Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/20/2003 HEARING 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 6 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 7 8 Z 0 N I N G B O .A R D O F A P P E A L S 9 10 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 11 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 12 November 20, 2003 13 9 : 30 a.m. 14 15 Board Members Present 16 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 17 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member 18 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 19 GEORGE HORNING, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 21 23 LIVNIENUO 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to open the hearing for Charles Bocklet, a 3 carryover from August 21st . MR. MANN: Good morning, Board, my 4 name is William Mann. I have the title information for the Board. I don' t have seven 5 copies of it . I just received it as of today. I went into the city for you. It' s a complete 6 title report . I' d like to submit it to the Board (handing) . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. MANN: I 'm here this morning 8 to simplify, answer any questions on the said property. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything that you would like to offer first? 10 MR. MANN: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 11 anything that you would like to offer first? MR. MANN: No. You should have 12 every bit of information. I read your minutes from the last meeting and I tried to supply 13 you with everything that was requested. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning, do 14 you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Not at the 15 moment . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Mann, Mr. Horning and 17 myself came to the Bocklet house, they were kind enough to show us the existing two car, 18 three car garage, which is not the nature of this application, and then we walked over to 19 the front of the house and we looked at the existing covered over deck, it' s actually 20 ground level deck; is it not? MR. MANN: Yes . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s built into the ground, which I 'm looking at a 22 picture of it right now, which has natural cedar post . 23 MR. MANN: Cedar posts . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 24 That is the nature of this application. MR. MANN: Yes . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just this one little piece on the corner there? November 20 , 2003 3 1 2 MR. MANN: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 3 nature of this application is not -- and I'm just doing this for the record -- is not the 4 wood patio or the brick patio that is ground level prior to or just before the top of the 5 bluff . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Only the 6 part marked X, is that accurate? MR. MANN: Yes . 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you don' t need any other -- 8 MR. MANN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s a 9 prior action on this particular piece of property, in other words, there' s no Cos for 10 the additions that were put on on the east side of the property; you' re not asking for 11 authorization for those additions? MR. MANN: No . I'm asking 12 authorization for side yard setback for a roofed porch. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is 33 feet actually from the rear yard. 14 MR. MANN: Yes . The dimensions are 8 . 5, 2018" exact, that' s all I'm asking 15 for. Mr. Strang had offered a ten foot in front of this prior, from what I understand 16 from what I'm reading in the minutes, he offered for an easement or a -- for you to 17 rule further from this . This is a side yard setback question. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, it' s a rear yard. 19 MR. -MANN: Rear side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because of the 20 way Robinson Lane is here . The building department, they' re saying this is your front 21 yard and this is your rear yard. MR. MANN: Yes . You should have 22 letters of nonjurisdiction from the Trustees, from the DEC. They have had three prior 23 permits from you. I went to the building department, all building permits have 24 certificates of occupancies for that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I 25 just ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead. November 20 , 2003 4 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you say 20 ' 6"? 3 MR. MANN: Twenty foot 8 inches is the exact size of the roof porch. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it is to be remain unenclosed except for the 5 roof? MR. MANN: Yes . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And that would remain as a condition that it remain 7 unopened. MR. MANN: Yes . 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: On the assessors card there' s a little note here that 9 says no COs that is a little confusing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 10 want to reiterate that the nature of this application is just this application. There 11 are no other issues . MR. MANN: No other issues before 12 the Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is 13 subject to this particular thing. MR. MANN: Yes . And I did submit 14 paperwork from the building department that certificate of occupancies for each and every 15 existing building permit were filled completely. I ought to be in compliance with 16 the Town. The nature of my being here this morning is that Mr. Bocklet would like Mrs . 17 Bocklet to have the house free and clear if anything happens to him. So I would like to 18 comply with Town regulations and get a building permit for this porch. Thank you. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I did like the picture of the house back in 20 1960 . MR. MANN: It was built in 1907 by 21 Emery Tuttle, every piece of trim has his name on it, and this is Henry Smith' s father' s 22 house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Really. Thank 23 you very much for coming. I' d like to close this hearing and 24 reserve decision to later. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I' ll make 25 that motion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. November 20, 2003 5 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. 3 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 4 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 5 application is for Laurence and Bettyann Rubinow, number 5386, and I believe Mr. Hamm 6 is here with us . MR. HAMM: Good morning, Steven 7 Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you? 8 MR. HAMM: Fine, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We just 9 received this new amended notice of disapproval, and we just got it on the 17th, 10 and we really need all these things at least a week ahead of time before we have a meeting, 11 the application is completed because; we have been getting all these little pieces of 12 information a little bit at a time . Mr. Hamm? MR. HAMM: I'm not sure when 13 Oliver Cope, the architect is here, but he had overnighted revised plans to both you and the 14 building department, and I believe the building department had made a mistake on a 15 notice that he first prepared, and I called him on it so that he could get the correct one 16 to you. But we did make every effort on our end to get paperwork to you. He' s gone 17 through a number of amendments in the building department on this, and the latest one is 21 18 feet . At one point he had it at 16 feet . I called him on that, so I apologize for that 19 but on the part of the Rubinow' s representatives, namely me and Mr. Cope, we've 20 tried to get things to you in an expeditious manner. 21 The plan itself, which was sent to you at least ten days ago, the plan itself is 22 not changed. MR. COPE : Oliver Cope, 151 West 23 26th Street, New York, I'm the architect . r The first set of revisions based 24 on your comments were sent to Steve and the building department I think on the 3rd or 4th 25 of November. Then in part and response to the conversations Steve Hamm had with the building November 20 , 2003 6 1 2 department we clarified a couple of dimensions, set another set of revised 3 drawings to them on the 12th. MR. HAMM: And to the Board. 4 MR. COPE : And to the Board MS . KOWALSKI : That' s true . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning, our eyes and ears over Fisher' s Island, you 6 have some questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: In a 7 nutshell then let' s go back, the original application had been substantially revised in 8 terms of the location of the new proposed addition; is that correct? 9 MR. HAMM: In response to your comments at the September hearing we tried to 10 eliminate a good amount of the nonconformity that was present in the original application. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And it looks like the new plan is pretty well 12 tailored to meet some of the comments and suggestions that our board gave you at the 13 last hearing. MR. HAMM: That' s correct . We 14 tried -- Oliver went back to the drawing board and tried to fit as much as possible into the 15 permitted building envelope although we still need a small variance . 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Right . Because now the proposed expansion or addition 17 is just slightly nonconforming to the building area, correct? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thirty- five feet of it is, yes . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm 20 sorry. The plan looks very aggressive . It also looks very nice, and certainly a vast 21 change from what exists there at this time, but I hope we have the ability if this Board 22 grants it to go back and look at it next year. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to make sure that we' re all looking at the 24 same one . As a matter of fact, we have the only notes on the revisions we have revised 25 for ZBA 11/3 ; are those the plans? MR. HAMM: There should be a November 20, 2003 7 1 2 second set that' s revised as per the 12th. Mrs . Kowalski asked us to clarify what some 3 porch steps were, the one that says covered porch. That' s the one you should be looking 4 at . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: All it says 5 is September. MS . KOWALSKI : You' re looking at 6 an old set . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm 7 looking at what came in the mail . This says received in our office November 13th. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That should be the correct one . I have here the added 9 proposed porch and dimensions notes are 11/12/03 . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With an amended disapproval November 17th. 11 MS . KOWALSKI : From the master file . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s essentially the same . The only thing I'm 13 curious about, Mr. Hamm, it really does look a lot better I think it' s much more in keeping 14 with what the Board had discussed. Where is the 21 feet? 15 MR. HAMM: Mr. Cope will show you. 16 MR. COPE : What I had not provided on the 3rd was the dimension from that step, 17 which is not covered, the covered porch are those little squares and the columns from that 18 step to the front line here, so from -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 22-6 . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 22? MR. COPE: 22-6 . 20 MR. HAMM: The building department scaled it off at 21 . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They scaled it off at 21? 22 MR. COPE : Yes . They qualified dimensions lines as opposed to the -- 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mine has 22-6 . It is 21 you say? 24 MR. HAMM: The building department was looking at that same plan and said it was 25 21 . MR. COPE : Far be it for me to November 20 , 2003 8 1 2 argue with the building department . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I had that, 3 and I also provided one for more of the elevations . 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It is a preexisting building here though. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We need to make sure that the revisions are in accordance 6 with the map -- see the map date says September 24th, and the revision notes on here 7 added proposed porch 11/12 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Because there' s so many maps . 9 MR. HAMM: That' s the one that should be identified in your decision. 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Right . It' s one hundred percent improvement and 11 you've come up with a very creative -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Creative . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- but also original solution to a rather difficult 13 property. MR. HAMM: With your help. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for coming and we' ll reserve decision and 15 give you this later. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak for or 16 against this application? I didn' t say that because I'm just used to seeing Mr. Hamm here . 17 I apologize . May I have a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later? 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Make the motion. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 20 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 21 MR. HAMM: If you are inclined to grant the decision. They do want to hopefully 22 get in the house by next summer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re 23 looking at February 12th right now. MR. HAMM: You' re just putting 24 more pressure on me, thank you. ---------------------------------------- 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Aldo Blaskovic, and I would like to have a November 20 , 2003 9 1 2 resolution to accept the applicant' s letter dated 11/7/03 withdrawing the application 3 without prejudice to reapply. