, could probably speak to
that better than 1.
83
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 MRS. BERTANI: Linda Bertani, Secretary
Treasurer of the Southold Park District. Several
3 years ago we proposed a 40 by 40 foot pavilion
that would have imb_acted the view of the
4 neighbors. Now we scaled that back down to a 20
by 20 foot. It was my understanding as of
5 yesterday that there was no comments from the
neighbors. I've had 2 phone calls from neighbors.
6 One was very positive, one was just a question.
So I'm not really sure if anybody has come in
7 since I spoke with Mrs. Kowalski. No one has come
in.
8 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Not while I was
there.
9 MRS. BERTANI: That's not a problem. We
have the plans if they'd like to look at them.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'll see how it
goes.
11 MRS. BERTANI: I just wanted to say that,
that we've really scaled it back.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it certainly
looks like it. There's no question about that.
• 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no auestions.
Anybody else in the audience would like to make a
15 comment?
MS. CRANE: I'm Cheryl Crane. I live
16 directly before the park as you go down the road.
The pergola will be right in what's left of my
17 view. The bathrooms are in the middle of my view
and the pergola is supposed to be right next to
18 it. It's going to block my view. There's no talk
about screening around the building. I don't
19 mind. Obviously, they need the expansion for the
bathrooms but I object to the roof. I have other
20 neighbors to speak.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else?
21 MR. BURNS: The name is Jim Burns. I live
at 1515 South Harbor Road and the auestion I have
22 is if the existing bathroom, you need a 36 inch
door to become handicapped, why can't we just open
23 the doorway up and leave the existing building as
it is? And it's going to block our view and
24 you're going to bring more kids toward the area
and you're going to have more problems down in the
• 25 park. At night you have problems with drinking
and everything else. This is going to give them
89
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the opportunity to have drinking inside the bark
and whatever else they want to do, illegal drugs,
3 or whatever else they're doing down there. It's
going to give them, you're going to have more
4 problems down there. You may end up with a
problem there if someone breaks something down
5 there or gets injured. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir. Anybody
6 else? Do you want to comment on that?
MRS. BERTANI: Yes, I would. The park is
7 open until dusk. It's locked after that. If the
kids come down there and they go around the gates
8 or whatever, there's not too much we can do about
that. We've been in touch with the Chief of
9 Police. We've asked for extra patrols. There's
not really too much more we can do. We don't want
10 to put a huge light there because that would
really impact the neighbors. So as far as
11 changing the handicapped bathrooms and making a
bigger storage area, I don't think that's going to
12 bring more kids down there drinking or doing
illegal drugs or whatever they do. I don't think
13 a pergola is also going to bring more kids. I
• think they come anyway. But that's not all the
14 time and I don't know, we really tried to address
this problem with the police. All we can do is
15 lock the park like we do and that's pretty much
it.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask you a question?
You mentioned a light. What kind of light are you
17 talking about?
MRS. BERTANI: We can put up a huge halogen
18 light there, I would assume.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you talkinq
about for
19 _
security reasons?
MRS. BERTANI: Right. That would light up
20 the parking lot and so on and so forth.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Have you been advised
21 that that would deter drinking?
MRS. BERTANI: No. I have not been advised
22 of that at all. That was just one of the things
that we thought about doing. We know that that
23 would probably be something that would have to be
-- the halogen light would probably be one of the
24 things that would go off at down. So it would be
on all night. I don't know if the people in the
• 25 park district would like that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For what reason would it
85
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 be on?
MRS. BERTANI: It would be on maybe to deter
3 the kids from coming down.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's what I wanted to
4 hear you say, that you would put a security light
up there and hopefully deter people from coming
5 down and hanging out and doing drugs and a light
would be better than no light.
6 MRS. BERTANI: Right. They usually go from
park to park, not lust Southold park district
7 parks but Town beaches and so on and so forth.
The police move them around.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I live at a road end,
okay. Do you want to comment on that?
9 MR. BURNS: Yes. Numerous times I've called
the Southold police because of drinking down there
10 and they throw the beer bottles all over the road
down there and everything else. I also complained
11 to the park commissioner because one gate was not
locked. They took a park bench out of the park
12 and put it outside for their parties. That was
like a month and a half aq_o. They are ooing in
• 13 there and they are taking stuff out and they also
are going into the park. I come out on the
14 weekends and I go out there and they're having a
party at least once a month out there. So even in
15 the cold they're out there, drinking and stuff
like that.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How would you feel about
having a light to maybe deter that?
17 MR. BURNS: That's not going to do you any
good. You're going to put a light out there and
28 they're still going to go out there drinking.
It's a dead spot. The police don't come out.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What do you recommend?
MR. BURNS: What do I recommend? Not put
20 the building and leave it the way it is. Increase
the patrols but you still have a problem with
21 that.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question before us
22 is the relationship between granting this variance
if we decide to do so and the problems that you're
23 siting; whether granting this variance will
contribute to those problems or whether it will be
24 neutral with respect to it. We've heard
conflicting ideas on this.
• 25 MR. BURNS: It's going to increase it. It's
going to give them the opportunity to stay
86
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 underneath there, put the cars out there and they
can hangout underneath the thing. Nobody is going
3 to see them see, they're going to see cars down
there. When the police came down there. there was
4 a party, a big keg party, and the police -- I had
kids coming through my yard to get away from the
5 police, running through my yard.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say
6 that regardless of your other comments regarding
the building, in Mattituck, the light did help
7 tremendously. Because what it did was, it lit up
an area where people would hangout, I'm not saying
8 they were necessarily kids, and they were easily
spotted when they did come down with a patrol.
9 And that's one of the problems that the police
have, Im' not speaking for the police, that's what
10 they told me, they were unable to see anyone
except with the headlights of the car.
11 MR. BURNS: You can see these kids come out
at night, they come out and start speeding like
12 it's a speedway down there. All of a sudden, they
take off like a bat out of hell. If anything's
13 out there, it's going to get hit. The light's not
• going to help that situation.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Do you have
anything else?
15 MR. BURNS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any
16 comments on this?
MRS. BERTANI: That park is closed on
17 October 15th and the gates are locked. The only
time the gates are opened are when our maintenance
18 person goes in to do maintenance and then the gate
is re locked.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Anybody else?
State your name and address, please.
20 MS. GOMEZ: My name is Margaret Gomez, 1070
South Harbor Road. We have been homeowners here
21 for the last 26 years. I have gone through a lot
of incarnations of trying solutions for this park.
22 We have known Bill Albertson and Charlie Whitmer
(phonetic) when they were park commissioners and
23 that's when we first arrived here. So in terms of
the solutions that have been proposed, we fiercely
24 and vehemently object. I also bring forth to you
the voice of the Lavinia's (phonetic)
Tom
25 ,
Lavinia, Charlene Lavinia and their family. They
have been here for over 60 years. They have Iivea
87
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 there for over 60 years. You tell me what goes on
that can possibly go on, we've seen it. The cat
3 and mouse games, the drugs, the beer, that is only
going to be exacerbated if you put a building
4 where they can shield themselves from the
elements. There's overnight parking there even
5 though there's a sign that says no overnight
parking. I call the police. The police know
6 because they, themselves, have been the kids out
there drinking and so on. They laugh. We know
7 each other. I've gone down there and talked to
them. So Tom Lavinia, himself, has said he is
8 empowering us to speak on his behalf. We people
urinating, defecating, drinking beer. I have
9 photos, in fact, of the beer cans that are left.
I called the park office to find out if beer and
10 alcohol was allowed to be consumed in the park and
I was told yes. Meanwhile, there's a sign there
11 that says no alcohol. So I can tell you that
every single party that is had there is full of
12 alcohol. It's just alcohol to the hilt and that's
what's allowed durinq_ the dav_. So the buildinq
of
• 13 _
a pergola is only to benefit a few individuals who
use the park once a year. Those of use who live
14 there and reside there have to deal with this the
rest of the year for beyond the two months that
15 they're requesting this pergola for their use. I
think it's absolutely ridiculous and laughable.
16 The other thing is that we live in a world were
people are concerned about open space and
17 conserving nature and truly knowing how precious
our environment is and we're going to be building
18 a pergola because people are afraid to be out in
the open when the elements, because there's a
19 little drizzle of rain? Well, I say no. I say
absolutely not. I fight for open space. I think
20 that's absolutely beyond what all of us are
standing for. I bring you some photos, I've taken
21 quite a few, of how this actually will be
affecting all of us, my neighbors and myself, the
22 Lavinia's who couldn't be here today. And I can
show you that is exactly how our view is going to
23 be affected for all time. And I want to know what
park commissioner is willing to have their name up
24 there and be the author of this folly, a pergola
20 by 20. What good is that going to do for the
• 2s people who use the panic once a year? I live
1,1101@ YYC L1.VC Lt1C1C Tl1e LClV 1l11a'a Lla Ve 11VC11
ee
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 there 60 years, maybe Vou know, maybe it's 80
years. May I approach? May I show you?
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, ma'am.
MS. GOMEZ: I can make copies for vou. This
4 is the garbage that accumulates at the base of
that dead end. It's littered with beer cans down
5 there, V_ou don't see it. And talk about the
light? If I may bring out the light. We have
6 lived there when the light was on, there is a huge
light. I've attended the park commissioner's
7 meeting when they discussed the light. The light
didn't do anything. We have friends who live on
8 Youna's Avenue by Jockey Creek as you qo in before
the Scalia (phonetic) residence there, they had a
9 light on. It only attracted more people. So
liahts don't work. We've lived through it. It's
10 been 26 years. Look at this. This is what would
by blocked by having that building. This would be
11 blocked. That would be blocked. So would that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that from your
12 property, ma'am?
MS. GOMEZ: Yes, it's from my Property. I
13 live in the little red house on the park. My
. neighbors, both the Cranes and the Burns and the
14 Lavinias, who are my neighbors as well. We've
known each other for over, at this point, 30 years
15 now.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I gotta tell _vou, ma'am,
16 I'm a little uncomfortable with you testifying for
somebody that's not here.
17 MS. GOMEZ: Well, then Tom can speak for
himself.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Represent yourself and
we'll make our decision based on what we hear.
19 MS. GOMEZ: I did attend the last hearing
that happened in 'O1, 2000 or 2001. And we made a
20 very passionate plea that if you value open spaces
-- I respect that you may need handicapped
21 bathrooms but to slip in a pergola and a patio
that will triple the size of this edifice under
22 the guise that we're ear needing handicapped
bathrooms --
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, you're aoinq to
need to go back to the microphone, if you're going
24 to continue. Can we have that, please?
.
25 MS. GOMEZ: I'm sorry. I will make a copy
for you, may I:
DVHRD AJJIJTALVT nVYYALJnl Il yVU UUU1LL,
89
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 please.
MS. GOMEZ: Please, I'm not a lawyer. I'm
3 not an architect. I'm just a simple homeowner.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: When can we have those?
4 MS. GOMEZ: I'll go to the copy shop now and
make copies for you.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't want to hold the
hearing up because of it. If you can get them
6 within the next week, that would be fine.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Can you do it
7 within the next week?
MS. GOMEZ: Yes, thank you. I just want to
8 read something, if I mav• Ma v_ I?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure.
9 MS. GOMEZ: I say that if we care about our
neighborhood and the preservation of precious open
10 spaces and natures natural beauty, we will vote
against this. We at least want our voices heard.
11 To have a 20 by 14.8 storage buildinq_ added with a
new 20 by 20 pergola and 2 new brick patios, 24 by
12 20 by 4 by 14.8. Why do we need a storage area?
I have observed the maintenance that happens in
• 13 that park for the last 26 years. What gets stored
that must require a new edifice? And now the new
19 larger building will not conform to the R80 front
yard 60 foot setback and requires a variance from
15 Article 23, Section 280-14. The construction of
this new larger building is being slipped in under
16 the guise of addressing the needs to provide
handicapped accessible toilets to the park. Do we
17 want an eyesore of a structure in our park for all
our lifetime? The eyesore would only serve people
18 who may use the park once a year. We live here
all year and I respectfully request that that be
19 considered. And Tom Lavinia may come and speak
for himself and I will call him right now and tell
20 him that. But this eyesore of a pergola was
attempted to be built 5 or so years ago and the
21 voice of the community resounded with a loud no.
Once again, the commissioners of the Southold Park
22 District are intending to get this eyesore built
to serve the needs of a few large parties who use
23 the park but once a year. And to make matters
worse, they're tacking on this pergola to the
24 original structure. Even adding a new larger
storage unit and brick patios. Where do the
25 residents of South Harbor Road factor into this:
14V31. V1 t11e56 ~JeV~11C 111 111C lalljC Cj1VU}JJ UVll~i.
90
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 even live in our neighborhood and, as we all know,
park usage is not attended or supervised through
3 the end of the day. Users can stay as long as
they wish. They can consume as much alcohol as
4 they please. They leap over the fence. They take
the tables and put them on top of the structures.
5 I have it all documented with photos. We'll be
left with larger crowds, more speeding on South
6 Harbor Road raceway, more garbage, debris, illegal
activity, overnight parking and all told, an
7 element that does not serve our community. This
matters to me. It matters intensely to my husband
8 and my neighbors.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else
9 you'd like to add?
MS. GOMEZ: I have a lot more but I respect
10 that you have a lot more on your plate.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Thank you very
11 much.
MS. GOMEZ: Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else like to make
a comment on this? Linda, could you just let this
• 13 lady, thank you.
MRS. BURNS: I'm one of the neighbors -- I'm
14 sorry. Marie Burns, 1550 South Harbor Road. We
live right along where the parking area is. And
15 this gentleman here, as he presented, seemed to
want to impress upon you his consideration for the
16 neighbors to the north. The neighbors to the
north are, well we're along the east side, but the
17 neighbors to the north can't see the park. We are
the neighbors. So to add more height to this
18 building is going to block our view. It's just a
little park. why do you want to make it more than
19 it is? It's a little park. It's used and there's
families that go down there. It's well treed.
20 There's no need to run under shelter other than if
it starts raining, there's no sun there, it's all
21 treed. Nobody is in the park when it rains
anyway. I really I just want to say that I'm
22 totally against it. An improvement is one thing
but there's just no need. We're going to be
23 impacted by this, we really are, and what is it
going to do to the beauty of the park? Like I
24 say, it's just a simple little park, that's all it
is. It's just really a shame that this has to be
. 25 done. Gkay. Thank yau.
CHAIRi~iAiv' vIiv`IZIv: I iiave d yuc~CiU11, 1
91
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 don't think necessarily of vou. But Dark
districts, are you all members of that park
3 district? Do you have to join it? Are you a
member of the park district? Everybody in
4 Southold --
MRS. BURNS: Yes, I have a sticker and I can
5 go to anv of the parks.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I don't live in
6 one so I wasn't sure. It's not like you can join
it. You are a part of it if you live in that
7 particular house.
MRS. BURNS: It was for a while there. When
8 we first moved there, we've been there about 7
years, there was virtually nobody there. In fact,
9 there were days where it was more populated in the
evening with the kids then it was durinq_ the dav_•
10 And then they were renting the park out for
parties. It was a fiasco. The parking and, you
11 know, the noise. That only happened one year but
ever since then, it has gotten very popular.
12 People discovered it and it's a beautiful little
spot and certainly, I've never been in the
13 lavoratory, although I always said that was my
• second bathroom, I've never been in it. I don't
14 know if it needs repair. It's unobtrusive the way
it is now. It's simple. It blends it. There's
15 rhododendrons around it. Why do you want to make
it more? It lust doesn't seem like it's needed.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you very much.
Yes, sir.
17 MR. GOMEZ: My name is Arturo Gomez, I live
at 1070 South Harbor Road. I'm Margaret's
18 husband. I just want to add something to what's
being discussed. I don't mind about building a
19 handicapped toilet because I've seen so many
people, young and old, defecate all over. We have
20 pictures for vou. What I have a grievance about
is with the Southold Park District, the
21 commissioners. If they build the pergola, patio
and everything, even now without it, the
22 privileged few, I say, I don't know, I blame it on
the Southold Park District. They have people, I
23 don't know who they are, the park is closed at
dusk. The definition of dusk is when it's a
24 little bit dark, 8 o'clock, 7 o'clock, but people
from the Park District, whoever they are, a
. 25 privileged few, I say, they use the park unties
11UV ~l ltl 1Vi L11 C.Li Vwll IJaiLCVLLC 1nCy ~/Ul L11C
92
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 torch, they use the power in the storage room for
their own private convenience and the park is
3 supposed to be closed at dusk. Why do they do
that? Because they're privileged?
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have no. That's your
park district.
5 MR. GOMEZ: And if you build a pergola, they
can stay there because the put now flat screen
6 high definition TV plugged in there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZZO: You need to deal with
7 that in your own district. Ma'am, is it short?
MS. GOMEZ: Very short. What I would like
8 to add is it's a very small park. The ratio
between this structure and the park is out of
9 line. If you look at the sheet of paper, most of
the space on the north is for parking. The area
10 that is actually, the park is very small. It's a
very small park, like Maria said and it swells and
11 becomes a fairground and a circus around in the
summer. We have to leave our home because we
12 can't be there and that whole area, that South
Harbor Road is filled with cars. If somebody had
13 to get out in an emergency, they'd be finished,
• they'd be wiped out. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Linda wanted to make a
comment.
