Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/07/2011 Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York April 7, 2011 9:40 a.m. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Member JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member GEORGE HORNING - Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney VICKI TOTH Secretary Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: Anne R. Bunting ~6455 Frank Orito #6459 North Fork Beach Condominiums James and Karen Mowdy #6457 #6456 Daisy M. Folk #6450 James Connolly #6454 James and Kathleen Blackley #6458 North Fork Community Theater #6460 Irene Rutkoski Estate #6445 Jeff Andrade #6435 Page: 3-22 22-34 35-40 40-49 49-63 63-71 71-83 83-94 94-98 98 3 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first application before the Board this morning Anne R. notice. is Bunting. I am going to read the legal "Request for variance from Article XXII Code Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-14 and Article III Section 280-15F and the Building Inspector's January 24, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for additions and alterations to existing dwelling and construction of an accessory structure at: required setback of 100 bluff, 2) 1) At less than the code feet from the top of Accessory structure at less than the setback of 60 2427 Isabella Island Sound) code required setback of 100 feet from the top of bluff, 3) less than the code required front yard feet on water front property at Beach Road, (adjacent to Block Fishers Island, New York." Before and spell Is someone here to address that? we address that, will you please state your name for the record? MR. FITZGERALD: My name is Sam Fitzgerald. Last name, F-I-T-Z-G-E-R-A-L-D. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald very late yesterday, we actually received 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals correspondence from Suffolk County Soil and Water. MR. FITZGERALD: I did receive that as well, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you have a copy, good. I just wanted to make sure that you had it. You will need a copy of the LWRP. If you would like, I can give you a copy from our local waterfront revitalization program, that that the proposal is consistent with indicates the LWRP. Okay. Please proceed. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Thank you. My name is Sam Fitzgerald. I am the architect for the project at 2427 Isabella Beach Road on Fishers Island. I am appearing on behalf of the owner, Anne Bunting. The reason for the appeal today is that we are proposing to construct an activity within 100 feet of the top of the bluff and 60 feet of the front property line. This proposal with will (In audible) several variances. First, a little background on the house. It was built in 1920's on the edge of a bluff overlooking Block Island Sound. It has been altered considerably over the years. It is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals currently a 7 bedroom house. Liveable floor area is 4,768 currently. In the early 80's there was a considerable amount of work done. There is a pool complex here, which includes a pool, spa, pump equipment and pool house or storage shed. Also added a solarium here to the main house, and all of that was created by multi-level decks. Ail of that totals a building area of 8,124 square feet. The owner Anne Bunting, of course, loves the property, but she thinks the house is overbearing and overwhelming. And she thinks that the alternations made to the house over the years really dilute the architecture of the house or of the original house. And she also feels very strongly about the environment and wants to reduce her footprint as much as possible. So given all of that, she gave us free (In audible}. One of which, we reduce the square footage as the build structures as much as possible on the property and still keep the house functional. So she wants basically the minimum size house. Second, she wants to restore the architectural integrity of the house and she also wants to find to make better connections of the house and the land. (In audible) over 1600 square feet from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals house. And it also removes almost 3900 square feet from the building area. It will be reduced from 7 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms. We are planning to remove almost all of the additions that aren't original to the house and that includes the solarium. There is (In audible) here, master bedroom here and complex here. The natural grade will be restored and the (In audible). I would like to very, very quickly go through the variances. (In audible) (Stepped away from microphone.) -- Blue stone terrace. Currently there is an existing wood deck here. We want to replace that with a blue stone terrace. They are pretty much the same size. The setbacks from existing wood deck to the top of the bluff is 40 feet. We would maintain that. There would be no change there. The second variance would be (In audible). We would be removing the 3,000 square foot pool structure. Ail that would be gone and in place, we would like to install a small structure. That is 121 square feet. The setbacks from the proposed (In audible) to the top of the bluff is 26 feet. The existing setback from the edge of the pool complex to the 6 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 7 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 top of the bluff is (In audible). The third variance is (In audible). We are proposing to remove this portion of the house. After that is done, we would like to extend the deck. And setback from the existing deck to the front buff line (In audible). It would now be 25-26 foot extension. Still very much back from the existing house. (In audible) (Stepped away from microphone.) -- two car attached garage within the house here. We would like to remove the structures here and separate the garage into it's own detached accessory structure. There would be no change to the footprint (In audible). We believe that no undesirable change will be made to the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties. The blue stone terrace is (In audible) shaped. It will feel more settled and it is very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We are replacing the 3,000 square foot pool complex with a structure that would actually have a positive impact on the neighborhood. It will have no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. And the -- there will no material change from the garage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals from the street. It will be only on the back side. You will never see that from the street. I think this would be appropriate for the character of the neighborhood. We can not achieve the benefit by some feasible method other then a variance. The terrace here will be considered part of the principal structure. And any principal structure (In audible) process. The 100 setback line from the top of the bluff actually (In audible) the front of the house. Actually, if you were to locate the front structure in a legally buildable area on the property, it would be part of the house on the (In audible). It would possibly have no water view. So we are taking away a 3,000 square foot pool complex and if you just take 2900 square feet of that away, and leave 100 feet of that built area, I don't think that is a reasonable way to look at it. Also, (In audible) backyard with a view of the water. (In audible) is existing nonconforming. So any work to that side deck would require a variance. The garage, it is our intention to separate the garage from the main house not only to enjoy more square footage but it is to gain more square footage on 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals front yard and the rear yard. Currently right now the house acts as a barricade with the front and back yard. You can't see the ocean from the front yard. By removing the square footage that is over here, we are creating more of a connection from the front yard and the back yard. We are better connecting the house and the land. The amount of relief that we are requesting is not substantial. The closest setback from the existing wood deck to the top of the bluff, which is exactly the same from the view of the terrace. There is no change there. With the (In audible) the setback from the top of the bluff is 26 feet. Currently, we want to go back 3 feet. So we are actually decreasing that extension here. We are building 26 feet back from the existing encroachment into the front yard. And with the garage, there will be more increase (In audible) setbacks at all. The variances will not have an adverse effect on the local environmental conditions and the District. The blue stone terrace will not be visible from any neighbor's property. We believe that it is also an improvement over the wood deck. The coastal weather really raves havoc on the deck. 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals pressure treated wood would be gone from the property. And the terrace will be way better and I think will be considerable improvement. The cupola here will not be visibly from any neighbors property. And it will be modest in size. I think any structure of 125 feet will be considerable improvement over a 3,000 square foot pool complex. What we are doing also, is making this as natural as possible. (In audible) it is really meant to just be a comfortable place to go. The existing deck over here, we are going to maintain but we are going to take the deck boards off and once we extend the deck, we are going to put on (In audible) hardwood and that is an environmental responsible material. The separate from the garage from the house will not have -- will not be visible from the street. And I think the moratorium requirements will be the same. I think I covered all of my points. Thank you so much for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to ask you a couple of questions. MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing to remove habitable space above in the proposal, an 10 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals accessory garage currently that is habitable with the some bedrooms. MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing to remove the walls and leave that open storage; is that correct? MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Secondly, you had a chance to look at the Local Waterfront and Waters, they are recommending that -- your opinion on this is increasing the existing buffer along the edge of the bluff. The top of the bluff to about 3 foot mowing it at lawn. MR. FITZGERALD: Can page? I'm sorry, in width instead of just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Page 3, second to you refer to the Yes, it's on Page 2, last paragraph. There be a 3 foot wide buffer on plantings be established. opinion on that? MR. FITZGERALD: is a suggestion that to obtain bluff, there -- from (In audible) And I would like your Yeah, we would certainly be willing and eager to protect the bluff. The clients are very interested in trying to restore 11 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals as many native planting on the property as much as possible. So anything that we can -- any measure that we can take, that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: you intend to have full gutters, and -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: avoid runoff and such? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: we would be eager to do Am I correct that leaders MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the premises? MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. On the structure to that's right. There are a number of possibilities of certain land disturbances and especially in removing of the swimming pool complex. MR. FITZGERALD: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your proposal here is to develop and erosion and settlement control plan, could that be drafted by a competent individual and that it would be implemented on site, and it would appear that placement of straw bails at the moment is not actually the proper way to do it but it's a better way to do it. Can 12 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals yOU have someone produce that document? MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely, I was thinking about talking with the engineer who produced the survey and I was speaking with them the afternoon that I received this document, and he said that he could turn it around very quickly. And we did talk about some things that he think he could call the person -- the answer is yes, we could produce that very quickly. And to produce this plan will (In audible) everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. I would like to turn this over to George, and see if he has questions? MEMBER HORNING: By detaching the garage, you are creating the need for a variance. Can you tell us why the client wants to do that? What is the compelling reason to detach the garage? MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it was sort of a happy surprise to hear that from the Bunting's that they wanted to remove as much as the house as they could. The main thing was, as you approach the house, you are hit with this wall of a house. It's a very big house. You are hit 13 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 14 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 with this wall of a house and to them it seems really disruptive to the property. You know, they are really about the property and there is such a disconnect with the front of there property and the back. The back just opens up into a beautiful view. It is just gorgeous. In the front, Ms. Bunting is thinking about it as encroachment on the land. It's not you don't get any of that. And this a nice thing that just sort of wanders on the -- she wants the house broken up so you can kind of catch the beautiful of the backyard, from the front of the house. And she didn't need that square footage. So how can we actually make this house better fit the landscape, if we know take square footage area? the rational there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: that we can actually That was just sort of Well, it really isn't detached because you have the roof on? MR. FITZGERALD: breezeway. MEMBER HORNING: considers it detached. MR. FITZGERALD: MEMBER HORNING: Right, there would be a The Building Department Right. My other question is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the (In audible), why are you folks proposing to put it 30-40 feet bluff? back from the MR. FITZGERALD: We could. Again, we are probably looking at it differently then you guys are. We were thinking about closer but we didn't want to get within 35 feet of the bluff. We wanted to stay behind that line. But -- MEMBER HORNING: It is an uphill grade. MR. FITZGERALD: It is. But we also wanted to tuck it in too. We didn't want it to be this really strong element. We wanted to sort of tuck it in, and be a minimal as possible. So there was that. Tuck it into the contour of the land. Again, that is my perspective. That is why it is here. It's actually tucked in more. MEMBER HORNING: Our job is to grant as least amount of variance as possible. MR. FITZGERALD: Right. MEMBER HORNING: It does seem to be a little close. MR. FITZGERALD: An in going through this process, time consuming process, I can't tell you how the important it is to the Bunting's to have this removed or replaced with this structure. 15 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 April 7, It's a beautiful spot. back. MEMBER HORNING: Board to decide yes or no to or would you like to propose 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals But yes, it could go And would you like the leave it where it is that it be setback further? MR. FITZGERALD: to decide where it is, to -- If I asked the Board do I have the option MEMBER HORNING: That would be up to the chairperson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The question is whether to grant the setback and anything in between of what you are proposing or something in the middle. It just depends on how the Board -- and we review all the testimony. I think what Member Horning was asking is can you set this back, so that the variance is less substantial and if so, you could, there is no reason why you can't. Where would that be in your opinion relative to accomplishing your goal for the project, which is to have a nice view -- MR. FITZGERALD: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In a quiet place. solitaire 16 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 17 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 MR. FITZGERALD: TO really help the clients goals is to -- yes, they want a place to sit and contemplate and meditate and they want something that is sort of small and natural and organic. That kind of thing. They also want it to be tucked away into landscape. They wanted to be as much as they can integrate into the natural contours. So as you go up higher here, the ground gets higher and you lose that tucked in feeling. We also understand that there is -- that this is a different kind of issue then the rest of the things on there. So I would think that we could move it a little bit ten feet or so. We would still be tucked in a little bit, I think. We would not want to have it so far back, it would be turched (sic). MEMBER HORNING: Can you explain the rendering of the decisions, it could be denied? It could be accepted or we could grant what we call alternative relief? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not alternative relief. area. We are just exploring a different MEMBER HORNING: What if they don't move 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He just said that he would anticipate it, so why don't we just wait until he does it. And if the Board is not happy with it, then we are either going to deny it or come up with a different number. It may not fill the goals of your client, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a suggestion of 36 feet, might be as amended. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we can leave it as that. If you can confirm that with your client, or create a greater setback than 36 feet. Looking very carefully at all of these that have been submitted, the -- I am very interested in the way you will come up with a sediment and soil plan. Perhaps that might be included in addressing a land disturbance issues and how to would work relative to those practices? MR. FITZGERALD: Is it an issue of not being able to have it, the owners would rather have it then not. I don't want to get into a position where I say a setback and the possibility deny it. I rather not even say it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, lets look at it this way. If you (In audible) conforming 18 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 location, conforming location? MR. FITZGERALD: of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: or is it open? MR. FITZGERALD: April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals what happens if you did put it in a It would be in the front Okay. Does this have a roof It has a roof that will be created by either thatch or vine. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How does that compound the water runoff with the sediment issue? I mean, is there something that is around the (In audible) that you are anticipating or the engineer participating so as not to create a greater water problem, based on this? (In audible) it is one of the activities that they require (In audible) agency and all of these situations are basically runoff water issues and that is why I am saying -- I am asking the question. I am not doing it in any other way. MR. FITZGERALD: Right. So MEMBER GOEHRINGER: investigating the aspects the same time, as the Chairperson has fully stated, we have an issue of erosion control. So the Board is of that issue but at 19 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 20 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 give us a good reason of whatever footage you want to give it and that it is not going to create further erosion problems and be used through that process. The engineer is going to and then we will understand it develop it better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if any other Board members have questions? Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone is the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anything else that you would like to say? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, with the -- in terms of the Board's approval or your judgements, if (In audible) was an issue would it be that you would grant the other three variances and then sort of table this one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, yeah, certainly. They are evaluated separately. Every one of those variances would be examined relative to April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 21 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 Erosion When do done? their impact. MR. FITZGERALD: I see. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So hearing no furthe~ comments, I am going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an Sediment Control Plan from the applicant. you think that you are going to have that MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I know that the Bunting's are very eager to keep things moving, and the engineer is being very accommodating and actually said next week he can have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So by the end of next week? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just add a caveat to that, which may or may not include the provula (phenetic)? MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a motion. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6459 - FRANK ORITO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Frank Orito. And that is a "request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 16, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct accessory in-ground swimming pool at; location other than the code required rear yard; at 3420 Marion." MS. LASPISA: Stars Road, East Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you please state your name and spell it for the record? MS. LASPISA: Diana LaSpisa with Morano Expediting, L-A-S-P-I-S-A. And the address is 4 Hamilton Court, Coram, New York 11727. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Before we get started. We are missing a couple of things here. Do you have some green cards and -- perfect. Thank you. Would you like to 22 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 23 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proceed? MS. LASPISA: today, owner, Yes. Good morning. MEMBER DINIZIO: Good morning. MS. LASPISA: We are here before you I have here with me today, the property Frank Orito. And we are requesting permission to install an in-ground swimming pool in the side yard. As you can see by the survey and some of you have been out to the site, this is the only location where a pool is feasible on this property. The depth of the lot. The location of the house, it would be impossible to put it in the required rear yard. In addition to that, there is a lot of vegetation along the south property line and the west property line, which would be the front property line. So we don't feel it would be visible from the road or from the neighbor to the south. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you want to start? That is, that's basically what you wanted to say? MS. LASPISA: Yes. If the Board has any questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think it is pretty straightforward. You proposed a pool at 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 A~il 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals conforming setbacks; however, you propose it in the side yard? MS. LAS?ISA: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the reason being you don't have adequate room in the rear yard where the code requires it? MS. LASPISA: That's correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any further questions. MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As stated in the last application, very, very nice job of showing where the pool is located and particularly in the winter months when it's a little more difficulty. Nice job. Completely understating of what the nature of the property is and you have a really beautiful house. MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't see any of your neighbors in the five yards, so I am assuming they are okay with it? MS. LASPISA: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And is there any way that you can move that back to be more towards the 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals back yard? Turn it around and out it in the corner? MS. LASPISA: Well, to turn it around, then it would be more in -- more closer to the neighbor to the south, which I think is the purpose of why the code requires it in the rear yard, so it's not -- I mean, it wouldn't be right on top of the neighbors property but it would bring the pool closer. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know if the code one have an idea? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it's about 10 feet. Setting it back further? is 25 on this lot -- any It's pretty minor. MEMBER DINIZIO: can just push it back. rear yard? MS. wanted -- want. LASPISA: MEMBER DINIZIO: So there is no way you So it's conforming more You know, essentially they I understand what they MS. LASPISA: I mean, I don't think it would -- I think this is the most ideal location for the neighboring properties and if we turn it around, it would bring it closer to the neighbor. 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 26 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 '25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 was asking possible. yard. I mean, I don't see an issue with this location. You know, I can understand if you needed to push it back and do more screening but it's pretty screened the way that the property is now. It's actually in the winter time as well. The pictures were actually taken in the late, late Fall, early Winter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You do have some planted beds that don't show up on this survey. That is the Evergreen screening is. The beds that are along the back property line and the side property line. MS. LASPISA: Oh, yes. Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Moving it is going to take it closer to the planted beds and give you less room around the pool. Member Dinizio to get it as much conformed as It's still going to be in the side MEMBER DINIZIO: This property already has two variances. So we are variancing this property to death here. So I want to try and minimize that as much as possible. We granted a variance on that side already with the sun room 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MS. LASPISA: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, you are coming back a few years later and wanting to put in a pool and extend that side yard. So I would like to try and minimize. I would like to see any cesspool on that side. I understand that a garden can be moved. A garden would be better on he side yard. It's allowed on the side yard. It can be there. So maybe you can turn that thing around and push that more towards the side yard to be a more conforming setback. Then anything (In audible) we will grant a variance for. MS. LASPISA: The pool equipment itself and the proposed dry well, is proposed at 10 feet right now. I mean, again, to turn it around, it would bring the pool closer to the neighbor to the south. So I don't think that would be the best interest for the neighbors either. MEMBER DINIZIO: Ma'am, I am not asking -- I am not saying that we would grant a variance for you to do that. I am asking you to do what you are allowed to do to the greatest extent possible. And you are allowed to go -- if it's 20 feet, or 15 feet, you are allowed to do that. The neighbor knows that. The law is the 27 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 28 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 law. So I am just trying to reduce the variance on a piece property that already has two variances that were granted previously. MS. LASPISA: No, I understand what you are saying. Regardless of the footage off the back property line, it's still -- no matter which way you are going to cut it, it's still going to be the side yard. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am just looking for the minimum variance possible. MR. ORITO: We wanted it to be by the sun room so we can keep an eye on our grandchildren. It's a little easier to keep an eye on my grandchildren and my son -- my disabled son. We just thought it would be better if it was right by the sun room. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, you would still be by the sun room. MR. ORITO: Why would you want it further back? MEMBER DINIZIO: Because that is what you are allowed to do. One of our criteria is setting minimum variances. MR. ORITO: So how much further back would we have to move 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: As far back as you can go legally. MR. ORITO: And how far back is it? MEMBER DINIZIO: I tell you what, we can adjourn the hearing to the next meeting and we can have the building inspector do that for us or we can see if anyone has a code book here and find out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: the Building Department and back in 15 or 20 minutes? MEMBER DINIZIO: to that. I think that we should grant the Or you can just go to find out and come Yeah, I have no objection minimum amount of variances possible. So I am looking to minimize as much as possible. MR. ORITO: I was told that we needed 30 feet from the property line of our neighbor. So we have it 33 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't believe that is correct. This is not a principle structure. It's an accessory structure. I know people get confused with that because they rewrote the law. I believe the maximum setback that that particular law and correct me if I am wrong, is 20 feet. 29 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 30 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 MR. ORITO: The wouldn't be able to see if we were further back. other problem is, we the pool from our porch, So that would prevent us from watching our children. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, your not supposed to have a pool in your front yard, so your pool doesn't come in to play. MR. ORITO: No, we actually have it on the side and you can see the pool from the porch. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is poor excuse. I think we need to minimize this. That is my opinion. I am only one of five people. So I think we need to minimize the fact that two variances this piece of property. the variance given have been granted on MR. ORITO: Why is that a problem, I don't understand? MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not going to say anything further on it. MS. LASPISA: I would assume that the Board would have realized at the time that anything that this house would have done would have required a variance. You can't in his back yard without a variance. Board approved the variance do anything Once the for a house to be 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals built, pretty much everything else that they do is going to require a variance. So it's hard to eliminate. So that should have been taken into consideration when the home was built. I mean, I understand what you are saying. MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me answer that question for you. If you read the first variance, the Board granted alternate relief by saying that this variance, that the variance that you were asking for in the first place was too large for the Board to consider. And the members reduced that to a level. Okay. That was based off of this particular property and this particular house. And you agreed to that. And then you came back and said that you needed a front porch, okay. Even though that we granted a variance because the house was to (In audible) side yard. So now you are asking for us again. to do it So where does it stop? MR. ORITO: I didn't know getting a variances became a problem. I didn't know that. We have beautiful flowers in the back here and if we push the pool back, we are not going to have any room for the patio here. We just wanted to try and keep it in the middle of the property. 3t 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals AS you can see, we are going to put pavers there. And if we move it more back, going to have any room there. It's logical. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Well, I have said what I wanted to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. He has made his point. And you have responded to it. And the Board has heard your any other questions from the (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the audience that would like application? MEMBER HORNING: applicant a question. we are not just not testimony. Is there Board? Is there anyone in to address this I want to ask the Is your request for the variance "as is" or are you contemplating moving the position of the proposed pool at all? MR. ORITO: No. MS. LASPISA: I understand the Board members concern. But regardless, there - the way I understand it, you are supposed to try and determine if you have any other alternative before applying for a variance. I mean, clearly when the house was built, anything that he is 32 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 33 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 going to want to do is going to require a variance. I mean, you can't hold it against him because he has prior variances. He still has the right to come before the Board and apply for a variance, if needed. Regardless, there is no where we can put the pool without getting a variance. And regardless, if you push it up, or turn it around or move it here, it's still going to require that same wording for the variance. It's in the required side -- MEMBER HORNING: Some of it would be in the rear yard and some of it would be in the side yard. So therefore, you would be reducing the type of variance. You would still be needing a variance but you would be reducing the scope of the variance, which is what Mr. Dinizio was getting at, I believe. MEMBER DINIZIO: Minimizing the variance. MR. ORITO: I just don't understand all the concepts of what you are saying. We just thought that it would be an ideal place to put in the pool. It just doesn't make sense. Not to me. It doesn't give us any room in the back at all. By the time you put the pool in 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 April 7, patio, you are going to have So if we go any further back, have nothing back there. MS. LASPISA: Just 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals like 15 feet back. we are going to so you know, it is not confirmed on paper just yet. He is going to have the brick patio that you see on the survey, but there is also going to be added on to that, a patio for chairs and a table for seating and stuff like that. That is also going to be next to the pool equipment as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. I think we have heard all the commentary from all concerned parties, so I am going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Thank you very much. All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. 34 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess. Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. HEARING #6456 - NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUMS. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: application before the Board Condominiums. And that is a Okay. The next is North Fork "request from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 30, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for accessory gazebo at; 1) a location other than the code required rear yard, at: in Southold." it, please? MR. 52325 County Road Can you 48 and Sound View Avenue state your name and spell O-H-M-A-N. OHMAN: Yes. My name is Eric Ohman, 4 Gibbs Lane in Islip, New York. 35 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 36 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: proceed. MR. OHMAN: Okay. an auxiliary structure. Okay. Please What we got here is It's a gazebo for shelter. Really just to keep out of weather. It's replacing, as you see photos, a pipe and canvas structure. for barbecuing and such. improvement of what you the in the It was used I think it's a huge see aesthetically as far as the pipe and canvas structure. essentially in the same location. wider. The dimensions I believe It's It's somewhat are the same. what structure? MR. OHMAN: Maybe 8 or 9 feet. vehicle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Out of curiosity, is the height of the current frame That is a good question. Usually they are made for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: couple of feet higher. MR. OHMAN: Yes. to be to be to be be natural wood. Okay. So this is a It's essentially going less intrusive in my eyes. This is going a wood structure as you see, that is going roofed with a color that I am hoping will We haven't discussed a color April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 37 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 but area. area. large, is. something that As you have seen, The pool is gone, large area. I going to blend into the open it's a pretty much open as you know. It's a It fits pretty well, where it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: another location? MR. OHMAN: What they have a large amount Do you want to put it in happens is, (In audible) of children there. And they were more effected by the open space for kids to can put the play then me thinking aesthetically, I this here where the pool was and be a better view from the building and a view to the building. Logically they are saying to leave the open space for the kids to play. and baseball games that they play, would be in the way. So as the told what the owners have asked. MEMBER DINIZIO: With the soccer logically, it agent, I am being tent would be an improvement. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no questions. Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions. I guess anything but 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: I will ask about the application. In your application, you have it marked off as "no" that the alleged difficulty has not been self created and how would you explain that? MR. OHMAN: you explain -- oh, Not being self created? Can we need the gazebo. I see that. I have to check that off the other way. Yes, we did want the gazebo. MEMBER HORNING: So it is self created? MR. OHMAN: Yes. I was looking it as the difficulty was that you guys were not going to be letting us do it without a variance. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. I am also curious, on the LWRP form, a lot of people answer on the policy questions, you doubled answer "no" and "not applicable," can you make any co~mment on those? MR. OHMAN: Not unless I have to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There was no LWRP requirement on this application. leave MEMBER HORNING: Okay. it at that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, then lets Ken? 38 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah. I have a few questions. Are there plans for the proposed gazebo to be enclosed? MR. OHMAN: No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what will the proposed gazebo be used for? MR. OHMAN: Identically to what it has now. A picnic table on a concrete slab. And just really to get out of the weather. They are all very good friends. Meaning, they don't camp out and have all different barbecues. They all camp out together. What I have learned. It's a place for people to get out of the weather and barbecue on the weekends. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How many apartments are there? replace MR. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: the piped canvas MR. OHMAN: Yes. OHMAN: I am thinking there is 42. And it's there to structure there -- More of a permanent structure. It looks temporary. It has a gypsy type look and it is not very aesthetically pleasing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you. No further questions for me. 39 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments. I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6457 - JAMES AND KAREN MOWDY. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for James and Karen Mowdy. And that is a "request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 16, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct accessory in-ground swimming pool and pool house at; lot coverage of more than the code required 4o April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 41 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 20% at: 2855 Laurel Trail in Laurel, New York. MS. HOEG: Good morning. Karen Hoeg from Twomey, Latham, Shea, on behalf of the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: your name, please? MS. HOEG: Sure, Can you please spell H-O-E-G. That is the lot (In 20%. brings it over to the 23.4% lot pool design (In audible) with 4 spelling of the last name. The applicant resides in a ranch style home in Laurel Link Community and seeks to construct an accessory 18X18 open sided pool house with a (In audible) swimming pool. The nonconforming lot is 28,325 square feet and the required lot coverage is 20%. The plan indicates a proposal lot coverage of 23.4% which is 3.4% more of the allowable amount. The coverage of the structures, being the house audible) the pool house was actually under Having the in-ground swimming pool there coverage. The feet of Roman ends on each side and the pool house is not actually a typical pool house. It's a covered patio with open sides. area is 18 X 13.4 feet. for storage And the covered patio And there is a provision room and changing room, as you can April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see on the plan. There are some restriction with this property that we filed with the application, which is by the Laurel Link Homeowners Association that they must approve of any swimming pool and accessory building. In regard to the accessory building, the C&R's also provide design and material must match the main house and have to be of the same design, color and material of the residence, which will be done. The approval of the Homeowners Association can not be obtained until the final plans are actually submitted. So at this time, verbal that they are in favor of it. we got a They do that there recommend that pursuant to the C&R's be landscaping and screening in the rear of the house as well as both sides. So that there is maximum screening of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I read the covenants and I do see that you do have to have all of that before then. I also noticed that these homes, you have to build them with minimum square footage and there is a maximum. Now, the Town measures minimum and maximum differently. The Homeowners Association does in that, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Homeowners Association adds in any heated space and doesn't include decks and I believe even garages. So I see with the decks and -- I think you had Peconic -- MS. HOEG: Right, the survey. MEMBER DINIZIO: It came out to 5,305 feet. I am just saying this to reiterate it. That doesn't bring it to the 20%. It's just under by 361 feet. In other words, you can add another 361 square feet. So that is pretty close to the 20%. You built out the house and I can see how you can get to that 20% fast. MS. HOEG: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: I can was a little confused abut the pool house. understand that. I When you are saying it is more like a gazebo. MS. HOEG: The architect is here and can tell you a little bit more. If you take a look at it, it's actually a covered patio. There is two postings in the front is an area for a changing on three sides. It's not and in the rear, there room. It's open sided your typical enclosed sheet rock pool house. It's open. The goal was seating to be provided for the grandparents and guests and anyone who is using the member. I 43 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals know we have received no opposition from any of the neighbors in regards to the proposal. And I know there are other in-ground and indoor swimming pools in the area. MEMBER DINIZIO: I saw the neighborhood. The amount of variance that you are asking for is not substantial but enough. You know, it is more than what the -- I believe the Homeowners Association had envisioned. Certainly, maybe 20 houses in that area on 300 or some odd acres, that may help. MS. HOEG: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: I can see no way of reducing this. I do understand you would want to have a place and you are sitting in the back yard and you may want to be protected. So I can see that. That building is not going to have a bathroom; right? MS. HOEG: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: anything like that? MS. HOEG: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: equipment going to go? MS. HOEG: No running water or Where is the pool The pump? I believe that is the intention 44 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 45 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 of the homeowner to have it and not by the pool house. I don't believe it is the chemicals in the pool house. closer to the pool That type of thing. contention to put MR. SCHWARTZ: No, as far as I know. wasn't shown on the plans. they would put it behind. MEMBER DINIZIO: In the past, the Board It I assume maybe that has asked to put it in a sound proof enclosure. So which would be another little structure and square footage, I would assume. I was wondering if you have considered that? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I have not. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am aware that the Board requiring that it be enclosed. So it would have to at least look like a dog house. MS. HOEG: Right. MR. SCHWARTZ: Is it possible (In audible) not so much a roof on top? MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you put it in the pool house? I am trying to help you avoid you going for a building permit and then you show up -- MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: The Homeowners 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Association's has to approve it because it's another structure. it on there -- MR. SCHWARTZ: (In audible) intention of adding anything in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just aware, it was never intended to mean structure. This is a structure that would be portable. The roof would MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: of the way that was done in Just maybe if you could draw we had no so you are a stand up the roof come off. I am just telling you the past. Based upon the nature that you have no particular neighbors in the rear but you do have a very ongoing golf course, they would probably want it also. When that wind is not blowing down there, and I have lived very close to this for over ten years. It's really beautiful spot that is down there, that sound can run for a long time. You know it was and I hate to say it, a past potato field. So deafening equipment, I would say, if a very valuable -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: a question. On what to grant a 3.24% lot I would like to ask grounds do you ask the Board coverage variance when this 46 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals pool is extremely large? It's 20 X 48 and could easily be made conforming? MS. HOEG: The pool -- the 20 X 48 includes the Roman ends. They are on the east and west side of the pool. The actual typical swimming distance in the pool is 20 X 40 swimming pool with a diving board. That is what their intention is. They do have children and I know they have one son who has had two ACL replacement recently and I know it was their intention, as avid swimmers, that this could also be used as part of his physical therapy. It's the Roman ends that provide the additional distance, which provide the ingress and egress from the pool. MR. SCHWARTZ: (In audible) (Stepped away from the microphone.) It's not a mass or somewhat in characteristic with the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: audience that would like Anyone else? Any one in the to address this 47 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 April 7, application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I statement about Roman ends. 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals just want to make a It is definitely true that it limits the amount of overall capacity of the pool, and I could be wrong, but would say that a 20 X 40 pool is 27,000 gallons. And so when you have Roman ends be 28,000 gallons because there contour down into the pool, but lot coverage. That is one of the issues are always dealing with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: for you to indicate somewhere where the pump equipment whether or not that will coverage or part of it. on it, it might is steps that it still does add that we We have a request on this survey is going to go and result in additional In any case, I think lot that Board would like to have that information prior to making a decision. MS. HOEG: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And a dry well too. And where that is going to go. Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a survey locating the pump equipment and dry well. How long do you need on that? 48 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MR. SCHWARTZ: Next week. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6450 - DAISY M. FOLK. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for Daisy M. Folk. This is a request for a Waiver of Merger under Article II Section 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as Suffolk County Tax Map %1000-59-6-10, based on the Building Inspector's December 16, 2010 Notice of Disapproval, which states adjoining nonconforming lots held in common ownership shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet in this R-40 Residential Zone District) this lot is merged with Lot 11. Property located at; 7599 49 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 7475 Soundview Avenue. would you please state your & Good morning, name and spell it? MR. BARRETT: My name is Robert Barrett and I am a professional engineer. I am here today to represent Daisy Folk, the owner of Lot 10 in this development. And in fact, she also owns Lot 6 and 7, where there house is located. She can't be here to speak for herself. She lives in California, they are these days, she here for her. Now, and expenses being what can't and asked me to be I have given you a fairly good issue of what we are looking for and I have provided the supplemental information, like surveys and other things that you have asked for and I am really here today to say that Daisy and her family, they are from Brooklyn. They have paid their real estate taxes here since 1953. They own four lots. Their major (In audible) is development. So -- and for years they held onto these vacant lots because development was relative and there was no public water. Now that there is public water available waterfront home needs some work, to raise some money in the future, and their they would like to help pay 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for that is have the ability to sell off Lot 11. is the lot near Soundview Avenue. The Lot The April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals development. And what they want to do Lot 11 other lot, 10 is across the road from their other house. last thing in the world that they want to do in these uncertain times is do anything that would lower the real estate value of their home or Ellen's home, whose next door or the Perillo's, who is a couple of lots away. So the lot immediately opposite to them, Lot 10, the plan that they have disclosed to me (In audible) Mark Allman, who is Lot 14, is that they are looking for a waiver of this Lot 10 and 11. So that they would be free in the future to develop Lot 11 independently. And I would say in some respects for this waiver legislation. I recognize why it was done. have a development of most four lots left. They are all about 0.23 acres each, and if -- well since, Lot's 10 and 11 have been merged, the merged lot becomes 0.9 of an acre. It is the largest lot in the development. If in the future they are forced to sell the merged lot 10 and 11, it would be 0.9 of an acre and without any further zoning or variances, the But here we already of the lots. There is 51 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals new owner would be able to build a very substantial house on that lot. And I say to you, I think it would be of the character with this small water front community where typically the lots are 1/2 acre and the homes are typically 2,000 square feet. So (In audible) 5,000 square foot two-story house and a large septic system and potentially a lot of children. It is something in which I don't think is the best interest of the development. That is why I was so pleased when the -- well Daisy and her husband indicated they were very concerned about their own home and have some development in the next few years. They would like to have the ability to sell Lot 11 and use that money for development. So that's really all I have to say, and of course, I am ready to answer any questions that you wish you present. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to start? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I appreciate the footprint of the house, Mr. Barrett and Lot 10, I have to tell you, I don't normally see applications like this. We normally have the house on one parcel merged. The question that I 52 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 have, somewhat shown on the particular variances? MR. BARRETT: guidelines, you have 50 foot rear setback. April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals yOU feel that you can construct a house footprint without to Yes. The typical to have a 50 foot setback, The house must not be 20% more of the lot coverage. And you have size setback's, which are easily accommodated. So yes, from a setback pint there is no problem. (In audible) and public water connected from the house. There is plenty of room on Lot 11 for the septic system. If you might perhaps recall two years ago, I was confronted with the same problem, the Perillo's lot, which -- I can't remember the number but it's on the left hand side when you go in, the owners had a cesspool that was common in the 50's. And I had that removed and I had a modern septic system installed in the front yard, and the water table across the street, Lot 11, would be exactly the same as it was on Frank's lot. So the number of leaching pool is 99.9% certain to be the same and adequate. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am reviewing the basic parameters of a Waiver of Merger 53 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals application, Number 1, would be the waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to the majority of improved lots in the neighborhood. Can you answer that question? MR. BARRETT: How does merged lot or the demerged lot -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: recognize a lot comparable in majority of the improved lots because? MR. BARRETT: Well, the merge lot is .8 of an acre. The unmerged lots that are around it are typically .4 of an acre or less. When it is demerged, they will still be around about the maximum size of a lot in the development. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing that I don't agree with you with is that we are talking 19,000 square feet. We are saying it's approximately a .50 or under a .50. So that when you gave me the discourse before that you said we may merge, that it would be a .90 of an acre and 40,000, that was incorrect, lots unmerged would be .50 correct? A waiver would size to the in the neighborhood but the individual or just under; is that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the (In audible) the other lot. But in there is actually a 30 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. When you look at the plan, it's a logical conclusion that curve to it is smaller than fact they are not because foot added to the one with the curb. The curb comes around to the straight piece and that's why -- one is 19,600 and the is 19,700. They are almost exactly the other one same. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number 2, requires that you would recognize the vacant and has been historically treated and maintained as a separate residential since the date of it's original creation. MR. BARRETT: Yes, MEMBER GOEHRINGER: determine that? MR. BARRETT: Well, sir. And how do you on the law lot as you have a report in the file showing the deeds and the way it worked was, Edith Bernstein was the first homeowners other lots in Edith died and and then her son Rudolph, bought the same area. Close nit family. Daisy, because she was a young lady at the time, she came into the picture and the lots were either owned by Daisy or Rudolph or jointly. And 55 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 56 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 then four years ago, Rudolph passed away and that left Daisy as the lots. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: telling me that bills? there were sole owner of all four Okay. And you are all individual tax yellow one. That is only a two bedroom house. The other lots will follow the same rules, unless they come to you and ask for some type of really thought to much either. But the remainder are slightly smaller and Judith (In audible) the MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number 3, the proposed (In audible) will not create an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or District because? MR. BARRETT: Well, if a house is built on Number 11 by virtue of the planning guidelines, it will be a very small house, which is typical. The other houses in the District are either two, three or -- generally two or three bedrooms. The one on the corner is owned by Zignu, I don't know how to pronounce his name. That might be a four bedroom house. I have 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals variance. I can imagine with the grounds that they would have to do so. It's a rectangular lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said when you started your dissertation that Ms. Farcome's lot was 5 and what? MR. BARRETT: No, she owns 6 and 7. And they bought 6 and 7 and 10 and 11. They voluntarily merged 6 and 7 because they wanted their house setup, so it had a (In audible) size setbacks. So they bid it off and (In audible). Long before virtue. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you are with the understanding that this is a described -- I can't use the word "subdivision," it is a described development as subdivision. MR. BARRETT: Yes, MEMBER GOEHRINGER: opposed to a sir. Thank you. MR. BARRETT: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Thank you very much. George? One document says that the property is not currently for sale, that is correct? MR. BARRETT: Well, it is a tricky moment. 57 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals (In audible) enthusiastic real estate sales people would sympathize with me. I was horrified to go to the site to post your notice and I see a sign on the site for sale. I called Mr. Folk immediately, Daisy's husband. And the sign was removed. He had some informal talks with the realtor and I told them that they had no right to do that. They are breaking the law. And immediately the sign was removed within an hour. I was really upset. MEMBER HORNING: You have mentioned in your testimony that one of the owners passed away a few years ago. MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir, Rudolph Bernstein. MEMBER HORNING: How did the applicant become aware that the properties were merged? MR. BARRETT: Well, actually I was probably the one to tell them. I am very familiar with that development through the work. The Perillo site, I took that site on five years ago when a Chinese family in New York City owned it, jointly with 150 people. I explained it was all kinds of problems and we fixed the problems up partially. We sold the home to Perillo and 58 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals then he turned around and said, "lets get this thing done." It took about two and half years to get that done. It successfully got it's Certificate of Occupancy about a year ago now, but during that time I acquired some intimate knowledge of pertinet -- and I approached Daisy and her husband Roy, and one thing led to another and said (In audible). (Stepped away from the microphone.) -- and get their and he brought up to stuff etc, and of course, public water (In audible) and I investigated and (In audible) standard procedure according to the Building Department and pursuing building permit applications was the only way that we can get in through the Zoning Board. So I think I was probably -- Daisy is a very careful lady. She probably got confirmation -- got somebody else in the real estate to confirm it. MEMBER HORNING: That would have occurred after the other owner passed away? MR. BARRETT: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And can you give a tentative date of when the applicant realized that the properties were merged? You went to the 59 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department in last December? MR. BARRETT: I would probably say six months before that. MEMBER HORNING: What did they do to find out that it was officially merged, I guess that is a better question? MR. BARRETT: Well, I told them that I thought it was merged and the only way was to test it out and go to the Building Department and get a building permit to build on one lot and of course an inspector signed off on a Notice of Disapproval, and that this was currently merged. MEMBER HORNING: Disapproval is how the out that they were merged; saying? MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: was drawn this way? MR. BARRETT: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Notice of Disapproval? MR. So through the Notice of applicant actually found is that what you are Is that this survey In order to get a BARRETT: The Building Department 60 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals wanted proper (In audible) and I volunteered it and supplemented it with a simple drawing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You indicated that the applicant was interested in selling off potential development, the piece to Soundview Avenue? MR. BARRETT: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: building on the other MR. BARRETT: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: for