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 4 moved. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. 6 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. ) 7 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to 8 reconvene our hearing, the 10 : 00 hearing is for Robert and Pauline Ehrenthal, Number 5427 . 9 This is a request for a variance for approval of the as built location of the existing deck 10 at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff . We have a few problems with this, Mr. 11 Brown. MR. BROWN: How can I help? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: First of all, the building department' s notice of 13 disapproval says that it is 37 feet back from the top of the bluff; the deck is sitting 14 right on top of the bluff? MR. BROWN: Yes, it is . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That does not reflect in the -- 16 MR. BROWN: There may be some confusion, if I may explain a little of the 17 history because it is an unusual situation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, go 18 ahead. MR. BROWN: We were retained by 19 the Ehrenthals to help them plan a partial second floor addition to their house, which we 20 did and made the building permit application. In the course of the permit approval process 21 in the building department, they determined that the deck, which had been built prior to 22 the Ehrenthal' s owning the property, in fact did not conform and was not properly 23 permitted. The building department allowed us to separate the deck from the house in terms 24 of the permit, so that we could pursue the construction of the structure, and the 25 agreement is that the building department will withhold the certificate of occupancy on the November 20 , 2003 10 1 2 structure until the deck issue is resolved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which 3 structure? MR. BROWN: The house . 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The principal structure? 5 MR. BROWN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The notice of 6 disapproval says the as built deck addition, the dwelling is noted as being 36 feet from 7 the top of the bluff, but I don' t believe -- MR. BROWN: That' s incorrect . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- your survey even reflects that . So to me it' s an 9 incomplete application. MR. BROWN: That is obviously 10 incorrect . We have photos to show you. We fully acknowledge the deck is to the top of 11 the bluff . I had no idea that they were -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean the 12 deck is just sitting at the top of the bluff? MR. BROWN: Yes . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But your notice of disapproval you talk about the as built 14 deck addition, but the dwelling is noted as being 36 from the top of the bluff . But your 15 survey just does not reflect that . It doesn' t have -- 16 MS . KOWALSKI : I think what they' re asking for is to have the building 17 department correct the notice of disapproval . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also, I 18 need a better survey. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a 19 question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Play like I 'm a dummy. The existing dwelling has a 21 setback of what at its closest point to the top of the bluff? 22 MR. BROWN: Bear with me one second. 23 The closest point of the house to the top of the bluff appears to be 24 approximately 24 feet . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the 25 existing house -- let' s go through them one by one -- the existing house at its closest point November 20, 2003 11 1 2 is approximately 22 feet? . MR. BROWN: 24 feet . 3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That figure, however, is not shown on any of the 4 materials that you submitted; is that correct? MR. BROWN: If I may, the issue 5 before this Board is not the house . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you 6 putting the second story addition on the house? 7 MR. BROWN: We already have a building permit for that . That' s not the 8 issue; the issue is the preexisting deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My problem with 9 that, Mr. Brown, is if you' re only 24 feet from the bluff do you not need a variance just 10 for that? MR. BROWN: Apparently the 11 building department did not feel so. And they issued us a building permit, in fact, work has 12 already started on the house itself . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. It 13 nearly took Mr. Goehringer and I nearly half an hour going up everybody' s driveway because 14 the numbers are all mixed up. MR. BROWN: It' s very confusing. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it is . We were searching for a driveway with the garage 16 on the left . MR. BROWN: It is very well 17 hidden. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it is . We 18 did get a lot of exercise . MR. BROWN: I'm sorry about that . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The as built deck? 20 MR. BROWN: The entire situation is, the building department gave us a permit 21 on the house, and they told us they would withhold the certificate of occupancy until 22 the issue of permitting the deck has been resolved. Now, there was a prior permission 23 on the deck, for a deck that would extend towards the bluff eight feet from the house . 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Much, much, smaller. 25 MR. BROWN: Obviously it was not built to that . November 20 , 2003 12 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There was a prior permit for it? 3 MR. BROWN: There was a prior permit for it prior to the Ehrenthal' s owning 4 the property. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What you' re 5 requesting is an as built deck with a 0 setback from the bluff? 6 MR. BROWN: That' s correct . And the issue from our perspective is quite 7 simply, if it' s approved then we can proceed with the construction of the house and get a 8 CO when we' re done . If it' s not approved by this Board then we' ll have to cut back the 9 deck from the prior permitted eight feet in order to get the certificate of occupancy for 10 the structure, for the house . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you have 11 a CO at eight feet? MR. BROWN: We have a permit for 12 eight feet, yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s no CO 13 on the house . MR. BROWN: Technically there' s no 14 CO on the house because there' s a building permit . 15 MS . MARTIN: But somehow in the process of purchasing it with whoever the 16 attorney was, did not make sure there was a CO on the deck before and I do have pictures in 17 case you were -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 18 say something? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Brown, we have known you for a long time and 20 we know that you are probably one of the premiere engineers out here . I just can' t 21 physically understand -- this is no reflection on either your firm or these applicants -- how 22 the building department is going to give you a CO on this house, one story or two stories, 23 okay, at the end of the rainbow. I can' t physically understand that . The law reads 100 24 feet, we have jurisdiction, from the top of the bluff . This house sits 24 feet from the 25 top of the bluff . It absolutely floors me . It has nothing to do with you or your firm or November 20 , 2003 13 1 2 the applicants . I just don' t understand it because we have applications here all the 3 time . I don' t know if they misread something. I think at this particular point 4 it would behoove everybody for you to question that issue, because I think what' s going to 5 happen is you' re going to build this thing and they' re not going to give you the C of 0, and 6 that' s what our concern is and that' s just in general . That' s just our opinion, my opinion, 7 and the opinion of some of the people that looked at it . I'm not speaking for the Board, 8 and I've been told I can' t, and I 'm not . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It makes it 9 difficult from where we' re sitting because this Board has made a substantial effort to 10 treat applicants equally across the board and to, in fairness to someone else, we look at 11 this and we say the next guy that comes in he' s getting a notice of disapproval for the 12 second story on the principal structure and yet you' re not, and that sends a very poor 13 message as to how we operate here in Town Hall . So from our Board' s perspective we -- 14 MR. BROWN: In principal I don' t disagree with you. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What' s the message, one guy you site for a notice of 16 disapproval and the next one you don' t? MR. BROWN: As often as not I find 17 myself on the other side of that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm sure . 18 MR. BROWN: And certainly I expect the Board and the whole town expects the Board 19 to treat everyone fairly. There' s no question in my mind about that . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It puts us in a very awkward position. 21 MR. BROWN: This project actually was an unusual case for us as a firm in that 22 the project was actually designed by a designer that the Ehrenthals know, and I was 23 asked simply to prepare the working drawings . I can' t even claim credit for the design of 24 the second floor. We' re just here representing them with what we were handed. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to recess the hearing and have you go back to the November 20 , 2003 14 1 2 building department and ask them to come in and clarify this whole matter. It' s 3 incongruous to me that you can have a deck sitting right on the bluff and have a house 4 that' s only 24 feet, and yet our rules are 100 foot back from the bluff and me always being 5 very careful about setbacks from the bluff because I know how delicate these bluffs are, 6 they' re not very stable . MR. BROWN: I understand that . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I really would like to recess this to this afternoon or an 8 hour whatever. MR. BROWN: Actually, we have 9 another hearing before you at 10 : 30 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, then 10 let' s wait until after your 10 : 30 . Then we should go down to the building department 11 because this doesn' t make sense to us at all . Mr. Horning, would you agree? 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want 13 to make one thing clear, it' s my understanding that some of the building inspectors are in 14 class today. I don' t know if they' re going to get a determination or not . I don' t know if 15 they' re all -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The person 16 who wrote the notice of disapproval is not available . Is the head of the building 17 department available? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The head 18 of the building department is not there to my knowledge . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Daemon. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He may 20 be there. I just saw Gary Fish go by too . I'm just mentioning this to the Board. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I agree with you one thousand percent on this one . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t want you to get involved in a Catch 22 23 situation. MR. BROWN: I can appreciate that . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d rather postpone it now and get yourself straightened 25 out so we are all on the same page . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We've had November 20 , 2003 15 1 2 situations like this, and we close our eyes to it and say, oh, well and then you go in and 3 get your CO and, oh, my gosh, we forgot this back at the ZBA, and you have to file a new 4 application, wait another four months to get on the docket, and it' s not good government . 5 MR. BROWN: I don' t disagree with you at all obviously we want to do it right as 6 well and equally obviously our concern is construction is already started. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For a 8 point since this situation exists why don' t we recess it until the special meeting. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : We don' t have any recording device . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the special meeting? 11 MS . KOWALSKI : No. Unless you want to see if he' s available maybe later this 12 afternoon, 3 :30? MR. BROWN: We can try. 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Why don' t we take a five minute recess on this, allow 14 you to go down there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: See if you can 15 clarify. If they can' t, see if we can postpone it . 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chair, before, can I ask a couple questions? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry, go ahead. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We were talking about the certificates of occupancy 19 you were talking about the original building having one? 20 MR. BROWN: The house, yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Did that 21 include this eight foot deck? MR. BROWN: To the best of my 22 knowledge -- this is only secondhand information to me -- to the best of my 23 knowledge the house had been issued a certificate of occupancy. There was a permit 24 issued, and I 'm not sure quite honestly if it was by this Board or by the building 25 department, to construct a deck that would extend eight feet from the house . Apparently November 20 , 2003 16 1 2 that permit had never been closed. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Then the 3 deck ended up being built much larger. MR. BROWN: Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Tell us how that happened. 5 MR. BROWN: We don' t know. It was done by the prior owner to the Ehrenthals . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you could, I' d like someone from the building department 7 to explain it to us . MR. BROWN: Of course . 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct me if I'm wrong, there' s a provision in the code 9 that discusses construction of landward existing, correct? 10 MS . KOWALSKI : Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: However, 11 that may be some of the confusion because that would apply if this deck had a CO. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it does not . 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But it does not . So that provision of the code can' t kick 14 in because in essence it' s illegal; in other words, if it had a CO if it was lawful, et 15 cetera, that provision may apply, and that' s what the building department may not have 16 taken into consideration when they issued the building permit for the second story, and I 17 suspect that' s probably what happened. MS . KOWALSKI : Is the second story 18 towards the water? MR. BROWN: Yes . 19 MS . KOWALSKI : Yes? MR. BROWN: Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But it doesn' t apply because there' s no CO on it . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to recess the hearing for five minutes to 23 allow the applicants to go to the building department for clarification of their 24 application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members November 20 , 2003 17 1 2 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is Carl and Elena Patchke, Number 4 5428 . This is for an as built location for a hot tub in the area other than the rear yard, 5 sir, what can you tell us? MR. PATCHKE : I 've submitted the 6 documents according to your request and made the mailings to the neighbors consistent with 7 their request . I received back some of the green cards, and I will present to you if you 8 wish. My name is Carl Patchke, the 9 property is 5 Shore Lane in Peconic . It' s not our permanent residence . We take mail at 130 10 Lee Avenue in Rockville Centre . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did you 11 discover that your hot tub was not in the rear yard? 12 MR. PATCHKE : The house is a new house . We had a deck built to the back of the 13 house . When the inspector came to give the final approval for the deck, they discovered 14 that the hot tub was in the wrong location. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 15 Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you 16 move the hot tub? MR. PATCHKE : It would not be a 17 simple task; it sits now on a concrete slab. MR. GOEHRINGER: Let me say for 18 the record, George, there' s a substantial amount of landscaping; am I correct, in saying 19 that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s a substantial amount of landscaping front and 21 back all around it? MR. PATCHKE : Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where is the rear yard? I'm looking at it, your 23 problem is obviously arising because you have two front yards . So the question is where is 24 the rear yard? Where is the permitted location on that? 25 MS . KOWALSKI : The rear yard would be the last point of the principal structure . November 20 , 2003 18 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s got the corner. 3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: To me this is so -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ridiculous . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 5 diminimus . MR. PATCHKE : I appreciate the 6 Board' s comments . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have 7 absolutely no problem with it at all . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t have 8 any problem with it at all . The place is lovely. 9 MR. PATCHKE: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 10 mention the issue with problems with picking up, I happen to have one, they' re extremely 11 heavy, even without water, so I concur. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in 12 the audience have any comments for or against this application? If not, I' d like a motion 13 to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry 16 seconded. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s 17 right, you made the motion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. 18 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. ) 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. ---------------------------------------- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is Howard and Lisa Davidoff, this is 21 5424 . This is a request for a proposed swimming pool at less than 75 feet from the 22 bulkhead at 1015 Kimberly Lane in Southold. Is someone here to speak to behalf of the 23 applicant? MR. CARDINALE : Yes, Phil 24 Cardinale, attorney and agent for the applicant . I' d like to hand up the return 25 receipts . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Congratulations, November 20 , 2003 19 1 2 it was squeaky. MR. CARDINALE : Yes, it was . 3 Mr. and Mrs . Davidoff asked me here this morning because they could not . I 4 wanted to be available for questions . I know you've seen this site, and I wanted to 5 basically just reiterate what I indicated in the application that the standards that are 6 defined in the statute and by law I believe are met here . The setback for the bulkhead is 7 32 feet . The shoreline is interestingly, 125 feet but the bulkhead is the relevant measure 8 and it is not inconsistent with setbacks with neighboring homes and structures . The benefit 9 compliance with the 75 foot setback from the bulkhead could be achieved by putting the 10 proposed pool behind the house or along the side, I guess, next to the garage, far back. 11 The variance will not have an adverse impact because the proposed pool is at least 35 feet 12 away from the nearest neighbor and more than 100 feet from all other neighbors . It wasn' t 13 self-created it was the lot configuration, and I think the survey will give you the 14 additional detail . I thought you might have a 15 question or anything that concerns you I wanted to attempt to address it, and if I 16 can' t, I' ll get you written answers . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 17 address it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, 18 Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is 19 truly a magnificent piece of property, as that whole area is, Mr. Cardinale . 20 MR. CARDINALE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: However, 21 I do think the pool should be moved length- wise as opposed to front to back. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thereby 23 increasing the distance between the pool and the bulkhead. There' s really plenty of room 24 to do that . As you look at the survey, the sanitary system is on the other side of the 25 house . I think that would be a really good idea. November 20 , 2003 20 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any chance you could get it closer to the deck or 3 just off the deck? MR. CARDINALE : I don' t see that 4 that would .pose a problem at first blush. I will talk to the Davidoffs, give you a written 5 response to both of them, that it is fine with them. I hope that will be the response . 6 Islandia Pools, John Weiss is the contractor. I' ll speak to both of them and get you a 7 letter in the next few days on changing it to be widthwise -- lengthwise . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just turning it around. 9 MR. CARDINALE : Getting it as close to the deck as possible . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you let us know if it' s a liner pool or 11 gunite? MR. CARDINALE : Liner or vinyl? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or gunite, which is cement . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It actually 14 works out very well for the applicants if you are you going to move the pool around, which 15 would increase your setback, is there any chance that you could incorporate this into 16 the existing deck? MR. CARDINALE: Okay. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So that you would still be maintaining your privacy, but 18 if it' s incorporated in there, there' s -- MR. CARDINALE : I understand, 19 yeah. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- there' s 20 a far greater chance that you will be further protecting that area from any potential -- the 21 only other thing is there going to be some kind of a pump house? 22 MR. CARDINALE : Some kind of what? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pump house? 23 MR. CARDINALE : I will find that out and if there was, there was not one put on 24 the survey. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It is a 25 beautiful location. It certainly has a lot of potential, and other criteria of 267B, as you November 20 , 2003 21 1 2 well know, one of the things we' re encumbered to look at is alternative locations that 3 reduce or minimize the variance . MR. CARDINALE: Great . I have 4 those five questions that you posed. I will get the letter to you in the next few days . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re going to submit an alternative plan to 6 minimize -- MR. CARDINALE : Yeah, I'm going to 7 verify, I think the answers will be that it' s okay, and I will submit that all these answers 8 are as indicated. Do you want me to get the plan that shows exactly where the pool should 9 be? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 10 Jerry, you know more about this than me . There is some little catch in the code, it' s 11 almost like we did down in Mattituck, you want to bring it into the deck -- 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t want to bring it into the deck because it 13 needs to be fenced singularly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Let them 14 know that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re 15 not interested, Phil, in bringing it into the deck. 16 MR. CARDINALE: Off the deck. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Obviously, 17 you don' t want to fence the deck. Bring it close to as possible so that it can be 18 fenced. MR. CARDINALE: I understand. 19 MS . KOWALSKI : Is the Board going to require an amended disapproval on the 20 alternative plan? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No because 21 we' re requesting it . MS . KOWALSKI : That' s a new 22 procedure . That' s why I'm asking the question. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, because this is a specific relief that I 'm asking for. 24 MS . KOWALSKI : I know, I'm just double checking. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s why you' re good. November 20 , 2003 22 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to recess this for the purposes of 3 closing the hearing on the special hearing? We' re not taking any testimony, but we' re 4 taking information; do you want to do that? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That will 5 give you an opportunity. MR. CARDINALE : Rather than close 6 it, recess it so we can submit the plan and know where we' re going before we close it . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re not going to be able to give us anymore 8 testimony but we can still converse with you if there are additional things on the plan. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : Or extend it for written not for oral? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not oral . 11 MR. CARDINALE : I understand, that' s fine . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: December 8th. MS . KOWALSKI : December 4th. 13 MR. CARDINALE : By December 4th you want the written materials by that date? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, please . MR. CARDINALE : Very good, I will 15 do that . Thanks very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in 16 the audience who would like to comment on this application or against? If not, we will 17 recess this hearing only for written testimony and have this on December 8th. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fourth. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fourth, I've 19 got 8th on the brain. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry, how 20 far off about eight feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, 21 eight to ten. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That much. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It depends on if it' s a liner pool or not . It' s 23 got, if it' s a liner, it' s got to be eight to ten. If it' s a gunite pool, they are 24 phenomenally constructed pools . It' s all ribar in there . 25 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Brown, November 20, 2003 23 1 2 we will reconvene . MR. BROWN: Yes, if we may just 3 readdress the Ehrenthal situation, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to go to the 4 building department to clarify some issues . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s helpful 5 for you. MR. BROWN: Unfortunately, none of 6 the building inspectors are available . Fortunately, we did get some information that 7 I did find helpful . I apparently had been misinformed. There was a certificate of 8 occupancy issued for the eight foot deck. Then it was added to without permit . 