15 MRS. BERTANI: Mrs. Gomez asked what
commissioner would put his name to it. I dust
16 wanted to say that all 3 commissioners were
unanimous about this before we went for the
17 variance. The storage building, we need to have
obviously, mechanicals that are going to be in
18 there. We were going to purchase a handicap
wheelchair. It has these huge wheels on it. It's
19 very big. We can put it in there so people can
use that so they could have access to the beach.
20 I guess that's pretty much it. We have a
maintenance guy who puts all his stuff in his
21 truck. We can probably leave some stuff in there.
We have the senior citizen's of Peconic/Southold
22 meet there once a week all through the summer and
some of them had commented to us that it would
23 nice if they can sit in the shade. It is true
that it is shaded, there are a lot of trees but
24 people are now concerned about skin cancer and so
on and so forth. They wanted an area that they
• 25 could be under. So that was another thought we
i]dii. TiiC uYlt: is Ndi.lo tile%'~ Cuiuiiiy ai;i 0~~ ti]e
93
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 front of the bathrooms, it was for aesthetics.
There's a concrete area there and we're just going
3 to knock it out to make it look nicer and continue
the patio around. I'm not really certain about
4 the height. I have the architect here, it's 13
feet to the top of the ridge. And they'll be one
5 pilling -- 2 columns on the outside and actually
would be able to see through this, this 20 by 20
6 building that's being added on to the side.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any way
7 _
of dealing with the tin roof aspects so that
doesn't block people's enjoyment of the --
8 MR. KEEL: Brett Keel, the designer of the
project. We could take the roof off and make it a
9 pergola type almost like they have in the
vineyards and stuff, youu can see where they have
10 the vines growing over the top. It would be open
and shield some of the sun. One thing you have to
11 remember is ADA doesn't mean that the neighbors
can say no to things because they don't like it.
12 ADA means we have to be compliant with a
handicapped in all aspects. Sometimes even when
. 13 you put someone in a wheelchair, you can't say go
across that lawn because the neighbors don't like
14 we have a patio. It has to be a smooth surface so
that people in wheelchairs can get across. That's
15 the reason for ADA laws, it's just to make them
feel equal. They have to be able to get around.
16 So if you want to sit in the shade, go ahead push
your wheelchair across this lot and get under the
17 tree, everybody else is Going to be sitting over
here. We have to sort of think of this whole Town
18 is now a retirement area. We have older people
coming out more and more. Once again, older
19 people are very accessible to sunburn and they
want to sit in the shade and they want to be on a
20 flat surface. I mean you get 60 years old, you
don't want to be trying to get across the grass
21 and lumps in the dirt. I mean the problem with
the drinking and all the other stuff, that happens
22 everywhere in Southold. It's more of a police
problem than a structure problem. I mean I've got
23 buildings that are monstrous and I can turn around
and show you where people still go and sneak back
24 there to go to the bathroom. We're talking brand
•
25 new buildings and it still happens. So it's not
just because someone puts up a building. If we
Wa111 LV V1 11C C11 LV, wC 1: V11111 (.JUL a 111j 11L
94
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 underneath the pergola area and light it up sc
when someone comes down, the cops can stop all the
3 traffic on that road. It's only one way in and
one wa_y out and if the kids are going to run
4 through the woods and resist arrest, then they're
in trouble with the law. It's not because of a
5 building. We're trying to improve the building
for elderly people even the young people. It's
6 Southold Park District, it's everybody in
Southold. If the people in the area don't like
7 something yes we're going to listen and try to
compromise but if we go ahead and say it's a 60
8 foot or 80 foot setback and we do the 80 foot
setback and put a building in the middle that
9 complies to all the codes, what are they going to
say? They blocked my view and I don't have a word
10 and can't say anything. Here we tried to keep it
open and the pictures themselves where all the
11 tape is is all patio area or just two pilings
holding up a roof. So whether you block 12 inches
12 doing a pergola or you block 3 feet of a roof, you
still leave it open underneath. We're tryinq
our
13 _
best to make everybody happy but you do have to
improve things.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can Vou tell us
what area of the roof you could remove? Show it
15 to us on a site plan and submit it to us. Not
today.
16 MR. KEEL: All right, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a kind of a
17 comment. I guess I should have anticipated this
amount of controversy. I happen to live about 300
18 feet from a park district also. There's a
conflict. The reason park district are where they
19 are is they're close to where people want to be.
Those of us who are lucky enough to live near a
20 park district are lucky to live near a very
_
attractive part of town. We tend to think we have
21 a kind of entitlement, that we are special because
we were lucky enough or rich enough or earl v
to
22 _
buy land there and so the combination is
obviously, the park district represents the park
23 rather than -- and therefore the town, that's
their special interest. And the problem is if
24 there are going to be parks, they are going to
have to be put in ways that are going to be
. 25 attractive to everybody. Our job is since we
UVII' L L1QVC a J~lCL1al 1Rl.CLCSI 1R 1.1115 VllC Way VL
95
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 the other is to try to reach some kind of an
accommodation. So I think the discussion is very
3 helpful because the concerns of the people who
look at that park every day is kind of a
4 bittersweet experience. They sweet part is,
that's where they are. They have a wonderful view
5 365 days a year. The bad part is, it's so
attractive that it attracts other people. So how
6 can we reach some kind of an accommodation? We're
not experts on this but I think we're in the
7 position were we can try to do some kind of a
balance. It's very helpful to me, at least, to
8 hear a variety of viewpoints on this. I say this
to say that people have to understand that the
9 things that they care most about aren't the things
that rule the daV in a town where we represent
10 everybody and the park district is not just for
the locals. If it were just for the locals, there
11 wouldn't be any park district. There would dust
be area where people would go and we'd still have
12 nuisances for teenagers who wanted to go to
undeveloped parks to do what they want to do.
13 They're not there because it's a park. They do it
because the land doesn't have any houses on it and
19 they're not trespassing on anybody's land other
than the park district's land.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have
anything to say?
16 MRS. BERTANI: Just one more thing. Not all
of Southold Village is in the park district. I
17 just wanted to say that. In 1907, the Bav View
School district opted out so most of Hog Neck is
18 not in the park district. It's not really for
everyone in Southold. It's only for the people
19 who live in the park district and pay specific
park district taxes and we do have park attendants
20 who do monitor it in the summertime.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If you live within those
21 boundaries, you have to pay those taxes?
MRS. BERTANI: That's right.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a special use
district.
23 MR. BOYD: If I may very briefly summarize
where we are. It's been a helpful discussion. It
24 seems that we have policing problems that are
brought to our attention by the people who live
• 25 close by the park. Their problems are not unique
l.V lL1C JV11111 Rc1 L ilVt tat k. 1 ~ VC 11C GLll L11C Ja1ltC
96
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 thing at the end of manv, many roads and Southold
Town. We've had similar discussions before this
3 Board and other boards asking for solutions up on
Long Island Sound to problems with fisherman and
4 abusers to have may I approach. It seems that
this property has already been discovered. It
5 does not appear to be anything in this application
that is going to greatly intensify the use of the
6 park. We are talking about a very small addition
in square footage. If anyone feels that a light
7 underneath the roofed area under the pergola would
be advantageous to defer vandalism and improper
8 use, I'm sure that can be addressed. I'm not sure
that the light itself might not be more offensive
9 to the neighbors than what is presently going on
there. I can't speak to that. I want to remind
10 this Board and I think Mr. Keel alluded to this as
well. This is an addition or a structure that we
11 could build without anv request for variance,
whatsoever, if we were just simply to move it 30
12 feet over to the east. We just can build it. We
are trving for economy reasons and for
13 centralizing everything in one location on the
• property to add on to the existing structure. If
14 that's not possible, it may very well be that some
other plan will be proposed which would result a
15 different structure further to the east. I can't
speak to that at this time. We are dealing with a
16 very normal conflict that we see when special
districts are involved and you as the Zoning Board
17 of Appeals are listening to an amount of
frustration which should be properly directed
18 toward the special district. You are not
responsible for the policing of it. You are not
19 responsible for the use of the area. Your job is
to decide on the strict and very small question of
20 whether we can increase our degree of
nonconformance by about 17 inches. These concerns
21 and I feel the frustration for the people who live
close to the site. These are frustrations and are
22 concerns that must be addressed by the park
district and not by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
23 We're trving with this plan to economize our
construction to make it the least obtrusive
24 structure that we can to fulfill what we believe
are the needs of all of the residents of the park
• 25 district as Mr. Simon explained. Many, many
rJC V(J1B 1I1 JVUl. 11V 11A W1IV d1C 11VL LUlLLLIl CiLC @11U ll l~ll Lli
97
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 live immediately adiacent to a beautiful area such
as this but through their park district taxes and
3 their membership in the park district, they have
access to this area. And they must be
4 accommodated as well and certainly the handicapped
must be accommodated. It's not only the strict
5 application of the ADA for the bathrooms but the
pergola itself is something that is being put up
6 with the idea of making it an enhanced area for
the handicapped who do not have the mobility of
7 other folks. It's going to give them a place to
get out of whatever it might be, rain or sun, what
8 have you. So with saying all of that, I urge Vou
to remember what we're here and that's to decide a
9 strict issue of setback and nonconformance with
that setback. The other matters should be and I'm
10 sure will be addressed by the park district.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask you a couple of
11 ctuestions. What's doincr through my mind is
there's a party going on down there sometimes.
12 This Board sometimes tries to mitigate, has the
opportunity when you ask for a variance to grant
13 it contingent on a few things. To my mind, maybe
• screening is something that you may want to
14 consider. So that at least these people perhaps
would not see the parties going on.
15 MR. BOYD: Screening could be a double edge
sword. I certainly would have no objection. I'm
16 sure the park district has absolutely no objection
to screening the hard structure. That's not a
17 problem at all but screening the pergola area or
the patio area, I think might be more deleterious
18 to the circumstances than leaving it unscreened
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just a question, that's
19 all.
MR. BOYD: Those are my views on the
20 situation that I'd be hesitant about that because
you are blocking the view of law enforcement and
21 anyone else as to what is happening there.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What about motion lia_hts
22 instead of lights you just leave on?
MR. BOYD: No problem whatsoever.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know if we can be
specific about that. The neighbors might want to
24 think about these things going off every time a
deer noes by but it would deter people from being
. 25 there.
rin. BvYv: Ii: u0uiu. I iCiiuw da you
9 /i
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 mentioned the deer and other wildlife. I know
what my motion lights do. Certainly that would
3 not be something that could not be integrated into
the plan. Anvthinq else?
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know this is a
problem all over Town. The kids go to the
5 beaches. I live near a road end, thev come down
there. Usually they leave by 12 o'clock but
6 sometimes they don't. I think you all ought to
get together and work with the police to get a
7 some sort of a plan together that -- some of those
park districts or beaches, the police would come
8 at different times so the kids wouldn't aet used
to them being there at one certain time and work
9 out some sort of arrangement or even make a
committee of people that would go down there at
10 certain times and go down there and work out a
schedule because it is a problem and the trouble
11 is the kids don't have that many places to go.
You don't want them running amuck. I think if you
12 work something out with the police, something with
your own and other park districts to work out some
13 sort of a policing schedule plan, it might help
• because I do think you need the handicapped
14 access. There are so many people that are
handicapped. I don't know if you remember, Ed,
15 but we had someone here a few years back just
looking at the different restaurants that had
16 handicapped access and there was only like 1 or 2.
This is something to be considered very seriously.
17 MR. BOYD: I think as a Town, we've made
great strides in the handicapped access but there
18 are still some things that have to be done. I
know special districts that I've represented in
19 other projects have all in the last couple of
years made considerable changes to their
20 structures to accommodate this. This is one of
the last ones here. Thank you very much.
21 MRS. BERTANI: I'm sorry. One more comment.
We have written letters to th Chief of Police. We
22 have made phone calls. I will immediately today
get with the commissioners and we will do it
23 again. I don't know if Bettina together with all
the park districts will be helpful because we are
24 all spread out and I know that it's a problem down
there. I live over by the Goose Creek Bridge and
• 25 that's a problem there too. We'll do what we can.
DVHRU ii r~ii nii ii vLIvn: I just ti111ik 1i dil vi
99
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 you can possibly get together, the whole, all the
park districts in Town, and say we really have a
3 problem here because we hear it all the time.
People come to the Town Board saying the kids are
4 here and the kids are there. The police come and
they just move to another beach. But I think
5 especially with park districts. They can't do it
for end of road, it's impossible to do for that,
6 all of those. But they can do it within the park
districts of this Town, I think you might be able
7 to work something out.
MRS. BERTANI: Two of our parks are end of
8 road, 3 of them actually. It is really very
difficult but I will bring all of these thoughts
9 to the commissioners today.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you.
10 MRS. BURNS: I'm sorry. I think we got off
on the thing here about the kids down there
11 drinking and all. That is certainly one of the
aspects. The pergola will definitely attract
12 them. Right now there's no pergola there and we
have a problem. We feel that this will add to it.
13 I really don't, I'm uncomfortable with the sense
• that the commissioners and Mr. Simon have made me
14 feel like I am anti-handicap. I will crow old one
day and God forbid, I may end up in a wheelchair.
15 I don't want that feeling. I don't feel that way
Mr. Simon, I really don't. But to make this
16 bathroom handicapped accessible, there's no
objection to that at all. I can't speak for my
17 neighbors but to make the building higher would
definitely impede the Cranes view but the pergola
18 is really the most offensive part of the bathroom.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you miss
19 the point though, what Mrs. Bertani was saying,
and that was to purchase a handicapped chair that
20 goes in the sand. It is rather a large chair.
It's made of PVC with large sand wheels. It costs
21 $1,500. We just bought 2 of them in the Mattituck
Park District. One for the bay and one for the
22 sound. That has a to be housed somewhere. That
you just don't take and put into a car.
23 MRS. BURNS: Would that be in the storaa_e
area?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's what
she said.
• 25 MRS. BURNS: Again, why the pergola:
DVARD L'1 E11D ER GVERi~I1VVGtl. 1 11 V11't 1111VW 1VlA
100
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 gotta ask them. This is not a pergola issue, this
is a storage issue that we're talking about.
3 MRS. BURNS: I thought you knew. Well
expanding the building that's already there, I
4 don't know visually just how much bigger it's
going to be. I honestly don't. It's really the
5 pergola addition and the patio is fine. That's
fine. But it's the pergola, the aerial that
6 structure there that, as I say would impede our
view, Crane's view and the Gomez's view and I
7 guess Lavinia's as well. The pergola, making the
building somewhat a little bit bigger, moving it
8 on, making it bigger on to the north end, there's
no problem, as I say as long as the height of the
9 roof stays the same.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First of all I liked
10 the idea of focusing in on one or two key
elements. Secondly, I haven't heard anybody say
11 anything on any side of this discussion that's
unsympathetic to the handicapped. I certainly
12 didn't say it and I didn't hear anybody else say
it.
• 13 MRS. BURNS: You just implied --
(Everyone talking at one time).
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I meant by the few
was the few of us that live near the beaches and
15 near the park. That's the few I had in mind.
MRS. BURNS: I was just uncomfortable with
16 --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It was a
17 misunderstanding.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you all set, ma'am?
18 Anybody else have anything briefly to say about
this application?
19 MRS. BERTANI: I'm sorry. One last thing.
I gave you all a copy of the letter from
20 Mr. Emmerson who actually gave the property to the
park district back in 1921. I want to read one
21 part of it and by the way, this is an absolutely
beautiful letter. It epitomizes parks, it's
22 wonderful. What he asked for, what he said, this
is from his letter, "we have thought that a
23 shelter could be built under which tables and
benches would serve the needs of those who wish to
24 picnic at the shore." So this was written when he
give this is in 1921. It's been late in coming
. 25 but we're hoping that it wiii come now.
nvr~nv r, r, iib c~ii vUanniivvr~ii: Ju3~ i=chic iuuct_ ~iiaL
101
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Keith's going to give us a roof cut off on what
the story is.
3 MRS. BERTANI: Brett.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anybody else have
4 any more comments on this application? Hearing
none, I'll entertain a motion to close this
5 hearina.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are we waitina_ for
7 anything?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, just from
8 Brett.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Ruth made the
9 motion.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion to close pending.
• 10 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: A roof diagram
you're looking for or a letter?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Removal of a
portion of the roof.
12 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: A diagram showing
removal of a portion of the roof?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct.
MRS. GOMEZ: And these photos?
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You said you'd give them
to us, ma'am. We're going to depend on that next
15 week. So we're going to close the hearing. We're
going to receive these two things. Ruth made the
16 motion, Jerry seconded it. All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
Hearing #6108 -- Crary
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Kinqa P. Crary. Jerry, that's your application.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
"Request for Variances under Sections
20 280-13 and 280-15, based on the Building
Inspector's October 24, 2007 Notice of Disapproval
21 concerning proposed additions and alterations to
an existing accessory building for use as the
22 owner's studio/workshop. The Building Inspector
states that the following are not permitted for
23 accessory buildings: (1) habitable space as shown
in the proposed layout of the accessory building,
24 (2) setbacks from the side and rear lot lines at
less than three feet, and (3) proposed dormers
• 25 exceeding 40s of the roof width. Location: 355
JIC 1 ~J (Je1J LG11C, V11C1tLJ L1C1 GY-G-4.
