Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/24/2008 Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FE9 - 6 2009 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF~PPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York January 24, 2008 9:35 a.m. Board Members Present: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Chairman/Member JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member RUTH D. OLIVA - Member MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant Absent: KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 INDEX OF HEARINGS: Hearing: Page: Hill %6111 3-26 LaChance %6113 26 DiGregorio %6115 27-30 Planitzer %6112 30-44 Corbley 96119 45-51 Guja 96116 51-59 Dickerson %6120 59-62 Diack %6109 62-68 Bayview Assoc. 96117 69-71/115-116 Friemann %6114 72-115 Tripptree 96118 117-125 Courts Trust %6098 125-126 Crary %6108 126-128 McNulty 96090 128-130 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN GOEHRI~GER: I'd like to welcome you this morning to the January 2008 Zoning Board meeting. I'd like you all to stand, if you would, for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance held) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. The first order of agenda is the State Quality Environmental Reviews. I'd like to offer a resolution to those Type II Actions. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth and do I hear a second? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second order, Roman Numeral II is the issue of the Stepnoski hearing. Is everybody sufficient with the information that we received from the neighbor regarding this? If so, are you okay with closing the hearing at this time and -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We have a preliminary decision, just a draft, and it says reasonably dense buffer. I was wondering if we could just define that? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's not before us right now. The other members don't have that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then can we have a discussion - is this hearing open? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It was just to close the written portion. The resolution is on the agenda. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. But is it open now? Can someone comment? Is anyone here to corament? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Not verbally, no. Only for written. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ail right. Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail right? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yep. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So your resolution is to accept the written, Jerry? Is that how you're reading it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll make that motion. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6111 - Hill CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. The first hearing is on behalf of Charles Hill, 6110. It's Ruth's. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's 6111. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, I put a zero on it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's November 5, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an as-built accessory shed in a yard other than the code-required rear yard, at 655 Lake Drive, Southold; CTM 80-3-20." Someone here to speak on this? MR. HILL: First of all, can you just repeat that? I'm having a really hard time you. So I apologize. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want us to re-read the legal notice? MR. HILL: No. That's okay. The legal notice is fine. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's just for your shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who are you sir, for the record? MR. HILL: Charles Hill, I own the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You look very familiar from the last hearing. MR. HILL: I've been here before. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We like to welcome you here. Ruth, would you like to say anything to Mr. Hill regarding this? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, we were down there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want me to start? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yeah, go ahead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hill, how long has that shed been there? MR. HILL: How'd I get the shed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How long has it been there? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 MR. H~L: That shed's been there about seven years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Seven years? Were there any additions to the shed when you first placed it there? MR. Hill: Yes. I had it, it's an 8 by 12 and then I put those two little wings on the end of it. I built that myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So based upon the prior hearing that we had when you were applying for the garage, that shed was there it its exact place, it it's exact location; is that correct? MR. HILL: Everything is exact, correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And everything is exact? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You just didn't get a building permit for it? MR. HELL: Correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Correct. And why do you want the building permit now or the as-built? MR. HILL: At the time I didn't realize that I needed a building permit -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. MR. HILL: -- and the last hearing that we were here for my other variances, you told me that I was going to have to move that -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. MR. HILL: -- before I was going to get a CO. So I was either going to move it or I was going to apply for another variance and the only place I can move that is on the water side and that's something that I don't want to do. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't blame you. MR. HILL: It's really the best spot for it. I didn't think it was going to look -- I thought it was going to be an eyesore with my house there for me. But it's not that bad so I'd like to keep it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It isn't that bad. I Jim? No questions. We'll start with Mr. Hill, the shed that's there now, the original variance granted for your garage, in that variance, there was an indication that you were Yo remove an existing 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 shed from the property that was in dilapidated condition. Is that shed different than the one that's there now or the same shed that's there now? MR. HILL: You're question is? I'm sorry, I'm missing that. You have to speak up. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that better? Can you hear me better? MR. HILL: That's better now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The original variance that was granted for your garage also had a condition that you remove an existing shed that was somewhat dilapidated. What I'm asking is, the shed that's there now, is that different from the one you were supposed to remove or is it the same shed? MR. HILL: I removed the shed off the house. I had a 10 by 17 shed that wa~ removed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was attached to your house? MR. HILL: That was attached, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Ail right. That's totally separate then ~he shed that is there now and you're seeking the variance for? MR. HILL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a question, the shed at the time that is was built, it was 8 by 12 which did not need a building permit. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It does. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When it was originally built, if it was 8 by 12, it did not need a building permit, correct? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, it did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has to be in a conforming location. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It has to meet zoning code. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's one of the problems we've had before. It is supposed to conform in location but not, it doesn't require a permit. There's a glitch in the code. The point was that the fact that it did not have a building permit at the time that it was built was not what was relevant because it was under 100 square feet. How big is it now? 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 MR. HILL: It's approximately 142 square feet with those two wings that I built. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's considerably larger. Now, when you came before us for the permit for the permit for the garage addition, as I recall, that shed wasn't even mentioned as part of the application. We only discovered it when we went to inspect the property, correct? MR. HILL: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the Board decided, as a condition, that it be removed? MR. HILL: Correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And now you are, essentially, appealing that condition. MR. HILL: This is how I put it. When I was in the hearing for the variances, you asked me about that shed and I told you that I never got a permit for it and at the time, I really didn't think it was a big deal because I didn't think I'd need the space. I talked to Mrs. Kowalski and she said the only other option you have is to get rid of it, move it to a different location where it's legal on the site or apply for a variance. So this is what I'm doing for the shed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question that I have, it's not clear to me given the code, where else on the property it would be legal? Would it be -- it's not supposed to be in the front yard and it's not supposed to be in the side yard. Yet your property has two front yards because it's waterfront. So, where could it be legally? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It can legally be in his -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He can pick which ever one he wants. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You could legally move it to your roadside front yard but your belief, and I believe it's a accurate one, is that you have a fairly small roadside front yard and you would accomplish very little and it would look far more intrusive if you moved it closer to the road. Right now, it's in a side yard which is why you need the variance. MR. HILL: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the curious thing is that while it is in the side yard, it was only partially in the side yard before the garage was built; is this correct? In other words -- 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 ~2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER ~EISMAN: NO, I think the garage is still parallel with the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It was also parallel with the new garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd have to look. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In any case, it's a larger, it's more in the side yard now then it was before the garage was built. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just make -- MR. HILL: More in the side yard? No. It hasn't moved. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know. But the garage has moved, therefore, lengthening the side yard. House has moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just explain something in my opinion. Just because you have a waterfront lot doesn't mean you have two front yards. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The applicant didn't hear the answer to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just because you have a waterfront lot doesn't mean you have two front yards. Your front yard is still your front yard. The rear yard is the waterfront and you clearly are aware of that because your first discussion with us was you didn't want to put it in the rear yard. MR. HILL: It get a little confusing but you're correct. It's my understand through the Building Department that if I just move that shed towards the water to my front yard, is that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Rear yard. MR. HILL: They'd have no jurisdiction on that. That's something that I really just don't want to do. Nobody has a shed by the water. I would take the shed out before I did that. Aesthetically it's just not right. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How far is that shed from the side yard? MR. HILL: Two feet, approximately. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How many? MR. HILL: Two feet from the side yard, it's right on the property line. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you need that variance for that. He doesn't have much room to move it. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the Board. Is everybody okay with the present 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2® 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 position of where it is and it's proxlmzty to the fence in the back or -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In back or to the side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Standing in front of it, it's to the right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you okay with where it is at the moment? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I mean. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, one of the reasons I would say yes is that the fact that at some aesthetic point of view I think you're absolutely right about the placement. Also from a functional point of view in terms of having access to your driveway for getting the kinds of recreational equipment that you need to use the shed for. The other thing is that on the other side of that property line is a cycl6ne fence and woods. So it's having absolutely no visual impact on a neighbor. MR. HILL: Zero. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So based on those site-specific conditions, I would say that I don't really have a great issue with where it's located at the moment. MR. HILL: Aesthetically, it's in the best spot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would agree with Leslie in that it's site-specific almost with a vengeance given the pre-existing location of it and the cyclone fence and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any other place. So I would concur that whether we would have designed the property in the first place 50 years ago is irrelevant and I think we have an obligation to see whether there's a reasonable alternative to the current situation and I haven't been able to come up with one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Jimmy, any problem with this location? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. Jus% don't leave. We're going to close the hearing in a second. MR. HILL: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 else who ~ould like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing none. Seeing none. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I move that we close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6113 -- LaChance CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next hearing is in behalf of LaChance. It is appeal number 6133. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It should be 6113. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's 6113. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's November 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed addition to the existing single-family dwelling, which is proposed less than 10 feet from the side yard, less than 25 feet for total side yard setbacks, and less than 35 feet from the front lot line, at 630 Ruch Lane, Southold; CTM 52-2-26." Now, just as a point, although it's not mentioned in the original -- there was relief granted before for a garage -- in the application for a garage. It was denied and an alternative was proposed which is located in a very similar place to the one that is now being proposed for the studio and would you care to? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert. I came along after that variance was granted so this is a new project for me but I know about the garage application. Initially, the client wanted a garage. As we talked about building it, more and more it became she really wanted an addition to her house for a studio, a space to work when she's out here from the city. So what we have before you right now is an attachment to the house. We feel it's a little less intrusive then the garage because the garage was going to be a!lcwed much closer to the street than what we have now. We have to keep the existing side yard setback the same as the garage just because it lines up with the house. Tc put it over to meet the ten fee% 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 would kind of be unfair and ~lso it wouldn't work with the front door the way it currently sits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? Is there any difference between the use of a studio and the use of a den in this particular case? MR. LEHNERT: Same thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not going to be used for any particular business purpose? This is used only for a residential use like if it was a garage taking care of your car except it's going to be added to the house and part of the habitability of the structure? MR. LEHNERT: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a question that I have, this calls for a 6.8 feet side setback because it's on an angle that's continuous with the house. As I read the condition for the alternate relief, it said it was 7 foot. Now, is that, in fact, the same line that was approved for MR. LEHNERT: No. The 7 foot was approved because it was a separate building. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It could be parallel to the line. So the reason for this two-tenths reduction in what was approved before simply has to do with the fact that it's attached? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it's only two-tenths of a foot? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a couple of observations. Under most circumstances the setbacks proposed are extraordinarily generous in terms of variance. MR. LEHNERT: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: However, on that particular street there are some very unusual characteristics. The ~wo existing accessory garages on either side of the property are jus~ a 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 f~w feet off of the road. And the fact that i~'s a modest house with a story and a half addition rather than a two-story makes it very much in scale with both the residences as well -- it's going to be smaller actually than a garage. Also, property number 1150, number 850 which is next door, number 790 on Ruch; all of those have front yard setbacks that are similar less than the one proposed. So I must say that based upon your agreement to nullify the variance for the garage and existing characteristics in the neighborhood, it's probably, I would have to agree, it's less intrusive than a garage and so I don't have an issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Is there anybody on the Board that has any other questions regarding this application? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on behalf or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion -- this is, we're within the 20% lot coverage? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. No problem with lot coverage. It's all setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing 96115 - DiGregorio. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll go on. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for Variances under Sections 280-15B, 280-15C, 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's October 15, 2007 amended Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed accessory garage on this 16,586 square foot lot. The new garage is proposed at 22 feet in height in a location at less than 20 feet from the side lot line, and less than 35 feet from the front lot line, at 1000 Oak Street (at Pierce Drive), Cutchogue; CTM 136-1-36." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record. MS. HEYSE: Denise Heyse from the office of Charles Thomas Architects in Riverhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth, what would you 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 like to say to thi~nice lady? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We had gone down there and it hadn't been staked out. And then we did request it be staked out so we went back down again. That is a fairly large garage. Could you give me a reason that it needs to be that large? MS. HEYSE: Yes. The DiGregorio family has 3 young children. I believe there aren't any kids in high school yet. And from what I understand, the garage would be used for one vehicle and then bicycles and playthings and then Mr. DiGregorio has a boat restoration hobby and he would like to keep his boat in the one side and work on the boat in the garage. So that was what I talked about with Mr. Thomas and Mr. DiGregorio and Mary Kate. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And you're going to come in from the Pierce Drive side? MS. HEYSE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So therefore, your side yard on the other side is 28 do I see here. I can't read the number. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the number is 25 according to the survey. MS. HEYSE: You mean off of Oak Street? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Off of Oak Street. MS. HEYSE: Off of Oak, yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Now I have two different -- the one site plan shows just a narrow driveway going into the garage and then we received something in the mail that looks to me as though it's a wider driveway. MS. HEYSE: Could I look at what you're -- and see. I just want to clarify. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: This one looks -- this one kind of widens out and the other one goes straight back. It made me a little confused. MS. HEYSE: I think the other one is dimension lines because what I had been told is to put a driveway on -- I think they're dimension lines. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, they are dimension lines. MS. HEYSE: I got a call saying -- we hadn't put the driveway on and I realized 5hat so I quickly drew up something and sent it in so you could see what it would be. So that's the proposed. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So it's fairly narrow 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 widens out then going from Pierce Drive and just . o as it gets nearer the garage. MS. HEYSE: So the car could get in. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question here? Is there any particular reason, and I know I've read the application, why it's pushed all the way back to the southeast property line and 5 feet? It's a rather large structure that you're proposing. One of the concerns that I've always had is that with an overhang of say 18 inches, I know this overhang may be a little shorter than 18 inches, you really almost have to be on the neighbors property to work on the building in the future. So that's the reason why we always ask for a larger side, actually in this particular case it's side yard, but I mean, and that's just an opinion. I'm not speaking for th~ Board. I'm speaking for myself. MS. HEYSE: I could respond to that. You're talking about the 5 feet in the back and then the 25 feet off. I think that the garage could come a little bit forward to Pierce. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know you've got some beautiful trees there that you probably don't want to lose either. MS. HEYSE: Trees and topography with moving it forward -- I don't know if we would have to fill or have a very long cement foundation wall if it came much further. I think two feet it could come out. The approach from Pierce would be kind of steep. They want enough to be able to get the car in. I understand what you're saying about behind. If they're going to build, they need some room to actually build it without going on the neighbor's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If this was a 12 foot garage, this is my opinion, 12 foot to the gable end, whatever way it is, front to back or reversed or front/back and reversed gable, there would never be a problem with putting a ladder on there to get on the roof or to even work on the overhang. This is a relatively high garage. We had an application on Wanalater Road (phonetic) in Nassau Point which was very similar to this one and we did a similar thing. We moved it back from the property line a little bit farther and that was the case. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOA~D MEMBER WEISMAN: Jerry, can I comment on that? According to the topography and I went and measured actually. I went back a second time, the slope is such toward Pierce that you can move over definitely a foot and still have a fairly level landing for a car. If you begin to move it over a lot more, you're going to be entering the car on a slope and you'll probably have to do a greater amount of excavation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was thinking 2 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know whether - well, it's very, very tight and then they're going to begin to encroach upon that stand of pine trees too. And once you start building, although this is just on slab, yes? MS. HEYSE: Yes~ BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it doesn't have the same impact on those trees as cutting, excavating and putting in foundation, footings would have. But if you start to build too much on top of the roots of those trees and the canopy is substantial, you can create future damage. So I would say to be very careful about what you believe you can move it over. You certainly can move it over a foot. Whether you can move it over two feet, I think you have to go back and really, really take a close look at what the actual topography is. MS, HEYSE: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I only say that because I'm experienced in this. I'm a professor of architecture so that's how I happen to be -- I did pace it off carefully. Jerry, that's my only concern is that there's clearly an agreement that they'd be willing to move that over. What you don't want to do is cause more adverse impact in so doing than what you gain. So if alternate relief was offered, maybe the thing to do is could we ask you to go back and have a look and say whether you think you could move it over 2 feet rather than a foot? MS. HEYSE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let us know. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: In a letter would be good. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to make sure that it's not just - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Leslie, I agree with 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 you. That's the reason I wJs talking to because I've been there 3 times myself. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -- not some number we just made up. And you think two is okay? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think two is okay but I'm not a certified person. I'm certifiable but not a certified person. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We'll let the architect go and now pay really careful attention to it and let us know what the maximum you feel you could move over is. MS. HEYSE: Ail right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll go back to Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, 5 feet is an awful lot for a variance, quite honestly. When you're required to have a 20 foot setback and suddenly it looks like there's a garage on the other side of that that's p~obably 25 feet away from the property line. MS. HEYSE: It's 30. I wanted to ask you about that. I thought when I was looking at the nonconforming accessory structures sheet for under 20,000, the side yard was ten and then I looked at the Disapproval and it says 20 but I was wondering if you had a comment or response to that because I thought when Connie had faxed us the recent changes. Do we fall under that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's relative to the height. It's because your garage is 22 feet and not 18 feet. MS. HEYSE: The lot size? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. In other words the setback is relative to the height. MS. HEYSE: So the side yard changes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. It's an extremely confusing law but the point is that the law is nonetheless the law and we're granting a 75% variance here, really, I think is too much. I'm just wondering if maybe you move it over or find some way to make it smaller in some way without granting such a large side yard variance. MS. HEYSE: Two of the issues that came up about moving it back off of Pierce was that directly behind i~ near where the child play frame area is, is the sanitary system. When they did the new house, they located the sanitary system there and there's rules with how close we could go to thas. The o%her point -- I'm just talking 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 ~bout the front yard now. I don't know if th~s is responding to some of what you're asking is they have the 3 children and they wanted to keep the area between the house and the garage open as much for their area to use with the dog and the kids to play. This is their primary residence also which is partially why we're asking for more of a garage with some more use in it for the family because the size of the lot is there. I guess the point of what we're asking relief for because they want to live as a family in Cutchogue and enjoy their activities. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How about making it less tall? How about making it 18 feet? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If you're having the boat. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want her to 'answer the question. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sorry Jim. MS. HEYSE: When we first applied, the height for the garage we applied in 2006. We originally did the design for DeGregorio to match the style and quality of the house. We wanted to do a matching situation with design and make it impressive the way they want it in the design. The pitches are such that we didn't want to come down to 18 for that reason but I know that we, I think, if we can come down about a foot, it wouldn't make a significant impact on that visual design scheme for DiGregorio, for our client, for what they asked us for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Back to Leslie one second. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, no further questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGR: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I've only been to this property once so I haven't carefully reviewed the topography. I agree with some of the other comments that have been made, is the lot is narrow at that point. It's only 55 feet narrow so it looks as though there's going to be a squeeze and the 5 feet ask for a very large variance and given the length of the garage and the height of the garage, I think -- the garage wasn't there for me to look at, but it looks as though that's a rather 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 imposing wall onl~ 5 feet from the neighbor and requires a very significant variance to boot. What I haven't done is to consider are there other possibilities on that lot? There's a lot of room around there. What would otherwise be for most people a 2 car garage and is going to be a one car garage and essentially a play area which is great. Why it has to be right there is puzzling to me. I haven't gone and considered other possibilities but if perhaps you're trimming the height a little bit or increasing the distance might mitigate some of the difficulties that some of us have. That's my view on this. Clearly we want them to be able to have their garage and the only thing we're working at right now is where and how big and how long and so forth. MS. HEYSE: Other locations on the property were considered ahd this was decided to be the best. The imposingness of it that you talk about because of the size, when I looked at it and I looked around the neighborhood and I saw that I don't feel from what I know is going to go up, that's it's going to reinforce the nonconformity that exists. It's not coming out on Oak. We decided that it would be coming out on Pierce and that it's side of it, the side of the garage, is going to be facing Oak. And the neighbor's garage is 30 feet, 30 feet off of it's property line. So the fact that there will be two structures, I feel that ours is going to be a lot more concealed than the others that are directly near it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, you have a lot of vegetation around there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's on a corner. I don't know how concealed it may be. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: They have some big pine trees, some big Evergreen trees, that really do kind of hide it. You can't really even see the house that much. Of course, now you may have to take down some of them but hopefully a few. MS. HEYSE: I did see some of the ones, when I was staking it, didn't look to -- they weren't the pines that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you to throw this out to everybody and I'm going to leave it at that, okay. Was there ever an anticipation of creating a wall around 3 sides of this and lowering the whole structure say a foot er a foot 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 3 4 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 and a half and using that as almost'like a French drain with stone in it so that -- I don't know if you're anticipating putting any leaders and gutters on this building. It appears not but of actually lowering the structure a little bit into a French drain wall around. MS. HEYSE: Like a retaining wall? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes but we're talking a small retaining wall if you're only lowering it a foot or a foot and a half thereby reducing everything and not creating this effect as opposed to this effect meaning this effect. MS. HEYSE: No. That hadn't been mentioned at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm only throwing this OUt. That's all I'm doing. In Nassau Point, this has been a factor all over the years because of the nature of the topography of the'land. Each lot is much different and very rarely do you ever find a flat. This is very similar to that. You have a left to right slope and that's the reason why I was just throwing it out to you. The question basically is, at this point, are we willing to close the hearing? I mean, we're still taking testimony from neighbors, but are we willing to close the hearing or do you want to leave it open and let this nice young lady -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We can leave it open as far as -- well, even close it subject to her reviewing the fact and making it two feet off the line or one foot off the line, lowering the height one foot and investigating Jerry's proposal for some sort of French drain effect. MS. HEYSE: Absolutely. I think there could really be a nice option for us. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll draw it for you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure exactly if procedurally it's going to work because we're not talking about a single modification. We're talking about several plans. If we're talking about plan A, B and C, then the Board can decide on that. Otherwise we might need to keep the hearing open. It would have to be pretty clear what kinds of things we're waiting for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on that? I'm just not so sure that this couldn't be attached tc the house and you wouldn't need a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 variance. MS. HEYSE: The septic system. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that but I just think there's other ways, other places, that you could put that that would not be as detrimental and maybe making it smaller would be a little bit, you know, make it a two-car garage instead of a three. I understand your reasons. I understand you need more storage and all of that but you're asking for a substantial variance. MS. HEYSE: I did want to point out that in the front, the area in front of the house seaward in front of the creek, is not an area that can be used. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't want any water runoff there, that's for sure. So what do you want'to do, again, we're still taking testimony but think about it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time do you think you would need, I guess that's the question. You'd need time to prepare and investigate, go back to the property and come back? MS. HEYSE: It would be a week. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: You can submit all that in writing in a week also? MS. HEYSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to close the hearing pending to that or do you want to close the hearing on February 7th? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: We would close the oral today and leave the hearing open until February 7th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How's that? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Fine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEBRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? We realize we did receive a letter from the neighbor which was not adverse. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion doing just what we said and that is closing the hearing to oral testimony today and allowing you to resubmit any other proposals that you have. The hearing, the meeting, is on February 7th so we would need -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: At 4 in the afternoon. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:® When do you want this stuff, Linda? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We'd need to have it in writing a week before that which would be January 31st. MS. HEYSE: Okay. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: If you can. If you need more time, send a letter letting us know. MS. HEYSE: Okay. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's okay too. CHAIRPLAN GOEHRINGER: ~_nd then the Board would close the hearing in total on February 7th, okay. MS. HEYSE: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I offer that as a resolution. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing # 6112 - Planitzer CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is 6112. Just state your name for the record. MR. HAM: Stephen Ham, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton for the applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This particular hearing is Jim's. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-14, based on the Building Inspector's October 30, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed alterations to an existing third-story living area in a single-family dwelling, for the reason that the code limits construction to 2 1/2 stories in height. Location of Property: South Side of Ocean View Avenue, Fishers Island; CTM 9-11-3.1." I actually have seen this house when I was over there. The lady that drove us around walked us over from the school - me over there anyway. The way I read it is you're not going to change anything on the outside of this house other than taking a couple of dormers off that exist there now? MR. HAM: That's correct and the architect is here in case you have, if I'm misstating something. But that's my understanding. Some dormers are coming off and the history of this, 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 which is the attachment to my memorandum is ~hat it was built in 1973 with a third story plan included which I have all the plans in there and it was issued a Certificate of Occupancy and nobody thought anything about it. My client bought it from the original owner in 1999 unaware of this and it just came out when they were renovating. So they're reconfiguring but not expanding. The argument is that we feel it should be treated just as you would a nonconforming building with a conforming use which would allow some reconfiguration without increasing the nonconformance. Obviously, it won't have much of a change in the neighbor because it's been there for 35 years. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As I recall, there are other houses similar to this house in that area that have similar dormers on the top hJlf of the house. MR. FITZGERALD: Sam Fitzgerald, I'm the project architect with BT Design (phonetic). There are certainly houses in the area with dormers. However, this house I think was not necessarily in the same type. It was designed by Jimmy Ryder (phonetic) in the '70's and it had a very pure rigid geometry to it that was, and it was designed with a different philosophy entirely than the other ones which are more sort of free form beach cottages and things. This one was somewhat of an intellectual house and so it's -- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you define -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They don't know what you're talking about. MR. FITZGERALD: The house has a very rigid geometry to it and the dormer actually, I think, detract from that. I think it's better without the dormers for this particular house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As someone who has spent his career as a professional intellectual, I'd be delighted to be enlightened on what an intellectual house is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll tell you over; lunch. We'll be here too long. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have a couple more questions. You mention in your reasons, Mr. Ham, about it's going to be a reduction. Can you give us percentages of reduction. In other 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 words, from what'to what? MR. HAM: In terms of volume? I use that term of contraction because obviously dormers are coming off and it'll be a, do we have any idea -- he's asking what's the degree of volume, I guess is the term I would use? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know in Number 4 of the variance, the reasons, the last sentence says, there will not be a change, it will remain the same and the size of nonconforming part of the residence will actually be reduced. MR. HAM: That's right. With dormers coming off. I didn't do the math on it. I think we can stipulate that if dormers are coming off, it will have, the scale of it will be reduced. That was my point without doing the math. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not necessarily living space but'-- MR. HAM: Appearance and so forth. MR. FITZGERALD: The volume will certainly decrease in that there are these outcroppings from the roof that have volume which will now be gone. But you're right, there is no increase or decrease of the living space. It stays the same. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're taking the dormers off. If you go up to that third floor and walk underneath that dormer, you can inhabit that particular space. When you take the dormer out, you're not going to be able to walk there? MR. FITZGERALD: In this case, the dormers are actually above the spring line of the roof so actually, you'd still be able to walk underneath there. Ail the dormers happen above your head height in that space. It's a square 20 by 20 and it's a hip roof and it goes up and it's all open inside and the dormers actually happen above your head. So if you take them off, there will be no change whatsoever to how you use that space or really anything. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So if I wrote in the decision that there will be no additional living space, that would be a truthful statement? MR. FITZGERALD: That is absolutely true. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's just go back and discuss this one second. If you're taking dormers off, you're lessening the light impact through the structure as it exists. You're creating less wind 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 tolerance to the structure by putting this box hip roof on, so to speak, meaning 20 by 20 boxed hip roof. What is the actual purpose of doing this except for aesthetically and less wind to the dormer? MR. FIZGE~ALD: There's less wind certainly but it is primarily aesthetic. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Primarily aesthetic. Is there any type of fire suppression system in the building at all? MR. FITZGERALD: There is not now, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is not. And it is typically a master bedroom and it will remain as a master bedroom? MR, FIZTERGALD: That's right. It was designed as a master bedroom suite and it will remain so. We are reconfiguring -- there are three elements in the actual bedrobm, the bathroom and a closet. We are keeping those same three elements although we are reconfiguring them. But it will be the exact same use and function. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very interesting. The last question is one of concern and it always has been concern by myself and that is the inability of a person or people and those family members that utilize that third story to get out of that third story in case of some major catastrophe. Is anything going to be increased in reference to stairwells or is anything going to alleviate any other ease out of that third story via the reconfiguration of this? MR. FITZGERALD: There's one stair to the third floor now that's existing and we had intended for that to remain. So there is no extra egress mechanism from the third floor. All the windows certainly do satisfy the building code egress requirement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. We'll go onto Leslie. Thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I think what you're proposing is simply scaling back the visual bulk, the mass, exterior massing of the building. Replacing it with more appropriate window types and maintain the same square footage. And you're going to upgrade the roof. MR. FITZGERALD: Yup. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And as you say, it's been there for a long time. As a matter of fact, 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 in point two, character of the neighborhood, you point out that an R80 zone, the height of this building actually, which is 33' 1" is still two feet less than the maximum that is allowed by code in that zone. I think it's Walz or something. Simply there's a third story, I guess, that's before us. I think it's going to improve the actual character of the residence substantially. I don't really have any -- it's very straight forward. Your documentation is very clear, drawings are very clear so I have no questions just to say that I think it will improve the house. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have questions just a comment. The aesthetic consideration is not onl~ accessible but it's important as long as it is the aesthetics that is pushing the envelope. But it isn't. It's the contrary. MR. FITZGERALD: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only concern is that New York State Building Code requires five square feet in reference to access. Can one of those windows be within the master bedroom area and allow for a chain ladder going down out of that master bedroom? MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. That makes it a little more palatable in my situation. I'm not trying to -- I'll use the slang phrase of "louse up your plans". MR. FITZGERALD: That's not a problem. We will certainly concede that in the interest of safety, absolutely. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I would agree with Mr. Goehringer. I was wondering if you put a chain ladder down there because it would make me feel more comfortable because just one entrance and exit is -- you never know what's going to happen. Better to be safe than sorry. MR. FITZGERALD: We will, absolutely. BOARD MEMBER'OLIVA: Good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. We'll see what else develops. Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this Fishers Island application, pro or con? Seeing no hands, I will enter into a resolution if anyone would like to make it. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA:" I'll make the motion. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The motion is to close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To close the hearing and reserve a decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing #6119 - Corbley CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 6119 and it's Ruth's. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for Variances under Sections 280-122, 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's October 4, 2007 Notice of Disapproval and Zoning Code Interpretation %5039 (Walz) concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, Qhich new construction will create a new nonconforming side yard setback, and will create an increase in the degree of nonconformance, when located less than 15 feet on one side yard and less than 35 feet for both side yard setbacks (total), at 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue; CTM 104-7-3." Mr. Fitzgerald, we had a little discussion yesterday about the measurement from the Architectural Review which was a few feet different than your site plan. MR. FITZGERALD: James Fitzgerald for Mr. Corbley. I didn't know I was up. I lost my copy of the agenda. The problem exists because of a lack of complete coordination between the surveyor and the architect. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We agree. MR. FITZGERALD: That should be shown on the survey. That represents what's happening on the ground and my understanding is that you were concerned about what's happening -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: On the roof line. MR. FITZGERALD: So because of the shortness of time, I have taken the roof plan and superimposed it on an enlargement of the survey. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. MR. FITZGERALD: And I have a copy of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can circulate it. Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: The primary reason for those of you who have visited the site, I think is 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 to make the building look more like a house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: More presentable. MR. FITZGERALD: It was built originally many years ago without much concern about what was going on on the non-water side. Mr. Corbley, who is here by the way if you have any questions or comments, would resolve that question. And that mainly involves two things, two significant changes. The first is the change in the roof line throughout the entire structure. Changing the roof throughout the entire structure and the second is, the addition of the porch on the front. The section of the porch which is the thing which created the discrepancy that we spoke about, the wrap around section on the east end of the building, is a design feature intended to give the overall appearance from the road a degree of symmetry. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But it still reduces your side yard somewhat. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you need more of a variance than you needed according to the site plan. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes and lastly the coordination thing involved the Building Department and the way the Disapproval was written. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But we wanted to get it clear on the record today so you wouldn't have any problems later on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're going to go for a new Notice of Disapproval on this? MR. FITZGERALD: Can we? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sure. I think you should. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question regarding what you gave us just now. Is this second story going to be modified to include a cantilever? Is it going to come out over to the end of those areas or are you going to utilize the second story as it exits and just add to it? MR. FITZGERALD: On the survey which includes the stuff which is cut off to enable this to be a ten inch scale on that side, it indicates a proposed second story addition in the front and one story addition on the side, is %hat right, 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 John? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. It's a two -- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the question, okay. Showing you a picture of the proposed plan. It appears that the east side of the building lines up so that there's not going to but any type of cantilever on that side. It appears on the west side that they don't line up over the existing so there would be a cantilever on the west side. MR. FITZGERALD: No. The structure which exists there is the lower part of the building is, exists now and it goes all the way to the back of the building. There's no cantilever on the west side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. So, I'm still a little confused on what that means and that's the reason why. I know you were just going to explain that to us and I apologize but I had this burning feeling that I wasn't zeroing on this thing at the right time. MR. FITZGERALD: The question is the description of what's happening on the east side of the building. The existing cantilever. It is not possible to tell from the views we've given of the structure whether that, the whole area on the east side is going to be filled in under the cantilever. MR. CORBLEY: My name is John Corbley. Good morning everyone, by the way. The answer to that question is no. I think we have some pictures in the application but the way the house exists now is it's a block first floor and the second floor is wood framing and on the east side it does have a two foot cantilever for the second floor. On the west side, some years ago maybe in the mid-eighties was a dormer or a shed roof type addition put on that has about a two foot bump out in the front on the roadside. So the purpose of the porch and putting the dormers and the second story roof line is to give it some symmetry and make it aesthetically more pleasing. So the answer to the question concerning the cantilever is I would just like to fill in underneath that cantilever on the east side the distance back towards the water of the porch. But the rest of the cantilever, there's nothing going to be built underneath that for the next 24 or 25 feet, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 something like that. So no constructzon under that cantilever except for where the porch wraps around to the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you this question, Mr. Corbley, do you have actual design plans for this house at this time? MR. CORBLEY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We'd like to see them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we're going to need to see those so that the -- MR. FITZGERALD: You want to see them now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need a copy of them is what we need. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have to write it and I'm confused. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well there are elevations submitted in a zerox form, 8 1/2 by 11. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: 'Is there a 57 width to scale where the site map is less. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's confusing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a little confusing and that's the reason we're having difficulty understanding. I don't think, I'm not speaking for the Board. In my particular opinion what you're doing to this house is going to be a phenomenal change and it's going to be a change for the better like you won't believe and I can see why you're doing it but that's my opinion. Having come down to Mason Drive many, many years and knowing the Smith's for a long time that lived in the red house just down the road. MR. CORBLEY: I've been waiting for a long time to be able to come up with the ideas. I didn't come up with the ideas but driving in my house for the last 7 or 8 years, I can't wait to rip those ugly shingles off there. MR. FITZGERALD: This is the first floor plans showing -- the dotted line shows they can't live on the second floor. You have a second floor plan. I will give you a set. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It would be really helpful to me. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Do you want to leave one? We have one page, the page that Mr. Fitzgerald is offering is A-3B. He's showing it and taking it back. MR. FITZGERALD: I need to knew how many copies you need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 %OARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Seven please. MR. CORBLEY: Would you like to look at that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would. Thank you, sir. I think that answers some of the questions and we'll see how it goes. Where were we at this point? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So now what are the side yard setbacks as revised on this new -- so we get it into the record, how many feet? MR. FITZGERALD: The setback on the west side remains as indicated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGR: 15'1. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 15'1", right? MR. FITZGERALD: Presumably, the permitted two foot overhang is not a concern there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because there is a two foot 6verhang from that so it's really 13'1", is that correct? The base of the house, the cement block portion of the house is -- MR. FITZGERALD: Is 15'1. Because of this confusion for want of a better term over the need to be measuring from the roof of the porch, the setback on the east side is reduced to about five feet. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's allowing for that portico extension basically. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. Okay. MR. FITZGERALD: That figure I'm getting from the enlarged section of the survey that I handed to you scaled. CHAIR~LAN GOEHRINGER: We ran into a problem with this up over in Peeble Beach and any time are the overhangs going to exceed 18 inches on this house or in they going to be in that general range? Because I think the code allows for an 18 inch overhang if not it's reduced more than that. MR. FITZGERALD: Last night it looked like two feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you may just want to check that and let us know on that situation and, of course, that five feet is only to that portico and the rest of the house goes back to the 9.2; is that correct? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So the base of the house is 9.2 and the roof is 5 foot? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 9.2 at the porch. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN GOEHRING~R: Oh, it's 9.2 at the porch? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The base of the portico. MR. FITZGERALD: Under the cantilever area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, that's good. Thank you. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's 9.2 to the base of the porch? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And the overhang is an extra 4 plus feet, is that what you're saying? To leave a 5 foot setback, it would be -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. From 9.2 to about 5 feet because the overhang intrudes 4 feet into that area. BOARD ASSISTANT ~OWALSKI: Beyond the wall, passed the wall to leave a 5 foot setback is what you're saying? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no setback. The setback is 9.2. MR. FITZGERALD: There's no on ground structure there other than the -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm just wondering how far out from the base does it go out past the 9.2 for the roof. It looks like about 4 feet. That's what I'm asking. What is it? MR. FITZGERALD: You mean how far does the roof go out behind the -- four feet. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Four feet. That's what I'm saying. I just wanted to reiterate that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Leaving a 5 foot setback. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only in that location. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the patio on the water side is there now? MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And you're going to put a second story wood deck over the slight patio? MR. FITZGERALD: That's there now also, Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That is there, okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those porches on the back of those decks will not be changed with this renovation. They will remain because %hey're tn 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 ZONING BOA~RD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 good shape, MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. MR. CORBLEY: Yes, that's correct, sir. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. I think I'm okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a little confused. I'm reading what the Notice of Disapproval says because that's what we're supposed to base the hearing on and it doesn't seem to me like the permit examiner turned you down for the overhang on that side, for the 4 foot cantilever. BOARD ASSIST~lqT KOWALKSI: I don't think that they were aware of the cantilever, Jim. That's what happened. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, so I understand, the plans came afterwards. Y~u just went for setbacks and you didn't consider - MR. FITZGERALD: As I said, the architect is doing the elevation drawing that you've seen and the surveyor is doing the foundation drawings which you have not seen but which you will see when I give you the and never the twain shall meet and that gets us to this point. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I was under the impression that the Building Inspector would base his decision on those plans not necessarily just on the survey. MR. FITZGERALD: He was basing them on the survey. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not on the architect. MR. FITZGERALD: They did not see the elevation drawing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. MR. FITZGERALD: And I think we can only presume that he thought that the overhang would be within the acceptable range but on the other hand, it's a porch. It's an unenclosed porch for which we don't get any exemption for the overhang. Isn't that correct? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My confusion is that the architect rendering -- he should have seen those. The Building Inspector should have seen those before we got it. I'm just wondering how we can base anything on just the survey when he needs to have a plan. We're supposed to be turning it down on your plans. I don't think that's your 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 fault. He's supposed to be requiring that you come back to him if you need a variance with basically the plans that you want to submit to the ZBA, review those and then base his Notice of Disapproval on those plans. And I can see that that didn't happen in this instance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Since Mr. Fitzgerald is going to submit additional documentation and go back for a new notice that reflects accurately the content that should be there, we also received something from the LWRP asking us to hold open the record because their evaluation is forthcoming in the next couple of days or something. But we have to have it as part of this record and we don't have it yet. ~o how about we consider holding it open until we get all the correct information assembled giving you time to do that, go back to the Building Department, get the updated Notice, get the LWRP and then when we have all of that stuff sorted out, we can proceed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's exactly what I was going to suggest. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I still have a point to make on that and that would be that we advertised 9 feet and now it's actually 5 feet. So why are we even having the hearing based on a Notice of Disapproval that doesn't reflect the application? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just found that out, that's the problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can agree. But if you have neighbors reading things in papers that are not right, that needs to be corrected in some way, some fashion. They're assuming it's 9 feet. They're going to see a building albeit a second story that's going to be 5 feet away from their property line. They may not object to 9 feet but they might object to 5 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: With regard to that part of the project, I kind of got into a question before about the code says that overhangs up to two feet may intrude into required setbacks. It also says something which is hard for me to interpret about whether or not a covered, it doesn't use the word porch, whether or not a covered entryway or some ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 such descriptive term is include~ in that. So really I think what I'm asking is, are we entitled to an extension, a two foot overhang extension on that dimension so that if we reduced the construction of the roof to the point where it was, the end of the roof itself was 7 feet from the property line, would we be able to claim a 2 foot exception for an overhang and therefore be within the 9 foot setback that was originally proposed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's really a question you have to ask the Building Department. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It might depend on where the columns are, what you have under it, whether there's a raised patio. It could have a lot of other things come into the question and answer that you get. MR. FITZGERALD: So how do'we? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You would have to take the plans to the Building Department and have these superimposed on a site map. These don't match the site map that they have. We have it now but they don't have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon you suggestion, Leslie, do you want to proceed with this hearing or do you want to hold off until we have everything in perfect order? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think we should wait until we have everything in. It's just not clear enough for your purposes or ours and I think everyone would be best served if you take those questions that Linda suggested to the Building Department and find out exactly what exemptions you have or don't have for air space for intrusion to setback that's a cantilever and get those questions answered and get a new Notice and all the documentation coordinated and then we can proceed with an appropriate -- we can make decisions based upon consistent and thorough information that will reflect what you really want to do. So I think we could -- but Jim raises a point about whether or not we can hold open a hearing that was advertised on one basis when it may be different. Perhaps we hold it open until that gets answered. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'd like to make a comment on that. It was not advertised at 9 feet. it was given a generic advertisement but 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 I do agree with Jim. I don't think the neighbors received the map that shows the correct setbacks. MR. FITZGERALD: The stuff I sent to the neighbors includes the specific description, it includes the information that Jim was talking about. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So you might want to do the re mailings once you know the new setbacks and have that superimposed and then also confirm that you're amending your application based on the amended Disapproval. Then we can go from there and fix the file and correct the file, I should say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we do that in a month. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time would you need to do all that to get these maps to the ~uilding Department for a new Disapproval? Two weeks? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure we can do it in much less than two weeks. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We should be okay for February 28th for a second final hearing maybe. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good. MR. CORBLEY: Can I ask a question? What is LWRP? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and it's a review of all waterfront properties in terms of impacts on the bluff or creek or whatever water body is there and is part of the Planning Department. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Under the State. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a State requirement. MR. FITZGERALD: What sort of contact did you have from them about that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a letter indicating that they were in process of completing their standard review because it's a waterfront parcel but they hadn't gotten it to us yet by the time of today's hearing. So they requested that we give them another couple of days to get that to you. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The coordinator was away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It also has to do 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 significantly with water runoff. So it's something that you're going to have to contain on site. One of the issues, dry wells, leaders and gutters. MR. CORBLEY: I know we're running a little late but I still feel as though maybe everyone is a little confused as to what we really would like to do. Do you mind if I take a stab at clearing ~p the confusion? As Jim said before, there was a little lack of coordination between the surveyor and the architect and I think that's pretty clear. If you look at the east side of the property, if you look at that schematic or the sketches, what we're asking for is an 8 foot porch, 8 feet from the cantilever overhang and that is this highlighted pink area on this piece of paper that Jim handed out. So if you subtract 2 feet from 9.2, now you're at 7.2'plus the roof overhang which is 2 feet, now you're at 5.2. That's what we're asking for. So we want an 8 foot wrap around porch not including that cantilever of the main building because that's already there. And I'm not sure how that all got messed up with the Building Department and all but whatever. So I guess if that clears that up, if everybody is clear as to what we're really asking for and where those setbacks are, my question to you guys is, I'm willing to compromise on how far I build a porch towards that east neighbor, I can scale it back to 6 feet or whatever, but I would like to get some indication from the Board as to what you guys would allow me to do so we can proceed with the Building Department and get something that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Here's the problem. You have a frame shed blocking the other access to the waterfront area. If you proceed, in my particular opinion, toward what you want to build, that shed is going to have to be moved because you need to have some access to the waterfront area and it should be a minimum of ten feet. We can go with nine and that's the problem. So, I mean, the access can be a brick walk. It's just going to get destroyed if you go over it with heavy equipment. But it can't be an enclosed trellis, meaning, a roofed trellis, I should say. A substantial roofed trellis or whatever other things that people build. It's not a derogatory 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 statement. So that's my concern of that.® It would behoove you to reduce that overhang a little bit so that you can provide access on the other side, meaning on the easterly side of the property, northeasterly. MR. CORBLEY: So with this new sketch that Jim provided, well the dimensions that are reflected in the survey, which has a 6 foot side porch which would be the 9.2 setback from that easterly boundary, would that meet your requirements if we do something like that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Depends upon how high the porch is and if you can get a backhoe underneath it or something that would require you to go through the rear of your house without going on your neighbor's property. This is not a law. This is something, a practical issue, that the Board has taken up. I am not speaking f6r the Board. I'm speaking for myself and directing you. Your question is a very good question. That was my next comment before you started with this question was, how are you going to provide access to the rear yard? MR. CORBLEY: I worked with the architect quite a bit on this really mostly to avoid trying to get a variance. In other words, not building that side porch toward the eastern boundary. Really, aesthetically, it just doesn't look right. It has to have some balance toward the eastern boundary if I want to do what I want to do here. So I'm willing to whatever the Board would like me to do as far as those setbacks, I'm willing to work with you guys on that. I would like some maybe direction rather than submitting something to the Building Department which you guys are going to say this isn't going to work. I don't know if you can give me guidance on that. I'm not sure if that's how this works or not but I guess maybe I'm asking for some help. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You need to be able to get around the house with some type of heavy equipment if you need to get there. Is my statement a selfish one? Yes. Because I happen to be a fireman for 40 years. I'm not a Cutchogue fireman, I'm a Mattituck fireman. Do we answer calls in Cutchogue? Yes. Do we answer calls in Mattituck? Yes. The purpose of that is to be able to get some type of equipment around. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 Sometimes it'% just ground equipment. But more importantly, you know the depth of the creek that's in back of you. If you intend to do anything about any type of bulk heading or any type of other work to that waterfront, the majority of that work is going to have to be brought in by hand. It's not going to be any big scow (phonetic) that's going to come in there and do that work any other way. So that is the reason why I'm suggesting you not close up one of those side yards. And that's my opinion. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just try and be helpful in terms of your request. The Board can't really negotiate an informal agreement that if you cut it back two feet, we'd be happy with that. Basically, what you need to do is take into consideration what Jerry is saying and ask yourself, is'it more important to have that porch space to enjoy and perhaps consider moving the shed so you have a really wide one side yard that is going to do it? Those are really your choices. I think the main thing is to take the general concept forward which is we're concern about access to the water. We're concerned about impact on the neighbor to the east because we have to be. Those are part of the criteria we have to use in evaluation applications for relief, you know. And I think you just go back to the architect, decide what your priorities are and then make that request to us ane we'll see what you come up with. Is that fair? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sometimes people do want to -- I understand you don't want to ask an architect to draw something up and then have to change it again. I really get that but it's too premature to really say yes or no. You need to be very specific on a particular application. We can't make an assessment in theory of what would be okay. We have to see it physically and all the information has to be coordinated so it's consistent so that we're not confused about the Notice says one thing and your drawing says something else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll leave you with this thought. The average backhoe is about eight and a half feet wide. MR. CORBLEY: Eight and a half fee% wide, 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody have any other questions before we recess this hearing and ask for neighbor notices back and then ask for a new Notice of Disapproval? Based upon the new Notice of Disapproval and you're going to give us some of these wonderful plans. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And the site map is going to show the setbacks. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Of the overhead elements as well. MR. FITZGERALD: We'll have the architects provide enough information to the surveyor to be able to show the overhang around the whole building on the survey. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You want that as a motion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ye~. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I so move. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So we're adjourning it to February 28th? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. I'll second it. All in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ten minute recess. I'll offer that as a resolution. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? (See minutes for resolution). Hearing #6116 - Guja. CHAIRMAN GOEBRINGER: Next hearing is ~6116. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Gary Guja, yes. "Request for Variances under Sections 280-124 and 280-242A, based on the Building Inspector's September 17, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, which new construction will create a new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with setbacks totaling less than 35 feet on both side yards, at 372 North Drive, Mattituck; CTM 106-6-29." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record, sir? MR. GUJA: Good morning. I'm Gary Guja. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I reviewed your application and it looks to me like you're just doing some renovation on the top, taking off an old roof. MR. GUJA: There's presently a flat roof there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. You're going to make it a little more liveable. I guess I really -- you're not increasing the side yard in any way. I understand that you fall within this preexisting nonconforming, so I understand that. Can you just describe to me what it is that you're doing? MR. GUJA: The main purpose we're doing this is to create a master bathroom because all the bedrooms are upstairs. There's only one bathroom up there. Actually, what we're going to do is enclose an existing flat roof deck which leaks a~d causes problems and at the same time, enclose it and we're going to create a bathroom in that space. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's upstairs? MR. GUJA: Upstairs. Over the kitchen, it's a second story deck. It's actually a flat roof over the existing kitchen. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The kitchen's on the first story? MR. GUJA: Kitchen is on the main floor, first story, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. We'll go onto Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With reference to the deck that you want to enclose, it's now open to the sky? MR. GUJA: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because your house is multi-story, the deck that we were able to see from the outside without gaining entrance it's a little difficult for most folks on the Board to understand your plan specifically, like what floor has what on it because, you know, you have a substantial retaining wall down on the seaward side. The deck that we saw was the one that was a concrete slab at your recreation room area and columns holding it up and then there was an open deck above it. I think from the exterior that's 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 the only deck that was visible. Is that the one you are referring to in terms of roofing over or is there another deck we were not able to see? You know which one I'm talking about? On the corner of the house. MR. GUJA: You confused me at the end when you said that the deck that you saw with the wood structures going up, that is not the deck we're talking about. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAnN: That's what I thought. There's a deck right at the lowest level of the slope with columns and above that is an open deck. It does not look according to your plans like that's the deck you want to enclose. MR. GUJA: Not at all, no. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But we weren't able from the exterior to see the deck you're referring to. MR. GUJA: And the reason you can't see that, I'll try to explain it to you the best I can. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Tell us what page you want us to go to. MR. GUJA: On the last page where they have the proposed new construction. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. MR. GUJA: From the outside when you were looking at the house, when you're standing up on that flat roof tar deck, it comes up about this high. So that's where you see, when you see the new wood, you saw the roof go, if you remember the roof went past the end of the house about 12 feet past. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're talking about on the seaward side. Not on the garage side. MR. GUJA: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So people can visualize what side. It's on that elevation that faces the marshy wetland area. MR. GUJA: When you're up on that deck, this side facing the front which would be west then there's a southerly side and then it comes back east again. So when you're on that deck, you can look at the water. You can look south and you can look west because it's on the end of the house, the foundation of the house. That deck that you saw is outside the foundation. I'm not sure why that area was even built there but that was 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 existing and the deck, I guess, they built that just for the deck. The actual foundation of the house is where the flat roof is on. I don't know if that helps. When you look from the bottom, all you see is roof. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's why I was trying to get you to -- MR. GUJA: It's in there. It's like a bowl almost. It's inside there the area that we want to enclose. So the roof wouldn't even be changed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The roof line isn't changed. You're just extending. MR. GUJA: The second story, the roof -- the roof of the house will go out further but the middle roof will be the same. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's a very modest, and you're not changing the, you're changing the square footage of habitable interior space. MR. GUJA: We're remaining inside the footprint of the foundation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. So that's like a 12 by 15 foot. MR. GUJA: Yes, I believe that's what it is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 180 square feet of additional living space within the existing footprint setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just Leslle's request for a clarification yielded clarification. If this diagram, the front elevation we have, which I guess is or even the eight elevation had been compared with an elevation of what is there now, we would have seen exactly what you're describing. You're just simply putting the structure on what was previously an open deck and that's all that's happening. So that's going to become part of the second floor where it previously was on exterior deck. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I think you explained it very well, much better than the diagram could. Thank you. MR. GUJA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I asked my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm actually a neighbor of yours and came up one day and didn't 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 have too muc~ difficulty visualizing what you were doing. Knowing, of course, that those almost man-sized type of roof lines almost come up really to protect and act as almost a railing around that deck area. I don't have any particular objection and I appreciate you explaining that to the Board. Just let me see if anybody else has any interest in commenting. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment either pro or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing 96120 - Dickerson BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is 6120 and that is Jim's. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For Robert and Erin Dickerson. "Request for a Variance under Sections 280-122A and 280-124, based on ZBA Interpretation 95039 (Walz Application) and the Building Inspector's November 16, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to an existing dwelling, which new construction creates a new nonconformance or increase in the degree of nonconformance when located less than 50 feet from the front lot line and less than 15 feet on a side yard. Location of property: 1600 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; CTM 102-4-8.1." MR. DICKERSON: My name is Robert Dickerson. This is my wife. MS. DICKERSON: Erin, hi. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. What do you have to say for yourselves. Let's hear your story first. MR. DICKERSON: Well basically we bought the house just a couple of years ago and our family is getting substantially since then. We need some more liveable space and this was the best way we could come up with doing it. We were trying to avoid any zoning problems. That's why we chose to stay on top of the existing structure. But it came up as issues anyway. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree and I concur and I feel your pain. I have no further 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 questions. It seems to be to~e pretty fairly straightforward and we'll see how it goes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think what you're intent is, it's a very narrow, small lot that goes way, way back and are all those accessory structures yours as it dips down? MR. DICKERSON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted, it's actually a question. The house is going to look a lot nicer with the addition, I think. The house to the west is also a half story. It scales quite fine. What about the dirt road that's, if you're facing your house, it's to the north. Is that on your property? MR. DICKERSON: No. It's basically just a farm road that he uses mostly for tractors to get in and out of his field and h~ allows us to just use that so we can loop around. It's his property. It's just our understanding with him that we're using it with his permission. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the only question I have. It's just because it wasn't clear. It looks like it was on a neighbor's property. MR. DICKERSON: They kind of drew it in as it it was a driveway but it's really not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a rather minimal kind of request that you're asking. I realize you have a good size lot and were money no object, I can imagine maybe some day you will be back to build in the rear of your property. But in the meantime, there's no increase in set back. In fact, there's a decrease as I understand it. There's actually an increase in the side set back on one side. I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. It looks fine to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there, we'll see if anybody in the audience wants to say anything excluding your family, of course. We very rarely single out one gentleman in the audience, but the gentleman sitting, would you like to say anything for or against this application? Hearing no further comments, we will 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 be~addressing this on February 7th and we thank® you for coming in. We thank you for some really nice floor plans so we can understand exactly what you're doing and we wish you the best. I offer that as a resolution to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I was going to say close the hearing and reserve decision. Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need a motion to reconvene. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor. (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing #6109 - Diack BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is Diack. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-116A-2, based on the Building Inspector's October 11, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning the location of a dwelling at less than 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Long Island Sound, at 1840 Leeton Drive, Southold; CTM 58-2-11." This is a variance, as I understand it, moving a house landward and then building a deck in part of the place where the house was. I'd be happy to have you describe. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consultants. The proposal is to relocate an existing 700 square foot house 21 feet landward of it's present location to construct a 595 square foot addition to the side of that. They're going to install a deck which will actually be approximately six feet landward of where the existing house is now. But that's not subject, we're not here for the deck. This is not, as I understand it, this is not a regulated condition of the zoning, and also to install a new septic system. It's distance by which it's moved back is really controlled by the septic system. So what we did, when we first designed the septic system and we moved the house back as far as we could move it so that the septic system would comply with the Health Department regulations. So 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 that explains how th~ layout works. This would give you a look and idea of how the house, when completed, would line up with the other houses in the neighborhood and it also shows the deck there so you can see that the house is substantially landward of -- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that deck on grade? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it's on grade. We have a letter of -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you rebuilding that deck? It's kind of old. MR. ANDERSON: There's going to be a walkway that will have to be connected to it. I think there's going to be boards on the ground. I don't think there's any type of formal footing system that I'm aware of. If you look at it -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's going to be on grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's going to be exactly what's there except -- MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. And the reason is they just want some more room for their family, grandkids and so forth. It's a three bedroom house. All the drainage is controlled in part by the Town. There is a line a hay bails. There is no turf or any landscaping on that property other than natural and that will continue. And although I have read the LWRP, I think this is consistent with what the regulations ask people to do and that is to relocate away from the water. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: They're moving it back as far as they possibly can. MR. ANDERSON: So I think it's a pretty straightfoward case. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No side yard determinations. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael, do you have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is this the one where there seemed to be a misprint in the Trustee's report where they said that the LWRP said it was insufficient or the LWRP said it was consistent or am I thinking of the wrong case? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No Michael what you're thinking of is we got a new amended Notice of Disapproval. They said it was conforming and they meant nonconforming. It's a typo. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So what is ~he reason for the variance, the reason for the disapproval is because it's nonconforming in the first place, right? MR. ANDERSON: Because you can't relocate this house and be 100 from the water. The lot is not deep enough. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is, you can't leave it where it is without being nonconforming but to relocate triggers a disapproval. It's not that it's okay where it is but to move it in any direction would trigger a disapproval because it would be moving. MR. ANDERSON: I guess that's probably right. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: In other words, they are doing the best they can with what they have. They're moving it back as far as they'possibly can. We've made it as consistent as possible. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In order to try to make it better, they're getting a disapproval? That's the point. There doesn't seem to be a substantive issue before us is what I'm trying to say. MR. ANDERSON: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, because they're doing the best they can. CHAIRM3~N GOEHRINGER: Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You couldn't build anything on this lot because you have to be 100 feet away; you have a 155 feet so you've got a 5 foot house. It's not going to happen no matter what you do. You're making it better as opposed to being worse.. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: DO you have the green cards for us? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll go onto Leslie after Bruce finds the green cards. MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't have them. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Just send them to me. MR. ANDERSON: Or I'll send you the returns. We were completely noticed and all that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Just send us the green cards by mail, if you don't mind. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well it's more a comment. I know the area very well and relative to other kinds of alterations that have been going on in that neigborhood, this is extremely modest in scale and we'll certainly keep the element cottage-like quality of it and I think it would be less nonconformity desirable and I applaud the modesty with which this proposal is offered and certainly have no problem with it. It's more of a comment then a question. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're there, is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against this application. This is appeal %6109. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We might as well take another short break. Hearing #6117 - 1690 Bayvlew Associates. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're ready to begin. It's appeal %6117 and it's Michael's application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. "Request for a Variance under Section 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector's November 5, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed alterations to the existing first floor, new second-floor addition over teh existing first floor, which new construction areas will be less than 75 feet from the bulkhead adjacent to Goose Creek, at 1690 Bayview Road, Southold; CTM 70-12-37." As I understand, it's going to be 55 feet from the bulkhead. Mr. Schwartz, do you want to address it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mark, would you just state your name for the record. MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect. The house itself is 56.5 feet from the bulkhead to the corner of the house and the proposed patio which is 43.6 from the bulkhead. Basically, the owners would like to expand the first floor living 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 space and put a couple of bedrooms upstairs and a sitting room. The lot coverage is with the small addition on the first floor an 8 by 10 utility room not including the garage would be about 13 percent. The height of the structure to the ridge from grade is about 28 feet 5 inches and we did get approval from the Trustees for this project as shown on the plan. And with the dry wells for the roofing ridge and a 20 foot non turf buffer area they found it would be consistent with the LWRP. We've also applied to the DEC. We're still waiting to hear from the DEC. We should hear from them shortly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question is you mention it's 56 feet from the construction. Is that actually above the ground level patio or is it landward up. I don't have the map in front of me. The patio itself is no% subject to the setback requirement; is that correct? MR. SCHWARTZ: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the relevant issue is the 56.5 feet? MR. SCHWARTZ: It's an existing corner and that's where we want to put -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And just go upward from there. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there isn't going to be anything closer to the bulkhead in consequence of this construction than previously. MR. SCHWARTZ: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, let me cease my questions at this point and turn it over to other people. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you including gutters and leaders on the new second story addition into a dry well? MR, SCHWARTZ: Well, we're going to add a dry wells for the roof drain. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good because that's something we'd want to see. Actually when I was visiting the site, there's a couple of depressions close to the bulkhead looks like shrubs might have been in there just spaced very evenly right by that grass that part kind of slopes down a bit. What happened there, do you know? MR. SCHWARTZ: I have no idea. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It could have been shrubs and the roots maybe were going into the bulkhead and starting to make a mess. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The patio itself I know is not the substance of this variance but will you be rebuilding that? MR. SCHWARTZ: Right now it's all grass. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. Are you going to extend that patio? MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't think there's -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's going to be -- it's proposed. It's going to be at grade so it's not the subject. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that going to be permeable or impermeable? MR. SCHWARTZ: I think it will probably be brick over crushed stone. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That'd be fine th%re. I think it's a very small modest addition. I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. No questions, fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The last question I have, just so we write this decision properly, is there anything that you're going to change on the first floor of this house that would trigger another variance? You're utilizing most of the first story; is that correct? MR, SCHWARTZ: The exterior walls will remain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're sistering walls. You're not changing any walls. The walls themselves on the periphery around will not change in any way? MR. SCHWARTZ: No. They will remain intact. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They will remain intact. Because you know the problem we've had before with some of these things. MR. SCHWARTZ: This comes up on a lot of projects where you get to the point where it gets to be a renovation once you knock it down. But then I'm not sure if the Board looks at that differently than an alteration. I assume you would. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not the way we 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 look at it. It's t~e way the Building Department would look at it assuming you found something that was severely deteriorated that you needed to change that would affect an exterior wall. And I'm only bringing that up because it's wintertime and I know you want to get started on this project and I would rather take care of that at this point rather than have it happen sometime later. This house is on a slab? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's doubtful that you're going to have any major problem with anything in the construction of a foundation because it's there, you know what it is, you've seen it and so on and so forth. We don't have subterranean deterioration. But if you can think of anything, let us know that we need to address over that situation. I know this is an overprotective statement but I'm trying to save you some time. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: But we need it within the next couple of days because the time is running out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you want to talk to them over there and just send us a letter, we can close the hearing subject to receiving some letter from you saying we think we're okay or whatever based upon this situation. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is everybody okay with that? Anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor or against this application? This is Bayview Associates ~6117. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Excuse me, I'm closing the hearing pending any brief letter from, when I say brief, I'm saying one paragraph, from the architect if there was anything that he needed to discuss with us and that we would mainly put into the decision. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And anything that should be brought to the Board's attention. That way you wouldn't have to come back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so again, I'm offering that and Ruth, you seconded? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in f~vor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6114 - Friemann BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're ready to begin. The next appeal is appeal #6114 from Mr.and Mrs. Friemann. It is Leslie's. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me read the notice. "Request for Variances under Sections 280-116B and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's amended November 26, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions, swimming pool, and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, which new construction: (a) will be less than 75 feet from the bulkhead adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor and (b) will exceed the code limitation of 20% maximum 16t coverage. Location: 1165 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk; CTM 117-3-8.4." As I understand it, the proposed lot coverage to accommodate the new swimming pool with 3 foot code required deck extension on the outer edge will create a 23.2 percent lot coverage. You're proposing the 10 foot deep roof extension over part of an existing deck to provide some shade. The question that I have, the setback from the bulkhead on the notice says 45 feet and the LWRP says 46 feet and I have a survey here from John Ellard (phonetic) indicating, it looks like, 29.2 to the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. MR. FRIEMANN: My name is Sandford H. Friemann. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And can you clarify please, this is a 12 foot by 22 foot kidney-shaped tub to be partially built into your existing deck. MR. FRIEMANN: That is correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the setback from the deck to the bulkhead, the proposed new deck surrounding the pool to the bulkhead? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just to clarify for a second, there are a couple of retaining walls. The one that I stood on which is right adjacent to the stairway going down is not a bulkhead. It's a retaining wall. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Because it's 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 landward ~f the other one. MR. FRIEMANN: At which point a 12 foot by 80 foot nonturf native vegatation buffer is already in place. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the dimension of the proposed pool with deck to the retaining wall where your stairs begin? MR. FRIEMANN: It would 32.2 feet. Taking the 3 foot deck; counting the deck or without the deck? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Counting the deck because you have to have the deck by code. MR. FRIEMANN: Okay. So it's 29.2 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I'm right. It's 29 foot 2 inches from the proposed 3 foot deck to the top of the retaining wall where your stairs go. MR.'FRIEMANN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Got it. Okay. What else would you like to tell us? MR. FRIEMANN: I'll answer any other questions you might have. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, certainly the proposed roof extension, in my opinion, is intruding on nothing. It has no impact on the environment except to give you the benefit of protection from the sun and rain. The pool is, you know, you already is, the existing deck is already quite close to this landward retaining wall. What's the distance to the actual lower bulkhead, can you tell me that? Between the proposed deck to the lower. MR. FRIEMANN: I'll take a guess, it's probably 49 feet, 50 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the notice says 45 and the -- MR. FRIEMANN: Well, if it's 29.2 to the edge of the deck and then there's approximately 12 feet from the top retaining wall, the terrace, to the next one and there's an additional 8 feet of deck to the bulkhead. So I would add that to the 12 which would give me 20 which I would add to the 29.2 to give you 49.2 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're talking from the deck down to the beachhouse? MR. FRIEMANN: The deck that exists there now is 8 feet wide and that ends right at the bulkhead itself. And so in other words, if you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 start at the bulkhead and you go back 8 feet, that's where the deck is, to the first tier of the retaining wall, then there's an additional 12 feet from the bottom retaining wall to the top, which is where that non turf native vegatative buffer already is. Also there are dry wells in place already. I think I pointed them out to you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. I remember seeing them. And that's what you can use for the pool water backwash. MR. FRIEMANN: Yes. Actually, as far as the pool goes, there's no backwash. This is a very small pool, maybe a little bit larger than a large hot tub. So there is no backwash. But yes, will, any water that needs to be pumped out of the pool because of a rainstorm, that will be definitely hooked into the dry well. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to get these dimensions right because on one notice it says 45 plus or minus and the LWRP says 46. MR. FRIEMANN: I actually went and measured it myself this morning because I thought maybe you might ask that question. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your conclusion was? MR. FRIEMANN: I'm going to guess 49 feet and a half feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I guess we really have to go by what this survey says because that's the legal document but it doesn't actually say. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You can do it in a letter. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd really like to know specifically what that is from the proposed pool -- MR. FRIEMANN: We had trouble with our surveyor. He amended this survey at least 4 or 5 times. So I would have to assume that what's on this one dated Noven%ber 19th, that's the latest one we have, correct? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's the latest one we have. MR. FRIEMANN: That's the latest one I have as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? Could he scale it with a scaled ruler and give you the figure? MR. FRIEMANN: Absolutely. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER WEISMANN: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would that be all right with you? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. Just because it's not called out on here and we don't have an engineer to really figure it out. It really ought to be noted on the survey just so that any decision we make is going to have accurate measurements of the setback. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Do you want it in a letter from Mr. Friemann? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be fine. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is called out is on the Notice of Disapproval is the number 45 feet and whether that's an estimate. So basically what we have is on this document and then we have hard to read from the survey and we have your 'calculations so we'd like to have some kind df validation as to what numbers we're talking about exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only thing called out on the survey is 29'2 which is from the pool to the upper retaining wall. MR. FRIEMANN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Our concern is setback from the bulkhead. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: It would be both. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question is when you do the measurements to the bulkhead, is that done as a separate point, this continuous line, from the top of the retaining wall to the bulkhead? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. At it's closest point. Okay. Michael, do you want to continue or would you like me to go to Jim? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'd. just like to comment. I agree that the covering over the deck would not be a problem as far as I can see. The issue is that there are 2 things that I think have to be addressed. One is the fact that the setback that you're proposing is somewhere between 45 and 49 feet as opposed to 75 feet and in addition to that, in order to make that possible, you're also requiring a 15 percent variance in the lot coverage. And I think the general rule of thumb that some of us use is that when you are asking 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 for a variance, al~ these things are property specific, is to explain why that particular exception to the existing rule is warranted given this particular property and those facts. So I think the burden is on the applicant to try to explain why we should grant the variance based on what the Building Department has told us. MR. FRIEMANN: Well, obviously, at one point I wanted to put in a little larger pool. When I realized it was going to be a difference in the number of square feet that you're allowed to do that in, we reduced the size greatly and I don't want to lose anymore of my front yard because of my grandchildrend so that they can play there. Is this is concern because of run off water or is this a concern -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a concern partly because of the code. It's not entirely for us to evaluate why the code is written and why it is except in certain cases where it's fairly obvious. There are reasons for the 20 percent limits which don't apply to all properties. There are reasons for the 75 foot setback and we don't have to figure them all out. So what we're saying is whether, for example, if the pool were not requiring a large exception to lot coverage, then it would be easier to convince ourselves that you should get the pool. Could the pool size be altered somehow or could the deck be moved closer to the house so the lot coverage -- MR. FRIEMANN: I already have moved it within the deck itself to accommodate that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it possible to move it a few feet closer? Because what it'll do is not only increase the setback but it will reduce your lot coverage. MR. FRIEMANN: I understand that. What is the alloted lot coverage? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Twenty percent maximum. MR. FRIEMANN: And now we have 23.2. So we're 3.2 percent over that? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's over 15 percent over it actually. We're getting 23 percent instead of 20 percent. MR. FRIEMANN: I would be agreeable to move the pool a foot or so closer to the house otherwise what it's going to do is not give us 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 enough room to get from the deck without walking and falling into the swimming pool. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I kind of paced that off. It's a pretty big deck. You want at least enough room to walk around. You also need to have enough room for a chaise lounge or something. MR. FRIEMANN: And for pool maintenance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But I paced that off after you had to take off and it looks to me like you could still have about 8 feet or so of deck if you moved the pool closer to your house by about 4 or 5 feet. You still would have 8 or 9 foot of deck between that lower part of your deck. MR. FRIEMANN: To be quite honest with you I never took a ruler. Now you're talking about where those orange stakes were. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. If they came a little bit closer to your house, what it's going to do is reduce your lot coverage and what we want to try to do is provide relief for the smallest degree of nonconformity we can. That's the goall MR. FRIEMANN: I understand that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was kind of my thinking. Again, I don't think the issue is the roof overhang. It's just a matter of trying to grant the smallest percentage of nonconformity. So if you can reduce the lot coverage to 22 percent by pushing it in toward your house a little bit more, that will also -- MR. FRIEMANN: I suppose that we can move it closer if I can have 10 feet from the upper deck to the edge of the pool. I think that's a possibility. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is it now? MR. FRIEMANN: I don't know. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I couldn't imagine asking you to have a smaller pool than this. MR. FRIEMANN: This pool is small. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is striking is that the distance from the pool moved to the step up to the upper deck is a lot greater than the width of the pool. I guess what Leslie is suggesting is that maybe some of that space could be reduced and still have your pool and have reduction of lot coverage and also reduce the amount of setback. MR. FRIEMANN: I understand exactly what you're saying. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How about you go and 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 measure ~nd let us know? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And then come back. Come back today if you want. MR. FRIEMANN: I'd be glad to do that. How long are you going to be here? I can just go home and do it. Would you be agreeable to let me have ten feet from the bottom of that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If you move the pool back. MR. FRIEMANN: Do you want what that measurement is now? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In other words, figure out, measure from your step ten feet. MR. FRIEMANN: What I'll do is, that would be from the proposed roof extension and the deck extension over to the corner of the house. So I'll take from that point and measure out to where you're c~ncerned about. Is that correct? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think what you're telling me if I understand correctly, on your lower deck, your pool deck, you want ten feet depth; is that correct? MR. FRIEMANN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what I would do is measure from that lower deck, from when you step down from your house, from there what's ten feet and then see what the distance is between that and where your stake is right now. MR. FRIEMANN: See the roof extension, where the roof extension is, that's where the top deck is going to end. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's not the issue. MR. FRIEMANN: That's not where the steps are right now though. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Ail I'm saying is when you step down onto your lower deck, you're asking for ten feet of deck to the pool, is that what you're saying? MR. FRIEMANN: Yes, I am. However, where the steps are now is not where the new steps are going to be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're putting new steps? MR. FRIEMANN: Yes. We have to because when you put the roof extension over it, the deck is going to be extended out ten feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The upper deck? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 10.2 feet? 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 MR. FRIEMANN: 10.2,~yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is not on this drawing so there's no way to know that. There was no information that told us. Ail we have is a survey and the isometrics. MR. FRIEMANN: But I'll be more than happy to go back and measure that distance and come back to you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the best thing to do is tell us what you feel how much farther in you can move that pool so we can figure out how it will reduce the lot coverage and how it will increase your setback. MR. FRIEMANN: I understand what you're asking. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You're talking about reducing the deck size? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Rutting the pool into the deck. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The further into the existing deck, you will be reducing -- - BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One thing is hard to know is how much as shown on the sketch, there's a distance from the edge of the upper deck to the pool and we have no way of knowing, I have no way of knowing, how many feet that is and if that's already ten and a half feet wide, then it's not going to make any difference. We need to know that. MR. FRIEMANN: Plus the hot tub is already there. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The hot tub is fine. BOARD MEMBER WEIS~LAN: I misspoke because you provided complete elevations from there. It's very clear. It doesn't show it compared to the existing. That's the problem. And we don't have something that shows where the current step is only what you're proposing to do with the roof extension and then you can see. MR. FRIEMANN: That shows you where the new deck is going to be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it doesn't show me where the old one is. So it didn't necessarily make it clear that you were going to -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: On page A2, maybe. It has the existing deck outline on A3. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The outline is there and that is Where -- how much difference does 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 "that show between the new upper deck and th~ pool? MR. FRIEMANN: That we could scale off that drawing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That I can do because those are in scale. That's not a problem at all. The information is really all here. The question is how much further in you can go. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want to borrow one from someone in the building and do that here? MR. FRIEMANN: Do you have a regular ruler. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's just run through everyone first and you can do that and then we'll recess. Ruth, you're next. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Again I agree with Leslie. If you can cut it back as far as you can 'into the deck. I just had a concern nothing'to do really with the decision but your property all slopes, the grassy part slopes towards that bulkhead and I've seen other instances when property slopes that way. I know you have dry wells and what have you, that better watch it carefully. MR. FRIEMANN: And what's going to happen is we're going to build this up, there's going to be a retaining wall built up to keep that graded. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: As level as possible. That'd be great. MR. FRIEMANN: We're going to change the grade and that has been there the way it is for the last 15 years. So along with the, there is no run off to begin with but if there were, that non turf buffer is there to take the excess water which hasn't been a problem as far as drainage is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR. FRIEMANN: I don't see really anything changing at all as far as run off goes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jimmy? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have any intention of closing that porch in? MR. FRIEMANN: No, I don't. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you wouldn't be opposed to us putting a condition in there tKat says you could not enclose that? MR. ERIEMANN: No, I would not have any problems with that but why would that have any 1 2 3 6 ? 8 9 11 ~2 13 ~5 16 ~8 ~9 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 merit at all? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why? Well because you're 23 percent instead of 20 and adding on that extra whatever it is -- MR. FRIEMANN: I'm just asking for my own personal -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would be the reason why. You're asking for a variance. You have a house that's a certain size now. We make a decision based on that floor space and if you're going to increase that floor space, just part of it. MR. FRIEMANN: I have no plans to close that in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. I saw Mr. Schwartz went over and got you a ruler so why don't you do som~ calculations outside and we'll reconvene this whenever you want to come back in. MR. FRIEMANN: Mr. Schwartz happens to be my architect as well. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. We need a motion to recess for about 20 minutes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing 96118 - Tripptree CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is 6118, Tripptree and it is Leslie. She's just going to read the legal notice, sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's September 7, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed porch addition which will be less than 40 feet from the front lot line, at 910 Wabasso Street, Southold; CTM 78-3-50.1" CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you state your name for the record, sir? MR. TRIPPTREE: Richard Tripptree. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It looks like you are proposing a front porch addition facing, since you are on a corner lot where you have two front yards, so elevation at 30.3 feet and 31.8 feet because that's not parallel exactly, set back while the code requires 40 feet for this front 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 porch. It looks like the porch is going to have a portico which is closed for your entrance part of it. MR. TRIPPTREE: Just a pergola over the front door, nothing closed in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. It's open on the side and then the rest of this deck will run the length of the front of your house. MR. TRIPPTREE: Minus the garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that's about 59 feet, is it? MR. TRIPPTREE: That's correct, 59.2 I think the survey says. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's about 10 feet from the non-cantilevered portion of the house. The lot itself is pretty wide. Looks like the lot across, directly across from you, there's no house even visible there. MR. TRIPPTREE: Mr. Tagert's (phonetic) house, no. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Vegetative bugger there. And then of course on the other side of you property is all wooded. Doesn't look like it'll have much impact on anything to me other than improving the spec elevations of your house. So the application is certainly very clear to me. I'll defer other questions I might have until others have had a chance to ask their questions. Is there anything you'd like to -- MR. TRIPPTREE: I'd just like to hand you the return receipts that weren't delivered. I was waiting for the couple to come back from Florida. The last copy is from the Post Office because I didn't get the green one back. They go to Florida for the winter so the Post Office printed it out of their computer that it was indeed delivered but we haven't got the green copy back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next person is Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is as I understand it your house as it now exists is exactly right at the minimum set back now and you're asking for a variance to put a deck which will certainly improve the appearance of your house and you would like ~o have i~ 10 feet 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 reducin% the set back from 40 feet to 30 feet. MR. TRIPPTREE: From the non cantilevered portion of that, yes, correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And I do not recall looking at the adjacent houses about the relative set backs of their decks. MR. TRIPPTREE: They do not have, I've been up and down Wabasso Street so that's why we applied for the variance because they advised us to travel Wabasso Street to see if there were any other houses. There are no other houses that would be closer than 40 feet to Wabasso Street. We would be the first applying for the variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yours is less than 40 now but not by very much. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm saying if you're, I don't recall whether your neighbors -- your neighbdrs don't have porches. MR. TRIPPTREE: No, they do not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They might possibly want to have porches also which would probably not bother you. They're set farther back than you are. In other words, they wouldn't require a 10 foot variance because they're farther back already. MR. TRIPPTREE: Mr. Moore's house probably wouldn't because he's quite a distance back and my next door neighbor, I can't imagine, they already have a small front porch. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's certainly no question that from seeing your house, it would be improved by there being a porch on that side and if 10 feet -- well I don't have any further questions on this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir, the only roof trellis type or it's a fixed roof over the top? MR. TRIPPTREE: It's going to be attached, it's a pergola. It's completely open. It's going to have 2 by 2's on the top so it's actually not going to be an asphalt roof. It's not going to be sheathed. It's going to be open on the side and open on the top. It's just going to have 2 by 2 pergolas for reinforcement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On both sides everything else will be open. MR. TRIPPTREE: Wide open. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wide open. You don't have any objection to a restriction on that, do 6 7 8 9 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 you? MR. TRIPPTREE: Absolutely not, no. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it's framed in other words. It's not sheathed over the frame? MR. TRIPPTREE: Absolutely not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not impervious to rain. MR. TRIPPTREE: No, it's just a Japanese affect pergola. Just cross members. No, I would have no objection to that whatsoever. I have no intention of doing anything like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. While you're there we'll see is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving a decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA{ Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need to reconvene Mr. Friemann's appeal application. Can I have a motion? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6114 - Friemann MR. FRIEMANN: We did scale back from the stairs to the nearest point of the pool is 10 feet. As far as Mr. Dinizio's question, I would have no problem with that restriction. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you say that again? You can push it in how much further? MR. FRIEMANN: Actually the measurement now is ten feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: AS it is. MR. FRIEMANN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And is that from the widest part of the pool from the center of the pool. MR. FRIEMANN: No. The nearest part of the pool to the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Hold on. Here's the foundation plan. The distance from here to the steps. Can this not wind up 8 feet and this wind 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 up 107 " MR. SCHWARTZ: Can I take a look? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. If what you have now is from here to here to the step and don't forget, this deck goes here and here the steps are coming down onto a deck, so this part, this part and this part are farther away than the step. That's higher and you're stepping down. So this part is 10 feet. What I'm saying is, if you bring this in slightly and make this dimension from here to the step 8 feet, this part in here becomes then 10 feet, right? So you wouldn't have quite as much. This will be a little narrower here and here. This, however, will still be 10 feet and then this set back will be less and I think you'll have a little bit less lot coverage, frankly. I'm not exactly sure how much less. MR. FRIEMANN: I would agree to do that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So why don't I do this, rather than my messing this all up, why don't I ask you to, either we can do this as a proposed amended plan in the hearing or you can submit it in letter with the new calculations and we'll attach that to this and that's what I'll base the finding on; is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll just close it subject to receiving it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: So the new set back to the bulkhead will also be affected. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That you're going to have to talk to or figure it out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That can just be part of the letter also. Everybody's okay with that now? MR. FRIEMANN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need that by next Wednesday or so. Is that a possibility, Mark? MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure. MR. FRIEMANN: We'll go back and work on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why we need them by next Wednesday is the following week is the decision making deliberation process. They need to look at it. They need to go back based upon. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to ask either Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Friemann anything regarding this application on the Board? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to say anything regarding, either pro or con, 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 regarding this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6098 -Coutts Family Trust CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. We are at the Coutts Family Trust which we have already had a hearing on so we don't need to read the legal notice. It is 6098 and we do not see Michelle Jablonsky. So why don't we hold off a little while. I know Geoff was aware of this. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Yes and the attorney's office also called and confirmed it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She may be tied up in traffic. She's ~oming from Hauppauge and trust me, I know all about that. So I'll make a motion leaving this for the last hearing of the afternoon. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: have to wait until 2:20. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: motion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in favor? The next hearing, we Can we take a break? We'll take a break. I'll make that I'll second it. All (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Need a motion to reconvene. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6098 - Courts Family Trust MS. JABLONSKY: Michelle Jablonsky, Davidow, Davidow, Siegel and Stern, 1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 330, Islandia, New York 11749. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're ready for you. MS. JABLONSKY: Okay. So I'm recapping from our last meeting and I'll briefly restate the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 facts and then I'll present the d~cumentation for you to review today and we'll go from there. Basic factual summary, on May 3rd of 1940, Charles R. Coutts, Jr.and his wife, Frances Coutts, purchased a single family home at 1570 Factory Avenue. On October 30, 1973 Charles R. Courts, Jr.purchases an adjoining vacant parcel of land known as 10650 Sound Avenue. The property has not been improved. Charles R. Coutts, Jr.dies on May 8th of 1996. Frances J. Courts was the sole heir at law of Charles R. Courts, Jr. As a result of his demise, the properties merged by operation of law. In July of 2006 both properties were transferred to Frances J. Coutts Family Trust for a estate planning purposes. Since her entrance into the nursing home in 2006, the summer of 2006, Frances Coutts has been paying for her nursing home care privately. About six m6nths ago her liquid funds ran out. She owes a substantial amount of funds to the San Simeon Nursing Home. I have a bill from the San Simeon Nursing Home for your review. She also has a substantial amount of funds owned to Shore Pharmaceuticals as a result of the pharmacy bill that she's been at incurring at San Simeon. That amount, I believe, is approximately $8,200. I also have a copy of that bill for your review. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: What was the San Simeon bill? MS. JABLONSKY: The San Simeon bill is $60,677.74 and is for room and board through December 31st of 2007. Frances Coutts, at this point, has no way to pay the aforementioned bills. The total amount of the bank account in her name and the bank account in the name of the Family Trust is less than $3,000. I have copies of those recent bank statements for your review as well. About a year ago, February 2007, Frances Courts' agent, Geoffrey Hallenbeck, under her power of attorney -- he's not here today, unfortunately, his uncle passed away yesterday so he's upstate -- but he considered her having her discharged from the nursing home in order to try and preserve some of her funds with 24 hour care, however, just before discharging her, he was very worried that she would run out of liquid funds and have no way to pay for her care 24/7 so he elected to actually have her remain in the nursing home. The only 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 asset ~hat remains in Frances Coutts' name other than her primary residence is this vacant adjoining piece of property which we -- that's why we're requesting the merger application -- the application to un merge the properties. So that she can potentially put that piece of property on the market to pay these outstanding bills and have the excess to use to have her come her with 24 hour care. I have copies of the current bank statements, the current San Simeon bill and the current pharmaceutical bill as well. I have 6 copies. In an effort, as a note, in an effort to try and generate funds to maintain her home, and also pay her outstanding bills, her agent has been trying to, in the summer of 2007, was also trying to rent her home because at this point, the other income that she has is her social security which is nor significant. However, at this point now, he has hired an attorney in Mattituck in order to evict that tenant because she is not paying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who is a relative. MS. JABLONSKY: Who is, I believe, a relative of Frances Coutts, yes. I do have a copy of the lease if the Board wants a copy of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, has the summary proceeding commenced or is it just in the process of being commenced? MS. JABLONSKY: My understanding based on my discussion with Mr. Hallenbeck yesterday was that he retained Mr. Goggins. I don't think, at this point although I don't know whether or not it's actually been commenced. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Do any of the Board me~ers have any questions of Ms. Jablonsky? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I do. I'm deciding this particular finding and I'm sorry I wasn't at the hearing when you first presented. However, I'm fully up to date because I was able to read the transcript in detail. You've already gotten some documentation that I was interested in looking at. She's 93 years old, obviously, or thereabouts. MS. JABLONSKY: That is correct. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: The only thing I thought that might be helpful would be some sort of medical diagnosis indicating the likelihood of her ability to return home given her condition. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 Since one of your arguments is that you'd like her to return home and have that option but at 93, it would be useful to know she's with a 24 hour aide able to be at home and not in a nursing home. The other thing that I wondered about is can you provide the letter that you said that Medicaid denied your application based upon more assets then what would be allowed since the properties were not, in their minds, considered merged. The vacant lot had one asset couldn't be exempt from the primary residence. Can you provide a copy of that letter of denial? MS. JABLONSKY: I certainly can provide the copy. I just don't have it with me today. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. Because that's an important part of the -- to me it shows every effort was taken to -- it one reason you created the Trust was f6r Medicaid planning and as you've said in the previous hearing, you would have created two Trusts had you understood about the way they would be remerged. MS. JABLONSKY: Had we known about those laws. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The waiver of merger by death was going to be put into place. That would complete, in my mind, every single piece of documentation that would justify the description of the economic circumstances. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Before you answer Leslie's first question, I would like to ask to what extent is her application dependent upon the question of whether if she gets, I guess the waiver of merger, how it would matter from a legal and financial point of view whether she comes home or not. In other words, it may not -- it's not entirely clear to me that you even need to answer that question. I'd like you to comment on that for me. MS. JABLONSKY: Okay. Well, the big issue in our mind, obviously, at this point is we do want to get her outstanding bills paid. However, if we are able to get the properties un merged, sell the vacant land, pay off all of her debts and expenses, then at that point I don't even know if we need to apply for Medicaid again yet. Because she will have excess resources available to pay privately for home care which is what we want. The problem with applying for Medicaid -- we could 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 potentially transfer her assets out of he~ name and apply for Medicaid home care. There are no transfer penalties for Medicaid home care applications. But the problem is more of a practical one out here. When you go on Medicaid home care, you have to use a Medicaid enrolled provider. They are very difficult and confined and you're not necessarily guaranteed 24 hour care either. In fact it's very difficult to get that sort of care. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If I can continue this conversation and defer your other questions. I do know something about elder care law and you haven't said anything I don't agree with. But some of it does have to do with the numbers and I don't know how much money is involved in the sale of that property. What I do know is if the return from the sale of the corner lot exhausted'her funds, then she could go on Medicaid whether she returned home or not because she wouldn't have to give up her home. MS. JABLONSKY: She would have to actually submit what's known as an intention to return home. Once her assets were spent down, she would submit a Medicaid application and she could submit with that application what's known as an intent to return home. If we could no longer provide for her care in the home 24/7, either through Medicaid home care or through private resources. Because it's my understanding to answer one of your questions, is that while we do think she can return home, she can't return home without 24 hour care. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that. MS. JABLONSKY: If that being the case, if Medicaid home care either won't provide us with 24 hour care or we can't privately pay for it on our own, at that point, there's no other alternative, I don't feel, to provide for her safety then she would have to reenter a nursing home er she could potentially stay there. But I think what we expressed last time and what Mr. Hallenbeck expressed was that if the properties aren't un merged, she's not going to have any alternative than to stay in the nursing home and we don't want BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that. This has to do specifically with helping you -- 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 I'm not unsympathetic to what you're saying -- is that whether, it would not be a good idea, I think we all agree, is her decision to return home or not being dictated by these financial legal considerations. So the question would be and if that's true and if we respect that principal, then if the only way in which she could return home would be on having essentially at home the kind of care that she's getting at San Simeon. And if she is, in affect, a permanent resident at San Simeon at this point, would it be in her interest, the family's interest, for her to leave San Simeon to go home or does it not make any difference unless there were financial considerations. MS. JABLONSKY: I am not the family. I'm not her health care agent. I'm not her agent under her power of attorney so I don't feel comfortable an§wering that question. It's not a question for me to answer. I haven't been appointed as her health care agent to make those sort of decisions for her. I don't know. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is my purposes. It's not concerned with her decisions on her case. I would like to think that the case does not depend on somebody believing that she's coming home or not. I think the case made for the waiver of merger is pretty strong without ever even having to address that question. For me nothing turns on that question and I hope nothing turns on that question. MS. JABLONSKY: As a personal matter, I understand that she would like to go home whether or not it's something that she wants to do. She does have some neurological issues and I think most issues people in a nursing home, if you ask them, would you like to return home, the answer to that question is yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMJtN: Let me conclude and we can move onto other Board members. The reason I asked you about some sort of letter from medical diagnosis is because part of the transcript, part of the discussion involved, they could say why doesn't she just sell her house? Sell the whole thing as it is and the intent is that it is feasible for her, at some point, to return to her home and a matter of simple human decency and dignity would dictate that she should have control over that aspect of her life for as long as she's 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 able to control it. So what I'm~simply saying is that for part of the record to reinforce that if we had some medical diagnosis that indicated with 24 hour care she may have that option available to her. That way that can be included as part of the argument for not selling the entire property as it is right now. Because she would always have to be in nursing care. That's the only reason I asked for it because I wanted to be able to beef up that argument and we would need a diagnosis of some sort to do that. MS. JABLONSKY: I think we can arrange to provide that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you're going to get us a copy of the Medicaid denial. MS. JABLONSKY: And you want some medical diagnosis that she would be able to go home. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Everything else is very well documented. I'm finished. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jimmy? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I still don't know how you jive with the law. MS. JABLONSKY: Interestingly enough, I looked at a lot of the case law on this and the cases really tell you what economic hardship isn't. They don't say what economic hardship is and it makes it very difficult to try and determine what the Board wants or requires in order to make their determination. They say well it's not that you can sell both properties separately for more money. That's really not at the core of our situation here. The only other thing when I was exploring option and I'm just pouring it out there. I don't think this is a determination that the Board can make now, it's sort of a legal argument, but we considered potentially revoking the Trust and putting us back into the position as if the Trust never existed and I don't know if this works or not but putting us back as if the Trust never existed so the merger never occurred. Or the merger did occur in 1996 as a result of his death. However, now because the Trusts were revoked and they never existing, now do we qualify under merger by death? So I don't know if that's -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't think it's -- MS. JABLONKSY: Revoking a Trust is not a difficult thing under the law. It's a piece of 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 paper. I just don't know the formalities and if we revoke it and transfer the deeds back, I think it's more of a title issue than -- because the title company, if we do try and sell the vacant lot, then they'll want to see a ruling from the Board and then that is requiring you to -- it's a legal determination. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well quite frankly, given the economic circumstances, I would certainly hope to avoid this family having to expends anymore fees of any kind or any more delays of any kind that is not the intent. That's not what relief is about. So if there's some way you can -- MS. JABLONSKLY: I will get the Board that documentation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just as a point of clarification for other members of the Board, creating a Trust does not get a person onto Medicaid. If so, everybody would do it. That's not the reason for doing it. The ways of getting onto Medicaid are much more complicated and a little bit more unpleasant, if you will. You know what I'm talking about. The creation of a Trust needn't be linked to any kind of Medicaid strategy as far as I can see. The problem was that the interaction between the Medicaid office and the law and the exception under the law, which people didn't know about, and that's the mess and I, for one, thought if something didn't work, and I don't know why it won't, the idea of negating the Trust would not be the worse thing to happen considering the other possibility. MS. JABLONSKY: It's just something we were exploring depending on the outcome of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: This is very difficult for you and for us. The way the law is written it makes it difficult and yet I know our Town Attorney said find everything you can to show financial hardship, which I think you've really done. If we get the information that Leslie has asked for and we go back to our Town Attorney and see what we can do. It is a real hardship. Then again, even to sell a property, today the market is down. You might have better luck if you evict the tenants who are there and get some rental. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 It's hard. MS. JABLONSKY: Yes, it is. It's very difficult because even if the application is granted, there's no guarantee that we'll even be able to sell that lot and remedy a lot of this. There's no easy answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are enough people around today that are looking to have their family members live in town. I think they'll be a market for a lot of that size. I really do. MS. JABLONSKY: Okay. Good. That's good news then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You may have to take a little less for it but that will be the situation. It's not like two years ago. Let's hope for a favorable decision and go from there. MS. JABLONSKY: I will get the Board the information you requested and whatever else you need from me, from us, I'd be more than happy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before we close, I would like to thank you for coming back and for everything you've given us and I wanted to ask if the Board has any last questions or statements they'd like to make before I go to the public. No? Anybody in the audience like to talk about or discuss the 2:05 hearing of the Frances J. Coutts Family Trust? Seeing no hands, I'd like to make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of the information Leslie requested. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing #6108 - Crary CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next hearing is a hearing that we adjourned from last week. It's 6108 and we'll ask Mr. Price if he has anything he'd like to say based upon some of the discussions we had and any discussions. There are some questions we're going to have to ask you eventually, Gordon. Anybody who would like to speak from the Landmark Preservation? Mr. Price, we're just going to defer to Landmark Preservation and see where we'll go from there. These gentleman were kind enough to come. We're ready, sir. Kindly state your name for the record. MR. ROSSI: I'm Ron Rossi from the Landmark 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 Preservation, R-O-S-S-I, and this is Mel~Phaff and I'm here representing the Chairman, Jim Grathwohl. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We thank you for coming by. MR. ROSSI: Thank you. Basically, we as a commission and also on behalf of Mr. Grathwohl feel strongly that we would like to see this building be changed to look the way they are proposing under the new proposal. I'd like to show you, I don't know if you're familiar with it or if you noticed it before, but this is what we were presented with originally. This shows the skylights and a small dormer and we thought that was inappropriate on a land marked building. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We need a copy of that for the record. MR. ROSSI: That file is in the Building Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just go into some of the discussion, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. MR. ROSSI: Basically, in this particular case, we looked at that and we said that he had wanted to create a use for this building that had to do with an artist. So we said well we know of several old studios that were landmarks in this town that had similar dormers like that which in affect is an old fashioned way of having a skylight. In this particular case, that dormer, even though it exceeds your zoning amount, has no floor under about 60% of it. It's just a skylight, is what it is. So based on that, it really kind of meets the requirement that you have that don't want to create space for habitation. I took that today in the file, there's about 40 some odd feet of habitation up there, of space that could potentially be made into a little loft. The rest of it is just open. So we felt that if and we gave him a suggestion and sent him a picture and he created what you see and we approve that. And we felt that it was a good choice. Our architects liked it so we support it strongly. Now, our commission has an obligation to take care of that building to make sure that it comes out the way it should be. You have an obligation MR. ROSSI: We have to find a way to work 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 together. T~at's the key. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to do that with Ms. Oliva and she's going to come and may put another little layer of time in between but hopefully that situation will occur in a positive sense in all future situations like this. I do appreciate the very gracious manner in which you presented that and I do appreciate you coming here today. The Board members are now going to ask you some questions so feel free to answer them if you would. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: First thing, I just want to know you passed this around and what does this represent? MR. ROSSI: That represents what we were originally shown. In other words, that was his original proposal. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Got a dormer and skylights. MR. ROSSI: There are certain things in landmark that are important to us. We're interested in the facade, how the building looks. So windows, doors, skylights, trim, those are the things we look at. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a very odd elevation. MR. ROSSI: It is. That's what we figured. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that is what you're saying is not desirable? MR. ROSSI: That's right, exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you going to address something else about what is desirable from your point? MR. ROSSI: It's what's presented to you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the one we have now with the very large nu~er of dormers. MR. ROSSI: With the 89% dormers, a long dormer with the windows in it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But your statement is that based upon the fact that only approximately a small percentage of it actually has any floor area underneath it, that therefore it really is what you would refer to as a historical skylight. MR. ROSSI: Yes, that's the way I perceive it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only one that I have seen that's very similar to that is in the 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 Schinn (phonetic) Winery over in Mattituck on Oregon Road. MR. ROSSI: I don't have the name of the one but I believe it's Peconic. It's one of the art studios there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Prior to the law, Mt.and Mrs. Schinn came in and wanted to create a very similar situation. The only difference is it's much higher because the building has a huge barn ceiling in it and roof holding the ceiling up. So that's the -- MR. ROSSI: The other thing I would suggest about this and this is in your bailiwick is that by approving this, you would not really be creating an unnecessary precedence because what you're doing is cooperating with another Town organization that needs to have something done to meet their law. You're really' complying with one law versus your code. That in itself makes it different that you created a precedence for a typical person coming down the pike. This isn't going to happen every day. It's just something that's possible will happen. Now, we already ran into this with the Architectural Review Board. They don't have authority and we do and they wanted the Cutchogue Library a certain way and we felt because of the historic precedence that it had to be another way and we eventually prevailed. That took a lot of back and forth and cooperation. So basically, that's where we're at and Jim would like to cooperate in any way possible but he strongly feels that we need to find a way to be able to cooperate on a continuous basis. In face, we would appreciate it if we run into this type of thing again that more of the Board members come and sit with us at a work session or whatever so we can be familiar with the problems that we each have, the different outlook. You look at it quite differently than we do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. It's Jimmy's turn. Do you want to say anything, Leslie? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You were having a conversation. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: This proposed elevation. Make sure you got [he right one. Can you see it? That's the one that you're feeling -- MR. ROSSI: That's the one right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Now, these are drawn 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 as very long continuous dormer all the way across the width of the roof. There is no reason why both architecturally and as a function of letting in light that one continuous roof of dormer couldn't be broken into 3 roof pieces. You see what I mean? In other words, break that line and simply reduce them by having slightly smaller pieces instead of one whole continuous line. MR. ROSSI: I'm not an architect but I can tell you that the two architects on our Board liked that and they thought that that was a great solution. So that's as far as I can go with that. I don't really know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here's the goal of the dormer in the case of an art studio, light. It's a functional goal. MR. ROSSI: But from our standpoint, it's aesthetics. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I was going to say from the other, from Landmark's perspective, is the typology, skylights are not appropriate to this type of building especially with a cupola and so on. They also provide a different kind of light qualify by the way depending -- this lets light in vertically and they let light in horizontally, on a slope. So, in any case, all I'm saying is that it's possible to accomplish. As a matter of fact, it's a very small building, relatively, and to have a continuous row rather than smaller pieces actually, in a sense, over scales the size of the roof, aesthetically. MR. ROSSI: You're saying break it into 3 different sections. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Or 2 right next to each other with just a gap. What it will do is reduce the visual scale, accomplish the same goals and reduce the percentage of the dormer. Now, it's a suggestion. It doesn't mean you have to. MR. ROSSI: Part of our requirement in our operating policy is that we're not in the business of designing these old buildings. We're in the business of saying what we think is appropriate and isn't. We give suggestions and we gave a suggestion to Mr. Price and he acted on it and we liked it an approved it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Now, we have to grapple. Ail I'm simply saying is I would endorse 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 that process and the ~esult. My comment is, now it's before us as proposed and we have to interpret the degree of variance grantable and again our intent is to grant the smallest variance we possible can while retaining, considering the aesthetic concern which is very legitimate and a functional concern. One way to consider that is to still use dormers to do those but to reduce them slightly in size by breaking them into 2 components rather than one continuous one. It's a comment. I'm not saying you're obliged to do it but we'd like to try and comply with what the Town code requires us to comply with. MR. ROSSI: I'll let Mr. Price comment on that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, that would be perhaps when it's appropriate. Other members may want to ask you other'questions. Perhaps we can deal with it when we talk to Mr. Price. CHAIRM3tN GOEHRINGER: Jimmy? MR. ROSSI: Excuse me, before anyone starts, I'd like to include Mr. Phaff in. He's the Vice Chairman. The reason I'm talking instead of him, is he was not at the meeting that you were at and I've heard all of the discussion. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I have a problem with the building, honestly, however, you'd like to do it. I didn't hear any reasons why this building just couldn't be placed on a conforming area of this lot and I got the impression that, maybe it was wrong, that you wanted it in that location. MR. ROSSI: Ail we're interested in is the way the building looks and we're interested in this dormer and the windows and that type of thing. As far as location, we don't care. That's your business. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the Landmark part of this isn't necessary that it's a landmark? MR. ROSSI: No, no. Historic preservation is another way of saying it. We're interested in the way the building looks. If this is an accessory building and contributes to the landmark house, we would like it to kind of stay in that genre so that it doesn't stand out. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the location is specifically not anything -- MR. ROSSI: We don't care. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not h[rd and fast for you? MR. ROSSI: That's between you and the clients. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's just the impression I got from the last hearing, you guys approved it, therefore, we should -- I'm not hearing that now. MR. PHAFF: What we're doing is actually supporting Mr. Price in as much as that we made the suggestions that he came through and followed up with so we felt responsible that we should represent ourselves here so and you should understand why we're here. We have nothing to do with this project other than the approval. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you think that the 90 percent, you think that that would look nicer than it does now then what they h~d proposed. MR. ROSSI: Right. Also what we believe and what we come to agree on is this that it meets our criteria by doing that. It gets rid of the skylights and gives us something that's more historic looking. And like I said before from your standpoint, it doesn't allow any habitable space in there. It's just an open, it's another way for a skylight. As far as where the building is located, that's your business, not our business. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe the Suffolk Times building has a similar skylight if you look at it. That's the reason why I wanted the clarification. If you, so you're requirement or your agreement with that percentage of dormer puts you, puts them in the position of having to ask for a variance. MR. ROSSI: Exactly, right. And the only reason we ended up with that much was because of a balance to make the building look better. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do you need all those dormers? MR. ROSSI: You mean that long thing? The windows? I can't see your name over there but she had mentioned that light is different coming in an angle. 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD ~EMBER OLIVA: I understand that. Leslie, say if you took the two end ones off. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not all, it's one dormer. It's one continuous element to the roof. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It wasn't what the original plan submitted. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This was what was originally submitted to them. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To them, the plan that was originally submitted had less -- MR. ROSSI: Less light. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was like mixing apples and oranges. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question and this just came to my mind. What if you dummied the center one so that in affect was breaking it'up and gave no light but it looked like it was a continuous dormer? There would be lite in two sections. We did this once before in Nassau Point and it did comply with the law, so to speak, because really what it was was a visual concept of having it visually done but it did break it up and that's all you would have to do is just create one little bridge in the center of it and leave it continuous and that's done. MR. ROSSI: In other words, take the windows out of the middle? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Leave it. Leave it right there. Just make it dummied. Like a dummy doghouse dormer on a house, like a fake dormer. MR. ROSSI: What would happen is, and this is our procedure, if they make that change, they have to come back to Landmark and we would have to review it and get an agreement on our Board again. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they went to a conforming location, would they have to? If they move the building? MR. ROSSI: We don't care about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This building will be built on a conforming location. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe not. I don't know. Again, my concern was that it seemed that those poor people were being asked by two different Boards in the Town to do something that wasn't legal in the Town. I want that clarified now. What the dormers look like. These people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 know more about how that woul~ look with the Town than I would. They are not gaining anything from those dormers whether they have windows in them or not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's what it's all about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What they are gaining, Jimmy, is something that is conforming to the Oyster Pond's historic district which this house is in and that's what these gentleman are before us for because that's what they're concern about. Am I correct about that? MR. ROSSI: You're correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm saying the applicant is not gaining anything by whether they cover these windows up or whether they don't cover these windows up or whether these are 89 percent or 40 percent. They are bein~ required to have these things by another Board of this Town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I disagree with you. What you are, in affect doing, is creating a break without actually doing it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know how you can possibly do that. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no light out of the one dormer, out of that one section. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a few questions. I have a series of questions. I'll make the questions short but I'm just trying to get some clarification on the whole discussion. I'll try to keep my comments down to a minimum. First of all, the number of dormers, is it likely that the Landmark Commission would be happier with one continuous dormer than 3 separate dormers? MR. ROSSI: I can't answer that completely but I think they would because that's what they ended up suggesting. They suggested one continuous dormer. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you're saying is you really don't know. MR. ROSSI: That's what I said originally. I don't know. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'll accept that as an answer. Leslie's suggestion was a way of trying to accommodate a lot of things. One is light, two was coming closer to the code and three, the greater attractiveness of the dormers versus the 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 skylights. These are all positive things that everyone would like to maximize. So the question has come up is how important is it for there to be continuous dormers and that we don't have the answer to yet. The idea of a dummy dormer would make sense if there were some other reason for having a continuous but not for any other practical reason. Clearly, if you're thinking about a dummy dormer, it's because the dormers contribute too much light which is silly. Now, second question. This is more fundamental. The role of the Landmark, I understand it's a preservation commission. MR. ROSSI: Landmark's Preservation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And, therefore, one of the reasons this is unusual is we're talking about new construction. MR. ROSSI: We get involved in that. New' construction on an old building is an important aspect of our job. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there were a vacant lot in an historic district and someone wanted to build a brand new house, everybody would like to see the brand new house conform as much as possible to the existing house, is that something over which the Landmark's Commission has jurisdiction? MR. ROSSI: Theoretically but we need to get clarification from the Town Attorney at the present time on that because our law, as written, doesn't necessarily give us jurisdiction. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My point is it isn't clear whether preservation can be interpreted to include new construction which looks as if it were preserved. MR. ROSSI: In fact, we have one in front of us right now which is a substantial. They are actually incorporating a small building in Orient right in the middle of the historic district that is not very historic and yet they are building around it a building that's going to look historic. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can they be mandated to do this? MR. ROSSI: They have to do this. They have to bring it to us because we have purview over the original building. The original building is listed in the Landmark list. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 BOARD MEMBER S~MON: It sort of grandfathered in a way. If there had never been a building there, then it would have been another question. MR. ROSSI: That's the gray area right now. In a perfect world, if we had certified legal government in this Town, the answer would be yes. And we don't have that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now my question as to do with legal authority of the Landmark's Commission, which I think is important to all of us. One is we the Landmark Commission certainly has a veto on renovations that somebody might want to make on an existing land marked building. MR. ROSSI: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they can veto that. MR. ROSSI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SYMON: Do they also have the power to mandate something that is being done as might be suggested, if this was the argument with these dormers? We might grant it any way. I just want to know where the authority is. MR. ROSSI: We have all the powers of our law which includes fines. It includes causing the people to fix the building. Causing them to undo construction they do to a building. None of that has been tested. We are a brand new law. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm asking is what I can see. There's one thing to have the authority to say, to stop people from doing what they shouldn't do. Can they also have the power, force of law, to say if they fail to do what you ask them to do and do something which was not offensive but just simply wasn't what you had in mind? MR. ROSSI: They have to do -- in other words, when Mr. Price and his client put together their package and they start building, the code enforcement people or the building department or us will show up and say they didn't do it and they will have to do or they will be fined and or it will cause them to undo it and do it right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't want to get into hypotheticals. It does matter what it is that you want to do. If, for example, we said we think you should put a dormer in and they decide not to put any dormer or windows in, would they be in violation? 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 MR. ROSSI: Yes, they would. Here's the deal. When we give our approval on, let's say this is a set of plans and it's a sef of building plans, our final approval is given on a set of building plans which is the master plan that's going to go to the building department. That's how that's going to be considered. When we sign off on that, all the notes and all of the construction elements on that plan have to be met just as if any other building -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. I don't want to go further with this. That's not exactly an answer to the question I was asking. I think I understand. CHAIRMAiq GOEHRINGER: You know, Michael, the Town Attorney is not here and anything that would be, and these gentleman are not here to discuss every minute little aspect of this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm simply asking what the jurisdiction is. MR. ROSSI: I'm trying to give you a feel for the fact that and I've discussed this with the Town Attorney, Kieran, that we have the power, okay. It's a matter of time as we go along. It's being testing. It's being rewritten in it's use over a period of time and we have a full power of our law. We have an equal standing in the Town as far as the law goes between, with you people, ourselves, planning board, all the same from the standpoint of the powers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was no doubt in my mind when I met with you last week that you didn't have it. Trust me. By your nature of the fact that it says a certificate of appropriateness in the Notice of Disapproval, there is no doubt in my mind that you have all the powers that you have. MR. ROSSI: I understand that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me make a comment. It's possible in one of our criteria which is whether or not the hardship is self-created in terms of granting relief to say the hardship was not self-created, it was created by the Landmark Commission who requires that this dormer be as applied for to you and approved; is that correct? MR. ROSSI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But I think as you can 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 put your a~proval on plans that are done, if these are plans, in this case, in which you suggested what should be done and once they're drawn, then they become the authority of your law, is that it? MR. ROSSI: Exactly. Once we approve it and once it's been agreed upon. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can propose something and make sure that it is built once it's been approved. MR. ROSSI: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The other is, as far as the conflict between different agencies, there isn't a problem. No one would expect the Architectural Review Board to take zoning code into account when they decide is it or is it not a good idea. That's why they come before us. They are not the zoning board members of the Architectural Review Board. They could, and I think most would, if we recommend something which is wonderful and architecturally historical but in fact it violates some part of the building code, they're going to say, okay, we didn't know that. So we're not in conflict. We're just trying to steer a course to make everyone happy. MR. ROSSI: I understand that. I'm trying to make point that we're new guy in town but we do have to find a way to. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess I would like to hear reasons why Leslie's idea would not be taken seriously because they seem to make some step. MR. ROSSI: I didn't say they wouldn't be taken seriously. The big issue is we wanted to replace skylights with something better which they agreed. They came up with this idea and Mr. Price presented it, they liked it. What I'm saying is if you come up with a new idea, it's got to go back and go through the process. That's all I'm saying. I don't have a single -- they may say that was great, we didn't think of that. I don't know. I'm not an architect. I couldn't tell you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make one more comment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because this goes to a heart of a problem that's near and dear to me and this is you deal with plans that may not be legal in this Town. You looked at a plan that they legally could not build without a variance 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 and I'm not so sure that any~plan that's resubmitted to you after the Building Inspector does his thing shouldn't go back to the Building Inspector to be re-evaluated. MR. ROSSI: No, it is. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At the time you made the decision to grant a 90 percent variance, were you aware that they would need an variance? MR. ROSSI: Yes, they were aware of that. We have a building department advisor on our Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Damon is paid to be on our Board and help us. That's how we coordinate. Everything we do is heavily coordinated in the Building Department. In other words, none of that is an issue. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So he told you you were going to need a variance? MR. ROSSI: Very likely, yes. In other words, what we did is we did our approval it's sent to you folks for your approval. Now, if you approve it, let's say you approve this, when it comes back to us with the final plans to be submitted and approved, it will be written in stone. It will have met all the Town's criteria, it has your approval, it has our approval, it has the Building Department approval, obviously, if it needed planning approval, it would of had that. At that point, then it can go forward. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then I'm not so sure it's self-created, Leslie. I would say that they self-created it because they made the suggestion, the applicant and they agreed to this. I don't think we're in conflict with their Board. And I don't think we can give reason that the Landmark's Preservation Board is requiring this as a reason for it being self-created. The applicant still knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. I don't want to use that as a reason, Leslie. I really have no objection to the shape of this building. I wish at this time, they could move it away from the property line. That's my concern. Our law is they're asking for 100% variance from this law and I'm not so sure -- we have been punching holes in this thing since it started. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe the law needs to be changed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I'd like to see 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 that. I'd like to see it thrown out. But as it exists right now, it's here. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: In a way it was self-created, Jim, because Mr. Price originally had suggested skylights and they went to the Landmark's. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm saying it's self-created by the applicant, not created by the Board, itself. MR. ROSSI: In a way it was created by us because we said you can't have a skylight, you need something else, we made a suggestion, he picked up on the suggestion, brought it back to us and we approved it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He agreed to it. MR. ROSSI: At some point, we all have to agree. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I don't kn6w how one Board can say, here do this as long as you go get a variance. MR. ROSSI: We didn't say that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But there is a situation where there is an application for a car wash, a gas station, and a canopy and they're before us in part because they have to increase -- well they're going to be decreasing their set back from Main Road because of a canopy over the pump, the gas pumps. And the reason they're doing it is because the Architectural Review Committee insisted that the canopy look a certain way so that it had more of a North Fork historic colonial typology instead of just a flat roof. So in a sense, they didn't propose it that way, the ARC said, we would prefer to see this style. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we would prefer to see less of a variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not the same thing. They're asking us to increase that nonconformity and in your instance, they've asked that applicant to decrease that nonconformity. It's two separate things. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That set back is going to be closer to the road rather than farther from the road because of an ARC decision that said we want this canopy to look a certain way. So they had it proposed where it was already, where the existing was. They had to move it closer to 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 the road because of~what the ARC insisted that they made it look like. We can skin this a million different ways. The main concern is that there are now dormers rather than skylights, so the question is what's before us now is what percentage of dormer? MR. ROSSI: What percentage would be acceptable? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well the law says 40 percent which is half of what you're proposing, less than half of what you're proposing. We could grant relief from they. That's what we're here for. But to ask for 100 percent variance is enormous from what the law is. So what we're trying to do is say yes to dormers for all those reasons and to try and make the dormers not require such a huge variance from the code. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Is there any way to lower the entire building and also have dormers? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. It's such a tiny building. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You'd still have a 12 foot high side walls but then a dormer, then the dormers on top of that. Because it's more about the overall height and the impact on the property, adjacent property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not the height, Linda. Just the dormers. CHAIP~MAN GOEHRINGER: I think we have to consciously work on it. There's no question about it and that's the agreement between these Boards. I think we've beat this pretty well here and we need to give these gentleman a copy of this so we'll ask Linda to go out and make a copy and we'll give you that right back. You certainly don't have to leave. We're going to speak to Mr. Price. MR. ROSSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Price, if I'm incorrect on this, please let me know. We were talking about a 3 foot set back from one property line and a 3 foot set back from the other property line. MR. PRICE: We have no quarrel with moving the building at all. That's no issue. The only issue ~ha~ we're here for is to get light in the building in a way that is artistically 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 interesting, architecturally interesting and utilitarian to the owner who wants an art studio with light. When the preservation committee gave me that idea about stretching the dormer across, in the back of the building, first of all, in that original, that she is getting copy of right now, over the back of it, rather than raise the roof of the whole building which would make it more obtrusive, I put a dormer in the back which is about 30 percent. I think some of you saw that and it looked a little hokey but what it did was give the lady headroom in the loft area where she stores her paintings, which incidentally, last time we were here we showed you an example of her painting which was 40 by 50. She does large paintings and she's very good. She's got a coming exhibit at the South Street Gallery. I don't know exactly when it's coming up. She's hot an amateur and she does these things with the idea of resale and so forth. Incidentally, the dormer proposal meet my approval in its premise because I had seen and there's a wonderful barn book out, a North Fork barn book, I forgot the name of the lady, the historical society in Orient does sell and I bought one and there on one of the buildings was a dormer that stretched out clear across this barn and it was wonderful. I should have brought it in but I didn't and that gave me impetus to do it that way because it's in the same style or feeling, a traditional feeling, of this area which I am personally, very fond of. That's why I live here. Especially in Orient which is this wonderful little town that is expressing itself visually with it's historical background. So that's why I did it and I think to break up the dormers for adhering more to the percentage of variance is a big mistake, visually. Not only would it detract a little bit from the light but it would detract visually. Now there are other ways we can do this whole thing. We can forget about dormers. Raise the building two feet and put skylights back on. We could put the skylights in a situation which would be hopefully okay with these gentleman. We would be getting rid of dormers all together, do you follow me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I asked that question of the Commission. But go ahead, sir. MR. ROSSI: What if you took the dormer, cut 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 the size ~own to 50 percent and slid it through the middle? MR. PRICE: I could do that but you don't have any head room in the back where the loft is. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: Now you're describing another variance. Let me get this straight. I understand how head clearance works with dormers are you saying that that's also for storage? MR. PRICE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, how do you reconcile storing them? Paintings have to be stored vertically and natural light destroys artwork. It's very bad for artwork and, in fact, that's why museums have walls that don't have windows. Lighting is very, very important to the preservation of art. So you know, I'm trying to now imagine how, with an open well down below and clearance'in the roof of the dormer will now let light in. If the paintings are in front of that light source - MR. PRICE: They're not. They're stored in a way that would not be, underneath. The dormer comes like this and then it goes out like this and down. They are stored underneath that with a canvas over them. She also has storage space below in the original plans, that set of plans that you have in front of you. So you'll notice that there's a loft there but underneath it's also a sink for a work sink and more storage space. She can do a lot of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Price. We have now discussed not with any true agreement, the issue of the dormers, as proposed by the Lanchmark's Contmission. We now have discussed the conforming location that your client is willing to do. The one thing that we have not discussed is the use of the building. Does this Board have a specific problem with the use of this building with this professional person? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have a problem with them putting a bathroom facility and a sink in that building? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So therefore, the only thing that's left is that whole situation with the 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 dormers. MR. PRICE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So I mean, I don't know how to resolve that at this point other than we can discuss it with counsel prior to making a decision. I can't offer you anything else. I just wanted you to know, Mr. Price, that I had absolutely no problem with your plans, with your application, except for that issue of the dormer size and how it deals with the law. I did have a much greater understanding of why the Commission did it, how they dealt with you it, and how you went with it based upon their recommendation after visiting with them last week. I hope you don't think there was anything else I was saying other than that issue. MR. PRICE: I just want to reiterate that we can get rid of the dormers ~ltogether but we would have to go back to skylights. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think that the dormers are a far better solution all the way around for all the reasons that we discussed 20 thousand times already. I don't think anyone disagreeing with you. We're attempting to look at what the code allows and to provide relief from the code. It's a matter of to what extent can we justify providing relief from the code. So we're trying to hear your arguments as to why a substantial variance is warranted. And you're talking about storage, you're talking about light, talking about aesthetics. I have a question. The barn that you used as a precedence for that continuous dormer; what size was that barn? MR. PRICE: It was a big barn. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I thought. Historically, that typology -- barn building has a certain scale that is very different than a small art studio which is a small accessory structure and the reason for those dormers forget about codes and zoning had to do with hay lofts above. MR. PRICE: I can't answer that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There were rarely windows in barns because of the storage of equipment and because in stalls for animals and so on. It was a hay loft where you needed to have storage. You need to have some natural light going into the building but the scale of that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 ~uilding is very long. A big barn building is why you can compositionally have a large single skylight. You know while the typology is certainly indicative of the North Fork, it's indicative of accessory structures which are considerably larger than the one that we're looking at in this particular small historic village. So from a scale perspective, it's possible to reduce the dormer. Now what we're trying to do is find a way that storage is also provided. This is what we're, as long as we all understand what these issues are before us. MR. PRICE: You're not buying the idea of the dormer being 89 percent of the total building. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very difficult to justify such a huge variance. But I'm not ruling anything in or out. We have to deliberate. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And we have to ta~k to the Town Attorney. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know who's even assigned to this. So a draft finding will be proposed. All of us will read it and then we will deliberate about it and in that finding there will be arguments made as to why what's being proposed is justified. That's the way the process works. I can't predict right now what the outcome will be in terms of yes or less percentage of roof coverage on the dormer. MR. PRICE: Okay. You realize that in the back I think to the west the storage space where she needs head room is at least 6 foot 6. That's where the dormer was originally placed in the original design I submitted. So that that's essential so if and the other thing is that she also needs light in the middle or in the north part of the building which she has. We supplied with skylights at that original point. Now, if you put another dormer there to give her skylights and light instead of skylight, you will be chopping up -- let's say we emulate the dormer that's on that original design that you're getting copies of and then put another dormer adjacent to it where she works, you have a hokey looking set up, believe me. The dormer as it exists now has a very nice line to it and as a design it's much better than two different dormers which on that building I think would look hokey, that's my word for it, being blunt. And the way it flows now 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 it's much more in ~eeping with the flow of the whole building. Also, the other reason I did a dormer instead of not just raising the building two feet is that to preserve the original look of the building from the north, that is from where the doors open up, the two 3 foot doors open up, and we would like to preserve that whole northern section as is, rather than if we had to raise the building two feet, we would have to destroy that look. So I'm trying to preserve the beginning look of the barn. End of story. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're really talking about a possibility like that. That's not the same as what's down there. That's the roof. This would probably mean a reduction by about 40 percent in what you're requiring if you did it on both sides, 30 to 40 percent. MR. PRICE: 'I don't want to be a part of that, frankly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else that would like to speak, thank you Mr. Price, in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision after discussion with the Assistant Town Attorney, subject to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6090 - McNulty CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need to read the legal notice, if you would, Leslie. This is appeal 6098. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: "Request for Variance under Zoning Code Section 280-18, based on the Building Inspector's July 26, 2007 Notice of Disapproval which states that the Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet, and the area of CTM Parcel 1000-145-02-1.5 will be reduced from 20,877 square feet to 20,093 square feet, creating a greater degree of nonconformity, with a lot line change to enlarge CTM Parcel 1080-145-02-1.4 from 22,151 square feet to 22,936 square feet. Both parcels are currently nonconforming in lot size in the R-48 Low-Density Residential Zone District, located at 160 and 240 Great Peconic Bay 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 Boulevard, Laurel." I think the Notice explains very clearly what the proposal is making one lot appropriating small amount of land from the adjacent lot. One owned by Diller and one owned by McNulty. It would appear that it's to create a proposed easement to the east perhaps to create a conforming side yard set back. But I'd like to hear more about exactly what's proposed by the applicant and then I have a couple of questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: State your name, please. MR. GOGGINS: William C. Goggins, the Law Firm of Goggins & Palumbo, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck, New York 11952, for the applicant. That's exactly what the intent is. There is the side of the McNulty house and the deck is very close to the property line so McNu~ty wanted to make that lost more conforming as to the side yard and that was why he did it and in order to maintain Diller's easement or access to the bay, they granted an easement across this lot line change. That was really the only reason why they did it was because McNulty wanted to be more conforming on the side yard and Diller was okay with it as long as it didn't interfere with his access to the beach. So we went to the Planning Board. Planning Board approved it subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So we're talking about an area variance for a nonconforming lot whereas the Planning Board granted you a lot line change. MR. GOGGINS: Yes ma'am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is John McNulty's summer home? MR. GOGGINS: No, this is Edna V. McNulty and John McNulty has power of attorney and he's acting on her behalf. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the one cottage over from John's? MR. GOGGINS: Correct. Both gentleman have agreed to it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One is to have an easement to the bay and the other is to have a more conforming side yard. That would bring that side yard to what exactly? MR. GOGGINS: I believe it brings it to the 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 ten foot~ It makes it ten foot from the corner of the deck which really there's actually no side yard there now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 10.9 feet. MR. GOGGINS: My survey is cut off. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A question actually. Right in that vicinity is a little shower, an outdoor shower and a small stockade fence and then some hedges that are more on the neighbors property. Where exactly is that boundary? Is it by the fence, by the hedge, the current one as it exists without the lot line change. MR. GOGGINS: The current one is a straight line from Peconic Bay Boulevard straight to the bay. That's the current lot line. The line that's 24.49 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the shower is on the other pr6perty, is it? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. MR. GOGGINS: No. It's right on the edge of the current property line. So it would make the deck and that shower side yard conforming. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. So the shower would then be included in the conforming side yard. MR. GOGGINS: Correct. They are existing these cottages. They were moved here in the 1950's, I believe. They were brought over by barge and they lined up the cottages. Is that right, Frank? There was property there in the 1940's. Mr. McNulty's, Frank McNulty's father had subdivided the property. So that's -- these lots were created, these cottages were brought over and placed in their current spots in the 1940's and '50's. Again, they were brought over by barge across the bay and they were placed. I guess at that time there was no Southold Town codes, there were no side yards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This particular zoning that occurs on this property was done by a will and it was done by the prior, prior, prior Town Attorney who was here from 1955 to 1988. It probably was one of the last things that Bob Tasker did before he retired and unfortunately subsequently passed away. And there is a decision on the books from that situation where we created 55 foot lots with all of these parcels on it by will based upon the death of Mr. McNulty, Sr. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 MR. MCNULTY: That was my grandfather. MR. GOGGINS: And that's how they used to do subdivisions before the code. They would do it by will or they deeded out parcels. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's one of the only ones that we did at that time and that is the only reason I'm raising that issue just so the Board is aware of how this was created and I can remember that vividly reviewing it in Mr. Taker's office, the gentleman's name was Bob Tasker. I just wanted everyone to be aware of that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's not a percentage. What we have is the square footage difference. We don't have a percentage here but I can calculate it. MR. GOGGINS: It's about 800 square foot is the change. BOARD MEMBER WEISMA~: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions of either -- I'm sorry. We'll go onto Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If I didn't know the answer, I was going to say why are you here? The answer is this is a Planning Board issue and the Planning Board needed our blessing because where's the beef? What's at stake and the answer is hardly anything except a couple of people's mutual convenience. MR. GOGGINS: That's correct and John McNulty was upset that we even had to come to the Zoning Board. Why can't the Planning Board do this? Because it's not 1970 anymore, things change. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This one isn't too hard. Just don't ask for dormers. MR. GOGGINS: That last application a lot of times in the New York State Building Code they give exceptions with the building. Perhaps an exception should be carved out giving the Zoning Board of Appeals more authority to give variances where you have historical structures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I was saying. That's a good point. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, 2008 MR. GOGGINS: Do that with a Zoning Board either says yes we're going to give this and we don't care and if the Town Board doesn't like it, they can change the law or by just saying change the law. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I'm looking in the file because I know that we normally coordinate the Planning Board office and I realize that the person who would be doing memos on it didn't send a memo. If I sent a letter tomorrow to the Planning Board for their coordination, do you want to close the hearing subject to receiving their input? If that would be okay with Mr. Goggins? I apologize. I realized that the office coordinated with the LWRP but they didn't coordinate with the Planning Board. MR. GOGGINS: We did get a letter fro~ Planning Board on November 20, 2006. If you have that letter. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No, we don't. MR. GOGGINS: I'll give it to you now. The pertinent part states directs McNulty, says you should file a variance application with the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the variance is granted, the Planning Board will process the application and issue an approval for the lot line change. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI: That will help, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else have anything they'd like to say to Mr. Goggins or Mr. McNulty? Thank you, gentleman. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving a decision later. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 3:50 p.m.) 25 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CE R~I F I CAT I ON I, Erika Nadeau, a shorthand reporter and Notary Public of the State of New York do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties by blood or marriage, that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the outcome of these matters, nor am I in the employ of any of the counsel. Erika Nadeau