Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/03/2011 Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK X TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York REC~XV~D BOARD OF APPEALS November 3, 2011 10:10 a.m. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - JAMES DINIZIO, JR. GEORGE HORNING Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member MEMBER GOEHRINGER - Member Chairperson/Member - Member (Absent) JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney VICKI TOTH - Secretary Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: Joan Berglund #6479 Joan Berglund #6511 David Moore #6515 Patrick Treanor Cathrin Kenneth Heidt %6516 Barbara Terrell #6513 Michael and Corrine Slade %6510 Taubin Family Trust %6509 Martin Kosmynka (Kos, LLC) #6514 #6512 Stickney #6517 Page: 3-19 3-19 19-38 38-55 55-62 62-73 73-110 110-114 114-123 123-138 November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING #6479 JOAN BERGLUND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first hearing for the morning is for Joan Berglund. There are two applications before us. I am going to open both of them at the same time. I will read them into the record. It's #6479, applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section 280-13B(13) . The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure at; 75 Edwards Lane, a.k.a, 25605 Main Road, Orient. The second is, request for variance from Article III, Code Section 280-13C and 280-15, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's June 20, 2011 Notice of Disapproval, concerning "as built," construction of an art studio;l) "as built" construction of an art studio is not permitted use, and 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 20 feet, located at: 75 Edwards Lane, a.k.a, 25605 Main Road, Orient. We just received a letter of support November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from Arthur Shaw and Joan Chaturo (phenetic). MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: local determination from Suffolk Do you want a copy? MS. MOORE: Thank you. Good have -- And this is a County. morning. I apartment. This is a beautiful piece of property. Large piece of property. It's on several preexisting out buildings. They're associated with the farm that used to be the entire area behind this house to the Sound. When Mr. And Mrs. Berglund purchased this property, the building where the accessory apartment is proposed, had a CO for a seasonal cottage. And when that -- when they ultimately came to see me and looked at, it was my thought to improve it and make it year name. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. Patricia Moore, on behalf of Mr. And Mrs. Berglund. I also have with me Mr. Payne, who is the son-in-law and future occupant of the accessory CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just state your November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 round. That it seemed appropriate to go through the accessory apartment law and that is why we are here before you. Is to take the preexisting -- it's called seasonal cottage, but they had heat in it. But to improve it and make it a really comfortable space for the family. I can go through first, if you would like, the accessory apartment law, with respect to meeting its requirements. And then we can talk about the additional space, which is the balance that accessory building. If that's all right or take it the other way, whichever you prefer? Is that all right with you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine. MS. MOORE: So to start with the accessory apartment law, we did go through the provision. The daughter and son-in-law, they're going to be the occupants, Mr. Payne and his wife. They're going to be the occupants of the accessory apartment. They're presently -- they're artists. Well, she is an artist. The wife is an artist. They have a gallery, an art gallery in Greenport. They work in Greenport. Work in the Town of November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Southold, and they live in the Town of Southold now. The accessory apartment has been, I want to say redesigned in the sense that, we're meeting the 750 square feet requirement. That was verified by the inspection of the Building Department. And there was -- the Building Inspector suggested putting in a wall so that there would be no access between the accessory apartment and the art studio area. You actually have to go outside to be able to get access to the art studio. Then beyond that, parking spaces -- this is a very large piece of property. They have lots of room for cars and there is right now space next to the accessory apartment, where the cars -- it's all family. So there is really no change to the number of cars that you have in and out of that property. There is no -- there is no other accessory apartment on the property. There is no Bed & Breakfast. It will meet the code requirements under the building code, for it's habitable space. And it is complied with the date requirements of preexisting structure. The house is certainly has -- it's November 3, 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 2O 21 22 23 24 25 probably 1800's but it is constructed. The barn is probably close to the same vintage. So they have Pre-CO's on both the house and the oversized barn, which incorporates the accessory apartment. I think that addresses all the criteria for the accessory apartment. I would be happy to -- if you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have any questions. MS. MOORE: It's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Myself visited this and Gerry did also. MEMBER HORNING: I did also. MS. MOORE: I think everyone did. If I could move on to the -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Variance application. MS. MOORE: Variance application, yes. As I said, this is a large accessory building with a Pre-CO. If you had a chance to look at the barn, you will see that the west side of the barn still has open rafters. It's old original barn area. You can fit November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 horses and carriages and little things like that. Then the center portion of the barn is the area that is -- that the applicant wants to use as an art studio workshop. Purely, workshop -- we should Town Board to change right, artists Orient, it's a these types of space for artists need large spaces the workshops. really persuade the code to allow as of Particularly, in that you -- you know, you with a lot of natural light for the canvas and for the paints and for all the mess that you make. For painting, it's a wonderful space. The space provides for the first floor with a second floor space that has a little bathroom. That is a 1/2 bath with a swap sink and a toilet. It's a working space. At the time that -- Mr. Payne is the contractor as well. When they were renovating the building, because they needed some work, it's an old building and they needed roof repairs and shingling and so on. There was a small modification on the rear side of the building. I tried to take a picture but it's inaccessible actually between it being where strong artistic community. And buildings are a wonderful November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 9 1 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 property line and natural vegetation in this property and the farm in the back. It is a dense vegetation -- really inaccessible between fencing and etcetera. So it's hard to see but it was a small dormer to allow for the extra windows that are high windows for natural light. So it's all related to the art studio. It's for artists, particularly painting medium, natural light is probably one of the most important things for an artist and the space really -- that was provided for with this building. Aside from that, it will remain as it always has been. It would -- it has always been utilized by the homeowners of the house. When they purchased the property, that area had already been improved. The accessory apartment actually had second floor space but again, given -- or the seasonal cottage, I correct myself. But when they came in for an accessory apartment you have to modify and meet the code. So it's actually being compressed and redesigned. It has been redesigned to meet our code. That's pretty much it. You have the written presentation November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 which also -- you know, tracks the standards that we have to meet and all of the standards, I prefer to talk to the Board then read from my presentation, if that is acceptable to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A couple of questions. MS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it's fairly straight forward. With regards to the artist workshop spaces, the application states that it will only be used by family members? MS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are no rentals of that space or future rentals? MS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: to anyone in the past sales There are no This is not used is not used for to the public? MS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: for showing anything? This gallery space? MS. MOORE: It's purely a workspace. I November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 11 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 cited in my dissertation, the number of family members that are artists in this family and it's a very artistic family. of -- Ms. Berglund herself is an artist. daughter -- three daughters and one son all artists. So very talented family and this is really strictly for them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, Lots Her questions? MEMBER HORNING: clear up a little bit Yeah, I just want to of the confusion with the layout on the placement of the building. I will refer to the three documents. One is the Town of Southold where they lists the then, one, two, three, structures, let's say. MS. MOORE: Yeah. MEMBER HORNING: And there is part of the Town record that's in our file, is the Housing section report principal dwelling, and four accessory survey of the described property where in ink now, someone penciled them in, one through five parcels. And then we have a survey by Stanley Ivanson -- MS. MOORE: Ivanson. are November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 MEMBER HORNING: And then someone from, I guess a member of our office, penciled in the numbers, one, two, three, four. And between all three of these things, it's a little confusion on what is what. MS. MOORE: No problem. It did take me while to figure out initially because we do have different numbers documents. MEMBER HORNING: says one on both of these MS. MOORE: Let me are looking. MEMBER HORNING: on different Structure No. 1 documents. take out what -- it you Structure No. 1 seems to be the same on the two surveys and the description is "non-habitable accessory building with two baths." MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER HORNING: Is that the building %1 on the far left? Looking at the survey, the one that is labeled No. 17 MS. MOORE: I don't have -- yes, it is. Yeah. I have a very light copy. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. So then No. 2, seasonal use cottage with large storage November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 area. That is No. 2, in the back side of the property. The piece of building that is the subject of the hearing. MS. MOORE: Right. That is what we're converting to a year-round accessory apartment. MEMBER HORNING: No. 3 is a small frame shed, and it's labeled No. 3 and it's just to the right of this building. MS. MOORE: Yeah, it shows a structure that is 12.2 X 22.2. You know what, I am going to defer -- sorry, wrong building. The pump house is showing -- front of driveway it's a 7.4 X 7.4 framed shed. MEMBER HORNING: So this is labeled correctly, be No. one is No. 3. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And this one should 3. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yep. MEMBER HORNING: No. 4, the wood deck? MS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And then the other No. 5, got it. MS. MOORE: Yeah, I think that -- that November 3, 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 might have been my writing on it, to figure out which was which. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you had No. 3, which is really No. 5. MS. MOORE: Because I was just corrected. I thought the pump house was one that was the shed. Wrong shed. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Very informative presentation and it truly explains what the rules are, more particularly to the upstairs. Very nicely the explained and I do understand it pretty well. MEMBER HORNING: If I may, for the record the, the accessory apartment has a bath on the same floor and the studio, the proposed art studio has a 1/2 bath and is located entirely on the second floor; correct? MS. MOORE: No, I think there is an extra room on the first floor. The steps that go up to the two floors above. So it's not connected to the accessory apartment. It's separate and starts on the first floors, November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 15 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 cleaning space and then extra space up there. MEMBER HORNING: What I wanted to differentiate is that the accessory apartment has one bathroom only? MS. MOORE: Yes. And it's all on the same floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? You may come forward and please state your name for the record. MS. CONANT: Hello, my name is Nora Conant. Good morning everybody. Good morning, neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please spell it? MS. CONANT: Sure. C-O-N-A-N-T, is the last name. First name, N-O-R-A. No "H." Thank survey. And all this sounds wonderful and artist space, yes? Very good. I just have a question and it's related to me, if this was you for explaining which building is which. I think I have it. I was working off of the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 granted, does this run with the property? With the land? Or is it just to the people that are currently the owners? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just to the people who currently own it. MS. CONANT: So, because I am just trying to think past myself, and I'm sorry, past you, so should you decide to sell the property or should else, in some way, have the use of this studio? CHAIRPERSON have to reapply to exceptions permits as area variance does. MS. CONANT: CHAIRPERSON to, whoever the new decided they wanted it be passed on to someone they would then no longer space as an artist WEISMAN: They would then the Board. Special do not run with the land Okay. WEISMAN: They would have owners were, if they to use it for an apartment, they would have to come back before this Board for review, and they would have to prove that they're either renting it to a person on the affordable housing registry of the Town of Southold or a November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 relative. MS. CONANT: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the art studio, we would have to reexamine the purpose and use of that space based upon the circumstances of the applicant. MS. CONANT: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Assurance that it would be continued in the -- MS. CONANT: Okay, great. I am not opposed to it being used as an artist space as described but I've had personal experiences of living behind someone who was a sculpturest and it becomes quite noisy and there is welding involved or glass blowing or furnaces. And I am not suggesting that you have any of that in mind, but just to protect myself and my neighbors, I am just trying to find out could somebody in the family take a lesson to one of these activities glassing blowing and be permitted to pursue them in that space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there are concerns of noise intrusion and so on as a result of the working spaces, the Board has November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an option to condition the use of that space based upon reviewing those codes, and making sure that there are no noise intrusions. I don't know how the Board would feel about limited the medium for an artist to use but I do understand your concerns that you do have. We have had applications for people in Orient who are wood workers and where there are large power tools involved, and we attempted to condition that to make sure there would be some consideration about the hours of operation. You know, we're not Code Enforcement. We're not going out at 9:00 o'clock at night. But the intent is to make sure that everyone in the community is comfortable. MS. CONANT: And I ask particularly, given the distance to the property line and I have complete confidence that you're going to do what you say you are. I think it would be fine if it was in fact for painting and not for public use. There is not going to be a gallery there every Saturday night. I am just trying to determine if that could change because someone felt like changing it. That's November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 19 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the there anyone else in like to address this (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON from the Board? (No Response.) nature of my concern. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. the audience that application? WEISMAN: Anything else CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (See Minutes Aye. for Resolution.) Is would a MOORE The next Board is David Moore, HEARING %6515 - DAVID CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: application before the November 3, 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 #6515. Request for variances from Article XXII Code Section 280-116A(1) and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 17, 2011, updated September 16, 2011, amended October 4, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for "as built" additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling and accessory hot tub at; 1) at less than the code required setback of 100 feet from the top of bluff, 2) more than the code required maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) accessory structure located in other than the code required rear yard on waterfront properties, located at: 21075 Soundview Avenue, adjacent to Long Island Sound in Southold. MS. MARTIN: Good morning, Amy Martin of Fairweather & Brown, 205 Bay Avenue, Gre~nport, as agent representing David Moore concerning his property at 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. I am just going to read a little bit in because it's easier to keep my thoughts straight. I was hired by Mr. Moore to represent him for necessary permit November 3, 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 2O 21 22 23 24 25 remediation by referral from George Costello of Costello Marine who did the necessary repair work to bluff stairway after last, year's winter storm damage, basically to recruit Fairweather & Brown. We had nothing to do with anything on this property until Mr. Costello asked if I would be interested in representing him to clear up some of his "as built" problems. Mr. Moore has an "as built" deck setback and lot coverage issues before you today. The site plan prepared represents the proposed reduction of the size "as built" bluff decking, ramp and walkways to both the bluff stairs and driveway. This is based on a conversation that I had on the onsite meeting with the Town Trustees. They were not happy with the decks proximity to the bluff and recommended to me that we propose to remove the bluff -- ward 9 feet of the 70 foot length of the "as built" deck. And as much as the other decking that is near the bluff as much as possible and then replace that with a 9 foot turf buffer planting and that we contain and redirect all deck runoff landward to a dry well. We're November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposing that the necessary path to the bluff stairs and landing -- stairs landing be made of stone (In Audible) and sand for runoff reason. In researching this project, it came to my attention that the home's footprint at the time of the pool application, quite similar to Dave's footprint, with the exception of the bluff and the deck. A pool surrounded by a wooded deck was approved and given a CO. (In Audible) in the records I was able to review but appeared to be in the range of somewhere in between 1250-1500 square feet if lot coverage. The decking has since been changed to an area of stone patio on grade. This same 1986 plan that time, and pervious stone. showed the driveway since has been Our reduction of lot coverage of just under 1100 square was blacktop at changed to proposed plan shows a due to the removal feet of decking just below the bluff. In 2000 or 2008 the percentage of lot coverage would have been based on the whole property of 39,858 square feet and would have been called 16% lot coverage. While it is now considered 25% due November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the new rules. Not counting the 13,307 square feet of property seaward of the bluff. The "as built" before this remediation requests are -- would've been 29% -- are currently 29% but would have been considered 19% of the property. According to the Assessor's Card, the Moore's have been paying property taxes on the "as built" addition since 2008. Mr. Moore would like to begin remediation of these recommended changes as soon as those permits are allowed, with runoff issues being a primary concern. The last issue is the hot tub in the side yard. Part of the pool that is permitted is already in the side yard and Mr. Moore would very much like to keep the location as it was built into the patio. I have a letter from the adjoining neighbor to the west that states he has no objection to the location of the hot tub. I will give you that, when I find it. I just received this also. And I just -- in the determination of the Board about undesirable change, I believe there is no undesirable change to the "as built's." Everything that we're asking to do is November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 improving already what has been done without permits. That there is -- that there is no other way to achieve the request for area variance. That the requested area variance is not substantial because if it was all permitted when the (In Audible) using everything landward of the bluff. Not that the decking would have been allowed where it is but the lot coverage issue would have been allowed and that we're helping to remediate the problems. No. 4, that this is an improvement. And yes, it was a self created problem by doing it without permits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And certainly the CO that is on the house at the moment is a one-story house -- MS. MARTIN: Yes. And we had done a full plan. There actually was a loft area on the CO part. There was additions made and we had to do a full floor plan to present to the Building Department to show other things that were objected to. We had to show that it wasn't a third-story and things like that. And we have gone through that part and we await your determination before we apply for November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 25 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 documents to get the CO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're aware that we have received a letter from the Town Engineer -- MS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And from Soil and Water, that there is this pipe that is apparently discharging this water over the bluff -- MS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the Town does require that solution prevention, MS. MARTIN: Yes, that discovered by Costello when And you're aware a storm water an Erosion Control Plan? type was they went of it and they -- they were doing the stairwell repair. And it is known by the homeowner, and the process is to find out where it comes from and how to get rid of it. It may already be disconnected, I am not know a that proposing sure. They're aware it has to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 9 foot reduction? You're MS. MARTIN: The Trustees had suggested they would be okay with a -- with November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 26 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 cutting, for their purposes, with erosion at the top of the bluff, that if the deck were cut back 9 feet for the full length, that it would be -- further seaward of 9 feet of everything that exists be taken off. And the proposed plan shows a small stairway to replace (In Audible) the father needed a handicap ramp and all of those things that are going to be any part of that construction. And then any part of the walkways in Trex are going to be removed and where needed, there is going to be stone and sand. And that also goes for around the house and down towards the driveway. So we're taking out, I think it's 1100 square feet decking that is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Trustees have their consideration to deal with. We have ours. And the law requires us to grant the least amount of variance as possible. MS. MARTIN: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why can't that deck, which is quite huge, be cut back after all -- you know, setback from the bluff, which you can not achieve because the house of November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is so close to the MS. MARTIN: CHAIRPERSON proposing 9 feet. deck. MS. MARTIN: CHAIRPERSON be cut back coverage as MS. MARTIN: only -- kitchen, property would bluff. Right. WEISMAN: And now you're That is a very large Okay. WEISMAN: Why can't and thereby reduce the lot well? that I believe it can be. The there needs to be clearance on the the stairs to the front of the somehow have to go passed there. The stairs off the deck. We have proposed what the Trustees suggested and we accept that -- what you have to do to get CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't actually have an application with the Trustees at this time, MS. MARTIN: No, it until this hearing CHAIRPERSON a pre-conference? MS. MARTIN: That way back when I thought do you? they wouldn't was completed. WEISMAN: So this accept was just was a pre-conference you went to the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 28 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Trustees and they were the people that discovered all of those problems and were the lead agency at that time. And I met with them to find out what their concerns would have been. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: dimensions on that deck? CHAIRPERSON MS. MARTIN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: with some dimensions? Do you have any WEISMAN: I don't. I don't either. Can you provide us plan. good. which MS. MARTIN: Yes, I have a full site CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be MEMBER HORNING: I was going survey we were going to use. to ask have it. MEMBER HORNING: And I don't think we have anything of the reductions that Ms. Martin is referring to. MS. MARTIN: The reductions are shown. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. That 9 feet is essentially the lower portion of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: None of them November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deck. the have MS. MARTIN: It's where the ramp is and other deck goes all the way out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is just a huge deck as well. MS. MARTIN: It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So as I said, we to grant the minimum amount of variance as possible. And 9 feet of the bluff, which is severely eroded and eroding, which hopefully will be improved by virtue of your storm water plan on site. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any re-nurturing of the bluff that the applicant is planning to do? MS. MARTIN: When they put the stairs in, I think they have already -- the County has noticed that there are new plants there and being established. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see that. But is there an entire planting to re-nurture the entire bluff? MS. MARTIN: Yes -- no. Just the non-turf and so far what we have discussed. But I'm sure -- usually Costello does -- November 3, 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It says right here. The top of the bluff has some existing vegetation covered on the majority of the bluff facing the (In Audible) Beach Grass bushes have been planted on the bluff; and however, they are not yet established, erosion has occurred. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I say that is because you can lose 50% of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is true. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what the normal depth rate is on the bluff. MEMBER DINIZIO: May I say something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think with Costello they take care of it. Seems to me what they built down there will hold up whatever has been falling down. MS. MARTIN: It's considerably better than it was before the storm. usually follow right up with the MEMBER DINIZIO: There is And they planting. something that does say that. I'm trying in to find here it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just going to November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 31 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go back and look at it once we get the dimensions. MS. MARTIN: Okay. MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand, it's still kind of close to the erosion. It's actually right on it. Was it considered of just making that a covered porch instead? Swing it out to where that 8 foot just is in the house, and just make a porch there where you can just sit out and look. I mean, you have a lot of deck there, on the side of the house. Where the hot tub is. That is all kind of deck where you can sit around and enjoy things. I wondered if you just considered that, and cut that back to about 8 foot coming out of the house? I mean, it would give you enough to sit there. MS. MARTIN: Even to where the breakfast room is? MEMBER DINIZIO: Here. This is 8 feet. What if you went across the back of the house, like that, and maybe suggest covering it and make it a porch, like in front of a house. You have the pool area, the hot tub area, where you can put a chair and have a November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conversation with view is beautiful and you want that is quite a deck. MS. MARTIN: I somebody. I understand the to have it but MEMBER DINIZIO: I think before, it was more useful for that person to use the ramp to use the backyard. Maybe that is not the case now. MS. MARTIN: From what I understand, Ms. Moore is recently deceased also. And life has changed there. Whether they entertained a lot before and the deck, I have no idea. Maybe that was something that she wanted. I am sure that he will do what you request him to do. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not requesting anything. I was just wondering if you would consider that and perhaps come back with a plan. MS. MARTIN: That something that stays behind the Coastal Hazard line? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would reduce lot coverage and then you would need to amend and submit -- agree. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 33 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the because down. MS. MARTIN: Definitely. Any porch in front is still going to cause over -- it's 25 and it's not going to come MEMBER HORNING: The setback is not shown either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. MARTIN: they changed that, We would -- The original house before there was a little porch on the front and it was 20 feet from the bluff. And they sort of used that line to establish that new kitchen addition. And took that other jog (sic) out and added all that porch. So we can go back to the drawing board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't you come and see, this is what we're talking about. It's basically, keep this, keep that and make that straight across. So we need to know what that setback will be and what the new lot coverage would be. What we are trying to do is obviously make this as much code conforming as we can. You will need the CO and new Erosion Control Plan. Are you in the process of doing something about that? November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 34 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MARTIN: (Stepped away CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (In Audible). from the microphone.) Maybe you better go by the mic. MS. MARTIN: There is a clay barrier by the bluff, so there hopes were to install a good sized dry well in the driveway area. Using that as the collection for runoff and again landward of the house and get everything that was previously towards the bluff back that way. And it has to be done by major machinery to get through the clay barrier. So it's an ordeal. I think Mr. Costello has been talking to someone for Mr. Moore on that in that regard. And I do know that they are very knowledgeable about the pipe that went under the stairs and they are trying to get that redirected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, what's Board's pleasure on this? I think we certainly want to see an amended plan -- MS. MARTIN: With new calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With new lot coverage and see if your client is amenable to doing that and brining things to be more the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compliant to code. MS. MARTIN: CHAIRPERSON see what's happened with Erosion Control Plan. MS. MARTIN: Okay. Okay. WEISMAN: And we want the Sediment and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can close subject to receipt or given the nature of this, I think we would be better off being able to talk to you about it, in case the Board has any questions. MS. MARTIN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe we can carry will this over till that give you MS. MARTIN: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: Can quick questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: Just you got into this situation. had an application denied. MS. MARTIN: to December, or January, enough time? December would be fine. We have room. I ask a couple of for a pool, Right. Sure. to sum up