10
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Mr. Price, how are you sir. Just state your
name.
:i MR. PRICE: Hi. Mv_ name is Gordon Price. I
live at d5 village Lane in Orient ana i am the
4 agent or xinga Crary ana i nave received a letter
the day before yesterday from the Landmarks
5 rreservation Commission in which L'll read the
first paragraph or part of it, "the project's
6 architect, Gordon Price has worked diligently with
the Commmission to revise his original submission
/ to meet our capability criteria Tor the Orient
historic district." I am not an architect. I am
8 a residential designer. I just want that to go on
the record. Why are we here? We have a lady here
9 who is a professional artist and has a very lovely
home on Skippers Lane in Orient and she needs more
10 room and more light for her artistic endeavors.
And I want to get a sample of her work to prove to
11 vou, sir and ladies that she is truly a
professional artist.
_
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very beautiful.
MR. PRICE: Kinga does a lot of this kind of
• 13 work and she needs more room. And she has a barn
behind her house or to the side of her house which
14 is approximately 16 by 25 feet and it's a perfect
location for her to have a studio. At the present
15 time, she is using her kitchen to do this kind of
work and it's truly inadectuate for her and her
16 needs. The reason for the dormer and I don't
know, I suppose you have the plans in front of
17 you; is that correct? So there's a dormer that
goes almost clear across the ridge line of the
18 building which is certainly more than a 40 percent
that is allowed by the Building Department code
19 and the reason for that is that she needs more
light and this is the perfect way for her to get
20 more light. I originally had skvliahts on the
east side of the building roof and the Landmarks
21 Preservation Commission mentioned that it would be
more appropo visually and more suitable for her
22 visually and professionally to have this dormer go
almost clear across and that's what we've done and
23 they've approved of that. I also had some plain
windows on the east side which were quite large
24 without any lights in them, any grills and they
suggested that I put Grills in to be more
• 25 compatible with the area and the existing house
will is ii lido c. Oi iici c wliiu Owe. e~iiu that ~ ~ wild S. i
103
•
•
•
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 did. So, they seem to approve, they have approved
of the changes that I made as noticed to the
? letter I think you have from the Landmarks
Commission. We also think that to move, the
4 building is within 6 or 8 inches of the back lot
line and it's been there for something like 100
5 years or 75 years and it certainly isn't
conforming to the code as being 3 feet from the
6 lot line but we feel that it would be more
visually attractive to keep it there so that it
7 won't be bringing it into the yard which would
certainly be a detriment to the owner and her
8 backyard but also to the neighbors who are used to
it being there. We would request that we leave it
9 there and they seem to agree, the Landmarks
Commission also aa_reed that that would be
10 possible.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say
11 Mr. Price, that has never been granted. The 27
years I have been on this Board. No accessory
12 structure has ever been granted in a location of
that nature. Maybe at a foot and a half at one
13 point on a cement block one that couldn't be
moved. But it has to have conforming or close to
19 conforming side yards. That's -lust one issue.
Now, you know me a long time and I'm not going to
15 lie to you. You're going to totally revitalize
this building anyway, right?
16 MR. PRICE: Yes. Lift it up to put in a new
foundation. I think at the present time from the
17 eastern boundary, it's a foot and a half from the
line; is that correct?
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: .8 inches.
MR. PRICE: I know the back is --
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: .6 from the rear; 1.2
feet from the east.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, it was .B from the
east.
21 MR. PRICE: The back or I call it the south
part of the building is 8 inches. There's a
22 marker there actually. Anyway, it's our opinion,
I haven't heard anything to the contrary, Jerry,
23 until now that it wasn't possible to get a
variance on an accessory building.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's always a
possibility to get a variance but not to that
25 extreme, okay.
Lin. rnlCr~: irv ila i, riOuiu yOii ~uyyd~e
104
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're going to lift
the barn up any way, correct?
3 MR. PRICE: We're going to lift it up, yes.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGR: I would like Ruth
4 to address this because it's her area and then I
would like to go back to it if I could.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, hold on. We have a
pecking order.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you just
go with her pecking order since she's from Orient.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have
anything you'd like to ask at this point?
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to defer
my questions until after I hear from Ruth.
9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just looking at it,
it's a beautiful house and the barn's old and it's
10 in an historic district and we want to keep it as
much as we can. I know Jerry always has a problem
11 with fire access to the barn because everything is
scrunched together on that whole street. But if
12 you're going to lift the barn up, could you not
lift it and move it over slightly?
. 13 MR. PRICE: Yes, we could do that.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Move it over to the
14 west and a little further to the north.
MR. PRICE: Yes.
15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just so there'd be some
sort of variance. What number would you be most
16 comfortable with seeing how we would feel most
comfortable?
17 MR. PRICE: Well, I think 2 feet from the
south side and another foot from the east side.
18 It still wouldn't be 3 feet but if we're going to
get the barn that wav with 3 feet.
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think we'd be happier
with 3 feet.
20 MR. PRICE: You would be happier. All
right, that's possible.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And knocks out one
variance.
22 MR. PRICE: That knocks out one, right. How
am I doing otherwise?
23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Could we make it 3 feet
from the south too?
24 MR. PRICE: Yes, it possible.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want to
• 25 address the use:
^
i°in. r1~1 ~,n: ailiya 1J t.L 1j 111. 11CLC. Jll@~J 1,116
105
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 one.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The use is for an
3 artist, I understand.
MR. PRICE: But it's essential for her to
4 have this building for her work. She's no Sunday
artist. She's a real practicing professional and
5 a good one.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I can see that. You
6 know it is Orient, you're in a historical
district. We want to keen things as much to the
7 historical aspect as possible but knowing it's
tight quarters all along Skippers Lane, all those
B houses and there's one that's being completely
demolished and redone, I think almost next to
9 yours, and I'm wondering why they didn't come in
for a variance too. But I don't know. So we're
10 trying to keep Orient and the historical district.
MR. PRICE: Ruth, in all frankness, it's my
11 opinion that if it's left exactly where it is and
lifted and then returned to where it was before,
12 it would be less obtrusive than by moving it.
That's my personal opinion.
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I can understand that
• but I think still with other safety conditions
14 just to acquire access or what have you to be able
to get around things in case it starts burning
15 down, you don't have much room to move except on
the other two sides that you just want to qo on
16 that side. Three feet at least would give you
some --
17 MR. PRICE: Correct. Do you have
photographs of the --
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sure do.
MR. PRICE: If you look at the photograph, I
19 think it's on the lower right photograph, if you
can hold that toward me, this is the one, the
20 second one.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The southeast.
21 MR. PRICE: That's closest to the neighbor
and that's the one that's 8 inches from the back
22 and a foot and a half from the neighbor. Now, if
we moved it in another 18 inches, I don't think it
23 would be a big deal but moving it forward 3 feet
or 2 and a half feet would, I think it'll be in a
24 different location, in other words, it's just the
custom of trying to keep it incidentally, the
• 25 facade except for the dormer will be exactly the
WGIy 1L 15 11UW a11. 11V Ul~ll G1Ca11CU U~J Al6 LCL l15C 1L J JV
106
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 old.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is the barn as old as
3 the house?
MR. PRICE: It's a real barn. It was
4 actually moved. It was a blacksmith shop. Never
been a garage. There's no access to it as a
5 garage. It's charming inside too right now.
Anyway, we could live with it being moved, no
6 question.
MS. CRARY: Kinga Crary, 355 Skippers Lane,
7 I just feel that if you move it, it would kind of
disturb the look of the whole thing. There's a
8 big bush that kind of covers it up so you don't
really see it. If you move it, it'll kind of be
9 sitting by itself. And the neighbor next door
would see it more, it would be more in their way.
10 I don't know. I just feel that disturbing the
location of it would kind of disturb the whole
11 Karma of the building visually and I don't think
that a foot would make that much difference on one
12 side but if you pull it towards, pull the building
north, I think it will disturb the whole feel of
• 13 it. Yes, they are renovating the house 2 doors
down and it's getting bigger everyday. Now the
14 contractor told me they're putting in a pool too.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need to keep this to
15 the application at hand.
MS. CRARY: So that's all I have to say. I
16 think the least you do to the building, the least
you move it, the least you manipulate it.
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I didn't Give up my
pecking order so I'm going to ask the questions
18 right now. I just want to make a couple of
statements. The reason we have that 3 foot
19 setback is so you can do maintenance on that
building without going on your neighbor's
20 property. So say your neighbor or you want to put
a fence up, you're not going to get around to that
21 side of the building without having to go on your
neighbor's property. And now is an opportune time
22 if you're picking the building up assuming it's
not on a hard fast foundation an you're going to
23 excavate that and there's no reason why you can't
go over -- I understand there's a certain
24 comfortableness right there. I probably agree
with you. But you're changing this thing beyond
25 that anyway. You want Lo put a dormer in where
111CLC wc1J 11CVC1 Cl UV1lll@i 111 C11~J VCL La 1111y 1~V1111~
107
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 to change the aura of that building certainly a
lot more than moving it 3 feet in my opinion
3 because it's going to change the actual shape that
you're going to see. Ruth has got a good point
9 that we need to maintain these buildings. You
have the opportunity now to set this thing in a
5 location that doesn't require a variance and the 3
feet, 2 and a half feet is not that big of a deal,
6 to my mind.
MS. CRARY: I see what you mean.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What we need to address
now is the 89 percent variance you want from the
8 90 percent roof variance and as I understand it,
you're original proposal was to put skylights
9 there and my assumption is you wanted it to help
you with the light, right? Now, you originally
10 wanted skylights. That wouldn't require a
variance. It seems that that would have meet your
11 needs. Now suddenly we need to raise the roof.
MS. CRARY: But the historical society --
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I understand that but
again, the historical society is making a decision
• 13 based on a landmark that has been there for 100
years and now they want to suddenly change the
14 historical building, change the look of it. So to
my mind that doesn't make any sense.
15 MS. CRARY: It would be an improvement. If
we had put skylights, it would be unattractive
16 visually.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It wouldn't be historic
17 anymore.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not with the dormers.
18 MS. CRARY: We're making it look historic.
The dormers going across is very historic.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not with respect to
that building.
20 MR. PRICE: That's true but with respect to
the general character of that dormer, it's done in
21 barns all over the North Fork, in fact, I should
have brought an example of a photograph that was
22 taken from the barn book. The North Shore Barn
Book and there's a dormer that goes across the
23 barn, the ridge line of the barn.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Were they there 100
24 years ago?
•
25 MR. PRICE: Oh yes, it's an old trick, if
you will, a visual trick but also when I brought
iii iuy OLy iitai NvNOSai %v file .i~dii uiuairi
108
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Preservation Comission, they proposed that we
extend the dormer. I had a little dormer at one
3 end which gave an access to her storage on the
little second level where the attic would be. So
4 I gave her some headroom there at one end of the
building, the south end of the building, and they
5 proposed to bring it clear across and eliminate
the skylights and therefore have more light coming
6 in in a more traditional way, which I agreed to.
MS. CRARY: Both Gordon and I are very much
7 into visual and building with integrity and
proportion and we definitely think this is an
8 improvement over skylights. Skylights would be
unattractive.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But you're making an
argument to us that the historical preservation
10 committee wants you to change the outside
appearance of an historical building. To my mind,
11 that doesn't make it historical anymore. The
reason that it's historical is that particular
12 building has been in that particular location for
so many years that historically that's why you
13 want to preserve it.
• BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be replacing
19 one historic building with a quite different
historic building.
15 MS. CRARY: We're trying to stick to an
historic look and we're trying to stick to a look
16 that would fit in and look historic and try to
make it really nice. Of course, this new
17 configuration is a lot more costly. It would be
much cheaper to slap on some ugly skylights but
18 we're tying to make it look nice.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would skylights be and
19 considering that you first opposed skylights and
that seems to have met your needs for being an
20 artist and wanting to paint in there, would you
have on objection to having skylights.
21 MS. CRARY: It certainly would be cheaper to
have the skylights.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we worked
out, Mr. Price in Nassau Point on a similar
23 situation which did not exceed the code
requirement were basically built-in doghouse
24 dormers on one side or both sides that were built
not above the ridge but into the ridge. Now I
• 25 cannot explain that to you as I sit before you
i11~11L 11Vw. Vllt t@J1LLC11L f1L 1: 1111.CU1. Gl 11lA VCly 111GB
109
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Board member had to leave todav and that's Ms.
Weisman. So she would have to address that issue
3 you at another meeting. Or you would have to
discuss it with her when she comes back. But
4 that's something that would lower the roof height
and not cause a problem with the Landmark -- I'm
5 not speaking for the Landmark Commission but I
think that it would be an adaptation of what you
6 have done now but basically conform to the zoning
ordinance in reference to these accessory
7 structures.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: Is that an
8 application that we have on file?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the one
9 that we just did, Sachman. They didn't build it
yet, it's on the drawing board.
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's also not an
historic building.
11 MR. PRICE: Is it something I should see?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'll let you take
12 a look at that. The next issue we have to discuss
is use. The reason I'm addressing this is because
13 it happens to be my application or else I would
• defer to someone else but I wanted Ruth's input
14 because she lives in that geographical area. Now
let's talk about use. What infrastructure is
15 going to be in there except for what I can see on
here which appears to be a bathroom facility and
16 some sort of double sink?
MR. PRICE: Double sink, yes. That's for
17 her cleaning her brushes and so forth so she won't
have to use the little sink in the john.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are we going to
have HVAC? Are we going to have just heat? What
19 are we going to have?.
MR. PRICE: There's going to be heat. No
20 air conditionincr.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of heat?
21 MR. PRICE: Gas based. She has natural gas
out on the street and it will be a small unit. I
22 haven't determined that yet because I wanted to
make preliminary plans. I didn't want to go the
23 whole nine yards.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to lay
24 this out to you and I'm not going to say this is
the situation or would be the situation here but
• 25 we had granted a similar type of building on the
L•1a 131 AV aIA 111 VF1Clll C111U 1L C11 lACl! lA ~l, 11V LL11111~ ~V UV
110
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 with your client, with this very nice lady, this
very talented woman that sits before us, and I
3 don't think it was ever used for a studio. All of
a sudden, it went back on the market for two
4 structures on one piece of property and sleeping
quarters, a loft and so on and so forth. One of
5 the concerns that I have is, the minute you put
heat in these structures, they automatically
6 become something other than what they're supposed
to be. That's one of the concerns I suspect the
7 building inspector has. I'm not speaking for him,
he was here before. So what protection can you
8 give us then that this studio will only be used
similar to a person working on their car in a
9 garage only in a much more talented basis.
MR. PRICE: I think you might be referring
10 to the Howell barn, which is a much bigger
structure, first of all, and somebody did allow, I
11 don't know who, I did work on the preliminary
stuff on that but I didn't do the final, and they
12 did put in a bathroom and I think even a shower.
Well, this isn't going to have an upstairs and
13 certainly, it's a very small bathroom. It's not
• capable of having a shower in there and
14 deliberately so. We wanted to make it just a
utilitarian thing for sanitary going to the
15 bathroom reasons and the sink that's in the larger
area is definitely a work sink. Because if you've
16 been an artist, you know artists, they need a big
slop sink to wash their brushes and all sorts of
17 stuff so they don't have to use the little sink.
I can assure you that it certainly in her
18 experience and her living there, it's never going
to be used for anything else but an art studio.
19 She has to store these things and that's why we
have a little second story there and that's what
20 the original idea was when I first took it to the
Landmarks Commission. I had this little dormer
21 there so she could get up there and not hit her
head on the ridge rafter. That's when they got
22 the idea of extending it so that you can get in
more light and not have the skylights.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unfortunately, I
violates the code, that's the problem.
24 MR. PRICE: Right. It wouldn't have
violated the code, the original little dormer was
• 25 less than vv percent of the total ridge. That's
W11C 11 L11Cy 5Q1U l.V Clil C11U ll.. JV 11V M1 1 lll UCI.W CCll
111
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
•
2 --
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: A rock and a hard
3 place.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At least we got
4 you to move on the structure so now we're working
5 MR. PRICE: Well, we can move the structure,
right Kinga?
6 MS. CRARY: Sure.
MR. PRICE: If you want us to move the
7 structure
MS. CRARY: Can we move it as far as we
B want? Can we move it more than a few feet?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure, sure. I'd
9 like you to attach it to the house, to be honest
with v_ou.
10 MR. PRICE: The Landmarks Commission would
really hate you and I would too.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next issue is
can you reduce the dormer then as it presently
12 exists to 40 percent? No? So then must speak to
Ms. Weisman to trv and work out a situation where
13 it does not come up with 89 percent because that's
• far too much.
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's not definitive
though. We all haven't spoken on this.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that.
Remember, I'm trying to get it down so we can come
16 into a middle area here.
MS. CRARY: How about raising the roof, is
17 that possible or is that against code too? What
if we raised the whole roof, would that be
18 against?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can go to 18 feet.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You could do that by
right, as I understand it, as long as you didn't
20 go above 18 feet because then it would eliminate
the dormers.
21 MR. PRICE: Seventeen feet, that's including
the height to the dormer.
22 MS. CRARY: It's a tiny little building
we're talking about.