that? MR. BARRETT: None whatsoever. saw that drawing, they said to me, It's the other lot." If anything, that is adjacent And yet you show a lot? That is true. Is there any reason Once they "no way. it would be the other lot. other application is in? leave it," and so I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I said, what do I do? The And they said "just It would be kind of interesting to know what a conforming building would look like on that lot because you have three front yards on that lot and that is pretty difficult to achieve in building. I mean, it could be done, I would just be curious to know what it looks like. 61 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 62 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 Ken, do you have questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. further questions. Is there anyone in the like to address this application? Please forward and state your name and spell it? do you have I have no audience that would come MS. BELLOMO: Yes, my name is Ellen Bellomo, and I live right next Folk's house -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: your name, please? MS. BELLOMO: Sure, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: proceed. MS. facing Lot to Daisy Would you just spell sorry. B-E-L-L-O-M-O. Thank you, please BELLOMO: Okay. My house would be 10. Now the Folk's claim that they they wanted to build a house there. And I would be looking directly at a house. And if I had to look at one large house, I would rather do that have no intention in doing anything with that lot, but if this was all waived, they could, if 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals then two smaller ones. And I think that these laws were enacted by the Town for a good reason. To keep everything looking nice and spacious for everyone, and I think if the house were built facing mine, it would decrease the value of my property. And that's all. Thank yOU. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: audience? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any one else in NO. Okay. Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6454 - JAMES CONNOLLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next is application for James Connolly. This is a "request for 63 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 4, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for porch addition to existing dwelling at; at less than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet, at: 5575 Sound Avenue, Mattituck. All we have in our file is Suffolk County Planning and local determination letter. MS. MESIANO: Okay. My name is Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Mr. Connolly. And Mr. Connolly is proposing to construct a porch, five feet in depth in the front of the house. We are asking for a variance of approximately 135 square feet. The subject site is 44,294 square feet. The existing dwelling is 1,860 square feet. The square footage of the entirety proposed addition is 164 square feet, but if you apply the permitted exception under the code, the area of the variance is only 135 square feet. There was a variance granted on the property immediately to the west that was tax map 121-1-3.4 under ZBA 2003 in 1975, granting a variance for new construction with an insufficient front setback and I have a copy of 64 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals that for you, if you would like that. Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: would like to start. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: addition is 7 X 23 feet 4 MS. MESIANO: Yes, said 5 feet, it's 7 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I do. I Well, then go ahead. The actual size of the inches? I stand corrected. I So I want to change that to 7. Is there a particular reason or a gut feeling on your part why the house has a nonconforming setback? MS. MESIANO: I don't believe it had a nonconforming setback when it was built. I think it was somewhat (In audible). And the lot was created by settle -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask that question is because I think that the topograph in the area may have been one of the reasons why it was set closer to the road then it would have to be. MS. MESIANO: That would be my second reasoning for the house, the topography. I do believe that it was conforming at the time it 65 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals was constructed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Are there any other variances that we might see in the future or do you think most of everything will be conforming? MS. MESIANO: I think everything else will be conforming because the coverage is existing at 4.2 with a proposed of 4.5. It's an acre lot and the house is very small and it's pushed to the front because of the property. Mr. Connolly didn't make any indication to me that he was (In audible). He just wanted to add the porch, first for functionality and second, leaning towards the aesthetics. It doesn't have a particular personality. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: for it to be enclosed to MS. MESIANO: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nice to see you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER DINIZIO: No, questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: What So there is no time your knowledge? Thank you very much. Jim? I don't have any George? is the purpose of 66 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals getting the updated Notice of Disapproval? MS. MESIANO: The updated Notice of Disapproval was -- the first Notice of Disapproval had expired before I got all my paperwork together. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You indicated 135 square feet is proposed in a nonconforming setback. I think the issue here is a front yard setback and not the square footage. You are asking for a -- MS. MESIANO: My point being the house is setback from the road. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right. MS. MESIANO: And the code allows for, I think, 5.56 for a porch. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: However you get it, it's supposed to be 100 square feet. MS. MESIANO: Projection into the front yard allows for a front porch. that by the 135 square feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the variance request is for that or the distance of the front yard setback? required To achieve 67 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 68 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 MS. MESIANO: front yard setback. be that distance for spacial -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I saying is that the extension into the It's the distance of the But technically, it would -- just let me get my think what you are code permits a 4x6 foot conforming front yard setback, and for the size they are proposing which 7 X 23.4 feet, exceeds that 10 X 4 foot space by 135 square feet. Is that what -- MS. MESIANO: Yes. You always say it so much better than I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are attempting to show us that it is a less substantial variance then what it is? MS. MESIANO: Absolutely. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So what is the variance request? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A front yard setback. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At what distance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At 43.78. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Sorry for the confusion. MEMBER DINIZIO: The front yard setback 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals is 50 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct. MS. MESIANO: And if I might add, if you take the specific conditions to the site into account, you are not at a point where the curb in the road would contribute to an accident that would -- we don't have situations where I think the traffic would pose a threat to -- on the front porch, is what I am trying to say. MEMBER HORNING: I will make a comment on that. I was pulling out of that property and making a left-hand turn and there was a lot of oncoming traffic, appearing west and there was an Evergreen shrub that was obstructing my view. Well, then I noticed that maybe I should make a right-hand turn and then turn around and then I noticed, even looking west, there was another Evergreen shrub obstructing my view of oncoming traffic that way. In my estimation, there was somewhat of a safety issue leaving that driveway. MS. MESIANO: MEMBER HORNING: Evergreens. MS. MESIANO: I agree. They should trim those I agree, I will pass that 69 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation down. I don't think that they use it for full-time residence and not that that matters. MEMBER HORNING: coming down pretty fast. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the audience that would application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the Board? MEMBER HORNING: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MS. MESIANO: other variance? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make a motion to close render a decision for a later MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. And there was traffic Is there anyone in like to address this Anything else from Would you like a copy of the Sure. Hearing no comments, this hearing and date. Second. Ail in favor? 7O 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry made a motion to recess. I'll second it. All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon a recess was taken at this time.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to reconvene. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. HEARING #6458 JAMES AND KATHLEEN BLACKLEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for James and Kathleen Blackley. 71 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 Request Section April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals for variance from Article XXII Code 280-116 and Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 19, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swiraming pool and existing shed at; 1) bulkhead setback of less than the code required 75 feet for the pool, 2) location other than the code required rear yard for the shed at: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, adjacent to creek or canal, Southold. How are you? MR. IVANS: Good morning. I am Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental for the applicant. Bruce Anderson couldn't make it today, so I am in his place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you spell your last name? MR. IVANS: Sure, I-V-A-N-S. I just wanted to run through the criteria here and then I will answer any questions that you have about this. The application before you will not have any type of detrimental effect to the neighborhood or property. As said in our application, this pool is proposed in the rear 72 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals yard. It is going to be substantially screened by vegetation on each side and the house itself. We anticipate this having no detriment to the neighborhood properties in terms of visual. As you can see from the aerial, there is -- well numerous properties in the area that enjoy swimming pools. A similar size that is proposed in this application. Additionally, our pool will be proposed and constructed by further reducing any kind of visual impact of the pool. Additionally, as I said in this application, we kind of geared this to the property two doors to the left, which was previously before the Board under the name of Virginia Campbell. That was a pool that had similar setbacks from the bulkhead. We are a couple of feet actually further from the bulkhead. We wanted to mimic that application based on the criteria that this Board approved. In terms of environmental impact, we don't anticipate any in this application. We did receive Trustee approval for this as well as DEC. Additionally, with the Trustee approval, we will be establishing a non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. And we again, we don't see any environmental impact by 73 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals implementation of this project. I am here you may have. Okay. Let's I don't have any Gerry? Did you receive a the to answer questions that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: with Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: letter from a neighbor? MR. IVANS: Yeah, there MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was person that MR. was an e-mail. this the same begin you were referring to? IVANS: No, I believe they are right to the west. The property adjacent is two doors down to the west. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I see it. MR. IVANS: I apologize that our client didn't contact the neighbor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What did setback was MR. That was originally -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, I apologize. MR. you say the the one that you did two -- IVANS: Actually, we didn't do it. IVANS: It's okay. It's two doors 74 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 April 7, down. I believe that was 50 bulkhead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: number? MR. IVANS: That was MEMBER GOEHRINGER: number? MR. IVANS: the Board -- does 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals feet from the What was that variance May 10, 1999. Do you have a variance Yes, 4683. And I could supply the Board want a copy? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have it. One of the unique parts about Harbor Lights is, a lot of the lots are very (In audible) as well as the bullheaded areas. Are there any (In audible) determination that you would see that there would be a great difference between this particular property and that '99 variance? MR. IVANS: In terms of, it's pretty similar. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any feeling regarding the letter that I had asked you to refer to? MR. IVANS: From the neighbor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. IVANS: I mean, what they are saying, that Yes. I understand exactly they had conformed to 75 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals the setbacks, but this application, the owner was looking for more of a free form pool. They did not believe that they could push everything up against the existing decking or the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason why the kidney shaped pool is placed in this location as opposed to moving it closer to the house? MR. IVANS: Again, they didn't want to have the pool so close to the existing deck. They didn't want to turn it into a patio. They want a little outdoor space for the swimming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it were rotated. MR. IVANS: I see what you are saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Cranked a little bit towards the left, parallel to the house, it would slightly reconfigure -- MR. IVANS: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are going to set that back a little more. MR. IVANS: So counter clockwise? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Do you see what I am saying? 76 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MR. IVANS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They could have a further set back by rotating it to this location. I would rather them propose an amended setback as opposed to what it would look like and so on. And then come back with that amended proposal. What the Board has to do is grant the lease possible variance. MR. IVANS: Sure, I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The more you can conform. The patio, bring it back a little bit from the bulkhead -- MR. IVANS: I can definitely turn it counterclockwise and I understand (In audible) kidney shaped pool on the southern size. I will try and maximize. I mean, can the Board give me a little guidance in what they want to see? Are we looking at, if I could get a couple of more feet? (In audible) that will increase the setback, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: probably have to pull it back together. MR. IVANS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: but the larger is going to turn. You will a little bit all Pull it back towards 77 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 78 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the house. MR. IVANS: Okay. A similar instance with the Campbell, I think they approached the Board with a setback of 50 feet. And I think the Board told them to kick it back about two more feet. So if I could kick it back similar to that and turn it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I would suggest to see it as much conforming as possible. MR. IVANS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The maximum you can increase that setback, and feasible, is what we are looking for. MR. IVANS: Yeah, I will discuss it with the client. Does the Board have issues with the shed too? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we are going to mention that. George, questions? MEMBER HORNING: do you have any Yeah, since you mentioned the shed. How did it get to be there? Was it as built without a permit? MR. IVANS: Yes. It was built without permits five years ago. 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Around five years ago? MR. IVANS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: In your documentation here, the short environmental form, Question 10 asked, does the action involve a permit or approval, etc for an agency and you said, "yes." As stated which one, you said the DEC and the Trustees. And I am a little confused in Number 11, does the action have a current permit or approval and you said "no," and yet you have submitted the Trustees permit. MR. IVANS: That was probably was a typo and I could clarify. MEMBER HORNING: So the answer for 11 is "yes?" MR. IVANS: Yes. I can remedy that. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, if you will. MR. IVANS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we are talking about, the size of the shed didn't actually require a permit, but the placement of it in the side yard is the real issue. MR. IVANS: Sure. MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, he said that he 79 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals is amended is answer to Number 11 on the short form to "yes." CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is on the environmental -- MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken, questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Why don't we do this. Let's adjourn the hearing. We can't get you on in May. We are just absolutely booked, but we can put you back on for June to come back on before us. I will give you my feedback on the shed right now. Since you have dry space on the one side, you still have clearance and access and since it is pretty well screened from the neighbors and it is quite small in size, I will only speak for myself, and that is all I am permitted to do. I don't have an objection for the shed staying where it is. Rather to have it picked up and move it. It is almost in the rear yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pardon me for 80 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals interrupting. I don't want to prohibit you to the swimming pool also. MR. IVANS: Plus another issue that Bruce pointed out, if we relocated it further towards the water, it becomes more in view to neighbors of the west anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I to ask if there the am going is any comments from the audience for this application? MR. FITZGERALD: I have a letter from the Please. I am Jim Fitzgerald, and (In audible) address you in that situation. We have no objection to the swimming pool. Everybody should have a swimming pool, if they wanted. We do have concerns about the application itself. And the effects of those concerns might (In audible) of the structures involved and we would like to share those concerns with you. The project, as submitted -- MEMBER HORNING: Could you identify the property and the owner for the Board? MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, yes. It's Lesley Graham who is the adjacent property owners to the west. MEMBER HORNING: MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. The project as submitted 81 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals appears to be designed without any regard restrictions of the town (In audible). And (In audible) because like also the simple fix to the existing application. And along those lines, the LWRP in his review, he says that he finds the project consistent to the greatest extent applicable. The required amount of relief could be reduced. Could have been reduced. And the applicant in the ZBA application form says that the requested of 27% is not substantial. What would be substantial? Also the application for the applicant, it says the alleged difficulty has not been self created of among other things (In audible) including the additions proposed. The 75 foot thing goes into effect when the house was built. I think it is at least kind of self created. With regard to the shed, I will read for you the Town Code, (In audible) to it's location in the side yard was setback to the property line is inadequate (In audible). These deficiencies are easily corrected and not by a variance. For the first time the project has been designed without any regard to Code. The fact that merely turning of the access pool so that the the Town the footprint to the (In 82 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals audible) would substantially reduce the required relief. That is all I have. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anything else from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to adjourn this hearing to June 2nd at 1:00 o'clock p.m. to review an amended setback application. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6460 - NORTH FORK COMMUNITY THEATER 83 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 84 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for North Fork Community Theater. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's December 1, 2010 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for lot line change at; 1) lot size less than the code required 20,000 square feet per Bulk Schedule in HB District, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 25 feet, 3) less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet, at: 12700 Sound Avenue and 12605 Main Road, Mattituck. MS. HOEG: Good afternoon, Karen Hoeg, H-O-E-G, for the applicant, from Twomey and Shea. I actually have the additional mailings and a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. Do you have comments from the Planning Board? MS. HOEG: Yes, I do, and they are actually attached to the Memorandum of Law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And from Tom McCarthy? MS. HOEG: Yes. letter as well from one There is an additional of the adjacent property 85 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 owners stating that they have no objection to the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MS. MESIANO: I understand a little of the factual information the North Fork Community Theater is in contract with the Mattituck Presbyterian Church. That is handled by Mr. Ehlers and he is here. We hope to obtain the necessary lot line modification re-subdivision. So that the property as described in the contract can be separated by the remaining (In audible) by the church and can face the theater. The property that we (In audible) and purchase the nonconforming theater building which is currently being used by North Fork Community Theater. Prior to 1970, a portion of that property sought to be subdivided on which the building was currently owned by the theater. The property is designated on the current tax map, which is attached to the memo of law, so you can see where the lines are. On the property immediately adjacent to the west of -- west of the property, is the gravel parking area utilized by the theater in conjunction with the theater and it is proposed that a new lot line be created that 86 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 includes the lot that and originally owned by the theater. as the property to the west of that, the theater is currently on As well which is the gravel parking area. The original theater line was conveyed to the church through deed dated June 9, 1970 and since that time it has been leased to the theater from the church. The (In audible) fire have -- rather than have the theater leave the current site, we have entered into an agreement. You can see from the Southold Planning Board memo, they have recommended approval of the variance, noting that they will allow the theater to use the lot to be increased in sodding and also note that the use of the two parcels will be (In audible) with the Town's comprehensive plan. As you can see the setback variances that we have requested which are set forth in the application, as well as explained in the memorandum of law, from the building will stand "as is." There will be no construction. No increase in traffic or noise. If the variances are granted for the setbacks, try to keep the tax maps as close as they are doing the lot line changing. east side of we The setback on the the property, there are graves that 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals come right up to the building that you can see in photographs that were sent to your office. We can see where the headstones are placed right next to the building, which is why the setback variance at that particular location is 1.1 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, site inspections. MS. HOEG: Ail right. So basically because of the existing use of the property line at 26 (In audible) the eastern line is proposed to move slightly to the west, changing the side setback of the proposed 1.1 and that if it was moved closer, a variance would still be needed based on the HB Zone in that area. This applicant can't readily obtain the existing we all do graves without the variance request. So that is the reason why we are seeking these variances. As I said, the theater wants to stay in its location that's its in. It's vital to the area. The addition in the lot size will provide for additional parking for the theater as well as the parking across the street. We objection from any of the for received no adjoining property owners. 