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s no CO for the new deck. 10 MR. BROWN: On the portion of deck that extends beyond the eight feet from the 11 house . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have a 12 CO for the eight foot deck? MR. BROWN: That' s correct . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s understandable because that' s very close then 14 to the CZM line . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it' s understandable that they would give you a CO 16 for that . MR. BROWN: And that' s why they 17 issued us a building permit, because they considered us landward of the edge of the deck 18 which was CO' d. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Would the 19 deck I guess be part of the principal structure? 20 MR. BROWN: It is, it' s attached. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s the 21 answer, and we also figured it out before you went there . We needed them to say that . 22 MR. BROWN: And I needed them to. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We need to 23 take a look at the survey, the amended notice of disapproval that said 0 lot line as far as 24 100 foot setback on the existing deck. MR. BROWN: On the existing 25 unpermitted deck. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Except for November 20, 2003 24 1 2 the eight foot portion that had a CO. I' ll ask you the standard questions . 3 MR. BROWN: By all means . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It is as 4 built, that' s a fact . MR. BROWN: Yes . We have photos 5 to show you. MS . MARTIN: It is also landward 6 of many of its neighbor' s deck not to make that be the criteria but there is some new 7 constructions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There are some 8 decks there that are close to the bluff . MS . MARTIN: According to the 9 conservation advisory, they' re very pleased with the condition of the bluff at that point, 10 and that it' s been well-vegetated and taken care of, and they said they have no problem 11 with it remaining and hope you take that into consideration. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as let' s go to a quick question of mine which is, 13 if the variance, if you were to demolish this deck -- 14 MR. BROWN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Don' t frown 15 so. If you were to demolish the deck, and have it comply with the code, which would mean 16 you would not have a deck; is that accurate? MR. BROWN: We' d have the eight 17 foot deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' d have the 18 eight foot deck because you have a CO on it . MR. BROWN: It' s the matter of 19 having to cut back the deck from the eight foot portion to the house to the bluff . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What would the cost of that be? 21 MR. BROWN: I would have to give that some thought . Actually, the major 22 portion of that could be the dump fees, which are astronomical these days . And there' s also 23 the concern of getting heavy equipment near the bluff in order to remove the footings . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There are footings there? 25 MR. BROWN: Yes . Then there would be the issue of -- I'm assuming there are November 20 , 2003 25 1 2 footings there because it' s a well-supported structure . Then there' s the issue of the 3 landscaping to protect the bluff that' s disrupted by the demolition. But, you know, 4 if I had to guess, I' d say you' re talking in the range of probably $10, 000 . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the conservation advisory counsel has found? 6 MS . MARTIN: No problem with it . In fact, they have found that it' s in better 7 shape than the surrounding properties . It' s in good stead. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Soil and water conservation. 9 MS . MARTIN: We have a Trustees permit and a DEC nonjurisdiction also . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that for 11 the proposed project? MS . MARTIN: For the house and -- 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Including the as built deck? 13 MS . MARTIN: Yes, they have been to the site, and they saw it and everything. 14 They have no problems with the proposed. The fact that we' re not changing the deck, the 15 deck is there and I guess everybody' s viewing that nondisturbance of that ar(a is better 16 than -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Disturbing it . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question after George? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 19 question is : . Are you going to destroy the deck and rebuild it? 20 MR. BROWN: No. MS . MARTIN: The deck is in good 21 shape . MR. BROWN: If you issue the 22 variance, we will leave the deck as it is . If you do not, we will have to demolish the 23 portion of the deck that is not permitted. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Your 24 evaluation of the deck as an engineer is that the deck is built not of substandard 25 construction but of I guess it' s CCA? MR. BROWN: Yes . November 20 , 2003 26 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quality construction. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of relatively quality construction? 4 MR. BROWN: It' s reasonably constructed, in my opinion. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Point out for George' s point, this deck is almost 6 built on the ground. - BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It is . 7 What is it about eight inches off the ground? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Barely. 8 MR. BROWN: You have the photos right there? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kind of looks where the grass is growing up, it looks almost 10 three, four inches off the ground. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think it 11 could be taken up pretty easily if need be and made into eight foot . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any other questions . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to have a motion reserving decision and to close 14 the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 15 - moved. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board members 17 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re here to hear the application of Charles and Barbara 19 Rodin, Application Number 5433 . This is for a variance concerning a proposed second-story 20 addition at less than 50 feet from the front property line at 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue . 21 Would you like to comment on this, Miss Martin? 22 MS . MARTIN: Yes . Amy Martin and Robert Brown of Fairweather Brown Design, on 23 behalf of Charles and Barbara Rodin. This is a properly, I think, 24 disapproved project as the existing structure is closer to the road than the proposed second 25 story. So the second story that is proposed is considered too close to the road on one November 20 , 2003 27 1 2 little corner of the proposed second story by -- there' s a 36 square foot area, triangle 3 of the second-story proposed structure that is in nonconformance with the setback. However 4 it is land -- it is behind the existing one-story structure that they' re trying to add 5 to. MR. BROWN: It' s stepped back. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a box here and then. It' s rather confusing. 7 MS . MARTIN: What they want to do is just add a second story across from the 8 existing two-story part just on the box but not, as far to the road as this goes . 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is the setback even going to connect with the garage? 10 MS . MARTIN: No. The setback even with this two-story part . And on the site 11 plan -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This does 12 not look like -- there' s something wrong. Here' s the thing that threw me, the survey 13 shows the garage even with this . On the site plan the garage is forward of this . 14 MS . MARTIN: This is the only nonconforming part, this little thing 15 (indicating) . They' re bringing the two-story out above this . The two-story structure is to 16 come across from the two-story existing, but it is well behind the existing one-story 17 structure, and it' s actual, the nonconformity is a small triangle that' s approximately 36 18 square feet and that' s ahead of the 50 foot setback. 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The problem here is on your survey. The survey shows that 20 the garage is even with the house level the survey shows that the garage is 24 . 6 feet from 21 Strohson Road, that the house is 32 . 6 , the site plan shows that the garage is, if you 22 look at it, what you submitted -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garage is 23 slightly forward. MR. BROWN: Actually, what the 24 survey is indicating that' s not shown on the site plan is a bit of paved walk. The line 25 that you see is, if you look at the survey -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This shows it November 20 , 2003 28 1 2 just even. MR. BROWN: With that line, that 3 line is just even with the patio there . The line of the structure is actually the back of 4 those two lines that are close together. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Did you see 5 what I mean? It doesn' t scan. I said which one' s correct? 6 MR. BROWN: In fact, the line that is even with the front of the garage is part 7 of the brick walkway. And the line behind that is the line of the house, so, in fact, 8 the garage does come forward by about I think two feet . 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As indicated on the survey. 10 MR. BROWN: As indicated on the roof . 11 MS . MARTIN: The roof of the garage, if you look at this picture, the roof 12 of the garage hangs over the apron in the front . So that' s from an overhead. When the 13 surveyor does it, that' s what they did. MS . MARTIN: We' re not doing 14 anything to the garage . MR. BROWN: This line is part of 15 the brick patio. This is the line of the house, that' s approximately two feet . So the 16 garage is about two feet forward from the front of the house . 17 MS . MARTIN: Also the overhang. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have 18 copies of this? MS . MARTIN: You can have this . 19 MS . KOWALSKI : I have copies in the file . 20 MS . MARTIN: I did submit pictures . 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. George . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the Bilco door involved in this at all? 23 MR. BROWN: No, it' s not . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody 24 else have any questions on the Board? Is there anybody in the audience that has any 25 comments to make for or against this application? If not, I will close the hearing November 20 , 2003 29 1 2 and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members 4 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is J & C Holdings, this is for an application 6 for a new house on North View Drive in Orient . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 7 they' re outside . They' re all outside . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham, 8 are you here to speak on J & C Holdings? Before you just begin, we have sent this 9 application to the Cullen water people for their comments . They were unable to get 10 through that mess that' s up there, and I have since sent them Mr. Fischetti' s engineering 11 drawing of what' s there . I cannot walk through that piece of property. I would 12 request that the applicant make some sort of path that we could review this property before 13 we make any decisions . You cannot get through that . 14 MS . WICKHAM: I don' t think he' ll have a problem with it . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I walked all around it . Mr. Goehringer walked all around 16 it . I know it' s a deep ravine and I 'm terribly concerned about it . Environmentally 17 it' s an extremely sensitive piece . That bluff has not been in good condition for many years . 18 Part of it maybe 20 years ago fell in the drink from a house, and I can' t get down. I 19 don' t know if there' s any stairs down. MR. FICHETTI : Joseph Fichetti, 20 engineer. Ruth, where would you like the clearing to go? 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to be able to walk down into that . 22 MR. FICHETTI : Towards that ravine area? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . I'm concerned with that big block of dirt that' s 24 pushed in there, and that huge hole in the ground that is extreme safety concern for me 25 to any kids that might come up there, even though probably they don' t, if they ever fell November 20 , 2003 30 1 2 in that hole it would be the end of them. MS . WICKHAM: I do want to note 3 that the actual ravine is on the neighboring property to the west, at least on the contour 4 maps I don' t know that we would have the authority to go into that . You want to be 5 able to access down? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 've looked at 6 the neighbor, I went and I walked the neighboring lot too, which does dip down, but 7 this one, if you go to the west and I walk down there, there is a ravine there but it 8 continues down even into your lot and I certainly can' t walk down there with that 9 shrub and brush without tearing myself apart, and if I break a leg down there, I' ll 10 certainly not get out either. MS . WICKHAM: May I come up? This 11 is the map we have, and if you notice, the actual ravine is on the neighbor' s property. 12 We can clear a path right along here that would allow you to see down into it . If you 13 would like us to ask the neighbor for consent . . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is Mrs . 