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you finished,
Jerry? First of all, I'm going to go back,
24 regarding the movement of the property. When I
first looked at it, before I read it more closely,
• L5 '1 thOllgllt, if th1S 15 going Lo Stay where It 1S, 1
WV111 U11~ L !1Q/C fl lly alt VVlCllt l.L 1L WCiC ~U31. J111(~./1y Gi
112
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 conversion leaving it with the nonconforming
setbacks. But then when I realized that we're
3 talking about a new foundation, then it's a whole
new ball game. So I'm sympathetic, I'm delighted
4 that you're prepared to compromise on this.
Regarding the closeness of this, I'm not sure the
5 Board has been completely consistent. I remember
in another part of Orient where somebody had what
6 was allegedly an old ice house which was just
about as close to its boundary line as this one is
7 and it was a long struggle to decide to get them
to have a 5 foot setback instead of an 0.6 foot
8 setback. Anyway, what we're suggesting now is
consistent with what we did then and that was the
9 case where it was questionable whether they could
keep the old foundation or not. This case,
10 there's no question about it.
MS. CRARY: We don't know what it's sitting
11 on at this point.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Exactly. You're making
12 no claims.
MS. CRARY: It might be on cinder block, I
13 don't know.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's fine. Regarding
19 the dormers, when I look at page A2 of this, this
clearly -- looking at the north elevation -- is
15 clearly very different then what we see there now.
If that is kept that way for historic reasons,
16 it's because it's historical type buildings not
because it is preserving the history of it. So
17 what I'm suggesting is, in this case, the 80
percent rule that the Town has is the one that
18 kind of decides it. Now, the historical
preservation board whom I respect, I know Jim
19 Graphwalt (phonetic) quite well. They do their
job. They don't get sued in Supreme Court for
20 making a decision which some neighbor objects to.
We do. They're not bound by the code.
21 MR. PRICE: The Landmarks Commission.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They are not bound by
22 the code, we are. And let them recommend what
they think is proper and they're experts on this.
23 We're in a different situation so we're not really
-- we really don't have to compromise with the
24 Landmarks Commission. We have to do what we think
is right taking into account their considerations
25 and your considerations. I think the idea that
WGIJ ~U.71, 1111 [1LCU Vl jJVJJ1U1y LLCIX11111~ W11. 11 L11C
113
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 light problem either by the skylights which you
had mentioned originally or perhaps raising the
3 roof, which might work better. I would have no
problem with that. I have a serious problem with
4 these dormers particularly as they look on this
picture. It may look historic but it won't be.
5 That's the point.
MR. PRICE: It would be very attractive.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be very
attractive. If you were starting from scratch,
7 except for the dormer 89 percent problem -- I
happen to like the building the way it looks and I
8 wouldn't be offended --
MS. CRARY: Have you seen the building?
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes.
MS. CRARY: But it's just a little shack and
10 falling apart.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't mean keep it
11 the way it is. I mean convert it, move it if you
can, but not to build another semi roof over it.
12 MR. PRICE: Mike, just for a moment. Kinga
is right, in fact, when I first started this
13 project, she said can't we raise the roof and I
. said it would be nicer if it were more intimate,
14 if you will. Then I went and put this little
dormer on the back and the Landmarks Commission
15 said let's extend it, etcetera. Now, I'm coming
to the conclusion that if we raise roof, we
16 got rid of the dormer completely and put skylights
back in which makes it a real art studio, in my
17 opinion.
MS. CRARY: They won't pass the skylights,
18 the Landmarks Commission won't pass the skylights.
MR. PRICE: Maybe they will after hearing
19 this stuff.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know that the:
20 Landmarks Commission can force you to request a
variance and force a variance. You can go 40
21 percent, the law is 40 percent with dormers which
is the subject of this now, the dormers. It`s
22 part of a new law. But if you put skylights in,
you could go, put as many skylights as you wanted,
23 I'm assuming. It wouldn't make a difference.
MR. PRICE: Another reason why I wanted to
24 preserve this intimacy is I don't know if you can
see it, this is the original structure, was to
. 2~ keep this the same way rather than raise the roof
CIllU YLLI. a 11 CL.1C UVI1LICi L11C1C W1111: 11 1511 L 5V
114
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 little actually but to put the dormer there as a
complete entity but keep this the way it really
3 was and still is. That's what I wanted to
preserve. That's why the dormer is there. Now,
9 if we raise the roof which we can do, that's going
to change this, do you follow me? This is all
5 original shingling which I would like to preserve.
Now if we raise the roof, I would cut the building
6 here and raise it like that and preserve the
integrity of the original structure but maybe
7 raise it 2 feet. Then she can still get upstairs
and have headroom for her storage of paintings
8 like this one. So you would agree with that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as it
9 didn't exceed the --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well then you wouldn't
10 need a variance.
MR. PRICE: It's 17 feet high.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You wouldn't need a
variance for dormers at all because there wouldn't
12 be any.
MR. PRICE: We wouldn't have dormers.
• 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Only need the setbacks.
MR. PRICE: It's would look like an art
19 studio but it would still have the same pitch.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So what we're saying
15 is, not only would we approve it, we don't even
have to approve it.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We would have that one
thing now where the Building Inspector saying this
17 is starting to look like more than habitable
space. I think we can --
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I thought their answer
was pretty responsive to that point. It is as you
19 know a problem with the Building Department
sometimes, not completely consistently go around
20 and look at almost anything that somebody wants to
do and they say it looks like habitable space to
21 me and we go on a case by case basis. Sometimes
we say can it be changed in someway so that it's
22 possible or is this case you make a pretty strong
argument that it isn't really a potential for
23 habitable space. The point is, as you know, your
promises, no matter how many Bibles you swear on,
24 that you won't use it for anything else in your
lifetime, places no limits whatever on whoever
• 25 owns iL 75 years from now_
_-
bvr.n~ ~~i r~iin c,n uvc.n nliv vc,n: viilc~~ yvu pug a
115
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 reverter clause in.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't think you can
3 do that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It reverts back to
9 an unheated accessory structure. If the use
changes anymore than what this Board has granted.
5 That's it.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's good.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not our job to
enforce it. So Mr. Price can you redraw that for
7 us? Can we adjourn this meeting to another date
so that you can give this to us?
8 MR. PRICE: Sure. I'll have to qo before
the Landmarks Preservation Committee before I come
9 to you; is that correct?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's probably
10 correct.
MS. CRARY: I thought I was doing this
11 little building a favor. I mean it's totally
falling down.
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I like what you're
trying to do.
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're doing it a great
• service.
14 MS. CRARY: It would be much easier for me
to just rent a studio someplace down the road,
15 probably.
MR. PRICE: This is going to cost a little
16 money.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Maybe not as much as
17 the dormers would.
MS. CRARY: Probably would be cheaper to
18 rent a studio.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anything else?
19 Anybody in the audience want to make a comment on
this application? Jerry, do you have something
20 else to add?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When do you want
21 to adjourn it to.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's up to you guys.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Two months.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Are we adjourning
23 it?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Adjourn it to our
24 February meeting.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: February 20th.
• 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We`re ali set Lo make a
llW l.1 V11
116
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a motion
to adjourn it to the February meeting. It'll give
3 you two months to get this.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The meeting is
9 February 28th.
MR. PRICE: Do you have a January meeting?
5 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time
would you need to do the plan?
6 MR. PRICE: When would the January meeting
be?
7 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You'd have to
supply the plans within the next 3 weeks.
8 MR. PRICE: Again, when is that? The 24th.
I can make that.
9 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Mr. Price, you
would have to have them by the 17th of January
10 they would be due, 7 plans.
MR. PRICE: What about the Landmarks
11 Commission? I have to go before them first; is
that right?
12 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time do
you need?
13 MR. PRICE: Well, I can do this in a week,
• raise the roof and get rid of the dormer. That's
14 no big deal.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How's Landmarks, do you
15 have to qo back before them for this? How long do
they take?
16 MR. PRICE: I'm not familiar with it.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why we're
17 saying tentatively February 28th.
MR. PRICE: We lust want to keep it rolling.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it can be done for
January, we'd certainly be happy to do that.
19 MR. PRICE: Can it be put on for January and
if I can't make it, I can call Linda and say we
20 have to put it off? January 24th? I'm sure that
we can make that.
21 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Well if it's
January 24th and you need more time it may wind up
22 going to March because we fill the calendars early
and we are full for January right now. So if we
23 have to bump a few to February which puts us over
in February.
24 MR. PRICE: Why don't I call you after
talking to Doug Consin (phonetic) or Damon about
• 25 how the Landmarks Commission wiii fit in there.
111dL~J L11C V111y L111111~ LfldL W111 11V1U 1L U.J.
117
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So if we leave it
for January and you need more time, you'll let us
3 know.
MR. PRICE: Right. Okay, thanks very much.
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Price, you'll know
that by next week?
5 MR. PRICE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
6 MR. PRICE: I'll call you on Monday of next
week, Linda.
7 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm writing here
the resolution is to adjourn to January 24th with
8 confirmation by December 27th.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have a motion made and
9 seconded, right?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor?
11 (See minutes for resolution.)
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion
to recess for 5 minutes.
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So moved.
• CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll second it.
14 All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
15 (Whereupon, a short recess was held.)
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need a resolution to
18 reconvene.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved.
20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion by Jerry, Second
21 by Ruth. A11 those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution.)
Hearing #6110 -- Marron
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Thomas and Mary Marron. I'll read this because
24 it's Leslie's.
"Request for Variances under Sections
• 25 280-124B and 280-124. based on an application for
a building Hermit and the Building Insoector's
118
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 September 27, 2007 Notice of Disapprova'.,
concerning a proposed addition to the existing
3 dwelling as living area (instead of garage area
applied for under ZBA #5797-2005), which addition
9 as modified will be less than 15 feet on a single
side yard at 3125 Wells Avenue, Southold; CTM
5 70-4-10."
Garrett, you represent?
6 MR. STRANG: Yes, good afternoon. Garrett
Strang, architect, 1230 Traveler's Street,
7 Southold and I represent the Marron's in this
matter. We had appeared before this Board about 2
8 years ago I believe, made an application based on
a scope of a project which was much more ambitious
9 then what we plan on doing now. The Marron's gave
further consideration over the last 2 years as to
10 how they're actually using the house, how the
family would use the house and had a realization
11 that what they originally proposed would be much
more than their actual needs would dictate now or
12 in the future. So as such, they decided to scale
back the project considerably. The original, some
. 13 history here, the original variance that was
granted was for 26 foot deep by 24 foot wide one
14 and a half story addition which would be 28 feet
from the grade to the ridge and would be 10.1 feet
15 from the side yard. In addition that variance
also granted a second floor addition on the house
16 which also would have a ridge height raised 28
feet above grade and would be the existing, would
17 remain the 12 foot side yard on the existing
house. With the changes we made, we're now only
18 going out with a 16 foot by 24 wide one story
addition and the height of that addition being one
19 story is now only 16 and a half feet from grade to
the ridge and it's now 12.8 feet to the side yard.
20 The existing house roof would remain as it is
would not be raised and it's present height is
21 approximately 19 and a half feet and again it's
distance from the side yard remains at 12.
22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The garage would still
be attached?
23 MR. STRANG: The addition that we're putting
on, the 16 by 24 addition, is going to become a
24 bedroom suite. The garage would now become a
detached garage which is allowed and shown on the
25 plan and that's code complaint.
nvAnv ii~iiBSii GCiErinIiv'GER: I~ 1.11dL like a
119
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 breezeway over the top or what is that?
MR. STRANG: There is a roof connection
3 between the garage and the house porch which is
open although roofed over, the porch is roofed
4 over, the roof of the porch continues across so
that you can walk from the garage to the porch of
5 the house undercover in inclement weather. But it
is intended to remain unclosed.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you tell for
Ms. Weisman, who is not here and it's her
7 application, what the height of the garage is?
MR. STRANG: The garage, the accessory
8 garage? That's a good question, I don't know if I
have those plans here. It meets code, I'll say
9 that. It meets the current standard, I believe
the ridge is actually less than 18 feet from the
10 garage.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
11 MR. STRANG: You're welcome. I've been back
to the site again. It is truly a magnificent
12 site. It's a beautiful piece of property. We
don't have any other issues before us but those
13 two issues; is that correct?
• MR. STRANG: The only issue before you is
14 the side yard setback for the proposed addition
which is obviously now greater than the existing
15 setback. The existing setback is 12. The
proposed is 12.8 so it's getting, the addition is
16 getting further away from the property line than
the existing house and of course, there was a
17 variance granted previously for a 10 foot side
yard.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. Very good.
So the garage will look like it's attached because
19 of that roofed over trellis but in effect, it's
really not attached.
20 MR. STRANG: As far as the Building
Department is concerned, it's considered an
21 accessory structure.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But we don't have a
drawing of that. Leslie was concerned because we
23 don't have a finished map showing that that garage
is separate from the house.
24 MR. STRANG: The Building Department
determined that that wasn't part of the
• ~.~ viJaNNLVVa.1. Lllc yaLayc .1.J 1L J vwll L1l i lly. lllcy
JQ1U L11Cy U W11LC Q (JCLlll1L 1V1 L11C gQLQyC G lliV 11 L11J
120
• 1
ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 ago. We wanted to start construction on the
primary addition when it became evident that we
3 had to come back before this Board because of the
change from the variance as it was written,
4 apparently. So they're beside themselves in the
fact that they couldn't start when the weather was
5 good and now we've got winter breathing down our
neck.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess there was some
question, not everybody was on the same page on
7 this, as to whether or not it was attached or
detached by virtue of having this covered
8 entryway. It's detached, then we just all have to
be sure that we understand that.
9 MR. STRANG: The Building Department is made
in my understanding, several conversations with
10 them, that it's considered detached, it's
considered an accessory structure which is
11 permitted in a front yard in a waterfront
property.
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you know where
yourself, where it says that in the code?
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, lust by the
simple fact that the Building Inspector reviewed
14 the plans and gave a decision and didn't include
that aaraae means that he has look looked at that
15 and determined that it meets the code.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's another issue
16 there which I'll raise later.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it was an
17 enclosed heated structure leading from the house
to the aaraae, it then would be part of the house.
18 MR. STRANG: It would be considered
attached, I agree and would be considered part of
19 the principal dwelling.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I so
20 emphatically asked you twice, not that I was
questioning what that was, I lust wanted to make
21 sure that we were all on the same page.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I had heard from one
22 person that it was not detached and according to
the Building Department that it was attached. We
23 want to look at the code. It wouldn't be the
first time that we came across something where
24 there may have been discrepancies with what the
Building Department said and what we think the
• LJ VVUG OCly J. YYG 11QVG LV llIt7 AG 0111 111LG1~J1C Lt1L1V11 Vl
~ 11 Q L .
12i
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 MR. STRANG: I understand that. Actually,
before we even embarked Upon this particular
3 design concept, I met with the Building Inspector
and said is there going to be a challenge here
9 with this accessory structure or is it going to be
deemed part of the primary building? He said no,
5 we would consider it an accessory structure. They
reiterated that the last time but they neglected
6 to say the first time that well now that you
changed from the original variance granted even
7 though you've lessened your encroachment, you're
going to have to go back to the Board. Had I know
8 that, I would have come to you 6 months ago.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How big is the
9 attachment?
MR. STRANG: The attachment between the two
10 is 10 feet long or 10 feet between the two
buildings --
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And that would lead to
the proposed one story addition?
12 MR. STRANG: That's correct.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. Leslie didn't
13 see this. That's what she was concerned about.
MR. STRANG: It's 5 feet wide by 10 feet
14 long.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Got it. That answers
15 Leslie's questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you were the
16 last one --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further
17 questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you satisfied?
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yep, I'm happy.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you're asking for less
19 than before us anyway, that's basically it. The
garage is not subject of this. Just you want to
20 qo from -- you're asking us for permission to go
from 10 to 12.8. That's based on the fact that we
21 sited a map, we said it's based on this one
particular map and it was changed.
22 MR. STRANG: That's what I understand the
Building Inspector said because of the wording of
23 the variance making specific reference to that
map.
L4 C;riH1xMHN ll1N1LlU: We ao tnat ait the time.
~... JUSL as an explanation to you, wnen you asx ror a
~u~~u..., .., .. ... ~.. y:.: ~. aiy yi u.. ., Yvu rv.,u ., y., .. wu..~
122
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 go less, you're still within that boundary that
still requires a Walz decision variance. And I
3 believe that from my understanding talking to Mike
Verity, he'd bring it back every time.
4 MR. STRANG: That's Good for me to know in
the future because I know then if a client decides
5 to make a change, then we need to come back before
you.
b tSVHxD Mr;Mtst;x J1MVN: llO i unaerstana -- is a
person gets a variance ana builas it requiring
/ less of the variance, that person has to go bacx
to the fiuilaing llepartment.
a OriA1xMHN ll1NlG1O: Our aecision, Michael,
says that this variance is based on this map. So
y you bu11d what you asked us to build. li not,
build it conrorming or come back to us.
1U BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then I think we need
some interpretation in the code.
11 MR. STRANG: Years ago the decisions, I
believe, used to be written that a variance, let's
12 say in this case a side yard variance was granted
for 10 feet.
• 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you Gave 11 feet,
there was no problem.