87 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: unique one. MS. HOEG: Yes. Certainly, a very MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed lot line would permit the existing graves to be entirely in the proposed Lot 2? MS. HOEG: They would remain where they are, yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that would have the proposed entirety of the graves for within the proposed Lot 2 of the cemetery? MS. HOEG: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And no remainder of the grave would be in the proposed Lot 17 MS. HOEG: Right. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that would settle the circumstance -- MR. EHLERS: I would like to address that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. MR. EHLERS: Richard Ehlers, counsel to the church. We agonized with some of the graves with the surveyor, the issue of where the graves are to the headstones. Headstones are placed at 88 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 89 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 the head of the body but not necessarily facing down at the body. In the older times, they were reversed and facing the headstones, you were not standing on the grave. As near as we can tell, that is the situation of this case. The headstones run about 5 to 6 feet off the side of the building, with the writing out from the building. So standing looking at the grave, the bodies are to (In audible). However, we were concerned that we were wrong, so we asked the surveyor to move the line and so we were confident without any doubt that we would be within that area. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, there is really no way of knowing that, and I don't suggest -- I believe what you say. And so, what you are proposing will permit all the existing graves to be in the cemetery and not in the theater parking area? MS. HOEG: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So rear yard and the side yard. MS. HOEG: That's correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is all I had to ask. 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. You mentioned the lot was owned by the theater at one point; is that correct? MS. HOEG: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And it was sold in 19707 MS. HOEG: I can get the exact date for you. It's a portion of it 1970 was owned by the theater. MEMBER HORNING: I am curious why it was sold to the church? Financial hardship? MS. HOEG: I am not aware of any. MR. EHLERS: We had some trouble researching, that the oil (In audible) of the mechanics used it as a lodge. We are thinking the 40's and 50's. And we believe it was a church prior to that. So it was a church that became a mechanics hall that became a community theater, that we now seek to finalize back to the theater. A church should never own a theater. The interest of people who act and people who worship can be different, and so it would be helpful to the church and the theater (In audible) without oversight or with regard to the other entity. 90 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 91 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 But the use, that public use, a church, a mechanic and a theater. That is what it has always been and we are actually making it larger because we are going to the west with the Town property. It is not on the tax map. As I recall the tax map, when you go down the other side of the property where we are greatly expanding or diminishing the nonconforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: your name for the record? MR. EHLERS: E-H-L-E-R-S. Avenue, Can you just spell 456 Griffing Riverhead, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: I have other details. Do you propose it was the church that those graves are associated with or not? MR. EHLERS: I am also the President of the Board of the Bethany Cemetery. What looks like as one cemetery, it's actually two cemeteries. The lands behind the church going to this structure are the old burial grounds of the Mattituck Presbyterian Church. And that is church property dedicated burial you go to the left of the church, picket fence was along, ground. If where the to the west on the main April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 92 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 road. Then you pickup the old Bethany Cemetery, which is a separate cemetery organization. But those graves do not come near to that structure. There is a cesspool in the rear of the building and you saw perhaps that cover, which we put in such a way on the survey that those would be property to be convey as an easement but at some point, if they don't need that, then it will just convert to cemetery property. That is an existing structure. MEMBER HORNING: Have you considered the building maintenance and access in case they would have to set up scaffolding or something? MS. easement. HOEG: Yes. There would have to be a We would allow to go onto the property to fix whatever they needed to do, and the setbacks that are nonconforming. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is one of the most unique situations that I have seen in the 31 years. I have to tell you. Mr. Ehlers, the way that I would get that information for you is have the undisputed pleasure of sitting with my fellow firefighters on a Monday evening and talking with the history of Mattituck. The only April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 93 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 way I can relate this to the Board is to tell -- is to ask them and to us eldest persons, who are great friends of mine. One of which is a prior sergeant from this wonderful Town by the name of Barney Harris and the other one is also a very good friend of mine by the name of, Allen Dickerson. So I will ask them that question and I will relate that question and I will tell the Board when I see them on the third Wednesday of this month and I like me to? MR. EHLERS: will also call you, if you would I would greatly appreciate it. get an answer there. will be helpful. I ask the guys at the club, and I didn't So anything that you have MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should point out to you that we are going to have an arraignment here very shortly. I would assume that is going to happen when we see the police car show up and the person handcuffed come start of it right now. just wanted to mention that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: audience in. And this could be the So we are not sure. I to you. Okay. Anyone in like to address this application? (No Response.) the April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 94 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 further the hearing date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no comments, I will make a motion to close and reserve decision to a later MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6445 IRENE RUTKOSKI ESTATE. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next application before us is Irene Rutkoski, which is So there is no need to read the would you just state your name for a carryover. legal. Pat, the record? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Estate of Irene Rutkoski and Judy Barker, who is the executrix. I would like to start off with just a cleanup because in the time since the last hearing, we did verify that your information was better than mine. The zoning designation of April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 95 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 the two properties is R-40. When I looked at my map, my eyes must have shown my aging. So that is the zoning. Also in the interim, we did apply for a pre CO, for the barn and the house. The barn is on the easterly parcel. The house is the westerly parcel. We -- the application was made. Ail fees were paid. They did the inspection but the Building Department, I am not sure if there is a computer problem or there computers were done, the CO's were supposed to be issued by now, and they couldn't print them. So they said it was no problem, they issued it but they just couldn't physically produce them. So as soon as I get them, I will supply them to you. That is all I can say. I know they are typing. want me time? clear, it's just a question of I don't know to what extent, do you to recap what we talked about last Do you have any particular questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe it was because we wanted to find the clear MS. MOORE: Yes. The AC versus th R-40. clarified. MEMBER DINIZIO: zoning? It made a difference. So that has been So when can expect those April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 96 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 pre CO's? MS. yesterday. MOORE: I actually expected those Then I called this morning and we were going to pick them up and they didn't know what the problem was. MEMBER DINIZIO: sure. program software. MEMBER DINIZIO: out? It's not weeks? MS. MOORE: I hope not. I am not 100% I think they just installed a new computer They can't hand write one MS. MOORE: I don't want to -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Never mind. MS. MOORE: I mean, they are very courteous all the time. So they know we are looking for them because we have been calling regularly. You do have the history from the last properties and these larger farm tracts. parcel, that was different owners. were created by deed and The land to the north bought at different times from And they were owned -- they were both put that was never changed, so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: questions. in the husband and wife's name and I don't have any I think we went over everything and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals yOU have just done what we asked you to do. Does any Board member have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER HORNING: No, I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we can do close this subject to receipt of the CO's. MS. MOORE: Yes. That is fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then have audible) days to make a decision? Does that sound okay? MS. MOORE: Yes. Vicki, do you (In audible) they know you guys are looking for it? MS. TOTH: Okay. MS. MOORE: (In audible) (Stepped away from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to reserve decision at a later the pre CO's and date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. Second. Ail in favor? is (In 97 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 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6435 - JEFF ANDRADE. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: is for Jeff Andrade. That is am going The next application a carryover and I to move to open up that hearing. That application #6435. The applicant was to be before us at 1:30. The time is now lets say, 10 minutes of 2:00 there about and let the record reflect there is no appearance by the applicant or any representative. So I am going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Jim. Ail in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) **************************************************** {Whereupon, the hearings concluded.) 98 April 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 99 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of the Hearings. Jessi~ DiLallo Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: April 29, 2011