Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/18/2007 Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS X Southold Town Hall Southold, New York October 18, 2007 9:30 a.m. Board Members Present: JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Chairman/Member RUTH D. OLIVA - Member MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney {10:00-end) 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 INDEX OF HEARINGS: Hearing: Wansor 96074 Arias ~6065 Neumann 96077 Weil #6078 Finora 96080 Bonagura 96081 Sachman 96082 Stanton 95948 Gama Properties (Warex) 95906 Manganiello 96066 O'Connell 96084 Scheublein ~6079 House of Daige 95926 Page: 3-8 8-10 10-21 21-27 28-39 39-55 55-60 60-79 79-96 96-102 102-104 104-138 138-142 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Hearing #6074 - Wa~sor CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Our first hearing of the day is Gerald and Dorothy Wansor. That's yours, Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good morning. I'm just, for the record, going to read the Notice of Disapproval into the public record. "Request for Variances under Sections 280-122A and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's July 25, 2007 Notice of Disapproval and Zoning Code Interpretation %5039 (Walz Application) for the reason that proposed alterations to existing single-family dwelling, additions, and attaching g~rage for conversion to living space, will increase the degree of nonconformance when located less than 40 feet from the front lot line (along Haywaters Road). Location: 1525 Vanston R6ad a/k/a Old Cove Road, Cutchogue; CTM 111-4-12." So you have essentially two front yard. As I understand it, on your corner lot, you were proposing to put on a second floor addition on the north end of your house over the right, all the way over to the existing chimney and exists over that existing one-story garage on the south end. You're going to convert that to living space. MR. WANSOR: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And that will be a one-story with a chimney addition. The new garage is going to be, because you have such a slope, your new garage is going to b~ at the cellar level coming in off Haywaters Road -- no, that's Vanston. MR. WANSOR: Gerald Wansor, W-A-N-S-O-R. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Now I had two questions and then I'd love to hear you amplify it a little bit more. The existing driveway, is that going to be removed where your current garage is it will no longer be a garage? MR. WANSOR: The 20 feet off of Haywaters will be left for additional parking. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that's not going to be -- it's just going to be an area where people can park. MR. WANSOR: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you've got some very mature pine trees on the north end of your kcuse where you're propc$ing to put a garage 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 underneath. I guess you're going to have to lose a couple of those. MR. WANSOR: I have to lose two pine trees and one oak tree. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. All right. Please, let's, hear what you want to say. MR. WANSOR: All right. The purpose of the work is to make the house a year round permanent residence. My wife and I just recently retired and we're hoping to come out here and live all year round. And the house, itself, as it stands now is really not adequate for that. There's insufficient room. It's outdated. It has electric which is very costly. So we needed additional bedrooms to facilitate study areas or reading areas and storage. The first floor master bedroom, our second bedroom will be converted into a mastWr bath. So it'll be one bedroom on the first floor and we propose three bedrooms and a bath on the second floor. The garage would be converted into a living, family room. The old living room would become our dining room and as you had mentioned, the garage would be put underneath on the north end of the house. The balance of the basement would be left undisturbed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Well there isn't a problem with lot coverage particularly. The dilemma is that you're not going to be increasing the or reducing the setback. The existing is 37.9 feet; your front yard setback. Your lot is 25,734 square feet. The code requires 40 feet. You did get a variance in 1983 on the fron yard setback on the westerly side for a minimum of 30 feet. Your currently 37.9 feet and it appears as though you intend to maintain that setback at 37.9; is that correct? MR. W~LNSOR: Yeah. That's only the bedroom portion of the house encroaches on that setback. The living room and the garage are more than 40 feet. The 1983 variance was by a previous owner. I did obtain a variance in 2001 for a deck which was built and approved and CO'd. But the footprint of the house is really not changing. The roof is just being raised. In fact, we're using a gambrel-style roof to lessen the impact of vertical walls with a couple of doghouse dormers. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. I'm taking ~ctes because I have to write up this findin~ 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 I want to be complete. MR. WANSOR: I understand. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't really have any other questions particularly. We'll see if others do. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have really a question, the new garage is going to be excavated, going to be built underneath that northern portion of the house; is that correct? MR. WANSOR: That's correct. The grade from the end of the house down to Vanston slopes off so it's less excavation. It would become a flat surface actually. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But there would be no extension of the footprint in that direction? MR. WANSOR: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank ySu. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I was there. He just wants to put a second addition on it, move it up and have more room. He wants to retire here. Meets all the setbacks. I don't see any problem. MR. WANSOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He doesn't meet all the setbacks. He's here for two and a half fee. I have no questions. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Wansor, I have admired your house for many years going up to Nassau Point and making that left turn off of Vanston. In this anticipation of building the second story, you have an engineer that has certified the first story so you can utilize the first story or will there be any manipulation of the first story? Will there be walls taken out on the first story or will it be totally renovated in any way on the first story? I'm only asking that question because that really needs to be embodied in the decision from the Building Department standpoint when they look at this decision. MR. WANSOR: The architect has taken into consideration the loads on the first floor. He has introduced some structural posts in this bedroom to support the wall that picks up the roof line above the existing bedrooms. There is some work on the first floor but it's not taking out any of those bearing walls. They're all going to 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 be left intact. There will be one opening in the kitchen cutting through to the old living room for access from the kitchen to that new dining room. But essentially, the architect has checked that out and it's shown on the drawings. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is, yes. The framing diagram shows. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to share with you and I'll leave you with this thought. We had the same situation happen in New Suffolk and then they decided to put 2x6 joist, 2x6 sticks in place of the 2x4's and the Building Department denied it and believe ~t or not, I believe that house is a gambrel also. Absolutely magnificent job. You want to look at the house, it's on the corner of Route 4 Road and New Suffolk Avenue. Beautiful, beautiful job. Mk. WANSOR: I know the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And they had to come back because of the way it was presented to us and that is the only reason why I'm asking you that question. I have no objection to your construction. As I said, I've admired that house for years, probably 30 years. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly we will reference your plans which you intend to follow that you submitted to us so that could pretty much cover everything unless the Building Department decides to change their minds which would be up to them. We'll reference your instructions that you gave us, your plans. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. Just want to make sure, what extent will there be foundation wok involved? You will have to do some because of the garage underneath. MR. WANSOR: Correct. The north end of the foundation has to be cut. There is one lolly column that has to be moved back to make room for the garage door. There will be lamanated beams to replacing that area to support the floor joist and also in the existing garage there's footings and a beam to support the new floor in the garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to make sure, again, Mr. Goehringer's comments were very appropriate because we don't want to see you come back. MR. WANSOR: I don't want to either. ~OARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the middle cf 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 ~the winter. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We want to make sure that the way the findings are written, we're approving what it is you're proposing. MR. WANSOR: I understand that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We want to make some reference as the plans are submitted and I'll also make sure I take another look at your foundation plan so that any changes will be incorporated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have anything else you'd like to add, sir? MR. WANSOR: Just about how long will this process take to determine whether I get this variance? CHAIRM~N DINIZIO: I can tell you right after I ask this question. Does anybody else in the · audience have any comments concerning this application? I hear none. Our next hearing when we make decisions is what, Linda? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Our next meeting is November 1st. CHAIRMAN DINiZIO: So we'll, hopefully, be making a decision then and a couple days after that you'll have a final decision. MR. WANSOR: I see. And until then, I can't refile my drawings? The Building Department gave me the drawings back because of the denial. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They probably won't accept them until you have -- satisfy the Notice of Disapproval. When you satisfy that Notice of Disapproval, they'll take it back which will be probably a couple of days after we have that meeting. MR. WANSOR: Okay. I appreciate it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: By the way, you're more than welcome to attend our deliberations if you want to sit in. We won't be taking any testimony but you can listen and hear what our vote is or you can call the office the next day. MR. WANSOR: That's November lst? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: November 1st at 6:00 o'clock in the other building on the second floor. MR. WANSOR: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing pending decision in November. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing ~6065 - Arias CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Albert and Susan Arias. Michael, that's your application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance under Sections 280-104 and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's May 29, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, which states that the proposed additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling will be less than 32.4 feet, the average front yard setback of the existing buildings within 300 feet of the prop6s.ed building on teh same side of the street within the same use district, at 195 Oak Avenue, Southold; CTM 77-2-10." The average front yard setback as compared with the places around it is 32.4 feet and they want a setback of, I believe it is, 28 feet. So it's about 4.4 setback for wha~ the code allows. And the purpose of this is to give them a little more room as I understand so that they're going to build a mud room in addition to the house. And I have no questions at that point just to say is that distance includes the front steps, does it? MR. ARIAS: No. Albert Arias, A-R-I-A-S. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question is, that setback of 28 feet, is that setback from the stairs or from the mud room itself? MR. ARIAS: The mud room and then there's a landing and steps in addition to that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it will be less than 28 feet? MR. ARIAS: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They don't count it. As long as they don't exceed 30 square feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine then. Okay, do you want to say what you -- MR. ARIAS: When we renovated five years ago, I didn't realize how nice it would be to have a mud room in terms of weather protection, dirt coming in, we track a lot of dirt because you walk right into the living room and thirdly, I could really use the closets. It will be one on each 1 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 side. And that's about it. ~ BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's really to store clothing rather than mud? MR. ARIAS: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Hopefully, we'll avoid the mud in the house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have anything else? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I looked at it and it's rather minor additions. It would held you, I do agree. Everybody comes into my front door right into the living room and from the dirt from the road and what have you, it would held to have something out there. I think yours is within -- MR. ARIAS: The current door'is also about 67 years old so it's kind of drafty. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The addition is how big, Mr. Arias? MR. ARIAS: 9 feet wide by 5.5 feet deep. I think that's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let's see. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Five feet across. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nine by five and a half. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, you're done? Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, there are lots of small homes in your area that are improved in the same way. They're all about the same scale and they are all nonconforming setbacks. MR. ARIAS: Except the house across the street is 5 bedrooms and it's gigantic. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's typical of what's going on. So I did take a look at the other setbacks in the area and it looks like, I'm glad you're going to miss that existing oak and spruce in your front yard. You can do it without taking down those trees. MR. ARIAS: Oh, no. There's no trees at all. BOARD HEH~ER WEISMAN: Which is great. ! 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 can see you've got just about enough clearance to do that so I don't have any problems or questions. Just to mention that it doesn't look like it's out of character with the rest of neighborhood. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. All right, Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: Yup. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: When you renovated the house, you didn't add anything to it, right? You just renovated the house? MR. ARIAS: We did add ten feet on the back. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm talking about that front yard setback. MR. ARIAS: We didn't touch the front at all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I have no further questions. Anybody in the audience have any questions on this? Sir, do you have anything else to add? MR. ARIAS: Not really. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: November 1st will be when we're probably going to have a discussion on this to make a decision. You're welcome to come, if you'd like. You can't say anything before or after no matter what your frustration may be. So I'll entertain a motion now to close this hearing until November 1st. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Oh, wait. (See minutes for resolution.) MRS. ARIAS: What time? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We start at 6 o'clock, ma'am, upstairs in the other building, okay. Thank you. MR. ARIAS: Do you want that drawing of ridge height. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Mr. Arias said he had another drawing yesterday and I explained to him that I would not be able to get it to the Board in time to look at it. I asked him to bring it today to the hearing. He has a drawing he'd like to submit. MR. ARIAS: It just shows the ridge height. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If you have it, we'll distribute it and enter it into the file. Hearing ~6077 - Neumann CHAIRMAN DiNIZIO: Our next hearing is for 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Michael and Beth Neumann. Michael, that's your application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's June 28, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed accessory swimming pool, partly in a side yard instead of a rear yard, at private right-of-way extending from the north side of Grand Avenue (House 93329), Mattituck; CTM 107-1-12." Do you have further comments on this? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name for the record. MR. WEBBER: Fred Webber, I'm the architect and I'm representing Michael and Beth Neumann. MR. BERGER: I'm Eugene Berger, I'm the contractor. I have a plan that I want to submit to you, a landscape plan,' to show you what we're MR. WEBBER: The code requires I guess that an accessory structure be located in either the front or the rear or in this case, this is a waterfront lot, they also are allowed to put the accessory structure in the front yard. Based on a number of issues and the ability, I guess, to make house and the pool work best with the site and the topography and the neighbors as well, we were proposing to put the pool in the side yard. The reason we would want to do that, first off, is that we wanted the pool to be detached from the house. If it's detached from the house, it has less of an impact, I think, on the overall site. If it was attached to the house, it could be actually, it would be then considered a principal structure and could be located there. We were further going to recess the pool into the grade. The grade rises up from a dimension or a height of about 17' 6" up to a height of about 23' 6" or so. So we were going to take the mid point and slide it into the earth so it would be recessed into the earth. We're setting it back further, I guess, then it would be required for an accessory yard. Setting it back 26' where I guess an accessory structure would be required to be 20' back and you know we're willing to do whatever landscape screening was required. We have already received the Trustee's approval for this and I don't know if you wa~t the copy of that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We should have a copy for our records. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I don't think -- that was issued recently, right Mr. Webber? Was that one you submitted already or is this something recently? MR. WEBBER: No. I think it was submitted already. Then you have that as well as ~he DEC letter of non-jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Webber, if you have copies, just hand us a couple of copies so we're ensured we have it for the record. Both of them, the DEC letter too this way we know we'll have it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's October 18th, '06. MR. WEBBER: And behind that is the letter of non'jurisdiction from the DEC. Now the last comment is that if the pool was located at'other places on the site, the site is relatively wooded in the front yard and and we'd have to take down trees, I guess, to locate it in that area. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have anything to add to this? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. You answered my questions with regards to the possibility of locating it anywhere else. It will be in place, essenti·ally, where the driveway is now planned, will be the only other legal place for the pool without requiring a variance. Obviously, you couldn't put put it closer to the water. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the alternative location is a fairly drastic. MR. BERGER: There actually is a scenario where it could go closer to the water but it -- BOP=RD MEMBER SIMON: It would be closer to the water but it still would be partly in the side yard. MR. BERGER: It clears it but it's still close to the -- MR. WEBBER: I have a sketch here, which I don't have additional copies, but you can look at it. In other words, if you drew a line across the front of the roof structure where this is the most forward part of the structure, not counting this terrace, as a raised terrace, assuming that that is the line in the rear yard, if you were to reo_l_n~ the pco!, ~ ~ '~=' to the house as 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 opposed to perpendicular to the house, it could fit in the front yard. Now, we would have to go back to the Trustee's -- they've approved it where it is and this would still meet their 50 foot setback but it would be extremely close. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would there be room on that side of the house for a 40 foot pool if it were reoriented or would you have to have a smaller pool? MR. WEBBER: It's drawn as a 40 foot pool. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it were to be reoriented -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is what they're proposing, is reorienting -- this is what you're proposing, it's parallel to the -- (Everyone talking at one time) BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In the alternative -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This has less impact. MR. BERGER: That becomes the downside of this -- so close to nondisturbance to build anything here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Michael, if you could just clarify your position on this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not a position, it's a question; that in order to put it in the rear yard, the water front yard, it would have to be past that line of the porch and would there be enough room between the edge of the house and the, I guess, Southedge's (phonetic) property? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's difficult with the slope there, Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I'm not sure that it would. MR. WEBBER: I demonstrated with this drawing that if it was turned parallel to the house, parallel to the creek, it could literally just be skinnied in there and you know we're both sort of saying that we don't think that's a great idea from an environmental point-of-view. We don't specifically have Trustee approval for that. Whether we could get that or not, I don't know, but we would prefer to have it further back. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, I'm just reading what the Soil and Water Conservation people said that some of your sediment and erosion contrcl practices have been installed improperly. Wcu!! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 you care to comment on that? MR. BERGER: I actually called them, when I set that up originally, I had the Trustee's inspect that and they okayed it. So I was concerned what I had done wrong. So I called Tim, from the County, I have like four rows of silk fence, one of them was backwards, the sticks that hold the silk fence were on the landward side rather than the water side. I'm going to correct that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. I saw -- MR. BERGER: We had actually doubled up some of the sticks. At first I thought maybe he was just -- you know saw the additional ones that I put in to hold it there. There's a little bit of an issue with the road coming down and water coming throught the property so I was trying to really be on top of that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You do have an elevation different with the pool. MR. WEBBER: The front of the pool would basically be very slightly elevated and it would be recessed back into the hill and we'll put in any kind of drainage structure that we need to keep that from spilling off. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All right. I think they did manage with the dry well should be in the rear, I guess, to protect that slope going down to the creek. You want to be careful that you don't have an -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's shown on the landscape plan as being over to the south side. MR. BERGER: Ruth, I have all my dry wells are in the ground already. Everythin is all set. I put additional ones in besides what's on the plan. I'm in the process of getting gutters -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It shows two here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just one at a time, please. You have two -- on the plan, there's two, one on either side, right? That's what you're talking about, Leslie? MR. BERGER: I put additional ones in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's more than CWO. MR. BERGER: At least five. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's great because your line really does slope down to the creek. MR. BERGER: I Ery to stay on top 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 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 stuff. I'm very corned about it myself. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, you all done? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yup. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Berger, is there any pump out thing for the pool itself, are any one of those dry wells going to be used as a pump out for the pool or for discharge, the one that's on the landscape plan that's shown right there? MR. WEBBER: I show it on the architectural plan. I'm not sure -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is the filtration system? MR. WEBBER: We don't specifically show it but we put it on the uphill side probably the south ~ide. MR. BERGER: Do you see on the plan where the well head is there? I was going to locate it close to that area so I can keep the equipment, the well, everything and then probably put some shrubs around it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I realized that you really probably don't have too much in the way of neighborhs on that side but you just never know what's going to happen. We've had a phenomenal, I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself, a phenomenal amount of requests to have these pump systems put in in buildings that are moderately soundproof. Like an enclosure. Almost like an enclosure you'd put around two trashcans, so to speak, but moderately insulated with some styrofoam. MR. BERGER: I think I can do that for you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Styrofoam but still vented to the one side. MR. BERGER: That's be a good idea, probably help the equipment. I don't have a problem with that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we may put that in our decision. MR. BERGER: I don't have a problem with that. I think it's a good idea because I've had issues where neighbors have asked me to do stuff like that. I don't have a problem with [hat. CHAiRM~.N DINIZIO: Leslie? 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER WEISM~N: Mr. Webber, is that drawing, does that show the conture, is that a topological plan? MR. WEBBER: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because I'd like to see a grading plan. The slope is 19 percent toward the wetland and, you know, the landscape plan is drawn flat without any conture and doesn't show any retaining wall or elevation changes or how you're going to construct the pool. Also, I'd like to know a little bit more about the patio. It's drawn as though it's stone with joints. And the permeability of or the impermgability of the material is important for runoff. So a permeable material is probably the better way to go and if you could call that out and tell us a little bit about, is that meant to be a blue stone with blue stone screenings or somekhing like that where there would be some drainage, vertical drainage or what do you have in mind? MR. BERGER: I think we were thinking it was going to be a solid blue stone patio. I don't think that we'd want to put something that close to the pool edge that things can grow through. But what I think I could do is pitch the patio and put a drain and run that drain into a catch basin. That I think would work and that would resolve the drainage. I understand your concerns running into the street and things like that. But to do something that's not good around the pool. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Screenings are messy. They come out' and and get all over your feet and wind up in the pool but we do have to address the run off from the patio. MR. BERGER: We'll pitch it back is what we'll do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The other question that I had is since it's proposed, I think appropriately, in the side yard, which is certainly less environmental impact that scooting it forward, I understand the topography quite well on the property. Is it possible to move it landward in the side yard a little bit more, a few feet more? In other words, what's the farthest you can get -- MR. BERGER: I have a well line that's going to be -- the well line comes from, where it's shown on the plan to the corner of the house. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Way on the sid~ is the well and you have a line running towards the house. MR. WEBBER: We can move it a little bit. I just wanted to -- the plan that was submitted was a plan that was approved by the Trustee's quite a while ago and the only thing, and when we were standing on the site looking at this, is we were thinking that it might be better if the pool was in the same, was parallel to the house as opposed to at an angle to the house, it would look a little better, a little nicer. So what I was going to propose was that we keep the 26 foot corner that would be the south, I guess would be the southeast corner and just rotate it a little closer to the house and we could probably move it back a little bit as well. And I have a plan -- MR. BERGER: Bring it back -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Might bring part of the edge back farther than the -- MR. WEBBER: It did bring it back a little bit. I redrew it on these plans here. I mean it didn't move back much but if you look at the dimension from the east property line, the original plan showed it at 147 feet and this is 145 feet, so it did move back 2 feet. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Looks better to me. MR. WEBBER: And it is parallel to the house and I think in the end is going to be a nicer relationship. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, okay this will become part of the record, this site plan. MR. WEBBER: It is redated October 16th. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I would be happy if we could consider -- what plan do you want us to finally take a look at? In other words, this one that you just submitted in terms of the exact site? So what about the issue of grading. This shows existing contours. It doesn't show alterations. MR. BERGER: We can submit you an elevation plan showing you how it will be graded. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I would very much like to have that because it will answer the Soil and Water concern about the degree of slope and any potential retaining wall or anything like that that you plan to do to mitigate runoff toward the water. Especially menticning pitching it back 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 toward a grade.~ MR. BERGER: The terrace. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The terrace part and just what the materials are going to be so we get it right. Because it's much easier to approve as submitted something then to say we're going to condition this or grant alternate relief. MR. BERGER: Ultimately, this plan that he just submitted to you and the reason why, this just happened from a job meeting with the homeowner on Tuesday, I think it ~as, we actually thought maybe we should keep it parallel to the house. That's why this just happened. We can get that drawing right to you with a cut showing the walls, that landscape plan shows the stone walls we're going to do and then I'll put a trench drain back against the stone walls and pipe that too. The terrace will be a blue stone terrace. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Perfect. That will help address the concerns from Soil and Water. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And this becomes the plan that we're voting on. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I just comment on that plan that you just handed us? It seems to me, I guess we need to talk to Kieran about this, is that this was just made part of the record and the public hasn't really had a chance, opportunity to look at this new plan and the new plan, apparently, you would be asking for more relief than -- in other words, you'd be asking for a bigger variance with this new plan than you are currently asking for. I don't know how you feel about that. MR. WEBBER: They Were just asking to move the pool back more. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The reason you were turned down is because you wanted the pool in the side yard and you want to put it a certain place and Leslie's suggestion is to grant you more of a variance than you're asking for. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's correct in the sense that it would be more in the side yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My concern is that not every applican[ or every neighbor, and I realize there's probably nobody here. I don't know if there's anybody here to oppose it. Certainly, we advertised it and people would have an opportunity 50 come in and see what ycu were asking for. ! 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 just don't recall us ever granting more of a variance than was asked for without at least having presented that to the public. Kieran? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I mean it was advertised as in the side yard and you would be granting it in the side yard. The question of degree, if you think -- legally, you can do it. You, all the time, grant alternative relief as a result of your public hearing discussion and it may be something different than the plans that were originally submitted. So I think there could be a situation, you can imagine a situation where the plan is so substantially different that in the matter of fairness, you might want to republish it. So you should think about that from a fairness point-of-view. Is this unfair? I think legally, you can do it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question is since side yard is not quantified in any case in the rules. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I guess you could conceivably have somebody who saw the advertisement, came in, looked at the plan and said this amount in the side yard I don't have a problem with. I'm not going to come here and now you're changing it. So if you think it's so substantial of a change that it would be unfair, then you could hold it and renotice it. Legally speaking, it's been properly advertised. You have the ability to adopot the kind of changes I think you're doing unless you think it's going to be, practically speaking, it's unfair. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We had that discussion. We don't need to -- I just wanted to ask the question and I wanted to point out that's what basically you're asking for, is to grant more of a varaince to a person that doesn't. I have no objection at all whatsoever to this application wherever they put it as long as the Trustee's have. So that's not my argument here. I just want to point out to you and as long as the Attorney thinks it's okay, I think it's okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question is worth raising. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn't make a difference whether it was worth raising. It was raised and I raised it and I'm giving you my opinion. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 ~ BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think for the recor~ it's perfectly appropriate to raise it and to clarity it but I also want to point out that anything we can do to mitigate the potential impact on wetlands. A side yard is a side yard so a couple more feet in a side yard is a better scenario then a couple more feet toward the water. That's why I -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the grading change with the pool which Mr. Berger is willing to do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: SO I would prefer to vote on a situation where we see exactly what we talked about here so that it's not about an alternative but it's exactly what you're proposing that we deliberate over. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So basically you're going to sdbmit to us a grading plan and also if you could show the rest of those dry wells on that plan, that would be helpful. We need to have the shed over the pool equipement of some sort. I don't think it's got to be anything elaborate. Just indicate to us that it's going to be done. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Soundproof cabinet, I think is the way we described it. MR. BERGER: I was actually thinking what Jerry had said, you know those plastic garbage doors. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They work pretty well because I have one at my house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They make them a little taller. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You just drill holes in the bottom and put the pipes up. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions. Sir, do you have anything else to add to this? MR. WEBBER: I just have one question. We should submit this to the Zoning Office or are we being tabled? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I think that Leslie had that available for the Board. During our deliberations, we're going to make a decision on this. The earlier you can get it to us, the more we can look at it and stare at it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I don't understand. He's supposed to submit that to the Office and we transmit it? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, certainly so it can ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 2 be part of the record. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We'll add it into 3 the file. MR. WEBBER: Should I bring 7 copies in? 4 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Please and a cover letter. You don't have to return for 5 another public hearing. And the Board will be ready to make a decision. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Any other comments? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a supplement 7 to the plan, that's all it is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the plan, you 8 just need to provide those other elements as an additional bit of information. 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing until November 1st 10 pending a written grading plan. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth moved, Jerry second. 12 All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) 13 ****************************************** Hearing 96078 - Weil 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Laura Weil and Leslie, that's yours. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good morning. I'm going to read the Notice of Disapproval for the 16 record. "Requests for Variances under Sections 17 280-122, 280-124, 280-116B, based on Zoning Code Interpretation 45039 (Walz Application) and the 18 Building Inspector's July 30, Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and 19 alterations to the existing dwelling, which new construction when located less than 35 feet from 20 the front lot line and less than 35 feet from the rear lot line will create an increase in the 21 degree of nonconformance. New construction is also proposed at less than 75 feet from the 22 bulkhead. Location of property: 2760 Village Lane, Orient; CTM 26-1-20.1" 23 As I understaDd it, you're going to be doing an addition of a breeze soleil parallel to the 24 footprint of the existing house on one end and you're going to be actually increasing the setback 25 greater conformity in setback from the front road by removing part of the porch and incorporating an 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 addition porch and steps at another kind ~f entry. So you will increase the front yard setback which is currently at 9 feet. The code requires 35, your proposal is 16 feet; is that correct? MR. GLucKMAN: That's right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The rear yard setback is 26 feet rather than the code required 35 and you!re intending to maintain that setback from the water to the bulkhead. MR. GLUCKMAN: That's right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Please state your name, sir. MR. GLUCKMAN: My name is Richard Gluckman. I'm here with Gail Chang. We're the architects representing Laura Weil. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on one second. Linda? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I need t6 ask for the green signature cards to complete the file. MR. GLUCKMAN: We have copies of those cards. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You have copies of them. If you don't mind, we need the originals by mail will be fine. These are not the signature cards. These are post office receipts. We need the signature cards, the return receipt cards. MR. GLUCKMAN: I don't have them with me. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Okay. Mail them at your convenience. Do you know if the neighbors signed them or if you had any communications with the neighbors? MR. GLUCKMAN: I don't know. I know that Laura Weil told us that she sent them out. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What you hold in your hand, is that an indication that you sent them out? MR. GLUCKMAN: Says certified mail receipt. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What's the date? MR. GLUCKMAN: The 22nd of September. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you mailed them a while ago, we know that. You didn't mail them yesterday. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: They may come back in the mail. CHAIRMAN DINIZI©: You'll just have to deal with that, Linda if that's okay with you, if they're missing. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Okay. ~o, I guess Leslie, you're going to want to start. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just continue and then ask some questions if I might. You're proposing a fairly modest addition of 250 square foot of habitable space; is that also correct? MR. GLUCKMAN: That's right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Could you please talk a little bit about the nature of land disturbance with the kind of footings you'll need for the breeze soleil because it's very close to the water. It's certainly less substantial than if you were building an enclosed structure. Tell us a little bit about that. MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes. First off, I would like to say we have additional sets of drawings if that's helpful. Would you care to see them? BOARD M~MBER WEISMAN: Unless they're different from what we've already got. MR. GLUCKMAN: I don't believe so. And we have received approval from the Trustee's and we've gone through Landmark's and we feel optimistic that the next presentation we have, they were going to try and schedule it prior to this but we weren't able to do that. In terms of extending the porch, the deck on the seaward side of the building in line with the front, the seaward side of the house, basically it was a garage that was extended in 1985 and these will be a 2 by 6 wood decking with spacing in between the boards and placed on concrete columns approximately 12 feet apart. So it will be a permeable surface on footings that will be posted up approximately, maybe it's 10 feet apart. There are at least 3 if not 4 footings that exist today holding up the porch. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The front porch? MR. GLUCKMAN: The porch on the seaward side and we will be adding 2 posts in the same line to the south and our drawing shows 3 posts further to the east but I suspect we'll only have 2 additional posts there. So the net change will be possibly 4 posts only 2 of which will be at that 26 foot line from the bulkhead. The others will be towards the landward side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the posts, are they -- MR. GLUCKMAN: They'll be 8 inch concrete 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 posts. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Hand dug? MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes, hand dug. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don't want heavy equipment. MR. GLUCKMAN: Now that the bulkhead is finished, I hope there's no more need for heavy equipment on that side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's a new bulkhead, is it not? MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm going to retain some time later for final questions but I'm done for now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Go ahead, Mike. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a.paradoxical situation where the entire hous~ is closer to the bulkhead than any part of the house is supposed to be according to the code. MR. GLUCKMAN: Correct. BOARD M~EMBER SIMON: Is that why it's called the Spite House? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There must be some other reason, right? MR. GLUCKMAN: I'd like to hear it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Want me to give you the reason, Michael? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you should give that during your presentation, Ruth. Finish up, Mike. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The reason it's called the Spite House is that many years ago that was an open space so anybody driving down King's Street could look straight across Orient Harbor to see the view. And then for one reason or another somehow a house appeared there whether through County sales or what have you or somebody just put the house there many, many years ago. So everybody in Orient started to call that the Spite Hhouse because they could no longer see across Orient Harbor. MR. GLUCK~3~N: There is a more deliberate reason. Apparently, there was a dispute between the two people that lived on the east side of 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 VillAge Lane over a piece of property that was on~ the east side of Village Lane and one of the people had access to buy that piece of property on the west side and in front of that neighbor's house and built this house to spite that person who had that dispute over another piece of property. That's my understanding. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sounds like Orient. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. Just rearranging some of your, the front porch and make it one garage and do a different entryway and put a little deck on the back; am I correct? MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes. As you know, the large garage was added in the mid-80's and we're trying to do is expanding our addition into that garage and ~reating a new entrance and a new mudroom an~ dining room and actually putting the kitchen on that side of the house too instead of the south side. And we're moving the utility room into the garage so we're greatly reducing the scale of the garage building. In fact, this 250 square feet addition, 99 feet of that is on the second floor on the existing footprint of the house. In fact, we're talking away 23 square feet on the seaward side of the building to line up with the existing porch line so that we can carve into that mass of the garage which, I think, in some ways is more offensive than the house itself. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And you're doing what with the Landmark? MR. GLUCKMAN: I had hoped that we could have had our final hearing. We've had two meetings with Landmark's. We had made some alterations based on their suggestions and the last meeting we had about 2 or 3 weeks ago we felt very confident that we were going to get approval at our public hearing but I shouldn't speak for them. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEBRINGER: What interests me is ~he addition on the side of the deck and you're showing operating cedar slot screens on the second floor; is that correct? MR. GLUCK~AN: Yes, that's right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: SO that actually 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 an open room, an unhea~ed, open room? MR. GLUCKMAN: On the ground floor, the existing study is about 14 feet square. On the second floor, we're adding an enclosed space of about 7 feet by 14 feet, half of it for a new master bathroom and then the porch, we're creating a porch to the south that is protected by those cedar slats basically for privacy because it's a porch that looks into the bathroom. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that could be intruded by water seal so you'll have some sort of roof drains in that first floor? MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes, that's right. It will be the same type of construction that we're putting over the porch on the west side. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then the drains will be nearer the road, right? MR. GLUCE/4AN: W~ll, the net change is no different than right now. The roof area is basically the same. The drains will be nearer the road but we have been asked, I know that you also received a memo from the Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator which requires that we put dry wells which we're doing at every corner of the house. They also require non-turf buffer landward which we're conforming with as well and the hay bails and construction, of course, will be on our documents. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I simply want to say the elevations, the massing, the proportions of the house will be vastly improved over what's there now. MR. GLUCK/4AN: That was the easy part. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the impact will be absolutely minimal. It will be visually a lot better. I think the actual impact on any kind of land or setback is very minimal. MR. GLUCKMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, do you have anything else to add to this? MR. GLUCKMAN: I have a question on procedure or next step. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next step is we're going to probably close this hearing and on November 1st, we'll convene a meeting that we'll make decisions at over at the other building. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 You're welcome to come. We take no test-imony but we'll probably make a -- the memeber who has it, Leslie, will write a decision and we'll vote for or against it at that time. MR. GLUCKMAN: Thank you. Other than the green certificates, if you need any other information from us, we'll be contacted? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The green certificates are fairly important. I encourage you to get those to us as soon as possible. I don't know. Can we make a decision without the green cards? Can we even close the hearing without the green cards? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You can close the hearing without them certainly but you're going to need some proof that the mailing was done. Have the affidavits been submitted? If you're sufficiently convinced that they were mailed. MR. GLUCKMAN: We're going to follow up on that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's a way to follow up through the post office with a tracking system, with those numbers. You can get them to print out a sheet for you to show when the envelope was delivered to them. If you lose the cards, that's an alternative. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Okay. Good. MR. GLUCKMAN: We'll follow up. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Kieran, is it essential to prove that they were received or merely that they were mailed? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No because people don't have to receive their mail. People don't have to sign for their mail so no. It just has to be shown that they were sent. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we established that the gentleman can prove that they were mailed. You just need to submit that information to us. would prefer to have that as soon as possible. We need it definitely to make a decision. If you have nothing else to add, I'll ask if anybody in the audience has any comments on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until November 1st. BOARD MEMBER ©LIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEIS~AN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DINIZI©: Motion made by Ruth, seconded by Leslie. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Hearing ~6080 - Finora CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Joseph and Mary Grace Finora. Jerry, you want to read that Notice? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "~equest for a Variance under Section 280-124 based on the Building Inspector's amended August 15, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alternations to an existing dwelling with a setback at less than 35 feet from the rear lot line, at 375 Wells Road, Laurel; CTM 126-8-18." The Finora's are here. Would you like to come up and just state your name for the record, if you would. MRS. FINORA: Hi. I'm Mary Grace Finora. This is my h~sband, Joseph. BOARD MEMBER GOEH~INGER: What would you like to tell us? MRS. FINORA: sunroom on. We're deck. There was a going to dismantle putting a sunroom. We are just trying to put our going to be dismantling our deck present there. We're that and in it's place, we are The deck is bigger, actually, than the sunroom so the sunroom fits within smaller perimeter of the deck. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGRE: Are you leaving the deck in place? MRS. FINORA: No, the deck is coming down. The sunroom is going there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the sunroom will be heated or not heated? MRS. FINORA: Not heated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. But it will be enclosed? MRS. FINOKA: It will be enclosed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it will be one story? MRS. FINORA: One story. Actually, it sits lower than the deck. Right now the deck sits higher. It will go down. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it'll be a little sunken? MRS. FINOKA: A little sunken, right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the deck presently -- the deck, from what I remember, you come out of the hcuse right onto 5he deck. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 this will be a step or two down. MRS. FINORA: One step actually. One step down. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is that supported? Is that supported with columns like another deck or is that? Is someone doing the work? MRS. FINORA: Yes, Four Seasons is doing the work. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a Four Seasons greenhouse. MR. FINORA: That's exactly what it is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great. I don't have any questions at this particular time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yeah, in fact, what you're doing is you're actually reduced the nonconformance because you're Yeducing the deck, your rear yard setback is going to be increased. MRS. FINOHA: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're reducing the deck size and moving it closer to your house. The depth of the your sunroom is only about 8 feet; is that right? So the sunroom is 12 1/2 by 15 -- MRS. FINORA: The deck is bigger. MR. FINORA: The deck is 8 feet longer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I mean it's very well screened from the neighbors with existing vegetation. It's set back quite far in the rear yard. MRS. FINOHA: Also the color too. Now it's brown so it blends in with the surrounding area which we felt is important. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think this is quite straightforward. I have no questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't really have questions. As I understand, there's no increase in nonconformity with regard to setback. The only increase is upward. It's going to be higher than the deck was. MRS. FINORA: Right. It has a ceiling. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: To be clear that is an increase in degree of nonconformity with respect to the setback because within the setback you're increasing mass under Walz. I'm just clarifying for the record. It should have no impact on your application. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 MRS. FINORA it's all glass. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: No, I understand. It's a legal issue. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll say this to you. I know it doesn't make sense to you but this is government. MRS. FINOHA: I understand. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, are you completed? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know what you want to do. It's a nice sunroom instead of a sunporch and you can use it more times, most of the year anyway. MRS. FINOHA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason for my question was I assume they're building a permanent platform underneath this in some way so there's no air that's going to come in underneath it. It's going to be -- MRS. FINORA: Right and I think you should have the plans for that. They know what they're doing as far -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't think they gave us a section. MRS. FINORA: I think there's some sort of special platform that Four Seasons uses to keep air -- it's sealed -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's usually tongue and grove wood, MRS. FINORA: And then the bottom is going to be the same vinyl siding as the house. So it's basically all blends in and going to be a dark brown on the outside. So it's not going to be a white bright thing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you done? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I'm done. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here we go. We have it. We're looking at the framing diagram for the deck. It's a wood frame joist on center out to the sill of the wall. We have it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Any other questions from the Board or any from you guys. Do you have anything else to add? Linda has something to ask. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: If you have your Affidavit of signed pcsting with you. If ycu 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 don't have it with you, you can send it tomorrow. MRS. FINORA: Affidavits? MR. FINORA: We're not aware of that. We put the sign up. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's a little form you have to fill out to say what day you put it up and that it remained for 7 days. You just need to have it signed. Someone in the office can notarize it for you. MRS. FINORA: Okay. Where do we get the form? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: At the Zoning Board Office in the other building. If you can. If not, we can fax it to you tomorrow. MRS. FINORA: We'll pick it up now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions either although I'd love to'have a greenhouse on my property. It's just not going to happen. My wife's not -- does anybody in the audience wish to comment on this? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I would. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Just state your name and address. MRS. BERNARD: My name is Joan Bernard. I live on Bay Avenue in Laurel and my backyard faces these people's house. To be perfectly honest with you, I feel this would be an invasion of privacy and they also have a second floor, the only one in the neighborhood and we have to keep our blinds closed all the time. Nobody has ever said anything about that. It seems to be a forgone conclusion. Everyone here seems to think this is a great idea. But I was summoned to appear here and I am just going on record to say I object. I just feel it's an invasion of privacy. Noise. They have children, which is fine, but I'm sure that there's going to be noise. My entrance will be facing their sunroom. So I have no recourse. I guess I have to go along with the majority because everyone on this Board seems to think it's a great idea. Am I right or am I wrong? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think we need to have a debate on that. MRS. BERNARD: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We don't really need to have a debate on that, ma'am. MRS. BERNARD: Well why was I summoned here? 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: To state your comments. MRS. BERNARD: Well, I gave you my comments. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. That's all you need to do. MRS. BERNARD: But will it be taken into consideration? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. It's all part of the record, ma'am. MRS. BERNARD: Okay. Fine. Then somebody will consider what my objection is? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Absolutely. MRS. BERNARD: You will notify me again or can I go home now? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: On November 1st, we convene at another hearing and we have the person who has this, which is Mr. Goehringer, will write a decision based on the record. MRS. BERNARD: Do I have to appear here? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, you don't have to appear. MRS. BERNARD: Okay. I just want to see what the situation is. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You could come there on that night and listen to us deliberate. You certainly could. You can't make any more comments. We don't advertise for that. We're making a decision. We base it on the record. You're part of the record. We vote yes or no and it all becomes part of the public record. We're not going to notify you whether it's good or bad or indifferent. You certainly can give Linda a call and inquire about it and I would say you'd want to do that after November 1st. MRS. BERNARD: Was this dec~sion appealed because the Building Department rejected it? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Here's what happened, they came to the Town, to the Building Inspector, with a plan and the Building Inspector looked at our code and said you can't do this because our code doesn't allow you to build in that part of your yard because of setbacks. We have certain setbacks that they have to meet. So he denied them a building permit and our Board is here to consider the code and that it sometimes may be, what do you want to say, it may be overbearing. There may be some reasons why they could get relief from the code. And that's why we're here. Not to grant relief to everybody but tc listen to 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 what they h~ve to say and then grant what is reasonable within the Town. MRS. BERNARD: I have made an observation. I would like to mention it. Seems to me that these people are not living in this house -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, that's not really relevant to us. MRS. BERNARD: It may not be relevant but maybe the sale of this house is contingent upon you guys saying okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Again, that's not relevant either. MRS. BERNARD: That's not relevant? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. The setback is what's relevant. MRS. BERNARD: All right. So you'll let me know. BOARD' MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is relevant here is when I call the Finora's back up again since it's my application and ask them is there someway they can mitigate this visual intrusion by way of some bushes or plantings. MRS. BERNARD: How about a higher fence. They have one now. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is getting way out of hand here and I have to control it. Ma'am, you have the floor now. MRS. BERNARD: I have said what I feel -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If you think a fence may help you, then you say, I think a fence may help me or perhaps some bushes planted in the proper place may give me some privacy that I would like to enjoy. You have every right to say that and we have the right to consider that. As Mr. Goehringer just stated, he may call these people back up before us, the hearing is still open and we might just ask them some questions. Maybe you want to sit down now, if you're done, and listen to it and I'll give you the opportunity at the end to stand up and make your comment again. Comment on whatever goes on. MRS. BERNARD: I'll tell you the truth. I have expressed my feelings. I really feel anything else would be unnecessary. If it's okay, I'd like to leave now. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, I think it may be tc ycur advantage if ycu just listen tc when we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 close the hearing. How abou~ you sit down. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I want to ask a question. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Let me say one thing because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. You're not actually summoned here. You are not actually required to be here. MRS. BERNARD: This is an advisement? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It is a notice. MRS. BERNARD: Okay, then I shouldn't have even come. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It is a notice to tell you that this is going to be here and it's going to go on and you have the opportunity to come and say the types of things that you just said. You don'H have to sit down. You don't have to stand up. You can go home. You can stay. You can do whatever you like. YSu have the opportunity to express your views. You have the opportunity to stay and listen more. MRS. BERNARD: I get the point, sir. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ask a question. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, I think you misunderstood the reason why you're here. MRS. BERNARD: I probably did. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that during the course of the next 5 minutes, it would be, you may sleep a little better at night if you listen to what may go on here. MRS. BERNARD: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know that you will. MRS. BERNARD: Sarcasm is not necessary. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What I'm saying is, this is a public hearing. MRS. BERNARD: I understand that. First one I've ever been to, by the way. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I agree. So why don't you just. Jerry wants to ask some questions of the applicant. Listen to what they have to say. You'll have an opportunity again, if you'd like to speak to speak. If not, you can take off. MRS. BERNARD: I'd like to take off. Again as I say, the cards are stacked against people like me. If they want this luxury, let them have it. I'm leaving. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Excuse me. I would like 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 t~ask a question to the speaker to give her a~ opportunity to elaborate on her own. To ask you a question to give you an opportunity sharpen your question. MRS. BERNARD: I'll answer it if I can. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How much of your remarks bear on the specifi question of the building of the sunroom in place of the open deck? MRS. BERNARD: How much? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How much of it? In other words, your remarks are much more influential so far as they bear on the purpose of the application. In other words, it doesn't bear on anything really. We're not allowed by law to consider other unrelated problems, however legitimate they may be, regarding the neighbors and where the rest of their house is. So your p6ints will be much more influential, effective, if they bear on why the granting of this particular variance regarding to the sunroom will impact negatively on your ability to quiet enjoyment of your own home rather than the other things. MRS. BERNARD: Obviously a sunroom is a fun room. They want to be Out with the sun shining and do whatever which is fine but it's going to create a lot of unnecessary noise. This is my take and my daughter who will inherit this house when I die, she feels the same way. She would be here today but she's home in her apartment. She has a cold. But she was very much against it when we received this thing and I read it and right away she got worked up. So it's not just me, it's my daughter. So if that's unreasonable, fine. I'll accept your decision and I'll just go home like a dog with my tail between my legs. What else can I say? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ma'am. MRS. BERNARD: I've said it all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Could you just wait a few minutes and maybe we can help you gain a little more privacy that you look like -- MRS. BERNARD: Fine. If you think it'll help, I'll wait. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We're not making any deicisions today. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: Mr. And Mrs. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Finora, we just wan~ you to be aware that in situations like this, the Board, and I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself, places some things into decisions and what we refer to as landscaping devices. MRS. FINORA: Can we respond? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Surely. Sometimes it's fencing, stockade fencing. MR. FINORA: Which exists. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sometimes it's arborvitae. MRS. FINORA: We planted Hemlock whic go to 20 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. How tall are they now? MRS. FINORA: Six or seven feet, they just went it because we knew we were planning on doing the sunroom. Let m~ just begin to say, I'm very sorry to hear that Mrs. Bernard is very upset with us. We,ve done nothing, I feel in the 12 years we've lived there we have done nothing but try to be good neighbors. When I had to have some trees cut that entended over her property, I made sure that I approached her first because I have trees that overhang my fence that limbs were near our wires but the tree was on her property, so I went and approached her to let her know if it was okay if we could trim some of the branches of her trees that fell on our property. I love the trees. I wouldn't want to destroy the trees. MRS. BERNARD: (Inaudible from the audience.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am? Hold on. Can we keep -- stay on track. MRS. FINORA: I'm staying on track. I just want to say that we've done everything possible and I would not want to do anything, build something that would increase noise. The deck being more open would probably be more noisy than a sunroom which is enclosed. She probably wouldn't hear anything. Being that it's a sunroom, I'm also concerned about privacy as well and I would probably put things up to give us privacy as well. So it's not like we're going to be looking into her house and it sits lower so it's even lower than the deck so that would even give more privacy on both sides. Again, there is a stcckade fence that is abcut 6 feet that's been 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 there since we purchased the house. ~e planted hemlocks which will grow to 20 feet and they are fast growing trees so they're about 6 feet now so we're hoping they should grow about a foot a year. So we are trying to do everything possible so we preserve privacy on both sides. We are not, in any way, looking to infringe on her property. Unfortunately, the way our property lines are set up, we are close but that's the way we bought the house. We are not looking to sell the house obviously because we are adding a sunroom. We want to make the house comfortable for our family. Yes, we have children but it's just really one young child. We have a 13 year old and a 19 year old, One is in college and the other one is in school all day and the other one is in kindergarten too. So we really don't have kids running around making any noise. We'~e not like big partiers and we don't have anything on record of violating any kind of noise ordinance so I really don't understand, and like I said, I'm very surprised and I'm very upset because I thought we had been doing everything possible to be good neighbors and we would not want to infringe on her property. MRS. BERNARD: (From audience) Are you aware -- blinds down all the time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am. Hold on. MRS. BERNARD: I'm sorry. I've lost interest in this. I can see the way it's going and I just want to go home. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Well you're welcome to go at any time. MRS. BERNARD: Okay. Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Looks like you have attempted to screen that backyard. You have a fence that exists. If you need a higher fence, you'll need a variance. MRS. FINORA: No problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's basically what it comes down to. MRS. FINOHA: For a higher fence. We don't really want to put a higher fence. We're not looking to -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you 100%. The question was asked to put up a fence. You have a fence. I was aware you have a fence Decause !'ye seen your yard. The trees appear 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 that they ~ill grow at some point in time when you probably won't see the backyard, correct? MRS. FINORA: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want to get this all on the record in some coherent manner so we can read it. Jerry, are you satisfied with or do you have any suggestions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to know how far the hemlocks are planted apart. MR. FINORA: From each other? MRS. FINORA: There's 3 feet -- so the space between them is like 3 feet because they're supposed to get really big and wide. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They're 6 feet, aren't they? MRS. FINORA: The one's by her property are even closer together. There's like maybe 2 feet of space fn between the branches from one branch to another. CHAIRMAN BINIZIO: No, I mean the trunks themselves. MRS. FINORA: The trunks themselves are maybe about 5 feet apart. The whole idea is when they grow, they will grow closer together tall and provide a screen. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I have had enough. Anybody else have any comments to make? Anybody in the audience? MR. FINORA: I have a question. What happens on November lst? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We will convene over at the other building upstairs in the meeting room and we will, someone will have prepared a decision for us all to read and we'll vote on it that day. MR. FINORA: We don't attend that? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're welcome to. You can't testify, you can't comment on it but you're welcome to come and see how we deliberate. We will consider all of the evidence and we will consider all of the testimony and we'll make a decision based on that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: You may see me come back just to look at the natural vegetation again and maybe back in the yard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I might even have pictures for you, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was a blank on the vegetation. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: e You can hardly even see her property from your property. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's not relevant at this point in time. MR. FINOHA: One more question if I may. My neighbor mentioned her daughter. Her daughter, I don't think, owns the property, so that's not relevant? CHAIP~MAN DINIZIO: We'll consider whatever was said. We don't need to verify anything as far as neighborsl MR. FINORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until November lsto BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded by Leslie. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIOi I'm wonder if we can get a 5 minute recess. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let's take 5 minutes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to recess. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I need a motion to reconvene the hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEH~INGER: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. Hearing #6081 - Bonagura CHAIPd~AN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Anthony Bonagura and Barbara Bonagura and that's Michael's. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. "~equesting a Speical Exception Section 280-13B of the Zoning Code for an Accessory Apartment (as-built/without permits) with owner-occupancy in the existing single-family dwelling, with recent additions and enlargement <open Building Permit #32609-z), at 900 Holbrook Lane, ~attituck; CT~ 113-6-11." There are two issues here as ~ understand, and ! invite 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 representative to speak of them. One is for any kind of an accessory apartment with regard to what the circumstance is, you have to come before the Board because you need special permission and this one is a little bit unusual, as we all know, because it was classified as as-built. That's my introduction to hearing what you have to say. MR. HYNES: Thank you, Mr. Simon. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Doug Hynes, H-Y-N-E-S. I'm with the firm of Design Development. My partner, Tom Kirkle (phonetic), was the architect on this project. I believe all of the mail certificates and receipts have been filed as well as the Affidavit of Posting. In anticipation of Mr. Simon's questions and in certain matter raised in letters from a couple of the neighbors, I just want to take a minute to run ~hrough the couple of steps that got us here.' The house was built in 1938. Anthony bought the house in 1991 with the intention of making it his full-time residence. He then had the good fortune to meet Barbara and to seal their intention to live out here, they actually got married 12 years ago at Our Lady of Good Counsel and their daughter, Victoria, is a Yankees fan attending Cutchogue East Elementary School. So they are now full-time residents. They moved from down Island in 2004, realized their dream of getting out here and raising Victoria here. They're active members of the community, religious ed and PTA and so forth. Their intention in coming before you to request an accessory apartment is to make living arrangements available to Barbara's parents, Mike and Patricia Lasante, who are in their upper 60's in failing health. Michael is a cancer survivor, wears a permanent colostomy. Mom suffers from Lupus. In light of what has happened to the immediate Bonagura family, the fact that they could come out here and live with their daughter and their granddaughter and even their son-in-law is a happy circumstance for us because the Bonagura's find themselves somewhat in need of some caregivers for Victoria. Following that, in their move of 2004, they applied for all these permits. We have, as I'm sure you are aware, for the alterations to the house, we had approvals from the Hoard of Trustees, the DEC, Suffolk Ccunty Department of Health Services, Army Corp of 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Engineers and got ~ur building permit. And I notice that the record does refer ko as-built without permits but I'm just a little confused about that because the original house is where the accessory apartment is planned to be located. So the original kitchen was intended to be the kitchen for Mr. And Mrs. Lasante, the parents. We got a permit, we had all our approvals. We got our permits before we started construction and since the filing of this application when we realized that we had not done so earlier, we have obtained the CO for the property. And the kitchen was removed as a condition of getting that CO, the original old kitchen was removed to the satisfaction of Mike Verity. I'm not quite sure what that parenthetical inclusion in the notice actually means but that's how it happened. Unfortunately, after we started construction in 2004, Anthony lost his long-time employment, put the family into a bit of a tailspin financially and turmoil and to make matters worse, in August of 2006, he was sitting in traffic and was rear-ended by a car going about 35-40 miles an hour and nearly lost his life. So he's had a slow recovery from that notwithstanding that and because of some of the financial pressures that arose from his loss of employment, he took longer than expected to get the house finished and we still have some landscaping to do. Those of you who visited the home recognize that. We've been through a tough couple of years and we had finally gotten to the point with the CO, we were able to refinance the house recently and get ourselves financially back on our feet. But it's been a long process. Ail construction can be a nightmare. In this case, it was a personal family nightmare for them. They don't wear their problems on their sleves but it light of some of the comments made by one of the neighbors, we thought it would be important for the Board to understand how this construction project came about. I've indicated that we have all the other approvals that we needed. I believe that we meet the requirements of the accessory apartment legislation. The apartment is located in the original portion of the structure. We have indicated in our submission that the dwelling, the principle dwelling accesscry apartment meet 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 square footage requirements, do not exceed 40% of the liveable floor area, in fact it's 16%. There's plenty of parking on the site. It is our intention, and if we have to submit a written lease for the parents, we certainly can do that as a condition of getting a certificate of compliance. It's our intention that the Lasantes will live their for the remainder of their lives. This is where they hope to live out their lives. We have filed with the Building Department our Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval. I have an additional original copy if any member of the Board needs to see it. I know it's part of the ordinance. I'd just like to take a moment to address a couple of the comments raised in the letters the Board has received and then we're open to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I stop Sou right there? We received an email this morning from who, Linda? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Alison Bolshoi. I can read the email. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think it would be relevant from this point. MR. HYNES: We got a phone call from her last night too. I didn't realize she'd be writing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Perhaps putting it in the record, Kieran, is that okay? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCOHAN: You can do whatever you like. You don't have to read it but you can read whatever. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think it may help. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: If you think it'll help focus the hearing, that's fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Linda, can you read that? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: This email was late yesterday afternoon then another email this morning that we received. One of the comments that Mrs. Bolshoi mentioned is that she did not realize that it was entered into an official record and that she would have toned down the letter as much as possible. Not her intention to hurt anyone's feelings but to let them know how negatively everyone on the road might regard the project. I'm adding words to that. If she had known, she would not have said the same words and would have said it with a little more gloss. This morning she writes and she sent the emai! abcut 12:30 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 morning a~d it's been on her mind and she said that it's weighing on her mind that Mr. Bonagura has been out of work and that he was in a serious car accident, so there are money issues involved as well. I realize that we will all suffer if new tenants turn out to be anything like the former ones but she didn't want her personal feelings to cause any hardship for anyone. Her last paragraph says, "Linda, you said I could have my letter removed from the file." That's incorrect. She says, "I would like to do that but what does that mean? Does it mean my letter will no longer be on the Board or won't be available for public view?" Our answer to that is we would not be able to remove her file from the record but she can supplement it with other letters. If there's any statements she says she wants to correct them, she can add fhings to the file. But I haven't had a chance to give her that answer so it's possible that she may still do that. MR. HYNES: It's very decent of her, needless to say, and we're grateful for her response. She had called last night too sounding apologetic about what she had written and not understanding that this was something we entered into to accommodate Barbara's parents. One thing we do want to mention, this allegation that there had been loud parties at this house since ~nthony bought it in 1991 is news to us. To the extent that the house was rented out, it was rented out to families. They were all screened by brokers. There is another house one or two doors down where there was a history of some loud parties and there may be some confusion there but the Bonaguras have not been party animals down there and they haven't rented to party animals. I would like to submit for the record a letter of consent from our neighbor across the street, Thomas Orioles, who lives in Section 113, Block 6, Lot 7. Another neighbor directly across the street helped us, a great neighbor, helped us with our construction, was aware of what our plans were. He's unfortunately vacationing in Costa Rica and couldn't come down here with his bobcat and like to also apologize to the Board for the absence of Mr. And Mrs. Lasante. They are taking their first vacation in many years celebratinq their 45th wedding anniversary down in Florida 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 look forward to coming bac~here and hopefully to live with their family on 900 Holbrook Lane. That's our application and our respectful request is to have the accessory apartment approved. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Who are the Lasante's? MR. HYNES: Barbara's parents. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you're up on this if you have any questions. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have more than one question. One thing that's a little bit odd about this case and the question of interpretation of code, perhaps. Ordinarily, as you probaly know, when there is an accessory apartment built, it may be a conversion of a portion of an existing house or perhaps sometimes it may be an addition to an existing house. In this case, what is going to become the accessory apartment is the original house and the code in the ~pplication is written kind of in such a way as to make this look backwards. Here we have an accessory house that is built around an existing apartment sized dwelling and then that will become the primary house. So if this had been done at the beginning, it wouldn't be building an accessory apartment, it would be building an accessory house. Do you have any comments to make as to how this fits under the law as it was written and probably intended by the Town Board? MR. HYNES: I certainly can't make a legal argument for you but practical common sense approach as I mentioned in my opening remark, the accessory apartment is being located in a portion of the original existing dwelling. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Say that again. I thought it was just the opposite. MR. HYNES: The accessory apartment is in the old part of the house. Not the entire space but a portion of the space. There was a one and a half story house there. There's now a full two story house. Although I can't address the legal, it seemed to us as architects reading through it, the code would be complied with by locating the accessory apartment in the existing portion of the structure. The intention from the beginning was to have an accessory apartment there. The whole point in entering into the program of construction that the Bonagura's did was for that reason. It was frankly an cversite on my firms part not 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 e have brought the accessory apartment application at the time of going through all of these other approvals. At the Board of Trustees hearing, we did disclose the full extent of the construction with all the neighbors and so forth. But if we had been more attentive to that portion of our job while we were concerning ourselves with health and DEC and Army Corp of Engineers and Trustees and all of those other hearings, we would have been on that too and might have discovered your concern sooner. Regretably and honestly, that's the way it happened. No intent to evade the meaning of the Code or the procedures of the Town of Southold. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't believe there was any intention to evade the Code. I have no reason to believe that. I think an argument will · have to be made as to whether the purposes 6f the code are served by what is really not anticipated in the way the code was written. Again, the way the code was written, there was an asumption that there was a preexisting house and then an accessory apartment was being built and that's simply not what happened in this case. I think the argument that needs to be made is essentially that doesn't matter and I think that's what your argument would depend on. Do you want to add anything more to that? MR. HYNES: I don't know that I agree with you that we don't have an accessory apartment being proposed for an existing dwelling. The existing dwelling built in 1938 predates the codes requirements. I understand that by virtue of the expansion of the house, we've created a question in your mind. I would respectfully submit that as a practical matter we don't see that the code would prevent us from pursuing this application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask one technical questions. I was leading up to this last Saturday when we were discussing it with the client, who are very nice people. When Anthony bought the house, since the house was built in 1938, was there a CO on the house at any time prior to ~he purchase of that house? MR. HYNES: I think the house from the time it was built and the time that Southold first began to record CO's it was certainly entitled to one. It was a preexisting dwelling in the Tcwn. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Jerry Wood who i~ the prior owner of the house obtained at the time he was preparing to sell to Anthony. Even before that in the early '80s, he obtained a certificate of compliance. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: A pre-CO. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's important BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I have it in the file, a CO for an addition in '88. We don't have a pre-CO and we don't have a current CO in the file. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We don't have it in the file. Mr. HYNES: I apologize. I don't have it with we. The Bonagura's didn't realize that we should have brought it in. We can certainly supply you with a copy. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I think you should check to see if ~here's a pre-CO on the original structure. MR. HYNES: What I have is a certificate of occupancy nonconforming premises CO-Z14778 dated August 9, 1986. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Does it say that predates zoning? MR. HYNES: Property contains a one and a half story, one family wood frame dwelling, an acessory shed and a privy. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It would say on to probably pre or certificate of preexisting premises on the first line. MR. HYNES: I believe, ma'am, it says certificate of occupancy, nonconforming premises. I can certainly make the copy. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Can I take a look at it? I'll give it right back to you. MR. HYNES: That's all right. I'm sure we can get another copy. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you have my other questions? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. My other comment is that I see in the part of the code that it's quoted, where this house to be transferred to someone else, to be sold, the permission for the accessory apartment would lapse. MR. HYNES: That's our understanding. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So therefore, there's no reason why the applicant would apply for the accessory apartment except for the in~ention cf 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 using it as such as opposed to flipping it. MR. HYNES: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you're okay? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Let somebody else. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORA-N: My I ask a question? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Let's focus on the original structure before it was added onto the one you have a CO for. It's good, it' important because it's part of the code. This existing original structure has a CO prior to '84. We'll have to think about that. What percentage roughly does the accessory apartment occupy of that preexisting structure as opposed t~ the whole new structure? MR. HYNES: Well, I don't know that I could give you a precise but I could estimate, a goodly portion of it, more than majority of the structure I would estimate. I'm looking at the first floor and it's one and a half story house. So I'd have to really look into the file to see and give you that calculation. I would say more than half. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The issue we're faced with is that the code was written, it wasn't to deal with all circumstances, but it looks like it was written to allow existing houses to be amended to allow for accessory apartments. Not necessarily that existing houses would be rebuilt and then an accessory apartment to be put into the new house. Would you be able to have the accessory apartment on the old house under the law and then of course, you would be able to expand the house as long as you complied with zoning. MR. HYNES: I would think so. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The problem is there's a 40% rule, the accessory apartment is not supposed to take up more than 40% of the existing dwelling. MR. HYNES: I think we could get 450 feet which is the minimum size for the accessory apartment into the cold structure without exceeding the size limitation. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCOHAN: The 40% rule. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: i locked at it. You'd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 would b~cutting is awfully close to get 450 feet for an apartment and 750 feet for a dwelling in the old building. MR. HYNES: It might be close. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It will be close. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It will be something we can grant with respect to that. When I was around and so was Jerry when this law was passed and this was for older homes and an existing building is what we're talking about currently. No matter how you look at it, what exists there now is the existing building and that existing building doesn't have a CO before 1984. It has a CO in 2007. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing is 1986. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: NO, no. I'm sorry. Once you add'onto the building, you have to have a CO to live in that building. The existing building that we're speaking about right now encompasses new and old. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I do agree with you Jimmy. I'm not going to debate this issue you at this particular time because it's something we definitely have to discuss with the Town attorney. But I am going to say on the record that there have been some stretches in this law and I'd be willing to look at every one of those stretches before I made a statement. You're welcome to do whatever you want. But there have been some stretches and one of those stretches was on Wells Road where we put a second story on a building for the sole purpose of an accessory apartment and that was the biggest stretch we ever did. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I think the original house stayed in their present position and they added on. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Specficially for that reason. I agree with you. I didn't agree with the decision but I agree with you that it happened. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Over the years and I'll make this as a public statement and I will tell you that there has been some great need, not withstanding that this is a great need also, for this particular use in certain dwellings. So without really altering the standards to any big way. But that's a statement on the reccrd. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: A~ything else from you Jerry? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When the house was in it's original condition for which you have a CO in 1986, so that's already after the '84 deadline according to what the current code is. We can debate about the kind of outdated condition of the code but nontheless it is what it is. The law still exists as it exists whether we like that or not. How much of that half story above the existing was habitable space? Sometimes a story and a half has nothing but an attic. MR. HYNES: I don't know the answer to that, my partner designed it. A loft, one bedroom and a family room, the clients are indicating. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason our Town attorney asked that question was because of the percentage of the existing dwelling that you had a CO although two years beyond what the code was initiated for. That's why that date stands. But it doesn't appear that we're going to manage to get, it would have to be 60% of the original house that essentially was left as the principal dwelling. You're now reinhabiting it. It's pretty clear from your plans that that whole second floor which is above the proposed accessory structure is new. So what this is is an unfortunate set of dates, a chronology of when things were build. The end rusult is that you have a perfectly reasonable designe for an accessory apartment but it was accomplished in a sequence that doesn't allow an interpretation of the code as written to be conforming. I think that's a safe way to describe it. However, it's up to this Board with legal advice to figure out how we may grant relief from the existing requirements. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This is not a variance question. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a special permit, I understand that. I simply want to go on record as stating that your parents whether this is granted as an accessory structure or not, can still live with you. The difference is, that it will be one dwelling and that the additional oven would not be permitted. You can have a sink. You can have cupboards. You can have a refrigerator. But legally what constitutes another unit is 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 cooking facility. That's something to take ~nder advisement. You wouldn't necessarily, without the special permit, have a legalized accessory apartment. But the living arrangements could be very close to what you're anticipating. It couldn't be rented out to anybody legally and things like that. What I'm suggesting is that we really need to look carefully at what it is we're allowed to do by the law to come as close to granting what you're requesting as we can. But that remains to be discussed among ourselves and with our Counsel to see what's possible or not. MR. BYNES: We appreciate your comments and your guidance. Thank you. With respect to the date of our certificate and I understand what the language of the code is, I just wanted to reiterate my thought that I believe, if I can use a legal term, the intent of the code at the'time it was passed appears to have been to install these accessory apartments only in lawfully existing structures. Our position would be that the structure lawfully existed as of the date. I understand the code language talks about a certificate. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCOEAN: The code's language does say "or proof of occupancy prior to that day". If there's some way to show that that CO relates back to an existing habitable building, we might be able to get past that '86, '84 date. The other issues are trickier. MR. HYNES: I understand that. We will do some research if the Board will accept a written submission from us, we can submit some documentation as to the history of the structure, the use of the structure as to that issue. We'll also take a look at the original structure measurements and see as the Chairman and I were discussing whether there's any argument that can be made that we could have fit a lawfully conforming accessory apartment in the original structure and that may get you a little closer to a comfor level at least or may overcome the legal problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I see two possible ways of going. One is a suggestion that Leslie made which could suit the purposes mainly, as I understand it, this house could have been expanded 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 and simply leave'enough room for this place for people to live except for the kitchen. In other words, you could have a house big enough for your parents and you wouldn't be before us at all. The other is and this is a question I've been looking at the language for several days of what you have as item 13 on your application for special exceptions, the existing building which is converted, has been in existence and has a valid CO issued prior to January 1, 1984. Now, as I read this, it would mean if you built a house from scratch in 1985, you could never have under the code an accessory apartment. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And if this was the intention of the code, I wasn't present for those debates at that time, it sounds as though if that was the intention at the time that it would require an amendement to the code or the consideration of an amendment to the code which would take a long time. I've had trouble understanding why they should have done this. We're going to legitimate accessory apartments but never again. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We don't need to have this discussion but the intent of it was to allow for older, larger houses to have an accessory apartment so those people could continue to live here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But only those. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. What the fear was that people would build homes in subdivisions and have apartments in them, basically two family homes. They did not want that. They did not want to allow the two family houses to be built and this was a way around it in that you couldn't possibly build an accessory apartment. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim's right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn't realize that was the intent. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, do you have anything else, Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, you're okay? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yep. CHAIRMAN DINZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I just wanted to say in reference to that then once all of thcse ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 e 2 were taken care of, then we would'move the date a little bit farther. 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There has not been anybody on the Board that's willing to undertake that. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now, it's 23 years later. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Probably comes up every 2 years. 6 MR. HYNES: Chairman doesn't look old enough to have been party to all those discussions. My 7 regret is that there is no expression of that intent in the code itself. We didn't have the 8 benefit of that but I appreciate your explanation. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm of the belief that we 9 can't vary any part of that special exception. That's my belief. It may or may not be right. 10 Once you have something that's written into law and that it's a criteria for you %o get something, 11 the Board really doesn't have much say. There are people that will say differently, that we can vary 12 any part of the code that we so choose. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not this portion of 13 it, however. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know. I think 14 Kieran might say differently. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: People have 15 different views on that. There are people that will say you can grant a variance to any part of 16 the Building Code. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we would have to 17 be asked that. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You would have to 18 be asked and you would have to decide that that's something you want to do when you have the piece 19 of code that says you should grant special exception. It's already a special exception in 20 that event. It's not a variance but it's already a special case and you've been given rules to go 21 by. If you're going to start varying those, it's a little bit of a slippery slope. But that's a 22 policy issue. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think the request would 23 have to come. There's also a variance for section 13 of this code. We don't think we meet this but 24 we want to have a variance on that. MR. HYNES: We intended to do things open, 25 above board and legally. That was our intent. Clearly, Mr. And Mrs. Lasante prized their own 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 privacy and their independence. They are not elderly at age 68 and 69 and the Bonaguras are raising a young daughter so it was important for them too to maintain that seperation and not to be living as one big happy family. But we understand the concerns. If there is another vehicle, if we can by filing a new application or amending it, we'd certainly be willing to do that. We'd like to do this the right way and accomplish our purpose. We understand some of your misgivings and questions and trust that the lawyers and the rest of you can find a way to help us through this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, it's not our purview to tell you how to proceed. I gave you my honest opinion and I think everyone else did too. When you leave this hearing, you may have some decisi6ns to make based on our comments and maybe Kieran can help you. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: One suggestion is what you mentioned before to see whether you could have satisfied the accessory apartment law based on the original structure. One of those requirements though is that the existing structure by 1600 square feet. Is that going to be a problem for you? MR. HYNES: I'm not certain. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I'd go back and see if you can put together an argument on the existing structure because if you can satisfy this Board that we could of had an accessory apartment before we renovated this house, then they might not feel it's as big a stretch to allow it once it was already renovated. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: When I was looking at it, I was looking at you added on top of that and to my mind that doesn't count because the CO is not before 1984 for that particular part. That's going to add the square footage to the older part of the house to give you this. Again it's my interpretation. I want your parents to live with you. It's just a question. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So do I. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So do I. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have granted variances that are certainly not to my liking. But with 5 people, we vote, we vote and it comes to that. MR. HYNES: We may need some legal allies in ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 2 our effort but we'll try~to address your concern about the new CO suplanting the old CO. Whether 3 we had a vested right with the old CO or not and we got to get back to before '84 with the 4 occupancy issue. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I want to ask is 5 that Mr. And Mrs. Bonagura who are with you, the owners? Could I have your full names for the 6 record, please? MRS. BONAGURA: Barbara Bonagura. 7 MR. BONAGURA: Anthony Joseph Bonagura. · CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else 8 that you'd like to add? MR. HYNES: Nothing further. Just maybe I'd 9 like to get a copy of that CO that we turned in. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll ask you to give us a 10 copy. MR. HYNES: I'll s~bmit it with our other 11 material. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would you folks like to 12 say anything in your behalf? State your name so we can get this on the tape. 13 MR. BONAGURA: Anthony Bonagura, resident, 900 Holbrook Lane. What we did, we thought we 14 were within the law. If we're not, we are going to do everything in our power to be at this point. 15 Thank you for your time basically. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Ma'am? 16 MRS. BONAGURA: I thank you for hearing everything that was brought forward today and I 17 would hope that you could guide us and maybe have it in your hearts to see if there's any way that 18 you could stretch things because we really would like to do things in the right way and be able to 19 provide for our parents. We're a good family and we're good people in the community and we just 20 want to thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. 21 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I just had one more question of Mr. Hynes. I didn't know if you 22 were aware, there's an assessor's property card record. It talks about the size of the property 23 and how it's been assessed over the years. You may need to use it for reference on what the original 24 structure had. You're welcome to have this copy. I found an extra copy in the file. 25 MR. HYNES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN D!NIZ!O: ~y the way, I was going 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 from that property card when I figured thfngs out. MR. HYNES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else wish to make a comment on this for or against? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing pending the information that Mr. Hynes will submit to us. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing #6082 - Sachman CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is Leslie's? Steve Sachman. BOkRD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good morning. Let me read this notice into the public record. "An appeal based on the August 21, 2007 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector concerning a building permit application and amended plans to build a new accessory garage at 20 feet in height and with a setback of 6.5 feet from the side lot line. The reasons stated in the Notice of Disapproval are that an accessory garage on a 35.043 square foot parcel in an R-40 Zone is not permitted under Section 280-15, and in the case of a waterfront parcel, accessory structures may be located in the front yard, provided that such buildings and structures meet the front yard principal setback requirements as set forth by this code, and the side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings in Section B above. On lots between 20,000 and 39,999 square feet, for an accessory building measuring up to 20 feet in height, the required side yard setback is 15 feet. Location of Property: 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; CTM 111-9-9." It would appear that the reason you're before us is because we discussed alternate relief at the public hearing which you agreed to. The findings were based upon that discussion but when you submitted to the Building Department a plan that reflected those changes as modified by our conditions, the Building Department said it didn't meet the height requirement; is that correct? So that what we now need to do is to re-examine the plans that reflect our original conditions in order to grant you a new variance for the height 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 or as submitted; is that correct? We need to look at those new plans? MR. NEMSCHICK: My name is Ray Nemschick. I from Nemschick, Silverman, architects and we're representing the Sachmans that live on Nassau Point Road at the address listed. The Building Department, and this has been back and forth. The first time we came around we were denied for 3 seperate instances. One was square footage which we conformed with at the behest of the Board. The other was dormers, the 40% dormer rule and the last of which was setback. Now, the last time it wasn't about height and the Build Department hasn't denied us on the height restrictions. In the setback requirements of 15 feet which were 6 1/2 feet to the property lines and we're trying to replace an existing structure but obviously increase the s~ze of that structure at 6 1/2 feet what the existing structure is from the property line. We got into a semantics debate about what a dormer was and we kind of came to the agreement that I would go back to the Building Department and we would be put back into the zoning process and we would ask the Building Department at that point with the modified drawings from the original if they considered it a dormer. I would respectfully request that since the Building Department hasn't denied me for 40% dormer anymore, they recognize that we're not dealing with dormers anymore and we're simply dealing with the setback which we've gone through before. So that's kind of where we are and where my clients are. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I had a conversation with the Building Department and I know that they are not here. So if it's okay, I'd like to mention a quick conversation, I had asked the Building Department, I'm confused when I saw the Disapproval, why is this coming back? I wasn't sure if it was on height, on setback or dormers. Pat Conklin explained to me that if he had a height of 18 feet on there, that he would be able to give a building permit because it's permitted at 15 feet. But because it exceeded the 18 foot height and that the Zoning Board had not approved this plan with a formal resolution, she had to send it back. That's what we were told. So basically everything that we're talking about, 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 setback and height, they go together under the new code. MR. NEMSCHICK: I haven't heard that interpretation. When I inquired as to why we were kicked back, they basically said because you're violating setback even though you're conforming to every other height restriction. I don't know where the 18 feet comes from. Eighteen feet means we'd be 10 feet from the site line. BOA/{D MEMBER WESIMAN: Talking about height. MR. NEMSCHICK: That's what I mean, 18 feet heightwise means you're 10 feet from the property line. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He's right. He is 20 feet high. MR. NEMSCHICK: I'm under the 20 foot height restriction. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But you"re at 6 foot. You are only allowed to have 50 foot high. You're existing setback that you want to keep, you're only allowed by the new code to have a 15 foot high structure. Your structure is 19 feet. So you need a variance for that and that's what Leslie said in the beginning and that's what we're going to make a decision on, is the height variance as opposed to the distance to the side yard. MR. NEMSCHICK: Okay. I just want to make it clear that the height hasn't changed from the original. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And the only way it changes because the law changed. That's the reason why. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was it that if you didn't need the setback variance, then you wouldn't also have needed the height variance? If you get the setback variance, then you were subject to height requirements. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you, what's the upstairs going to be used for, Ray? MR. NEMSCHICK: Storage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it necessary to go that height to have this maximum high peek roof and so on and so forsh for storage only? You can have storage at 7 feet. So your head hits the ceiling once in a while. Is it really necessary? MR. NEMSCHICK: It's not for me to say. The client asked me to bring something in front of 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Zoning Board. So I'd have to go back to my client o and ask the question. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you ask the client that question and tell us how high you would have to build it? MR. NEMSCHICK: For me, I don't think that's germaine to the conversation. We're in front of the Board with the same application as last time as opposed to the dormer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me continue. There was discussion about whether or not it was a dormer. From my point of view as an architect, structurally, I would not have designed it as a dormer. The Building Department has seen the amended plans and has not created of notice of disapproval that cites the dormers as being in violation. If you lower that height, those will not f~t. If you lower the height down to what would be required with a 6 foot setback to 15 feet, it's a totally different structure. The dormers -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was thinking 18 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Bottom line is, we have already approved, in our minds, what was before us. It's only back before us because we had not seen or noticed the change in height. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And the new design of the roof. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: Exactly, this is much simpler than that. We don't have to go back to the drawing board as far as I'm concerned. What we need to do is follow-up on it. For me it's one perfect example of why alternate relief without benefit of resubmitted plan is a disadvantage to the applicant, the Building Department and us. I've learned a lesson. I wrote that decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's based on interpretation and everybody is a human. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't think we need to start to revisit the things that we spent a lot of time talking about. The setback was granted from the right of way, which is considered a front yard. The reduction in square footage was accomplished. The height was reduced and the dormers are no longer considered nonconforming. So as far as I'm concerned, if the plans that are ncw before us are the final plans and al! we have 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 to do is grant the various variances that are in front of us, some of them again and now this time for height, that's sufficient information to understand what the Building Department needs from us in order to go ahead and give you your permit. Is that an accurate summary? MR. NEMSCHICK: That's an excellent summary, thank you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm done. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At first sight, it looks as though the Building Department may have gotten a second bite out of the apple by mentioning the height requirement now but not mentioning it before. If they had mentioned the height problem, and it was an either or situation, if you want to build it at 6 foot 5, then you can't have 20 feet. But they didn't say that. So they didn't mention it. MR. NEMSCHICK: They did say it by saying we were denied for setback because setback is attached to height. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the fact that they're mentioning height now and they didn't mention it before. MR. NEMSCHICK: It's the same thing. It was the same height. (Everyone talking at once.) ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: It's a sliding scale. MR. NEMSCHICK: To help the Board, the only thing that changed from the last time we were here, I took away the flyers on the end and wrote trim only. That's really what we've done so we can get rid of the idea that there is any type of dormer in this structure. That it's clean. It's one roof. The reality is and I think we talked about this last time by code and by the height restrictions, you can increase that size on the second floor storage facility. We're trying to be and I'm trying to be somewhat sympathetic to the existing structure and to try to tie into it without trying to be abrasive with the structure. That's why we're here today. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's a cupola on that? MR. NEMSCHICK: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the ridge is 18 feet? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 MR. NEMSCHICK: 19, 9. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is what it was before? MR. NEMSCHICK: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else? Ruth? Michael, you're okay? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm fine, yes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have a problem, Jim. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's a slow death but a death nonetheless. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not a slow death, it's a extenuated process. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, it is. It's the most tedious application. That said on the record, I'll entertain a motion if you have nothing else to add. MR. NEMSCHICK: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience? I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing to November 1st. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We're going to do a motion to break for lunch. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion to recess for lunch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. (Whereupon, lunch was held from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.) Hearing #5948 - Stanton CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're ready to have our next hearing now. Ruth, this is yours. Philip and Jennifer Stanton, hearing 5948. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "This is an Appeal based on an application for a building permit, to relocate an accessory barn buliding and after relocation and additions of the accessory barn, 5o use the barn as a game room, adding bathroom facilities and a fireplace. Applicants request: (Al an Interpretation of Section 280-121-C (formerly numbered 100-31-C); and {b) Variance concerning height of the 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 accessory bar~ building, to be relocated and enlarged, at a height that exceeds the code limitation of eighteen (18) feet, (c) Reversal of the Building Inspector's July 14, 2006 decision, which Building Inspector decision states that the use, after relocation, renovations, and conversion, is not permitted under the code as an accessory use. Location of Property: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold; CTM 64-1-14.7" Is there anyone here to speak on this? MS. MOORE: Yes, hi. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ms. Moore. MS. MOORE: It's been a long time. I have an outline which I'll submit to the Board and just for your after hours reading. What prompted this application is that the citizens on this property as well as the property to the north, the house to the, facing t~e property to the left. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: West. MS. MOORE: They are presently under contract for what is known as the Todd Estate, I believe, which is a 5 acre parcel to the east. That property, the last surviving owner passed away and they are in contract to purchase the property from the estate. The surrounding properties are the applicants himself. They have over a period of time been renovateing the structures that are on this property and the surrounding properties that they have acquired. One of the buildings that is remaining is the historic two story barn, beautiful yellow barn that is just a very unique, I don't believe that there's another one like it in Southold. The problem with that structure is it is a beautiful structure but presents what is known as a white elephant. We don't farm this property and the use of this barn would be more beneficial to the property owners to do something positive with it and one of the things the owner wanted to do is take the existing structure, the interior of the barn, expose the beams, insulated obviously, and take the second floor flooring off of it because it's two stories inside. Take the second floor off, open it up to the ceiling and convert the space to a game room, family room. Put a T.V. Put a pool table or a ping pong table and just use it for the family, for his family. In order to do that, when we proposed it to the ~ui!ding Department, the building is there. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 proposed to eliminate the nonconformity of it's location. We have to pick it up and relocate it and we will relocate it to a conforming setback. We want to use it. We want to reuse this structure. One of the things that we thought in reading the code is that taking an accessory building and as long as you retain it's use to a residential use, an accessory customary use that is if a T.V. room is in your house, certainly a T.V. room for an accessory building is not an unheard of request. But the Building Department determined that, no, you can't convert the space to something other than a garage or storage building. That is certainly not something they need right now. It's housing all of the exercise equipment. But it's an underutilization of space. It's a barn with just storage and equipment. The family really wants to make use'of this structure and bring it to the potential that it has both inside, outside it was painted and restored at one point in time. The inside, similarly, they want to restore it. With respect to the interpretation is whether or not an accessory structure can be converted to a customary accessory residential use. Certainly it's not a kitchen. We're not adding a bedroom. We're not turning it into a dwelling. We don't need a dwelling. We don't want to convert it to a dwelling. We just want to make it living space. And that is something that I ask the Board to consider because with its limitations the Building Department can differentiate between an accessory building with a kitchen that has all the obvious intent of converting to a second dwelling versus just an open area. We want to add a fireplace for comfort and a toilet which adding a bathroom to accessory building is done all the time. So those are the only modifications and the reason for the addition is the pop out for the bathroom since the architect and the owner want to maintain the integrity both architecturally and aesthetically of the space, the open space, without cutting into it a box for a bathroom. That's the only alteration to the barn building. It is preexisting both in height, size. It is not changing except for the bathroom pop out. The newest acquisition of the property, 5 acre property next door opened up the possibility 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 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 if t~e Board wishes, we're ready to pick up this ~ barn. We want to use it as a family room and a recreational space. They are prepared to pick it up and put it on the piece next door that is 5 acres in size. We may want to do that in any case. We can certainly ask the Board if they have no objections, I will make an application with respect to the adjacent property just to give a public hearing that is required and move it to, if we even need a variance because if we deal with the use issue of a converion, it's not a question of use, and if you pick up the building and move it to a 5 acre piece of property appropriately away from the property line, we may need no variances whatsoever. The use is still the issue and if the Building Department thinks the use isn't permitted here, it won't be permitted next doo~ either. That's where we are and I would certainly welcome any questions you have and address the issue that you need to address. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You just complicated the whole thing by saying that you're going to move it next door. Are they merging the properties? MS. MOORE: No, no. It's a 5 acre piece of property. Again the interpretation of the use is universal. If the use is permitted on this property, it would be permitted next door. So the question of the interpretation, the Building Department says, no, you can't take an accessory building and make it anything other than storage or a garage. We don't agree with. that. I don't agree, as a matter of law, that that's what the accessory use definition provides and I think it inhibits the ability to reuse some of the buildings as long as it is not converted to a second dwelling. And that is something that can be controlled by the Building Department very easily. If they are concerned about it being a second dwelling, they've always sent it to this Board to make sure that it monitored. If there's no kitchen, there's no bedroom. It's just an open space with a fireplace. It's pretty clear that ~he use is not going to be a second dwelling. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're going to be popping out a thing for the fireplace and for the bathroom, right? You're going to extend the walls of the barn for a fireplace and for the bathroom? 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 MS. MOORE: I ha~e to double check on the fireplace. I think the fireplace is just a cut out so using masonry. Usually that's an exception on a cut out. It's just a cut. If you said to me I wont allow a fireplace. I want it to be a ventless gas fireplace. I don't think it's as pretty but I think that's something we could live with. The pop out is for purposes of the bathroom. If you said, no we don't want you to pop out, okay. It just affects the interior space in the sense that we've got a second floor that's being open so the rafters and the infrastructure of the old barn, part of the beauty of the structure are the beams and the constructure that took place. That's an aesthetic and architectural feature that they would prefer to maintain as pristine as possible. BOARD MEMBER OL~VA: And you're going to maintain the correct setbacks? MS. MOORE: Yes, we will make it conform to the setbacks which depending on the size of the property, if it stays over here, I believe it's a 20 foot setback from the property line or maybe if it goes into the 5 acre piece, it might have to be 25 feet from the property line. In either case, we will make it conforming. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's a beautiful barn. I know the property because I knew the previous owners. I don't have a problem with the height because it is a historic building and I think it should be moved back. I do have a problem with pushing it out for the bathroom and frankly, for a fireplace. I don't think that's needed. You can have some sort of indoor heating if you're going to use it as a rec room. MS. MOORE: We will have heating regardless. The fireplace is just an aesthetic feature. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What type of heating? MS. MOORE: I don't know what they have over there. Does gas come down? I don't know if it's electric or gas. I don't think it's oil. I don't have that answer. I could get it. I don't know that anybody has made that decision. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Basically it's being done so you can put the pool and the sauna in? MS. MOORE: We have to move it out of the way for the pool and the sauna. It's ready to be relocated regardless. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The lot behin~ that, that's where the cottage is? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The lot behind is not the subject of this hearing. Let's not even discuss that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know. I just want to get my bearings here. MS. MOORE: That's fine. I don't mind answering. The Lasson (phonetic) family subdivided this property. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the Stanton's own that too and they own the one to the left and to the right? MS. MOORE: Yes, they do. One of their first acquisitions when I met them was the house on the left that they renovated and retained as an old house. They did a beautiful job. Then the Lasson property became available and they acqu'ired it from the Lasson family. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that the property to the norht? Where the garage is currently? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's like a barn, garage, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So they own that? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To the north. MS. MOORE: The garage is sitting on this property. There's Young's Avenue Extension. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You can go either two ways. You can go around Town Creek to the right of way along Town Creek or there's a right of way. (Everyone talking at once.) MS. MOORE: I've never gone down that way but I've seen it on paper. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: To move it, I don't have a problem with. I don't have a problem with the height. It hasn't come to our attention about moving it to the property to the east. MS. MOORE: That is a quite a surprise that that property became available and that they ultimately won the bid to acquire it and now they're going to concentrate on renovating the structures that are there as well. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd like to see something like tha5 preserved and I like the idea they are taking the flooring out and just having exposed the cathedral ceiling. The wood in there is just gorgeous. CHAIRMAN D!NIZIO: Ail right, Ruth? 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD ~EMBER OLIVA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 5 acre parcel is not before us, but does that have a house on it also? MS. MOORE: Yes, it has a house. Actually, I brought surveys of the property for your information. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can we see it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We've gone around and around. There's no way of attaching these things with a heated breezeway like we did in Orient on that one? MS. MOORE: No. I tried different contortions to try to put it together. It really undermines the architectural integrity of this structure. So it really doesn't make sense. BOARD 'MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How about a tunnel? MS. MOORE: I've seen it done. I think for that, it's semantics. We're creating ways to circumvent rather than deal with the issue which is it's a residential use, a play area. Again it's not a principal use in and of itself. It's accessory to the residential use. You wouldn't come onto the property and just hang out in the game room without living on the property. You're not invited there. It's private and it's for the family. It doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need to move this on. I honestly don't think this 5 acre property has anything to do with the application at hand. I would like to just, we're talking basically about a use here. If we could address that and that would be a good thing. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: May I ask a question. I've seen the notice of disapproval and with reference to an interpretatio under 121C. That deals with changing from one nonconforming use to another but is the current workshop use, is that a conforming use or a nonconforming use? MS. MOORE: It has a CO as a workshop. Honestly, I don't know if the Building Department considered it nonconforming or a conforming use. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Did they deny you under 121C? MS. MOORE: I don't remember off the top of my head. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You're askin? f~r 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 an interpretation under 12tC. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It was not denied underneath. MS. MOORE: I asked for a use that they deem to be a nonconforming use, not a permitted use. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: 121C says you should not change from one nonconforming use to another use. I guess if this Board were to determine that the recreational use was not permitted, then instead of saying we're going to permit it, they can say we'll let you change from one nonconforming to another nonconforming since it's no worse than the workshop. So there's 2 ways to go about it. We can say yes, we're going to permit the recreational space. We think it's accessory and should be permitted or they can say no, we don't think it's permitted but you already have a nonconforming use. We'~e going to let you change it from the workshop to the recreational space. MS. MOORE: How will that affect our ability to move it to the neighboring property? Does it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. You have to make an application. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: The neighboring property is a whole other kettle of fish because you'd be putting in -- MS. MOORE: No, no, no. If we come to the conclusion that the use is a permitted accessory use, then I move it over without further action of this Board regardless. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think what you're asking us to do is to say that this particular use is now a use that can go anywhere in any part of Town under these circumstances. I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far. As I read 121C, it was you have something that exists there, is something that people can occupy and can be in there for a longer period of time then just parking a lawn mower or putting in a box, storage. What Kieran is saying, we could swap that. MS. MOORE: I think my application did provide for a alternative, either as a nonconforming workshop, converting it, and then as a third alternative, just coming to the conclusion that it's a permitted accessory use. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: That's why I asked that questicn. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We could certainly grant it in that fashion. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You could grant it and limit it to this property. MS. MOORE: So this means I would have to come back. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You would have to. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But that's a subject of a whole other hearing. MS. MOORE: I want you to know right off the bat that the family is considering since they just acquired a very large piece of property that they are going to be focusing on, that they might want to carry that beautiful barn with them to the neighboring piece. It's like a jewel. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's for another day. MS. MOORE: I just don't want to surprise ~ou if I come back. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You'll be surprising them actually with another application to appear before US. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually, all the comments I had and questions I had have been answered by virtue of the fact that you're telling me now that the property that abuts the proposed new location ia also owned by the Stantons. My original reaction was where it is now it's very camoflauged, very in scale, very unobtrusive. To move it to an open space where the boundaries of one property line are ill defined, would have an enormous visual impact next to a garage. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You have to remember, it may not always be owned by the same people. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's right. My first question was going to be -- ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You have to look at the character of the property. MS. MOORE: You're saying where I was proposing to relocate it adjacent to the northerly piece? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's correct. And a ten foot setback for a building that tall. MS. MOORE: At the time, the code required 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 (Everyone talking at once.) BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What that would mean is if you want to put it in the same location, you would have to bring it much closer to the pool and the house. MS. MOORE: Yes. As another overall plan just to share with you, I was directed to do a lot line change and move some property line changes here ultimately. But again that plan may now be changed since this property was acquired. At the time, they were going to shift some lines so they would in fact create a greater setback between the northerly piece and themselves as part of an overall plan of moving property lines. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: What my original response without knowledge of any of that which is why it's good to have a public hearing, is based on the evidence submitted and all the information information we had, there's no architectural reaon why it couldn't remain exactly where it is and move the other proposed accessory structure forward slightly. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. It's a nonconforming location as it stands and that's not the subject of this hearing because she's moving it to a conforming location. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not on this plan. MS. MOORE: Well, ten feet was conforming. That was in '06. (Everyone talking at once.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This application has been since 2006. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand that but the point is what we're looking at is what I'm deciding on and that's the survey that's been submitted at ten feet. MS. MOORE: But I'm saying on the record that we are going to make it a conforming setback to 20 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I believe you but the fact is I'm looking at ten feet. Number one, I didn't know that and number two, it's much better for us to make assessments based on the specificity of where it will be. We've had situations like this before in which plans have been submitted and the testimony has been similar to what you said. That's not our intent, we have a different !ocaticn in mind and we grant 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 something and it's back in the Buildin~ Department because we didn't see the appropriate plan. We just discussed one this morning. We made a ruling on a large accessory structure with conditions and it was brought back to us and the Building Department because we didn't pass our application or finding was not based upon the amended plans that got submitted. So something was overlooked. So I'm much more comfortable making decisions when I see specifically what you're proposing to do in terms of siting that building. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Before we close the hearing instead of submitting it to the Building Department, submit it to us before we make a decision. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. anticipated given the circumstances that we wanted to keep the hearing open to submit additional documents. I have no problem with that because I'm pretty confident that their next step will, they will want to move it to the other property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So then it will be strictly about use. MS. MOORE: A use issue. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If they're going to move it over, why are we continuing this conversation? MS. MOORE: I made an application and it had to be heard. We did consider withdrawing it however, we're still back to the issue of use. That doesn't change regardless of where I move it and if I can't convert this barn to something usable for the family, I don't know what they would do with it. Again it's a beautiful structure but it starts eating up lot coverage. It starts interfering with other uses that are desirable to a family. So it's important to be able to use old buildings and retrofit them for changing times. I'm sorry to hear that some of you aren't ready to make that decision. I think ultimately the community will get there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My opinion is, if you pick up the barn, it loses it's CO. It does not go with it. The minute you sever it from the property, it is no longer a workshop. It is a vacant barn. That CO does not carry with it once it is severed from the property. That's just my opinion. MS. MOORE: I'm net sure that I would agree 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 with you legally. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you have anything to add to this? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have several questions. In hearing different strains of the argument, if it were just for the use and none of these things would be of any consideration including none of the aesthetic arguments that you have made and retaining the architectural aesthetic integrity or there would be no reason to know anything about future locations of this. Your presentation includes other things. So I'm troubled. I'm also troubled about the question that Jerry raised, what can be moved? I understand that a building may be moved to any place in the Town and if it's approved one place, you can get it to -- but in this case, our decision is'partly based on the evidence you're presenting to us and a lot of it has to do with the aesthetics and the coherence of the property and what looks good and what doesn't look good and we can't take that back. And now what we've learned is it's going to be moved to a very different location. MS. MOORE: Next door is not considered a different location. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn't matter whether it's a little different or a lot different, it's different and part of your argument is that it fits in very well. It goes with the property and it's going to be moved someplace else. Then we wondered, because somebody might make this argument, get an approval based on the coherence within the particular property and then move it legally to someplace where it doesn't fit at all. MS. MOORE: I don't know that I would agree with all your conclusions because let's look at the historical society as an example. They have collected barns and structures from all over the Town and relocated them there as an exhibition. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know that. What I'm saying is that sometimes it's a very good idea. But if we give approval of this, we give the approval not for this as we're now being located but for any place else that the owners chcose to put it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, no, no. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I thi~k she may be asking us that. MS. MOORE: I'm asking you generically can we convert an accessory building, regardless if it's an antique barn or a whatever. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Probably yes. But to the extent that our approval depends upon the site specific arguments that you're making for this. MS. MOORE: What I'm saying is, it's not site specific as this property. I'm saying it is a structure specific. This barn, if you can't convert it to something other than storing your wheelbarrow, what good is it to the family? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I ask one question? What relevance does your point about the bathroom being on the outside have on this? That has to do with the use, doesn't it? MS. MOORE: The structur%, the antique barn, interior, those beams, are structural supports in place. The family has a T.V. and a pool table. They want a bathroom. They want to be able to go to the potty if they spend some time in there. There's no prohibition, you add bathrooms to garages all the time. A bathroom to an accessory building is well recognized. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not talking about the bathroom. I'm talking about the location of the bathroom. MS. MOORE: The location of the bathroom, the architect wants to pop it out. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you're going to make an aesthetic argument based on the interior of the building, then you're open to the question, what about the aesthetic implications of hanging outside the building as seen by anyone looking at the property? MS. MOORE: I think that they are everybody around them. They are the ones who will be looking at the property and they are certainly not going to design what would look like a shed. It'll be the equivalent of a closet or a utility room because the bathroom doesn't need more than the toilet and handwashing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you're saying since they are the most likely next door neighbors, nobody is going to object to the question of this? MS. MOORE: Yes, a modification of this. ~OARD MEMBER SIMON: It kind of neutri!izes 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 th% interior aesthetic argument. The exterior e part of it has it's own aesthetic implications -- (Everyone talking at once.) MS. MOORE: We have to do it in a very sensitive and respectful way so you don't undermine the exterior look of this structure. At the same time, they don't want to cut a box into the interior space. The interior space is fixed. They are taking the second floor out so it'll be a box inside. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you want us to take seriously the interior argument, you are opening the door to us to consider the exterior and we may decide no problem, that we trust them to do something which is going to be aesthetically nice to the neighbors. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Before we get to the architectural massing of the building, the who~e think depends upon interpretation of use. MS. MOORE: I think I'm here regardless of bathroom or not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have a problem with the interpretation partly because it's hard to distinguish between a recreation room and a playhouse as far as interpretation of the code is concerned. (Everyone talking at once.) BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's in the code. What I'm saying is it's a minor technical thing which somehow excludes, it doesn't include recreational but it does include things that sound very much like recreationsal room except different names. I dont have any problem with that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is there a proposal for air-conditioning as well as heat? MS. MOORE: Probably. If you said no, I think they want it to be comfortable space and they would want it. If you don't have air-conditioning and you have windows open, then you have the T.V. noise. The old house had no air-conditioning but I think a new house would. So I think that they want to provide for all the comforts that any rec room would have. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So ycu want that left cpen? MS. MOORE: I think the answer would be yes. I think air-conditioning, heating. CHAIRMAN D!NIZ!O: Okay. Anybody else cn 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Board? Okay. I'd l~ke to go over the notice of disapproval with you so we're clear on what we're here for. First is an interpretation of Section 280-121-C which is former 100-31-C. That's concerning the -- (Everyone talking at once.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that's what that is. B is a variance for the height of an accessory barn building. It says here to be relocated in large at a height that exceeds the code limitation of 18 feet. What is that based on? Is there a plan that shows us where this barn is going to be relocated? MS. MOORE: The plan in '06 required us to be at 10 feet but the height is over the 18 that was the minimum. Now we have different dimensional requirements but the 18 feet is still, now it's 22 but ~we still exceed the 22 that's permitted at 20 feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're going to the 22 feet. MS. MOORE: We're maintaining the height of the existing structure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're not there yet. You're going to move this building, relocate to a conforming location on the lot. We have no indication of that on any map that we have in our presence. MS. MOORE: At the present time, I don't have the location. If you wish to have the hearing held open, I have no problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're ear going to need that. Also the 18 feet is merely because the barn exists and it's higher than 18 feet but it's nonconforming because they are going to move the barn. So it's really those 3 things that we need to concentrate on; the use, the height and the fact that you're going to relocate it. The rest of it, whether it's going to be relocated on that same property, that's -- MS. MOORE: That's the only thing right now you're addressing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Everything else is wha£ever it is. MS. MOORE: If they tell me a week from now that they want to move it, then I will have to come in to you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're not considering 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 that. We're not going to be asking ~or that. Should I ask, is there anyone in the audience that has any questions concerning this application? Any other Board members have anything more to add to this? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to leave the hearing open? MS. MOORE: I would ask that the hearing remain open for 2 things. I guess that if I get the indicationg that you're not going to allow us to convert the space, why spend money on new surveys on setback and the rest. So if you're inclined to allow the conversion of the space, then certainly I have no issue with bringing you a survey that shows a final location and I would certainly present it to the Building Department again with that survey and see if there's anything else that the Building Department wodld interpret under the code that needs an additional variance. This application was in '06 and the code changed as I do have a preexisting structure so I just don't know which way they would interpret the code at this point. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Unfortunately, our application process says that you must submit those maps and the plans have to be the plans that you're asking us for which they are not right now. The plans that we have in hand aren't the setbacks that you are requesting at this point in time. MS. MOORE: If you want us to be at 10 feet CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think it's more if you want to request 10 fe~t, if you want to stick to this, then fine, we'll stick to the plan that is. If you want to change it, we'll need that in hand as our application says that we have to have that in hand before we can make a decision. MS. MOORE: Certainly, you have the application for 10 feet. It would not change anything to ask for the variance to keep it at 10 feet. Would be accept an alternative relief to move it 20 feet or move it away from the property line, certainly we would do that. So that simplifies things. CHAIRMAN DINIZiO: So you would accept alternate relief if we so chose. MS. MOORE: Yes, to move it away a little further from the prcgerty line then the 10 feet 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 that was t~e originally allowed setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Therefore, you would not need to change the application or the site plan. MS. MOORE: No. I wouldn't need to change the application. But if you wanted to have a survey. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, no. I think we should have a discussion and come to a clear conclusion that you want us to base it on the record as it is today. MS. MOORE: Yes, please. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we're going to close the hearing? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is everybody amendable to that? Does anyone have any questions or concerns with us considering what Ms. Moore would like for us to do? Kieran, do you have a question? ATTOkNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Yes. If you do consider this to be a nonconforming, if the use that exists there is a nonconforming use, and if you're going to consider converting it to another nonconforming use and not to bless this recreational use as a permitted use, there's also issues in the code that say you're not supposed to move a nonconforming use. So you need to grant a variance to those parts of the code as well. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But she's not asking us now to move it. MS. MOORE: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: She's asking to base it on the record. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The plans that were submitted at 10 feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm sorry. MS. MOORE: We relocated it from where the pool and sauna was going to be to a 10 foot setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, yes. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I'm not saying you can't do it, if you say -- MS. MOORE: It's a permitted use, I don't need it. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: But if you're going to say no, we're going to let you swap this to another nonconforming use but we're going tc move it, that requires a variance to move a nonconforming use. MS. MOORE: And in which case !wculd wan~ an 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 adjournment so that I can ad~ documents, add that variance request and you can publish and post. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I think Linda has an issue with setback. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I wanted to ask if you could also amend your application asking for the setback variance because that has not been included in any paperwork under the new code, the setback variance. MS. MOORE: This application in 2006 did not exist. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Today's current -- MS. MOORE: I have no problem. I just didn't want to lose an opportunity to --BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Those are the reasons earlier on I requested the submission of a survey locating it in the conforming use, specifically that you agreed that you wan%ed to move it to so we get all variances before us, to the conforming location so that we address all of the possible permeations with consistent information. In other words, you will be limiting yourself, if you're agreeable to putting it in a conforming location, you will be limiting our options by having us have to evaluate this based on a nonconforming location. What I'm saying is that -- MS. MOORE: I have no problem telling you where my client is willing to put it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It will simplify our decision making if we could make it on the basis of a new up to date survey that reflects the current code. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Once we have the new map Pat, then I can tell you procedurally what paperwork would have to be added to file so I can renotice it in the paper. MS. MOORE: No problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you should take your information to the Building Inspector and allow him to inspect it all first and base the notice of disapproval on the information that you're requesting. MS. MOORE: I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, the Building Department has been in training sessions so I was really hoping that we would have gotten there by now. it would have really helped the Board and helped me. So I have nc problems. Than really wculd be what i wcu!d 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 d~, take my survey with the location my client" ultimately wants, I will submit it to the Building Department and we will amend the application accordingly. I have no problem with that. I'm using this opportunity more as a dialogue to understand what we can or can't do because if we cant use this building because the Board says keep it as a storage building, I don't want to waste my client's money and time because now they have to think of some other use of this. CHAIRM3~N DINIZIO: I don't think we can make a decision based on the information that we don't have before us. MS. MOORE: So I have to parcel out your comments and figure out. CHAIRMA/~ DINIZIO: We should be making our decision based on notice of disapproval as to what ik is that you want. I think that the Building' Inspector should be driving this as opposed to us trying to reshape it during the course of this application. That's my opinion. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that our application process states that. So I personally think your venue is it goes back to the Building Inspector, ~get an updated notice of disapproval based on the result that you would like to obtain. MS. MOORE: Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to sum up, if we're going to give you what you want, you have to help us by helping us know exactly what it is that we're providing for you. And for that we need a more complete application. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. That's my goal. That's what I get paid for. That's fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anything else? MS. MOORE: We're just going to keep the hearing open. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Keep it open. MS. MOORE: I'm going to readvertise but if the Building Inspector gives me a verbatim notice of disapproval but just renumbers, then I've already applied, already started the process. If he adds more, then I'm going tc have 5o modify and we'll go from there. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The only thing is if we adjourn it to December, there's plenty of time for the notices, your submission and all. If 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 we keep it on for November, I would need to have all the disapprovals. MS. MOORE: November is too soon. We're not going to make November. The latest possible. Do we have time limits on. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It would have to be submitted by November 12th for the December 15th calendar. MS. MOORE: I have to deal with a surveyor and the Building Department and if they are so backed up, it might take a couple of weeks. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: November 12th would be our deadline, if you could. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we're going to adjourn this to the 15th of December, is that all right? If you can't make that, we'll have to do something at that 15th meeting or whatever. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: December 20th. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion that we adjourn this meeting to December 20th. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing 95906 - GAMA PROPERTIES formerly WAREX TERMINAL CORP. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is Gama Properties. Okay, Ruth, it's all yours. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All right. "Requests for Variances under Sections 280 -- 49 (100-102), 280-122 (100-242A based on Zoning Interpretation %5038-Walz Application), and 280-50C (100-103C), and for a Special Exception for a car wash facility (Section 280-48B), based on the Building Inspector's amended September 21, 2007 Notice of Disapproval. The applicants propose to add a car wash with alterations to a building and to increase the length of the existing canopy. The reasons stated by the Building Inspector for disapproving the application for a building permit are: (1) following the proposed construction, the building will have a side yard setback at less than the code-required 25 feet;. (2) following the proposed extension of the existing canopy, there will be an increase 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 degree of nonconformance for the front~yard setback from the Main Road - NYS Route 25; (3) following the proposed extension of the existing canopy, there will be an increase in size (as a single separate structure) that will exceed the code maximum of 60 linear feet of frontage on one street (Factory Avenue). Location of Property: CITGO Gas Station, Corner of Factory Avenue at 9945 Route 25 (a/k/a Main Road), Mattituck; CTM 142-1-27. Zone District; B-General Business." Now, you're on. MR. ABI-ZEID: Thank you. My name is George Abi Zeid, I'm with Gama Properties. I'm here today with my builder, DSC Construction with a traffic engineer who's a representative from the car wash company to really present to you what we want to do with this property. We came in froHt of the Board from the Town on the last two years to try to build and improve on the property at 9945 Main Road. It's presently a Citgo Station, it's a tired building that needs some work. I own about eight .stations on Long Island and couple -- one in Jersey and one in Pennsylvania that is the same model of operation. I buy a station that's really tired, that's rundown, I fix it up and put three-in-one; a car wash, a small convenience store and a gas, of course. These days business itself, right now, the station is in trouble. For those of you who know the operator, Ed Bradley, he's going to continue to be the operator of this station. He's really not making any money. This station is no different than any other gas station on Long Island or Northeast. We do not make money from selling gas anymore. The money is really made and achieved by small amount in the convenience store and the car wash. When I saw this property, it's a beautiful location, I proposed to turn it into a three-in-one, I purchased it from Morris Corporation (phonetic) which is the old owner, which is really the other distributor of Citgo, to do and I thought it's going to be really not a big issue with the Town, if I may, to convert it and improve on it based on what I did with other Towns and I welcome any member of the Board to check on our website to see, we have the stations before and after to see what we did with these properties. The property 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 itself as ~t is right now was a car wash, it was a gas station. It's a small store right now. We're just proposing to build, we have enough property on the backyard which the details will be addressed with the construction company and engineering, whatever we have to do to extend a little bit the back of the building to put a car wash in there. And the exit and the entrance for the car wash will be from Factory Avenue so there's really no issue with the traffic as far as traffic coming from Main Road to go to the car wash. I think, based on this, maybe I should ask the engineer, Eugene, to come and give us a bit more details about this project. MR. KEMPEY: Good afternoon. Eugene Kempey, Kempey Engineering. Basically, there are three variances required to construct a project based upon the s%te plan work we have done with the Planning Department over the last two years to develop a workable plan for them. The first variance, as stated, was the side yard setback. The proposed side yard now currently is eighteen feet which is seven feet less than the required minimum side yard. We will be maintaining that distance because we do not propose to construct beyond the existing building lines on the side yard. So that will be a maintenance of the existing conditions. We will not be encroaching any further building-wise into the side yard. As far as the variance concerning the canopy, there are two variances associated with the canopy. The first variance, these were both generated as a result of the Planning Department's review and the Architectural Review Board's review of the project to try to acheive a look to soften the impact of the project to get it to our Colonial, the Town's desire for a more Colonial looking structures. In order to acheive this result, we'll be required to frame out the existing canopy with lightweight framing to put a new fascia on it to give the desired look. As a result of that, the canopy has to grow in size. It went from fifty-eight -- we basically added four feet all the way around the canopy in all directions. So basically, tha~ gave us past the sixty foot, it was originally fifty-eight feet and we're now up to sixty-seven feet and that we encroach four feet further into the front yard. We had a thirteen fcol, four inch 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 setback. Now we have a nine~ foot setback along the front yard. This was a result of our desires to conform to what the Town wanted for, make this station look better and the Planning Board Department has always expressed concern that the site did not look well and this was an effort to make it look better and to conform to the existing desires of the Architectural Review Board. I think we've acheived that. The unfortunate affect is that we are making it an existing condition worse in one respect. But this is more our desire to conform to what the Town Planning Department wants and what the Architectural Review Board wants. As far as the development of the site plan, we have, as said, worked on this for about a year and a half to two years and had significant reviews with the Town Planning Department where they had, we originally proposed to come in off the Main Road and they requested that we reconsider that based on traffic issues on Main Road. We have reconfigured the site to come in off of Factory Avenue. We originally had, we also changed curb cut locations to better access for the DOT concerns and also the Town Department Highway's concerns about cross access with the car wash and the gasoline service station entry and exit traffic that required adding a second curb cut instead of one large curb cut due that the car wash had its own discreet entry that there was no potential for cross traffic. I will let Mr. Vinny Corrado of Dunn Engineering to speak to traffic issues. MR. CORBADO: Good afternoon. My name is Vinny Corrado. I'm with Dunn Engineering in Westhampton Beach. I'm a licensed professional engineer and I've been working with the applicant regarding the traffic aspects. I guess it's two years ago now, several years ago, we did a traffic study for this application, the same location, regarding the other site plan. The site plan that had the access to the car wash off 25. The traffic study, the results of the traffic study remain valid for this site plan because the major movements are still going to occur at the same places that they used to. So that traffic study has been submitted to the Town, it's been reviewed. I should say that the site plan as configured has several beneficial aspects to 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 corner. There's another one that hasn't been ® discussed yet that we just recently decided on. The beneficial aspects are the removal of the two access driveways from the close proximity of the signalized intersection at Factory Avenue. Right now they are very close and they don't conform to the standards of the New York State DOT. When we have completed the renovation on the site, they will conform to the standards of the DOT. Another beneficial aspect is the idea, there's an extremely small turning radius on the corner of Factory at 25. The applicant has, the property owner has agreed to provide a dedication so that the DOT can improve that turning radius from what it is now. I don't know the measurement of it now but it's a very difficult right turn. The operator of the station indicates that he sees ~eopte, and the fellow across the street too,'he sees people constantly having to back up to allow vehicles wanting to make that right turn around that tight radius. So that improvement will significantly improve the operation of that intersection. As said before, the site has a gas station with a small C-store, convenience store, associated with it. There are also some service bays that I don't believe are being used right now. The application is to put an automated automated car wash in there. The automated car wash is different from the full service car wash in that there are no attendants there. Basically, it's a swipe card operation or you pay inside the convenience store and then you drive your car into the car wash tunnel and it gets processed automatically. No interior vacuuming, no drying on the outside. These, according to the information from the car wash operators, this type of operation generates significantly less traffic than a full service car wash. Our traffic study assumed the installation of a full service car wash so the results of our study tend to be on the conservative side with respect to traffic volumes in and out of the car wish. We also, in our traffic study, used traffic volumes that reflect peak summer conditions so that anybody who knows anything about the area is aware of the fact that traffic volumes in the summertime are significantly higher. The capacity analyses that we, we did intersection capacity analyses et 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 corner to make sure that the impact will be minimized on the operation of the traffic signal. The results of the capacity analyses indicate that overall the intersection operation is satisfactory but some of the side streets do have some long delays during the summertime. That's really less due to the capacity of the intersection then it is to the way that the DOT operates their intersection. The DOT tends to favor the through put on the main line to the disbenefit of the side streets. There's not really a lot you can do about that. You can ask the DOT to retime the traffic signal but they are generally reluctant to do that because they prefer to see the traffic on the main strees be processed and the delays acrue to the side streets. It's a very typical situation. But like I said, when we add the estimated traffic ~rom the car wash operation to the operation of the signal, the overall operation does not deteriorate and the side street delays do not increase significantly. I said before the traffic study has been submitted to the Town. Planning is reviewing it and we are working with the Town to fine tune the site plan. Initially, the DOT was reluctant, our site plan shows a right turn in and out on 25 as far to the east as possible. Initially, the DOT was reluctant to grant the right turn in but they reconsidered when we were willing to allow the access, to put the access up on Factory Avenue for the car wash. What that allows people to do is to leave the gas station and go up Factory Avenue to access the car wash driveway because they will not be able to, we want to discourage them from doing it, from driving out onto Factory Avenue and attempting a U-turn into the car wash site. That's why the DOT will internally sign that to discourage that behavior and make sure that's very clear. Again, the traffic volumes at these automated car washes are, the information that I've gotten from the car wash operation people is that it's somewhere between 25 and 50% of the traffic volumes at a typical full-service car wash. I think that gives an overview of 5he traffic study that we had prepared for the application and I don't know that we're, there's anybody else left. I'd be glad to take any questions. CHAIRMAN D!NIZIO: Does anybody have any 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 questions of this gentleman on the B~ard here? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there still an engineering status before the Planning Board on the new site plan? MR. CORRADO: Yes, we're still working with the Planning Board on the site plan. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you will have that when? MR. CORRADO: We kind of wanted this process to go forward a little bit so we knew we had your input so we knew what we were going to be up against. We don't want to constantly revise the site plan and revise the traffic study and then go back to the different boards. The study was done and completed. It could be revised in a couple of hours when the time comes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I got the impression that's going to be submit%ed to the Planning Board and they're going to make it part of the unlisted action package for SECRA. MR. CORRADO: I'm not privy to that. I've just been contacted to prepare the traffic study and I'm not familiar with the ins and outs. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? I think you mentioned some numbers. Can you just give me an idea of approximately how many more more cars this thing is going to put per hour during the day or something? MR. CORRADO: What I could give you is, the numbers that we developed for the full service car wash on a Saturday afternoon, which is the worst case, that data that we have shows 32 cars that will go through the tunnel. But that's a full service car wash. When you develop trip generation information for different land uses, you use a document called a trip generation report that's published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and it has tons of data in it for all different land uses. It has one study for an automated car wash that shows 14 cars are going to go in and out of this thing. They warn you against using that type of data when you only have a single study. So in order to look conservative, we used the autcmated car wash, I mean the full service car wash number which ccmes up with a much higher number. So 32 could be considered a very much worse case application. Information that the car wash people gave me say 25 to 50% of that 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 more realistic. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which seems to bolster the study about non-man car washes being 14. MR. CORRADO: Actually, you're right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're saying -- MR. CORRADO: I have to use data. Anecdotal information that I get from my client I really can't use in a scientific analysis. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that's 14 an hour? MR. CORRADO: Fourteen cars at the peak hour, that's right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: At the peak hour. So, times what? Eight hours? And that's how many cars? MR. CORRADO: Well, I don't know. That's the highest. I'm not really, I'm not fully conversant with the hour by hour operation of the car wash,' but he is. MR. ABI-ZEID: From my experience from the other car wash that I have, the automatic car wash. I own only one full service car wash in Elmont, the rest are automatic. Products are supplied by Ryko. Mike is going to give us a little presentation about this product. We do an average -- a good station makes does about 50, 55 cars a day. Our mean average is about 40 cars a day. That's mean average. You take the whole month and divide it into 30 days CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So would be 40 cars a day, 365 days a year? MR. CARRA: My name is Michael Carra. I'm with Ryko Manufacturing. What George was speaking about was automatic car washes generally at a gas . station, C-store site in the New York/New Jersey area, our data, and this is tracked over the past 34 years, will wash, on an average, of about 1500 to 1700 cars per month. Break that down over 22 to 23 days because not every day out of the month is going to be a good car washing day, at it comes to what George was saying. You're looking at about 40 cars a day, 50 cars a day over the course of that entire day. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth do you have -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I did. The gentleman here, if someone is coming in from Route 25 and coming in to get gas and then they decide maybe I ought to go get my car washed, they will still have tc go out into Factory Avenue a~d make a turn 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 to come back into the car ~ash? MR. CORRADO: Actually, we want to discourage them from going out onto Factory Avenue and make that turn because that's a difficult turn. We had this conversation with the Planning Board about where we wanted to put the driveway. The original site had this queue for the car wash right off 25. But now that we moved it up there we had that situation. So we're going to need to discourage them internally from doing that and that's why the DOT allowed us to have the right turn out back onto Main Road so they could go out on Main Road and then make the right turn. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And go all around the block and them come back in. MR. CORRADO: Not all around the block. No. The right turn now is here. And that's another reason for improving this %adius so that this movement -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: A wide turn, right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you pull that out to here, sir? Show us what it was that you were trying to explain to Ruth. MR. CORRADO: Originally the site plan had the car wash going this way (indicating) off 25 and the Town asked us not to do that and I believe that the DOT had an issue with it too. When we moved the whole operation up here (indicating) the DOT didn't want to have -- their policy is to have as few curb cuts on their roadways as possible. So they only want us to have the right turn in. Since we obliged the Town and the DOT to move the access up here, the DOT said that we could have this right turn exit so that a car that leaves here, if they do it in that order. If they do gas, car wash, they'll have to leave the site and go this way. If you do it in the other order, it's the opposite way. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're going to be using 25 as a turn around to get into -- MR. CORRADO: I guess you could put it that way, sure. CHAIRPLAN DINIZIO: Okay. You're going to encourage that. So we're talking 40 cars a day possibly average doing that? MR. CORRADO: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, no. Twenty-five percent cf them or whatever. Whcever makes the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 emistake of going in the wrong order, right? e MR. CORRADO: Right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth, you understand that? I mean, does that answer your question? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I know. And then you have on Factory Avenue, you have the ingress to go through the car wash and the egress. Then you have another arrow pointing in, again, from Factory Avenue. I assume that is for people that want to go either to the convenience store or to get gas and then they would exit on Route 25 on the right hand. MR. CORRADO: Or they could come back aruond and exit here if they wanted to. If they were going up north on Factory Avenue, they could come back around and exit. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Come back around. · There's enough turn there. The turning access is enough. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then you are continuing -- you're just micking adjustments to the building that is already there. MR. CORRADO: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: To make the automatic car wash. MR. CORRADO: Right and taking out the service bay operation. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the end of your property ends at that concrete wall that is behind the building? MR. CORRADO: I assume so. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Because it then does slop off into that triangular grassy section. Does that belong to you or not? MR. CANNETTI:: Don Cannetti, Construction Consultant. We will build a stack wall along the edge to come to our elevation all the way around. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How much room do have behind this original building to let the cars in? MR. CANNETTI: I think we have about 25 feet. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're shortening the building. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This survey shows 21' 8". This one. That's the 2006 survey, the before. That's the existing one, okay. That's the 2006 one by Vulmuth and Brush (phonetic), 2/16/06. And I don't want to interrupt Ruth. I'll 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 wait. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm still not clear on that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Should I clarify? The current -- according to the site plan, that's the one you have up there. According to that site plan, the space behind the building, you have a 3' concrete walk, it would appear that from that walk to the row of shrubs is 12' and then I don't see a call out on the depth of that planting bed. But I guess what we're asking is of the original 21 something feet, how, if you're leaving the exterior wall of the existing building exactly where it is -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's what I don't understand. MR. CORRADO: The back northerly building line -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No it's not. MR. CANNETTI: We have a 3' wall. We have a 12' driveway and a 4' bed. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I couldn't see, what the bed was called out as. Where's the dimension of the bed? MR. CANNETTI: It's in there. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I see the 12' -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I see 4 -- (Everyone talking at one time.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. One person talking at a time. Sir, you're going to need to use the microphone because we need to get this. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just finish. It says 4 in circles but that's not called out in the dimension line. It's in a circle or a parenthesis whereas all of the others have arrows showing the dimensions. So you're saying on this site plan that's 4. So that's how you're reapportioning it. You're taking a part -- 4' for a planting bed, 3' for a concrete walk and 12' width for one way direction of cars? MR. CANNETTI: Right. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But you're going to have to then -- the end of the building is where the concrete wall is. In other words, you're going to have to -- your property extends beyond that concrete wail behind that building in order to get the cars ±n there? 1 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 MR. CANNETTI: No. We don't go up to the concrete wall. It doesn't go up to the concrete wall. The concrete wall doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the shopping center. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So that you have enough room behind your present, your existing building. MR. CANNETTI: Yeah, property line. We're going with our property line. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And you have 12' beyond that. MR. CANNETTI: Also, what was that, 12' driveway and 4' bed. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You have room enough to put a 12' driveway, in other words, behind the building. I'm trying to get my story straight. MR. CANNETTI: Yes. Yes, we have. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It just appears to be a very ambitious plan. I realize you have many of these, for a very, very busy corner intersection on Main State Highway. But not withstanding that fact, the particular issue of elongating the canopy and changing the exterior of the building is one of the more positive aspects of this plan. Of course, that was not done specifically by us but the Planning Board did that. I think what we have to do and I'm not saying we, I'm speaking as a Board member, is to hold this entire hearing in recess and let's see how the Planning Board aspect goes through the SEQRA process and see where we're going to go with that. I mean, we don't have any other choice. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: Absolutely. You can have hearings but you can't grant any variances. Actually, you can grant variances but you can't grant the special exception use without the SEQRA determination of the Planning Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's right. So we have no other choice. This is the first presentation, I hate to use the phrase, out of the box, but it's the first presentation out of the box that this Board is looking at and I think we have to -- we appreciate, I appreciate the presentation and that's my opinion at this point. I happen to be a Mattituck resident. I'm there all the time. MR. ABi-ZE!D: SO you're familiar 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 statio~ then. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We're all familiar with it. MR. ABI-ZEID: It does really need a face lift. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No one's disagreeing with that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know if it needs all these uses, George, but it needs a face lift. MR. ABI-ZEID: If I may on this matter, on the record also. I own number of stations. The station that I have only convenience store and gas, I'm shutting them down. And this is a fact, you can check. There's one in Nathan Town (phonetic). I bought it for $1.1 million dollars and I'm selling for $350,000, I still do not have a buyer. Why? Because you cannot make money off gas. Right now we use car wash, automatic car wash, which is really zero discharge to the ground. It does not generate lots of traffic but still generates $12,000, $13,000 in revenue for us to help us pay taxes, salary and some of the mortgage payment. So whatever we get from the convenience store and the gas, if any -- the gas prices one day you can make twelve cents profit per gallon, another day your subsidizing two or three cents per gallon and on top of it, you have to pay the credit card fees. Two percent of credit card fees is really okay when the price of gas was one dollar per gallon. Right now, we're almost at three dollars a gallon, that amounts about six or seven cents. It's a lot into your profit. That's why you see gas stations are closing down throughout the Northeast. I made a promise to myself and my partner, who's my brother, that we will not build any station if it's just a store and a gas. We do not make any money. We're losing money on it. The car wash is really, even if it's $10,000 or $12,000 a month, it really does make a big difference for us, for this property. You're absolutely right. It's an ambitious plan but it's a beautiful site. It will help the area. It's no secret. I spoke to Allen to see if I could buy something from Allen to do something to extend the property to build full car wash instead of automatic. We could not come to any arrangemen5 with Mr. Cardina!e {phoneteic). 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 So, I decided to put a automatic which is really less traffic. We don't have to have any staff cleaning, washing, doing car. Plus down the road, I think maybe a mile west, there's a full service car wash. So we don't need two full service car washes. He has a family to feed. We have family to feed so we don't want to compete against each other. I believe automatic car wash will attract different type of customer. In the winter, people don't want to, especially after a snow storm, they do not really have to clean the car inside and out. They just have a quick $4.99, $3.99 car wash outside and just move on. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Let's just for the record clarify a few things. The July 10, 2006 Planning Board work'session talked about a series of concerns that they had which you have subsequently addressed fundamentally. So we've already approved curb cuts, traffic access and so on. I agree completely with Mr. Goehringer that we need to be waiting to see what the Nelson, Pope and Borghes (phonetic) interpretation of the updated traffic study has to say before I'm prepared to fully understand the implications and decisions on the special permit that's necessary for a car wash operation. I will say that it would appear that the nonconforming canopy setback increases as a consequence. It is not necessarily self-created but is in response to the ARC and Planning Board request for a particular kind of aesthetic improvement, correct? I just want to make sure I understand that. MR. KEMPEY: Yes, that is correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That that variance is based essentially on those considerations because that is before us. That variance is before us as well as the use. And the use is very much dependent upon the impact to the community. So, I'd like to take under advisement all of the things that you presented today. I agree with Mr. Goehringer to try to keep this open so we can then incorporate their final conclusion and SEQP~A into our moving on this application. MR. KEMPEY: I have one thing more to add. I was just informed by a member of our staff that ~y Keel {phonetic) had telephoned and said 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 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 they couldn't proceed further with the SEQ~A review without action of this Board, which I don't CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Typically not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Since when? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Kieran, you might want to comment. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: I will clear that up. They can complete SEQHA, they can't grant approval of the site plan without action of this Board. But SEQRA is a coordinated effort among and their lead agency, I assume, so SEQHA should be completed before either Board grants an approval. So, I'll clear that up for you. MR. KEMPEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, do you have anything? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, I'm happy w'ith what I've heard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I really have no questions other than you guys are going to be back before us. We're going to adjourn the hearing without a date. If anybody else has anything else to add to this now? Is there anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment, that came here to make a comment on this, now's the time. You'll have another time, but if you showed up? Anybody? MR. ABI-ZEID: I think Jerry has a question but he's not sure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, you're welcomed to ask a question if you'd like. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no. It's a very interesting plan. It's nicely presented and we do appreciate you coming because having all this information is important to us. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You guys have anything you would like to add at this point? MR. ABI-ZEID: If anybody would like, we have a gentleman who came all the way from Pennsylvania for this meeting specifically. If anybody wants information about the car wash. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, would you like us to grill him for a little while? MR. ABI-ZEID: No, not grill. If you need information. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Gentlemen, if we could get business cards from all of you, ~us~ so we have 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 for the file. MR. CARRA: I'll be very brief. I know one of the things that you talked about with, that Vinny brought up as far as the impact of automatic car washing. Our company, the company I work for, Ryko Manufacturing, has built and still services over 10,000 of these automatic car washes across North America at C-store/gas station sites. We take an extensive amount of data from them. The folks that use automatic car washes are folks that are already on the site, at the gas station, at the convenience store and the numbers work out to anywhere between 80 and 85 percent from any one year to the next. So as far as drawing additional traffic to that site, we know it doesn't happen and we track it because if you're going to use the automatic car wash at the station, you need a code. It can ~e purchased at the pump or at the C-store. We track those code. A five digit code that gets randomly generated. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's just to start the pump. Let me ask you about this thing. You're adding something on so you can do more business. You're not saying that this is going to attract more customers to your stores? MR. CARRA: As far as the data that we're looking at, no, it really doesn't attract -- of your 1,500 washes on a monthly basis, about 15 percent of those washes and you do the math on that, but 15 percent of them are people that normally wouldn't be on your site, which is a very, very -- ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCOHAN: I think Jim's point is that you're trying to make the place better and more attractive, so you're going to attract or you home to attract more people in general than are going to the site now by making it a more appealing -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, if I go to Hess now and I want to have my car washed, I'm not going to go to Hess then go to Citgo. I'm going to go to Citgo and get my car washed at the same time. If you could clarify that for me. You're saying you're looking at a 15 percent increase in business overall on that piece of property because your adding a car wash, I think I could find that MR. CARRA: ! understand your point. As far 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 as how much more business will t~e site do once assuming there's an approval, how much more gas will he pump, how much more sales will he get inside his convenience store, I'd certainly rather let George address that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think generally you're hoping to get more customers. MR. ABI-ZEID: We definitely we hope to. But usually, generally, a customer will not go to the convenience store in a gas station just to go to the convenience store. Ninety percent of our customer or 85 percent of our customer usually stop at the pump, even if they will get something in the store, they stop to the store to get their cigarettes, to get their lottery, come back to the pump. Generally, we have customers who go to the pump, fill the car with gas, go to the store and get something and maybe they have a card or they buy a coupon or we'll give them maybe a special running, $20 of gas, they get a free car wash. Then they go do the car wash. There's a box in front of, Ruth, if I may, before you turn the computer to wash your car, there's a box. You put your number in it. This is a special code that generated, like Mike said, through a computer that tracks the type of business we get. What kind of customer? Is it a gas customer? Is it one who purchased gas to get a free ID to go get a car wash or someone who just prepaid or someone who put cash? You can actually put cash in the box. But you're not going to see -- if the station is doing about 80,000 in the sualmer, 80,000 gallons a month in the winter, 60,000 in the winter, maybe you'll see about 10, 15, 20 percent at most increase in revenue. The revenue is generated from within. We already have the customer and they're just going to use it for other services. And it's tremendous for the neighborhood. That's why I have somebody else run the station. I decided I'm going to keep him there. He is a neighborhood store, he's a neighborhood station and he has very good relation. I spend one time with him two hours in the store. He's like he knows the life story of every single customer. He tells one of the customers, what are you doing here today? You're supposed to be watching so and so, apparently that customer watch certain TV shew at that time and ~ust happen to be in the station. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 That'% why I decided not to bring somebody else, an operator, to run the station and keep him in the station now and after the construction with your help and approval, of course. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you very much for your presentation. Hearing no further comments, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this hearing with no date. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing ~6066 - Manganiello ' CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Peter and Sharon Manganiello and Michael, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Amended application requesting a Variance under Section 280-116A.2, based on an updated survey and the Building Inspector's October 2, 2007 amended Notice of Disapproval concerning as-built deck additions to the existing single-family dwelling, for the reason that the construction will also be less than 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Long Island Sound (in addition to setback and lot coverage variances published for a public hearing held September 13, 2007), at 58315 County Route 48 (a/k/a North Road), Greenport; CTM 44-2-12. Mr. Hill is going to be representing them? MR. HILL: Good afternoon. I'm Ronnie Hill and I'm with RLH Land Planning Services. And just as during the last hearing we had discussed the fact that there was a need for an additional variance because given that the property was adjacent to the Long Island Sound, it needed to be set back at least 100 feet from the main high water mark. We left the hearing open and as a result, I've supplied to you all the information that shows the actually distances from the rear of the house to the main high water marks. You also at the same time had wanted to review some of the pictures as well as some of the data that I had collected during my research to verify that 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 deck 7 by 12 had been ~onstructed as far as back as 1977 and that during the time of the 1981 certificate of occupancy, that it was assumed that all of those decks at that time that had been constructed in 1987 were, in fact, part of the certificate of occupancy issue in 1981. But I'm here to answer any additional questions that you might have. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't really have questions. This is a as-is with a vengence. It's got zero setbacks on the east and the west and it's close and it's been there for a while and here we are. Go further in your argument for us granting all the variances that are required. MR. HILL: I don't know if there's an argument for them. We discussed this at length last time so the only additional thing that I could add is the propegty is, in fact, preexisting nonconforming with respect to the distance from the high water mark and that there are about 4 or 5 cottages there that were for all intents and purposes appear to have only been cottages and never would have met the setbacks from Long Island Sound. There's nothing more that I can add to the arguments from presentted at the last hearing other than the fact that, yes, the property is, in fact, less than 100 feet from the high water mark of the Long Island Sound and that's a preexisting condition and never would have met the current code. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If someone were to say okay but is there any place where you might yield a few feet here or there, could you have any response to that or is it all or nothing? MR. HILL: I don't think it's a matter of all or nothing but I couldn't speak to it because depending on what you saw as being a number of feet to go in on, I'd have to take that back to the client. In any event whatever you recommend, if you found that it was necessary to bring it in from the lot lines on whichever side you would choose to see that happen on, I'm sure my client would be amendable to it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thatit Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I frankly don't 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 where you're going to move anything. MR. HILL: I don't either but I was trying to answer his question as best I could. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're so close to the high water and hopefully we don't have a Nor'easter and you're close on the the side yards and you're close on the front yards. We're just kind of stuck. MR. HILL: That was the whole purpose in why we discussed it at length last time. The property, those 4 cottages that are there, they just never would have met, even at the time that they would have been constructed that they would have met the dimensions, regulations nor code at that time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, you done? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I just throw up my hands. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We had one a couple of cottages down, the two story block type. MR. HILL: That's the one directly next door to the west. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That came before us. They had demolished the cottage and came before us and that was built into the road. So we made them back into the property line, so to speak. But I do concur with my colleagues and basically was at the site again that the porches, deck, whatever you want to call them, on both sides of the house are not a deterent in this situation. I can't see removing them an causing a three foot crevice, for what reason? I don't know what the reason would be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There is one possibility. Just to clarify, so you're now 21 foot from the main high water mark. We have a notice of disapproval that's amended to reflect that. The lot coverage was a part of the pre-CO that you obtained and submitted? MR. HILL: No. I don't believe that that was a part of it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that needs a variance? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think if we were going to apply it under the new law, it would. But when the CO was issued, it didin't. He has enough land there. MR. HILL: I think the CO, what happened was ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 is that I got ~ notice of disapproval. The application wasn't filed with ZBA until after April of this year. Prior to April, it would have been okay but the lot coverage changed as of the beginning of April. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Nothing is really changed in that respect other than you're asking for two side porches. MR. HILL: Correct. That is the only other thing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Setbacks still exist? MR. HILL: Everything is as it was except that as long as nothing had been done it was preexisting, nonconforming. Having now gone through the renovation with construction, it now requires the variances and as a result adherence to the code. CHAIRMJ~N DINIZIO: I agree if they get a notice of disapproval again, it updates it to the current code. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't think that's necessary. I want to make sure we're all clear on what's before us once again. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I thought it was updated. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We have an updated notice and a survey that shows a water mark of 21 feet. MR. HILL: I'd like to say one thing with respect to that. The 21 feet is from the woodlanding at the rear of the house. If you take a look at the rear of the house to the main high water mark, it's about 26 plus or minus feet. Depending on the contour of that main high water mark if you take a look at either end of the decks, east or west, I would make that to be anywhere between 26 plus or minus feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Correct. The deck to the west, definitely was incorporated in the CO. What about to the east? I'm not clear on that. I don't know that that was incorporated. MR. HILL: If you take a look at what I submitted initially upon that, I actually indicate that a certificate of occupancy was issued in 1981 for that deck on the west. It was assumed that the porch was legalized but then. However, the construction of the eastern deck is unknown and I ccu!d find nothing as ! could with the western 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 side to substantiate that it was constructed in a particular year. I couldn't find anything with respect to that. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: That's what I wanted to know. I didn't see that in here. I saw the rest. So let me ask one theoretical question. If that wooden platform on the back which has no foundation, just a raft sitting there, was removed, it's still being counted as lot coverage. MR. HILL: I'm not quite sure. BOARD MEMEBER WEISMAN: Let's assume. If you have a door on either east and west side both which why you really need the deck. But if, in fact, a side yard was created on the east where there is currently a deck but no CO for by simply reremoving the whole deck and putting a set of steps up to a landing, it's going to give you a very narrow side yard but you'd'have one. You'd also have slightly less lot coverage by removing just the raft and you'd still be able to get in and out of your house, put up a railing. Functionally, nothing changes because you can't really occupy that porch because it's too narrow to sit on. You have a better one on the west side which is usable. So I want to throw that out to you to get your response. MR. HILL: My first thought is six on hand hand, half a dozen on the other. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's 5 1/2 feet. MR. HILL: Right, 5.2. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the question is, do you gain enough to make it worth while? Does it mitigate something or is it just simply inconsequential to overlook? MR. HILL: I would like to propose that it's inconsequential but on the other hand, if we were looking at anything that would have an impact as a result of the doing that, it would be the lot coverage. That's all that it would cover but on the other hand looking at it, I would have to say six on one hand, half a dozen on the other. By putting a little stoop there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Probably 3 steps and a landing. MR. HILL: It would allow you to get in and out and to utilize that door and on that particular side. BOARD MEMBER WEISer. N: And you'd prcbably 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 have~a two and a half foot clearance. Still not a usable side yard. I want that entered into the record as a discussion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to say for the record that I inspected both of those decks, not that I'm a qualified person. I do some wood working. But the lumbar on the east side, is old dimensional lumbar. It's been there a long time and it's weathered but just remember that CCA came into existence in and around 1980. So that's probably how long it's been there. MR. HILL: I think it was constructed back in 1972 originally. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That lumber is old, old lumber. MR. HILL: CCA came into existence about 19807 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Out here. It was in Pennsylvania before that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Everybody done? I tend to concure wi~h Leslie, perhaps get rid of that one side deck and put some steps there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: At least it's a concession. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It sure is. It's better than zero lot lines on both sides. It would help your lot coverage a little bit and I think you should consider that and that's all I have to say about this except I've spent plenty of time on that beach. MR. HILL: I would only ask that of the Board members currently sitting, two of you have indicated that that's something that you think would be an alternative to what currently exists with the property. If that's what you're saying that you would suggest that we entertain, then I could accept that and I could take that back. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There's no decision here, sir. I think that we've had the hearing. You told us what you would like to do and I guess I'm just giving you my ideas of how I would like for it to turn out. So each of us has our own opinion. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Since I'm going to be writing this, Leslie suggestion was a sort of idea that I was inviting you to present. I also recognize what Jim is saying that what may very well emerge is a denial with an alternative which can be taken back to the client to accept cr not. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 You can take anything you want that we said today back there. You're right, we're not negotiating. We are indicating a possible direction in which our deliberations may go. MR, HILL: I understand. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. All done. Any comments from the audience? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing to November 1st. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie, seconded by Jerry. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6084 - O'Connsll CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is Jerry's for Daniel and Elaine O'Connell. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's August 1, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling, for the reason that the new construction will be less than the code-required 35 ft. Side yard setbacks (total), at 1205 Waterview Drive, Southold; CTM 78-7-16." MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you. I'm Dan O'Connell, this is my wife, Elaine. We currently reside in Clifton Park, upstate New York and the property on Waterview Drive, we've owned it for 7 or 8 years. Her parents owned it since it was built in 1970. When the house was built, we only came recently to understand, it was built on a slight angle. So to go out in the back even one foot more would encroach on the setback. We've talked to our neighbors, nobody seems to have an objection to it. The property to our east, which is the Lakale (phonetic) property between us and the Lakale property, there ars 40 foot arborvitae trees. We cannot see the Lakale property. They can't see our house. So there's no question of privacy or anything like that on that side and that's the side that the impact is on. The other side of the house is the garage so we can't expand out that way. Our choice was to go up but frankly, my knees can't take the stairs and we're not getting, she's not getting any younger. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the record no less. Now that was an ambitious statement. MR. O'CONNELL: I'll pay for that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You will, dearly. MR. O'CONNELL: So our choice was to expand out. We started this procease in September of '05. We've gotten the EN-CON permit, the Suffolk County Board of Health permit and hopefully, this is where we are now. Hopefully, this will be the end of the permitting process. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question, the proposed additiona of 20 by 28 is a one story addition that will conform to the house? MR. O'CONNELL: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proposed sunroom, in between that and we're refer to the bump out of the deck, which is 10 by 15 open deck I suspect? MR. O'CONNELL: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The proposed sunroom is heated or unheated? MR. O'CONNELL: It'll be heated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That'll be nestled in that little niche out there? MR. O'CONNELL: Correct. We thought that the deck was too large and wasted space. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I've been to the property. It's a very, very nice site and very private, actually, all the way around. I really have no objections to your application. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's pretty clear from your site plan, you're going to go from 19 foot tapering to 15 foot 2 so you're going to need an additional 4 foot 1 inch setback variance from which you've got. It's the logical place to build. You're still plenty far from Goose Creek. I did have one question, are you going to be able to save that oak? MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, I hope so. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you cut the roots, you're on slap, you're not excavating. MR. O'CONNELL: We're on a slab, concrete block. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Crawlspace. You have about 20 feet from the back of your existing house. You have a concrete ring there. MR. O'CONNELL: That's the existing septic 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 system. We'~e moving that to the front of the house. We have the Suffolk County Board of Health approval for that. BOARD MEMBER WEtSMAN: The site plan didn't make that terribly clear. That's all we got. MR. O'CONNELL: We're taking that out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the three that are dotted in the back, there' all going? MR. O'CONNELL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. No further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not really a problem. You're before us because of an unselected, unchosen anomaly, the angle of the house. It isn't as though you're applying for a reduction of setback in any way because it happens that the 15.2 feet i~ a good deal farther towards the water than the other one. It's only if you compare the two of them that there's any kind of a problem. If the house were parallel to the boundary lines, you wouldn't be before us. So I don't have any questions about the plan. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It's a lovely site. It's the only place you can bump it out without making a second story and saving your knees. I don't have further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I suggest that you knees by the weekened will hurt from washing a few floors from the comment you made. No, I have no questions at all. The side yard still won't meet the minimum which is 15 feet. That certainly bodes well. You have anything else to add to this. MR. O'CONNELL: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience like to comment concerning this application? Board members? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIR~4AN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing ~6079 - Scheublein CHAIRMAN DINIZI©: The next hearing, Ruth, is ycurs. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes,efor Kenneth Scheublein. "Request for Variances under Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's June 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed accessory garage and shed in an area other than the code-required rear yard, at 105 West Creek Avenue (also Pequash Avenue and Old Pasture Road), Cutchogue, CTM 103-13-20.1." Ms. Doty? MS. DOTY: Ms. Oliva. Good afternoon. Deborah Dory for the applicant. I'll try to make this brief. What I propose is, I know there is opposition present, I will proceed with at least part of my argument and I think I will save time -- the time of the Board if I respond to the opposition as opposed to anticipating the opposition. Mr. Scheublein is here (indicating). He purchased the property from a client of mine several years ago. Also here are several neighbors; three, four, five neighbors. Mr. Scheublein's property unfortunately has three front yards. He is bounded by West Creek Avenue on the west side, Old Pasture on the north and Pequash on the east. The north part of the property has specimen rhodidendrum and white pine and hollies and etcetera, etcetera. The eastern side i~mediately adjacent to the house is landscaped as a backyard, if you could call it that. The western side is a front yard with grass and plantings, etcetera. And the south side has a driveway and shrubs and scrub, etcetera. We have, as I said, three front yards. Mr. Scheublein wishes to build a shed and a two-car detached garage. When you look at the property the way it's configured and the way it exists, the logical place to put it is in southeast corner and I will confess, I guess I need a compass on my computer because I did say southwest corner at one point in the application and I apologize. That's the area that has the least desirable vegetation. In point of fact, while it is 20 feet from the property line, it's another 14 feet to the pavement. So it will be 34 feet from the pavement. And it's at least 15 feet from the southerly property line. Talking about the garage. Mr. Scheublein began to build a shed not being aware of his unusual problem cf having three front yards and when he 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 learned that he had three front yards and the sh~d was not compliant with the code, he immediately stopped. Bas not done any further work on it and made an application to the Building Department for the shed and then subsequently realized he might as well do the shed and the garage together. So that's why we have them both together here. The access to the garage will be off of Pequash, approximately 230 feet from the intersection of Pequash and Old Pasture. Which is -- to the extent that you can have access on Pequash, it's the safest location. Anything closer, I think, to Old Pasture, would be somewhat dangerous. There will be screening, of course, for the garage and the shed will be hidden behind the garage. It's in a location where the people across Pequash, who are not here, Ted and Louisa Bebbe, there will be screening for that. It's not directly across from their front. In fact it's probably directly ly across from their garage. The garage itself will be used for storage and Mr. Scheublein restores antique cars. Frankly, he wanted to have a three-bay garage but he said, that's a little unreasonable. He didn't want to get anything that big so he did a two-car garage at 22 feet high and he intends to put one small lift in one of the bays so that he can stack two cars. We're proposing that we increase the lot coverage by 1.25% and when you look at the property, it really is the most logical location for it. It's not a self-created problem because he has three front yards. That was the way it was laid out when it was subdivided, I believe in 1995 or '96 or '97 or '98. If you have any additional questions, I'd be happy to answer them now or wait until after other people speak. I know Ms. Moore is here and I think she has a few things she would like to say. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? It's your turn. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The garage is 23 by 26? MS. DOTY: Correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And it's going to be 20 feet off Pequash and just 15 feet from the neighbors. MS. DOTY: It's going to be 20 feet off of our property on Pequash but there's another 14 feet of town owned property between the proprety line and Pequash. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And 15 feet from 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 neighbor's property? MS. DOTY: Correct. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the shed is going to be? MS. DOTY: The shed is actually there. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know it's there. It's a different kind of a shed, I must say. How far is that off the property line? Twelve feet? MS. DOTY: No. It's an 8 by 12 foot shed. I have a survey here which actually gives the dimensions. The east side is 15 feet 10 inches and the west side is 16 feet 4 inches. I have copies for the Board. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's not a survey. It's a diagram. It's amended. It's not amended. It's the same diagram you gave, right? MS. DOTY: It's the exact same diagram. Just, the driveway is noted with the word driveway and the side yard on the shed is noted. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you all finished? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: For the time being. CHAIRMAN DINIZION: Jerry, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Doty, to what extent does the applicant refurbish cars? Does he do any bodywork there? Does he do anymore than change the oil on a car? MS. DOTY: It's a hobby and I think Kenny could probably describe what he does. It's not heavy duty. It's not like Dawson's garage by any means. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: I have two street rods. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you just state your MR. SCHEUBLEIN: My name is Kenneth Scheublein, 105 West Creek Avenue. I have two street rods. One is a '34 Ford three window coupe. The other is a '39 Ford deluxe coupe. I bought both cars completely together; running, registered. I do repairs to them. Obviously 70 year old cars don't run without a hiccup occasionally. Tune-ups, oil changes, you know more or less maintenance type things. I have no intention of ever building a car in my garage. Would I ever take a fender off the car to perhaps do something, that's very possible. Maybe the 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 talking'about -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Major repairs. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: Exactly. That's a very hard word to describe because I don't know what you consider a major repair. But I have no intention of totally disassembling a car into every one of it's parts and putting it back together. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the fender falls off, you're going to put the fender back on. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: Pretty much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you done, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. DOTY: I have some pictures of the cars which I just would like to give the Board just so you have them and you see what they are. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. Leslie, it's up to you now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I think it's pretty clear what you're proposing and why you're proposing it there. What do you intend to make the driveway out of; permeable or impervious? MS. DOTY: As a preliminary matter, he is redoing his driveway on the west side of the property and I assume this would be of similar material. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which would be what? Is it asphalt or are you using gravel? MS. DOTY: Gravel. I have the proposal here for the repair of the other driveway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me follow-up a little bit on the idea of working on the vehicles.. The lift is because you have to get underneath it. MS. DOTY: No. Absolutely not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You just want to do it strictly for storage? So any kind of bodywork underneath you just use -- MS. DOTY: He doesn't -- it's not to work underneath it and in fact, one of the advantages for having the rack in there is there will be no second floor and therefore, there will nobody living upstairs. That eliminates that problem. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. Is the garage gooing to be heated? MS. DOTY: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No heat. Electric and water, I pressume? MS. DOTY: Water, actually I believe will be 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 on the outside. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes with a spicket or something. No welding going on; some welding, spot welding, anything? MS. DOTY: No. You're going, I think to some objections there. In order to paint a car, you have to have a paint booth. He's not going to have a paint booth. Welding? Nothing of any serious nature. Bob Burke's out in Orient does welding. A friend of mine does jewelry, she does welding. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's a difference between an aceteylen (phonetic) torch and a blow torch. I'm just trying to speak to the substance of the activities going on. MS. DOTY: I understand. With respect to hazardous materials; Mr. Scheublein is not going to risk the anger of the ~PA. He's not going to be dumping any hazardous materials and will not have a grease pit because I believe they are illegal in New York State. It is a hobby, like woodworking. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So we could characterize this as mostly home maintenance? MS. DOTY: Yes. I think, you know, the use of it has become a focus to a certain extent but the fact that it's going to store antique cars, restore antique cars, we're asking for a garage, a detached garage that's going to be used as a garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, I understant. I'll hold off on anything else at this time. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's something entered into the record that's not identified. MS. DOTY: I'm sorry. That is an estimate -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Removal of asphalt and concrete. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: She just needs to enter it into the record. MS. DOTY: Sure. It's a proposal to repair the driveway on the western side of the property. There had been a comment made that it was in disrepair. BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI: Landscaping proprosal from Twin Fork Landscaping contracting in the amount of $4680.00. MS. DOTY: Dated September 25, 2007. CHAIRMAN D!N!ZIO: Okay. Michael? 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there -- the ~riveway is on the other side of the property. Is there any garage over there? MS. DOTY: There is a one-car garage attached to the house. That house used to have a two-car garage in it and one of the bays was converted into living space and by the way, they do have a CO for it. And there is a very, very small one-car garage attached to the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason I asked was, does he anticipate that part of the garage is going to be used as a garage? Meaning to store acti%e vehicles? MS. DOTY: Part of which garage? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The proposed garage. MS. DOTY: Is going to store? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not going to be for current vehicles at all? MS. DOTY: It's going to be for the two vehicles I just -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Meaning vehicles that he uses. MS. DOTY: You mean his regular, like my SUV, his van? No. It's not intended to be an "active" driveway. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not a garage as it's a workshop essentially for cars. MS. DOTY: No, it's a garage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Garage meaning it's house, the place where cars are housed whether they're daily used. MS. DOTY: It's not going to be as active as a garage -- as my garage is attached to my house. As my neighbor's garages are. Because it's not the one that's going to be used primarily in connection with the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's just the ambiguity of the word garage. Sometimes it means where you put your active car and sometimes it means where you work on things. MS. DOTY: At the present moment, I believe the red car or possibly the yellow car is stored in the garage attached to the house but there's no cther place to store it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Nothing turns on my questions. I just wanted a picture of this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ail right, Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN ~INIZIO: Okay. I got a couple of questions. One would be why can't you just attach it to the house? MS. DOTY: Well, we could. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. MS. DOTY: I'm not sure that that's as neighbor friendly as one -- as this is. I actually did a sketch and I grant you it's somewhat of an exaggeration but I did a sketch of what we could do as a right. This is a copy of the survey with my drawing on it. I'm not going to but we could. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's still my turn to ask questions here and I understand what you could have. MS. DOTY: And we're not asking for that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know. It seems like you are asking for An accessory structure in the front yard at accessory structure setbacks. MS. DOTY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm wondering if there's any reason why you couldn't move that back to 30 feet and over from the side yard -- the minimum side yard setback for that, I don't know if it's 15 or 20. I don't recall what it is. I'm wondering if there's a reason why you couldn't do that, for a principle structure. MS. DOTY: Your mean go 50 foot? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know 50 feet would be extreme but let's say 30 feet. MS. DOTY: There is a very large oak tree on the northwest corner of the garage that my client would really like to preserve. It's one of the few valuable plants in that area. Most everything else is dead in there and he'd like to preserve it. Unfortunately, that's about 3 feet away from the northwest corner of the garage. BOARD MEMGBER WEISMAN: As proposed, yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It currently doesn't exist but we have a little leway here. MS. DOTY: I understand that. I'm just saying that that's why it was sited where it was, so that we could stay away from that oak tree. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This doesn't dictate how close you need to come to the road. It just dictates that you cant put it in that particular space. It's not to say you couldn't put it 60 feet from that side yard setoack and come back 30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BO~D OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 feet. MS. DOTY: That would be directly behind the house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would like to hear your answers. I'm exploring the fact that we're trying to grant minimum variances here and I kind of recognize the neighbor complaints and I just want you to discus them with us. MS. DOTY: I think the neighbor actually has a proposal which I can address once the proposal is made and we can actually discuss it then, if I may. I'm trying to save you some time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're not conducive to moving this particular structure anywhere. Is that your answer to me? You don't want to go over 30 feet from the side yard and come up to 30 feet away from the property line? MS. DOTY: I don't. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And there's no excuse for that other than it's something you just don't feel you want to do. It wouldn't look nice in the yard. MS. DOTY: This is the logical corner and the logical place to put it and that's -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'm through with my questions. If you would have anything else to add, I would entertain that. MS. DOTY: I will be able to respond to the opposition, will I not? Next to the proposed garage, I was just whispered in my ear, are two Korean dogwoods and that's another reason why we don't want to push it out of the location it's in. Just for the Board's information. I've lived in the neighborhood for almost 20 years. The lot was one big lot. Mr. LaRocca and Mr. Scheublein was in one big lot and the McNeil family owned it. Mr. McNeil planted specimen rhodidendrum and various other unusual trees and plants on the combined lot and some of those are still remaining and we're trying to keep them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So if you move it, you may take down some of the trees that you want to keep? MS. DOTY: I think the neighborhood would want to keep it. I think the Board would want to keep them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Don't think my questions were just thrown out there. I want you to state on the reccrd the reasons why ycu couldn't put 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 someplace else. MS. DOTY: I did state that we have the Korean dogwood and we don't want those ripped out. We don't want the oak trees ripped out. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And we're adding some more trees and landscaping that would not be conducive to you moving it. That's what I'm trying to get at. MS. DOTY: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. If you have nothing else to add, I'll ask the audience if they have anything to add. For? Anyone for this application. MS. DOTY: Does Pat want to go? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, anyone against it? MS. MOORE: Thank you. I'm here with Mr. LaRocca who, of all the neighbors here, he is the most i~pacted by this proposal because he is directly to the east of the property within within 15 feet of the proposed garage. The concern that Mr. LaRocca had initially was not just the location and I'm not sure that this is alternative is accurate because if it's a principle structure, which appears to be the suggestion, the alternative is connected to the garage, I believe that you have to maintain 20 or 25 foot setbacks from a side yard and that certainly is a better alternative and that was one of the alternatives that we discussed, was make it attached. The response I got was we have the cesspool and we have that tower that's in the way. So it was really in line with some -- and I think they've been able to work around the cesspool given this drawing -- but the tower would have to come down and certainly nobody has any objection about that. My effort usually when I get involved with a neighbor is see if you can't talk and see if you can't work it out. So the first thing that we did -- the clients weren't able to communicate very comfortably with each other but I called Deborah Doty and I explained our concerns. In particular the fact that the use of this structure for what is ostensibly not just minor repairs but based on the gentleman's history of putting together kit cars and possibly going more extensively than what you describe or what I think I could, you know, somebody that I know would be able to do which is maybe change the oil, put air in the tires, the 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 normal maintenance. The concern we have is, if there is metal work, even on occasion there's metal work, that's a very loud use and the use of this garage for more than -- I mean we're not talking about a sealed structure. Most garages, the garage doors are open. It's not heated, I think is the comment that I heard. So it will be open and it will be subject to the activities and the noises that is a relatively very quite neighborhood right now. So what prompted the concern for my client was its proximity and the activity. So given those two concerns we suggested, would you please consider moving the garage to the opposite side of your property. Both properties are quite large and I did describe for Ms. Dory the alternatives and what I'd like to present to the Board is what we suggested which would require no variances. He has room and he is able to do it. Again, the proposal that I think was suggested as an attached garage, my client would have no objection to an attached garage, however, I think that the setbacks are not accurate here. I don't have the code in front of me but I'm not sure that I would concede that this is the right setback. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's three front yards. MS. MOORE: I know. The side yard is the setback issue I think. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There's no side, it's a rear yard. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. The side that is on my client's -- my client shares a side yard. MS. DOTY: Excuse me. May I interrupt? I asked the Building Department that very specific question. He has three front yards and a side yard. I have a copy of the code here and an R40 it's a 15 foot side yard. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I didn't know that. Who in the Building Department? MS. DOTY: Damon, who wrote the Notice of Disapproval. MS. MOORE: This is a larger piece than an R40. MS. DOTY: It's an R40 zone. MS. MOORE: I've been there. I've never quite known which applied. Whatever it is, it is. We ~hink iha5 ~hctographs really are best tc 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 describe what we're facing and what we re dealing with and the concern we have is what the owner has requested which is here, let me .give you. I have it separated. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pat, can I get a clarification? You said you're client is on the property to the east. You did mean the south, didn't you? That's where the property line is -- MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. It's southeast, yes. I have the same geographic problems. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where is it exactly then? MS. MOORE: We are where it shows McNeil os the property owner on the survey. It's the only neighbor. It's the only side yard neighbor. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to make sure for the record. MS. MOORE: Thank you. I appreciate'the correction on the record. And that is where the garage is proposed. So we're closest to it. What you see here is standing from the street looking on opposite side of where the garage is proposed, it is -- across from Pequash you have the Bebbe home, directly across. Mr. LaRocca took a photograph into the property and you can see that some of the mature vegetation that they're concerned with is dead vegetation. So it will not provide any buffers and screening for us. Also, the staking of the property, it will appear very close to the road. So it is not quite as clear that the setback is not going to affect anyone, any visible signs in the neighborhood because it will be very visible from the road. Arguably, you have, I think there's another technical variance that doesn't appear to have been noticed here which is, yes you are in a yard other than a rear yard because of the road frontages. However, I think that there is also a variance for setback. My understanding is when you are adjacent to a street, you must maintain a 50 foot setback. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not for an accessory building. MS. MOORE: I guess the way I've seen the Building Dep. artment interpret i£ is that for an accessory building facing a street, that the accessory building must maintain the same distance as the principle building. That's my understanding and ! can't tel! you why i--'s not 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 included here. Again, Damon was not available. I believe that's the way the code reads which is if you are on, if you have a street front, you have to maintain a street setback whether you're an accessory or a principle building. It wouldn't make sense other otherwise. What we were requesting is that the garage be moved to the opposite side of the property. And I apologize if I hand you different drawings here. We did want to try to work it out. We obviously don't want to create animosity between our neighbors and we hoped that the area, the location where this garage -- and we'd like to support his request for the size. We don't want to oppose his application. And what we want to do is see that the location mitigates the activity that he plans to do in this garage. The alterative location is directly acros~ from the wooded lot. So there's neighbor looking straight at the garage. If you're looking it from Pequash, it is far away from the neighbors. If you view it from across Pequash, you see the wooded lot with a house to the other side of it. And if there are any mature trees that can be relocated -- mature shrubbery, that is, they can be balled and they can be relocated. The area that we believe would be appropriate here is actually a cleared area. We took a picture from the street and you can see that that area has no vegetation and it contains some trellice from the prior owner. It was a little bit of a dumping ground. We also tried to locate this alternative location for the garage through an arial view on a Google map and you can see that it's the same proximity to the house for the applicant. Again, we are moving it to a side that is completely vegetated, will not impact any neighbor and more importantly will mitigate any impact on us as the closest neighbor. On the Google map you can see that the house, the only house adjacent, is my client's house. We also provided their drawing from the previous drawing that didn't have the setbacks identified, side yard setbacks on it. But you can see that the placement of this garage would not bother anyone. The neighbors don't seem to be bothered by it and certainly it would be woods and screened and it would not impact us. We hope we've provided an alternative location that cculd be considered 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 little more carefully. We don't Nave plans or elevations on this garage and I was quite surprised when there were none in the file because that generally tends to be a requirement that the Board insists on. So I would say that at a minimum that this hearing should be adjourned to provide for plans on this garage so that we have a true idea of the impact. Secondly, I think that if you wait a little bit and you see what the vegetation looks like when it is not a late fall, still summertime vegetation, you will see why my client is concerned, not only for visual impact but most importantly, the noise. He's planted a great deal on his side and the planting that he created as a boundary line between the two properties never intended for a structure, large structure to be right next to them. So he has planted for the past ten years ih anticipation of what is occurring on the property. For him to change his whole planting plan to try to screen, not only the noise, but the view of this proposed garage, I think is a burden that you're imposing on a neighbor that's just not appropriate and not fair. So we think that you should take a moment. Go take a took and see if, one, this garage couldn't be built without variances and two, if you are to grant variances, let's make some protections. Let's impose some protections to this neighbor. There have been some statements here as far as what he's planning to do which are somewhat contrary to conversations that my client's had with respect to his tinkering and his enjoying of building cars. We think that's a wonderful trait but it doesn't necessarily beling in a densely populated residential neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim, can I ask? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First of all, I think it's helpful and useful that you invite us to consider whether there are other locations which would not require a variance. I think we'd be doing this in any case whether it adjourned or not. I would hope so. There are actually two short questions. One is, is the house across from the proposed alternative location a buildable lot? And the second question is, how far from the boundary lines on the southeast is your client's hsuse? How much distance is there between his 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 house~and the applicant's proposed location? MS. DOTY: Pat, I can answer both of those. Trust me, I'm a lawyer. MS. MOORE: Deborah is prepared to answer it and if we disagree, we'll certainly interrupt. MS. DOTY: Across the street is a vacant lot that's owned by Ted and Louisa Bebbe. Ted owns the house. So it is a separate buildable lot that has not been merged. That's the vacant lot which includes part of, I believe, part of the forest area that is on the south side of the improved property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It does raise a general question as to whether the view from an unbuildable lot somehow doesn't count where the view from a house that's already been built on does count. 'MS. DOTY: It is a buildable lot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fact is it is buildable but as yet unbuilt and that was the reason for chosing that particular alternative location. There isn't anybody else on Pequash Avenue who is going to be directly opposite the proposed alternate solution yet. MS. MOORE: I would also point out this was our, we said, listen, put it anywhere you like in this vicinity, set it back 50 feet from the street and you have a tremendous flexibility on where you want to put it as long as it's in that quadrant of the property. It doesn't neccessarily have to be directly across from the wooded lot. It presently is a wooded lot. That's fine if they want to shift it. If they actually move it back 50 feet, they can screen it and put a curved driveway so that you never see the garage. So there's room. The problem is when you put a garage so close to the street, it leaves very little room for design of a driveway and screening. So the alternative that present proposed garage has the garage at 20 feet from the property line. I would say that when you're dealing with garages, a lot of activity is occurred in the driveway in front of your garage. So you're going to have a straight out view of this strucsure off of Pequash where it's proposed presently. We don't want to see it moved closer to us. We think it should be moved away from us. But in any case, I think that you have principle setbacks that are applicable here which are 50 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 foot setbacks. I think %f they -- even if the Building Department says no for accessory structure, it can be accessory structure setback which would be at 10 or 15 or whatever the setback would be. It doesn't make sense in one note because that's not how you set up the code because the whole idea is to put structures away from the street. I'd also point out that if you loook at the Google map, you also see that the garage is going to be essentially close to the size of the house can be put in line with all the other homes that are within that same line of sight. Because all the homes have been built at 50 feet from the property line, 45 to 50, we're guesstimating. Certainly, if you apply the setbacks applicable here, it would be a 50 foot setback. So we're just suggesting, listen, if this is what you want to do with your spare t£me, God bless 'you. We don't have any problem with that. But do it in such a way that we don't have to share your enthusiams with car repair and you're also moving it in such a place where it doesn't need variances and you can mitigate viewscapes and noise from the street. I think that those are alternatives that we hoped they would consider right off the bat and we're asking you for your protection because we tried to do it through negotiation and it didn't work. They we need your protection. MS. DOTY: There were a couple of questions that were asked and I actually can, I have a copy of Mr. LaRocca's survey. From Pequash, his house is set 76.6 feet and from the north property line, which is the property line that we share, his house is 95.9 feet. We're talking 96 feet. MS. MOORE: And I would also point out, we don't have a garage yet. Okay. And the house is positioned in such a way that it's diagonally facing the corner of Old Pasture Road and West Creek. It kind of faces that way. We invite you to come and look from our property. You're always welcome. But it's not just the views. It's going to be the noise. Again, noise of car repair is often times metal hitting metal and that's not what he planned when he bought this house and came to live here. If he had wanted to live near a garage, a repair garage, he would have had options on the Main Road. MS. DOTY: Hay ! apeak? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, you know, I ~ind myself looking at two lawyers and two microphones. I'm hoping that at some point in time we can come to some sort of conclusion. MS. DOTY: I just want to give additional information to the Board and I also want to pass in the survey from Mr. LaRocca just so the Board has it, if I may. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sure. MS. DOTY: And I can appreciate how you feel. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's a scary situation, Deborah, quite honestly. MS. DOTY: I find it scary when I start sounding like a lawyer. With regard to setbacks for an accessory structure, the only place where you have to comply with a front yard setback is on the waterfront parcel. With respect to thi~ particular property, our maximum height according to the new code is 22 feet and the minimum side or rear yard setback is 15. I was unable to find in this code anything about a "front yard setback." CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. Deborah, you're missing something there. The maximum allowed for an accessory structure in a front yard is not anything. It's not allowed. MS. DOTY: I understand that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Quite honestly, if this applicant -- if this person is offering you 50 feet without complaints, I think that's a gift. MS. DOTY: I would also suggest that Ms. Moore has several times said that this is an alternate location that would not require a variance. We have three front yards and that includes Pequash and Old Pasture and West Creek Avenue. And moving the garage to the northside of the property still puts it in a front yard. I also would suggest that essentially 100 feet off of the corner of Old Pasture and Pequash Avenue for a driveway is exceedingly dangerous. I go in and out of that four times a day. It's a very dangerous intersection and I'm sure the neighbors will agree. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't buy that either. But you could attach it to the house on the other side and not need a variance. I mean there's plenty of places for you to put it. MS. DOTY: We can attach it tc the south side 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 also. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree. That would be your purview and I think that at some point in time you have to show a little bit of compromise here. If there's not going to be -- MS. DOTY: I'm not suggesting there's not compromise. I am suggesting, however, that this is the logical place to put it. I also have some photographs which I would like to submit. I feel like this is the battle of the photographs. Just before the hearing I was handed a letter which I would like to read from one of the neighbors; "Ladies and Gentlemen," this is addressed to the Board, "but for the oddity of three front yards, the proposed location of the garage would be the obvious choice. The Scheublein residence faces West Creek Avenue. The adjoining residence of LaRocca also f~ces West Creek Aveneu. The defacto rear yard of the property is the Pequash Avenue sign. The area is heavily screened with natural vegetation. Much of this is the magnificent rhodidendrum variety that the McNeil's propogated themselves over the many years they owned the property. Most of that vegetation has been cleared from the LaRocca property but the owners of the subject property have maintained many of these shrubs some of which are tree size by now. As a property owner across the street, I have no objection to this application. Very truly yours, Abigail A. Wickham." BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Across from which street? MS. DOTY: She's across Old Pasture. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: For the record. MS. MOORE: For the record, could we state the distance to her house from this garage? MS. DOTY: That's not her house, that's vacant land. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not affected by the garage. MS. MOORE: I think we have to ackowledge that the most affected p~operty owner is Mr. LaRocca. MS. ~©TY: I haven't denied that. I also would like to give the Board, and I have 7 copies, pictures of the proposed lift and photographs of the proposed location approximately as well as the view from the p~cpcsed lot location. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 interestingly, the garage will ~n part be screened by Mr. LaRocca's own shed. MS. MOORE: May I speak? My client asked that I clarify something while she's handing stuff out. Mr. Simon pointed out that his concern was that this is a vacant lot, unbuilt -- as of right now, an unbuilt lot. We, again, we placed it in such a way where it kind of straddled our neighbor's across the street, the property line. We're not fixed on where it goes precisely. We leave it to the applicant. If they want to move it more to the left or more to the right, we really -- it's really up to them. We're not trying to micromanage the location of this garage. Again, we are trying to locate it in the quadrant where it will least impact Mr. LaRocca. Again, when we placed it, we boxed it on the survey and we took a photograph to show what was across from that property. It showed the vacant lot. We are not suggesting that is the one and only place. We're just saying please use some discretion in its placement. MS. DOTY: I would have a similar problem if it were put closer to West Creek Avenue or closer to Old Pasture and have the entrance on either Old Pasture or West Creek Avenue. Both of those, I don't know, I spent a lot of time on Vinny's lawn. When people cut that corner coming around Old Pasture and West Creek Avenue with boat trailers, etcetera, and a driveway there doesn't make sense. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask a question? Your client's, the front elevation, architectural front elevation of your client's house faces West Creek? MS. DOTY: It's parallel to. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. You're asking me. Our house faces West Creek, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your driveway access is? MS. MOORE: Also on West Creek. It is next to the applicants driveway. The two driveways are next to each other. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're fairly close to each other off of West Creek but not on the east side of the property. What's in your client's, we'll call it the architectural rear yard? Which would be Pequash. What's there? A shed and what else? 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 APPF2%LS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 MS. MOORE: It's just landscaping. It's treated as a rear yard with the landscaping that he's planted; evergreens and deciduous trees for the past ten years or so, six years. They are similarly situated as far as where their rear yards are. So they will both have similar issues when it comes to placement of the garage. It's not our issue that it is in a, technically, in a lot, a yard that is not the rear yard because for practical purposes it is a rear yard. However, our complaint is that the activity, the use of the garage and the intensity of the use of the garage should be, you have the discretion to move it away from the property owner so that we are, the impact of the use is lessened. MS. DOTY: Ms. Moore says that he will have the same problem when he proposes to build a detached garage. He right now has exactly the same problem with respect to the two sheds around his property. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's not the subject of this hearing. MS. DOTY: I understand that. I'm just suggesting that. There was a question of how close the properties are and I have a picture here of a fence between the property and one of Mr. LaRocca's shed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: Can I ask you a question, Ms. Doty? MS. DOTY: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will your client accept alternate relief? MS. DOTY: It depends on what. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm leading up to another question. I didn't get to that point yet. Maybe you might want to consider at least plan two to give us other additional area if the Board is not inclined to -- you know this is a democratic vote of three people. If three people do not agree to your client's position, maybe you would consider submitting another plan of an alternate location. MS. DOTY: I think he would consider moving it slightly to the north and off of the south property line. But certainly not up to the proposed location and I could not, as a neighbor, adhere to that particular location because I personally think it would be dangerous to have it 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 up there. To have the access up there. But to move it slightly maybe 5, 8, 10 feet northward provided we can preserve the vegetation and particularly that large tree which I do no believe we could --. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That'S the concern that a person would have in developing, the five independent thinkers on this Board, would have in dealing with that. And so that's why I'm not -- I'm just trying to work out a situation here that, you know, rather than having a denial of this application we can't come to an agreement. You have to excuse me, I spent two days in a public auction up west and I was screaming in a 600 foot room. This is the insanity of my job. MS. DOTY: Dare I say it sounds like this hearing? Nevermind. I won't say that. I just said we could move it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But we don't know how far away from the tree without destroying the tree. MS. DOTY: We would want to keep it east of the oak tree so we can preserve that tree which would keep it closer to Pequash. But we could move it slightly to the north. And I suggested 5, 8, 10 feet to the north. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What happens to those dogwoods. Are they there? MS. DOTY: I think they might be out of the way. The other thing that just dawned on me when I looked at Kenny, I don't know why. His boat is currently stored in his driveway and it's his intention to get that boat out of that front yard and put it to the north of the garage. To get it away from Mr. LaRoccaso so he doesn't have to see it and the neighbors also. If the garage moves to far north, then the boat may have to go on the south side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it's important to add that you can't access in its proposed . location, the shed or the garage via a driveway off of West Creek because of the location of your cesspool. So that egres which would be fairly inactive because these are primarily antique cars that are not driven on a regular basis is fairly limited off of Pequash. MS. DOTY: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEiSer_N: I want tc clarity use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ OCTOBER I8, 2007 again a little bit. It's also going in a place where there is primarily dead vegetation. MS. DOTY: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which will mean the elimination of, dead or not, screening. MS. DOTY: Some. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is there any kind of problem with a 15 or 20 foot side yard setback of planting some sort of screening; evergreen of some sort to create both a noise buffer as well as a visual buffer? MS. DOTY: There is no objection to something like that. If you look at the first set of photographs that I gave you, on the lower left hand corner is a photograph from from that corner, the southeast corner of the property, looking towards Mr. LaRocca's property and you will see that he has already planted a large evergreen. There's a very large rhodidendrum in there and also his shed is there. So that's all screening. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I noticed that when I was there actually. MS. DOTY: All that is on his property that we don't have control over. But I believe my client would be more than willing to put up screening on that side, be it Leland Cyprus. And not something that would shed it's leaves during the wintertime but would be a permanent buffer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to say one more time, you must understand that if we don't get three votes, it's a denial without prejudice. MS. DOTY: I understand that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I'm going to suggest to you again if you would come up with an alternate plan on the other side of that tree so we can understand what we're supposed to do in reference to an alternate location or one side of the tree or another side of the tree or whatever the case might be so that the three can still be preserved and we can deal with an alternate location if we so need to do so. MS. DOTY: We will take a look at it and I would want to look at where the dogwood are and everything else. That property, I actually have a picture for you but i don't know that you want it of the combined properties in 1994. And somebody stole it from me, here it is. And you will 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 see how heavily vegetated they were and if you compare that with -- I'm going to keep on talking -- if you were to compare this particular spot and I don't know if you can see it, but you can see the v where Old Pasture is -- compare that with the submission by Ms. Moore of the lots in 2001, you can see the difference in vegetation between the two. And I have a letter here from one of the neighbors who couldn't be here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you want that read into the record? MS. DOTY: "To the Town of Southold Zoning Board, I have looked over Mr. Scheublein's plans for a garage and shed. He would like to build on the property located at 105 West Creek Avenue in Cutchogue. Although I am unable to be present for the hearing, I would like to voice my support and approval of h~s plans with this letter. Sincerely, Stacy A. Fabres." She's on Pequash. She's in the house on the corner of Pequash and we call it Peawater and we can't remember the name of it. It's something like Dartmouth. It's an unapproved parcel. She's to the north, directly across from Old Pasture. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Some of her frontage is essentially across the road. MS. DOTY: Some of those trees we're talking about are on her property. (Everyone talking at one time.) MS. DOTY: I know there are some neighbors here who would like to talk but perhaps Mr. LaRocca would like to go first. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Go ahead. MR. L;LROCCA: Vincent LaRocca. The first thing I would like to stress is all these different photos. I've lived there six and a half years now and I've planted a substantial number of conifers in my back because I've had to deal with having my backyard face Pequash and it's a daunting challenge trying to plant enough conifers so that in the winter you don't feel like it's sitting out on the road. I can't stress enough. I've seen both of our rear yards in fairness in %he winter and it's a very different picture and it's six months of the year. In my house is 76 feet back and I know how much I've had to plant so that I felt I was mitigating the impact of having a rear yard on Pequash Avenue. Something that's 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 so close to the road in the win~er I believe is going to have a dramatic impact on Pequash. I'm just asking if we wait another month, we'll see how much of that goes down and how little evergreen screeing there is back there along the road. Also, there was a concern, I'm not trying to push this problem away from me down onto any of the other neighbors. So when I did that Google search, one of the things I want to make sure is clear there is that I tried to make sure I didn't go so far down to Old Pasture that I made it the women's problem on the other side of Pequash. Good news for me and stick it on the road all the way down by her and I'm done. I tried to sort of say okay, now this equi distance from me, equi distance from the Bebbe property, equi distance from that women across the way and the gentleman who lives on Old Pasture. And b~ pulling it 50 feet back, it's still 30 feet behind the applicant's home. So it's not jaramed up on his home. It still sits on consistent with all the other homes running along and this way by putting it more there, it's away from all of our homes. As for the Bebbe's lot, I tried to, again, I didn't trespass but I tried to propose a location that sort of straddled their property line so at 50 feet back and on the property tine with 50 feet, you've got some screening you can preserve and no one's home has to have direct access to something that would be inconsistent with the rest of the road. So I very much tried to think of spot that was fair to all the other neighbors and to that empty lot which is why I proposed it sort of on the property line of those two people and back further as well. If it's germaine, I'm glad to explain what Deb showed you all in terms of the vegetation that was on my property and now is dastardly gone. If that's relevant at all in this, I'm glad to address it. If it's not, I don't want to belabor the point to anybody on the Board. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody? No. MR. LAROCCA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anybody else that would like tc commen5 on 5his application? MR. DIGNEY: Charles Digney. I live on 350 West Creek which faces Mr. Scheublein's house, directly face his house. I would like To verify everything that he said as far ss his car 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 collectzng goes in that he does not build cars. He does some mechanical work on them but he drives them around and leaves them stored and then sells them. And he's gone through a number of them. I have never seen him do any body fender work. He's done very, very little engine work and whatever he does is certainly quite. It's not like Mr. LaRocca's motorcycle when it's not running right. He'll stand there for 20 minutes popping his motorcycle. Ken has never done anything like that. Neither is that a problem nor is Ken a problem. These are just noises in the neighborhood. There is no smell coming from Ken's hobby. He is a very deliberative thinker. He has taken a piece of property which really should have been ripped down. The building was decrepit. It was rotted to the core. He had to rebuild the whole building. He does everything in a very deliberat% way and he does it right. If he has decided that this building should be on that property, on that squre where he figured out it should be, it is because that is the right place for that property to go and in conjunction with all his neighbors. He thinks about ail this stuff. Be thinks about his trees. He doesn't cut any trees down. The reason why Mr. LaRocca has planted so many trees, he took everything out, completely. From my house on West Creek Drive, I could see Pequash. He took every bush, every tree down. There's just a different point of view as to what kind of location they want to live in. He would like to live in something that is like Central Park and I'd like to live woods here and woods there and whatever is natural. They just disagree on and this has been the basis of all the problems, frankly. But I will tell you that Ken would not do anything to impact negatively anything buldingwise or noisewise to disturb his neighbors. I've had homes, I'm 72 yeras old, I've had homes all over Long Island. I have never had a neighbor like him. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else? MR. WALSH: David Walsh, 525 West Creek Avenue. I have to echo what our neighbor said across the street. Ken has certainly been a good neighbor. Certainly he is improving on his home. As he said before, the house was ready to fall down and this man thinks everything through. As far as Mr. LaRocca living here ten years. I 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 believe you've only li~ed here six years. I know you hired a big time lawyer from the Main Road in Southold, Pat Moore. I really personally, Deborah I know and I know she's a laid back attorney. She does her job well and I don't think she would have taken this case if she thought wrong of it. My concern, if you move this garage toward Old Pasture as Deborah Doty mentioned before, to get out of Old Pasture whether you're going left or right is a big concern. So if the garage is moved further down closer to Old Pasture, I think you're going to have a safety problem. Also if you want noise of cars, I'll bring my son out here from Nassau County. He has GTO's and he collects them and they're noisy. It's a hobby that the man has. I don't see any problem with him building a garage. If they can come on to some kind of a location that would b~ agreeable to both, that would be great. As far as Mr. LaRocca fixing up his property, yes, he did take some valuable shrubs down, etcetera, etcetera. I live right next door to him but he also has enhanced the property by replacing trees and he maintains it very well. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. DEPETRIS: My name is William DePetris. I live at 100 Old Pature Raod. I live directly across from Mr. Scheublein's property. I've lived there for 48 years. The property in question has been overgrown and the house has been decrepit. Mr. Scheublein has improved the house immensely, has made 100% improvement on the property. There's, if you go by his property, you can see his nice lawn which wasn't there before. It was just an overgrown mess. I agree with all of our other neighbors. The garage should be built. He is a clean-cut gentleman. He would not build cars. He loves his hobby. That's all I got to say. MR. UURI~2qEK: My name is Bill Uurianek. I'm from 335 Emery Road, Mineola and also 57 Tutts Lane, South Jamesport. I've known Kenny for somewhere between 5 and 7 years. He's a neighbor of mine in Mineola and I've seen him work on his cars in Mineola and he does not do big repairs. But the garages in Mineola, if anybody knows anything about Mineola, the garages are 2 foot off the property line. I've yet to hear anybody complain about the noise from Kenny's garage in 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 Mineola and if there was a complaint, I ~ould hear it because I'm the President of the Mineola Civic Association. They would come screaming to me for me to get something done about it. So that's why I know what this young lady said about noise, I disagree with her. There would be no noise. Very, very little noise because there are no complaints. And like I said, the garages are very close and the properties in Mineola are basically 40 by 100. So you can imagine how close each car is. It's nothing like over here which I approve. I like it that way which is why I have a place in South Jamesport. But the noise, absolutely not. I've seen him work on his cars. They are minor repairs and he's very proud of what he does. He's a craftsman. He's not a mechanic. He's a craftsman. Anything he does, he does top of the line. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else on this side over here? Okay. Mr. LaRocca would like to say. MR. LAROCCA: First of all for clarification, it's a statement of fact, not a moral judgment. Ken has told me when we met many times some people like to throw a ball, some people like to play golf. I like to build things. I didn't mean that as a character assasination. I meant that as a statement of fact. I didn't mean it as a character assasination. Ken likes to build things. He's done a tremendous amount of work on his house. He does all the work. He likes to do that. I didn't realize I was making a character assault. But it is a fact that because he does it all himself and because it's what he likes to do, there's constant work that requires equipment and power tools going on in his yard. It's not illegal. He hasn't done anything and as to the refurbishing of cars, that came from the application. Not my mind. That his intent was to refurbish cars. That doesn't mean in my mind oil changes. If that's a misstatement, then let them retract it. But the application says to refurbish cars. Also Ken had told me, I thought I heard, and if it's wrong, then -- that he built kit cars. Tha5 he did a lot of work. That he used to be a mechanic. So again, I'm not going to get into a character battle and I didn't mean to assail his character. He's done all the work from building that shed mc al! cf 5ke work on his hcuse. He 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 does all of t~e work. It's what he enjoys doing. And I'm still not going to get on the multiple landscape in my yard. If you don't kill me, the attorney will kill me. I do have, if necessary, a map of this Pequash danger interesection. Should I submit this? MS. MOORE: You can. MR. LAROCCA: The ariai photo shows that there are five homes up off of Old Pasture. If we're getting into that moving the driveway from 200 feet off of Old Pasture down Pequash versus 100 feet of inactive driveway, if it were just 100 feet off of Old Pasture, it would all of a sudden become an endangerment to society. Well, if it's an inactive driveway 100 feet from an intersection where there's basically only 5 cars that would ever really make a right hand turn there because it's heading'back to the beach versus over to the main road. There are very few cars. There's a map to illustrate and I will not belabor the point because you can see from the photo and the map. People who want to go to the beach wouldn't come down to Old Pasture and head back and make a right-hand turn. They would make a left and leave the community. So I think it's a little absurd to say that moving the driveway 100 feet that would still be 100 from Old Pasture would in any way be some kind of endangerment to the community. I think the fact and the maps speak to that point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Deborah, you need to? MS. DOTY: I just want to calfly the intersection. There are large trees on each side of it on the west side and, as I said, I go in and out of there 4 or 5 times a day. When I pull up to the stop sign, I stop, I look south, I look north, I look south again, I look north again. Cars are going 50 miles an hour up and down that street and it's an extremely dangerous intersection and having any driveway close to that intersection will just present more of a danger than putting it further south. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you, how many times does he anticipate going in and out of that driveway? MS. DOTY: I'm talking also about people traveling up and down the street. But he'll be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 going in and out. CHAIRMA~N DINIZIO: The whole point of this conversation and moving this thing is you're saying that moving this thing toward that intersection will add more traffic to that intersection. I'm asking you how much more? MS. DOTY: I am talking not traffic to the intersection. I'm talking traffic out onto Pequash in a semiblind location. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But what is it? How many times? MS. DOTY: If the town took down those trees, all of us might have an easier time getting out of that road. That's the point. ~tnd him backing out knowing how people travel up and down that road even once, twice, a fender bender is a fender bender. And at 50 miles an hour, even though there's a cop right across the 'street, people do do 50 miles an hour on that street. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you're saying is what, once a day, twice a day? How many times does he come out of that driveway? MS. DOTY: He comes out of that driveway not at all because he doesn't have a garage there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What's his anticipation? MS. DOTY: Infrequently. CHAIRMAN DINIZO: Infrequently. Is that once a day? Is that once a week? Does he come out cn weekends to go shopping? MS. DOTY: He is here generally Tuesday through Sunday. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So once a day, so 8 times? MS. DOTY: Possibly. My concern is having it close to that intersection and I have a feeling that everybody else would back me up who goes in and out of that -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want to get an idea of what the traffic is like. MS. DOTY: It's not going to be every five minutes. Kenny would like to say something. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: If you look at the pictures of both of my vehicles, you'll notice that the glass area on both vehicles is relatively small compared to a currently made vehicle. It is no5 the easiest vehicle in the world to pull out because you have large pillars around the roof, relatively small window area, so I already start at a disadvantage, unfortunately. And anything I 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 can~get to make life a little easier as far as e getting in and out of my driveway, I think is of utmost importance. MS. DOTY: Just another thing, one more comment. We focused on the antique cars but Kenny, unfortunately, is not going to own this property forever. That detached garage will be used by other people. So it's not only his antique cars, it may be somebody else and so you have to look at its location relative to that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, that's my concern. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Basically, you just made my point. I was about to say when you grant something, you don't look at it immediate consequence alone because it stays beyond the duration of the owner who may be currently in occ%pancy. So you really have to consider its future as well as its current use. And if it is a legal garage, then that driveway may become quite accurate some time in the future. MR. WALSH: David Walsh again. When a car, if the garage was in the present location or it moved down further, 8 feet, 10 feet, whatever, when those cars come out of that driveway, they're going to stow traffic down that's going north because people are going to see them. If you put it closer to Old Pasture, you're waiting for an accident to happen and this Board would be responsible for that. We're trying to tell you, it's a dangerous intersection. MS. MOORE: If it's such a dangerous street, Pequash Avenue, then there should be no driveway on that and the garage should not be in that location period because you raise a very valid point that right now it's storing vehicles without much activity. But someday it could be a much more active garage because it's quite large. We suggested a location that would -- it's their choice where their driveway goes but probably would make sense to put it on the west side of their house, close to their house or attach it to the other side of their house and have a driveway, a circular driveway, that connects to their existing driveway or somehcw or another is configured so it's on West Creek Road and it's a direct route out. So I uhink they are undercutting their cwn arguement which is 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 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 they're going to use ~t for storage and backing out vehicles that apparently have terrible visibility to only 20 feet from Pequash Avenue and not a lot of lag time to see cars that are traveling at 55 miles an hour down Pequash Avenue. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for the noise and the activity but it certainly doesn't make sense based on what they've just put on the record as far as the velocity and the frequency of cars on Pequash and Old Pasture. We're not telling them where they should put their driveway but think about it. They have a driveway now. We don't necessary want them to have their whole as a driveway but they're choosing to add a large garage, they can coordinate their driveways. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think just to try to lower the volume of the intensity of the discussion, I think fhis is about where the safety of the intersection comes up, is that there was proposal by your client to move the garage and driveway to another point. Some people have testified that there is a downside to that because it increases the risk. So the most that is at stake is the possible discrediting of that particular recommendation to an alternative location. There are disadvantages to that. It doesn't close the possibility that there may be other positive locations but this one has a downside and that's what several people have testified to. MS. MOORE: Well, maybe this should be planned a little more carefully with alternative locations and driveways. Where are the driveways going to go? We're not telling them they should access Pequash or even Pasture. We're just saying to them this is where the garage should go. Maybe face it West Creek and have the driveway go out in front of their house. We're not telling them where to go. We're presuming that the driveway is going to be set up the same way as it's proposed now. We're just saying move it away from our property line and make it safe. It's their obligation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wait a minute, you didn't talk about safety. You didn't argue that there shouldn't be any driveway there at all. You said, no problem with the driveway as long as it's mcved to a~ unsafe place. 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. I thi~k it's really kind of going nowhere here real fast. And honestly, we've heard all we need to hear, think, on where you would like to put this garage and we've heard your story and we'll be the judge and we will be responsible for the decision that we make, certainly. So, if you're not going to contribute anything other than trying to debug safety and all that, I think we got it. MS. DOTY: I just would like to address two things. One is having an exit on West Creek Avenue, the elevation of the property is about 4 feet above West Creek Avenue and there's a drain there and that floods all the time and cars with boat trailers, because we have a new separate marina down the street, come flying around that corner and I cannot envision a driveway up at the north end of that and similarly, I cannot envision a driveway on Old Pasture for the same reasons. In the meantime, I would request that the Board leave the hearing open so that we could submit an alternate plan once we get to go back and take a look at what trees and vegetation might be affected if we were to move the garage slightly north. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would like for that to happen. I would also like to suggest to your that you mark every tree on that piece of property that is of any importance to you so that we can get an idea. I think they can put it on the west side of the house and not even need a variance. So if there's any reason why it can't be there, I kinda want to know, and if trees and landscaping is your propsed, a problem that you have, just put it on there for me, let me decide. To me, plants aren't a big, even an oak tree is not a big importance to me but certainly other Board members consider them important and I certainly don't want to insult anybody in that respect but I'm more or less looking at where -- if we can get these cars, the traffic on this piece of property, to get on and off this piece of property safely, then that's all really my concern is and I don't think you can do it at 20 fee~ away from a main road where, admittedly, there's traffic going by at 50 miles an hour. I don't think that that's a safe condition. I would hope that you can consider moving it back some way, perhaps considering that I 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 a tree, an o~k tree, is a little less precious than life. If that's how you're going to give that option. If you have a man who's driving impaired already because his cars aren't up to today's standards, he's going to be either backing out or backing into that driveway four or five times a week. And if you can't consider moving it somewhere because you say it's unsafe any place else on this piece of property, then I'm going to say an oak tree should be cut down. That's my own opinion. I don't know what the rest of the Board's opinion is. MS. DOTY: I've not discussed this with my client but perhaps if it were shifted a foot or two to the south and turned so that there was a backing out area north of the garage, then the cars could come out frontways in the same location. There would be screening, the garage would be facing away from the neighbor to the south. Our problem is that tree which we really would like to preserve. That's an alternative that we will consider and if you would hold the hearing open so that I can try to convince my client of that, I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Again, if you could just mark up the dogwoods and the other bushes that you have on there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just have one question. The property that will have the greatest immediate impact on where this proposed location is is the one exactly across the street on Pequash, the Bebbe, where they have vacant land but then there's a house with a driveway, as there are on all the other houses on Pequash busy or not. There are driveways. MS. DOTY: And two teenage children. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I'm wondering, since that's the neighbor that has the primary visual impact because they'd be facing the garage, whereas no one else is actually facing the garage, whether there's been any conversation with that neighbor, any testimony, anything to say what they have to say? MS. DOTY: I spoke with Louisa yesterday. Louisa Bebbe, I'm sorry. The neighbor. Louisa and Ted own the vacant land. Ted owns the house. They did not wish to come to the hearing. Ted is a ~c!ice officer in Town. Louisa said to me 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 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 it didn't really thrill her to'have it there, however, she's aware of the fact that when you own property, you don't control your view across the street. At which point we chuckled a little bit because she owns the house on the corner of North Cross and West Creek Avenue across from which the Lawrences built their house which is a rather large, large house. Prior to that, there had been a small summer cottage and she lost her view. But she said they were not going to take a position and I spoke with her yesterday and I said I understand that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Go ahead, sir. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: I spoke to Ted Bebbe on three separate occasions and every time I spoke to him he told me he had absolutely no problem -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I gotta tell you. I am a little concerned when someone %ries to testify for somebody else and that's kind of like hearsay. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: It is hearsay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But I asked the question. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But honestly I don't think you should represent Mr. Bebbe. MR. SCHEUBLEIN: I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to do that. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't want you to introduce testimony on his behalf. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is not a court of law. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know it's not but honestly, I could say anybody -- you could say anything about anybody and if they don't have their own representation here, anything can be taken differently. It's not really relevant to the point of the garage 20 feet away from a road with -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's actually 34 feet from the road, 20 feet from the property line. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Twenty feet from the property line. They don't have control over it. (All Members talking at one time.) MS. DOTY: I would suggest, if I may, that if they were opposed to it, they would have been here. If they supported it, they would have signed a letter and I think the absence of either reflects an ambivalence. CHAIRMAN ~!N!ZIO: I entertain a mc~icn ~ha~ 1 2 3 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 we h~ld this hearing open to December 20th. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Did you want to say subject to? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, no. Hold it open. There's no subject to anything. Ruth made that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And Leslie seconded it. Ail in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing 95926 - House of Daige CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: House of Daige, whose is that? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "This is an Appeal: (1) Requesting a determination that will recognize a 6,000 square foo( lot for the purpose of adding a single-family dwelling, instead of its present zoning restrictions adopted on September 29, 1969 under Appeal No. 1290, which application requested a split of the property to allow a 6,000 square foot portion to be used as a garage, as an accessory to the applicant's home across the street in 1969, resulting in the remaining portion of the land, now CTM parcel 52-3-14.1 (now or formerly Hoffman), and (2) based on the Building Inspector's May 30, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, requesting a Variance to build a dwelling with side yards at less than the code-required 25 feet (combined setbacks), after removal of the garage. Location of Property: 1195 Ruch Lane, Greenport; CTM 52-3-13." This is a familar one. We've been to court and back, the applicant has been to court and back. The property at 1195 Ruch Lane in Greenport, that looks like Southold to me. MS. DOTY: Everyone calls it Southold but for some reason, it's over the line. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is a 6,000 square foot lot on which there is a garage built and they would like to convert it to a house. The court held that although there was a condition that said it can never be buil~ on because it wasn't filed. The court held that that condition could not be relied on for a decision. So we're back here to decide under the assumption that any decision could not be based on the fact than there was this 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 condition. So we haveea 6,000 square foot lot and the issue before us has to do with setback variances. MS. DOTY: Correct. I'd like to start by saying that you thought that prior hearing was going to be the easy one, right? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to make a public statement and I don't want you to take this in any other manner then why I'm saying it. I am not saying one single word about this. I am only taking your testimony today and I'm going to deliberate on it. That's it. I don't see a give and take on this in general. I want you to present what you want to present. I'm not going to restrict you in any way. I know you very well. You're a very good attorney. I'm just taking it as it comes then I'll make my -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that no matter what she says, you will be silent? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: She can call me a name and I am not. MS. DOTY: I would assume there are other Board members who would like me to continue to appear at this Board so I can get Mr. Goehringer silent? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, I'm taking the vow of silence myself. MS. DOTY: I'm going to attempt to simplify this a little bit. I represent the applicant. If you recall a year ago we came in here and our intention was to take the existing garage and put it on the adjoining property which had 3 front yards. This Board kindly approvaed the location of the garage in a front yard. We subsequently went to court and that's all I'm going to say. We're back here on the side yard variance issue. I'm going to ask the Board that it incorporates my prior argument that I did give a year ago rather than have me repeat it here. Is that all right, Mr. Corcoran? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCOHAN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. MS. DOTY: However, since I found Google and a digital camera, I have some pictures for the Board. The first picture is an aerial of Ruch Lane. What we're requesting here is side yard variances. We have a 40 foot wide lot. We wish to construct a 20 foot wide house. Therefore, 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 are, in the current code, 5 feet deficient in one way or another on our side yards. ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN: You mean 10 and 5? MS. DOTY: 10 and 15. We have proposed 10 and 10. We could by right build a 15 foot wide house. That's a very awkward house to build so we're requesting relief. What I provided the Board is an aerial view of Ruch Lane and photographs of various houses on the lots on Ruch Lane. There are 30 lots on Ruch Lane not including the road and not includnig the small right of way to the water. Of those 30 lots, 11 have nonconforming side yards and I have given you photographs of each of those properties along with the property card and where available, the survey. The smallest side yard is 5.3 and that's on lot 29 from the water side. Just for the Board's reference, when I talk east/west and no~th/south, I am presuming that Ruch Lane goes north and south. It doesn't precisely but it does approximately. That's a very small side yard that actually is closed by a gate. We're suggesting 10 and 10. An alternative relief for the Bboard, if the Board would consider it, is to shift the house a little bit, a 20 foot house, and I would recommend to the east side which is the property that my client owns on the east side so that it's 5 feet closer to that property and then 15 feet away from the adjoining neighbor to the west so that the "burden" of having a house close to the line is imposed upon my client as opposed to the neighbor. We work around the 10 and 10 if the Board is willing to do that. I know the court indicated it's concern for safety access to the rear of the lot in the event there's some problem and by having a 5 and 15, then you would have access to the rear of the property without having to cross over adjoining proprety. I can go through the details of each and every nonconforming side yard if the Board wishes me to. I can provide you with a piece of paper that has that written on it but they are all contained within those documents that I passed up to the Board this afternoon. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Michael, do you have anything to add? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The 5 and 15 would still require a v~riance for 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 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 MS. DOT~:. That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The only thing that would not require a variance would be 5 and 10. MS. DOTY: You need 10 and 15. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You need a total of 25. MS. DOTY: So you need 10 and 15. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right now we're talking 10 and 10. The issue of course about the 5 feet and the 5 and 15 is there's no guarantee that in the future, the next door neighbor will be the same person. MS. DOTY: That's correct. But he has a side yard setback that he has to maintain of at least 15 feet on that side of the property so you would have 20 foot between the house and his house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We have to be cautious about what's ~oing to happen in the future. I don't have any further questions. MS. DOTY: The reason I wanted to shift it to that side was at least for now we had some control over it and I didn't want the neighbor to the north to be impacted by having a house that close to their property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it would have a 5 foot setback. MS. DOTY: 5 on the east and 15 on the west. Now the existing garage as you recall is ten feet on either side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Centered on the lot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's north and south, right. The roof goes north and south but the garage setbacks are also north and south. MS. DOTY: Yes, that's correct. Again, I need a compass. CHAIRSLa/q DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. Nothing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comment. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One question. The plans that were submitted previously for the elevation, that's not been altered, that's what you're proposing ciEing on this proper~y as before? So we're visiting the same site plan as originally proposed or are you suggesting now -- MS. DOTY: I'm suggessing a slight alteration on the site plan in that I'm suggesting tha~ if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - OCTOBER 18, 2007 the Board is concerned about emergency access to the back of the property, that perhaps we could have 16 feet which would comply with the codes and BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The original proposal was where the garage is, 10 and 10. MS. DOTY: That's correct but the elevation on the house. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's it? BOARD MEMBE WEISMAN: Yup. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anything else? MS. DOTY: I have nothing else. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mr. Samuels? You didn't say a thing. You sat here all afternoon. MR. SAMUELS: It's been a pleasure. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: DO you have something to add to this? Just observing? MS. DOTY: Mrs. Gould repr6sented the applicant initially when he bought the property and that's why she's here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So hearing nothing from the audience and no more from the Board, I guess we can entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) (Whereupon, the October 18, 2007 hearing was concluded at 4:45 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 - OCTOBER 18, 2007 CERTIFICATION I, Erika Nadeau, a shorthand reporter and Notary Public of the State of New York do hereby certify: THAT the testimony in the within proceeding was held before me at the aforesaid time and place and that the testimony was taken stenographically by me, then transcribed under my supervision, and 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 matters testified to, nor am I in the employ of any of the counsel. a Nadeau