14 MR. STRANG: There was no problem. Now
we're saving that there is a problem and we have
15 to come back before the Board.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm all for changing
16 that, Michael. But I don't believe I'm aoina_ to
get the support.
17 MR. STRANG: I'll give you support on that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Evervbodv's done asking
18 Mr. Strang his questions. I'm just going to ask,
anybody in the audience who would like to make a
19 comment concerning this variance? Hearing none, I
entertain a motion to close this hearing until
20 January 10th.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
MR. STRANG: Obviously the sooner the better
22 so we can get our building permit and move ahead
and hopefully the ground won't freeze.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I moved.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I seconded it.
•
GJ CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor?
VJCC lltlllUlCJ LV1 LGJVIUL1Vll
123
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Hearing #6098 -FRANCIS J. COUTTS FAMILY
TRUST by G. Hallenbeck III, Trustee
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Francis J. Coutts Family Trust and that's
4 Leslie's. I'll read that one too.
"This is an application for a Lot Waiver,
5 concerning a 16,599 square foot lot, merged as a
single parcel as noted in the Suildina Inspector's
6 September 6, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, under
Section 280-11A to un merge 10,007 square feet
7 (CTM 142-1-3.2 vacant land) for the purpose of
building a future dwelling, and 6,592 square feet
8 (CTM 142-1-3.3 with a dwelling). Location of
Property: 10650 Sound Avenue at corner of Factory
9 Avenue, Mattituck."
Is there anybody here representing?
10 MS. JABLONSKY: Yes. Good afternoon.
Michelle Jablonsky, Davidow, Davidow, Siegel and
11 Stern, Attorneys, 1601 Veteran's Memorial Highway,
Suite 330, Islandia, New York 11749.
12 I guess the application is pretty
self-explanatory. I don't know if the Board has
• 13 any questions for either myself or Mr. Hallenbeck?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to need more
14 than that. This is a waiver of merger. They are
very rare.
1J fsvexu r~r~nts~;x Jll°1VN: 'l ner2 are SLr1CL
Cr1LeTld In the COde, dS y0U KnOW.
lb MS. JAiiLVN~SKY: YeS. 1 know there are
SLr1Ct CrlLerla. 1 belleVe We gUallIy LOr a
1/ waiver of merger accoraing to 1VU-Zb as we meet
all Tour requirements. H brief historical
ltS explanation oT these two parcels. In 194U Mr.and
Mrs. Coutts purchased the property; I think 1t's
19 parcel 3.3 actually they purchased in '1940 as
husband and wife. In 19/6 Mr. Coutts purchased
20 3.3 individually. In 1996 Mr. Coutts passed away.
His sole heir-at-law being his wife. As a result,
21 even though the deeds were never changed, the
properties merged at that point. In 2006, Mrs.
22 Coutts had the unfortunate experiences of having
to enter a nursing home. And now, we're at a
23 point where she's exhausted of her liquid
resources and we need funds to be able to pay her
24 nursing home bill while still wanting to be able
•
LV to allow her the possibility of returning home to
11C1 11V UJC. 111CLC1VIC, L11C V111y VL11C1 dJ.7CL J11C
llna 1J Lt11J VRI.Q l1L (J1CVC Vl (J1 V~IC1Ly W111 V11 WC U
124
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 like to un merge and potentially try to sell ever.
though we don't know if that's an option,
3 depending on if there's a purchaser. So that's
the basic history. We have about a $50,000
9 nursing home bill at this point, no way to pay it.
I've been in contact with the nursing home. They
5 know able this application and our hope that if
the Board does approve our application, that the
6 vacant property would be put up for sale and if
sold, the proceeds therefrom would be used to pay
7 for her nursing home stay.
MS. KOWALSKI: You said the husband passed
8 and the wife was the sole heir, what was that
date? I didn't write it down fast enough.
9 MS. JABLONSKY: His date of death, hold on,
for some reason, I'm thinking May 8th of 1996.
10 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you very
much.
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then that went over to
his wife?
12 MS. JABLONSKY: Correct. The deed was never
changed because she was the sole heir-at-law, the
• 13 property vests automatically in her.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. It merged.
14 MS. JABLONSKY: Exactly. It merged back in
1996, exactly.
15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Was there something
that happened in 2006 then?
16 MS. JABLONSKY: Yes. At the end of July in
2006, Mr. Hallenbeck came to out office on behalf
17 of Frances Coutts, my client, to explain her
situation and her entrance into the nursing home
18 and that we would need to use funds or have funds
available in order to pay her nursing home stay.
19 It's always -- in doing so we try to do some
planning for Medicaid purposes, however, our
20 Medicaid application was denied. In order for a
Medicaid application to be approved, she can't
21 have any resources. Obviously, she has way too
many resources here. Her principle residence
22 could potentially be exempt but the vacant land is
not exempt property under the medicaid laws.
23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Who lives in the home
now?
24 MS. JABLONSKY: I believe at this point in
order to try and generate some income there is a
• c., ~cii a iii iii ~iic ii vi~ic.
-. .
~•~n. nnLLr~iva ui.n. l~ wao vacaii~ uN uii~ii alx,
12:~
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 seven months aa_c.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, you have to come up
3 and state your name and address.
MR. HALLENBECK: Geoffrey Hallenbeck, 2700
4 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York. The
question was who lives there? It was vacant for a
5 long time then I figured I would try to get some
funds on rental to pay toward the nursing home.
6 Her niece actually lives there and we have a
problem with that; she's not paying. So it's been
7 a fiasco right from the beginning. All this goes
down to paying the nursing home. There's nothing
8 going in my pocket. It's my aunt, everything was
left over to me 20 years ago. I've been taking
9 care of them and this is what I'm down to. We've
spent probably over $150,000 already for the
10 nursing home at $350 a day.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How long_ has she been
11 in the nursing home?
MR. HALLENBECK: She's been there about a
12 year and a half, I think. April will be 2 years.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does the government
13 which decides on -- I'm sorry, am I lumping out of
turn?
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes.
MR. HALLENBECK: What was the question?
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. I just want to see
if we can keep - I'm Leslie right now. I'd like
16 to stick to -- we have this -- there's four
criteria for the waiver --
17 MS. JABLONSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I kind of want to address
18 all four of them right now and get an explanation
from you. The first one is, the waiver will not
19 result in a significant increase in the density of
the neighborhood. I think we all can probably
20 agree if we look at a map that this would be the
largest single lot in that area if it were merged.
21 MS. JABLONSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The waiver would
22 recognize a lot that is consistent with the size
of the lots in the neighborhood?
23 MS. JABLONSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Larger, actually.
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wait. The first one
was, waiver results in an increase in population.
• ~~ 1.11[-vl t~i'in tv ullvlcily. li we yiala~ ~ilc waluci,
WVU1U 1L 1111.E CQJC L11C UC11J 11.y V1 L11C 11C 11~111J V111VVU:
126
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: By one.
3 MS. JABLONSKY: Not significantly.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, it'll be two
9 families where there previously was one.
MS. JABLONSKY: Correct but not a
5 significant increase with respect to the
neic_thborhood.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Depends what you mean
by the neighborhood.
7 MS. JABLONSKY: And it depends what you mean
by significant. I mean those are all subjective
8 terms.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can tell you when we
9 did the law, one additional house wasn't
significant.
10 MS. JABLONSKY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, let's qo onto the
11 next one.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's never more than
12 one other house when there's a waiver of merger.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I want to finish my
. 13 questioning and then we can have a discussion on
lot waiver law if we want to. So we recognize a
14 lot that's consistent with the neighborhood, look
at the tax map. Yeah, it's fairly consistent,
15 larger actually. I think both of the lots
together are larger than some of the lots in the
16 area.
MS. JABLONKSY: Correct.
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Each individual lot is
fairly large.
18 MS. JABLONSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So now we're passed two,
19 waiver will abort economic hardship. Now, this is
where we always run into trouble, okay. Because
20 basically, what is economic hardship? To my mind,
you're hardship is economic. The one that you
21 placed before us. Some people don't believe that.
That you can sell the entire lot and get a certain
22 amount of money from that assuming that you don't
have any loans out on it other than what you're
23 trying to pay off and you need to now address that
and convince the Board that, you know, this is an
24 economic hardship.
•
LJ MS. JABLONSKY: Well, I do think it is an
C1. U11 Vllll 1. 1161UJ1111J Q11U 1L J Gl klC1J Vi1Rl 1161UJ111 ~/,
rJV LC11L1Q11y, 1Vi 1101. VCV11 1J 110.11GCJ
12r
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 2U.LUU7
2 health-care agent and her power of attorney anc
obviously, it's her intention to try and get home.
3 We actually did consider at one point allowina_ her
to come home but she didn't have the funds
4 available to be able to do that. I certainly
don't want to force someone to stay or we don't
5 want to force someone to stay where they don't
want to stay. So that's why our really only
6 available option -- if we sold all the property
together, then she doesn't have anywhere to qo,
7 she's confined to the nursing home for the rest of
her life.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, let me ask you this.
You went to Medicaid, Medicare whatever that is,
9 I'm facing that myself, and they said to you, she
has too much assets even though we could exempt
1U her house.
MS. JABLONSKY: They could exempt her house,
11 correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So how is it that if the
12 Lots are merged, how would they possible know --
MS. JABLONSKY: They also see two deeds.
. 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. I am on a
straight and narrow auestionina_ here and I'm
14 getting the answers that every applicant has given
us since we have this law. And he'll tell you how
15 I feel about this law. So they have two deeds.
The Federal Government huge bureaucracy says,
16 look, there are two lots here. It makes sense
because there are two deeds.
17 MS. JABLONSKY: Two tax bills.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Two tax bills.
18 Probably two checks written, one from each one.
Certainly, I'm going to ask this question, how
19 does Mrs. Coutts know that these lots are merged?
MS. JABLONSKY: When Geoff -- she doesn't
20 know that they've merged. When Geoff came tc our
office. I thought mercer was an issue right away.
21 Obviously, a deceased individual cannot own real
property. So that's why we proceeded to transfer
2L both of the properties to a trust for her benefit
in order to start the Medicaid planning process
23 knowing that there was a merger issue. It's come
to our attention though that recently within the
24 last year there's been a new code section passed
•
LJ that says if your property is merged by death -- I
111C Q11, 1L J 11111VJ1ylll 11 1. 1a ~] l"V VG JG~. t,1 V11 WQJ 111
CA1Jl. G11 l.C 111 VLLly V1 GVVV WLLC 11 WC l"1 GQl.CU L11C
128
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 200'
2 trust, obviously, we wouldn't have done it tha'
wav. We would have been able to sell the vacant
_ piece of property right then and there and done
what we could have done going forward. That's our
4 issue.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do we now have a law on
5 the books that says that?
MS. JABLONSKY: Yes, I believe so.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does it not have a time
limit on it?
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I kind of would like to
see that part of our law. Do you have --
8 MS. JABLONSKY: I don't have it. I know the
Town Attorney reviewed it. I don't have it with
9 me.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You're talking
10 about the code provisions? It should be --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I remember I was part
11 of the discussions when that law was drafted and I
may not have seen the final version but I may be
12 wrong, but there was a good deal of discussion as
to whether there would be a certain period of
13 time.
MS. JABLONSKY: You mean after the death?
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: After the death.
MS. JABLONSKY: I don't know.
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What we need to know is
whether that's what the code says or not. That
16 was what people were talking about at one point.
Whether that made it to the final version --
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have a feeling that
that really doesn't -- the new law that was passed
18 doesn't apply in this case simply because of the
amount of time.
19 MS. JABLONSKY: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Believe me, I understand
20 what both of you are hearing from me. I don't
like saving it, believe me. What we need to do is
21 attack this in some kind of a logical wa_v. Get
some records here so that maybe the next time we
22 address it, we get some eauity. To my mind, she
received separate tax bills, she had no wav of
23 knowing that these were merged. She had no wav.
MS. JABLONSKY: No, she didn't know. Geoff,
24 in fact, was arguing with me sav_inq it hadn't
merged and my, obviously
as an attorney
I said
,
,
• LJ LL 11QJ 1llG1yCV• VIIQLLCJ VC111 L VW11 j./L VL.ICL I.Y LVL 1. 11G
1 QJL LC13 yGQ1J 11 11C 11d J11~ L UC C11 61 V1111U. 1
lz5
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 understand that you've been paying the tax bili~.
I understand that they are separate but he
3 n_ossibly can't have done that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you this
4 question. Before -- was he your father?
MR. HALLENBECK: Mv_ uncle.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Before he died, how were
the Iots split?
6 MS. JABLONSKY: Husband and wife, the
property with the house. Husband only, the
7 vacant.
CHAIRMAN DINI2I0: So there was an intent
8 there to keep those lots separate?
MS. JABLONSKY: There was. An actually, on
9 I forq_et the form --
MR. HALLENBECK: They tried to merge them.
10 MS. JABLONSKY: Thev did try and merge them
back in 1983, I believe.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Who tried to merge them?
MS. JABLONSKY': The Town did.
1L CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, that's the merq_er
law.
• 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thev were merged.
MS. JABLONSKY: Thev were, but they were
19 mistakenly merged because they were owned
separately.
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's exactly the case
that the merger law was meant to deal with, okay.
16 And they were merged and then the waiver of mercer
law came in and set down a series of provisions
17 under which the merger could be reversed and
that's why you're here. But you did not know that
18 the property had been merged at the time durinq_
any of this period.
19 MR. HALLENBECK: The property was never
merged, as far as I was concerned. I paid the tax
20 bills for ten years at least. One in Charles and
one in Frances. When they merged those
21 properties, he came down here -
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They were merged eleven
22 years ago.
MS. JABLONSKY: He's talkinq_ 1983 --
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Can we have one
at a time. If you want to talk, ao over here -- I
24 don't mind, I want to hear your argument. Go over
there and stand next to that microphone so this
• e..i yvuiiy lauy we iaa vc ~v u~ ~.~ vuc a~ a ~lmc, vuc
~
Nclavii
a yv~ ~v Jr1CQA. L111UQ 1~ yv.i iiy ~u ~iic lvwi~
130
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20,LOU!
2 Clerk to get the actual whatever was passed on
this death by merger. You were saving something
3 and I'd just like to hear.
MR. HALLENBECK: I was told -- this would
9 have been clean cut until they took the properties
out to apply for Medicaid. When they did that,
5 they put it in Francis J. Coutts Trust Fund in
care of mvseif, Geoffrey Hallenbeck. They did
6 that with the lot and they did that with the house
and lot. When it went to Suffolk County, they
7 merged them. Before that, they were split --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What year was that?
8 MR. HALLENBECK: What year was what?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That last merger when
9 youu said the County merged them?
MR. HALLENBECK: It was just recently about
10 a year ago.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then there's a need for
11 clarification. As far as I understand, the County
did not merge them. The County discovered that
12 they had already been merged ten years before.
MR. HALLENBECK: The County took action when
• 13 they took it out of her name and his name.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The merger occurred
19 upon the death at that was 1996. So they were
already merged when the County saw the paperwork.
15 MS. JABLONSKY: Yes.
MR. HALLENBECK: They weren't merged down
16 here. I was paving tax bills in both.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's the point, I
17 understand. People continue to pay the tax bills
on properties that they own which are merged and
18 many o£ them say, probably correctly, that they
didn't know that they were merged because they
19 didn't received official notification other than
in the public record at the time the merger laws
20 went into effect. But a lot of people paying two
tax bills in good faith on merged properties
21 didn't realize they were pa_yinq them on merged
properties and that's the kind of case which the
22 Town was trying to address when it came up with
this modification of the code which Linda is going
23 to find out about. Is that clear?
MR. HALLENBECK: Oh, yeah.
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me make a positive
suggestion. If everybody knew that the properties
• ~-.~ wcic iuciycu a~ Laic ~i.<<c yvui ~ain~ y~ui nuia~
n Nyil.cu lui i•icul~.niu, ~iic wiivlc NivYci~y w~u.~u
131
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 2U, 2U07
2 have been exempted. She could have qualified for
Medicaid.
3 MR. HALLENBECK: That's right.
MS. JABLONSKY: No. No, no, the County's
4 claim would be that there are two properties.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the County lust
5 acknowledged that there were no longer two
properties.
6 MS. JABLONSKY: The Suffolk County
Department of Social Services, they administer the
7 Medicaid program, not --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Apparently, they had it
8 wrong.
MS. JABLONSKY: They do a lot.
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: All aa_encies get it
wrong. We get things wrong too. It can't be that
10 Social Services thinks there are two properties
when the Town of Southold has it clear in all its
11 tax records that they are one property.
MS. JABLONSKY: But that's the issue. They
12 weren't combined -- even though he died -- the
merger that I was talking about was in 1983
13 according to the property record cards, not 1996.
• The Town didn't even know about his death in 1996
14 until we transferred both properties into the
Trust and on the deeds said the property had been
15 transferred by her as sole heir at law of Charles
Coutts. So the Town didn't know they had merged.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The point is, it's
obvious not everybody had full access to the
17 paperwork. After 1983, properties in this
situation merged automatically. The Town did not
18 have to take any action to merge the properties.
MS. JABLONSKY: Correct. I don't know if --
19 maybe I'm not --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael tends to -- we're
20 going a little beyond what you are trying to
explain because the mere fact is that this
21 gentleman died in '96.