14 Doll, and I believe she owns the lot or did own the lot . 15 MS . WICKHAM: She no longer does . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But this dips 16 here and further into here, and this is your lot (indicating) . 17 MS . WICKHAM: See these contours indicate the dip is on this side (indicating) . 18 I'm happy to clear it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Dips here and 19 even further here because I walked it . MS . WICKHAM: We can certainly do 20 that . I don' t want to create a ravine where water goes down. There is a screen to the 21 east of this property where I 'm sure the water does go down. Okay. We will do that and let 22 you know and if you would like, maybe not me, but my client to accompany you. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I say something? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mrs . Tortora. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, let me just try to not spill my coffee all over November 20 , 2003 31 1 2 your application. There are two variance requests here? 3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The first 4 is for a deviation from the front yard requirement from 50 to 43? 5 MS . WICKHAM: 43 feet . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The second 6 is a deviation from the hundred foot setback requirement to -- and this is what is not 7 quite clear -- 50 feet? MS . WICKHAM: Yes . To the 8 northeast corner of the proposed house and that' s shown on here . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just 10 wanted to get that . I also noted that there are a number of requests for delays on this 11 hearing. I saw your response to them this morning. We did not, obviously, we did not 12 delay the hearing; it' s being held, but it would probably be adjourned. 13 MS . WICKHAM: I can see that already from the request . As long as we get 14 started today, see what you need in terms of additional information and -- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also your house is going to be 32 feet by 65 feet, that' s a 16 two-story house? MS . WICKHAM: It' s one and-a-half 17 story house . What that means is a full first floor and a second floor where there would be 18 bedrooms with sloping ceilings . So it will not be a full-blown, two-story house . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we get the plans for the house? 20 MS . WICKHAM: I believe Mr. Hertado has a conceptual concept . He 21 doesn' t have specific plans but I asked him to bring a conceptual plan so that you could see 22 it' s not going to be a big, looming structure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d also like to 23 know what material he' s going to be building with, because I know his other buildings up at 24 Grand View are very heavy and I would prefer seeing something a lot lighter, and I cannot 25 see a big, house on that piece of property. MS . WICKHAM: I agree with you. November 20 , 2003 32 1 2 The siding is going to be cedar shake, that he would be willing to specify. What in addition 3 do you want in terms of material specifications? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What the foundation and just what he' s going to be 5 using. So we can determine the weight . Because, as I say, this bluff is extremely 6 tenuous . MS . WICKHAM: We have Mr. Fichetti 7 here, he may be able to address some of those issues . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Also, Madam Chair? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Goehringer. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what type of heavy equipment is going in there . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . And I want to know how much fill is going to be 12 needed to comply with all the requirements here . 13 MS . WICKHAM: Okay. Can I address you on a number of other items? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you may. MS . WICKHAM: I wanted to make the 15 point that the applicant is sensitive to house size and that is why there' s been an attempt 16 to scale back dramatically and reconfigure what I understand was here before you 17 previously. And the 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff is, as you can see, 18 considerably back from the older houses that are on either side, but we think it strikes a 19 balance between a front yard setback and a bluff setback, with a house of what is fairly 20 modest depth of 32 feet . The driveway was originally proposed on the west side of the 21 house, and that we think did have the effect of aggravating that depression as the water 22 went down the bluff . Also, because of the contour that is descending right off the 23 street, it was decided that it would make much more sense to move the driveway over to the 24 other side of the property, using the contour -- going more along the contour is 25 what I mean by that -- and putting the garage on the east side of the property. And to November 20 , 2003 33 1 2 alleviate the problem of runoff coming down the property over the bluff, which is the 3 biggest problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That too and 4 also going down the road because you have homes to the west of that and I wouldn' t like 5 to see a whole stream of water. You know, we get these big, heavy rains, we don' t get 6 little ones, and flooding and eroding that piece of property and going down the road and 7 harming someone else' s property. MS . WICKHAM: If I could focus you 8 on the proposed railroad tie retaining wall that is going to be designed to avoid 9 those two problems, down the property and over the bluff and across the property on to the 10 west side . They will be constructed in such a way that it would contain that water, grade it 11 back into this particular property and the runoff directed towards drains within the 12 property itself, so that it won' t be leaving on to someone else' s property. Similarly, 13 any water coming down towards this house will be drained so as to accommodate a flow away 14 from the house itself, dry wells are specified on the plan to contain roof runoff . So that 15 has all been incorporated. If you have any questions of Mr. Fichetti, who is here, he can 16 answer them. The applicant has also retained an environmental consultant to talk about or 17 to address during the construction phase runoff, hay bail placement and all those types 18 of things because there' s nobody that' s more concerned about losing what' s on the property 19 now than the applicant, because if he loses part of his bluff, then he' s much further 20 disadvantaged in terms of developing this . And I will say that this gentleman is very 21 sensitive to that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Before Mrs . 22 Tortora asks a further question, has anyone done a deep analysis of that deep hole that' s 23 there? MS . WICKHAM: That was done 24 because -- the reason that' s there is because the health department required an actual 25 excavation in order to pass on their soil . That was something that was required to be November 20 , 2003 34 1 2 done in the course of the approvals, and my understanding was that that was approved and 3 therefore we must have soil test rolls . I don' t have them in front of me . Do you have 4 them, Joe? MR. FICHETTI : It' s on the site 5 plan. If they have the site plan and that shows not more than 30 feet from -- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not on the survey. 7 MS . WICKHAM: Can I give them this? This is a survey revised August 20th 8 that shows at the site of the test hole, which is in the front yard area well, they went down 9 to 42 feet without finding water. The composition of the soil is top soil, loam, 10 sandy clay, sand, silty sand, silty sand and gravel . So I' ll submit this to you. 11 MR. FISCHETTI : I need this for my discussion unless they want to see it . 12 MS . WICKHAM: Let' s let them look at it now. I did submit that and if you need 13 more copies, I ' ll give them to you. MS . KOWALSKI : Do you have any 14 extras with you? MS . WICKHAM: I don' t have them 15 now, but I will submit them after the hearing. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What' s the 16 square footage on this lot because it' s not on the stamped sealed survey? 17 MS . KOWALSKI : Almost 42 , 000 square feet . It' s on the disapproval . 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anything on the record that substantiates 19 that? MS . KOWALSKI : No, I don' t see 20 anything on the record on that . MS . WICKHAM: I' ll have that noted 21 on the survey. Then I will submit -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Six plans 22 of a revised survey showing the square footage of the lot in question. 23 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . I have an approximation but I ' d rather have the surveyor 24 compute it directly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So would 25 we . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm informed November 20, 2003 35 1 2 that in order to be a valid survey we must have the square footage . 3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, we' re going to get that . It should have been on there, I'm 4 surprised it' s not . But we' ll certainly have that added. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora, do you have further questions? 6 MR. FICHETTI : I have an earlier survey from John Metzger on the same parcel 7 that shows 41, 942 square feet . We' ll have it on the other one, but -- 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Nine hundred and what Joe? 9 MR. FICHETTI : 41, 942 square feet it says to the tie line . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : What is the date on that? 11 MR. FICHETTI : This survey is dated revised July 5, 2002 . It will probably 12 be the same amount . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just 13 wanted to try to go over a couple of things . The footprint of the house that you' re 14 proposing is currently a 3 , 265, correct? MS . WICKHAM: Uh-huh. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So that would be a ground floor footprint of 2 , 080 16 feet? MS . WICKHAM: Yes . 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the square footage of the second story or half 18 story as you put it? MS . WICKHAM: It would be 19 approximately half of that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The reason 20 I 'm asking that is the building department -- MS . WICKHAM: Excuse me . I might 21 clarify that the first floor includes the garage . 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The building -- I'm not sure if they' re going to 23 view this as a half story or a full story, they have an unusual way of determining these 24 things, that' s why I'm asking specifically. MS . WICKHAM: Again, the house is 25 conceptual so I can' t give you the specific square footage . I can ask the applicant to November 20 , 2003 36 1 2 develop that for you. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The other 3 thing is obviously the setback from the bluff is very keenly tied to the length of the 4 house, it' s a 65 foot length. If that was a 55 foot house, because of the angle of the 5 house to the bluff, that would automatically increase the setback that you' re proposing. 6 MS . WICKHAM: That' s correct . On the other hand we have very ample side yards 7 here, and I don' t think a 2 , 000 square foot footprint is a monster house . It' s really not 8 excessive . BOARD MEMBER -TORTORA: I don' t 9 know what the final product is . I don' t know if it' s going to be a two-story, a two 10 and-a-half story. I don' t know whether your client is willing to stipulate those types of 11 decisions in order to obtain what amounts to a substantial variance . That' s all up in the 12 air. You can see there' s a great deal of concern. 13 MS . WICKHAM: The substantial nature of this variance is generated as much 14 by the lot itself as the house that' s going on it . Therefore, it' s really hard when you' re 15 making a decision on a setback to specify exactly what the layout of the house is going 16 to be because it hasn' t actually been designed yet . But we' re willing to stipulate that 17 within that footprint there will be a house designed. It could be end up being smaller, 18 but that is the maximum we' re asking you to approve because of the angle of the property 19 and the short depth of the property. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Well, 20 historically when we look at properties like this, one of the things we' re going to look at 21 is the impact, whether it' s one-story, two stories or two and-a-half stories -- 22 MS . WICKHAM: Right . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- is to 23 the relationship of the variance . Obviously it' s really not cost effective from your 24 perspective to go ahead and have a set of site plans drawn up and then continually revise 25 them. I understand that, that' s why I'm asking the question. November 20 , 2003 37 1 2 MS : WICKHAM: But your code goes to footprint and that' s why we' re focusing 3 here on footprint . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm not 4 sure that the word "footprint" even appears in the codes . 5 MS . WICKHAM: No. But it' s a setback that contemplates footprint . It' s a 6 setback rule and it doesn' t relate specifically only to the number of stories . 7 We are wiling to agree, though, that this is going to be the maximum setback, and the house 8 will be a one and-a-half story, and I can give you a better conceptual design on that if you 9 like with a specific concept of how much square footage will be on either floor. But 10 again, the second floor of the half-story is not something that affects the footprint and 11 we' re not talking about side yard setbacks; we' re not talking about looming next to a 12 neighbor, which is sometimes why you get into that issue . 