Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/15/2007 Hearing 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York November 15, 2007 9:35 a.m. Board Members Present: JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Chairman/Member GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member RUTH D. OLIVA - Member MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant Absent: KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney APR 2 2 200g 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hearing: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 24, INDEX OF HEARINGS: Argent 96086 Solinger 96087 North Fork Greek 96088 Hamilton %6089 McNulty %6090 Kabakov 96091 Witczak %6092 Shevlin %6093 Rand %6085 Hinden 96096 Hume %6097 Retus %6094 2008 Page: 3-15 15-49 49-55 55-57 57-58 58-67 67-73 74-75 75-80 80-84 84-94 94-98 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN~INIZIO: Everyone ready? I'd like to open the hearing. I need a resolution. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing 96086 - Argent CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The first hearing is for Roy W. Argent and Linda Argent. Leslie, that's you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Good morning. I have to read the Notice into the record and then ask a couple of questions and then please feel free to stand up. "Request for Variances under Sections 280-122 and 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector's September 10, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed new dwelling. After substantial demolition of the existing building, the new construction will be less than 35 feet from the rear lot line, less than 10 feet on a single side yard, less than 25 feet total side yard setbacks, and less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, at 6429 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic; CTM 86-6-23." Now, this appears to be a nonconforming 6615 square foot lot in the R-40 district which requires 20,000 square feet. You're proposing a new family dwelling with a rear yard set back of 30.6 feet. The code requires 35. Single side yard set back at 30.6 feet while the code requires 35. Single side yard set back at 5 foot 6 inches. The code requires ten feet and a total side yard set back of 12 feet. The code requires 25 feet. Set back from the bulkhead as proposed is 30 feet 6 inches at the closest point. The code requires 75. Our report from soil and water indicates that part of your premises is in a flood zone, the existing property. May I ask a couple of questions? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need your name and address and I'd just like to state this for everyone in the audience that each presentation is limited to the testimony relative to the propersy and zoning code sections noted below. Sir, ycur name and address? MR. ARGENT: Roy Argent, 900 Juno Ocean 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 Walk, Juno Beach, Florida. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you. It's a little unusual. You have 3 very small lots in an historically cottage type area and they're continuous with each other running from Indian Neck to Richmond Creek, correct? MR. ARGENT: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And I just want to understand. There is no foundation. I understand you're a builder. Looks like you're a retired builder. MR. ARGENT: I used to build in Hampton Bays, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you explain to me about the existing foundation which is a rather difficult straights, to say the least. How you plan to -- what you are actually'planning to demolish on that property and how you will be rebuilding. MR. ARGENT: The house was built back in 1945. My wife's cousin and the family owned it since then and I guess it probably started out as one room and was added onto. I'll not sure about that. It's on a block foundation and originally all I wanted to do was just redo the house just the way it is. On the same original footprint which is what we're doing now. The footprint is the same. It's going to be exactly the same footprint that they have right now. The only thing we wanted to change was there is a garage attached to the house right now and on the piece of the property that you just mentioned, there's 3 separate pieces; the one out by the road with the 3 car garage which you gave her cousin permission to build about 4 years ago, I have a copy of that from the Town Board. The house in between used to belong to the family but that was sold quite a few years ago and then you got the house on the water. We had the 3 car garage out towards the street. We just wanted to take the space from the garage and make it into a dining room and a kitchen. But the foot print for the new house will be exacsly the same as the foot print of the house right now. Originally, I went to ~he building department. All I wanted to do was re roof it, reside it and change the windows. ! understood ! didn't need a permit for the roof 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 or the~siding but just a permit for the windows. After emptying all the stuff from the inside of the house, her cousin, who is in a home right now, we promised him to get it liveable so when he gets out of the home, he can come back or come and visit. After emptying the house, there was quite. a bit of mold inside the house, the ceiling was hanging down in the dining room in the back so I took that stuff down and the wooded side, there's all green mold and no way anybody can live in that the way it is. So I thought, let me change the roof and change the pitch of the roof to get rid of all the different angles that are there now because if I repaired what was there, it would still end up leaking eventually because over the garage is 2 by 4's almost black. Over the porch in the back is almost black. Then I was going to chang~ the roof and I went back and spent a little' more time and then I thought let me check the foundation. I took a shovel and started digging around the foundation and that was when I found in some spots, the footing that they have was just concrete with a block sitting which wasn't filled. One place is 8 inches below grade, another place is 14 inches below grade. In the front, the grade is actually higher than the garage floor by about 4 inches. So I would have had to raise the foundation of the house in the front just to be able to get it so the water would run around the house and the more I looked into it, I said, there's really nothing on that foundation except a full cellar with a well, sewer line that goes out front. That's I'm sure can be saved. That seems to be in fairly good condition. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the full cellar that is existing now is also blocks and that you're proposing to leave as is? How are you going to address the rest of the foundation? MR. ARGENT: Well I could have just gone and dug out -- now we got to the point now instead of tearing the house apart and trying to replace once piece of wood at a time, I even went in the crawl space and some of the floor joice, instead of being attached cn both ends are actually sitting on cement blocks. So I thought by the time I put up the floor, replace the floor joice and do that, now I have to take out the rotten wood, before I know it, I'm going to be rebuilding the whole 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 house. Instead of wasting everyone's time and having to come back to you people and say look, this is not going to work, I need to do this, I'd rather do it up front and do it right to start with. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure. MR. ARGENT: When I looked at the foundation, the part where the cellar is seems to be in pretty good, I think I can probably clean that up and salvage it. I don't know what kind of footings are underneath that and I won't know until I get in there with a backhoe and dig down that far. The rest I did with a shovel. I could just put a crawl space under the rest of it that's there right now. I could just take out the old crawl space and just pour, put a new crawl space in. The problem with that was in the back side facing the water being that the property drops off the way it does, if I don't change the contour of the land, by the time I go 3 feet below grade to put the new footings and then 3 feet above to get the house, I've already got 6 feet of a crawl space instead of having 6 feet of a cellar. So I thought I may as well dig it out, put a nice cellar underneath it, do it right, tar it and then put a halfway decent house on top. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what my question was because the concern generally is the impact of land disturbance that close to the bulkhead. So I just want to understand exactly what you're proposing so you're not back here. So you're saying that what you're really going to do is retain the exact footprint of the existing premises. Are you going to change the roof pitches? You're going to demo everything above the foundation and you're going to rebuild on the same footprint as the existing converting ~- it doesn't matter about the interior space -- you'll convert the garage to an interior living space and change some roof pitches. But you're going to dig out the crawl space and make that now a full basement also. Is that you what you're suggesting? MR. ARGENT: Three feet, almost three feet, is exposed above the grade right now so I would need to dig down three feet in the back side of the house where the water is on the bulkhead side. i'd need tc go dcwn 3 feet back there, pu% 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 footings in and pour foundation, back fill~3 feet up and that will leave 3 feet above grade and 3 feet below grade. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I presume you can do that with heavy equipment on the landward side of the existing foundation? MR. ARGENT: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMA_N: You don't need to close to the bulkhead? MR. ARGENT: No. The house isn't that big. We can go in there with a machine. I've already spoken to a couple of people here in town and a couple of contractors that would probably get involved just to have them come and take a look at it. We can do it from the front with a machine with a scoop on the end of it and just pull it right out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think thatCs all the questions I have for the moment. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When you say full basement, what portion of the basement of the resulting house will be retained? Will be the old basement? MR. ARGENT: The piece, is the full basement right now. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In terms of square feet and compared with the size of the footprint? MR. ARGENT: I think it's about between 8 and 9 feet wide and it's about 15 feet deep. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. A little less than half of the total basement? MR. ARGENT: It's less than half. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the issue is and certainly we're pleased, or I am, that you're not starting out and then discovering later on that you couldn't use the existing foundation. You realize that you're here because you're really up front with what the situation is which does mean that because the fact that it's in the same footprint doesn't have legal significance because you're not retaining the original house so you're asking for a variance for essentially rebuilding a house requiring about a 5 foot variance relative to the bulkhead and one of your arguments is that you are saving some of the existing partial basement. So we're clear about this, my only question would ke, if there wer~ a concern 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 since we're essentially building a new house, could it be farther away, could you be increasing the setbacks to make it less nonconforming? What would be involved in trying to do that? MR. ARGENT: The basement that's there now would have to be removed. The house would have to be moved over to the middle of the property to give me 15 feet on one side and 10 on the other, so I'd end up with a 25 foot wide house in the middle of the piece of property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless you had variance for the side setbacks. MR. ARGENT: As far as the cesspools, they're in front of the house because the sewer line comes out of the basement directly out front. So the cesspools are in front of the house. I really can't move it anyway forward because if I move it forward, I'd have to move the cesspools forward which will put it closer to the house in front of us and they have a well and they have their cesspools. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can it be any closer to the cesspools? MR. ARGENT: No. I'm sure the way they were built, I would have to demolish all the cesspools and start from scratch because I'm sure when they put them in there, they put them in there just to fit the footprint of the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And we do have a report from Soil and Water, as you know, that focuses on what would have to be done to preserve the bulkhead at the front of the house and doesn't really touch the question, this is all premise on the assumption that the house is going to be rebuilt in its present footprint and what they're saying is, they're not commenting on the issue that's actually before us is what is needed to shore up the backside of the house and the bulkhead. So it's certainly consistent with whatever we decide either one way or the other. They don't think, they're not saying that the house as it now exists is a menace. They're saying you'll have to do more things in order to keep that from happening. MR. ARGENT: I did read that paper that I got from the office and I will put the dry wells in and I will put gutters around the house. I will give that buffer between the ~r~ss and 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 bulkhead. And when I went to th~ Town Trustees to get their permission, I also applied at the same time to get a permit for the bulkhead knowing that somewhere down the line I'm going to have to do some type of repairs. And being I've lived on the water on Long Island before, I don't want to wait until the damage is done, we get a bad storm and it washes out and by the time you get the permits, there's too much damage done. I'd rather have the permit in my hand this way if it happens, it can be repaired. I'm not making any changes to the bulkhead, only repair what would have to be repaired. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The bulkhead is in quite decent shape. It's fairly new. Do you know what year the bulkhead was created? MR. ARGENT: It's prior to '70 because the neighbor next door, I got an aerial photograph for DEC and that was taken in 1977. It was there in '77, so it was before '77. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn't get much wash anyway. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you very much for your presentation and showing us around when we were down there because it was quite elucidating and I admire you for digging out and seeing what is underneath there so you don't have to come back to us because that crawl space and foundation is really kind of crumbling. So if you follow the plans that you have, I don't really have a problem and you have Soil and Waters comments and I'm sure you'll abide by them. I'm very pleased. Thank you. MR. ARGENT: Definitely. Can I make one more comment? I've also been in touch with the Suffolk County Water Company for the past year trying to extend the water main further down the streeT. And I just got two letters back from them which I have copies of. One said they couldn't dc anything until after the first of the year. The second letter that came gave me a list of the lots thal i have to get involved. So I went to Town 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 Hall.~ I'm going to get in touch with the people e on Indian Neck Lane because I'd like to bring the city water down there so we can eliminate the situation with the wells on such a small piece of property. We'll run the city water. We'll pay what it has to be and then we'll have city water. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good applicant. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Don't take offense but my position on this is a little different then some of my colleagues and that is although I did grant a permit this close, if not a little bit closer, on the Peconic Bay in Cutchogue last year, there was an agreement between all the property owners that if somebody had to get to the beach part of it, they could use other people's beach to ride over it and that has always been the case in that bne particular situation. My concern here is' getting to the bulkhead later and reconstructing anything or doing anything in the rear of the house which is the water side here. My opinion is that if you took this house and you took let's just take a 5 foot 6 inch setback on the westerly side and you straighten this house out as opposed to it's cocked on the property, you would gain a greater setback on the easterly side and thereby having the ability of probably having a minimum of 8 feet to get to the rear of the house. Not you, in particular, but family members or whatever. Whoever is going to occupy the house in the future for the purposes of working on the house or the purposes of working on the bulkhead. That's just my opinion. And although I think it's a great idea to an in-kind replacement to a bulkhead, I think in this particular case, the skewing of the house on the lot does affect the setbacks and I personally would like to see a minimum of 8 feet in one of those setbacks, for the ability of getting a backhoe in there which you really need and not even a big backhoe, a relatively good size backhoe. And that's what you're going to need to rebuild that bulkhead in the future. And of course now you're relying on property .owners if you needed to do that, tha5 situation may be perfectly fine at this time, then in the future it may not be. Those people may sell or whatever the case might be. And that's just my opinion on the whole situation. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MR. ARGENT: I don't disagree with you but as far as the bulkhead is concerned, if I have a problem with that, I could get a barge in with a machine that could do all the digging and could do everything from the water side without bringing anything on the land. I have done that before. That would be an option if it had to be done. I don't disagree with what you're saying. If there's a better way of doing it, believe me, I'm willing to listen. I just want to get the house made livable for her cousin and that's my only interest. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm feeling the same way as my colleague to my left is. We have the opportunity now where you're going to be putting in the foundation. Would it be a hardship for you to straighten that house out and still save the foundation that you hav~ there so we can gain some side yard on that at this time? Would it be possible or it there something that we're not aware of stopping you from doing that? MR. ARGENT: You mean to keep the part of the cellar that's there now, which is what we planned on doing? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That certainly saves you some money. If we were to tell you to straighten up the side of that house and keep the same amount of square footage you have but you're not building in the same footprint, we're granting you a variance to skew it. We understand the side yard still won't meet code but like Jerry says, if it will give you the side yard which is a major concern here and perhaps if you can't -- I'd like to see if we can do that. If you're telling me that if you do that, the foundation somehow won't fit right or you can't do it with the existing foundation, you have to rip up the foundation, then maybe we don't. MR. ARGENT: The piece of foundation that we would keep would be useless if we twisted the house because the outside wall on that is for the setbacks now. If we're going to twist it over. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is the existing measurements from the side yard to the existing foundation? What is that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Five foot, six inches. To do that would require -- CHAIR~N DINIZ!O: I want tc discuss 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a reasonable thing to discuss. Do to that is going to require the demolition of that foundation. It would appear to me as someone with architectural background, it would effectively render that foundation that exists now pretty useless. You have to probably rip that all out, radig straightening out the orientation so that the side walls were parallel to the property lines. Do you think that's so or not? MR. ARGENT: The other thing that I'm looking at the survey just quickly, if you left that looking at the house from the front, the driveway that left front corner, that's where the full basement is right now. If we take that foundation and just spin it over, I'm pretty sure that the back of that house, that's probably going to change the distance between the back o3 the foundation and the bulkhead because when you twist it around, that one corner that is now here is now going to come around. So I think you'll end up with less distance between the foundation and the bulkhead if we take that and just twist it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you wouldn't be for that? That's what we're looking for here. I think you want to keep the same amount of square footage. I think that's important to you. Sounds to me like you want to put a full basement in there. MR. ARGENT: I was only doing that because of the back side. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Regardless of your reason, you want to do that. Now if it's just the case of you feel like, seems to me like the main reason we would grant the variance is we're going to save the foundation, you're adding foundation to this. You're adding poured foundation at some point in time to increase that basement, the footings and whatever. So I'm just wondering if it isn't better if we tell you to straighten out the house, give us 8 feet on one side and go from there. However you have to do it. Take out the rest of the basement, take out the block that's there and redo the whole thing. I mean I realize that your case probably hinges on the fact that there's existing stuff there and you don't want to disturb but honestly, it's been disturbed already. I don't see where that's a problem. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 still have one ~ore thing I have to ask that may just throw a monkey wrench into this whole thing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I propose something? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm trying to listen to what he would like to do and find out if it's possible for him to consider ripping out that foundation and just putting in a new foundation and straighten the house out. Is it possible for you to do that? Do you think it would be too costly? Tell us. I'm not a builder so I don't know. MR. ARGENT: There isn't anything that can't be done. Let's be realistic about it. Anything can be done. Same as what I'm trying to do now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know but is it costly? Is that more costly for you to do or do you think it's relativel~ the same as trying to save the cement block that's there? MR. ARGENT: The part of the cellar that's there now, like we said, that would become completely useless because I'd have to demolish that which would now interfere a little bit with where the sewer line comes in and I don't think it will hurt the wells because the well could probably still stay where it's at. So the main thing I guess would be the fact that there'd be no foundation to save at all and then it would be just the sewer line. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Start anew, build up. Now from there I want to go one more. Now LWRP mentions the flood zone. I didn't go through and find out what it is there but how can you mitigate that? They're saying you need to mitigate it some how. I need to hear from you what it is we would be doing granting you a variance in the same location that would be in any way helping to meet the criteria of the LWRP. MR. ARGENT: Well the elevation of the first floor is going to be raised. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Above the flood zone? MR. ARGENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you know what the actual -- MR. ARGENT: I did. It just takes a second to come back to me. We're going to end up with the elevation -- I think it was about 11 feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So if we state i~ there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 it's going to be above whatever level it is. Linda, I guess you can find that out, right? BOARD ASSISTANT KOW;LLSKI: We got some information from Mr. Argent. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If we look in there and you agree to it, we'll say that we mitigated this by -- that's what I'm looking to do. Ruth, that's fine with you? That's all I have now. Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a comment. When the last two board members spoke regarding straightening out the house. If you look at the survey, the house is already straight. The only thing that is at odds, is the property line. The house is parallel to the creek and the house behind it is also parallel to the creek. The only thing that makes it look lopsided is where the invisible property lines are. So it's not clear to me what the advantages would be for so called straightening out the house or twisting it because it would simply make it more consistent with the invisible property lines but not necessarily more in line with anything else. It would make it inconsistent with the other two buildings on that long piece of lot for example. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think we're worried about visual, Michael. I don't worry about what it looks like. I worry about the fact that he would need to go on somebody else's property to do something to his house or get something around that to go to the front to do whatever he needs to do. Property lines are what we're all about. It's not about how it looks. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Understood. So the twisting of the house would simply mean that there would be more room on one side of the house. The other side setback would be the same it just would be parallel to the line so they wouldn't have this corner sticking out. CHAIRMA~N DINIZIO: Yeah, right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So then the issue is how important it is to have that extra distance on either side of the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll write up the finding and then we'll discuss it and we'll see. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to give us his opinion so we can have a record of it. Does anybody else have a com_ment for this gentleman? Do you 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 anything else to add, sir? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I wanted to mention something about the minimum flood elevation. It might change the height of the building a little bit. Mr. Argent had already addressed that, I believe. On the survey it shows the elevation of the first floor at 10.96 above sea level. You were raising the house about a half of foot to bring it up to 11, 11 something. MR. ARGENT: I was going to raise it 8 inches. If I kept the foundation that was there now, I was going to put an 8 inch block on top of the foundation now. So it would have been raised 8 inches. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: I believe the foundation area you were going to work it out with the building department to see whether or not utili%ies could be below that or not. That would' be a FEMA requirement. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else to add sir? Anybody in the audience like to make a comment on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So close this hearing and make a decision on December 6th. We'll have a discussion on it on December 6th at 6:00 pm over at the other Town Hall. I have a motion made by Leslie, seconded by Jerry. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution. Hearing ~6087 - Solinger CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Laura Solinger and Ruth, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. "Request for a Variance under Zoning Code Sections 280-15 (A and B), based on the Building Inspector's March 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed accessory garage which will be less than 10 feet from the side property line. The Building Inspector also notes that his determination has not been updated regarding the current accessory building code, as amended, concerning the height of the garage exceeding 18 feet. Location of Property: 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue; CTM 83-2-10.12." 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 We do have a letter here of opposition from Mr. Charles Cuttey (phonetic). I'd like to read that into the record: "Dear Zoning Board Members, I am the attorney for Martin Sojn, the principle member of the Oregon Cliff, LLC which owns the residential parcel immediately to the west of the applicant's parcel. The proposed garage will be virtually at his property line. I am unable to appear at the hearing because I am engaged in the Surrogate's Court in a contested probate matter. I request that this letter be made part of the record. A variance cannot be granted solely because it's a matter of convenience for the applicant to locate a structure in a particular place or in the alternative because the applicant is displeased with the layout of the adjoining parcel. Moreover, the proposed "garage" is a substantial two-story ~uilding with 1,000 square feet on the first floor. The building will be the size of many homes and one cannot help but suspect it will be used for more than a garage. The building's dimensions and location strongly suggest a strain for Ms. Solinger's neighbor. It also appears that the applicant may own property immediately to the east of this lot and certainly can construct a garage at the easterly end of the applicant's property. In fact, the survey accompanying the application shows a garage under the east side of the home. Further, a review of the survey indicates that there is ample room to move the "garage" to the south and east without requiring a variance on the side yard. This proposal cannot prevail based on the balancing test set forth by Town laws 257-63 undoubtedly by the applicant by deliberately placing the garage in the side yard and creating a situation requiring the variance. In addition, the requested variance is substantial. There are alternate locations available in this 1.5 acre parcel and the impact on the Oregon Cliff parcel is significant. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Board deny this bold attempt to satisfy the applicant's personal desires. Very truly yours, Charles L. Cuttey" He is an attorney at law in Griffing Street in Riverhead. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name and address, sir. MR. GORM~.N: ~il! Gorman, 45705 Main Road, 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 Southold, New York. I also have a letter"from the other neighbor Mr. Timothy Steel. He would like this read into the record as well. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want to read this into the record, sir? MR. GORMAN: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can read it. MR. GORMAN: Oh, I thought you might. Okay. This is from Mr. Timothy Steel. He's the neighbor across the street. It's dated November 14, 2007. "Dear Members of the Board of Appeals, my name is Tim Steel. My wife, Jean, and my two sons and I own the 17 acre farm directly to the south and adjacent to the lots above Laura Solinger and Marty Sojn. I was born and raised on the North Fork. I'm a nursery man and have been for 33 years. It's my understanding that Ms. Solinger is applying for a variance for a two-car garage that will be 3 feet from her westerly property line and 2 feet higher than code. I have no objection to this whatsoever. Ms. Solinger informed me today that Mr. Sojn is objecting to the variance. I find that ludicrous all things considered. Mr. Sojn clearcut the acre and a half on which he built is 6,000 plus square foot house and his 3 car garage. In the process, he removed 95% of the old and beautiful trees including indigenous ones protecting the bluff that apparently obstructed his view. He then imported 10,000 -- according to his contractor -- 10,000 cubic yards of film and stone to raise his entire property approximately 6 to 10 feet from what was the natural grade. This created not only an eyesore but drainage problems towards my property. The house he built on top of the hill is his creation looming very visible and aesthetically unpleasing from all perspectives including as far away as Oregon Road. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir? MR. GORMAN: Yes? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you speaking about the property that is the subject of this hearing? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He's reading the letter. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know. Does this have anything at all to do with this particular piece of property? MR. GORMAN: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you raised the grade 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 on this piece of property? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, the neighbor did. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with an application for a garage on this particular piece of property. MR. GORMAN: Well, we're requesting a height variance and a side yard setback variance largely due to the actions of the neighbor to the west which this letter is addressing. He added 6 to 8 feet in elevation to his property and created the drainage property on Ms. Solinger's property. He built a house on top of his elevated grade so now Ms. Solinger's house is in a bowl. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think the subject of this particular application is whether or not you have drainage on your property. MR. GO~: Actually it is. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim,'it's relevant as a response to the neighbor's letter which could be said by you or your client at this moment as to put the letter of objection in a context as may have something to do with the forcefulness of the neighbors objection. So I think it is relevant to the application before us. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I no sooner, quite honestly, accept either neighbor's comments as anything relative to us granting a setback of 3 feet from the property line. I feel like neither one of those, this particular letter or the letter that was read by Mr. Cuttey have any relevance to us granting a setback variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nevertheless, it's appropriate to allow in the record testimony by neighbors who were notified. We can agree with it or disagree with it. But you have to let it be entered into the record. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It says here "each presentation is limited to testimony relative to this property and the Zoning Code Sections noted below". We're supposed to hear everything relative to what the Building Inspector turned down. Whether or not the gentleman next door or 5 blocks down raised his property has no relevance on the fact that this gentleman wants to have a barn, driveway, garage or whatever it might be 3 feet away from the property line. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Jim, with all due res~ecl, we ought to hear testimcny from neiqhbcrs 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 who w~re notified because it has relevance to them® whether or not -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm feeling, Leslie, like we're handling a dispute here amongst neighbors that is no business of ours. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We are not necessarily doing any of those things. We are listening to testimony. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not relative. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you can disregard it in your decision. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I intend to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it's still appropriate that it be entered into the record and determine relevance after they finish speaking. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In terms of the way the law is written, there's got to be a reason why one is r~quired to notify ones immediate neighbors. It's precisely so that neighbors can write letters like these. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not. Not letters like these. They should write letters relevant to the reason why they don't think a 3 foot variance should be granted on this piece of property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Cuttey did. His testimony referred to property set backs and the possibility of alternative locations on the premises. There's some very significant -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would say -- but I'm not hearing any from this gentleman, from this letter. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You interrupted what he was reading. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If you can keep it relative, please, sir, I'd appreciate it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you suggesting that he should stop reading this letter into the record? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I am suggesting that he should not be putting into the record a presentation that is not limited to testimony relative to the property in the Zoning Code Sections below. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fact that a relative or someone, a neighbor next door raises his property, has no relevance to a set back variance on his neighbor's property. BOARD MEMBER SIMC~i: Sc we could ignore 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 whether we hear it rea~d out loud or whether -- MR. GORMAN: Why is the other letter relevant then? I don't understand. (Everyone talking at one time.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One at a time. MR. GORMAN: Why is the other letter being read into the record and this one not? I don't know. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess I'm saying to you, sir, I don't think it's relevant what you're saying. I read Mr. Cuttey's letter beforehand but if that person came up and starting testifying here, I would stop them because what they're saying is not relevant to the application at hand. I understand that if you have a neighbor and you can't get along, I understand. That is not the meaning of this Zoning Board of Appeals. We're here to hear the relevant testimony. The testimony concerning a garage, a driveway, a garage you'd like to build 3 feet away from your property line. Beyond that, beyond raising the property, beyond having horses and fences and whatever else it has to be, it's just not relevant to this. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: In all due respect, Jim, I think the gentleman here is trying to give you the reasons, whether we agree or disagree.' BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Well, he hasn't done that yet. He hasn't started his presentation yet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'll listen. I find so far, sir, it hasn't been relevant and I'm not going to object to you reading -- you can read anything you want into the record. Probably, I wish that you had given it to us so we had read it before and even, it's very unusual for someone to read Mr. Cuttey's stuff into the record, quite honestly. We don't usually do that. We usually just read it and take it. But I find, I certainly object to the fact that raising one persons property has anything to do with this and I just want you to know that that's the way I think about this. I hope you can get to something about the 3 foot set back. That would be nice. MR. GORMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know you're not controlling the letter, what you're reading. But ~!ease, if you want to start over again, by all 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 means. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: He hasn't started his presentation. Do you want to do that first? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, he wanted to read that letter and I think you should, it's fine but I just don't find it so far relevant. MR. GERMAN: This is similar -- the issue are similar to the cover letter that I wrote you. This is -- we didn't focus as much on that issue as this neighbor did but it's still very important to us and it's important to the reason that we're requesting the side yard -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're argument is fine with me. It's certainly not contingent upon what your neighbor did. What I'm hearing here from this letter is all about what someone else did and it doesn't seem relative to me to this application. That's all. I mean if there's something in there, in that letter, and I'm perfectly willing to let you read the entire thing, but if you can find for me something that is relevant to the 3 foot set back, I'd love to hear that. So please, you can continue or summarize it or however you would like to do. MR. GERMAN: Well, how about I just go and finish reading rather than start over. I'll just start where we left off. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I apologize for interrupting you. MR. GERMAN: Now, where was I? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Start at the beginning. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Star with the house to the west -- MR. GERMAN: We know we stand in the Solinger's property and we're looking at the under carriage of the neighbor's vehicles. How about that? It used to be you would look down and you would look at the top of the cars and now we're looking underneath and we can see the oil dripping into the -- "in contrast, the Solinger's have been environmentally sensitive to neighbors and have done a good job in preserving the natural integrity of their land and trees. They built a home that has low impact on neighbors and the surroundings and is aesthetically pleasing. In fact, all of our guests are amazed that they cannot see the Sc!inger home at all until they are right next to it. I can understand them wanting 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 to block the unsightly view of the house next door that is visible from anywhere on their property. In addition, from my perspective, the side where they want to put the garage is the only logical place for it. It totally amazing to me that one can build such an unsightly home elevated 10 plus feet as Mr. Sojn did and complain about a neighbor building a garage. To me, I'm sure to most of the community, that justifies reason. Sincerely, Timothy Steel." For what that's worth. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I found nothing in that letter relevant. MR. GORMAN: Well then, I'm not going to address Mr. Cuttey's letter either just to say that there are numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies in it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, sir, if you would like to address it, you're welcome to but try to keep it relevant to the application. MR. GORMAN: I got to tell you, you're throwing me for a loop here. What I'm going to do is move on to the next issue and that is, we did file on December 4, 2006, we got our denial and then that was reaffirmed by the Building Department that it wasn't going to be, the denial wasn't going to be reissued based on the January 27, 2007 code change. So I'm a little unclear whether we're acting on the old code or the new code because the variances are the -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's the new code, sir. MR. GORMAN: It's the new code. So then, just for the record, we're asking for a 13 foot relief and a 4 foot height relief. Which, by the way, and this is relevant, had Mr. Sojn not added 6 to 10 yards of fill to his grade and the Solingers built a garage to code height, the building would be 2 feet higher than it is now if we added 4 feet with his 6 feet. For all intents and purposes, we should be asking for a 7 foot increase in height. That would make a level playing field. He added 6 feet to grade, we should be able to add 6 feet to the height to keep the proportionality of the building and to keep the principle of the building heighrs relevant to grade. Would you agree? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, my first question is why would you have to put it in the place you're putling it? You have a lot of room to put 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 a very nice garage on other pla~es on your piece of property that -- I know you're trying to hide the other thing, but that's not our concern. MR. GORMAN: That's a big thing. That's a big thing to hide that other thing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Our concern is the nearness to the -- MR. GORMAN: Has anyone been there? (ALL MEMBERS TALKING AT ONCE.) BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, we were all there. MR. GORMAN: So you see what we're talking about, right? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very apparent. MR. GORMAN: It's pretty overpowering. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, can I just please say something. Look, we're not that kind of Board, okay? It's not what your neighbor has that you can have. The code is very specific that you can have certain things in certain parts of your property and you must meet certain set backs and the rest of it, what you look at from the other side of your property line, really we have no control over. Including trees. It's not us that does that, okay? So far I've heard, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, from you, Mr. Cutely and that person that you want to build this garage so you can hide your neighbors offenses. That they offend you. That's what I've heard so far. MR. GORMAN: That's not true. In the cover letter, the first reason we're asking for a set back relieve is that it's really the only sensible place to put it. It's close to the house. CHAIP~4AN DINIZIO: That's what I'd like to hear. BOAi~D MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, me too. MR. GORMAN: Okay. It's close to the house. We don't have to remove any of the mature trees that -- there's an oak that makes the existing garage into the house inaccessible. We would have to cut the oak down to use the one-car garage, it was grandfathered and really not usable as a garage. They have two cars. It's a one-car garage. It's used for storage now. If we moved -- if we had the garage any farther to the west, it would block the view of the house. You would -- it would look awful from the driveway you approach. You guys saw the driveway -- BOARD MEMBER WEISer. N: You mean move it 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 theeeast, e MR. GORMAN: Yes. What did I say? I'm sorry. If we move it to the east, then it would block part of the house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yeah, I agree. Why can't you move it to the east side? The garage? MR. GORMAN: To the east side of the property? BO~D MEMBER OLIVA: To the east side of your property. You can fit it in there. You could meet the set backs. You could probably meet the height requirement. Just to have this because of something else that a neighbor has done, to me doesn't make sense when you're looking at your house anyway and you're seeing what the neighbors done period. So what's the difference if you have the garage there? It can be moved some other place. MR. GORMAN: When you were out there, did you see a place that that garage could go that wouldn't involve cutting down large specimen trees. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't think they are specimen trees but something could be done and you can always replant. But to me, this is so close to that line and it's high and it does obstruct your house. That's a beautiful house. I certainly wouldn't put it smack up against the architecture of your house when you have other room that you can meet the set backs, you can meet the height requirement. MR. GORMAN: Well, you would have to keep the garage in the east/west plain that it is now to make it sensible. Otherwise, who's going to use the garage. You'll have to park way down the driveway. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I didn't say that. MR. GORMAN: So it can only move laterally east to west and anywhere -- move any farther east that you would move that, it would totally block the house. There's just no place really that you can put it. If you look at the survey, as soon as you start moving it east, you start blocking more and more of the house, if you put it all the way to the eastern property line, all the way to the property line, then you will still be blocking 20 feet of the house. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're almcst doing 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 now as you drive up. eYou almost have to get right next to the house to see it and if you put it on the east side, I don't see it would still make a further obstruction of your house. I think your garage is going -- (Members talking) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you guys, please. She's trying to get this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry. Trying to understand this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. You'll all get a chance to ask your questions. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just think the set back is too close and if we move it further from that, say 4 or 5 feet, you're going to be that much closer to the house. As you go up that driveway, you have to practically get up almost to the house to see it. 'So therefore, to me, if you move the garage on the east side, I don't see how that's going to block that nice view of that beautiful house from your driveway. It will be on the east side to your right instead smack in front of you as you drive up the driveway. MR. GORMAN: Well, right now it wouldn't be smack in front of you. The driveway starts on the eastern side. And we also have a water problem that was created by the burm, I mean by the elevated grade. The water used to run off of the Solinger property down towards the west and south. Now it doesn't. Now it pools right in their parking area and we're going to have to address that area somehow one way or the other. We began it by placing a burm that snakes around. That takes some of the water on the southern part of the property but we still have that collection there where the proposed garage is going to go. It all -- that's the lowest spot. It looks like someone came and dug a crater right in that spot. And that's all due to the grade elevation on the neighbor's property. There was never a water problem on this property until now. So we want to be able to put the garage there. We'll create another trough for the water to run between the foundation and the building and the burm that he made. We'i1 create a trough. We'll run it down. Hopefully, we can hook up with the burm and move the water down to the south. Maybe we have to put a ~ry well in. Whatever the cost, the costs of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 removing water now are on the Solingers now. Not on the neighbor. The neighbor created the water problem, they have to pay to solve it. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's something you would have to settle in court, I think. Not here. MR. GORMAN: We're hoping it doesn't have to be like that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I can make a ridiculous suggestion. If you move that garage over to the east side and you if you still have a puddle there, maybe you can make a dry well or maybe you could make a nice pond for yourself. MR. GORMAN: I guess you're joking. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I am. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Run off is creating a pond. You're going to have to burm the soil no matter what you do, MR. GORMAN: Right, no matter wha%. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No matter where you put anything, you're going to have to. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. Jerry, it's your turn. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The garage is large. There's no question about it and I have to tell you that no one has ever garnered my vote at 3 feet from the property line based upon the size of this garage, okay. Personally, I think the architecture is adorable. There's no question about it. But I do agree with my colleague, Ruth, that it should go on the east side. Probably should be turned around coming right off of the edge of that driveway that stops and right over to the garage. And I'm sorry to say, if you have to build a retaining wall in there, you'll have to build a retaining wall but that's my suggestion. Trying to snake it around and give us a little shot on where you want to put it, we'll go back and look at it. I'm not speaking for the Board. I'm speaking for myself. It's a magnificent area. It's a magnificent house and it's a magnificent piece of property. But I have absolutely no objection where you're putting it as long as you keep it 10 feet from the property line or as close to 10 feet as possible. MR. GORMAN: Ten feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the water runoff that's going to come off, and I realize that we can put gutters on. You can put 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 oversize gutters on. You can put anything you want on but it's going to overshoot those gutters anyway. There's no question about it particularly a tin roof. Water runs off a tin roof much faster than it runs off anything else. But it's up to you. I would look for an additional location and that's just my suggestion. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand the siting because of the scale of the building itself and how it fits within the existing stone walls and so on and where you've burmed. It's logical in terms of the placement of a building that size. However, it is problematic being so slam dunked up against an already difficult slope. Putting in a trough behind would mediate some runoff particularly when it's a dry well. There is one, I thought it'was a maple tree that was actually in front. MR. GORMAN: There is a maple tree there as well. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: However, with some recontouring and regrading and some reworking of stone, it's possible with some compromise to actually move that building more southerly slightly to the south and then slightly to the east, keep it on that side. It will still not interfere with the affront elevation of the house. It may have a bigger impact on the front elevation of the house on the easterly side. And you can then provide, really can provide a 10 foot set back doing that. Amd that would certainly stop any of that need for a variance there. Then we're just down to a height variance. The cupula, as I understand it, is a consequence of being a light well. The way the plan is drawn, which is just a freehand scale thing, indicates a clear story up to the cupula for natural light to come through. It is not habitable and it is not accessible to the interior. It is proposed storage on either side. The cupula itself as a consequence can remain as an element but it can also be lowered. It has significant height. MR. GORMAN: You're nalking about the clear story? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I'm calling it a cupula. It's the element above the ridge of the roof. Whatever you want to call it. Sc ! 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 believe that there are alternatives both architecturally that are only reasonably small modifications and site strategies that can be developed without substantial cost increase that I would like to entertain, I'd like to suggest that perhaps your landscape designer and you would like to talk to your client about and see whether or not you couldn't come back with an alternative plan. With some modifications that creates much less nonconformity and still gives you the kinds of things you want. You would probably have to lose that maple, that one tree, but that may be a lot better in the long run. There was another, I don't know what it is. It looks like a cherry or fruit tree or something that's on a slight -- moving that -- you can't move the maple, that one might be movable. Those are two elements, two natural features that would b~ far less disruptive to the property then on the easterly side where there is a lot more retention of a kind of rural rough feel along with a shed and woods and it's really up to the client to figure out what. But I do think that's a more reasonable proposal. We really can't, the same thing happened to me, by the way, next door. So I understand how you feel and your client feels in terms of the impact of that grade change and the adverse consequences to your property. However, we really can't, Jim's right in this sense, we can't mitigate that for you. It is not substantial enough of a reason to grant a big height variance. The actually change in law, by the way, so you understand, was to create proportionality but not with your neighbor's property. With your own. An accessory -- this is a substantial accessory structure on the Solinger's property and it doesn't exceed, because it's a large lot, it doesn't exceed the square footage allowed. But it is still a very, very large structure. So, that's enough. I'd like to see -- would you be willing to come back with some modifications by reexamining the site plan? MR. GORMAN: Well, certainly we'll discuss it. Yes, we'll certainly discuss it. I think Connie Cross would like to say something as well. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you done Leslie? Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a couple of 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 things, observations. I'm not sure how many questions there are but for the record. My understanding, our principle lawyer is unable to be here today but with regard to the code. Yes, in this Town, if you're building something that does not require a variance, then what your neighbor thinks about it has no relevance whatever. But when you apply for a variance, particularly with something to do with a set back, then not only are the neighbors allowed to comment, they are required to sign off if they are not going to comment. When we consider a variance application, we are expected to take into consideration a whole series of points which are outlined in the same part of the code that Mr. Cuttey represented 277B3 with regard to effects on the neighborhood and the environment. So When it comes to the matter of deciding on a ' variance, then we are expected to use our discretion and they are not entirely limited to what is on the owner's side of the property. That's why neighbors are required to comment and it's also, I think, quite appropriate, for someone to reply to the neighbor's objections. Whether it's done by a letter or whether it's done by testimony. I think this is quite highly appropriate. With regard to this, Leslie, has kind of anticipated my suggestion. If there is a decision to revise the plan to do something entirely within the code that would not require any variance at all, then there would be no need to continue the hearing. On the other hand, if there is going to be some alternative that is going to be suggested which would require a variance but just a different variance, then I think it would be appropriate for us to keep the hearing open to allow this. The only reason for closing it would be to say we're going to decide on it as written. I don't think we're in a position to recommend alternative relief on the basis of a whole variety of plans that are proposed. We do not design properties. We sometimes could sight an alternative as we sometimes do. But there are so many alternatives in this case, it's not for us to decide which are the ones that we're going to draft and ask to be considered. So the ball is in your court again, guess is what I'm saying. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MR. GORMAN: Okay. I just want to, if I may, get a clarification. We're establishing a 10 foot set back. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not yet. No, don't. I still have to speak. And if Michael's done, I'll start. I know we started off a little rocky but I'm going to tell you why. Sir, I think it's perfectly appropriate for you to put that barn right where it is quite honestly. And there are a history of this Board giving this type of variance, okay, in that location. Maybe not a building quite that size but certainly close to it. Now, you need a 17 foot variance according to our code and that's because we have a new code. Before I think it was probably 5 feet. MR. GORMAN: Ten. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And if you can discuss with me the actual l~yout and how this water -- how you intend to mitigate that. I understand where it's coming from. I understand the fact that the neighbor was wholly entitled to do, I suppose, what they did and I'm assuming that you would be entitled to do that too. I'm not sure if you can go to the Building Inspector and build your own property up like the neighbor next door but it seams to me like that would be an appropriate thing for the Town to accept. Now, with that not withstanding, tell me, you have a basic water problem coming from this wall that's alongside your property line. How does building this building there mitigate that? How does it help you in some way alleviate the problem that it's caused? MR. GORMAN: We would pour a foundation that extended out of the ground on the south side so that we could continue the burm that has already begun so it can set up against the foundation wall of the barn. The other side, the west side of the barn, would then create the trough between the burm, the neighbor's burm, and the foundation wall and hook up with the burm that would run down to the south and hopefully out the property. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does that go out to the street? MR. GORMAN: I think it starts draining down the line. I don't think we're going to figure a rapid running into the street. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would you be willing 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 throw down a dry well if that were --~would it be possible for you to do that? Is there so much water there that you wouldn't be able to do that? Do you have any idea? MR. GORMAN: We could probably -- a dry well. It may take two. A lot of water seems to come down there now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This building is 30 feet wide? MR. GORMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can it be smaller than that? Can it be 22? Now, I understand you can't go any further east in that location -- MR. GORMAN: You want to make it 22 to get it 10 feet away? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, I'm just looking to see if maybe we can help you. I can somehow justify you having that thing ~ight there right where you would like it. Quite honestly, if you move it over to 20 feet, you don't need a variance. Really, right? You're on a glorified piece of property. You're entitled to put that thing right up to the property line. So if you can, you know, kind of describe to me or maybe can you shift the building and make it a little smaller so you want to keep it in that same location? MR. GORMAN: I don't think that you can shift the building. I think if anything -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because of the tree, right? MR. GORMAN: Right, exactly and because of the way that it would block the house from most vantages until you actually turned up the driveway and started coming in. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know that's my concern. MR. GORMAN: You know and I'm just speaking without any agreement from the owner. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's fine. It looks like you're going to be coming back, sir, quite honestly. I would like to see if you can have it there someway, if you can give me some explanation, like I said, if you can make it a little smaller. Three feet is close by anybody's standards. If you can pull that thing off, 13 feet from the property line or 10 feet. MR. GORMAN: I mean is ten feet going 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, I can't. It's not a bargain here. You see. It's very diverse how we -- we'll come to some concern but I think you're proposed location is not offensive to me. However, the closeness to the side yard does present a problem because we're asking for a 75% variance. And honestly I'm not willing to grant a 75% variance to anybody unless they have a dire hardship. Now, I have one Board member that says you can just go to the east. Another one says you can shift it. The code says you can build it anyplace else on that lot but there and not need a variance. So if you can give me some reasons, maybe we can work something out. I think you're wholly entitled to have it there. It's just a question of -- 3 feet is not going to cut it. I just don't see where -- number one, the water goes after that.' And number two, I don't see how you can maintain it 3 feet from the property line. There's a lot of things that come into play. MR. GORMAN: Just to clarify. The water now runs right where the proposed garage is going to go. The water runs right there. That is the low spot. So we're filling the low spot with something with the expectation that the water is going to run down the south between the two burms. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm concerned about that 3 feet. Can we make it a little more land so that maybe it soaks in a little more or doesn't -- it seems to me that you're just going to create another problem somewhere else we might need to mitigate. We're granting you a variance. We're going to want to keep all that water on your property. Dry wells are a standard of our applications now and I'm not opposed to anybody on this Board asking for an estimate how much water has to be contained, due to that. If that's the case, seems to me like you got some really large dry wells to put in to contain that. If you want to go back and consider it. MR. GORMAN: Is the -- just to, again, the height variance, are we going to have an issue with that? Is there any objection to the height? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. Well here's the point I think Jim is attempting to describe it very accurately. Our job is to grant the least nonconformity possibly, okay. And in order to do that, we have to have serious mitigatin~ reasons 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 why those nonconformity -- wh~ that variance has got to be granted. A 75% variance is very substantial. One of our criteria of our 5 criteria is to what extent -- is the variance substantial or not substantial. If you were asking for 10-15% variance, it's not so substantial. 75% variance is huge. So the question here is, Connie, can you sit down and have another look having heard everything that was discussed and come up with an alternative proposal leaving it on that side attempting to do something about the size of the building, the height of the building without compromising its use or site orientation and just come back to us and attempt to create lest nonconformity. If you say yes, we will await the alternative plans. We don't like to grant relief in a situation like this or deny relief without looking at a ~pecific alternative. We could say you can't make it any higher than this, you can't have a set back any less than that. We still wouldn't have your specific proposal before us and then the Building Inspector gets into issues of interpretation. So it's much better all the way around if we grant something yes or no based on -- like this, very specific. So if you think that's possible, then we can hold the hearing open. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. We hold the hearing open and you get back to the Building Inspector and let him take a look at it and revise the Notice of Disapproval. It won't be until January 24th that we'll be able to hear you again. A~ybody else have any comments on this? Anybody from the Board? Just state your name and address. MS. CROSS: Connie Cross, Main Road, Cutchogue. Hi everybody. I come from Brooklyn. Everybody does everything however they want to do it. I came out here and I have an art background but I really don't have much other formal training as some people do know. But I just think it's beautiful out here. So although I don't see myself as an environmentalist, I think I've become so, I guess, by definition, if you're trying to preserve the natural beauty of the land. So when I meet people like the Solingers, I'm really impressed with their dedication to doing that. As I understand it, there was a former foundation there. They didn't have to stick to that former 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 foundation. They could have put the house elsewhere. They could have raised their property so they would get a better view of the water and also protect themselves because they are very close to the bluff. But they didn't choose to do that. They chose to keep beautiful big trees. When I went there, I said boy, look at those trees. They're unusual. And so, I was called by them for a landscape consultation which always involves many issues and needs. One of them was screening this house. Now, I don't know if we're going to ignore the letters from the adjacent neighbor, but if we ignore the letter from the adjacent neighbor, then we're back to the fact that anybody can do what they want which would include us. Therefore, we have to ignore the letter from Mr. Cuttey saying it's too high and i~'s too close. So I don't think we're going ~o ignore that because it seems to be from what I've heard that they have to be addressed and I thank Mr. Cuttey for informing me about that Town law that says what is the impact on the community and the residents. Because if it applies to us, it has to apply to them. So I think there is relevancy and that's how I was brought onto the property. So these are issue I always have to deal with. We want to hide this, we want to hide that. And again, coming from Brooklyn where my husband would say how ludicrous. The houses were attached, they were 10 feet from you, you know. So when I went there, this was in May in reference to the fact that could we reconsider. How did this come about to begin with? I was called by the Solinger's to address the fact that they really had an unsightly view, which they are entitled. And Mr. Sojn was also entitled to build the house he wants. It's not unsightly to him but what we're building is unsightly to him. So we're equal now. So I looked at this thing and thought it was pretty offensive and wondered how in Heaven's name he was allowed to do it. If you look at the bluff in the back -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, ma'am, let's keep it relative to the 3 foot set back. MS. CROSS: I realize that. I'm just saying how I started. So I presented to them a screening issue. They also told me they wanted a garage. I said don't put a garage there because you're never 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 going to be able to ~ide the house. You can look at what I proposed. We did do part of it up by between the two houses at great expense and that was also shared. I think the neighbors got along great. It was fine. When it came time to the lower area to address it. They kept saying I want a garage. I said there is no place to put a garage but over here. But you know what, garages don't grow, trees grow. But they have 3 little kids. Why do people put attached garages? Obviously, convenience and a garage go hand in hand. You know, Ms. Solinger says, I don't want to see cars. I'm going to park in the garage. The further away it is, the less likely she is. I don't think she is even now because it's so far from the house. Why can't I put it closer? Well, the grade goes up. CHAIRMAN DINI~IO: Ma'am, ma'am. Are you having a conversation with somebody? Are you having with the Solingers? MS. CROSS: I'm trying to tell you why this is the only place to put the garage in my opinion based on conversations with the Solingers. So they want a garage. Where can we put it? I looked at the property to east, I believe there's 20.6 feet to the east side and the big tree. To clear the big tree puts the garage really far up from the house. Makes it very inconvenient. To address the set back on that side which you're telling me is 10 feet, correct? You would have to build even a 24 foot garage which goes 14 to 15 feet in front of their house. I think that's reasonable plus it puts the driveway completely dissecting and they have 3 little babies. They don't even like the driveway where it is. They wanted to put it to the south but then you have the water problem. So I suggested doing that and impacted it a little bit. I suggested they move their house when they bought the property next door and they actually got a price on moving the house because I felt it should be trees if you want to address that. And I thought when they applied for a variance which is the only place I think they should put it because it's convenient and because it addressed two issues. One the convenience and storage area because they can't use the one they have withouE compromising the gorgecus tree and getting it and putting it 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 from the house. I don't see where it~can go anywhere else. If anything, I'm the strongest proponent of putting it there even though I'd rather have trees there. But I can't argue that they need a garage. They have 3 little kids and they need storage and they want to put their cars somewhere. So why is it higher? Okay. We don't want to cut a tree down. And I think it's a significant tree, you know. It's not just this little choke cherry. It's a beautiful tree. And if we move it to the east, as we placed it you could barely get into the garage. We pushed it farther to the south. There's a dogwood tree over there. We'd have to take that out. That's the least significant but it's important to the homeowners. I have to listen to that too. How do you put it closer to the house because a garage should be convenient and not block th~ house which I think is reasonable. And there's a water view there. So the oak tree and the water view dictate not moving it to the east. Moving it to the south, the more you move it, becomes more and more unreasonable for them to use with 3 babies. It's just not going to happen. So in answer to what you said, Leslie, I have tossed this around since May '06. In terms of the layout of the building, that was my design and I made it as shallow as possible to accommodate 3 foot off the property line. If you move forward, you have to cut the tree down. That's the reason for that. It accommodates a car with 3 feet of walkway in the back of it which I don't think is unreasonable to get a staircase for the added storage they needed, I added the 12 feet towards the water in that side. And that's how that came to be on that side, to get a staircase in there and some storage so they could put all these bikes and stuff in a reasonable accessible place when you have children. Not in a basement. The only garage they had which was poorly designed down -- it's a beautiful house down by Mr. Hallock, I believe. He was very creative. But I have the original survey which shows the driveway on the east side, which you know everything works on paper, correct? When you get there, they would of had to drive around that big tree and not access that garage. So they use it for storage. We talked about closing it up actually with barn dcors because 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 it's not accessible in a practical manner. I can't see putting a garage far from your house. don't know how anybody would use it. So that's really how it got there. You can blame me. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Six feet? MS. CROSS: If you come there, if you move it the 6 feet, if I made it shorter from the deck that I have it, you wouldn't be able to walk around the back of the car. So if you move it, could you move it a few feet? You know I think we can move it a few feet but ten feet? We'd have to cut that tree down. He's completely opposed to cutting the tree down and I think that's wonderfully commendable. I'm in agreement on that. I suggested cutting the cherry tree down to give him screening, he almost had a heart attack. If you're going to argue one person's point, you have to a~gue the other person's point. The opposing letter says it's offensive. We can say it's offensive too. That's our reason. So either it's valid or it's not valid. That part I don't understand. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is it that you don't understand? MS. CROSS: In other words, the opposing letter from Mr. Sojn finds it offensive visually. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Finds what offensive? MS. CROSS: The garage, the proposed the garage, the height of it and the location. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. MS. CROSS: Our position is we also find his offensive. CHAIP~4AN DINIZIO: What offensive? MS. CROSS: Mr. Sojn's burm. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that the subject of the hearing? MS. CROSS: It apparently is. If you acknowledge his letter, then you have to acknowledge our. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, nc because the neighbor does have -- he's commenting on the variance. MS. CROSS: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is the o~her letter commenting on? MS. CROSS: How this came into being. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well honestly, we don't need to argue that. We've had that argument ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 already. MS. CROSS: Why am I arguing it? I can tell you why. Originally when Mr. Gorman was preparing us, we all agreed that Mr. Sojn did what he did. That's ceases to be anything we can do about that and we should not focus on that at all. And it only came into being with Mr. Cuttey's response, which if it is relevant, I'm trying to tell you how we got there even though we were not going to present it. To me, whether there was no burn and whether the property was lower and Mr. Sojn's house didn't even exist, that is the most reasonable place to put that garage for them to use it on a practical level both storage and aesthetically. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All I was suggesting was the possibility for you to consider keeping it on the east side. Keeping it as close to the house as possible but seeing whether you could reduce some of the nonconformity that would be created by your current proposal. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's on the west side. MS. CROSS: I'm sure it can be a foot lower but that, as you well know, changes the aesthetics. They wanted it to look like a barn, like it had always been there. They toyed with Victorian and we thought that was too cutesy and offensive. We wanted it to be more low key and also where it's burmed, I was tending towards big trees so this can be obscured even from them coming in. And the water problem, I was going to address that with dry wells. Originally, we had some dialogue with Mr. Sojn because I said to them, if I make a secondary burm on your property on the Solinger property, that would create, because of where his burn comes down the property line, it would create a trough. Why don't we ask Mr. Sojn if he lets us join the burm. We will take the rocks off. We'll pay for that. We will redistribute, he can have them back. I'll make a wider burm over there and there wouldn't be any water problem at all. And Mr. Sojn originally said he thought he would do that but then he changed his mind for whatever his reasons. So I said okay, then I'll put the burn back because whether the garage goes there or not, I'm still addressing the unsightliness which has nothing Eo do with ycu. But I put that burm in there and I 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 ~ill address any water problem if it is neede~ -- we have sand base on that burm and it may drain -- but there was water on that driveway. So I addressed the water on the driveway by relocating the driveway and the fact that I can get a burm in and put screening and hide the house. So that's why this burm which has nothing to do with the garage. I really looked. I wanted to put trees there real bad but I couldn't think of a place to put that garage that was both practical and aesthetic. I really couldn't. I still can't. I think originally when Mr. Booth bought the property, I believe it's illegal to put a garage on the other side, on another piece of property as a primary structure. The reason they bought it, they're sharing it with a neighbor to preserve it because, yes, they should have bought the land 'next to them if they didn't want somebody to 'do something that they find offensive. And they learned their lesson so they bought the property to the east for that reason. So we've explored so many different way. Put the driveway here, put it here. You know, you have kids too. Even the driveway where it is is less than desirable. It was nice where it was because-- but I couldn't make a miracle. So we moved the driveway. They're worried, the kids are going to come out of the house. Well, how do you completely go across? It's scary for them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What about attaching it to the house? MS. CROSS: First of all, on the west side, if you attach it, you still have a set back problem because I think there's 30 feet to the west side. I said that too. I think you want your garage as close as possible. So I said what about on the east side? East side they have 20 feet. Where would you put it? You can't put it over there plus that beautiful tree. I'm not talking about. If you've seen it. It's a gorgeous, gorgeous tree. You know, I tell you the truth, just putting the garage where it is is compromising the oak tree that we don't want to cut down because the roots you know, when you keep driving over roots, driving over roots, it doesn't help. Years later, the tree loses its stability. I tried with that. Then you block their water view and you can't get around the house if you put 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 it on the west. H~w can you put it on the east 20 feet? There's just no room. So again we tossed this around. There was a point where I said you know you can't put it over there. We argued that. Everyone said what are you doing? I said, well I'm trying to make everybody happy but I just don't see how you're going to -- I see, when you have children -- and their other house is elevated. They have to go up steps. They have babies. We all think we're going to park in the garage. Half of us don't park in the garage when it's attached, let alone -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, if you can keep this relevant. MS. CROSS: That's all. I don't have any more. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here's the question. Having said what ySu just said, do you prefer to say this is the best we can do, close the hearing and we'll make our decision based on what you've proposed or do you want to look at alternatives again based on what you've heard and come back with an alternative proposal that reduces some of the requests for variances, the substantial nature of those requests. Then we can agree to that. We can hold the hearing open for you. It's really your call. MS. CROSS: I think Mr. Muth's and Mr. Gorman's decision. CHAIRMA~N DINIZIO: Does anybody else wish to comment on this before we -- sir? MS. CROSS: Thanks everyone, MR. SOJN: I'm the notorious Martin Sojn. My name is Martin Sojn. Principle member of Oregon Cliffs, LLC. I own the property adjoining the applicant. My address is 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. I have read and reviewed the applicant's request for zoning variance and I have several items I would like to bring to the Board's attention. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, can I just warn you to keep it relevant to the application, please. MR. SOJN: Absolutely, sir. I have -- if I can submi% this, which is actually what I was going tc say plus some pictures of the adjoining property. Can I submit this to the Board? As you know, my attorney was not able to speak for me this morning because of prior legal requirements. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 He has submitted a letter which you're aware of. I wanted to read into the record some of my concerns regarding the application. The applicant is requesting exemptions to the zoning code. There's 2 issues we're talking about. The first is the side yard set back relief. The proposed building is significantly larger than a standard garage. The footprint is 1,100 square feet. The total space will have over 1,600 square feet to the top floor. The building structure proported is to be used as a garage and storage building. The garage portion is for two cars could easily be handled by a 20 by 20 foot area, 400 square feet. This leaves an extra 700 square feet of storage for the first floor plus another approximately 500 on the second floor for storage. I just want to bring attention that my neighbor, an additional neighbor to the west is building a g~rage also - the Judge property. They're building a garage which is 20 by 32 for a three-car garage and the second I showed, if they extended that out by another 10 feet which is what this building has, you can fit 2 cars easily into a 20 foot width. You don't have to move back another 10 feet to get 2 cars in. Most garages are built 20 feet, 22 feet in depth. So if this building was conventional size of 20 foot rather than 30 feet, you don't even need a variance because you can fit it into the area closely. I thought it was ten feet. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's 20. MR. SOJN: So that's an alternative which I think was mentioned before. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I just get this right. You would have no objection to it being ten feet from the property line? MR. SOJN: I have no objection meeting whatever the requirement is. I thought it was 10. They said a 7 foot variance so that's what I was objecting to. I'm new to the area, as you know. I'm not familiar with all the requirements of the Town. I think there are other suitable locations on this 1 i/2 acre site. I think there might be other people who can advise on as to how that might be done. I think there are cther landscape architects who can come up with something. That's not my speciality and ! appreciate Connie's input as to where she feels it should be. But I think 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 there are~other places it can be located. As she mentioned, there's an existing garage there. It can be put next to that garage on that side and adjoin that area. Also the applicant is a co-owner of a 3 acre property on the east side directly adjoining them. There's plenty of space there to build a garage. The second issue is the height issue. As I understand it, the Town changed the code to 18 feet the beginning of this year. Prior to that, the limit was 22 feet and I thought they were looking for a 24 foot height. It is interesting to note that the applicant's house is actually higher than my house. Their house is up high and it's higher than a proposed garage and I'll address the water issue in a few minutes. Getting back to the height structure, the size of this building is really inconsistent with any 6ther garage in the area. If the building was connected, then I think it would be a 20 foot set back but again, I'm not sure of that. The height of the proposed is 7 feet above the Town limit of 18 feet. The building will drastically reduce the value of my property Oregon property. It's effectively a wall 24 feet high, 36 feet long and 3 feet from the property line as proposed. The building should be downsized to a reasonable structure and placed a minimum of 10 feet to the property line or whatever the requirements are. There should be proper screening with trees to preserve the environment. There's no discussion at all about how am I going to preserve the environment with any trees at all. Traditionally, landscaping with trees is used to block a neighbor's view. Not created a 20 foot high and 36 foot long structure. There are a couple of things that I need to correct that were mentioned in the record. The applicant stated that the 6 foot elevation and the height creates a visually overpowering landscape. I like to state that overpowering view of a landscape by trees which are growing and in a few years which will completely block out my house. I think the trees are more attractive than having a large structure to block the view. The applicant complains when having to look at the grade of the landscaped area created by Oregon, which is me. By sloping the grade to this area, I actually shielded the view cf my driveway. Sc instead of seeing my driveway, 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 the land was flat, they wou~d of had to look at my driveway. By having this raised and having the trees there, they no longer see my driveway which is a long driveway coming in. So the sloped area actually improved the applicants view of my property. The applicant named that the sloped grade on the property creates some sort of problem for the applicant's children. The installation of a garage I don't believe will effect if the children are in the yard what they're going to see from my property. I don't think from that site line, actually the garage will be where the play area is. In fact, now instead of looking at a landscape slope, they're going to be looking at a 24 foot high garage. The applicant's expeditor implies there's a necessity to build a 24 foot high garage to remedy problems caused by the Oregon 6 foot elevation. Mbreover, the remedy is creating a very large building structure in order to shield the view of the structure that is consistent with building code. When I built my property, I did not build, there was a hill. The property was sloped before I built my property. I built it actually 2 feet below the lowest part. In order to build it lower, I had to truck all kinds of dirt out to build it. I built it in the highest part of where it was. It was right at the top of the hill. I had to get from point A to point B. I could either bring it flat and walk up to ge~ there or I could build a slope. I build a grading slope from the bottom to the top. Yes, I had to bring in dirt to do that but that's the only way you can make it work. You build a house at the height that you're allowed to build it on, actually below that height, which was approved by everyone, you have to put dirt to get from point A to point B. Not only did I put in landscaping and they mention a water problem. The sloped area is actually 10 feet from their property line. It raises up approximately 6 feet. Maybe a little higher towards the back. That sloped area was engineered with building rock with an environmental control blanket which shrubs and with mulch to prevent any water from going down that area. In fact, there's no evidence that any water has ever gone down that hill and into their property. Their low area actually is below their house. There is drainage coming from their own ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~property from the high area on their propert~ which drains into a low area. There is no evidence to prove any water is coming from my property. In addition to that, the edge of that sloped area then slopes to the other direction. So 99% of my property slopes away from the Solinger house. There's only 10 feet that has any slope at all toward Solingers. That t0 feet has the trees, the burm, the mulch, everything else protecting the water that could possibly go down that hill. So in summary, I'd like to say that there is no need for a side yard relief because the building is grossly oversized. It could be downsized and still fit in the area and there are other alternatives to where they could possibly put this building structure. Whether it be on the other side of the property or in the other 3 acres 'they have, there are other locations. Regarding the height variance. The proposed height is at least 7 feet above the Town code. The additional height serves no purpose other than to screen a view which could be better screened with trees. And in addition to that, this creates a terrible view from my property. I'm not going to look at a building that is 24 feet high and 36 feet long right at the edge of my property. A blank wall of a build with no shrubbery unless I put it in. I think an auxiliary building of proposed mass and height would significantly reduce my property value. Thank you for you consideration. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody have any questions of this gentleman? Sir, I have -- you bring up something that thought when I went up there was that. It seems to me like the property slopes from east to west. That whole, like when you take the turn at the right of away to go towards your house and the neighbor's house so that you kind of drive up. It doesn't go the other way around. I'm thinking that the burm, tell me if I'm wrong, that was installed where they want to put the garage started at 60 feet and went to 65 and the other side of that. The other side of that, the subject property is at 66 feet high. The slope is east to west on that piece of property. So the water is not coming from your property. That's the jist that ! get. Do you feel the same way or did you do something that makes the water go over there? 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MR. SOJN: ~here's no water coming from my site. I have the highest point from the back so it doesn't go way in the back towards north. There's no water coming from that end and they have a very big indentation as you saw around their tree there. So that water all around that area, that low spot, is surrounded by their high property. Where's that water going to go? It has to go right there. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You basically stopped it from coming onto your property, I guess that's what it's come to. MR. SOJN: It wasn't my intent. MR. GORM~AN: It stopped flowing. It doesn't move off the property. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My assumption is that what you did there was perfectly legal for you to do. You never asked for a variance. MR. SOJN: It wasn't required. One other issue is that I am the only neighbor, adjoining neighbor, to this property because I have an L-shaped piece of property. I'm the only affected neighbor on both sides. They own the other piece on the other side with someone else and then there's the water. So I'm the only person here that it's affected. I didn't ask other people to come and support this. I felt that this is an adjoining neighbor issue and that's why I'm here discussing how it affects me. It affects me very much because that is right in my face. You're going to drive up and you're going to see a very big garage. As you see in the sketches, I planted that area. I landscaped it. I spent a lot of money. I spent I can't tell you how much money trying to make that look attractive for my neighbors. This is not something that was done willy nilly, take it or leave it. I went out of my way to make this really look very attractive for my neighbors to solve any kind of water problem that might potentially be there. Take all the water -- go to the other side. I put in a 50,000 gallon dry well to collect any other water that would come off the dry well so there would be no wa~er problem to any other neighbor because there was at one time before the house was completed. So I've done above and beyond what can possibly be done to make the house work in a community and I'm just asking for the same ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fairness. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. So no one has any questions, right? Sir, come on up. State your name and address, please. MR. MUTH: Steve Muth, MUTH. My wife owns the property. We live at 13459 Oregon Road. Basically, I just want to make a couple things quick and clear which is the view and that sort of thing, completely secondary. Number one problem, we need a garage and that's it. Yeah, Connie got brought in because we wanted help and ideas but that's two separate things. Nuraber one, we need the garage. So the question is just where? If you look on the front of the house because it has to go on that side. It can't go on the water side. There's no room on either side. It's got to go on the front and there are two specimen trees; about a 90 foot white oak and a 70 foot maple. They are beautiful and we love our trees. It's one of the -- if you look around that whole area, it's rare to find a piece of property that's near the water that has those kinds of trees. So we're just really loathe to cut them down. If that maple wasn't there, we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be asking for a variance just for that if it was just aesthetics, we wouldn't be here and frankly, I'm not going to cut that tree down. No matter what. It would mean we have to move the garage south so instead of walking 60 feet, now we're walking 80 or 90 feet. That 's what's going to end up happening and I just think the impact on him because his land was raised higher, the height is the impact of that building envelope is substantially less because he's 6 feet higher. The building is going to be 6 feet lower visually to him anywhere on his property unless he walks down into the ditch next to the property line. Everywhere else it's 6 feet lower so the impact is not going to be that great. We're definitely flexible on the size of the building. I really just want the two-car garage with a little room for storage. So we're definitely flexible on the size. The only constraint is that east/west. Is between that maple tree and it's root structure and the property line and I think it's about 36 feet or something like that. I can check it. I'm told that a minimum for driving into the garage I need at least 22, that's the absolute minimum. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 EverybOdy says you should do 24, 26. I don't care, I'll go with the minimum. And whatever that is left over between the tree and the property line, I'm fine with. That's it. So that's number one. I just feel like the other stuff can sort of get in the way. So that's the main thing. The aesthetics thing, I think Connie said it right. Whatever he wants to do, that's his property and I don't think he broke any code or anything like that. I mean, I don't know. Apparently he didn't. But bottom line is, our property where our car tires sit where we've parked for 10 years used to be, although the low point on our property, it was, it continued for 75 feet in every direction. So there was never any drainage problem at all. Generally speaking, there isn't a drainage problem. There is on in the winter. Now, m6st of his property is properly graded and slopes away but you can't get a way from the fact that there is a 10 foot by 6 foot burm. So it's 10 feet in, 6 feet high and 150 feet long. That's a mass and when that freezes and there's a rain like happens, where's it going to end up. There's only spot for it to end up and it's right there. That's a problem. We're going to have to address it. We'll have to put in a dry well or something but we're going to have to do it. Whether there's a garage there or not, our idea was if we're going to be doing it, do it all at once. Do everything. We need the garage, put it there. That's not really the important part and also we would pay for solving the drainage problem. So I sort of felt like it was a good deal for all around and the fact is, from his property, if you stand on his driveway, which is where the view is, this thing is not going to be big. He has planted stuff right in front of it. So there's 6 feet, 6 foot trees that are going to grow and then there will be a roof. Four or five years from now you don't even have to see this thing at all. So for that 4 or 5 years he'll have to see a roof. For that we don't have to cut down this 70 foot maple. I just feel like that's a pretty, that would be a fair deal all around. I don't want to do something negative at all. In fact, we've gotten along in the past. This is not that kind of thing. NoE about that at all. We just need the garage and I'm not going to cut down one of those 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 two trees. I'd move the ~ogwood. It's a beautiful tree but that can be moved. But the other ones, I'm not going to take them down. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Hold on. Anybody have any questions? I have to thank you for your presentation. Quite honestly, you made it crystal clear. I mean I just want to reiterate or would like to clarify what you said that I heard you say was that you can go with the standard garage which is 22 feet. MR. MUTH: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's going to lower the height so you may not need that variance if you so choose. You're problem is you don't want to take down those big trees and I understand that. This Board has granted variances because of that in the past. It would get you a little further away from the property line and yo~ understand that you have to take care of the water. I certainly, looking at the properties, understand about how the flow goes and the neighbor doesn't necessarily, you know, he's worried about his property, not necessary yours. In the beginning, that seemed to me all superfluous and it was right up until the moment you stood up, sir. If you can consider that. If the Board would like to have some questions from this gentlemen concerning that, perhaps we can close the hearing and come to some conclusion instead of making them wait until January. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think we have the plan to be able to do that Jimmy, and that's the problem. If they want to come back this afternoon with something after they go -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can do that and we can close the hearing and get a plan from them or hold it open until our next meeting that we have to make decisions and do it then. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then close the hearing then? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time would you need to get another plan? Would a week be enough time? MR. MUTH: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How are we feeling about that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think these are two very reasonable people who have both been very 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 thoughtful and cooperative and I think we s~ould give them a reasonable time to take all of this testimony into consideration, come back with an alternative for us and then we should be able to act with as much speed as to make it convenient for all of you and cost effective for all of you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, you would rather have it in January? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I'm saying if they feel they can get it to us within a week, an alternative, then we can close the hearing subject CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which is 22 foot building however long I guess. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A point is, he can have more than a week because our next special meeting isn't until 3 weeks. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right but if he s~ys a week, that's good. (All Members Talking) BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The reason I said a week is because if for some reason there's no agreement and the Board doesn't accept either plan, then the Board do a motion on their own to reopen it and we can maybe schedule it for the December meeting or January meeting without losing a lot of time. If we wait more than a week, we lose that month. MR. MUTH: We won't miss it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Good. I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No adjourn it. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Close the hearing subject to receiving -- (All Members Talking). BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth, seconded by Michael. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing #6088 - North Fork Greek Community CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is Michael Macrina, the Transfiguration Church. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's mine. "Request for 5 Variance under Section 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 280-13, based o~ the Building Inspector's August 17, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing church building which will be less than 60 feet from the front lot line, at 1950 Breakwater Road, Mattituck; CTM 106-9-6.1" MR. MACRINA: My name is Michael Macrina. I live at 22 Bayberry Drive in St. James, New York 11780. I am the architect for the North Fork Greek Community Association who are the owners of the Transfiguration of Christ Greek Orthodox Church located at 1950 Breakwater Road in Mattituck. My client is requesting an area variance to construct an open terrace and a covered portico on the street side of the building. The building is legally in use as a religious structure and has been since 1971. The property is currently zoned as RS0 with a lot area of 2.9 acres. The request is for front yard relief from the required 60 foot setback to 38.83 feet. The front yard relief is for both the proposed covered portico and the open terrace. The purpose for adding these elements is a functional and aesthetic requirement. The proposed covered portico is to create a protective covering from the weather as well as an appropriate entrance to the religious structure. The portico's depth will match the existing portico and the width will be wider than the existing but will create a more dramatic appearance. The proposed terrace was requested to assist the congregation and staff by creating an outdoor extension of the church. This is to accommodate several religious holiday ceremonies and celebrations that occur outside the entrance of the church. It is important to create a flush condition between the terrace and the finished floor of the building due to several reasons. One is to create a safe and assessible design for the elderly and the disabled. Second, to simplify and safely transport the religious statues to the outdoor space. The multiple steps have always been an inconvenience and the Association and congregation would like this to be resolved. The celebrations are now being conducted on the sidewalk and the congregation is lined up on the Church driveway. By constructing the new terrace, it will enable the priests to conduc~ a liturgy on 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 the terrace while the congregation would gather around on the sidewalk. The terrace was also requested to create a more architectural approach to the Church by separating the Church from the street. The terrace will also replace the sea of concrete with stone veneer, blue stone pavers and planters all to help break up the continuous white surface that exists. This proposal will only enhance the curb appeal and restore this religious structure to an appropriate appearance. Thank you for you consideration. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much wider is the proposed portico then the existing? MR. MACRINA: The existing is about 16 feet wide. This be will be the same width as the front piece of that Church which is about 28.9, 29 feet. The terrace will be a little bit ~ider. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: Do you have any idea how much? I want to put that in the decision. MR. MACRINA: The terrace total is 44 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOERRINGER: What about the portico? MR. MACRINA: I think I have 28 feet there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Very good. The only one thing that concerned me was the setback from a health, safety and welfare point of view. I was elated to see that the terrace is a congregation area outside. And I was willing to trade that setback for the purpose of that congregational area. But the one thing that concerned me in your presentation was that when religious things are going on outside on that terrace, people would be standing down observing those. Is that what you were saying on the existing walkways or would they be sharing that area up above? MR. MACRINA: Right here they'd be sharing the area as much as possible depending on the size of the congregation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because I don't know if you've ever before done this before but I'd like to see some health, safety and welfare barrier down below to inhibit or to stop cars from entering that because there is continuous car traffic along that road. Particularly in the summertime. Can you think of anything ~hat you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 can pu~ down there that would stop a car from intruding into that area that people might be standing on without disrupting this magnificent terrace that you'd be constructing there? MR. MACRINA: Cars traveling on Breakwater Road? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. There is a very active beach at the end of Breakwater Road and that's my only concern. I have no objection to this. To trading this setback off and I think it's a positive step and I observe a lot of churches including my own church on Sunday morning and there is a substantial amount of congregation. I happen to live in the area. I probably live 2000 feet from this church and it is definitely a problem, no question about it. People like to speak to each other after a service. There's no questi%n about it. No matter what religious service it is and this is a positive step. And I realize that the only time that may change is if there is a religious activity going on outside. But as I said, the only concern I have is some sort of barrier in front of the church that stops cars. That may not be subject to that. It's up to this Board to make that determination. I'm just throwing it out to you. MR. MACRINA: That could be done. We have some ideas of planters in front of the terrace. Maybe we can build something out like a raised planter to help create a little more safety. Right now it's completely unsafe. Right now they're standing in the driveway that cars are pulling in. So the idea is after church, if you have some children, you can step out onto the terrace and at least there's some steps. There's a little bit of a barrier. It's not as open as it is right now. Right now it's unsightly with that concrete, too much of it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can give us a little idea on those planters then we can incorporate that if the Board was so inclined to grant this application. MR. MACRINA: Sure. How would I do so? SubmiL it to Linda? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. We'd probably close the hearing subject to that. That would be my recommendation. I realize it's a little premature at this time because 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 everybody has spoken regarding this. And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with Jerry. My only concern, certainly architecturally it's going to make an enormous difference in the visual impact and also the religious rituals associated with this outdoor space. It will be a big improvement. I have no objection to that at all. My concern was exactly the same with creating an even smaller setback from where road traffic takes place. Where intentionally the goal is to locate people whether they have any disability or mobility problem or children. The big problem really is that right now they're pulling into what is clearly a cut out from the road by this concrete thing with the two Spruce trees. Once you get rid of the Sprude trees, you'll have more congregation space anyway. But I agree with Jerry. If you could provide an attractive landscape scheme with some hard material to, doesn't have to be an ugly barrier. Can be a very beautiful boundary designation so the congregation is safe and cars are safe. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And not to detract from this magnificent portico. We need to have that for the decision. MR. MACRINA: Sure. I'll take care of it right away. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think you've answered my question, which was why the necessity for creating that additional terrace and you've answered it by the fact that it is essentially important for religious rituals to take place upon entering the front. You have lots of room on the side and lots of room in the back but this is clearly about the religious process of entry. MR. MACRINA: That's right and right now the handicapped accessible is a ramp that brings you right directly to a side door. If you're in a wheelchair, you'll never be able to enjoy. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it's all perfectly sensible. I agree with Jerry. I'd be very willing to just simply entertain the submissicn of a site plan perhaps a new elevation for an elevation showing the height as well as the setback. MR. MACRINA: Originally the intent was ~o 1 2 3 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 keep most of the congregation on the terrace. They wanted it to be larger. When I told the Association about the setback issues, I said we need to be a little more reasonable. We reduced it more than what we wanted. I understand the issue. We'll take care of that. BOARD MEBER WEISMAN: That's all. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The request for a front yard setback is 38.83. What is the existing setback? MR. MACRINA: Well,-- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is 62.7 to the building. MR. MACRINA: To the build put to the portico BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don't have it drawn on the survey. MR. MACRINA: But the existing portico, I don't know how that was constructed, we're going to be removing it. Right now that does encroach past the 60 foot. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So is the resulting setback, will that be significantly less than it would be now? I couldn't find any numbers. MR. MACRINA: I would say my it's probably to that portico, my guess would be 56 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's asking for about 16 feet beyond. And that's from the bottom step? MR. MACRINA: Exactly, that's to the step. The actual terrace would be probably 40 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That was my other question. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Mike. Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think I agree with what Jerry has said. I think it would be a nice addition to the church and with the planters around it to keep the people, because it is so close to that street and there is a lot of traffic there. Otherwise, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have anything else to add, sir? MR. MACRINA: No, I think that's it. CHAIP~.N DINIZIO: Does anybody in the audience have anything to add to this? BOARD MEMRER GOEHRINGER: I'd like tc close 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 APPF~%LS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 the hearing. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll expect the update and site plan and planters within a week please because if you don't we have to push onto another. MR. MACRINA: When is your next decision? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The decision is 3 weeks away, December 6th, right, at 6:00 o'clock in the other building. If you get to us within a week, we can look it over. MR. MACRINA: No problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn for 5 minutes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll be back at 11:45 p.m. Hearing %6089 - Hamilton CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next application is for Kenneth A. And Evelyn Hamilton. Michael, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for Variances under Sections 2801-5 and 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's September 10, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an as-built (without permit) deck addition at less than 35 feet from the rear lot line and which new construction will create a side yard location for a portion of the accessory garage (garage is entirely in a rear yard). Location of property: 145 Orchard Road, Southold; CTM 66-2-26." I guess Mr. Leonard, you'll speak to this? MR. LEONARD: Yes, Rob Leonard, Cutchogue. Basically here to legalize the deck. It's a low lying deck and as you know, when the garage was built, it was legal, it was in the rear yard so that's what's causing the nonconformity. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When was the deck built, do you know? MR. LEONARD: No. The home cwner is selling 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 the house. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One criteria that some of us have applied in assessing these kinds of cases is to ask whether the as built construction would have been granted a variance had it been applied for in the first place. So I'm going to ask you to make a case as though this were a proposed deck. MR. LEONARD: If this was a proposed deck, the existing house is set at the 35 foot setback which is legal for the area. Anything at all we would have done off the rear of the house would have been been, we would have needed a variance for. So I think the deck being low to the ground really a minor structure is not much of a major variance. I consider it minor. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How large a deck? When we look at the property, it's a Yairly sizable deck. Admittedly, it doesn't rise very high but it's also not grade level which is what the code is concerned with. So if you were told how narrow a deck would you be willing to consider if you were worried about getting a variance for a deck of that full width? MR. LEONARD: Off the back of the house? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. That's a fairly sizable deck. How many feet is it? MR. LEONARD: With a 35 foot setback, I really wouldn't want to ask for more than a 20 foot setback. Right now we're at 21.5. If I was to do this new, I would tell the customer 20 feet is really all I would go that would get approved. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's all I have for how. CHAIRM3~N DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have anything. I was down there. It's not a big deal. It's so close to the ground, it doesn't make that much difference. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection to it as long as it's open to the sky. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I suspect whoever buil5 i5 assumed it was at grade. It probably didn't need -- it's one of those situations that most people would assume there was no variance required if it had been stone or something -- MR. LEONARD: If it would had been a patio 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 at grade, we wouldn't be here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be interesting to know the history because maybe at the time that the deck was built whether the owner knew and anticipated a possibility of getting a C of O in order to sell it. There's a for sale sign in front of the house. MR, LEONARD: That's the reason I'm here. I was brought on by the real estate agent. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have anything else to add to this, sir? MR. LEONARD: That's it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience which to comment on this deck that already exists? No. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion closing this hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. · BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6090 - McNulty CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Edna McNulty. Is there anybody in the audience for the applicant? Seeing none, anybody wish to make a comment on this so we can open the hearing? What do you want to do? What should we do? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Have we heard from Mr. Diller? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No, we haven't heard from anyone and we don't have proof of mailing on two of the properties. What we can do is table it and renotice it for another meeting when the application is complete. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it should be re noticed for January. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'll just table it and let them make their decision. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Have you heard from Mr. Coggins on this? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No. We would have to hear from him. CHAIRMAN DINIZI0: We'll just table it. What do we do, Linda, anything in particular? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'll make a motion to table it. BOARD MEMBER WE!S~AN: I'll seccnd 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO:® Okay. Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing ~6091 - Kabakov CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Ilya and Emilia Kabakov. Ruth, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-15 (B and F), based on the Building Inspector's June 19, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions (as-built and new) to the existing accessory (storage/garage) building, which is not permitted at a height exceeding 22 feet in height and less than 25 feet from the side property line. Location of Property: 1700 Park Avenue, Mattituck; CTM 123-8-5." That's a big building and the addition is going to be a big building. MR. UHLENDA/{L: My name is Frank Uhlendahl. I live in Greenport. A couple of years ago I designed the addition to the main house and that's how I meet the Kabakovs and I fell in love with the art so I could not say no when Ilya said "I need more space". I don't know if you have been inside. Should there be a problem, I would love to show you what the building storage areas look like inside. They're filled with models and beautiful pieces of art. He is working on or both, Ilya and Emilia are a team, but he does the actual creative work but she's very much involved in the conceptional part of the art that they produce. They are both traveling that's why they couldn't be here otherwise they would be here. Ilya said to me, "Frank, I need a space that is 20 something feet high. I'm working on these installations. I need to store them." There is just one empty building and he would like it to be a duplicate of what they built two years ago or 3 years ago and this is a 30 by 60 structure. If you look at the site plan, there are already existing, preexisting buildings and there is a building permit for all of those except for the connection between the former garage and the storage addition which was probably built when I look at the property card in '98. Then they got the building permit for this 30 by 60 structure in 2002. And then we did the residential porticn 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 it but he does need this one more storage building. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He does sculptures or paintings or both? MR. UHLENDAHL: It is really not so much the paintings because in his studio that was built shortly after they moved to Mattituck in the mid '90's, they immediately added the main studio. This is where he paints. But it's really for his installations. Most of them he has to build wooden models, they are huge. Some of them are relatively high. So they love the North Fork. They don't want to go anyplace else and truly the art community here on the North Fork is wonderful and I would like to support them as much as I can. I don't know what your impression is. I know it's a large structure but it's a big piece of property. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It is. It's hidden really. MR. UHLENDAHL: In the wintertime maybe not so much but you know they have wonderful neighbors. I don't think anybody opposes but I don't this. But I'm interested in listening to the Board and what you have to say. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There's always some artist in Orient and they never have enough room especially if you're making large pieces, you need the height too otherwise it doesn't work. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, you okay? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is for the construction of an art piece for his own specific use. He doesn't show out of here? MR. UHLENDAHL: No. It's so difficult. They travel a lot and they are not showing, sometimes, of course. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If somebody walks in that's a friend of theirs, they show it. But they don't have, this is not an art gallery. MR. UHLENDAHL: It is not a public affair. It's a residence and these are storage buildings. He may work with his model maker, two or three people at times, who he invites to work on these models because he can't do everything himself. But, you know, there is no public circulation. It's not a gallery. He's not showing anything 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 except for, as you said, maybe a small group. Last time I was there with Joyce Beckinstein (phonetic). She invited all the local artists and she gave a tour. It was wonderful. But that's the extent of it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When can you show it to us? MR. UHLENDAHL: Emilia will be back tomorrow. I can show it to you tomorrow afternoon. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you show it to us Saturday at any time? MR. UHLENDAHL: I will find out. I'm sure I can do it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Saturday morning. MR. UHLENDAHL: I think Miya is a little sickly right now but she will do this. Absolutely. ~aturday morning, what time? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 9:30, 10:00 o'clock? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Make it 10:00. MR. UHLENDAHL: I will call Linda tomorrow to confirm. I probably will be able to reach her on the cell phone and I'll confirm this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any specific problem with the construction or the addition as long as it's only used for personal, for the actual -- I mean, what difference is it between that and somebody making a wooden model and it's the same situation except that it's an art piece. Somebody is building stairs for someone, it's the same situation. I don't want to compare it to that and I'm doing that on the record but I mean, you know, that's the difference. It's not an exposition barn so to speak. MR. UHLENDAHL: No and the building will be a relatively simple structure. It will be clad with the same materials, red cedar, the same roof line. Could we make it a little shorter, I mean it encroaches on the side yard by 3 feet, one corner of the proposed addition and the height is 25 as opposed to 22 but we, of course, have the coverage that is due to the new resolution that was passed earlier this year, it makes it, that's why I'm here. We need a variance. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Hea~ed, unheated? 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MR. UHLENDAHL: There haseto be some heat and some light air-conditioning because it will be an archive where models and pieces of art will be stored over longer periods of time then they may be shipped to museums all over the world but they would come back and it has to air-conditioned. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Plumbing? MR. UHLENDAHL: No plumbing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Tell me what kind of fabrication is done there. You talked about wood models at a particularly reduced scale. MR. UHLENDAHL: Some of these models are actually quite big. I don't know what his plans are for the height of this. I just put something into my section which of course has nothing to do with Ilya and Emilia Kabakov but they told me specifically they don't need a second floor. They want this to be one space and ~e may have to have a large barn door on one said but it will all be interconnected to the existing structures. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have a problem with the side yard variance. It's a very small percentage. I think the biggest issue here, the height is another nodule of what's there, it's lot coverage and there's going to be a number of trees that will have to be removed to clear the way for that and so there might be some mitigation with some screening perhaps. Although there's a lot of bramble on the road, MR. UHLENDAHL: It's still 150 feet to the road. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a big setback. Is any part of this actually an active studio? MR. UBLENDAHL: No. I don't think so because he predominantly works in his studio that's attached to the residence. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So most of this is really storage? MR. UHLENDAHL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And parking is just that there is no garage? No garage parking? MR. UHLENDAHL: No. Everything, they don't have a garage. They use the spaces that they have for archives and storage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the stronger you can make a case for the hardship, the storage hardship that will be created for an international artist who has absolutely no alternative but 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 either have the storage there where it's protected or to build or rent storage elsewhere in the area or to move. I'd like to see a finding that reflects the recognition of what this artist does and why there is an absolute necessity for this because it's mostly lot coverage. It's a very big building and a very big house and it's a very big lot. Still that, to me, is the largest issue. Anything you can do to make the case for storage hardship, that would simply help. MR. UHLENDAHL: Would you think that if we meet at 10:00 o'clock on Saturday that will help answer part of your questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think so. I think that's why we want, I don't know what it will answer but it will at least give us a better idea of the scale of the pieces and how full the sto~age already is. Perhaps a little bit more explanation about their work and their need for this. MR. UHLENDAHL: That's what I need Emilia there for. She'll be able to do this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the things that we have to answer when we write a decision is is there any alternative not requiring a variance. And also in the code is a rule that covers the length of a single building for other purposes, for example, for commercial areas you can't have more than 60 foot length. What I would like to see is some kind of answer to the question of why this couldn't be a separate accessory structure? Why this particular need? I haven't been inside. Instead of making one monstrous building, why couldn't there be 2 or 3 or 4 storage buildings? I would like to hear is there an argument that storage requirements require that it be one massive building? MR. UHLENDAHL: I could try to answer this right now because I think the impact that the storage building this size would have on the other side of the driveway would be even higher than continuing the row of storage buildings because most of the bulk is there already so to break it up may actually have the adverse affect and will look much more crowded on the property. Also on the south side of the driveway we have the forest which is quite beautiful and then would create a 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 clearing or an opening which will, of course, be more visible from the road as well. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The south side of the driveway meaning -- I'm not sure which direction. MR. UHLENDAHL: If you look at the site plan. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's on your left as you're going on the driveway. MR. UHLENDAHL: Right. This is the proposed structure. This is all heavily wooded. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What direction is this? MR, UHLENDAHL: This is north, actually west, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is the place you're saying would not be suitable? MR. UHLENDAHL: I don't think anybody would want it there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As Ruth said, it's a very, very large building. Whether is going to be made still larger, whether there's any necessity for that or whether that just simply something that's better than the alternatives which would be what the argument would have to be. I, unfortunately, am not going to be able to be there on Saturday morning. I have another meeting. MR. UHLENDAHL: We can take photos also and submit them to you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, fine. Great. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They may wind up selling in the future, who knows. Right now this may be something essential for this artist. This structure stays beyond the duration of their residence so we do have to consider the fact that this is looking like a motel. I don't mean aesthetically. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The purposes for which this is done can be served by some other means and this is why I'm not sure with regard to the future of it a long list of awards and credits of the present owner is particularly relevant to that question of what will happen 10 or 15 years from now if they decide to move to France. MR. UHLENDAHL: Yes, but the Kabakovs will be able to answer this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, are you done? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have to say a couple of ihings first. If lhe meeting on Saturday is 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 the Kubakovs to testify before the members of this Board, I suggest that we not do that, sir. We shouldn't be having a discussion with them concerning their reasons on this. The Board will go there specifically, any member wishing to go, I will not, to look at the building and I'm not telling my Board members what to do but I feel myself you shouldn't be discussing the application. It's not fair to the Board members that aren't there and it's not fair to the neighbors who have been summoned to come before this Board today to hear the relevant testimony. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yup. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are giving you this information as collectively as Board members. We are just asking you to ask them thos~ questions and create a little brief for us and we'll give you time to submit that brief in writing so that we can have those questions answered. We have no intention of asking any questions of them on Saturday. MR. UHLENDAHL: But you still interested in BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is a point that's been raised in another application which is pending is that when people are going to go look to the inside of this building which is now under consideration, our attorney advised us that only two of our Board members could be there because otherwise, it could be arguably an unannounced meeting particularly with the open meetings law. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That is really not my concern. What I'm addressing to you is that any discussion between the Kabakovs and any member of this Board in that building should be relevant to welcome to my house, come see my building and let them observe and we'll go away. Beyond that -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He's absolutely right. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The second thing is I'm a little concerned here. This is a relatively new law that we've come under and I jusE see holes shot all in this law and this is just another one. The building as it exists right now exceeds the 3% that an accessory structure could be by this new law and you're asking us to almost double 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 egregiousnesseof the variance needed in this building and honestly sir, I cannot vote for that. I understand that the nature of the gentleman's work but I also understand it's his work. I have a business myself. If I outgrow it, I have to go someplace else to do business. That's what our laws, that's what the codes are for. It's not to protect the property owners, it's to protect the neighbors. Not saying that these people are in any way going to upset their neighbors in any way but that's why we made the laws. So I'm looking for severe reduction here or perhaps some other way for you to fit this building on this piece of property without the need for a variance and I don't see that. You're well over the 3% now. MR. UHLENDAHL: But anything that I would be adding to the storage building would require a variance. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I couldn't agree with you more. The property has been subject to a couple of variances already as I see in the file, albeit, they are very small. But this is not small and before this law, I believe you would not have had any trouble at all. MR. UHLENDAHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But we do have this law. I see month after month us poking holes in this law and it's not that I'm making a stand. I'm making a statement to you that you're asking for a lot from your neighbors. That's all I have to say. If you want to add to that or comment on that, you're welcome to. MR. UHLENDAHL: I have to discuss this with the owners and see how far the structure could be shaped in a different way or located in a different place but still it would require a variance. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you but this is only my opinion. This is his work and I understand that. I know artists in Orient and I met with one gentleman has a very large, but he has a pretty good size piece of property and I don't believe this building is any larger but I know this street. I know a couple cf his neighbors and have sat out and looked over at the water there and it's a beautiful, gorgeous place but this gentleman is asking to build a building where he works and you're not findin~ any sympathy 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 here from me. MR. UHLENDAHL: Okay. I will relate that to both of them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. Do you have anything else to add? MR. UHLENDAHL: Not at this time but I will contact Linda and confirm 10:00 o'clock walk through for two Board members. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Could be more but we won't go in all at once. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It's possible that you might not be able to get all the variances and I wanted to know if you need more time? Do you want to adjourn this until the January meeting so that you have time to speak with your clients submit an alternative or do you want to reapply if it's not gr~nted? Because then we can close the hearing today. MR. UHLENDAHL: Right but the other option I have is to discuss this with them over the weekend and come up with a reduced scheme which I. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: With as minimum variance as possible is what is recommended. MR. UHLENDAHL: I could certainly do something about the 25 feet. I can see somehow changing the design to 22 feet and I could possibly relocate the building still attached to the existing so it does not encroach on the 25 foot required side yard. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: And lot coverage? MR. UHLENDAHL: You're more concerned, Jim, about the 3%. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: By far that's my main concern. The height of the building really is not. MR. UHLENDAHL: If we were to shorten the structure considerably and this is something that I have to find out, how much he can live with maybe he's not going to do it at all, that's something that I cannot answer. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There may be other ways to conform to the code. You need time? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can put this onto your house and not even need a variance. MR. UHLENDAHL: I know. I suggested this. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: To me I could not go further ~ T didn't point out the fact that you're 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 asking a lot and not necessarily this particula~ applicant but as we go on, the law seems to be -- honestly, I think you're asking a lot but you heard the other members so you're willing to take your chances. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: What we can do is if the Board closes the hearing today and you submit these letters; the brief and information in writing, then the Board would make a decision at their next meeting. If the client is not happy, they can always reapply for different relief for probably January or February. You can always reapply for something different. MR. UHLENDAHL: Then let's go that path. I think that's the best possibility at this time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What are we going to do? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We're going to cl6se the hearing subject to receiving a writte~ brief. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll move that. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Leslie moved it, second by Ruth. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing ~6092 - Witczak CHAIRM/LN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Charles Witczak. Jerry, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-14, based on the Building Inspector's September 11, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed single-family dwelling which is allowed on a lot size of 160,000 square feet, and this lot after yield calculations measures 102,667 square feet. The proposed dwelling use is in addition to an existing working farm with existing farm building uses, and therefore, two (principal) uses are not permitted. Location of Property; 26170 C.R. 48 (a/k/a North Road) and 5000 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue; CTM 84-5-4.2" Who would like to speak? ERIK: I'm Erik from Architecnologies. Charles Witczak is here to answer any questions you have. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a working farm and by the nature cf the stand that I see cut 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 there occasionally an~d there is a substantial older age barn on the property. ERIK: Yes, there is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What's the nature of the use of that barn, MR. WITCZAK: Charles Witczak. It's being used as storage at this time. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bas it ever been used for a working farm purpose? MR. WITCZAK: Yes, it has. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it currently going to be used as one or just pretty much, have you rented the property. MR. WITCZAK: Yes, the property has been rented to a Fred Lee. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So therefore the building is really just a storage building like any other storage building but the farm does produce vegetables and crops? MR. WITCZAK: BOARD MEMBER application is the piece of property, MR. WITCZAK: Yes, it does. GOEBRINGER: The nature of this construction of a home on that is that not? Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I hate to ask this question but I'm going to ask it anyway, when you applied for this residence, did you think you were going to get a denial regarding this from the building inspector? MR. WITCZAK: I don't know. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to leave it at that and we'll go up and down the line and then I'll finish. The reason why it came to me is this is my application to write some of the findings on, okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Looks like the Planning Board in 2006 allowed a subdivision of the property with 40% clustered condition to create a 40,000 square foot building lot instead of an 80,000 square foot as required by the zoning district. Are you aware of that? Linda, is it possible that because of the way this subdivision was allowed with clustered configuration thai there is a buildable lot for dwelling purposes so that it's not -- I'm a little confused. The notice actually suggested two uses cn one property but if the property has keen 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 subdivided, then one is a farm use and ~nother lot is a residential use. That's what I'm trying to clarify. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Looks as though when it was subdivided that they did not provide for the extra 40,000 square feet and that's why the variance is here. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I wanted to clear up. I want to understand what we're actually looking at. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: It looks as though when it was subdivided, they didn't provide for the extra 40,000 square feet for a dwelling and that's why you're here. You didn't have another acre of land. You're allowed so much for each use. MR. WITCZAK: That sounds correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you und%rstand what that means? MR. WITCZAK: Yes, I understand. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to make sure I understand what happened with the Planning Board. At this point you have 40,000 square foot lot in which you're proposing to put a new home? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. They have 102,666 square foot lot. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand that but isn't some of it set aside? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not this lot. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not this lot. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This lot has a farm use on it and they want to build a house there too. Board MEMBER WEISMAN: That I understand. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Without subdividing this particular lot. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you're going to continue this property as an active farm but renting to Fred? MR. WITCZAK: Yes, part of it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Is there anything you can say about why it is you want to build your home there? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name and address. MRS. WITCZAK: I'm Trooper Witczak's wife. I'm Tanya Witczak. I don't understand the question. Why do we want tc move to Cutchogue? CHAIRMAN DI~!ZIO: No. We just want to know 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 why you want"to build a residence on this lot. MR. WITCZAK: For my family. MRS. WITCZAK: For us, our family, for my daughter and to be near our brother and to be near our aunt. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Maybe you weren't aware that the code requires a certain amount of land area per use and because it was subdivided and the Planning Board did it, 80,000 square feet was applied to the agricultural use. So it would be 80,000 square feet per use. So agriculture, 80,000 for house and the Planning Board also required 40,000 to be an open space as unbuildable area. So that's why you're here and I don't know if you were aware of that when you had it subdivided by the Planning Board. They didn't tell you that you had to remove one use or another in order to Avoid a variance. MRS. WITCZAK: No, they didn't say anything of the sort. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that would have committed 120,000 square feet; is that correct? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It would commit 100,000 and then what's left over. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: You have to read the covenant that the Planning Board has. They're in the file. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I did read them and it wasn't clear. That's why I was asking. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My understanding is that it's 80,000 per use plus there was some set off, save this 40,000 square feet. So 80 plus the 40 you're right is 120 and then what's left over. Now, they assumed the lot size was 160 but it's not or they would of had enough land left over with 160, they're this amount short whatever. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They're 59,000. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's a nonconforming lot and they're asking us for relief from that part, right? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: That's right, yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, do you want to continue? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. What we needed to do as a Board for you all is to be very clear on how this property was subdivided and why there are issues that we have to address. I don't have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 any objection to you building your home. We need to find a way because the code does not allow two uses on one property and you have a residential, an area that's undersized to build this house because of the 40,000 foot open space set aside by the Planning Board, they said 40,000 square feet you can't build on. You have to take that away from the size of your lot and then you've got your farm use so the problem is, you don't 80,000 -- you need 160,000 square feet of property to say 80,000 of it is being farmed and 80,000 is where we're going to put our house. So we're trying to figure out how to get around this. So as far as I'm concerned, my goal is to figure out how to get you to be able to build your house. So this is not a challenge to you. This is an effort to clarify what the legal conditions on this property are and how we can address the~ so you can build your house. That's what I would like. That's my goal. I mean I don't think you can answer anything else. MR. WITCZAK: I can't answer anything. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll tell you when I first looked at this, I hate to say this to you, but I think you need to have a professional present your case to us. I know you're seeing dollar signs because I can see them above your head but you know what, this is a life changing decision. If we can't understand it and put it in a decision, we may make the wrong decision based on information we're assuming. I don't hand out cards for lawyers or expediters but if we're not informed or have someone explain to us what went on during the Planning Board, we can call the Planning Board in but honestly, who knows. We'd have to read all of their minutes. I think you need someone to put this application into a focus for us so that we can then make an educated decision based on the facts that will be presented to us here in public. Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree with both what Jim said and what Leslie said that it seems without knowing very much, the Witczaks should be allowed To build a house on this lot which is used partially for farming. What I don't understand is the workings of the Planning Board and their rules and I'll understand it a lot better after having wz_h Leslie does read ~= .... file ~a~.. ~ they left '~ us. 1 2 3 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 know~a lot about planning and the Planning Board" and she is similarly puzzled. One question I would leave open is is there anything that the Planning Board could have done which would have made it unnecessary for these applicants to be before us today? Are we being asked to give a variance to do what could have been done but wasn't down by the Planning Board in 2006? That's my question and I realize I'm asking it to the wrong people. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's possible that this might be something that the Planning Board can do something about. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They would need representation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with Jim. What you need is somebody to actually take a look at the file and what the Planning Board did and then direct this process for you so that it's before the right board. If they put a 40% open space easement on the subdivision, then they have to explain why they did that. Maybe that isn't necessary. Maybe that can be changed. Maybe there's a lot line change that can happen but you need a lawyer to sit down with the file and really contact the appropriate entity and clarify exactly what the restrictions are on this property so we know how to respond. So we really understand clearly what's up against us and, more importantly, so you understand why you even need to be here. Because it looks like a big piece of property and you say to yourself, what's the problem. A~nd we have to be very clear what the problem is or we're not going to get it right and all of us know how to read these and we're sitting here kind of slightly confused. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We have an idea. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On some level it's quite clear. On another level, I think I agree with Jim really that your interest would be best served by having someone who can explain this clearly before the Board. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: There is one other thing, when I read ~he declaration of covenant that the Planning Board gave, I don't know if you had a chance to read the Town covenant when you had it subdivided last year. They don't say in there that you're ncl permitted tc have 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 dwelling so there's no restriction there but under the zoning code, there may be this other area that triggered a variance for you to be here and we can consult the Town attorney after this and the Board could decide whether to close the hearing. So it's up to you. MR. WITCZAK: Let's adjourn the hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Maybe our consulting with the Town attorney to clarify what our options are will be sufficient to accomplish this goal without your having to take it any further to hire your own legal counsel. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's wait. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We can discuss that. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We would need to know whether you want to close the hearing today or if you want to adjourn for a month. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: I'd adjourn it. MR. WITCZAK: I'll rescind that and adjourn it for a month. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else that you'd like to add to this? MR. WITCZAK: Nothing at all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Then I'll entertain a motion that we adjourn this hearing until December 20th. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion to go to lunch. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion by Ruth, seconded by Leslie. Ail those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) (Whereupon, a break was taken for lunch from 12:35 to 1:10 p.m.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need a motion to reconvene. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Seconded. CHAIP~4AN DINIZIO: Motion by Jerry, seconded by Ruth. Ail those in favor? iSee 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 Hearing ~6093 - Shevlin CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Celeste Shevlin and Patricia Booke. That's Michael's. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector's amended October 16, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed addition with alterations to the existing single-family dwelling, which new construction will be less than 40 feet from the front property line, at 1020 Vanston Road, Cutchogue; CTM 104-12-11." I'd be pleased to hear the applicant's report basically of what's new since the last time we were here. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Please state y6ur name and address, please. MR. WEBER: Fred Weber, architect. My address is 41 East Maple Road, Greenlawn, New York 11740 and I'm here representing Pat Booke and Celeste Shevlin who are here as well. We were here before I think it was in April. We did a little bit of moving around predominantly of the chimney. The chimney was relocated into the center of the room which kind of created a nice affect in the room and something that the client was really interested in persuing. In doing that, we ended up having a problem with the kitchen layout and I originally thought that because we were well behind what we had approval for before, that we wouldn't be -- I talked to the Building Department, could we cantilever this out, could we do something and they said no, that we had to go through the formal review process again. So what we're interested in doing as you can see on here it's a two foot projection. It's a two foot projection, ten feet long and it is for, if you can look in the plan here, is for a kitchen cabinet to sit still contained underneath the roof overhang and, you know, it's 20 square feet and it ends up being 30.6 feet from the property line and the variance we got before was 24.5. So iT's very much within that. it's 6 feet further away than the variance that was previously given. I do apologize for being here again. We're spending money on the h©~se and they wanted ~o get 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that a full foundation or is that a cantilever? MR. WEBER: As long as we're coming for a variance, might as well make it a full foundation. Originally, I was going to if we didn't have to come, I was proposing to the Building Department as a cantilever. But at that point it's much more safe in the winter time to have a foundation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say the house looks beautiful. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Am I right in assuming that if you had applied for this in the first place, we would have taken even less time to grant. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would have been less of a variance. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's just the anomaly of the code and the Building Department that requires you to come back here again with this. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ail right. Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. No problemS. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Absolutely no. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. You just corroborated what I interpreted the application to be and I don't have any problems with it. No impact. If fact, it's less impact then originally granted. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything else to add? MR. WEBER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would the applicants like to speak? MS. BOOKE: No, Fred has said it all. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you very much. Hearing none, anybody in the audience? No? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing until December 2nd? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing ~6085 - Rand 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Jon S. Rand. Michael, that's yours too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's August 20, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an as-built (without permit) accessory shed and accessory deck addition in a location setback at less than five feet from the lot line, at 2975 Cedar Beach Road, Southold; CTM 91-1-2." MS. MOORE: Thank you. Good afternoon Board and I have Mr. Jon Rand with me this afternoon. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Identify yourself for the record. MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Road, Southold. We're here because as you pointed out, there is an existing shed that was built and attached to an existing garage.' This is lot 19 in Cedar Beach Park Development which is a subdivision that was approvaed in 1926. The house appears to have been built shortly thereafter, so 1930's and the original garage which this shed is attached to was similarly built at that time. Since then, my client purchased the property in 1988 and over a period of a number of years has been renovating the house, if you've all gone to see it, it's a beautiful home and a very beautifully done garage as well. When he built the addition to the garage, it became obvious that the shed was going to need a variance and they debated whether or not to remove it or to seek a variance for it. To remove it would require him to reshingle the entire side of the existing garage because when it was constructed, they used the wall as part of the wall of the shed. It houses just simple rakes, standard lawn equipment. It's a tool shed. The one thing that would be most expensive to remove here he has a compressor in there that he uses for inside his workshop, tool workshop. So that would require removal. It's an elaborate process to remove this little shed. It has been there. It does not bother anyone. We, in fact, have a letter. I don't know if it was made part of your file or not from the neighbor and I'll give it to you. It was dated September 7th of 2007 and it says, "Ladies and Gentlemen, addressed to the Zoning Board. I'm writing in s~lpport cf the application cf Jon Rand, 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 owner of the property known a 2975 Cedar Beach Road, Southold. I'm Mark Stephwreck (phonetic). I'm the owner of the property known as 2855 Cedar Beach Road which lies immediately northwest of and adjacent to Mr. Rand's property and the subject garden shed attached to Mr. Rand's garage. This letter will confirm that the subject garden shed has existed for many years and that I have no objection to it or to your granting whatever approval is necessary for it to remain in place. He was very kind to provide that and it may have gone directly to the Board. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: No, I don't recall getting it that I know. Thank you. MS. MOORE: All right. If you have any questions? The decking is just a step up because of the grade difference. So I think I provided a pho%ograph of it for you so you can see for yourself. We will answer whatever questions you might have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have any questions at this time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, just to say I've watched that house there improve every year and it's just beautiful. I compliment you on what you've done. It's a gorgeous piece of property. MR. RAND: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just two. It's indicated in your file, your application that the estimation of where the property line existed was a consequence of incorrectly locating it as a result of landscaping on the neighbors property. MS. MOORE: There is a hedge between the two properties. Our survey shows the location of the hedge, as you can see, runs on a diagonal. They thought it was running along the property line. I have a survey here which they were relying on which is one that you used when you purchased the property, it's dated '87. They used it for their closing. You can see it's a William Simon, Jr survey. It's not very detailed. You probably have it. I thought I provide it. BOARD MEHBER WEISMAN: You did. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MS. MOORE: That's even older. So you can see that the original garage is showing there and it certainly looks like there's a lot more room there so when they attached the shed to the garage, it was just a miscalculation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I do have a couple of questions. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to understand because you're talking about literally on the property line. It's point 8 of a foot from the corner. So I just want to understand how that exactly happened. I have no objection to it being there especially if the neighbor doesn't. I just want to understand for the record. Obviously cars are stored in there. You presumably drive across the lawn? MS. MOORE: In the framed garage, yes. MR, RAND: I'm'Jon Rand. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When you take cars in and out of there, is it primarily for storage then and not as a daily car? MR. RAND: No, it's not a daily use kind of thing. We just drive across the lawn. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. There is a -- MR. RAND: I have a small collection of vintage cars so they're not often driven. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have a workshop above? MR. RAND: Workshop is the old existing garage is the workshop and the new structure is cars and storage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. It's all cars and storage and that would be there. MR. RAND: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Within this storage area for your compressor, there is a stove pipe? MR. RAND: That stove pipe is for a coal burning stove in the old existing garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I thought. So that's how you're heating that workshop? MR. RAND: That's how I have heated it in the past. I don't know if I'm going to continue doing that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to clarify exactly the use and what that was doing. MS. MOORE: The shed is really segregated in ~he sense There's nc access between the garage and 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 the shed. It just has the equipment. MR. RAND: Electrical and there's a dust collection system in there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. No further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Go ahead, Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The shed is really an inaccessible, attached structure to the garage? MR. RAND: That's correct. It has its own door. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It appears that the only way you can get the cars out of the garage is to go into the back and open the doors from the inside. No entrance. MR. RAND: There's an entrance. You can't see it easily from the street. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even from the yard. It looks like the part where the doors open cannot be opened from the outside; is that right? MR. RAND: Those doors only open from the inside. That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One thing that did puzzle me a little bit, there's a reference in the application saying the shed and deck were built in 2006. But then it says the addition was built ten years ago. MR. RAND: It's at least ten or twelve years ago. MS. MOORE: The shed was ten years ago. The garage addition was in '06. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The garage is not part of the application. MS. MOORE: Exactly. We can't get our CO on the garage until we resolve the issue with the shed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Everybody done? Pat, Mr. Rand, do you have anything else you'd like to add? MR. RAND: No, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience who'd like to comment on this application, for or against? No? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close ~his hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. Ail thcse in favcr? 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing #6096 - Hinden CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Peri Hoffer Hinden and Jerry, that's your application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Request for a Variance under Sections 280-14 and 280-122, based on the Building Inspector's October 11, 2007 Amended Notice of Disapproval and Zoning Interpretation ZBA %5039 (Walz) concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling. A front porch is proposed at less than 50 feet from the front lot line, and the second-story addition will be an increase in the degree of nonconformance when located less than 50 feet from the front lot line. Location of Property: 1255 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck; CTM 107-6-18." Ms. Moore, any time you're ready. MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Road, Southold. I have Mr. Hinden here. I also have Bob Task (phonetic), who's the architect and Ken Robins, the contractor/builder. So hopefully between all of us, we can answer all your questions. This house is a house that was constructed about 1964 in Brower's Wood (phonetic) subdivision and the original house, obviously, is there. The family just purchased the property. They want to renovate it. The house as it was constructed originally in 1964 has absolutely no consideration of the fact that it's a waterfront house. It really has no use towards the water which is about 300 feet away but it certainly has beautiful views. So I think I gave you in my written presentation, I explained to you that the Epson family has owned this property for the past 40 years and it was in desperate needs of renovation. Bob Task prepared a plan for the renovation and it is for renovating the first floor, providing for a small porch for aesthetic reasons on the front towards the street side. And then the second floor addition, i'll ask Bob to stand and explain it in a moment but you can see that the setback to the road was established under the subdivision and it was taking, I think, for the mos~ part at its closest point, a 40 foot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 setback to the street which is a standard older subdivision front yard setback but unfortunately because of the size of the property and the zoning, that we needed a larger setback to the road. I'll have Bob discuss the design elements because really it is all about the design here. The existing house is preserved and maintained so we're working within the scope of the existing house. So as far as obtaining a variance here, we are starting from a preexisting, nonconforming condition. So Bob, if you wouldn't mind explaining. MR. TASK: I'm Bob Task from Young and Young in Riverhead, New York. Basically, as Pat described it, we're planning a second floor above the existing first floor and the existing house is on a bias on the property so that on the southerly end it's only 42 feet from th~ property line existing. We plan to maintain that and continue with the second floor at that same point. On the northerly side, it's over the 50 feet and it is actually a line that cuts through the house. So on the southerly side, the house may be 7 feet or so into the setback existing and about 35 feet away it conforms to the setback. So it's just a bias of the existing house. We're continuing the second floor and to mitigate some of the height to make it look, because the house is set up off the ground on the west side, we're using a gambrel roof on the front so it will look more like a traditional gambrel type of home where you see shingles for the second floor west/east face rather than some siding of some sort. The only other addition we're planning is to make a small little protection porch 7 by 17 on the east side to be able to just continue the look of the house, trying to break down the scale a little bit. There is a concrete stoop there right now. We'd be extending it approximately 4 feet from the existing concrete stoop. The stoop is part of a basement that is like an old wine cellar, a small little compartment underneath the stoop. So there's actually physical space underneath there. Basically, that's iT. We're continuing the first floor to the second floor, actually it's coming from the smaller because we're setting back. Just the nature of the gambrel makes you do that and then adding the 7 by 17 porch. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 ~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When writing th~s decision, I have a setback at 38.1 for the proposed front porch and the site plan calls for 36.83, I believe that's to the steps. So I can assume that the survey is probably the most correct document to use, the 38.17 MS. MOORE: To the porch, I would say. MR. TASK: The steps are not included with the porch. MS. MOORE: We would want to include the description of the porch otherwise the Building Department would say what about the steps. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: We usually include it in writing anyway. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So 31 feet would be -- MS. MOORE: It's not all structure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 36.85. MS. MOORE: For the steps then if you follow the line of the survey, that will help. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many steps. We're only showing 3 steps there. They should be exempt, shouldn't they? MS. MOORE: Not when you get a zoning variance, believe it or not. It's an exempt structure. It doesn't go into a side yard or a front yard as an entranceway if it's less than 24 square feet, I think. However, the Building Department says that doesn't apply if you've gone in for a variance. They measure from the particular line. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm glad I asked the question because I don't ever remember addressing that. MS. MOORE: So it has to be specific as to the steps. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that looks like 3 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My understanding is the setback requirements do not exclude staircases. It's only lot coverage that excludes stoops and stairways, right? MS. MOORE: No. Setbacks are excluded but if you're operating under the code generally, if you had 50 feet, then you can encroach in~o a yard with steps as long as the steps aren't large, more than 24 square feet so usually 3 by -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought it was 30 square feet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MS. MOORE: ~o a certain number of steps you're allowed as long as they're limited in their size except if you've come in for a variance, then the Building Department says no, whatever the Zoning Board gives you as a line, you can't go beyond it even for steps that are typically excluded. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So that's an inconsistency of the code. MS. MOORE: I think it's an interpretation of the Building Department. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Add the steps. What is the final number? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 36 something. BOARD MEMBER WESIMAN: 36.83 is actually to the porch with the steps. That's the total setback. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, are you done? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the total setback actually on the center line of the property but -- that's the closest distance because it increases. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to depict it both ways. What's interesting about this location of this house is before you get to this house, there are houses of similar vintage in reference to setbacks. To get to another house of similar vintage, you have to go down past the park and playground area and start making the turn. MS. MOORE: I couldn't use the average setback unfortunately. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is some history to this setback and this preexisting setback as it exists because I was kind of looking at that. So I just wanted to mention that for the record. I'll concede. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, you may go. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't know what direction we're in so I'm waiting to find out if we're going to Ruth or to me. I have no questions. It's quite clear. The only thing I would say is because you're on a curve, the impact is substantially different then when houses are all lined up in a straight row or not. So i think the site specific nature of this application in some ways mitigates some of the impact of a nonconforming setback. I don't have any problems or questions. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You couldn't really move the house any place but what it is because of the drop off to the rear and it really drops off quite substantially. So you had to go and you couldn't go any closer to the front, you'd have to have even more of a variance, so you put it where it is. I mean I walked back there. It's a lovely spot but it does drop off. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth? All right. You have anything else to add to this? MS. MOORE: No. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How about the applicant? MR. HINDEN: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No? He's comfortable too. MS. MOORE: If you're satisfied. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: As long as we're satisfied on that measurement, if Jerry is satisfied with that, I think we're all set. I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie, seconded by Ruth. All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can take a break. We can do some business, if you'd like. We have 15 minutes. (Whereupon, a break was held from 1:35 to 1:50 p.m.) Hearing ~6097 - Hume CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Daniel Hume. Michael, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-14, based on the Building Inspector's October 1, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a third-story to a single-family dwelling (under construction and subject to Building Permit ~33295-Z). The Building Inspector notes that the proposed construction shown on plans submitted 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 September lC9, 2007 reflect a third-story instead of 2.5 stories, at 14216 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, CTM; 72-2-5." Who is representing? MR. WALTER: Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentleman. Sean Walter, 1938 Wading River Manor Road, Wading River for the applicant and I have the architect, Charles Thomas with me. I submitted my business card and I believe we've done the Affidavits acknowledging the posting and have been previously submitted. I wanted to hand you 3 separate items here, Mr. Chairman, we can talk about the Building code and a similar variance granted and the elevation for the premises. This is a sort of on interesting application as Mr. Simon has said. It has a Building Permit. The Building Permit is in place for this s~ory for this building. It meets the elevations. It meets all the Town code requirements with the exception of a third floor. The reason for the third floor is to have an enhanced view of the Long Island Sound. The house sort of sits down a little bit and that third floor provides the enhanced view. The Building Permit number for your reference was 333295-Z. As I stated, the height of the house meets the zoning code. The building is being built, it's under construction. I think you've been to the house. It's designed with an automatic fire sprinkler system as is required by New York State Building Code. The house further has a 5/Sths fire rated sheet rock throughout the house and the interesting part about this house is the New York State Building Code which we gave you a small excerpt of allows three story homes with automatic fire sprinkler systems. This house will have a fire sprinkler system and the 5/Sths fire rated sheet rock. That's tough to say. The house does not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. You can see that many of the houses look very similar and it was actually designed to maximize the backyard and the view of the Sound. The third floor will not be, for the most part, visible from ~he front elevation, the front. Mr. Thomas can speak to this better. To me it looks like a Victorian but I think I'm wrong. It's a different designed house. From the front you don't necessarily see the Third f!ocr. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 benefit to the applicant of ~he view couldn't be achieved in any other way because of the elevation of the ground and it's sort of the minimum square footage, about 500 square foot that would be on the third floor as necessary for a small room. It's not really a self created hardship if you look at the fact that the New York State Building Code allows this third floor probably, and I know I'm familiar with Riverhead's code as well, the Towns haven't necessarily caught up with the new Building Codes. Now, the last thing that I submitted to you besides the elevations was an application or the approval of a house located at 3105 Peconic Lane, Peconic of James Cardwell and Erik Ralough (phonetic). This was a very similar application where they requested a third floor where previously the house had only had two and a half floors and they did the'sprinkler system as well and this was approved, it looks to me, in June of 2006. I don't know if you have any questions of me or Mr. Thomas, but we'd be happy to answer anything you have. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes. I have 3 questions. One is, I would like to have an explanation of what happened in the Building Department to give the Building Permit when it was already inconsistent with the code with regard to three stories. I'll ask the questions one at a time. That's the first one. MR. WALTER: The real issue is that this is supposed to be, and Mr. Thomas can speak to it, an open air loft. The builders got a little carried away with themselves and put that flooring in that's not permitted. And if it's not approved, the flooring will be taken out and this will be -- MR. THOMAS: Charles Thomas, architect, 206 Lincoln Street, Riverhead, New York. Initially, the application was exactly the way it is now as we're requesting from you and I sat down with Mr. Verity and said I'm presenting a mezzanine as looking at the code. He said, no, this is really going to be a story. I said okay, we're going to sprinkler the whole building anyhow. He says, well you still have a problem zoning not building. He says you need to take out the floor. He says it can be a two story structure or tower and be cathedral but you're not allowed to have that 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 fl%or unless you get a variance. So that's wh~t really brought us to you. The Building Permit as it is right now is for a two and a half story structure. It is not for a three story structure. The height of the building that we're requesting from you does not change. The outside roof line, the entire structure whether this is granted or not will not change. It is a function of the architecture and the design. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What specific events precipitated the filing of an appeal of an appeal? Was it the result of an inspection by a Building Inspector? MR. THOMAS: Absolutely not. I was hoping Mr. Verity was going to be here. This application and let me just step back, does have the support of Mr. Verity. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I prefer that you not' speak for Mr. Verity. MR. THOMAS: Okay. I don't know if he had a chance, I spoke to him yesterday, he said he might have a chance to speak to somebody from the Board. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If we need to, we can get his testimony. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it would be on the record. MR. THOMAS: Very good. During the initial design stages when I went in for the initial building permit application is when it came up that this was going to be a third story. Mike Verity said, you're going to need to get a variance. I said, if I get a variance time frame wise, we're not going to get our foundation and construction started until December which is going to put us off a whole other year. He suggested we take the floor area out. Do not construct that floor and get a building permit for a two and a half story structure. That is what we did. We went into this full knowing that if we get denied, we're going to have a building that looks like this that we cannot use that space. We did not get caught. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You would have been caugh~ sooner or later anyway. MR. THOMAS: We did not get caught and try to sneak in -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At some point a decisicn was made that rather then wait until you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 get caught and get ~ stop work order, you came to apply because you realize what Mike had presumably told you that sooner or later you're going to need a variance and now is better than later. MR. THOMAS: Correct. Just to add to that, we applied for the variance before we started construction. Pointing that out also. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then this may render my second question moot, if you will, ordinarily when somebody asks for a variance from the code, what case can be made for the application for wanting a variance on that particular case? Are there special needs that this client has other than what's been said? It'd be nice to have an enhanced view of the Sound. Is there anything beyond that? MR. THOMAS: Other than looking at the Sound from up there once ~ou get a chance to look at it, that pretty much in my opinion speaks for itself. It is the view of the Sound. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My third point is more of a statement than a question but the point about the State Code automatic sprinkler system doesn't exactly supercede Town code. What this says is if you have a three story house or if you happen to be in a locale that allows a three story house, you have to have a sprinkler system. So that is a necessary condition for a third story. It doesn't carry weight that says, as I think you were trying to suggest before, that since the State Code seems to allow it maybe it's just that we haven't caught up with the State Code and we have to allow it because the State has anticipated that at least for some communities. Do you have any response to that? MR. THOMAS: I understand that. MR. WALTER: The only thing I can respond is that looking at the past precedence of the Zoning Board, specifically, the one decision that we've given to you, you have approved these three story structures before. So it was the understanding based on the conversations with the Building Department that we would come to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get the building permit as iT stands for the building with this open air gable anticipating that the Zoning Board would follow the past precedent that it had laid down in the Town. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We really do that on a limited basis and I'll tell you the reason why when we get to me. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's all for me. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't know if I agree with Jerry. Even though the State Code says three stories, we have nothing in our Code that states you can have three stories, it's two and a half stories and I really am not happy granting three story houses unless we put it in the Code. I would stick with the two and a half story. That is really my opinion on it. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Nope. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I said, on a limited basis. Very limited. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On a principal basis too. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to say that yes, some of them we have granted. Some of them we have not granted. There's another particular issue that I always bring up and some people don't agree with and that's health, safety and welfare. This, I assume and I'm not speaking for the Conumissioners of the Board of Fire Commissioners in Cutchogue nor am I speaking for the Commissioners or the Chiefs of the fire district in Mattituck. But I will tell you that in order to fight a fire in a house like this with a third story, you do need a ladder truck. That is a million and a half dollar expenditure. Mattituck just bought one. Southold has one. Cutchogue does not have one. They are going to build a new fire house and probably eventually will have one. But I have to tell you that that is a grave concern to me. I'm a fireman for 40 years in Mattituck. You must bear that in mind that these houses are so immense and so high that the only real way to save life and limb is through that type of use and these are one of the very difficult means of granting it from my standpoint because it's just a very difficult issue. It's a huge expenditure, probably be up to two million dollars by next year to buy one of these things. That's an issue that health, safety and welfare is concerned. Very simply as Michael Simcn has said, 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 that's in my particular opinion and I'm not taking words out of his mouth or putting them in. It's a band aid effect to go with this fire suppression system and that is all it is, a band aid effect. MR. W~2LTER: Can we address that just for the moment? I think, Mr. Thomas can speak to this as well. The house is 35 feet in height and it could be two stories at 35 feet in height with that tower being exactly the way it was and it would be permitted by the Code and we wouldn't be here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But there wouldn't be anybody up there. MR. WALTER: No, it could be a two story house, we could make that house exactly the same size, exactly the same height and where that third floor is, would be your second floor. You could come in a~d have 12 foot ceilings and have 8 foot ceilings on the second floor and have it. I completely agree with you on the ladder issue but to some extent it's not applicable because we could still build the same height that would have the same requirement from the fire department and this house is a lot safer than the standard 35 foot tall house would be with 2 floors because it does have the sprinkler system and the fire rated sheet rock but we do understand what you're saying. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can second that by a renovation of a 1923 house on Indian Neck Lane where they tried to tell us, no you sir. They tried to tell us since they eliminated the second story and built the third story, that the house only had two stories and we didn't buy it. That's the type of situation that you get caught in. This is a straightforward application and I'm going to deal with it as a straightforward application and I have to tell you that that's a real just difficult situation. It is not necessarily always the height. It's the broadness of the structure that really affects the fire ability or the fire person's ability to get to the people on that second story and that third story. These are very broad structures and you have elevation factors involved. You have all kinds of things that affect fire safety when and if, God forbid, there is a fire. MR. THO?L~S: May I say also, i'm 15 years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 fire service and a fire commissioner in Jamesport and I hear exactly what you're saying. My response to that as a fireman and as an architect is whether or not this application gets approved, that structure, the shape of it will stay exactly the way it is. We're hoping and we're requesting that this gets approved. We're not looking to put an additional bedroom on this viewing area on the third floor. There will not be a bathroom on the third floor. It will be 500 square foot of open space with windows. We're not looking for extra occupancy but the height, the shape, the size of the building conforms to Code in every other aspect. I want to make that clear. I do understand the firematic issues and that's why we were going to do the fire sprinkler system whether this gets approved or not. We're putting that system in because that's wh~t the homeowner wants and that's what I recommended. MR. WALTER: Could I just confirm with Mr. Thomas for a second on this point? (Pause). Mr. Thomas and I just discussed the possibility of a covenant on the property that there would be no bedroom on that third floor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be helpful. MR. THOMAS: There is not going to be a bathroom. There is not going to be a closet for a bedroom. There will not be a bedroom. It has never been intended to be a bedroom. We're not even putting a door at the top of the stairs. In one portion of the New York State Code, it deals with mezzanine and that was really my design intent and once it kind of grew out to have its own identity as a tower, it deviates from mezzanine. I'm not going to argue that point or even discuss it. If it was a mezzanine, then we wouldn't be here. But it's not a mezzanine. We're requesting a third floor. MR. WALTER: And I would be happy to say that the applicant will covenant the property to say this will not be -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's an observation tower. MR. WALTER: It won't be a bedroom, it won't be a bathroom. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Remember, it only takes a sleeping bag for it to be a sleeping area. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 Thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only way according to the plan that you're going to be able to access that deck is if this is allowed. Otherwise, you can't open that volume to what's below because you have a whole series of -- you'd have to just put in a roof and forget about it. MR, THOMAS: We were going to open the area above the master bathroom because really the way the plans that we submitted to the Building Department, that's really what we were going to do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have that section. I certainly understand why you did it. The fact that it's within the bulk schedule in terms of the height of that tower makes a very big ~ifference. The fact that it will remain a voided, unusable waste of the massing I think, ideally you'd like to have this conversation before the building permit and all that but now we understand how it happened. MR. THOMAS: As I'm listening to your concerns, I definitely will not proceed this way again. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The other thing too, since you mentioned precedent, was point out that in the case that you site on Peconic Lane, that house was an old house that existed for some time and there were reasons for changing the roof pitch that had to do with weather, with runoff, some aesthetics. So in some respects, that was a really different set of conditions that we considered in granting that. So I have to agree with Jerry that these are things that we take very seriously. This is not typical of what we would see as a third story because of it's height and since it's already sprinkled. I honestly don't really see a huge issue with it personally but then I have to listen to what my colleagues have to say. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie? Board MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. It is noticed as a home office. It's a sitting space, indoor sitting space. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly the fact that you won't have a door on it. MR. THOMAS: It is open to below. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 BOARD MEMBER ~ISMAN: It's a communal space rather than a private. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess what we got from this you need access to that deck on top which is. MR. THOMAS: We don't need access to it. That would be a bonus and if we don't get it, we will not. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let's face it, you've got a design here. Honestly, I think story to me is like living space and this is not living space. I think this is just space in a house that meets every part of our Code except someone's calling it a story because of a floor. I'll go along with that but I don't necessarily -- as far as I've been for 35 years a member of Greenport Hook and Ladder, a ladder company. Wooden ladders go up 55 feet and get on the end of it, so I got quite a lot of experience with ladders. Quite honestly, the only good use for even the truck that we have right now is to put out the fire. It's not to save any life. It's not to save any structure. By the time you're asking for a hook and ladder you've lost the structure. You just want to get it out so you can go home. You get on top and you pour water on it. So I'm thinking two million dollar truck because someone wants to put a 500 square foot addition on top of a house that they want to write a letter in is probably not a huge concern for the Cutchogue fire department. Number two, I'm also a licensed fire alarm installer, fire alarm inspector in the State of New York. I can tell you that sprinklers may at some point in time take the place of smoke detectors, believe it or not. MR. THOMAS: They are lobbying very hard for that now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would say in another two years, every house that is built, one story, two stories, three stories will have a sprinkler system in it. It's going to be a huge boom in my business. I can see a day where smoke detectors will not be a useful tool to detect smoke in a house. That point hasn't come yet but water systems much better than smoke systems. Just much better. Safety wise, it's not a band aid. It's a safety factor. You have a fire in that house and these things of off it's going to get you out of ~he house and that's the main thing. Besides that 1 2" 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 I have no further questions. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Is this area part of the half story? You said you had a building permit for two and a half stories. Is this area part of that half story? MR. THOMAS: Yes, it is. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Not extending beyond that. MR. THOMAS: As you look as that rear elevation right now, we have a building permit right now to build that shell. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. THOMAS: Whether or not I can use that? We're here for a use. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For a floor. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? MR. WALTER: I think that'll do it. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want to disclose that I know Sean. MR. WALTER: I don't know too many people in Southold. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Fortunately, I have no business dealings with him. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion that we close this hearing to December 6th. BO~LRD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Leslie, seconded by Jerry. Ail those in favor? (See minutes for resolution.) Hearing %6094 - Retus CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is Brian and Merry Retus. Leslie, that's yours. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: "Request for a Variance under Section 280-116A(1), based on the Building Inspector's September 28, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed second-story deck addition to the dwelling, which new construction will be less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound, at 235 Soundview Road, Orient; CTM 15-3-4." In this particular instance, we granted you a variance and [he second story deck was denied apparently withcut benefit of discussicn of it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 impact on'the bluff and you've come back with a slightly smaller scale proposal at 36 feet from the top of the bluff and you have a report from an engineer stating no increase impact on the wake of the bluff and let's just, I think we have it on the record but please go ahead and tell us. MS. MOORE: That's fine. You pretty much summarized my presentation. Yes, that's precisely what occurred that apparently at the last hearing there was no discussion whatsoever about the second floor balcony and it was an integral part of the design of the house, the second floor bedrooms have doors that look out onto the Long Island Sound and there's a balcony there. When they got the decision, they were quite surprised and upset that the issue came up or that it was a problem for the Board when the architect was here and they Qere here and they would have certainly addressed it at that time. That being said, we're here to address the particular issue with respect to the second floor balcony decking. It is a smaller version. We do have a letter from the structural engineer. I also have Mr. Michael Macrina. He's the architect on the project and I have a letter for the record -- I also have him here and I thought he would be best suited to describe what the engineer was reviewing and how our proposed decking would impact the structural conditions that are there and the impact on teh bluff. So first, I'm just going to give you a letter that I'll ask Linda if you can pass it down. What I would like to emphasize and you did have this in your record where Soil and Water Conservation did provide an analysis of the bluff. I don't know that you realize that because certainly Soil and Water didn't notice it but there are three retaining walls on this bluff. This part of Orient has a relatively low bluff, it's only 30 feet up. It is vegetated. It has boulders down at the toe of the bluff. So it is a very stable, secure area. It has not experienced any visible signs of erosion and certainly my client has as much interest as the Board if not more so to make sure that whatever they do here on this property not impact the stability of the bluff. What I would like to do is to have Michael come up and if you wouldn't mind just going over tke engineer's analysis and try 5e answer 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 questions as well. MR. MACRINA: My name is Michael Macrina. I live at 22 Bayberry Drive in St. James, New York 11780. After reviewing the engineer's calculations by Joseph Schmidt Consulting Engineers, what he did is he took a 60 pound total weight on the deck which is more than actually we use for a first floor loading on a house. So we- went a little additional on that weight. He took that weight and multiplied it times half the deck depth that's getting concentrated on the columns. That's our biggest concern, what's happening on the columns. With that he figured out the weight on each column and that's how he got the 6,100 pounds which I believe is actually more than what I came up with. It's a little bit more overkill, 6,100 is actually 800 pounds more than what I calculated. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that live or dead load. MR. MACRINA: Total. The piers are 4 square foot. They're large. They're already in place from the deck that was approved previously. What he did then was he actually took the total concentrated weight and divided that into 4 square feet and that's where he gets the 1,525 pounds per square foot on the soil itself. After that part, I don't know, I'm not a geotechnical engineer. I rely on the engineers calculations at that point. He says the pressure from each pier is a 1 and 2 slope which doesn't even come close to affecting the bluff. Any questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions but I can make a comment. Site inspection revealed without having to calculate the load bearing capacity of those piers that it's probably over structured for the load. There are some slope issues because the grade is substantially differentiated and there is one point at which it is sloping toward the bluff, it kind of slopes toward the neighbor basically. Soil and Water doesn't seem to have any concern about that so we won't go there. It's clear that you anticipate an approval of some sort or you wouldn't have doors in there already. What is the difference in size of the original, originally the size of the deck as proposed that was denied was what? MR. MACRINA: It was 12 foot deep from the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ouse to the columns. What we did was reduceethe deck to 8 feet and an additional 4 would be roof. The roof is substantially less. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's just an overhang MR. MACRINA: Exactly. Only 2 feet of that deck is concentrated on those columns now. The remaining 6 feet is concentrated on the house foundation. It transfers to that. Which is uniformly at every 16 inches on center which is very minute when you start doing calculations. MS. MOORE: I would also point out that we will have dry wells and gutters here. In fact, the second floor decking does capture the water to the dry wells and the gutters. So there is no water roof run off that is going to carry over to the neighbors property or down the bluff because ~11 the water roof run off is going to be captured. Actually, the Trustees required a ten foot buffer, vegetative buffer, no mow zone along the top of the bluff. This whole project has incorporated through one agency or another mitigation measures, most importantly to capture the water. That seems to be the most damaging impact to any bluff is the retention of the water. So that was already provided for in the original application and obviously it's still in place. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First, I am impressed with the presentation and the information now that assuages the concerns we had before. I would say that just as a matter of procedure, it's quite likely that if we had the kind of information presented at the last hearing that is presented now, the decision might have gone other than it did. I don't know. I don't know the numbers. What I do take exception to is the suggestion in the presentation that somehow we were remiss in not raising the questions at the hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to hear testimony and the read what is there and we read this and we read it more carefully after the hearing and if one of us had anticipated that question at the hearing, we probably would have raised it and then it probably would have had to been held over until those engineers reports were done. Sc I like to 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 believe that everybody wins in this case. It's safer than it would have otherwise had been. It sounded as though your clients felt an injustice was done by our deciding on something that we didn't raise at the time because nobody had raised it. The burden of demonstration is on the people who give us our file, testimony and in paper. However, I am very pleased at the way this is working out personally. MS. MOORE: There was no intention to insult anybody on the Board and I know it was unintentional. It was a surprise that it happened and sometimes it happens and here we are. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Mike? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I think they've answered all the ~uestions and making the balcony smaller than it was before and I think if you brought that up the first time around, I don't think we would of had a problem. I don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think from a wind point of view, the ability of having that roof line basically I guess I'll use the word seaward of the deck, the proposed deck, I think is a really smart idea because I think that's going to cause a lot less turbulence on the windows on that second story. That's very tastefully done. I really think that is a real positive step. I thank you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have nothing. Do you have anything else to add? MS. MOORE: Unless you have a particular question, we thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't. Would the applicants like to say anything? MR. RETUS: Thank you for hearing us today. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'll entertain a motion that we close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEBRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth and seconded by Jerry. All those in favor? {See minutes for resolution. 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 - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 2:30 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NOVEMBER 15, 2007 CERTIFICATION I, Erika Nadeau, a shorthand reporter and Notary Public of the State of New York do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties by blood or marriage, that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the outcome of these matters, nor am I in the employ of any of the counsel. Erika Nadeau