MS. JABLONSKY: And it merged
22 instantaneously upon his death which I, all along,
had maintained but Geoff does not agree with me.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: These lots were merged
upon his death. Our law in 1983 didn't address
24 merger b_y death and I understand that you had some
problems back then. That is not the subject of
c., jai .~o. liac illy i<<c iii ~iia~ ~iin~ ycia ~~.cuia ,a u.~.cu aaau
~iicic wcic „i, yiuvl~luii~ iul i,ci ~v y~.vc i~ n
132
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2D07
2 different name, checkerboard it in someway, it's
merged.
3 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Althoua_h, we have
a law that we passed last year.
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm truing to establish
that they may not meet that criteria.
5 MR. HALLENBECK: I was told we were.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I think that they
6 do meet that criteria. If I can lust clarify. I
think the problem arises by the transfer to the
7 Trust in 2006. I think one property was owned by
the husband, right? The adjacent property was
8 owned by the husband and the wife?
M5. JABLONSKY: Correct.
y ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: And then when the
husband died.
10 MS. JABLONSKY: In '96.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The one that was
11 held jointly just reverted to the wife by
operation of law, by that deed, as a surviving
12 tenant, I guess. Then the one that was sina_ularl
y
_
owned by the husband, that was taken by the wife
. 13 as a result of his death by matter of law as well?
MS. JABLONSKY: Sole heir at law, correct.
19 Not jointly owned. Individually owned by him but
the property vests in her as she is his sole heir
15 at law.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Okay. Was that
16 through a will or lust by operation of law?
MS. JABLONSKY: No, by operation of law.
17 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Okay so by
operation of law, they both went to her upon the
18 death o£ her husband.
MS. JABLONSKY: Correct, in '96.
19 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: There wasn't anv
merq_er prior to '96?
20 MS. JABLONSKY: There was an attempt by the
Town to merge in 1983 according to the Town record
21 car, however, that was reversed. It said it was
done in error.
22 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: So thev were
single and separate until that point in time?
23 MS. JABLONSKY: Correct.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I think because I
24 looked at this beforehand, I think that you're
okay then because prior to earlier this year, you
. LJ W VUlU LQ V G 1lQU P k/1 V1/1 C1LL }JGLQLLJC WC Ul Ull L 1lQ V C
~.LG 11tG,_yG~ ,/y LLGP~,1 G~~GN~~~LL. ~ ~1,~11,. y~LL' ~G
133
• I ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 okay then. The problem arises when in 2006
they're both then deeded to the same entity.
3 While they may be on her behalf and all that, it's
not owned by her anymore and they're both held by
9 the same --
MR. HALLENBECK: That was done to apply for
5 Medicaid only.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I understand
6 that. You need then, you're applying for a waiver
of merger and 2 think maybe you need to focus some
7 of your efforts today on what's the economic
hardship from them being merged. We have four
8 criteria in the waiver or merger. One of them is
economic hardship. One thing that this Board has
9 not considered, I'll tell you up front, economic
hardship in the past, is just that, well the lots
10 are worth more as two than one.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: She actually did
I1 that prior to you coming in.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: She hasn't actually
12 addressed -- we were getting to that point. I
didn't realize there's a lot of things going on
13 here but the cold hard facts is someone died,
. these lots are merged. There is some relief,
14 however, you did something else of course
unbeknownst to you and certainly probably not ever
15 considered by the Town. You have another problem
here. You have in essence merged these lots into
16 a Trust making it owned by one entity. That's not
merger by death.
17 MS. JABLONSKY: No but we wouldn't have done
that planning obviously if the law existed at the
18 time. There's no way for us to know that the Town
was going to pass this law literally, I think it
19 was done in February or March, nine or ten months
later.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Was there a consideration
of that at the time that you knew physically you
21 had to merge these lots for some reason?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: She thought they
22 were already merged.
MS. JABLONSKY: I thought they were already
23 merged. If that was a thought at all, I would
have done two separate Trusts and I would have
24 avoided a merger issue. I said it's already
merged. I can't get around it. Why am I going to
~..~ ~, ian..yc ..ci rviao ~. v~.ic ~. rig.. ~. a.a 1 ~. v.«c ur wi ~.i.
i licit wa~,a~ ~ i~ia„y ~~„cl ria„~ ~iaa~ i i.~uiu
134
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 potentially come up with. There was a new iaw
passed in 2005 by President Bush which was enacted
3 in '2006 which made thinas a lot harder to do
Medicaid planning. So we were dealing with a lot
4 of uncertainty in 2006 at that point because New
York State hadn't even adopted that law or told us
5 how we could potentially plan for it. But at that
point, that was realiv our only. There was no
6 need to keep_ them single and separate because they
had already merged and we didn't know that the
7 Town was potentially --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Hallenbeck, you
8 agreed to that? You agreed to merging these
thinas.
9 MR. HALLENBECK: I didn't realize that it
would merge because everything was worded exactly
10 the same --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Based on her information
11 --
MR. HALLENBECK: Right.
1`L BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a ieaal question
to ask Kieran just information. Kieran, I have
13 not read the final version of the recent enactment
. about that inheritance by death. Tn the
I4 discussion, there was talk about a time limit. Is
that in the final version?
15 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No. There's no
time limit.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That was my question.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want him to read
17 it for you?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I believe him.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean if you want to
understand it.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I do understand it very
well. There was discussion about whether there
20 would be or not and I was present at some meetings
and not others but I didn't see the final version.
21 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Is it all right
if I read it quickly. Number 6, the lots would
Z2 otherwise be recognized pursuant to the chapter
and subsequently would have merged by operation of
23 law as a result of the death of an owner or
co-owner on one or more of the adioininq lots
24 except that a lot shall not be held in common
ownership after the death of the surviving
LJ l.V VWl1C1• L11QL WVUlU UC C111 GAl. C1.IL1 Vl1 l.V 1. (3C
1LLCll~C1.
135
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 2U, 2007
2 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It basically
means, we won't consider the Iots to merge if thev
3 happen merely by a spouse or co-owner dying except
when that person gets rid of them, they need to be
9 in separate ownership.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the sticking point to
5 our law, this doesn't apply to them.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It applied until
6 last year when they Gave them to the Trust and
then they merged again. So they're merged and you
7 need to apply for a waiver of mercer which is why
you're here.
8 MS. JABLONSKY: Correct. And part of my
argument is obviously that if the law existed a
9 year earlier, we would have seen that and we never
would have put them into the same Trust. They
10 could have cone into two separate Trusts.
Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 but by putting it
11 all into one joint Trust, it had already merged in
our opinion, there were no laws on books in the
12 code at that point that said that there was an
exception by death and that's the way it was
13 handled.
. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But you're suffering
14 severe economic hardship because of it.
MS. JABLONSKY: At this point, ves. We've
15 been in discussions with the billing office at the
nursing home. They know that she's been denied
16 for Medicaid at this point and there's about a
550,000 bill. I've assured them, obviously, that
17 we are taking steps to try and come up with that
money. But if we don't, there's always the threat
18 of discharge. To address your concern about
economic hardship, as I told the rest of the $oard
19 earlier, Geoff hates to be the one to have to
decide that if the properties do merge and if the
20 application isn't approved, that the whole
property, obviously, would have to be sold and
21 then she is forced to live in the nursing home for
the rest of her life which is really an unfair
22 decision for anyone to make for another person.
So that's the reason, that's part of the economic
23 hardship. It's really a personal hardship.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Mav I ask, if it's
24 personal, the question is relevant. How old is
the person in the nursing home?
• LJ 1'11\. !!f]LLUIVULt. t\ lJ
_ _
L'1J Vt1UL V1V Jf\1 V11V 111Qlty, wllcu ~cvil, vamc,
136
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 we didn't necessarily -- she wasn't doing very
well.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON; I'm sorry to hear that.
But what puzzled me was one of the problems was
4 that there was some talk about her leaving the
nursing home but there wasn't enough money to
5 support her outside the nursing home. Is that
because that would be more expensive than having
6 her in the nursing home?
MS. JABLONSKY: Well, no. It's less
7 expensive, however, we still need the funds to
privately pay an aide. We did explore an option
8 of pursuing Medicaid home care where you can
transfer your assets and immediately become
9 eligible for Medicaid. The rules are a little
different between home care and nursing home care.
10 However, the problem that we experience a lot of
times is once you apply for Medicaid home care and
11 you get it, someone comes in and does an
assessment on the Medicaid applicant and they say,
12 okay, we feel she's entitled to x number of hours
of assistance per day. Let's say it's 10 or 12
13 and then we have to come up with the shortfall.
• Obviously, that's helpful and it relieves some of
14 your economic burden. The problem that we find on
the Forks is that getting a Medicaid enrolled
I5 provider to fill those I2 hours a day is
impossible and she cannot be left alone. She
16 needs 29 hour supervision.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is she mobile?
17 MS. JABLONSKY: She's mobile.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I've done a certain
18 amount of eider care law so I know a little bit
about this and there are various alternatives.
19 One thing that occurs to me is that if she had
applied for the waiver of merger before she went
20 into the nursing home, it would be somewhat
different because there the hardship would be
21 going into the nursing home. On the other hand,
there would be other problems about that. Then
22 they might have said well, there are other things
you can do. You could sell it and have the life
23 estate in this thing or something like that. In
other words, there are other means of doing so.
24 Maybe she would have gotten the waiver of merger
had she ap plied before she went into the nursing
i-., ,i vauc aaau ,unyuc ~i~c ~. ,, a,a ~.ca wuuiu uc uc~~ci iii a.i
~iicy aic ii~w. liicy luny uc cyuni ~vv.
13i
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
• '
2 t have a_otten the
MS. JABLONSKY: She wouldn
waiver of meraer because the law didn't exist.
? When she went into the nursing home in July of
2006, it didn't exist. So she wouldn't have
4 Gotten it, potentially. We can't sav for sure
that she would have.
5 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Because the law
didn't exist, thev wouldn't be an exception, so
6 they would have merged.
MS. JABLONSKY: But I don't know if we would
7 have Gotten the waiver of the meraer. There's no
way for us to know that.
8 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That's all
hypothetical.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Let's see if we
can pinpoint this thing because I don't want to
10 Get too far away. That is the auestion. That
number 3 is the one that holds us up on every
11 merger that we've ever turned down. What I mean
by hold up is I prefer to Grant the waiver as
1"L opposed to not. I think we need to look, if you
can, and this will require you to go back out and
13 come back in on another day and Give us some hard
• numbers. The house is worth this much, the lot is
14 worth this much.
MS. JABLONSKY: I have fair market value
15 estimates. I have those. I don't have them with
me but I have them.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We would like to have
those. To my mind, it's important enough that
17 even if we could just take them and look at that
them. My problem with that is I would Like to
18 have the opportunity to question you on those.
MS. JABLONSKY: Okay.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's Going to take longer
time but you know it's a real hard road we'll
20 hulling here and I would like to give it a shot.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: If you could
Z1 provide data on economic hardship as a result of
the Medicaid situation, the Medicare, excuse me,
22 situation and the costs of care and the
alternatives, what the picture would look like if
23 you only had one lot and compared to your expenses
as to if you had two compared to your expenses.
24 Like I said, it's not just enough being that we
would have more money if we had two lots as
LJ V1.J 2./VJCU lV V3lG UUL YYG 11 C3VC 1. 111J CGV11 Vl1ll l.. l.JU1l1G a1
W1 Lll 1CJ~/C 1.L LV L13G 1.QLC Q13U 1.111. U1llJ LQ111.GJ.
135
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 MS. JABLONSKY: The issue in anv of these
types of cases, obviously, none of us can forsee
3 how long she's going to be here with us and
obviously, that's a factor. If she has 5100,000,
4 I mean there could be a number of different
scenarios. I certainly don't mind doing that
5 analysis and presenting that to the Board as best
I can.
o A'1''1'ORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: 1 think what Jim
is saying is give us something to work with.
7 MS. JABLONSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINZZIO: Yeah. I think it may be
8 worth a shot.
MS. JABLONSKY: Is there some sort of
9 definition of economic hardship anywhere?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No.
IO BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can look at the
court cases because people have taken us to court
11 on some of these things. And what Kieran said is
that economic hardship does not mean that the
1'L seller would be better off.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The ordinary
• 13 argument is that someone will come in and say I'd
like two lots because I can make a S1,000,UUU with
14 two instead of 5700,000 with one and this Board,
in recent vears and the court's have upheld, has
1S said that's not good enough. You need to actually
show a hardshib_ not a windfall that you're not
16 Getting.
MS. JABLONSKY: Okay.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's another
question. I bring it up because you're an
18 attorney, is that from what we ali know about
nursing home care is there's virtually no way they
19 would throw her out of the nursing home.
MS. JABLONSKY: For failure to pay they can
20 throw her out.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But if she doesn't have
21 the resources -- so they can get her to sell the
property, right. But I assume that nursing homes
22 -- I do know something about this from personal
family experience -- is that estates pay nursing
23 home bills posthumously. They'll get their money
sooner or later even if it's ten vears from now.
24 So they have no good reason to throw her out.
MS. JABLONSKY: The nursing home? They
~:: ~.,,, ~ wu„~ ~., wUi~ ~..~ ~.,~i~ ,~,v„cy. a,y ~~r~.i~,,..~
„ate acct, 1L yvu uu i,u~ yay a„u yvu „nvc ~„c 1lIC C111J
139
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 to pay and Medicaid will not pay and you've
applied for Medicaid and received a denial, they
can commence oroceedings and they have against
some of my clients where we have applied for
4 Medicaid and we felt the determinations were
incorrect to have you discharged. Not necessarily
5 -- it has to be a safe discharge which means to a
facility that doesn't provide as much of a quality
6 of care as the facility that she's in. That's my
experience because the nursing home doesn`t have
7 to wait.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is she nearby?
8 MS. JABLONSKY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: She's in Simeon?
9 MS. JABLONSKY: She's in Simeon, yes.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My sister is in Simeon.
10 Several people I know have been there. She's
lucky_ to be there.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How much time do you
think you're going to need for that?
1'2 MS. JABLONSKY: I can do the analysis
relatively quickly. We have all of the
• 13 information.
-
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Linda, what's the -
14 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It would be
15 January 24th.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can adjourn this
hearing until Januarv 29th, is that okay?
17 MS. JABLONSKY: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have
18 anything to say about this application? Hearing
none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this
19 hearing to the 24th.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
21 All those in favor.
(See minutes for resolution.)
Hearing #6100 - Romanelli Realty Inc.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Romanelli, Romanelli
Realty Inc. Jerry, that's your application.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
"Location of Property: 36660 Route "25,
• 25 Cutchogue; CTM 97-3-3.1 (formerly 97-3-3).
Reauest for Variances under Sections 280-42A and
140
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 280-43A & C, based on the Building Inspector's
November 19, 2007 amended Notice of Disapproval,
3 concerning a proposed contractor's yard and three
principal buildings on this 63,338 square foot
9 lot. The Building Inspector states that:
(1) pursuant to the Bulk Schedule, one use
5 per 80,000 square feet is allowed in the Limited
Business (LB) Zone, and the proposed construction
6 (three buildings) is not permitted on a lot
containing less than 240,000 square feet, for the
7 reason that the proposed three buildings
constitute three distinct uses; and.
8 (2) proposed Building #1 is not permitted
with linear frontage exceeding 60 feet;.
N (3) proposed Building #1 is not permitted at
less than 100 feet from a right-of-way of NYS
10 Route 25;.
(4) proposed Building #"L is not permitted at
11 less than 75 feet from a rear property line; and.
(5) proposed Building #3 is not permitted at
12 less than 20 feet from a side lot line.
And you are on, sir. State your name for
13 the record again.
. MR. STRAND: Yes. Good afternoon, once
14 again. Garrett Strang, architect, 1230 Traveler's
Street, Southold. And my client, on behalf of my
1S client, Mr. Romanelli, we're here with this
application today. Obviously, it's a lot before
16 you and we have considerations that led us to this
particular situation. First of all, there are
17 three buildings on the site. Albeit, several of
them are pretty derelict but there have been all
18 along three buildings, three principal buildings,
if you will, on this site, plus a bunch of
19 accessorv little sheds and the like. Our
preference in what we're doing was to keep three
20 buildings into a campus style development here as
opposed to a single structure. In my professional
'Ll opinion, I believe that a campus style structure
is much more in keeping with the scale, the
22 architectural character of the North Fork. To do
large buildings are be forced to do large
23 buildings because the way the code reads, I think
does a disservice to the Town. And, again, this
24 is my opinion and I'm sure it doesn't hold as much
weight as the legal aspect of things. But that's
LJ Wlly Lll lil li J U [J V11111y LVUlU lV 1.UAl~ U 1VVll Ul. 1. 111.J 1.
L111111~D 111C V11C ~1V 111E 1 LL 11AC LV llLQ AC 1J 111 L11C
14-_
C J
u
\_J
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 Disapproval, it makes reference to the fact that
the Building #I which is the front building is
required to be 100 feet back from the property
line along the main road. Which is a correct
4 statement based on the code. However, there is a
part in the code that says you can maintain the
5 average setback of adjacent parcels. The average
setback of the adiacent parcels is, as shown on
6 the map, approximately 7U feet. We're setting our
building back 90 feet. In my opinion I believe
7 that particular aspect of relief can be removed
from this application because we are exceeding the
8 average setback for that building.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Question. Did you
y prove to the Buildinq Department that we have an
established setback at 70 feet?