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 14 MS . WICKHAM: And I ' d also note that because the property is lower than the 15 road, we' re not talking about a concern you also have about a house looming up when you 16 look at it from a neighbor' s property or from the street . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house won' t be lower than the road, there will be fill put 18 in to make it higher. MS . WICKHAM: I didn' t get the end 19 of your question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Add a lot of 20 fill to make it even higher. MS . WICKHAM: You' re not adding 21 significant elevation to make the house higher; that' s correct . 22 MR. FICHETTI : I' ll discuss it when I come up . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You 24 called on me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good. Is there any reason why you, Miss Wickham, November 20 , 2003 38 1 2 sought the location -- I don' t want you particularly, but you as being the agent for 3 the applicant and attorney for -- as 43 feet rather than greater distance to the top of the 4 bluff? MS . WICKHAM: Yeah, yeah, I can 5 answer that and probably Mr. Fischetti can answer it better but that seemed to be the 6 right balance in order to give adequate room for the driveway, which will dip down, 7 adequate room in order to grade the front yard so that the water from the driveway doesn' t go 8 right into the garage as it goes down, adequate room for the septic system. It just 9 seemed to be the right balance in terms of where the house should be setback. Also, that 10 house on the west is way, way back so we didn' t want to get too close to the road, and 11 as you know, we try to minimize variances so I guess 43 feet was more minimal than 40 . It 12 was more to design it so that the front yard accommodated the driveway access as much as 13 anything in the drainage . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s 14 the reason why you gained more footage on the west side than you do on the east side for the 15 purposes of accommodating the driveway? MS . WICKHAM: Uh-huh. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the case? 17 MS . WICKHAM: Uh-huh. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 18 want to say, you've been before us many, many years, this is a very difficult plan to 19 understand based upon the difficulty of this lot, and I think you have to bear with me and 20 my fellow colleagues in the construction of a house on that piece of property. It is 21 something that I am having great difficulty with. 22 MS . WICKHAM: Well, it is difficult to design, that' s why we've tried to 23 mitigate the concern because of the topography down towards the bluff, and I ' m going to let 24 Mr. Fischetti address that from an engineering point of view because he' s more technical . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. MR. HORNING: No questions . November 20 , 2003 39 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fischetti, would you like to -- 3 MS . WICKHAM: While he' s coming up, I' d like to maybe help you with a little 4 bit more of the construction phase and erosion and sediment control plan that does specify 5 drainage calculations, proposed line of hay bails, fence and snow fencing during 6 construction in order to not have a washout while the equipment is there, and I have one 7 copy. I can give it to you now, but I will need to submit more copies to you. I guess 8 I'm going to give you a big package . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 9 Mr. Fischetti . MR. FICHETTI : Good morning, 10 Joseph Fischetti . We've already been introduced. 11 Yes, this is -- maybe I can go through some of the thought processes in 12 laying this house out and maybe go through construction with you. Gail talking about the 13 front yard setback and go with why we really worked on that . 14 The one area we have certain separations between the sanitary systems and 15 the house, the sanitary systems and each other and also the sanitary systems and the side 16 yards . But more important, the pitch of the house, to keep it down low enough and not have 17 water go into the garage, I've seen many houses that have the waters going in the 18 garage and it causes a lot of problems . We have to have a reverse pitch away from the 19 garage and also have a level that area that' s level where we can catch that water. We have 20 a dry well in that area, so we' re pitching both ways now. If we shorten that up, the 21 only way we could do that would be to have to raise the house a little higher because we 22 wouldn' t be able to get those pitches . We have elevation 91 at the garage at the dry 23 well, the garage level is 91; the entrance of the driveway at road line is 92-8 . And we 24 need to pitch back so we've kept it down to a point where we can have pitches in either 25 direction to get the water away from the house . So the location of the house is kind November 20 , 2003 40 1 2 of in the middle between the two, and also to be able to get the sanitary system in there 3 with the setbacks that are required from the health department . 4 At one point you brought up and Gail touched upon was the sanitary system that 5 excavation that' s there . We have had problems -- builders have problems getting 6 approvals of sanitary systems that have this silty sand and gravel and silty clay down to 7 27 feet, it' s very expensive, and not only expensive -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It erodes nicely if it' s on the bluff -- go ahead, go 9 ahead. MR. FICHETTI : To approve a system 10 like that subject to those depths you' re better off -- the health department probably 11 requires you to excavate, but a lot of times you' ll find that they' ll cave in on you, and 12 you' ll never be able to do that . And having the free reign of going in there actually 13 physically digging it, getting all that clay out and knowing that you've gone through that 14 clay. Initially the health department says great you've done it and they approve it . 15 They prefer to do it initially instead of approving it subject to. I've done a house 16 where I've approved the sanitary system when it was like that . I've told the people, this 17 is a very expensive system that you' re doing in here, so the health department doesn' t want 18 to have that problem later on when somebody buys a lot that you have to dig down 27, 30 19 feet . They prefer doing it just the way the applicant has done here . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I stop you one point . That' s a crane operation? 21 MR. FICHETTI : Yes, has to be . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s 22 another concern we have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora 23 has a question. MR. FICHETTI : Go ahead. 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The retaining wall, Mr. Fischetti, the height of 25 the retaining wall? MR. FICHETTI : It' s a two-tier November 20 , 2003 41 1 2 retaining wall, which is very expensive and the reason this was done was to get a reverse 3 pitch. We have that depression there, as you said, there is a hole there . The retaining 4 wall is going just to the south of that area. Part of that hole will be filled in, but it' s 5 a two-tier retaining wall . The bottom to the top of the wall, the lower wall -- let' s see 6 the bottom of the wall is 79, top is 83 ; the second wall is -- the bottom of the wall is 83 7 going to 87, and the reason for that is to get the pitches away and all the draining away 8 from the slope . Everything is contained on this site . .All the water and runoff that 9 originally, ,before this was built was going down that gully. Right now it' s going 10 backwards, and it' s going into dry wells and actually that one dry well in the corner I 11 probably remember moving it further away from the edge of the bluff because I don' t want any 12 of the water going in there to leach out the side, actually I talked to him, I said I don' t 13 like that . I want to move it further to the south so it doesn' t leach out underneath the 14 wall . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The areas 15 inside the proposed where you have the retaining wall, because I think the house 16 right down the middle of the elevation 80 and then that area in there is kind of crazy, it 17 goes to 70 down to -- actually it goes down to about 76, do you plan on filling area? 18 MR. FICHETTI : If you look at the topos there, you have a cut to the right and a 19 fill to the left, so you' re really going into that fill . I haven' t done -- you asked for a 20 calculation of what' s going to be needed on the site . I actually didn' t do a calculation 21 of what' s needed on the site some of that fill will be cut on the east side and cross to the 22 west side . So it would be taken, I don' t know if additional fill would be put in there so it 23 would be leveled off and bringing to the left to get that area in. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you go down to the base of the bluff? 25 MR. FICHETTI : No, I did not . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s no November 20 , 2003 42 1 2 stairs . MR. FICHETTI : No, I didn' t go 3 down. We did just the design from the top . Is there a reason to go down there? How' s the 4 tow; is it stable down there? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For now, you 5 are aware as I am, that you never know from the type of storms that we have, the wave 6 action, the wind action you can have a wonderful bluff one day, a tenuous bluff the 7 next day. MR. FICHETTI : Yep . I tell people 8 don' t think about giving these properties to your grandchildren. That' s not the case here . 9 The bluff is stable . The tow is reasonable at this point, and when I did my analysis in the 10 letter that I gave you, it was based on an angle of repose that was stable and all the 11 construction that would be at the low end of that extension of the angle of repose . So 12 none of the construction or none of the impact on the house or the fill that' s putting in 13 here will destabilize that slope . The slope right now is stable . And as long as the 14 vegetation is kept on the bluff, it will -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Keep your 15 fingers crossed. MR. FICHETTI : Again, even if the 16 client here built a bulkhead here and none of the other neighbors have bulkheads it has no 17 bearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fischetti, 18 if you' re finished, I' d like to know if anybody else in the audience has any comments 19 about this application? Yes, ma' am. Would you give your name and address, please? 20 MS . MORGAN: My name is Mary Morgan. I'm at 855 North View Drive, Brown' s 21 Hill . I have a letter I' ll read to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 22 MS . MORGAN: The lot in question was recently bought and the company proposes 23 to construct a single-family dwelling to sell . The company wants two variances, one 24 from 100 foot setback from the bluff and one from the 50 foot setback in the road. They 25 propose a 43 foot setback. They propose a 65 by 35 foot house on a 2 , 080 footprint . The November 20 , 2003 43 1 2 property has a huge gully or ravine and the neighbors have always been told that this was 3 an unbuildable lot and owner wants to keep it as a bird sanctuary. The owner has divided 4 another lot to achieve this bird sanctuary selling the other portion. My questions and 5 concerns are : Is the setback from the bluff at 50 feet enough to prevent erosion? And the 6 one and-a-half story house proposed with the 2000 footprint is .substantially larger that 7 any of the other neighboring houses, which are one-story dwellings . I 'm also thinking about 8 the fill that they' re going to use; is it nonnative soils? Is it some kind of fill that 9 could leach and be polluting or cause erosion? And ultimately, there is this question of sort 10 of the elephant in the room kind of thing, you know, it was an unbuildable lot with these 11 negative building envelope, and we bought a lot a couple of years ago in Brown' s Hills 12 that was big enough to build on, and I just wonder about the rules . I mean, if there are 13 lots that aren' t -- don' t have building envelopes how can they become building 14 envelopes? That' s just my points . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is 15 there anybody else that would like to comment? MR. MORGAN: My name is Tom 16 Morgan. I also live in the same house with Mary Morgan. We just built the house a couple 17 of years ago without applying for any variances and not needing anything. The house 18 actually is a little bit smaller in footprint than this . It doesn' t have a garage, houses 19 in Brown' s Hills do not have garages . I was at the hearing in the spring 20 and it had been discussed about the fact that it was a negative building envelope and that 21 application was withdrawn, and it became a moot point . But those roads are also private 22 roads . They' re not public roads, and if there was an erosion that the association would have 23 to rebuild the road and replace the fill and whatever. It' s not an immediate concern of 24 mine . The houses on either side, the two houses on the west are much more modest 25 dwellings . One is perched on the side of the bluff like an outhouse in the Ozarks, and it' s November 20 , 2003 44 1 2 some day going to be a beach house at some time, but those were built at times when these 3 rules weren' t in place and there were no rules about setback and the bluffs, as far as I know 4 you could build right on the edge . But I would like your permission to read a letter 5 from another one of the residents who just built a house even more recently than we 6 did. That' s Bill Rile, I ' ll give you a copy of the letter, addressed to the Southold 7 Zoning Board of Appeals re this item. Dear Sir, I am a resident of 8 Brown' s Hill and am concerned about the environmental impact of building on a small 9 lot on Long Island Sound. I am not in principal against any house being built on 10 this lot . I would ask that the ZBA think very carefully about the environmental issues 11 before deciding whether this lot is buildable, and to what degree the ZBA will allow it 12 so. Point one : Most importantly, the lot is tiny. There is a large natural ravine running 13 through it and the down the bluff facing to the north. This is the natural drainage . A 14 65 foot by 32 foot house as proposed cannot be built without filling the ravine . What 15 environmental impact will this have on the bluff and how will drainage occur after the 16 ravine is full out of existence? I cannot answer the question that the ZBA must answer 17 and before giving any relief to the 100 foot bluff setback. 