how In 1986 they that was November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 36 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 the MEMBER HORNING: Then they relocated pool. MS. MARTIN: Right. MEMBER HORNING: Then in 1988 they built a pool. Got a building permit for it. Got a CO for the pool. And then sometime after 1988 they, without a permit, built all this miscellaneous decking on their? MARTIN: I believe around 2007 or sure. The only dating I have on it was noticed and the Assessor's in their card as of And then they started MS. 6, I'm not there that have a full drawing September 2008. MEMBER HORNING: assessing it? MS. MARTIN: It was assessed then on, yes. MEMBER the applicant to erosion problem? HORNING: And then what drove come here, was it the MS. MARTIN: The erosion problem alerted the Trustees that all of this had been done without proper permitting and the Building Department also allowed the Trustees at that point, to take as lead agency part November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 37 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that is when Mr. Costello recommend to Mr. Moore that he needed somebody to represent him before you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those dry wells that you are referring to are usually done with cranes. So any information that you can give us would be something valuable. MS. MARTIN: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because they really need to over cut the hole, so that if it caves in, they can continue to go down and pierce that. Sometimes that clay area is much deeper than anticipated. And that may be something that they are investigating at this particular time. MS. MARTIN: Yes, I believe -- you know, test hole and whatever. I haven't been part of that Mr. Costello along process. I can contact and find out how far they are in the engineering and find that out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this application? (No Response.) November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we need more information on the amended plan. The lot coverage, the square footage and Sediment and Erosion Control Prevention Plan. So I am going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing to December 1st and we will put you on MS. MARTIN: CHAIRPERSON second? first at 10:00 a.m. Very good. Thank you. WEISMAN: Is there a MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6516 - KENNETH HEIDT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next hearing is for Kenneth Heidt, #6516. Request for variance from Code Article XXII Section November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 280-116 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 21, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition and construction of a new single family dwelling at: 1) less than the code required setback of 75 feet from a bulkhead, 2) less than the code required single yard setback of 15 feet, 3) less than the code required combined side yard setback of 35 feet, located at: 8530 Peconic Bay Boulevard, adjacent to Great Peconic Bay in Laurel. Garrett, just state your name for the record and I just have to ask you a couple of things. MR. STRANG: Good morning. My name is Garrett Strang, architect. I am representing the Heidt's. I do have some information to share, if you would like to hear it before -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you get started with your presentation, do you have a copy of the LWRP, it was just issued? MR. STRANG: Don't have a copy. That November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 40 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may have been issued with respect to this issue. One that was issue when we received our Trustees permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, this one was received and it states that required setback of 75 from the bulkhead is consistent with them under minor actions from the same side yard setback. Let me give you a copy. MR. STRANG: Very good. Sounds similar. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is one green card missing. MR. STRANG: (In Audible.) (Stepped away from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Proceed. MR. STRANG: Our proposal, as you are aware is to replace the one and a half story seasonal residence, which also has the separate detached one-story guest cottage, as well as a detached garage. And our plans are to replace it with a new one and stay year round residence, having an attached one and a half story garage. The new residence is intended to become a full-time three bedroom home, which will meet the requirements of my November 3, 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 client. The current home does not meet their needs. For the record, they have received Town of Southold Trustees permit and documentation of no jurisdiction from the New York State DEC, which was based on the site plan, which is part of this application. With regard to this setback from the bulkhead. The existing and proposed structures as you will note, are presently and will remain to be obscured to the bulkhead. So that makes for two different setbacks as you look at it. The setback of the existing porch is 61 feet of its closest point, 65 feet of its furthest point from the bulkhead. The proposed porch is 64 feet at its closest point and 75 feet at its furthest point from the bulkhead. Similarly, the setback of the existing house is 66 feet at its closest point and 75 feet at its furthest from the setback of the bulkhead and the proposed is 75 and 80 of the proposed house. 75 and 86, at its furthest point. Ail of which is shown on the site plan. The intention is to keep the location of the proposed dwelling as close as possible to November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that which is existing. But we're also looking to come in alignment with the neighboring parcels. So it is to maintain the general character of the neighborhood. So I would like to bring up to the Board for their information, that sort of houses. an aerial -- a Google aerial shows the alignment of the CHAIRPERSON MR. STRANG: WEISMAN: Okay. You will also note on site plan that I have submitted that the footprint of each of the two adjacent homes is shown. And there is an alignment line that I put on there so that we would now be the bulkhead, at its closest point is approximately 66 feet. The setback of the house to the west from the bulkhead at its closest point is 54 feet. Our proposal falls well within the average of these two existing in alignment with the two neighbors. In addition, I researched some surveys of these properties and have determined by scale, unfortunately because there was no definitive dimension put on those surveys, that the setback of the house to the east from the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 setbacks to maintain that alignment. I would also like to submit for the Board's reference, a copy of the surveys that I to ascertain these dimensions. So that you can have that for your review and records. When the Board reviews this submitted used remove the detached guest cottage and the detached garage and build a new dwelling the attached garage and no guest cottage, maintain that existing five side yard setback. Do to my clients needs, we're proposing that the width of the house be with but information, I hope the Board is in agreement with that granting the relief and we have applied for with respect to the bulkhead neither reduce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detrimental to nearby properties. Regarding the side yard setbacks. The existing house and detached guest cottage is presently 5 feet from the existing property line. And the detached garage is actually right on the lot line. Part of the side yard setback challenges that we have, the lot is shown to be only 70 feet wide. Our proposal is to November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 feet, which allows for a 12 foot setback from the westerly line, which is unfortunately due to the width of the lot. Once again, in reviewing the neighboring surveys, which I have submitted copies to you just now, you will note that the house to the east is approximately 55 feet wide. And the house to the west is approximately 45 feet wide. So once again, I submit that we are within a reasonable average of the neighboring properties, with regard to the width of the house. Also, if you would refer to the survey of the neighbors, on the one to the east, there existing westerly side yard setback is 11.9 feet. Okay. If you lok at the property to the west, and I had to determine this by scale, that the easterly side yard setback of that house is 11.5 feet. The west side setback on that house is 11.5 feet. The west side setback shown on the map is 8.9 feet. A total of 29.3 feet, in their case, all of which are nonconforming also. So that being said, I submit that our proposed 12 foot westerly side is not out of character with either of the neighbors. Now, to get November 3, 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 onto the 5 foot side yard. This particular setback has existed for many years. The garage is on the line with a zero setback. We're attempting to mitigate some of that challenge by removing the cottage and the garage and incorporating them house and maintaining that 5 foot the side yard, there exist to the adjacent strip of land about 13 obviously at 13 feet, it's not It would appear as if the side yard feet, as opposed to 5 feet, because into the main setback. On immediate feet wide, (In Audible). is 18 that lot would never be developed. Furthermore, the distance from our proposed new house and the neighboring house to the east is the 8 feet away. So there is really going to be no visual or no physical impact any neighbor with that much distance between the two structures. So with all that to the Board, I haven't done planned on doing, but if you down Peconic Bay Boulevard, obvious that there are many properties that have accessory structures, being presented and hadn't drive up and it's quite neighboring primary structures, that are either on or November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 46 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very close to the lot line. So once again, I think what we are proposing is really not going to have any negative impact on the character of the neighborhood or impact on the quality of life for any of the neighbor's nearby. That is all I had to say here but I certainly will be happy to answer any questions, I am sure the Board has. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Garrett, you are absolutely correct regarding that right of way. I, of course, grew up in that area. So to my knowledge about six people have that right-of-way through that walking path. And that was only a hypothesis on my part. My question is how high is the house to the ridge line on that (In Audible)? MR. STRANG: That are shown on the elevation sketches, which are again, would be done as sketches. They're not definitive at this point, given that we haven't gotten into the physical final design of the house, until we know what this Board is going to allow. But this get somewhat of representation of what we expect the house to look at when built. And to answer your question, Gerry, on November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 the east side to the ridge, it's 42 feet. It's a steep pitch roof, which makes the ridge higher. It also tends to reduce the impact. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not meant to be derogatory in any way. This is a question that I ask in architects all the time in Mattituck. You put a ladder on that side of the house, which would be on your applicant's property, okay, without actually encroaching on that 17 foot parcel or 13 foot parcel -- MR. STRANG: Good question. The answer that I can give to that is not safely because the angle would be off. But you could put a sizzler of 5 feet, because they are less than 5 feet of width. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Don't they have to be on a total flat piece of property? MR. STRANG: Yes, they do. And fortunately this piece of property is flat. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the only concern that I have. Of course, as you know, in the past and all the times that you have come before this Board, is that the -- I November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 48 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 appreciate the 12 feet on the other side from looking at it, just my view for the access to the water, but maybe might want to consider a little more on that side? I am just pointing it out to you. MR. STRANG: mentioned about the done some research and benefit of Mr. Beidt's some research as well. The point that you strip next door, I I also have the able to find any deeded But yeah, no problem, we can property to get to the beach. have father-in-law, who did And we weren't really access to those lots. go over that who owned the property had our own an issue on Again, we weren't able to Does this this right-of-way? across the private who had the applicant GOEHRINGER: Probably not the people street. We of course, beach. It was always right there. MR. STRANG: find anything. MEMBER HORNING: have access to MEMBER MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is going to date me. We used to swim at that beach, many, many, many moons ago. So we were friends with November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 because they have water front. MEMBER HORNING: I mean, to put a ladder up? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the whole issue. MR. STRANG: I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If he is going to answer. He is going to have to come to the mic. MR. STRANG: You have to introduce yourself. MR. CAREY: I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's all right. MR. CAREY: My name is Tom Carey, I am the father-in-law. We live in 150 Park Avenue, Mattituck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you spell your last name, please? MR. CAREY: C-A-R-E-Y. The right-of-way, goes back to 1976. It's a separate piece of property owned by the Spack's, who owned the same piece of property now. It was handed down to their daughter, Arabella McDermott through the Estate. And November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 the Arabella Estate is the same property that (In Audible) purchased. Ken, as far as we know, is the last owner of that property. That is the last information that we know about it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we know whose paying the taxes on it? MR. CAREY: If you want -- I don't want to digress. The answer is, I went to the County Clerk's Office and they have no record of it. I think the problem was the -- since the two pieces of property were owned by the same party for all these years. I think the County and the Town treated it up until about 1976 or 1986 as a single parcel. In 1986, I noticed in the Town records in the Town's Assessor's Office, the -- the lot was listed as 83 feet. And that is what the Town Assessor's Office had. If you go to the County's Office, they don't have nothing. In fact, in talking with the lady at the County Clerk's Office, they indicated that the map may have to be redrawn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That question of right-of-way is really not before us. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 MR. CAREY: I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who maintains vague. MR. CAREY: (In Audible). And I don't know if the Town records or County records ever caught up to the fact it has always been two separate parcels going back to at least that far. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's all my questions. Let me see what the Board has. MEMBER HORNING: When you did the research of the neighborhood, did you happen to research any variances of the neighborhood? Any variances for side yard setbacks or bulkhead setback? MR. STRANG: There was -- I was unable to find anything on the west property that has smaller setback and (In Audible) although it was renovated in the last 10 or 12 years. But again, there was no record for the permit of that renovation or variance or denied it? MR. CAREY: That is a big question among the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's kind of November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 meeting a variance. The house to the east, was a tare down and a rebuild and there was no disapproval in the Town records indicating that there was an action by the Zoning Board on that lot. MEMBER HORNING: You did research to the existence of any variance in the neighborhood? MR. STRANG: Yes. Just the immediate, either side. MEMBER HORNING: In recent years, this is what we have looked at, in what variances exist. MR. STRANG: That is what I tried to do. The one that did surprise me was the lot to the east, which was rebuilt about a decade ago. It would seem to me that that one might have been referred to this Board for consideration the bulkhead. happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: for nonconforming side yard and I don't know if that ever I understand the average setback of the bulkhead. I can see that there is a context there. When you look at the character of the neighborhood and so November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 ~7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on. But a 5 foot setback, I think it is irrelevant. At the very least, I would think that you could do better. Especially that you are not fully designed and have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort in this. And even if you had, I would probably say the same thing. It's a very substantial variance. Granted it is a narrow lot. So the Board might want to consider for this piece of property. The footprint is just to wide for the property. So since you know how to design, you can make that narrower. don't -- bedroom plans. MR. Do whatever you have to do. We I didn't know that it was a three house because we don't have any floor STRANG: designing -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: bedroom house, something that MR. STRANG: No. That is what we are With a three you should be able to do is not so much wide. The need is for gathering space and entertainment space. You know, obviously with a waterfront parcel, you want as much -- take advantage as much as the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 space as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Other comments from the Board, or questions? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) MEMBER HORNING: Are we going to ask for new plans? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah. The Board would probably prefer to see an alternative survey from you. MR. STRANG: That could be done. I did ask my client to your proposal on that 10 foot, and he is amenable to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If that's the case, I think we can have a move to close it received to an amended site plan. MR. STRANG: Perfect. I will have that for you next week. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make that motion. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6513 - BARBARA TERRELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is for Barbara Terrell, #6513. Request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 2, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for construction of a porch addition and "as built" deck addition to existing single family dwelling at; 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, at: 2630 Gillette East Marion. MS. TERRELL: Good morning. Would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. you state your name for the record? MS. TERRELL: Yes. Barbara Terrell, Drive, 2630 Gillette Drive. November 3, 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 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Do you have any green cards for us. Thank you. And I will give you this. This is notice from the County that your application is for local determination. That they have no interest in this application. So what would you like to tell us? MS. TERRELL: We are -- we would like to add a porch onto half of the front of he house. It would be, I would 7 feet X 18 1.2, which would include a 3 foot overhang over the front door. It would just be on one half of the home. As the "as built" deck, a little bit of confusion as to why we needed a variance. You have the paperwork there, and at the end, I have enclosed a title search from 1983 to when my mom first purchased the property and the title insurance mentions the deck. We then bought the house from my stepfather in 1997. That is also here. The title insurance also mentons the deck. I don't know what the paper is called, but the one that lists all the people who owned the property -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Property card. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 MS. TERRELL: Right, the property reference card, I'm sorry. On the back is the original picture of the house, and the deck seems to be there when the house was first built. It was not an addition. Certainly, when my mother purchased it. don't know where an error came in. We just always assumed that there was a CO for it or that none was required. It was part of the original design of the home. And unfortunately, when we paid the -- it was an additional $750.00 part of this variance, cutting into the amount to include the deck as which certainly of money that we had the porch. If to why that was ear-marked (sic) for building we can have an explanation as required for the deck? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Apparently the Building Department who makes the determination -- you can't come before this Board unless you go through the Building Department. The Building Department determines that there was no Certificate Occupancy for the deck. So the way to do is legalize it. Because the required of that rear November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 yard setback is 35 feet. And your house is probably about 35 feet and the deck was probably built and it is 26 feet. So it would be a 9 foot variance to obtain that deck. MS. TERRELL: So there is no way it could have been grandfathered in because it must have been built when the house was originally built and the deck -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unless, I am mistaken that is when the Building Department -- you would have had a Pre-CO on the house. Meaning, it predated the dwelling -- or a corrected CO. MS. TERRELL: I went through two title insurances, one for my mom and one for us and nothing was picked up. We were just a little bit hit hard for that additional $750.00 fee. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They only looked at it from the front of the house. Never the back. MS. TERRELL: The picture even though this design was on there. The back of the card shows the deck from much earlier. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think that they ever looked at the back of the house. Nove~ber 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 59 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think we would have to do our own internal research but in the meantime, this is the application that is before us. We can just address those issues. We have all been out there inspected the site. So we have seen the front and the back. My observation are that your back yard is very private. It has no visual impact on anybody. It's heavily wooded back there. You are quite far away from your neighbors on either side. And it is not an enormous deck either. I notice that your proposal to your front yard is similar to your neighbor, only theirs run across the whole front of the house. MS. TERRELL: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually that means that the variance that you are requesting is approximately 1/3 of the width of your house. The rest remains conforming. Those are my observations. Lets just see if the Board has any comments. Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Only, I think we will make a decision on the deck and research it. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 60 1 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. TERRELL: I believe this lady to your right did search for a CO and there was none. Again, it was certainly not our intent to defraud or try and get away with something for years. We just assumed that it was taken care of. from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 1974. MS. TERRELL: That We have a survey was when the house was first built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it's not showing the deck on the back. MS. TERRELL: It was built sometime between '74 and when my mom purchased it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. This house is not so uncommon. So that is what have. Okay. Research is done. Any other comments or suggestions? MEMBER HORNING: Just the nature of the foundation porch? A slab? MR. TERRELL: We are one. What is for the front going to put benefit do you pilings in. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. MEMBER DINIZIO: What we November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 61 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gain there. from the front porch? MS. TERRELL: You really want me to go MR. TERRELL: We just retired and we want to have a rocking chair. MS. TERRELL: I have always, always wanted a front porch. And this is a second home for us and our house that we have in Lindenhurst is not the style that would have a porch. And a porch has always been one of those dreams. Just to have some chairs out front. You know, we both just retired. Wave to the neighbors. I love the look of it. The look of the porch, I think will add to the house and the country feel. And he is going along with my whim. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. 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 this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. November 3, 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 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6510 - MICHAEL AND CORRINE SLADE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Michael and Corrine Slade, %6510. Request for variance from Code Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's August 11, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at: 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) less than the code required setback of 75 feet from a bulkhead, located at: 1435 West Road, adjacent to Wickham Creek, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to represent November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this application? Please just state your name for the record and then I can talk to you. MS. STEELMAN: Okay. My name is Nancy Steelman. I am with Samuels & Steelman Architect, in Cutchogue, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We have a letter from Suffolk County determining for local determination. We have LWRP recommendation that just came in. Do you have a copy of that? MS. STEELMAN: I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we will give you a copy of it so you can address it, if you so chose to. MS. STEELMAN: Also, I have the Trustees approval for permit and I have DEC's non-jurisdiction. cards, in, copies for proceed. MS. MS. TOTH: Do you have we're missing three? you can just send them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the rest of the any green When they We will get Board. Please the come STEELMAN: Okay. This is primarily November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're adding on to the existing house with a new living room addition. It's approximately 15.10X 20 feet wide and we have a sort of unusual site. We have a situation where normally in an R40 zone you would have 20 foot side yard but because we have water front along the entire side of this property, we have a 70 foot side yard setback. So it really diminished the area in The or SO where we could locate the new addition. existing house is approximately 19 feet away from that bulkhead edge, along with the pool. Both structures are in front of our proposed addition. The site is somewhat pie shaped and as a result the house is set further into the narrowness portions of the house. Quite a ways away from the street. That came in about 7 1/2 feet 25 feet from the bulkhead side. I can answer CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: actually that I am sure it about 50 feet. We're asking for from that rear yard and 75 feet required on our own any questions. There is a shed probably wouldn't even need a permit but it's not on your site plan. Actually, I think it's in the front November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 yard. You will have MR. SLADE: sits on a couple were laid there attached to anything. to come to the mic. The shed is 85-10 and it of pieces of lumbar that to balance it. It is not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It just should have been on the site plan, that's all. And your name, sir? MR. SLADE: I am Michael Slade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. It to be in the front yard and come forward, I will show house is? Yeah. But see here, if you draw a line from your house to the side here, in the side yard of your part of it is in front of your should really be over here. DINIZIO: More forward. SLADE: (In Audible. really needs if you want to You see where the what happens the front of part of that is house and house. It MEMBER MR. yOU . (Stepped away from the mmcrophone.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Put it over here. It should be in a conforming location. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we're trying to do, we don't want you to pay for a variance. Just put it in the front yard. Anywhere you want in the front yard. MR. SLADE: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: address what is before us. looking at -- it is an odd and surrounded by water. MS. STEELMAN: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: out there and looked at it. yard setback of 42.5 and the code 50. The bulkhead is setback code requires 75. Ail right. has questions. Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? We have all been SO it's a rear requires of 50 and the Let's see who submission to the LWRP, I will refer to Policy No. 8. I look at these, and I found it unusual. So you are saying that the construction and use of the residence will Good. Okay. Let's So the we're lot. Oddly shaped MEMBER HORNING: I will ask one question. I am mostly curious. On the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make use of the Town's disposal and recycling center. Can you comment on little bit? MS. STEELMAN: I don't don't know what No. 8 is. that have that. I a -- I would think that -- MEMBER HORNING: That's fine. It sounds progressive in a way. MS. STEELMAN: Okay. Good. I am glad to hear that we have answered it in a good way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nancy, how are you MEMBER HORNING: Policy %8 is, Minimize the environmental derogation in he Town of Southold from the solid waste and hazardous substances and waste. And then it refers you to Policy Pages 34-38, for to evaluate how you're minimizing the environmental derogation from solid waste, scrap and building material. MS. STEELMAN: Well, I think our answer was merely that any demolition that we would be doing is disposed of at the Town of Southold landfill. And that it would be carted off to their other locations. I think that any demoing of any deck or construction November 3, 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 today? you day. MS. STEELMAN: Good. Not as good as guys are doing. You guys have an easy MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: schedule and I am not going about it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lets the new addition. I am looking the front yard area and that area, adjacent, or continuos, the new garage -- Well, no. We're right on to say a word with start with at the plan in is a storage or adjoining to MS. STEELMAN: The existing that new addition, correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the garage height that addition is not going to make the of the garage any -- MS. STEELMAN: No, it's actually continuing that shed down. Now that is not part of the variance. That is conforming. of height MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lets go on to the living room addition or the new area. Okay. And over there walking across the deck -- by the way, I was present on the Board in 1986 November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 when the -- when the Stahl's were requesting the swimming pool. I am very familiar with it. The house has a magnificent view. MS. STEELMAN: It's amazing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I probably wave to you when I go by in the boat. My grandchildren has a fetish for stopping at Wickham Creek on the other side and getting out and picking rocks. That has nothing to do with that. MS. STEELMAN: Great times. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anything that you would like to tell us about this addition? MS. STEELMAN: Well, it was somewhat of a challenge on this project. In a sense that, architecturally, this was something -- in San Francisco, this would have been a Californian contemporary house. So we had added at one point, years ago, a section on the ladder side for addition. And at that time, it was very easy to just go up and maintain that roof. To try and keep it looking as if it was never added on. So in this case, very similar situation where we November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a shed roof over here where this living room is and the only obvious thing was just to continue that shed roof plain out. The windows are the same, as per my new design. And there is an existing cathedral ceiling in that living room now, that will continue. It's a simple, no brainer solution. We did try and resolve up some of these variance issues. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you take the deck on the survey and around the pool, or the new deck that you're anticipating, what was the discussion with the Trustees regarding the decking material? MS. STEELMAN: I was quite surprised that they did not ask that question. And it doesn't state anything specific in that permit. My surprise, it will probably be Mahogany decking, instead of Trex or anything else. But they have not said anything about that. applicant's telling anticipating? MS. STEELMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are your you that that they're It hasn't really been November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 71 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sounds like a good idea for composite or recycled material, even if you go to the specifications -- MS. STEELMAN: Exactly. They had the right idea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there were or no prohibitions to treated lumbar anything -- MS. STEELMAN: No, nothing. We wouldn't put treated lumbar on it for decking. They have a lot of little kids, grandkids. They would stay away from that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then going to the LWRP. I know that you just have received it. Are you still going to follow through on the recommendations on the LWRP Coordinator? MS. STEELMAN: Yeah. I guess I am surprised that this wasn't completed at the time of our Trustees public hearing. That is part of their requirement. So, yeah, I can basically see that there is a request for a dry well for the pool. Which is no problem. We can do that. And I guess the only thing here was regarding a landscaped buffer, November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 which -- CHAIRPERSON wetlands part. MS. STEELMAN: would really have a doesn't specifically WEISMAN: Over by the Yeah. I don't think we problem with that. It say any dimension back from that area. There is some general landscaping on that side. So I am not sure, unless you guys have a little bit more information on it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ail right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other Board members have questions? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any one in the audience, like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. Ail in favor? Aye. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I make a motion to research for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. HEARING #6509 - TAUBIN FAMILY TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a carryover. This if for Taubin Family Trust, #6509. Since this is a carryover, we don't have to read the Notice of Disapproval. And we got your request. MS. MOORE: May I start? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you may start. MS. MOORE: Okay. I did -- just to -- November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 first with some bookkeeping purposes, you asked me last time to come back or to send you a better timeline, which I submitted on October 19th. We kind -- I think I wrapped up all of the timelines. Since then, I have continued to do research, only because, it just didn't make sense to me, to have all the activity that occurred in '77 and subdivision in '71, taking place and no permit. What they tell me about her parents, her father was disabled and he would actually call the fire department and the fire department would carry him -- whenever they would come down for the weekend, carry him down the set of steps to the cottage. That is where they stayed. So also the fact that the house next door, in order for the house next door to get a building permit, they had to move the cottage over off of the property. So there was a lot of activity there. What shocked me was with all that activity, they weren't told by the Building Department, go get a permit. And there is no evidence of that. And while the parents were still alive, he came in a couple of years November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 later and asked for a permit for the shed. So something as simple for a permit, they went through the permit process and got the permit. But something as significant to the family as reserving the cottage, never got permitted. And that bothered me. So what I did was, I went back in the code and I put in front of you Local Law #2 of 1983, okay. Which is a great outline of what changes occurred to the '75, '76 code. I think it was actually sort of -- I am going to try and be as accurate as I can because it kind of repeats itself. The definition of dwelling, didn't get into the code until 1983. In '73, they were just side yard setbacks that were changed. '83 is really the nice clean version, where I think over time because when you read, there is a lot of interaction between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and not understanding exactly who does what. Who is doing the subdivision and who is not, and so on. Going to the '83 code, if you turn to the second page, and this is a point that I tried to make with Mike Verity early on in the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 done, the deck and the they were. The cottage process. In '77, the definition of structural alteration does not include, footing, foundation or baring walls. So if you look at the photographic evidence of how this was stairs all stay where is picked up, in toto, and is just brought to the opposite side of the deck. On the opposite side of the existing septic system. We have how it was described. The septic system and the toilet was all in its little closest. Everything was left exactly in place. So it wasn't a structural alteration. It wasn't even an alteration in the sense, that in '83, the definition of alteration, added the whole definition which now included moving from the location or a position of another. And so, here you have an '83 clarification of what the code meant. And it adds that language, had they done all of this, they would have been cleared and should've gotten a permit do it. But prior to that date, it doesn't say. And it was so openly done. It was so blatten the work that was done and how Building Inspector might not say, "Wow, a to WOW . November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Go get a permit. Come in for a permit." So then I turn now to Page 4, all right in '83 again, another question again, why was the deck staying where it was? The stairs stayed where it was. The deck was cut back from the 7 1/2, whatever the measurement -- 7.4 to be exact. Why was that measurement? When the code said, 10. Again, it didn't make sense to me. Well, this answers that. There was a change again to the code and it points out that -- again, these are subdivided lots that were done in '71 and again during the transitional zoning was occurring. The 100 foot width lots didn't really make sense to use 40,000 setback. It had a nonconforming setback. Well this revision to the code addresses that and explains it in part, hey, for lots that were approved from a certain date, '71 and single and separate, which that has been the case. We have provided that it remains single and separate, ever since it's original purchased. That it was permissible to put -- the setback was 10 feet except for those undersized lots, you could reduce -- in a sense, it created a variance within its own November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 code, which doesn't exist today. I wish it did. But it allows for lots that were narrow to reduce that side yard and also rear yard, they added rear yard later in this code, in '83. Prior to '83, it allowed you to reduce it down to 5%. So all of the lights go off in cottage putting it in between two property lines. But even before that, Jonathan Overton had applied for one of the first trailer permits that the Town ever issued. It was -- again, this is documenting what I remembered the history on the block. It just my head, ahh, that explains why a 10 foot setback got to be reduced down to 7 1/2. Now it is made conforming. Because it was a preexisting 100 foot lot, cut it back, and again, it was all made conforming. I had to follow it based on what the code was at the time because the cottage remains just as it has been from the beginning. I also found -- you're probably getting a lot more information then you ever wanted but the subdivision. Theoretically, the subdivision was the timeline to run -- at the subdivision stage, the property line created -- the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 happened that it was my block. So I kind of have the oral history from the old timers. Jonathan Overton in '58, from the Town Board approval to -- for a motor court as they called it. It was already rented bungalow community. And I found a nice old map of the property before the cottage. Designating this office. So the building -- at able to give you been there for a who is one of our remembers and has time, he recalls the the subdivision, which shows cottage as his least, I am proof that the building has very long time. Mr. Adler, living neighbors that lived there for a very long cottage just as it has been from the very beginning. He doesn't look it but I believe he is in his 90's. I will give this to you. It is relevant to the extent that it shows the original structure and shows what the property has been used for as a motor court. I think that -- from my reading of the subdivision record, it appears that the subdivision began prior to the zoning adoptions and then during the zoning adoptions, it was still open. So what happened through that -- it's interesting to November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 read the subdivision records. The park district rented part of this property and it shows that. When the subdivision took place, there was an argument occurring between the Planning Board and the family, the Overton Family, saying listen. This is going to be the last five lot subdivision that we are approving here. Unless, you want to go with our five lot requirement, you better get that contract straightened out. They ended up selling the extra land to the park district. So again, there is a lot of history on this property. And again, the cottage has always remained. (Stepped away from the microphone.) MS. MOORE: So we fast forward. Here we are today. The trust now owns the property. The mother passes away. They have to clean up the record, obviously because now there are (In Audible) involved and the need to make sure you can preserve what you got. So we go to the Building Department and of course, a lot of this history -- well, you November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 didn't have a permit, done. That is not true. Really takes a lot of investigation to go back to the code at the time and really find out why there was not a permit. And I think that when permit required, at least How it was interpreted, more. I got excited. On and it talks about the deems it necessary with the principle fire code, believe it responsibility running through the code changes and all of this took place, there was no in this instance. I guess there was one Page 5, in the code if Building Inspector (In Audible) will comply building code and housing and fire code. So for some reason, there hadn't been that language in the code before. So it made very clear that as of '83, the Building Inspector is now starting to get comfortable of what needed to be -- the State where it has been adopted. Where I was '81. So there was a lot that the Building Department had. So does that address some of your questions? MS. ANDALORO: Just so the Board is aware. The section that is provided by Patti in the Zoning Code, it says there is a November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 separate chapter that talks about these (In Audible) back then we had -- it looks like it was 100 -- Article XV. So there was two separate sections. (In Audible). (Not near a microphone.) MS. ANDALORO: And at often times, people will take the position that if it doesn't specifically prohibit it, then it's not -- I can do whatever I want. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you for your timeline and this additional information. We also adjourned till today, in order to get comments from the Building Department and we have Pat Conklin come in and answer some questions that the Board has. Also, to get an LWRP recommendation from Mark Terry. And they are both here today. So that we can all kind of flush out for the record, all the various issues that are before us for this property. So maybe we should ask Pat to come forward -- Pat, what we were interested in and we have a letter in our file from what was applied for a Pre-CO for this structure. That it was denied and we would like to know why? November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 83 1 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. CONKLIN: Pre-CO's are only available for structures or work that is in existence prior to '57 on a property. The permitting process is only available for They have to see any proof come those types of structures. in with proof and I didn't that the structure was in 1953. CHAIRPERSON structure was moved, impact? its place prior to it's subject to the same requirement. A permit and an eventual CO before occupancy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We also wanted to get a little bit of more details on the way the Notice of Disapproval was written and it states here and I will just read it into the record again, disapproved on the following grounds. The "as-built" construction in the R40 zone is not permitted MS. CONKLIN: Well, in -- we always write permits and subsequent C0's for structures on a particular parcel, in a certain context on that parcel. And that -- whether it was moved there or created there, WEISMAN: Okay. And if a would that have an November 3, 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 pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 280-123 " a nonconforming building in a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconfigured or structurally altered or moved, except as set forth below, unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use. Per Article XXIII, Section 280-124, the required side yard setback for a lot between 20,000 is 39,999, which is 15 feet and the site plan indicates 24. I think that side yard -- can you just talk a little bit more about this nonconforming building and nonconforming use shall not enlarge or whatever? MS. CONKLIN: Well, basically the history speaks for itself. It did not present as a legal structure through our Building Department or the Town. I also believe in the 70's, which is kind of figured when the structure was moved and I believe the Trustees and if not the Trustees, the Town Board had jurisdiction just based on development. The nonconformity kind of speaks for itself. It's less than 850 square foot dwelling. And that is the (In Audible) of it. Is it a dwelling or what is it? We never got November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that far because we never got proof of it was put there, you know, how. when CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For the record, because we know each other and I just said, "Pat, please come forward." Just would like to clarify. Would you state your name for the record -- MS. CONKLIN: Pat Conklin, Building Department Permit Examiner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Another question. And you just heard what Ms. Moore had to say with the old code. In your opinion, was the applicant required to obtain a building permit or other approval from the Building Department to relocated way back when? MS. CONKLIN: Yes, in my opinion. And believe Jennifer Andaloro's take on the code, because she added subsequent clarification, she is not changing what may have been understated by the code as we constantly applied it over the years. It's just an add-on. It's not a new ruling. It's not a new day. It's just a clarification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And do you think November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the modifications or alterations or additions to whatever was to this structure, required a building permit or other approval from the Board? MS. CONKLIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So your position is that it did? MS. CONKLIN: Yes. Anything in that era and since, you need a permit to legalize something. If you have done plumbing or electric, not necessarily big structural things either. Foundation -- we would have definitely wanted to see where it was going to fit on a property and where it was going to fit structurally. Just one of many reasons why it needed a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the ZBA would somehow acknowledge that this was preexisting and nonconformity, is this structure going to be eligible for a CO or a Pre-Co from the Building Department? MS. CONKLIN: There is a possibility that if it were permitted, we would go through the CO for some type of structure but on what, it depends on how the rendering November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 comes is, correct? MS. you gave it a dwelling. from you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: My assumption is that a CO applies to a dwelling; CONKLIN: Unless in a variance, rights to be something other then Typically, that is what we're talking about on a vacant piece of land. It can't be developed without Zoning Board's MS. CONKLIN: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And this property is 657 square feet. So we're trying to explore what options are available here. We have to make a determination if this is legally before us. So let's see what other Board members have to say. MEMBER HORNING: Are you testifying or saying that anybody building a dwelling after 1957 would need a permit? MS. CONKLIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any questions? saying otherwise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. A dwelling is defined as 850 square feet -- November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't issue a Pre-CO, can you just clarify why? MS. CONKLIN: Because the parcel in question had a structure in part as presented there, prior to '57. That is the only thing to legalize a structure. A structure that is there in a particular location on one particular lot before April '57. Before we got there. Before any government entity was involved. To legalize anything prior to that, you have to prove that it was built prior to 1957. MEMBER DINIZIO: Like a survey? MS. CONKLIN: Correct, that is the criteria. You come in with a survey, an application and a fee for the $100.00 site inspection. And then we go out and look at it and then the CO can be proffered by our inspector. MEMBER DINIZIO: Lets say that the foundation changed? MS. CONKLIN: Well, we would then see where the applicant has the opportunity to get an "as built" for the foundation, but with that has to come -- provided with the November 3, 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 documentation that is the structure was there prior to '57, in it's location and that there was add-on's and those add-oh's become legalized via any '57. The applicant amend with those now this is what MEMBER additions are Audible)? MS. CONKLIN: we have faced before adjustment that is after has the opportunity to plans and inspection and it is. DINIZIO: concerned, is As far as those there (In That is one issue that that we can not do a say CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What if one doesn't have a survey? What would you do then? In other words, let me go back the situation in general. Some of these Pre-CO because the modifications have been so broad, that there is no structure to legalize. And in that case, there is no Pre-CO given. It's just an "as built" and whatever comes with that. Legalizing a structure that is there, provided that it meets zoning. So that it doesn't have to go to you. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subdivisions that were granted between 1932. You can go back to the Southold. The people actually bought the lot based upon the subdivision and they were given the whole plan. In my particular case, having grown up on Bayview Road. Here is the plan with 16 houses on it. 16 lots. And it's incumbent upon you, meaning, you as the applicant or owner, to make sure that you are on the right piece of property when you're building the lot. But in those days, remember there was no building permit. It was just very simply you built the house. Fortunately, you were on the right piece of property. That was indicated later, when we got into the tax map situation. What proof do we have that the house was there prior to 19577 MS. CONKLIN: It's often done with affidavits and surveys on file. Sometimes the applicant comes in with other compelling information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, questions? MEMBER HORNING: One other Regarding the permitting process, question. after 1957, November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 every structure needed a permit to build. Would you need a permit to relocate a structure? MS. CONKLIN: Yes. It's basically to ensure zoning is upheld. You have to know where things are going in the Town. It's also for the analysis for the structural integrity of the inspector. It's two-fold, zoning and are you building something that is safe. MEMBER HORNING: Even moving a house on a parcel, let's say, that would need a permit? MS. CONKLIN: That would need a permit. MS. MOORE: Just some questions. I want to understand better. How -- I guess, with the (In Audible) here that we have been given, the existing building, with existing electric, existing sanitary with the existing toilet in the same place, only difference being it was moved over within the same property. Legally supposed to be on that property and it was moved over to the corner on that property. What type of permit -- November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In our application, we have a survey of the Barb property, which is when I believe -- MS. MOORE: '75. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just trying to say that is when that cottage that was straddling the cottage line -- MS. MOORE: Yeah, because some of the Town's documentation actually was in error, they had an old survey. (In Audible). (Whereupon, the tape skipped.) MS. MOORE: -- trailer permit that shows the structure still being there. The subdivision map shows the building where it originally was. Has he been inside the building to show whether or not he knows the changes? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think you have actually provided us -- MS. MOORE: Yes, I showed you -- I don't think -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At one point, it appeared to be an office. November 3, 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 MS. MOORE: Yes, at one time, but for a very short time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MS. MOORE: I don't think that it hurts us in the sense, that not that it was a permitted use but a special permit of the Town Board and that didn't last very long. And by the time the subdivision, it had reverted back to a residence. So it's showing the building being there. But if you look at the timeline, it was an office but not a -- it didn't change in its dimensions. It just became the place for where people would take the money for the trailer court. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I? It seems that if you were moving, you would have to be moved to a foundation. I know -- you couldn't just take it and put it on a flat piece of land. You would have to build something there -- MS. CONKLIN: But Pat pointed out at the time, and we're putting ourselves in Mr. Terry's shoes, at the time, as long as -- if he felt comfortable that it was just a pick-up and you -- essentially on posts. November 3, 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 It's still a seasonal structure. Based on the code, I think it gave Mr. Terry some discretion to say, you know, it's staying as a seasonal. It's not a year round house. I don't need it to meet the fire codes and safety concerns that a year round house would require. You're just moving it over and making it more conformed. You're taking it off the property line. But I think we're all trying to get what Mr. Terry might have done. I have for Mr. the seen lots of CO's through the years Terry. MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you saying that Building Department never knew about it? MS. MOORE: He had to. There was a house right next door. The Building Inspector today stops you from doing absolutely everything, so. Ail I can say, I point to the code and just like Jennifer said, oh, the way that I would write the code is -- I have a code that says -- was written the opposite. Before that time, before '83. It wasn't required. MS. ANDALORO: We got the building code, come on. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 95 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. MOORE: If you have the same structure and all you are doing is moving it to conform to zoning code, then I can understand why there was no documentation. Because it's equivalent of a dog house. You're moving the dog house up and putting it over here. I mean, it wasn't -- it wasn't even the sanitary system. Everything stayed exactly where it was. You know, we're trying to understand. I think this family, who has had it since the 70's, it would be devastating to lose it. That is why -- we're actually trying legalize everything. We will do whatever is required to make sense. We are willing to do that. We're willing to document whatever is there. MS. ANDALORO: Pat, if all things were done legally, I would agree with you. MS. MOORE: Then I can try and point out that it's still the same family. She can -- I have both owners that are here. They know, it's their parents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, let me do this. What we're trying to do is be helpful. So that we can -- we don't have to revisit November 3, 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 this ever again. And I am sure your clients don't want that either. MS. MOORE: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're trying to get legality. So we're looking at why a Pre-CO was denied. Why it's apparently not eligible, and I say "apparently." So we can talk about it in a public forum. Now, we're looking at a CO, is that ever possible? What documentation would be required in order to make that happen? What is the jurisdiction that this Board has with regard to those issues and that's what we're exploring at the moment. But just because Mark is here and George will probably have to leave soon -- MS. MOORE: I will be quiet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can come back. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to clarify one thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead. MEMBER DINIZIO: My understanding is that the Building Inspector doesn't issue Pre-CO's for anything after 1958. MS. ANDALORO: Correct. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 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 MS. MOORE: (In Audible). But the structure, you're picking up a structure and moving it over. That is another application. There is a barn. My understanding and Pat has confirmed to the contrary, it only says prior to zoning. Not how it was constructed. It's just a document. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're absolutely right. In it's current location. That is what a Pre-CO does. Not move. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I am trying to clarify. And I would like to discuss it a little further. In my mind, if it doesn't have a CO, I don't know how it even gets to our Board. I mean, if you're asking us to base it on the evidence that you have given to us, then fine. But I think that, you know, the fact that it was moved, just changed it. MS. MOORE: But wouldn't it be the law at the time of the move? I mean, that is how you guys kind of come into the picture because I can't go into the Building Department -- the Building Department's are black and white. You're always the gray, and November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 98 1 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 your help and all of the documentation that I have given you, I think it's pretty clear it's the same building. When it was picked up, it should have gotten a building permit in '77 for it's new foundation. And at that point, nobody would have been required. I think at this point, I need the Zoning Board to acknowledge, you know, it was put in when it was placed on the property in whatever format. We're willing to insist, for us to make it more conforming, I think it creates regulatory issues and trying to expand the building and make it 850 square feet and all they want to do is keep it small. In almost every application that I have, they all want to make bigger. They want to keep it small. They want to keep it seasonal. Someday when they're ready to retire, this is gone and they will build a big house and covert this to a year round house. When you work in the history, I need some help and I understand your dilemma, but I think it's within your power to review everything you got. You've got some legislative history. You've got photographs. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Evidence that I can assure you by the dress code alone. My mom had the same coat. It's really there. It's just -- it doesn't fit the box. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One second, Pat. So last month, we didn't have an LWRP recommendation. I would like to have Mark clarify his analysis and recommendation. MR. TERRY: Okay. Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator. I issued a recommendation of inconsistency to Local Waterfront Revitalization Program October 31, 2011. To the Taubin Family Trust #6509. It was written to several different policies. One included minimized loss of life, structures, and natural resources in an erosion. Research indicates that the dwelling occurs on a beach, as pursuant to numerous beach technicians. Also further research indicates, there is a bluff on the property as per code conditions. And that bluff, I can show you here -- not only occurs on this parcel but the adjacent parcel. A bluff, as defined in the Southold Town Code, is anything that exists -- any bank, keyword, "bank", cliff, November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adjoining beach or body of already substantiated that beach. The submitted line. So therefore, pursuant to definition there is a bluff on this property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, Mark, the definition describing bank and bluff is the same thing? MR. TERRY: That is correct. A bluff is a bank. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MR. TERRY: So going back to the Webster Dictionary, which we don't have a definition in our code, defines a bank, as a steep slope. You know, as indicated by the contours on the survey. There is also inconsistency regarding flooding, the dwelling located in a velocity hazard area, water. I have it was on the survey indicated a bluff handle that, as well as the Building Department, but I just want to predicate, when I review "as built's" I review them as they don't exist. My review, just picks up natural features and at some point recommends mitigation. That is what I did in the end of which I really don't know how the Board would November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 101 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this report, but I wanted to make sure that the Board was aware that there is a bluff and beach on the property, pursuant to the code. Also in Chapter 268, natural features are still define. Natural features are also defined in Chapter 111, which doesn't apply. sure you review they're not one more time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So let me make I understand what you're saying, when "as built's," its as though as there, new construction, say that you recommend, remove or relocation? MR. TERRY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Another question. The LWRP is thoroughly covers whole Town, not just the water bodies. the If MR. TERRY: As though the action never occurred yet and I will evaluate the natural features and use that code and then try to propose mitigation to that area. And when the "as built's" come in, it's usually to remove or relocation, to preserve and protect the natural feature in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which is what November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something predates the LWRP, let's say there is an "as built" (In Audible) to what impact, what effect does the LWRP have if it predated that? MR. TERRY: The other LWRP polices are designed, particularly in this case, to preserve the natural features, right. To mitigate hazards, flooding, to the dwelling. So the answer to your question, from my perspoective, I propose how to achieve that. To go beyond that, we're going to have to coordinate with directly to the exists or not proven working on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: have any questions of Mark? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: DINIZIO: Yes. legal, if the LWRP applies building, we can (In Audible) yet. I know they're MEMBER instances you there? make George, do you assume that Jim? In all the the building is not MR. TERRY: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: You really didn't a determination as to (In Audible). November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 103 1 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. TERRY: No, that is beyond the scope of my review. Usually, I can put my principle hat on and help the ZBA at request but the LWRP's position, I will evaluate just it's policies. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. And they are on the bluff, the beach. MR. TERRY: They're seaward of the bluff, on the beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can understand what you do and thank you again for explaining to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have also had an opportunity to read our transcript from the Board's response to the LWRP? MR. TERRY: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: comments about that, that you to hear? MR. TERRY: No comment. statement, that there is stuff was about existing that I'm not going there. Disapproval from Do you have any would like us Other then her no bluff. The other records of evidence I have a Notice of the Building Department that November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it does not exist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: clear about that bluff. The It's pretty applicants, they know that they are on the beach. MR. TERRY: She said, that there was no bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think she was referring to the bank. MR. TERRY: The definition of bluff includes bank and cliff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. So when you say, "bluff", you are using it interohangeably with bank, and the definition of bluff? MR. TERRY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, that was important for me to understand and made clear. Let's do this, anyone have anything Inspector? MEMBER for coming. CHAIRPERSON thank both of you are there others? for the Building GOEHRINGER: Just WEISMAN: Well, for coming. Does thanking them I want to November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? Please come forward. Please just give your name? am MS. together ORR: Yes. My name is Amy Orr. I with my sister, I am one of the Trustees of the property. We started this process because we live on the beach and we're very concerned about ecological impact and being there. We're very careful of it. We started because we wanted to take the old septic system and move it back to the property, near the road. And that is the reason why we began to find out that we didn't have the correct permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. What is the Board's pleasure? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should only the sense that we have multiple permits on this property with respect to setbacks. There has also been numerous permits along ask Ms. Moore but we really need to move on. MS. MOORE: I just want to, for the record, disagree with Mr. Terry's analysis in November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this development. The waterfront side of Terry Lane, for years, and it always has been measured from the high-tide. I would respectfully disagree with the analysis. That is all -- also the LWRP recommendation is supposed to be done within the 30 days and that exceeded the timeline as well. Just for the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that and not on the measurement is on the sound bay. MS. MOORE: The sound is actually measured from the top of the bluff. On the bay side to be taken from the high-tide, which is the water's edge. MS. ANDALORO: Just for clarification, Pat, the 30-day (In Audible) don't have one. It doesn't preclude Mark Terry from writing one, a LWRP recommendation. within make a MS. MOORE: The LWRP has to be done 30 days -- MS. ANDALORO: No, or the Board can decision without it. MS. MOORE: Oh, okay. That is fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board's pleasure? Do you want to keep it open? Do you want to close it? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, did everyone inspect it? MS. MOORE: Do you want to go inside? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am going to keep this real brief. Is there an outhouse? Is there an internal bathroom in the house? And how did we get from the outhouse to the interior of the house? MS. MOORE: We can answer that immediately, it's actually in my description, here is the outhouse. Here is the deck. The cottage was here. In '77, the outhouse stayed here. The deck stayed here. And the cottage was put here. So the outhouse became the in house. This was all connected. And when it was moved over here, the structure went like this -- the toilet -- she is helping me understand. The water closet went this way to go around and this became a foyer. The toilet, the sink and the sanitary system remained here. It's a box. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it attached to the house? November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 108 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 MS. MOORE: Yes, now it's all inside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And when was a shower or a tub or sink added? MS. MOORE: That was always there. It's still there looking pretty old. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And Ms. Orr was referring moving the septic system -- MS. MOORE: If we do nothing here, everything stays the same. The Health Department has already approved the upward sanitary system. MEMBER HORNING: I would like to ask one question too. We're trying to help the applicant's acquire the least amount of variance as possible. situation here with a what is the hardship in a conforming area eliminate all of the And you have a unique nonconforming building, to relocate the building of the property and variance stuff? What is that hardship? Can you demonstrate that? MS. MOORE: Absolutely. It would be a tremendous hardship. I don't think it is so easy to pick-up these days. You wouldn't be able to even pick-up this building and move it. Structurally, it's a seasonal cottage. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 109 1 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 costs of picking up the cottage and putting it in the upland, would be thousands of dollars. It would be destruction. About the only thing that we could make it conforming is, add square footage on the building, which is on the beach. It really makes no sense, but we're prepared to do that in order to preserve it. They're not coming to you with a million dollars to demolish and rebuild, like I have with every other neighbor on Terry Lane. They took the old bungalows. That is always an option. MEMBER HORNING: (In Audible). (Whereupon, the tape skipped.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You did not come to this Board for a request for interpretation. You came for a side yard variance. We need to put all the documentation into the record now. The records that you have provided. The testimony of the Building Inspector and the LWRP and determine whether we can act on that variance proposal. We really have to come to grips on that. Unless there is an option for you to get some legalization, your hands are going November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to be tied. And we have to really look at the totality. Having said that, if there is no one else in the audience who wants to address this, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6514 - MARTIN KOSMYNKA (KOS, LLC) . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're going to go to the next application, which is Martin Kosmynka, #6514. Request for variance Article XV, Section 280-63, (bulk area parking regulations) and the Building Inspector's September 7, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application to construct a carport at; from and November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1) less than the minimum front yard setback of 100 feet, 2) more than the maximum lot coverage of 30%, located at: 50 Commerce Drive, Cutchogue. MR. KOSMYNKA: Hi. My name is Martin Kosmynka. I'm the applicant, and owner of the property at 50 Commerce Drive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you for appearing today. It's an 1800 square foot carport that you are proposing with a front yard setback of 15.67 feet. And a lot coverage of 32.7%. The total allowed maximum is 30%. The front yard setback required by code is 100 feet. MR. KOSMYNKA: (Stepped away the Yes. from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to move mic because we're recording this and we have to make sure that the -- we're obliged by law that we have to record and this is for transcription. now? MR. KOSMYNKA: Oh. Can you hear me CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we can. MR. KOSMYNKA: It's 40 X 45. I am November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking to put it up in the existing asphalt parking lot. The height is 20 feet underneath the roof line or plate height. And consisting with the roof that is already on the existing facility, it's just a 12.5 roof height. That's what brings it up a little more. I designed it with -- tried to make it consistent with what is already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who is going to use this carport and for what purpose? MR. KOSMYNKA: Well, along with traditional type storage, I started like a mobile distance. It's called, "Unit to Go." Part of that of that profile, that I am not having a certain percentage of customers that will deliver the boxes at Point A and they want it to go to Point B, but there is a timeframe in between all that while I'm bringing that all back to site. So what I am looking to do, is get them out of the weather and put them under some coverall. Just to get them out of the weather. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not a carport for cars? MR. KOSMYNKA: Well, at the very November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 moment my main, there is no boxes there. I can put them there. Maybe I might put my truck underneath there. A combination of both and I have no other place to position this kind of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let the record show that we have three letters from neighboring property owners, all stating they have no objection to this application. And that the Planning Board has no objection to the variance location and it's well screened. And they're indicating that the impact is reduced because the structure is located on an existing paved area. Jim, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Marty, what about water runoff, in it's existing location? MR. KOSMYNKA: The drains are in place, whatever calculations are required for the asphalt from the roof. There is no other drainage required. But if we needed to have gutters, I would be happy to put gutters, if you are worried about black ice. Nobody November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really brought it up. The motivation right now is to get those boxes out of the weather. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you said the maximum height was what, 20 feet? MR. KOSMYNKA: Underneath the plate height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING %6512 - PATRICK TREANOR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application if for Patrick Treanor. That is request for variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's April 21, 2011 updated September 7, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for construction of a third-story "as built" to an existing dwelling at 1) more than the code required number of stories of 2 and 1/2, located: 2055 Grandview Drive, Orient. State your name, please? MR. TORKELSEN: Yes, my name is Tot Torkelsen. I am the builder on the property and representing the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only correspondence that we have here is a letter of local determination from Suffolk County. You can have a copy of that, if you would like. Basically, says that they have no interest in this application. MR. TORKELSEN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Tell us what you would like to say. MR. TORKELSEN: What originally transpired was that he wanted to change the November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whole front. He has the house next door and he bought this. This was a foreclosure. His wife absolutely hated this house. He actually liked it better than the corner property. So he went to Rob Brown, from Fairweather & Brown to redesign. Creating a few dormers on the two sides. (In Audible) gables and then the front to eliminate the two dormers that were existing. To put one big one with sliding door for view. His plan originally was not to have a third floor. It has two a because it of the second floor, as a reversed gable would, it became a (In Audible) and determined that would be third floor. We had the option for either applying for the State did not originate from the ceiling stairways going up, disparate stairways. And had gone through that and Rob Brown was filing it. We were very -- he started prematurely but he said it was fine. But he had issues with his wife and the design. And so he just got behind it so far. And what happens is the -- when we raised the front up and put the sliding glass door in, the State took a view of that, and the Town, that November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 117 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for a clarification of that or just to forego that and go for the third floor application. And he determined he would like to go that route instead. That is why we're at this point right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. As you know, was site inspection and Gerry did. Yeah. Your son I made a MEMBER GOEHRINGER: very helpful that day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have all been there. Thank you for the help with the ladder. So the work -- the third story volume is in place and you are now proposing to use that as a bedroom and a bathroom. MR. TORKELSEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which then makes it habitable space. MR. TORKELSEN: Yes, in reality, it as a bathroom. Basically, used for anything, it to take advantage of or an office. would never be used if it's going to be would be a sitting room the view that they have, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And so if that is the case, how do you believe your client feel if the bathroom was eliminated and they November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 essentially use that for the purposes as described, instead of sleeping, for an office or a sitting area, or something like that? MR. TORKELSEN: Well, he would probably like everything but I think he's willing to make adjustments. He certainly has enough bathrooms in the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah. That's for sure. It's far less of a variance. As soon as you put in sleeping space for a third floor, the Board has attempted to shy away from that. We have certainly put in small sitting rooms and hobby rooms and things like that, in place. So people can get the view and things like that. Gerry, did you want to make some questions or does Jim have any? MR. TORKELSEN: I will be the first one to say it that, I do not recommend to any of my customers to have sleeping downstairs, even with two egresses and a third floor too. And I am not against what you have just said, at all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can't do it. And that's the way it is. We have granted several of these, as Leslie has just November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mentioned as sitting areas. We started with the first one in Nill Colony, and that was probably three or four years ago. Maybe five now. And this will be the culmination of probably out sixth, seventh or eighth at this point. And you can't have bathroom. The minute you put bathrooms up there, the people want to stay up there. And let's say it, they're going to be captivated by the view. The purpose of it is for an office or a sitting area. That is it. And you still have to sprinkle it, because if a fire starts on the second or third floor, you got to be able to get out. MR. TORKELSEN: True, I can understand it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any comments? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: all good to go. We will go this. Can you submit to us, plan with that third story, storage or a sitting space of the bathroom. I'm good. I think we are ahead and close a revised floor just showing with elimination November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 120 1 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. TORKELSEN: Yep, I can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or office space? MR. TORKELSEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Good. Then we can -- MS. ANDALORO: Have you gotten your variance from the State yet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He didn't go there. MR. TORKELSEN: We chose not to go that route. MS. ANDALORO: And Mike said he would issue you a CO for a third floor? My concern is (In Audible). MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't. MS. ANDALORO: Okay. Then we will need to clarify, if we grant this variance, that he will give him a CO. MR. TORKELSEN: Whose that? MS. ANDALORO: Michael Verity. MR. TORKELSEN: I spoke to Mike and we talked about the two options and this was a suggestion that he had. And we also discussed the fact of sprinkling and what he November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would allow and what already in agreement MS. ANDALORO: first and second story MR. TORKELSEN: No, sprinkle the whole thing. he wouldn't. He is with this. So he told we have to MS. ANDALORO: Okay. MR. TORKELSEN: The we did have was to sprinkle but that requires the State, didn't want to go that route. you with the fire particular MR. TORKELSEN: My preference is to have a sprinkling system in all houses. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's a great idea, the point is, the fire is between you and that. MR. TORKELSEN: I know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can't get out. of anyway up saying. and sprinkle the whole building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: First insurance is much less case. So you end MS. ANDALORO: Okay. MR. TORKELSEN: This case, have sheet rock open, it's better where we do just to go all, your in that only option that only the egress, at which he November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 122 1 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. TORKELSEN: I know. MS. ANDALORO: I would just prefer if somebody confirm that before we write -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's the same situation with Buttafucco. It never came back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the point. It's one thing if we are considering granting a habitable sleeping space with a bathroom, but we just described the fact that that is getting eliminated. MS. ANDALORO: I disagree with you. Sounds the same -- can we pick this up afterwards. MR. TORKELSEN: You can speak to Pat or Mike. Both of them I spoke to. And I can give you plans that eliminate the bathroom. Who do I drop that off to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To Vicki. Do you want to get in addition to that, comments from the Building Inspector? MS. ANDALORO: I just want a clarification. I will go speak with him. MR. TORKELSEN: We wouldn't have filed this. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 123 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date, subject to receipt of an amended third floor plan, eliminating the third floor bathroom and a sitting room or office describing it as space. Second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. favor? application request for Cathrin Stickney, #6517. Request for variance from Article III, Code Section 280-15, and the Building Inspector's August 2, 2011 revised October 3, 2011 Notice of Disapproval, based on an application to construct a second story deck addition to an accessory garage, at: 1) more than the code required maximum square footage of 750 square feet on lots CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6517 - CATHRIN STICKNEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is an November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 124 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20,0000-60,000 square 1050 North Hyatt Road, State your name please? MS. STICKNEY: feet, located at: Southold. for the record, Cathrin Stickney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: pleasure for me personal aside, Terry Harden and Judy Moore of mine. When the house was a what a transformation of that MS. STICKNEY: So you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: have been there to inspect to put think. a deck to Okay. It was to go out there, just a the owners some time ago, overlook the a MS. STICKNEY: That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are a lot of trees there. Is this going to be a seasonal view and if so -- MS. STICKNEY: Mostly winter. It's actually not bad. You can kind of see through the trees and you can see the lighthouse. From you know, through the trees. But it is much better in the winter. were good friends lot smaller. So area. know that area? Yes. Ail of us the site. You want lighthouse, I November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 125 1 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: So, let's see. Didn't you say this is going to be an unheated -- MS. STICKNEY: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Non-habitable. MS. STICKNEY: Correct. No plumbing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The deck would be open to the sky. My question to you, is are you going to be sitting there is your fleece jacket? I mean, if you're not -- MS. STICKNEY: I mean, there are going to be some snow days and you are not going to be able to do that. But yeah, right now, I sit outside and I have no view at the lower level, over by the house. And it's cold but you have a drink or whatever. But yeah, I sit out in the cold. It just seems for me, it's the only point on the property where I can get up to a higher level of the property and have a chance to even have a view. And it is pretty close to the lighthouse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would be looking at the back of the building, actually. November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 126 1 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. STICKNEY: You get the light from the lighthouse and you get the water on the left and right side there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's currently an unheated and unfinished garage with storage above? MS. STICKNEY: That is correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a statement? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One second. I guess it's to code, it's 744 square feet? MS. STICKNEY: Right, it's just under. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just under the 750 square feet. The second story deck is going to be over that area? MS. STICKNEY: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it will remain completely open? MS. STICKNEY: Open, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: When did you build the garage? MS. STICKNEY: Recently, this summer. MEMBER DINIZIO: On the survey, it shows that there is a cement slab there. So November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's very recent. MS. STICKNEY: Very recent. I originally had the deck as part of the plan and then that, I had to redraw the plans without the deck. And it was told that to put a deck on, to put the original plans back for a variance. I didn't know that a deck was part of the square footage. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, you got to go about another 25%. MS. STICKNEY: feet. I think it's 330 square CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It will be 1,080, all together. MEMBER DINIZIO: Are there bathrooms in that area? MS. STICKNEY: No, nothing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Any plumbing at all? MS. STICKNEY: None, at all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, Ma'am, this is the first one that I have really seen with a deck this high off it. Meaning the size of the deck. We had one recently, that was adjacent to a deck that was maybe three feet off the ground with some November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 steps to get into the workshop area. But I don't know how the Board feels, I think the Board is a little excessive. I can see how you would want to sit out there. I happen to have a similar thing on the side of my house because the trees with you, I think the little large. It's not just me that it was just me and not but not much of a view, block it. To be honest size of the deck is a MS. STICKNEY: would be using it. If expecting have my family or friends there, I could have done with a smaller deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I could understand the 24 foot length because it would be (In Audible) chunk off the side of your garage. But maybe that 14 feet could be cut back. It will reduce the size. Our Board is obligated to reduce the least amount of variance that you can reasonably do. That is one of the State statutes. So we're looking to see if maybe reducing it, it will reduce the overall size of the garage and not a larger variance. Maybe 10X247 MS. STICKNEY: It's just that by the time you put chairs on it. The lounge chairs November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and things like, you are kind of walking around the furniture. So I was trying to maximize it. To maximize it, I would have gone to 16 but they said, don't go all the way. To keep it at something reasonable. 14 sounded like, when I think about the furniture that I wanted to put up there, outdoor furniture, that feels comfortable with me. To be able to walk around and not be able to bump into the furniture. I have two sons and two daughters-in-law and two grandchildren and it would be nice to have a nice place to sit up there and look at the sunrise or the water or look at the lighthouse. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just can't help but me, you shouldn't wonder why this wasn't incorporating into the time that you built it. You built the building to the maximum that the law would allow and now you're asking to, you know 25% more. MS. STICKNEY: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: And it just seems to have done it that way. It should have been incorporated. You shouldn't November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be coming to us now. So what's the upstairs going to be used for in the garage? MS. STICKNEY: I was originally going to have my boyfriend move in with me and we have broken up. That was the reason I built the garage to begin with. To have extra car space and storage space. So the original space was for storage. He liked to do stained glass windows. And we thought we could use it for his hobby. And now, I don't have any of those reasons. I don't need the two-car garage at this point. Somebody said I should send him a bill. But I have a mini storage and I am going to bring that storage so that I don't have to have that monthly expense. So I am going to use it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was described as a storage/workshop. So that was on the original application. Although it was not heated -- MS. STICKNEY: Yeah. Just hobby stuff. permitted is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is not to go ahead and heat it and put November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 131 1 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 bedroom in it. MS. STICKNEY: Yeah, that. I am aware of comfortable, 12 is not bad. MS. STICKNEY: 12 wouldn't be bad. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 12 is not bad. MS. STICKNEY: I much prefer 14. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you really see a 12X24 deck as a hardship? MS. STICKNEY: It's not a hardship. am still thinking if I wanted to park something underneath it, I have space. I don t have another vehicle to park underneath it. If I did, I could just buy a boat. I don t know what would tryzng to maximize way to the setback. fit there. I was it without going all the 14 seems about right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can understand your reasoning but I would like you to understand the Board's needs to grant the smallest reasonable variance. MS. STICKNEY: Could we do 12 then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will see what the Board feels like. I am only one Board I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 14 is very November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 member and we're certainly inclined to go with a smaller variance rather than a larger one. Okay. Do you have anything else that you would like to tell us? MS. STICKNEY: No, I did hear from all my neighbors and they don't have any objections. They all called me. Except from the Town. I didn't hear anything from the Town, but I'm hearing from them now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions, Gerry, Jim? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I have to tell you the reason why I have one of the main concerns is because we don't normally grant decks off garages. But I have spent a substantial amount of time at one of the local wineries, not in this Town, that has an office and kitchen above it. Which is allowed because they do classes above it. It's approximately an 8 to 10 foot deck, very similar to the size situation. It's more than adequate and we have used the upstairs in this winery and that's the reason why. The minute you start a precedent with sizes, you have to continue that precedent. And that is November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 133 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 one of the concerns that I have. And I am just making a general statement. Nothing against you in any way. MS. STICKNEY: I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we could consider cutting it back, by cutting back the 24 feet. We're looking to not enlarge this accessory garage beyond a certain point, and -- MS. STICKNEY: So you're thinking maybe instead of 24, make it 20X14 and make it something like that? Get the square footage down that way? MEMBER DINIZIO: More like 12X12. WEISMAN: I don't think reduction. Either CHAIRPERSON 20X14 is a significant way or this way. MS. STICKNEY: I didn't even know about a law. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know. It seems you knew what the law was when you built deck. Now, you are coming back for a variance, and it's not a good reason to come back for a variance, you know, because that is what you want. A hardship is beyond or this like this November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before that. If you had this thing all planned out and you didn't build it, and you came to us and say I want 750 and we could say, you can only make the garage 600 and you can make the deck. You know what I mean? We would have some leeway. MS. STICKNEY: It didn't go that way though. When I submitted the plans with the deck. They said I couldn't submit it with the deck. And I said, okay. I wanted the garage, right? I wanted it to have the deck on it. They said, look, you have to come back for a variance. MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. MS. STICKNEY: It wasn't like I was trying to punch a whole -- MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. MS. STICKNEY: It is exactly as it happened. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, you knew the law and you built the deck to maximum possible. That person who said, you can't have a deck. If you said, "Can I have a deck?" And they said, "no, you can't have a deck," if you want to build a building this November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 135 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 size. I mean, that is as far as you can. You build it to the max and you want to add something -- MS. STICKNEY: I understand. I just thought this was the process to do it. MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to show some type of hardship. You have to show us some reason, other then you just want to sit outside in the winter, because we're turning people down for these things, for much less. I think you need to compromise a little bit. MS. STICKNEY: I understand it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know you had your heart set on it. MS. STICKNEY: I understand. with heard. MEMBER DINIZIO: So if you a better number -- MS. STICKNEY: 147 MEMBER DINIZIO: Then can come up without belaboring it, the better advice might have been, you can't do this deck without a variance. So why don't you do MS. STICKNEY: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Basically it what I have November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all at once and apply for it? Because prior to having built it, we could have said, you can make this smaller and you can have your deck. And it would only be a little bit over what the code allows. Other then a lot over then what the code allows. It's moot now, because it's done. MS. STICKNEY: And -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you do have the right to be here and we will look at all these possibilities and come up with something. MS. STICKNEY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it's important for you to understand -- MS. STICKNEY: I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have statutes. We have to look at character of the neighborhood. Environmental impact. You know, is it a substantial variance? You know, these are all things that the law says we have to follow. MS. STICKNEY: I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have to responsibly. We can do one of two answer November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things. The Board can go and deliberate on what you have requested to do or you can chose to come back to us with a cut-back size deck. That is after you have heard everything we have said -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Or we can cut it back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MS. STICKNEY: I just want the deck. So if you want to cut it back to move forward and put a deck on it. I would like more than 10 but less than 14. I understand. I understand your rational. I would accept what you come up with. I do want you to know that all the neighbors responded, telephone calls and e-mails. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MS. STICKNEY: So I didn't get any objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nobody is going to see it unless you're standing on the lighthouse and looking back. MS. STICKNEY: It's pretty hidden. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no other houses objecting. It has no impact on November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anybody. MS. STICKNEY: It's a good neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments or questions, I will make motion to close the hearing and reserve a decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 139 1 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: I am going to make a motion to close the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the time is 2:47. Is there a second by anybody. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, the public hearings for November 3, 2011 concluded.) November 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 140 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Jess±ca DiLallo, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is true and accurate record of the Hearings. Signatur .'~_j~~!~~ a Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: November 25, 2011