10 MR. STRANG: Other than the fact that it
shows on the ma_p that there was an average setback
11 of 70 feet, the next step I guess for me to do
would be to obtain the surveys of the adjoining
12 properties.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So that wasn't
13 presented in the application originally to the
Buildinq Department'?
14 MR. STRANG: Well, the application to the
Building Department indicated that there was an
1S existing average setback of 70. We're at 90.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They said.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The Build Department
ignored it.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They either ignored it
or --
lo llrt. ~ixt-~N~: ril~~ea l~.
rsutixu MNMtSNK J1MVN: 1'n2 tsuilaing uepartment
1N SOmetlmeS m1SSeS 1t e5peC1a11y 1I 1t 1SR't 1a1a
OUL.
LU MK. `u'1'KHNIi: 1 th1nK tney were 100K1ng
clearly at the code and saying, oh, okay, we have
u. to oe luu zeeL, we nave to nave tnis, we nave to
nave that. Just reading the Bulk Schedule as
22 opposed to looking more thoroughly at the map.
'1'nat's not a criticism. t Know they looK at a lot
'l3 of applications. So I just wanted to clear the
air on that one. I know we're looking for a lot
L4 of relief. 'That's one less relief 1 think this
Board has to entertain itself with and we'll be
~v auuica~ ~iia ~. i1aa~ o Ni~uaul.y ~itc ica~~ ~i vui
142
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 issues, I would think. We're looking at the fac-
that we'd like to have the campus style look, the
small scale buildings. The alternative, if we
were to construct in strict adherence with the
9 code and did a 60 foot wide buildina and wanted to
ascertain close to about the same amount of
5 allowable net build out, we would be looking at a
buildina that's 60 feet wide and ap_proximatel_y 200
6 feet deep, actually a little better than that and
it would have a footprint of 12,600 square feet as
7 one buildinq_. I don't think that's what this Town
wants and I don't think that's what this Town
8 needs. So again our argument for a campus style
setting having three buildings, the larger of
9 which out b_y the front being 6,000 square feet.
The smaller one's to the rear being 2,800 and
10 3,600 square feet. The side yard setbacks that
are brought up are better than what's there in the
11 existing buildings. They've increased, they're
kind of working with the buffers that are required
12 to establish those setbacks and the width of the
building at 100 feet is based on the fact that
13 we're going to have five 20 foot modules in there
• meaning units, if you will, for businesses,
14 whatever they may be, which we haven't ascertained
at this point. This is preliminary at this
15 venture. So, we're looking for the 100 feet. We
know that exceeds the 60 that the code allows.
16 Part of the idea behind that is that the building_
will be very attractive architecturally done
17 building, have a nice appearance, a good street
sca_pe and would mask or conceal for the most part
18 the two other buildings in the rear. If we make
the building narrower, than you've got more
19 visibility to the buildings in the rear. The
buildings in the rear will probably be, which 1
20 think is another aspect of our application here,
is the special exception for contractor's yard use
L1 permitted by special exception in the limited
business zone. So most likely those two rear
22 buildings would be for contractor's use. Again,
we're trying to do that in such a way so that the
23 front building is a primary building, if you will,
and masks the two buildings in the back. Other
l4 than that, I don't want to belabor it. I know
there's I'm sure a lot of questions this Board has
• c,J u.au i ii u., .auYYY ~v uuui ~.~.> ~., .. ,<< u.> ~.. ..Y i..
Yic~ci,~cu.
lYs
. I ZBA sown of Southold - December 20. 206i
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEriRINGER: The question Ms.
Weisman asked me to ask you is, it was our
understanding that his piece of property was
4 larger than exists at this point and some square
footage was taken oft of this parcel. Are you
5 aware of that?
MR. STRANG: Z was made aware but not with
6 any definitive back-up documentation that there
was ap_oarently a lot line change that took place
7 by the owner, previous owner. Mr. Midaeiv
Iphoneticl where he iuggled the lot line around
8 and made an arrangement with a deeded right of wa_v
through this parcel to his property which would
9 extina_uish upon his passing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I shouldn't be
IO speaking for her but I'm going to because she sits
next to me and if not, she'll kick me. No that's
11 not true. She indicated to me that she really did
not want to ao forward with the application until
I2 the parcel had the proper lot sine chana_e.
MR. STRANG: I was of the impression that
I3 that was complete and filed with the County. But
• I'll look into that. I'll have my client have his
14 attorney check into that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I will
IS hold up on anything else at this particular time
and pass it onto Jim, if it's all right with youu,
16 to Mr. Mike.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Michael.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Concerning the point
about the 60 foot required maximum length of a
lfi building along the street, you`re answer to that.
as I understand it was, it would be kind of
I9 unfortunate to have to keep it narrow and build it
further back as though that were the only
20 alternative. As I understand, the purpose of that
particular piece of the code is to keep things
"LI lookina_ like strip malts for example or whatever
it is, and the idea of turning -- it would force
22 somebody in the unfortunate situation, if you
really wanted to have only 60 feet and they wanted
23 to build it lust as big and not have separate
buildings, you'd have to ao very, very far back so
24 you'd have strip mails turned sideways. I'm not
sure how powerful an argument that is in favor of
~.r y u~c ~. i:iy ii~~ vuasuaa~i.i ~i vv i~~~.. r„au~ yvu i~.
may lily lay li yvu uvii-~ yivc u~ luu icc~~ wcii.
1~4
1 ZBA Town of Southold - Becember 20, 2007
.
2 ive you something you'll like even less.
a
_
MR. STRANG: I`m not saving that. I`m lust
s offering that if we were to build a building in
strict comt_aliance with the code, it certainly
4 would be a monstrous building.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You're right. What is
5 floating over this is the auestion of whether
buildings that large can fit on this lot
6 inconsistent with code and people's desires.
That`s the auestion.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. That's not the
auestion. That auestion is and what I think he
8 lust say, he can build a building on this lot 60
by 200 feet and not need a variance. That's not
~ an open auestion.
BOARD MEMBER SIMCN: okay. We wouldn't have
10 to approve it.
MR. STRANG: We wouldn't be here if that
11 were an option. To us that's not an option,
that's why we`re here.
1'L BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But for us to take that
seriously is to say, we should give the variance
13 because if you don't, we'll do something as of
. ht that you won't like, as a right.
ria
14 _
MR. STRANG: I think it's lust a matter of,
how should I say, it's not meant as a threat, if
1S you will. It's meant as lust a statement of fact
and truly is the fact that there is the avenue to
16 pursue as we're pursuing here with the Zoning
Board to take a look at the big picture and sav_.
17 well the strict adherence of the code says you
could do this and not have to come before the
1~3 Board. You're looking for something else and
that`s why we`re here.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fair enough.
MR. STRANG: I know the lUU feet is always
20 -- bigger than 60 foot frontage is always a
challenge on commercial property for any developer
21 who wants to try and max out the most benefit and
best return on his investment. I think that we
22 can treat that 100 foot wide building
architecturally in such a way that is has a
23 tremendous level of interest that would not seem
as if it's your basic strip mall look which I know
"24 the Town doesn't want. I certainly don't like. I
h Planning. We have to
know we have to ao throug
~~ _
y.=, i. i,i vuyia rxi a. iii vim. t.~ui.ua c.a.v ~a;w. ~i~. aii~<... ~.ui u.a.
ncvlew~ i iii auic~ is yvl~iy e:v ucat: ua uY aiiu
14
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 rightfully so, to make the building have ar
appearance that they believe is keeping in the
_ character with this area_ Also bearing in mind
although our building is going to be only 90 feet
4 back, there are the wineries in the immediate
surrounding area that are much greater than 1UU
5 feet in width. Yes, they are setback further from
the road. They are much more massive certainly
6 and they are not, it's not -- as tar as the width
of the buildinc, it's not totally out of character
7 with the general area. Architecturally, we can
make it so it has possibly more residential
8 characteristics to it and looks appealing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a trade off.
9 MR. STRANG: 8asicaliy, yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: When was this zoned LB?
MR. STRANG: That's a a_ood question. I
11 don't have that information in front of me.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd be very interested
1"L to know because it's set right in the middle of a
really purely residential area. The only other
13 business that's there is a store, Down Home Stare
• on Skunk Lane and this is a big piece of property
14 to put an LB zone right into it. I wouldn't want
to comment on anything until I found out when this
1S was zoned LB.
MR. STRANG: I'll find that out. I`m sure
16 it had to be part of a master plan rezone.
BOARD MEMBER OLZVA: They changed some of
17 those LB's around lust a couple of years ago so
I'm not sure if that was part of it or not.
i8 MR. STRANG: We'll do that research and
et that information to you.
definitely a
19 _
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Otherwise I don't wish
to comment on it.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I guess that's me.
Weil, can you tell me approximately, Garrett, with
"21 the three buildings that you propose. how much
sa_uare footage that is that they would cover?
22 MR. STRANG: In total? I believe I have it
listed here as 1'1.4UU souare feet.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Basically, the 60 b_v 200
square foot building is the same? You're
24 rep_lacina with the same --
Same footprint.
MR. STRANG
• ytYy
`v u__._ _ LL
1L1111t111 t~ iiLL Uttl iJi./t.Y Jli 1l.
il~~lc iuvic aiiu ai+.. ill ~c~.~ui a.i. .iy yvu viii iin
196
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
•
2 MR. STRANG: Right. Keep the scale
appropriate, I think.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And Linda had a auestion
concerning, oriainallyyou applied for a
4 contractor's yard?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: On the
5 Disapproval, the Building Department had some
language, I guess you can say, it doesn't Iook
6 like a complete sentence. Something to the effect
that a special exception will be needed for site
7 plan approval and it didn't make sense to me. We
don't have a special exception from you for a
8 contractor's yard so I didn't know if in the
future, you were going to apply or did you want to
9 amend the application?
MR. STRANG: I was of the understanding and
10 possibly incorrectly so that in a limited business
district that contractor's varcis or the use which
11 is defined as a contractor's yard is permitted by
special exception. It's not permitted as a matter
12 of right under that zoning. I may incorrect.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No, you're riq_ht.
13 Z'm looking at it right now.
MR. STRANG: So that's why that was nut in
14 there was that since we do have reference to the
fact that part of this site may have a
1S contractor's yard use. that we'd have the special
exception so we wouldn't have to come back before
16 this Board.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That would be by
17 the Zonina_ Board. You haven't applied to us far
that. It would be a separate application for
18 special exception. Z wanted to let you know.
MR. STRANG: So then we have to get another
19 application in front of you for that particular
aspect.
20 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If you're ready
for that. I didn't know if you were ready.
21 MR. STRANG: As we qo through the process
with Planning and everything, a lot of things are
22 going to evolve. I appreciate you're bringing
that up. I don't want to have to bore this Board
23 again the next time with an application after we
finished this.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It does address that in
this what I read today, proposed contractor's yard
c: ;~ 3G i u,ca~i, i uuia t ~cc nag j~ uiy iuoCa uaS~ yvu aanvc
Lu uu LllQL. 1 yucca 1 iin Jc a yuc~Lluu auuu~ wily
i4
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20. 2007
•
2 the B+~ildina Inspector wouldn't lust reauire tha_
I auess they can come directly to us for a special
wcepLion? Not necessarily have to ao to Suiidinq
Insb_ector?
4 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: They can.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Wouldn't the Building
5 Ins_Aector say that?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Sounds like they
6 tried to but maybe bumbled it.
MR. STRANG: I was of the impression he was
7 truing to make the statement that it needs special
exception as well as Plannina Board approval.
8 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Probably.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
9 MR. STRANG: There is a separate application
that is needed to be prepared?
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. Again, looks to me
like that. would be somethina down the road and you
11 may, at the end of this, not want contractor's
yard anyway. Might be somethina else, might be
12 somethina that's allowed. That's what it sounds
like tp me.
23 MR. STRANG: My client is -just trying to
. keep all his options open since he doesn't have
14 any definitive use in mind at this point. If and
when it pets developed or as it gets developed, he
15 wants to cover evervthina_.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don`t think it's wise
16 to make separate types of things. If you want a
contractor's yard, you better make up your mind
17 now and not separate all these different things
and keep coming back.
18 MR. STRANG: I'd rather not come back. I'd
like to put everything an the plate if front of
19 you at the same time and not nitpick or why didn't
you tell us that the last time.
20 BOARD MEMBER. OLIVA: You won't get through
SEORA with that anyway and I'm sure you're going
21 to have to do SE6RA.
MR. STRANG: Yes. SEQRA process the
22 Planning Board is going to have to do, yes. I
auess part of our conversations with the Plannina
23 Board and with working with them knowing that we
have variances that we`re seeking here and knowing
24 full well that this Board is not aoina to be
making any decisions immediately on this
but we
• LJ _
WG1C iVVA1111, LV 1,G 1. ilVittC OV11. Vl a t. iaP 4l Vti t1U LV
LF1C fJVQ1V .~ U11CV1.1 V11 VL L11V Ulj 11L V11 L111D JV 1.110.1.
148
C J
•
•
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 when we qo through the site plan process with
Planning, that it makes sense that the buildings
3 we are proposing are something that this Board
might give consideration to and not that it's
4 definitely out of the auestipn. Otherwise, we're
iust spinning our wheels.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you can't expect
that from us, Garrett, quite honestly. We make a
6 decision or we`re not and you've got to live with
it. I would anticipate that this process could
7 could be done in a couple of meetings. That's my
opinion and you'll have your answer. Ruth wants
8 to know when the zoninq_ was. You can't tell us
that today.
9 MR. STRANG: I'II get that information to
you.
10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the zoninq on each
side.
11 MR. STRANG: The zoning of each -- I can
answer that. The zoninq immediately to the west
1'L is LB and the zoninq immediately to the right is
LB, along, the lots along the main road.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All Ruth wants to know is
when that happened.
14 MR. STRANG: I'm not prepared to answer that
today. I understand that we'I1 be back again. I
15 guess if we were to get some feedback from this
Board that said forget about the 100 foot width,
I6 we're never going to entertain that in a million
years, we'd have at least, not an answer but an
17 answer, if you will.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have entertained that
18 before. Riverhead Building Supply is a classic
example of and they ha«e 3 other buildings on that
19 piece of property campus style but it's all one
business. So I think we, I wouldn't, we'd
20 entertain it but I don't think you can expect us
to say we like 100 feet.
"L1 MR. STRANG: I wouldn't expect you to say
that.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have to have our
discussion and we'll Grant what we think is proper
23 and you a_o from there.
MR. STRANG: The next time we come back
24 before you we'll have been further through the
process with Planning so the SEQRA process can be
t:.+ ~JlieY iGLeii. nC ~irBL Yi~inL ii! ~ieic wc' ii :aa":
l ciiuci iiiya clova tel. uiia ui wiia ~cvcl ~ ~iic iivii~
14S
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 building at the least to show you so that you ca'-
see what will be developed.
_ ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Is it not true
that it's actually the campus style DroDOSal that
4 requires the biggest variance? Is that true?
MR. STRANG: I'm not sure which in this case
5 --
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Right now if it's
6 not changed by the Town Board it requires you to
have 2 acres for each building?
7 MR. STRANG: I belive it's 80,000 square
feet Der building.
8 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: So you'd need
240,000 square feet and you have 66,000.
9 MR. STRANG: That's correct.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Now, there is
10 some talk of modification to that law but unless
and until it haD_Dens. that's a Dretty large
11 variance.
MR. STRANG: That's true. Again, lust from
12 a professional point of view. I think I'm not sure
that I am a DroDOnent of the determination or the
• 13 definition or the interpretation that 3 buildings
constitute 3 separate uses. I think they
14 constitute 3 buildings, not 3 uses. The code lays
out, these are the uses that are permitted in that
15 zone. So if you have these uses in that zone
whether they're in one building, two buildings or
16 five buildings, I think that's in keeping with the
intent of the code. Obviously, the
17 interpretations been made that that's not the
ease.
ltl 1. tl Ell tiC'IA LW Ul~+fiGlU: ti it' S LbtitrdGLUi" S
yard, all Duiidings are handling that's one use 3
1N buildings.
CJIK. J'LKXLYI~: t `m Lal{lriq 1t a step iurt"rier.
ZV my own personal opinion, as long as it's a use
that's allowed under the zoning, a business use
Gl and a contractor's yard and another business use,
ail or which are permitted in that district, 1
22 don't know -- I don't think the code sans, it's
been interpreted to mean that you can oniv_ have
23 one building on a lot.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Not that you can
24 only have one building on a lot but you need
80,000 square feet for each building
. L.J 1'11\ J1f\A 1YV• LUI. 1.. 11G VVU- •J ~YJ LLJG•
I]11 Vf\1YL1 l'J LY 19Y L1\ VVS\VVS\A1Y• 1 LLJJVG1JlQlIU
150
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 that.
MR. STRANG: A buildina doesn't constitute a
3 use. It constitutes a buildina.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: We're confronted
4 with a situation where this Board made a decision
and said no we're aoina to look buildina by
5 buildina. So are you asking this Board to
overturn that interpretation?
6 MR. STRANG: I`m lust stating from a
personal perspective I don't know that I'm in
7 agreement with that decision when it was rendered.
From a Plannino point of view.
8 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: So you're not
asking for a reversal of that or you are?
9 MR. STRANG: We're asking for a variance on
this lot on its merits.
10 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Right but as long
as that rule stands, vou're asking for a 400
11 percent variance.
MR. STRANG: I didn`t do the math but I'II
12 defer to you on that.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I need to
13 auestion is, where do we go from here. How much
time do you need and can we reset the hearing for
14 two months from now?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Leave it open.
15 MR. SfiRANG: I think we might want to leave
it open at this point until we see as we're moving
16 ahead with Planning and the SEQRA process and then
we can have an idea, well the SEORA process is 30
17 davs awav and we can get back to this Board and
say, can you reschedule us since we anticipate a
i8 SEQ_RA decision in such and such a time frame.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Want me to make
19 that motion?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So be it.
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there aoina_ to be
further discussion?
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do we have anvbodv who
would like to make the first comment?
22 MS. GENOVESE: My name is Jeanie Genovese
and I live at 580 Skunk Lane, Cutchoo_ue, New York
23 and if you look at the site plan map_ where it says
Nico on there, that`s not Nico. It was owned by
24 Nico 8 vears ago or so. That's me. I abut the
whole rear of this lot which is, I abut more of
C.J L111J Ld2 all atl l(1J 11C
Lllat ~ J 1. V111.C 131CU 31C1C 11 1 ~ 111
-
rl~ll l., 1l. ~l L.1.) leG~L .L aUn L wGin t. ~G pe 1VOKIll lj
151
1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 at parking spaces and bright lia_hts. I didn't
move to the North Fork for this purpose or
3 whatever. But you know if you're only allowed to
have -- if you need 24,000 setuare feet and you
4 only have -- it's totally out of the ball park.
It's totally ridiculous. I have 2.65 acres, I`ve
5 got a 4,340 sa_uare foot house on there. So you're
trying to put 50 pounds of potatoes in a IO pound
6 back and the way that this looks now, what is
considered a contractor? Is it going to be 24/7,
7 58 parking spaces on this small parcel here. Is
it goinq to be bright lights 24/7 that I've got
8 look at this? And another thing is, when have
natural buffer, when Mr. Strang drew up this
9 thing, there was a natural buffer, however,
Midaelv's tphonetic) who owned the property
10 previously had their grandson, Cliff, come out and
clear it all. There is not natural buffer
11 anymore. There isn't. It was done after the
fact. This was done in May, he was out there in
12 Sul v_ doing it. So I have no buffers and I really
don't want to be lookinq_ at this.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Buffers will be taken
• care, ma'am because they're goinq to qo before
14 site plan, don't worry.
MS. GENOVESE: I don't want to be looking at
15 a chain link fence either.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That opportunity comes
16 way down the road. I understand your comments.
MS. GENOVESE: If this was to be this way
17 and I think Mr. Strang had said that Building #2
is actually setback, would be setback more than
18 that existing dilapidated thing is there now, but
it's not. The new building would be 40 feet in
19 from me but the existing building is about 100
feet from me and that's the true.
20 MR. STRANG: It's the other two sides that
we're dealing with.
21 MS. GENOVESE: Okay. Right now I`m looking
at two Warner's oil trucks right there that Mr.
22 Romanelli owned that are leaking that I've had to
call the DEC from. I know that's another issue
23 but I gust totally disao_prove. This is a
residential area and it should be kept as such.
24 Thank you.
MR. CAPELLO: My name is Reno Capello
. a tY!lVnCL1L~ aliU 1~3ti S3CiC ~V JYJC [31l lUi ii4y JG11 QnU iLLy
w~ie, ~rizrry ~aanirigay ipncner.~ci due ~l~e on tn~
I5=
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 property abuttina_ the rear of the Romanel='
development. We are simply here to respectfully
_ reauesr that the variances be denied. Be
disallowed and that the proposed development
4 simply be allowed as a matter of right under the
existing Town ordinance. That is simply our. the
5 extent of our involvement. There would be too
much activity and I don't know, we're not sure as
6 to what LB?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Licht business.
7 MR. CAPELLO: Light business refers to?
Contractor's yard is light business? I don't
8 know. But this is not my role. This is certainly
not my decision. I'm here simply to respectfully
9 request that the zoning ordinance be applied.
Thank you.
IO CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you.
MR. FOWLER: William Fowler, 350 Skunk Lane,
11 Cutchoaue. I agree with evervthina_ he said except
for one other thing. If it was to a be a
12 contractor's yard, how much stuff does a
contractor, how much area in the buildinq_ needs to
I3 get outside and what would he be putting outside?
. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That is the subject of
14 another hearing that hasn't been.
MR. FOWLER: I understand that but if he's
15 really thinking of making it a contractor`s yard,
a contractor has to have outside space.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know how
much space is allowed in the code anymore. I'm
17 not sure you're allowed much outside anymore.
MR. FOWLER: Shouldn't be allowed an v_.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He needs to apply for
that, sir. He really hasn`t applied for that yet.
29 We really haven't had a hearing on that particular
part of this application. We're looking at
20 basically 12,000 square feet of some kind of
building or buildings.
21 MR. FOWLER: Right. And if he was to build
a building as his suggestion it would be by law 60
22 feet wide and 200 feet deep. What`s he going to
do, he's going to face us with a completely
23 different parking scheme or something. He's going
to face us with a situation of doors running down
24 the side of the building with Iited signs on it or
something else. Completely a different situation
23 to anject to in different ways. Ihis is to ,«e t~~~
whpie tt11T1g 15 a S1n5i~u.
153
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's why we're here,
sir. To hear your comments. We listen and we do
3 what we have to do to mitigate it and certainly no
one has any more riq_ht to ask or to say anythir.q_
4 than anybody else. And you knave your comments
especially about the long buildina that is a whole
5 other story.
MR. FOWLER: Completely different story and
6 as far as wineries being setback. He's not
telling you the truth -- those buildings except
7 for the one at Pindar built behind the complete
thing for refrigeration -- those buildings were
8 all existing. It ma v_ have been added to or the
one on Bedell's, way the heck up the farm in the
9 hollow. It's completely non-seen from the main
road.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are also
residentially zoned.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Different zones
altogether.
i2 MR. FOWLER: It's not farm property. It is
farm property but I mean it's not farmers --
13 exempt as farm property. I don't believe. It's
• not being sold to developers.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just my_ opinion,
Mr. Fowler, as well as everyone here, that you
15 should be tracking this through the Planning Board
also.
16 MR. CAPELLO: We will.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Again, I mean, Mr. Strang
17 is basically making a suggestion that it would be
less impact if you split these buildings up and
18 eventually --
MR. FOWLER: At the rate he's going, he
19 could have at least five contractors in the front
building and another, I don't know how many in the
20 back buildina.
MR. STRANG: Three and two.
21 MR. FOWLEA: So you're talking about ten
contractors in there, ten contractors with
22 overflow on the outside. Give me a break.
MR. STRANG: The idea of having a building
23 is that the contractor will be contained within
the buildina and not have to --
24 MR. FOWLER: Not going to happen. Each
contractor is going to have at least one or two
• c5 trucks that he`d have to park there because he
isn"t aiiawed to take them home.
154
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm a contractor. I take
my truck home. It's not against the law to do so.
MR_ FOWLER: But you're not supposed to have
sia_ns on it.
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, sir. I have signs on
my truck. I have more than one truck. They're in
5 my driveerav. It's not against the law to have
that. That really is not the point. The point
6 is he's making a conceptual type of plan bringing
it before us to see if we can fit what he suggests
7 into the whole scheme of the Town. Quite
honestly, a building that's 100 feet wide is an
8 awful lot to ask. Kieran's suggestion that we
would be over 400 percent, granting a 400 percent
9 variance is of utmost importance to us.
MR. FOWLER: That's a joke.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But you listen to what
they have to say, you listen to your comments and
11 honestly, some point in time there's going to be
something that maybe most people won't agree with
12 but they won't be so objectionable to. That iadv
had a valid point. The gentleman before you
13 said, Look, they don't need a variance, build
• whatever they want. We hear all of those comments
14 and we take them all in and we'll make a decision
on it one way or the other,
15 MR. FOWLER: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have to stay with it
16 though. You have to stay with this process. You
have to show up, make sure you get your notices
17 and protect your rights. One more gentleman.
MA. STURKIN: I'II be brief. Tony Sturkin
18 (phonetic), Main Road, Cutchogue. I'm not an
abutter but direct sight line through every window
I9 of my house and in the western yard, western side
vard. I believe this is a limited business zone.
20 Limited business as I read it means any business
established shall conform to the rural and
ZI historic character of the area. My house has a
plaque on it. It's 200 years old. There's
22 another house directly across the street, 100 and
some odd years. I could go on and on. It is an
23 historic district. Historically it was known as
Glover's Road. My house is directly across from
24 Skunk Lane. It's a well maintained Dutch gambrel
(phonetic) that I take a great deal of pride in.
• %5 we don't want Lo see
this. This is totally out of
-
character with the it doesn`t even come cios~.
155
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December Z0, 2007
2 We refer to it as the Coramizatior. of Cutchogue.
If this project belongs anywhere, it's certainly
3 in a hamlet center. It's not here. Mr. Strang
refers to three buildings on the property. I
4 remember when there was a horse stored in the
larger one. The other two were chicken coops,
5 Midgely put a shop in one several years ago. It
was partners with Kurt Horton, some of you may
6 know or may not know. Three buildings, multiple
tenants, contractors. I've been a contractor.
7 Contractor staging areas are noisy because we make
a lot of noise in the morning greeting each other.
8 Quite frankly, I'd hate to see this project go.
I'm not against development but this is not the
9 intent of the limited business zoning as Albert
Richman explained to me years ago. It had to be
IO something within the character as I say of that
particular area. I'd urge you to stand behind the
11 Building Inspector in this case and r.ot grant any
sort of a variance for this project. Thank you
12 very much.
MR. ROBERTS: I'm aping to be really, really
I3 brief. My name is Reed Roberts and I live 36960
• Main Road, two properties down from the lot in
14 question. And I'm not saying anything new. I
just want to agree with everyone here that it is a
15 very residential historic area. My home was built
in 1850 and it was land marked because of that
I6 I've had a very hard time getting insurance on it
and I think something of this scale would be
17 completely out of character for the area. It's
the same thing everyone else has said but again,
18 some other, obviously something will happen
eventually but a large parking lot with commercial
19 buildings is something that I think would be a
real problem for the area. It is one stretch of
20 the road there that is all residential. That's
it.
2I CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else? Ma'am, you
want to sa_y something?
22 MS. GENOVESE: One other issue is all the
abutting properties, everybody that even doesn't
23 abut, it would devalue all our properties too.
Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm going to make a
comment about that. That is really not a
• 25 consideration of this Board. The zoning is
established by the Town Board. It's LB. Person
156
. 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 200
2 buys a piece in the LB property or they eu~,• ?-
next to an LB property, they have a right to
_ expect certain things to happen on that piece of
property which is in the code. And I know
4 granting variances is over and above that. I'm
well aware of that but if you're not diligent, I
5 mean you guys are saving this is residential, the
Town disagreed with that at some point in time.
6 We don't know when. Ruth is going to find that
out. Decides to put this zoning in that area and
7 someone made certain plans on that piece of
property pursuant to the zoning that the Town put
8 in there. And I can tell you in the future, the
Town is considering this type of campus style as
9 opposed to huge buildings on these pieces of
property. So this, at some point in time, this
10 may not even be subject to a Zoning Board hearing.
MS. GENOVESE: Again he's asking for a 400
11 percent variance. I mean 10 percent, 20 percent,
400 percent? If I had known --
12 CHAIRMAN OINIZIO: That's at this time.
MS. GENOVESE: Right. Well, if I had known
13 that this will be allowed, I never would have
bought my property.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess I'm probably
giving you a heads up. At this time they're
15 asking for that large of a variance. Six months
from now that may not be a problem.
16 MR. CAPELLO: Some of the other gentleman
pointed out, there are several historic houses.
17 The house that we live in was built in 1892. So I
add my comments to both of these gentlemen that
18 this is a value that there is in Cutchogue.
Cutchogue has a sense of being a small hamlet and
19 I think that from that point of view whatever the
zoning regulation allows, there's still something
20 in the context of the Planning Board perhaps but
something that needs to be considered in terms of
21 maintaining the atmosphere, the decor or the
feeling as to what this community is Like and we
22 should not destroy it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you. That
23 would be more towards types of buildings and what
you would be looking at as opposed to what goes on
24 in those buildings. I think that you want to
25 address that. You want to think long and hard
about treat. He's making a suggestion, that 4ov
percent variance, he's saying tt'iat if I break tfii~
~z^
i J
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold December 20, 20C7
2 buildina up, it lessens the impact to the
neighborhood because it's then four little
buildings as opposed to one huge building. We
know that's not allowed. We can Grant variances
4 based on that. We certainly can move buildings.
We can say it can't be 40 feet from your property
5 line. We can sav it can be 75 feet from vour
property line. All of those things. Light,
6 parking, all of those things we can take into
consideration but one thing we can't take into
7 consideration is what can go on that piece of
property legally. That's not our purview. That's
8 the Town Board. That's the zoning that has been
created in that area. Believe me, I understand.
9 Your home is your home. Your home is your castle.
Older homes are much more important lust simply
10 because they've been here so long historically.
You're not in an historic district, are you? It's
11 not like Orient.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCCRAN: No, it would be
12 house by house. It would be individual.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have houses that
. 13 someone said this is an historic house and you can
paint it green but you can't paint it red, that
14 kind of thing?
MR. CAPELLO: No, we're not.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want to know.
We're going to have another hearing.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim, Leslie wanted
something asked; to ask that they provide a full
17 set of plans for the next part of the hearing
because what we have are sketches.
i8 MR. STRANG: Yes, we're in the conceptual
stage at this point. We are winning our way
19 through this as far as design goes. We will be
presenting to Planning as well as to this Board a
20 floor plan of the buildina and some exterior
views. I'd like to on behalf, from myself and
21 also on behalf of my client, would like to thank
the neighbors for coming out. Because it's good
22 to have the input. We're not, my client -- I'm
pleased and my client will be as well that you're
23 hear to voice vour opinion because we're
interested in hearing that. We don't want to
24 ignore it and we want to do what's best for
everybody including the Town, the neighbors and my
• 25 client. We have to do a balancing act obviously
and the building design especially the one of the
15E
• 1 ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
2 front row is ~~joing to br d,ne in keeping with the
historic nature of Cutchoaue and the main road.
B_th my client and myself live here, we work here.
So we both work riere and live here and we know the
4 value of what we have and we don't want to lose
that. It's not like we're coming in from out of
5 the area to make a quick buck and leave. We want
to do something nice. The building would have a
6 residential appearance. We'll probably have
x~orche: and detail: and dormers and ornamentation
7 on it to give it an architecturally correct
appearance to the neighborhood. So, again, I just
8 wanted to assur;~ the neighbors that we are
sensitive to what their challenges might be and we
9 will, I made notes as to your comments and will do
the beet w,, car_ to address them. you'll have more
10 opportunity, I'm sure you'll take advantage of it
to discuss your feelings and to see the plans
11 develop through the planning process and again
with the ZBA. I do appreciate your comments and
12 you being here.
BCARD MEMBER GOEHP.INGER: I'll make my
13 motion.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on, I just want to
14 make sure everybody has had their say.
MR. ROBERTS: How can I find out about these
15 hearings? Luckily, I was talking to Mr. Midgely
and. that's the only reason I was aware of this.
16 CHAIRMAN DIPdIZIO: We post them up. We have
them in the paper under legal notices and I
17 believe there --
BOARD ASSISTANT KO4v'ALSIiI: Well there is a
18 sign put up. We also have them on our website and
you may call the office at any time.
19 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I didn't know if there
was a subscription list or anything like that.
20 BOARD ASSISTANT K.OWALSK L• We do certified
mailing ar call us any time.
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Best place is probably
the website. Okay. I guess I'll entertain a
22 motion to hold the hearing open until further
notice.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Adjourn with no
date.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry made that motion.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second.
• 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Seconded by Michael. All
those in favor.
159
• 1
2
4
S
6
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
n
i ~
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
ZBA Town of Scut_hold - December 20, 2007
(Sce rninui.es to-r resolution.`
(Whereupon, the December 20, 2007 hearing
was roricluded at 5:10 r~.rn. )
~ * * ~
160
•
•
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
i~
11
io
_~
13
,~
14
15
16
17
1~
19
~~
;„
21
~~
~~
23
~~
2
ZBA Town of Southold - December 20, 2007
F_ R. T I F T C A T ~ ~ i~
I, Erika Nadeau, a shorthand reporter and Notary
P~.zc7lic ~f trie Rate of New York do hereh~~,I certify:
THAT the testimony in the within proceeaing was
held before me at the aforesaid time and place and tha.T
the testimony was taken stenographically by me, then
transcribed under rr~y supervision, and. that the within
transcript is a true record of the testimony liven.
I f'I~rthcr ~'art'_fy that I am not related. to any of tl
parties by blood or marriage, that I am not interested
di_`ertly br indirectly Iii the m~itter~ tertlfcd to, nor
am I in the employ of any of the counsel.
Eril~a Tv'adeau.