18 Point two : The applicant requests that a 100 foot environmental setback from the 19 bluff be reduced to 50 feet in order that this house be built . A house could be built 20 farther than 50 feet from the bluff and closer to the road potentially reducing the 21 environmental impact on the bluff and ravine . The house would almost have to be smaller or 22 narrower than proposed -- incidentally, Bill Rile is an architect -- The front yard setback 23 might be reduced by 25 feet in order to create a greater setback to the bluff . In parens a 24 25 foot front yard setback was granted by ZBA number 4851 on 9/11/00 at 915 South View 25 Drive, more reasonable site planning and environmental considerations were the November 20 , 2003 45 1 2 motivating reasons for the variance . Number three : This lot is the 3 remainder of a larger lot which had been subdivided and partially sold off by the 4 current owner. The owner has told all adjoining neighbors over the years that this 5 remaining lot would also be nature preserve or bird sanctuary. The owner has correctly said G that this lot is unbuildable following the current environmental and zoning setbacks . 7 Current neighbors have not only purchased and built their houses with this knowledge but the 8 existing laws but they have also attempted to discuss with the owner the possibility of 9 purchasing the lot in order to leave it undeveloped, and letters to this effect have 10 been ignored. Point four: And current 11 application is a test by speculative builders/developers to find out how much ZBA 12 will bend the rules to allow a house to be built with environmental setbacks . Today' s 13 market, the larger the house the larger the profit . 14 I would ask again that the ZBA take a closer look at the environmental issues 15 raised by the construction of this lot . Sincerely, William Rile . 1G CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One question, Mr. Morgan, are there stairs going down to the 17 bluffs someplace in Brown' s Hills? MR. MORGAN: Not on that property. 18 There is a Brown' s Hills right of way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where is that? 19 MR. MORGAN: Between that next house to the west and the next house beyond 20 that to the west is a 25 foot right of way that goes down to a -- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Stairs? MR. MORGAN: -- 108 steps, 109 22 steps . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was trying to 23 find it . It used to be further to the east . ' MR. MORGAN: There was a former 24 site which -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Has, been built 25 on? MR. MORGAN: No. November 20 , 2003 46 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There are stairs . Okay, thank you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham, who is the owner of this property? 4 MS . WICKHAM: The owner of the property is Edna Doll . She was unable to be 5 here today. Her nephew is here . I just want to note that there is no credible evidence in 6 the record she may have made as to buildablity, and can supply an attorney, Mr. 7 Camenetti, who advises that she would refute having made any representations to the 8 neighbors as to that effect . I' d also, while I'm up here, like 9 to point out that the survey I did just give you showing the test hole information revised 10 August 20th does show the square footage of the lot . I just didn' t see it earlier, 41, 907 11 square feet . It' s noted up at the bottom of the slope, which is not where we' re used to 12 seeing it, so we didn' t see it . It is on the survey. I' ll get you additional prints . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak? 14 MR. ASTLE : My name is Chris A-S-T-L-E, my wife and I own the property 15 immediately to the east . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was Helen -- 16 MR. ASTLE : It was, we bought it from Murray Moss, who I think bought it from 17 Helen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, got it . 18 MR. ASTLE : Anyway, we were told at the time that it was an unbuildable lot . 19 To the side of us, which we wouldn' t have bought the place if we knew that a house could 20 be built there, and if a house can be built there especially one this big, I don' t know 21 that we' ll still stay there, I 'm pretty sure we won' t . We' re very worried about the 22 fact -- I mean, I just saw this plan and it' s like these retaining walls going through this 23 natural area right on the bluff . It' s like a beautiful natural area and if you go up there, 24 the whole community is like that . This is just going to be like these retaining walls 25 that are unnaturally keeping, you know, the bluff in a way that it' s kind of not meant to November 20 , 2003 47 1 2 be, and who knows how well they' ll work. We know that it stayed that way for a long time, 3 the way that it is right now. Anyways, I'm not an expert on it, but it looks highly 4 unattractive to me in the plans . Not that -- it' s not my property, but we bought it knowing 5 that the laws said that it couldn' t be built there, and honestly I wonder why the laws are 6 in place if they' re just going to be changed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think 7 there' s anything in the law that says it couldn' t be built on. 8 MR. ASTLE : That it couldn' t be built on? Well, the laws put certain -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Conditions on things . But it doesn' t mean that somehow, 10 somewhere that something can' t be built on. MR. ASTLE : As an adjoining 11 neighbor, I state my objections to bending those conditions . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Without variances . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does need variances . I'm not saying you just come in 14 and plop a house there, but . MR. ASTLE : Right . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unless you and your neighbors wanted to get together and buy 16 that piece of .property, the owner has property rights . 17 MR. ASTLE : I understand that . We've talked about doing that . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to comment 19 on this application? Yes, sir. MR. DALE : Yes, my name' s Carl 20 Dale, I'm the nephew of Edna Doll . I just want to say that my aunt to 21 my knowledge has never made any reference to a bird sanctuary. She' s had land there for 50 22 years and she loves the area very much. She' s currently handicapped. She had a stroke four 23 years ago . So I 'm handling the business as much as I can for her. 24 I just want to say a couple of things . She really doesn' t want to sell the 25 land, but she is what you might call a hardship case. She needs 24 hour care and November 20 , 2003 48 1 2 this is one of the reasons we want to put it up for sale . So she' s endeavoring as much as 3 she can through me and the parties that want to buy to minimize any impact upon that 4 property, and as Miss Wickham had indicated, to put as small a house that is possible 5 there . That' s all . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No one else has 6 any comments? MR. ASTLE: Can I just say one 7 more thing. I could provide the letter to this Board, where Edna talks about the fact 8 that she said that was a bird sanctuary and a fox sanctuary. She wrote a letter within the 9 last year stating that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So then do it 10 and give it to us . If there are no further questions, we will recess this hearing until 11 December 18th. MS . KOWALSKI : At 2 : 30 in the 12 afternoon. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I' ll make 13 such a motion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members 15 responded in favor. ) MS . WICKHAM: Thank you. 16 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next 17 hearing is Richard and Nancy Cincotta. They are applying for a special exception for a bed 18 and breakfast of having not more than four casual and transient roomers at 26815 Main 19 Road in Cutchogue . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is your 20 application four or two? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Excuse me? 21 MS . KOWALSKI : Two guest rooms? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Two. 22 MS . KOWALSKI : Would you please state your full name for the record? 23 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Nancey Hawthorn-Cincotta, at 26815 Main Road in 24 Cutchogue . MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: I have two 25 alterations, amendments, one on the request of Jessica, I had neglected to draw in the November 20 , 2003 49 1 2 driveway on a copy of the survey, so I have that for you. And I also, unfortunately I 3 copied the first floor of your plans on the library' s photocopy machine and they' re not 4 very good. So I 've since made photocopies for you. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are they copies for all the Board members here? 6 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a 7 second floor, correct? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we have a note . 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just have the second floor. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s copies of the second floor in the packet . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We got it . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three bedrooms, two baths, is it? 13 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . MS .' KOWALSKI : Two guest rooms on 14 the second floor, right? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Two guest 15 rooms on the second floor, the other room is for us, my husband and me . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the survey it says a third story. 17 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: There is an unfinished third story. It' s not finished 18 right now, it' s just framing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does it have 19 flooring in it? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: It has 20 wood boards . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That you can 21 walk on it, right? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . It' s 22 a full-sized third story. It' s just not finished space . 23 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s not a liveable area for future bedrooms or anything? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How old is the house, Ms . Hawthorn? 25 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: 90 years old. November 20 , 2003 50 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why. Mr. Horning do you have any questions? 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I ' ll ask about the parking. You' re only going to have 4 two rooms at any time for your B and B? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . It' s 5 a small one and you' ll see on that amended copy of the survey, I drew in where the 6 driveway currently exists . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And there 7 will be adequate parking for your vehicles and your guests? 8 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right . We expect two vehicles if the inn is full and we 9 have two vehicles . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Will they be 10 able to turn around and not back out? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes, they 11 will . It' s kind of a three-point turn situation. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 13 looking at the plan Mrs . Cincotta, you have encroachment on your neighbor' s property; is 14 that correct based upon what I see or gather out of this; this driveway extends into the 15 neighbor' s property? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yeah. I 16 suppose that when they subdivided the property they just kind of split the driveway in half, 17 which is why we dug into our front yard, to make suitable parking. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you' ll not be using the driveway on your neighbor' s 19 property? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: No . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just on your property? 21 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So just 22 to again reenforce, there will be no backing out on the Main Road at any time? 23 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: No . We made it, and you' ll be able to see, there is a 24 space in the southern most section of the property where the guests will be able to 25 park, and then there' s another space kind of around the garden where we' ll be able to put November 20, 2003 51 1 2 our cars . Currently there' s a big dumpster right now. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've done a substantial amount of work on this 4 house . MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes, we 5 have, and we' re embarking -- we' re sleeping in the living right now because construction' s 6 starting to renovate the second floor. It was a house that unfortunately suffered decades 7 and decades of neglect . I had plant growth from the first floor outside growing inside my 8 second story. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've 9 done a wonderful job so far. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the second 10 floor then will have two bathrooms where it shows on your plans, just one bathroom? 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was going to ask, you show three bedrooms but you' re 12 only showing one bathroom. MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: What we' re 13 doing is cutting into -- currently, right now there are four bedrooms and one very small 14 bath. So what we' re going to do is there' s one very small bedroom that' s not really able 15 to fit much more than a crib; so we' re going to turn that into a bath, plus encroach on 16 that space to widen the existing bath, which is right adjacent to that . 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So where the bedroom number one is -- 18 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- you' re 19 going to create a bathroom area? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: There is 20 an existing bath. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re 21 going to blow out that wall to make the other one? 22 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right . It will be almost 18 inches wider than it is 23 right now. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So where it 24 is now, the existing bathroom, would be -- it' s very tough to see by these lines, but 25 that would be for the master bath, for your privacy I assume? November 20, 2003 52 1 2 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: No, that' s going to be one of the guest rooms with an 3 attached bath. We have a separate bath downstairs, a full bath, on the first floor 4 for us . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So two 5 bathrooms upstairs and -- MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: And two 6 guest rooms and our bedroom. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So your 7 bath is going to be downstairs? MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . 8 MS . KOWALSKI : Plus one bedroom for family on the second floor? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . Two bedrooms on the second floor, each with their 10 own baths, and she will use bedroom Number 3 and the bathroom downstairs, right? 11 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right . MS . KOWALSKI : There' s still three 12 bedrooms downstairs . MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Right . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora, do you have anything else? 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I was curious because it didn' t look terribly 15 convenient . MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Our first 16 apartment was like that, so I guess I 'm used to sleep walking. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have no problems with a traditional bed and bath, no 18 use for habitation that guest bedroom or anything else? 19 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: I understand that . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You will have the proper exit signs? 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The building department will take care of that . 22 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . And fire alarm system. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also from the second floor those rope ladders or chain 24 ladders for the bedroom windows will be of a proper size to get out . 25 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll check November 20 , 2003 53 1 2 with the building department -- MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: Yes . And 3 I' ll have to check with them about the specifications of the fire system. I've heard 4 some conflicting opinions in the industry over what current inn owners have had to do, 5 whether it needs to be a connected system or whether it' s individual fire alarms . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer,_ anything else? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to be connected but that' s all I need to say. 8 MS . HAWTHORN-CINCOTTA: They need to be connected? Okay. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But don' t hear that from me . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like 11 to comment on this application? MR. HENDERSON: Hi, Marlon 12 Henderson. I live across the street at 26760 Main Road. My wife and I have lived there for 13 13 years, and we' re very happy with what Rich and Nancey have done with the property, and 14 our only concern was, and I mentioned this to Nancey before, was the height of the signage 15 that might appear there on the property, and she' s related to me that there is a code there 16 that is only two by two I think; is that correct? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two by three . MR. PETERSON: Okay. That was my 18 only concern we' re very happy to see the property being brought back. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, I will close on the 20 hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members 22 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 23 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next 24 application is Walter Teresko, Number 5429 . This is a request for a variance for a new 25 mobile home that does not have access, is not located on a public street . November 20 , 2003 54 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:. Go ahead, Gail? MS . WICKHAM: We are here simply 3 for 280A access . Mr. Teresko has found that he is finding the greenhouse operation, which 4 he' s run for years and years there to be a bit of a strain there, and while he' s still 5 continuing it he' s trying to plan a little for his retirement . And he did acquire a number 6 of years ago the lot in question. The ZBA did approve it . For some reason there was no 7 discussion of access, and we feel that that needs to be addressed at this time with the 8 specification from your Board as to the type of roadway for emergency vehicle access . The 9 areas on New Suffolk Road is actually 37 feet, but the proposed right of way would be 30 10 feet . The reason for the width is that the driveway will be whatever you require in terms 11 of width, 15, 16 feet, and then he has a number of plantings and personal items along 12 the perimeter that he would like to maintain and control as part of the right of way. 13 We've narrowed it down to 15 feet at the other end where it enters the lot, but try to 14 accommodate the curve with a gradual reduction in width, so that the curve can be made by 15 emergency vehicles . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I 16 speak? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm a little concerned. I was down there and I 'm 18 not sure, are we talking new or proposed new mobile home? Is that what we' re talking 19 about? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We had this 20 application last spring. MS . WICKHAM: No, you had a 21 different application. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But I'm 22 looking at almost the identical survey that we had before. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But where are we going is the question? 24 MS . WICKHAM: It' s confusing because the tax maps were changed. You' re 25 going to this lot here (indicating) . It may have been, closed for reference, proposed November 20 , 2003 55 1 2 division of these two properties, but that is not what' s before you today. 3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What happened with that though? Give us the 4 background from the time that you left us the last time . 5 MS . WICKHAM: Okay, we had requested a change to move this lot line back 6 to here (indicating) . You rejected that and so this continues to be one entire single and 7 separate piece of property with nothing to do with this application. 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. MS . WICKHAM: Mr. Teresko had 9 asked you to go back to the historical usage of this lot, which included this piece, and 10 you said no, it makes this piece too small . So we kept it the way it is . That has nothing 11 to do with what we' re doing today. Also to give you some background, we' re applying to 12 the Planning Board and we met with them to discuss the division of this property into two 13 large lots . We' re just having trouble with the existing barn and where that line would 14 be . So ultimately the right of way we' re asking you to approve today for this lot would 15 be accommodating those two properties as well . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the 16 right of way -- this is where I 'm little concerned because the 30 foot right of way 17 that would be giving access to 197 5 . 2 that, to my understanding, is a future subdivision? 18 MS . WICKHAM: No 5 . 2 is a single and separate lot . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s slated for a subdivision? 20 MS . WICKHAM: No. That' s not a big lot, 1 . 4 acres . That you couldn' t divide 21 that . What he wants to divide is this 3 . 7 acre parcel into two lots but that' s a 22 separate application. I'm not even sure that comes to you. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t think it probably would. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I see that map for one second? 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The reason I ask that I remember the time, and it may be November 20 , 2003 56 1 2 misinformation, that someone had suggested to us that this parcel over here was eventually 3 slated as part of a larger parcel for part of a subdivision? 4 MS . WICKHAM: Not anything Mr. Teresko' s planning. I don' t know what 5 that is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I 6 ask a question? I've got to write this decision, okay, that' s what concerns me . 7 We' re coming in here and going over to here . MS . WICKHAM: 30 foot right of way 8 narrowing to 15 feet to access this property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re 9 going to that tangent right here? MS . WICKHAM: Yes . And this right 10 of way will also serve this parcel . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to 11 subdivide it? MS . WICKHAM: But that would 12 anyway. It' s not part of this application. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I'm 13 going there? MS . WICKHAM: You' re going there . 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not as concerned about the 30 foot, that' s 15 sufficient, but at the event at some point ten years from now down the road or some point, 16 the status of the use of that access would change or become more intense . 17 MS . WICKHAM: I don' t think you can get more than one house off a 50 foot 18 roadway; am I right? I don' t think the planning board allows that . 19 MS . KOWALSKI : I think you' re right . I don' t think so either. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They' re 22 now. 21 MS . WICKHAM: Unless he granted additional right of way later on and then try 22 to come back here for your approval . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s the 23 only thing. MS . WICKHAM: That's not a 24 problem. We have no plans to subdivide . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In other 25 words, 14 years down the road, ten years down road that these circumstances change and that November 20 , 2003 57 1 2 15 foot portion would have to come back for further review. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At that point we can enhance or deenhance based upon 4 the whole situation. MS . KOWALSKI : Also and the 5 planning board can take over and decide . MS . WICKHAM: Yes . 6 MS . KOWALSKI : So instead of coming back here, you can take it through 7 planning. MS . WICKHAM: I'm just confused 8 and I don' t know where that information came from but it is Cutchogue, you hear all kinds 9 of things . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So if 10 you were to see me down there doing a test hole, that' s what I'm doing. 11 MS . WICKHAM: A test hole? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. I 12 might just do a little test soil . I don' t usually do that . 13 MS . WICKHAM: You have to be careful driving in here, don' t hit the 14 animals . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Be careful of 15 the chickens . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 16 taught by two people . I was taught by Bob Douglas, which was a very, very interesting 17 education, and I was taught by a prior engineer, an old time engineer that we had and 18 they said you really can' t make a determination on a preexisting driveway -- 19 when I say preexisting in use -- without doing a test hole . 20 MS . WICKHAM: You' re going to do a test hole on the driveway? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . MS . WICKHAM: You have talk to 22 Walter before you start digging on that driveway. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not going to dig I may bounce off the Town 24 engineer. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm warning 25 you those chickens are very protective before you started digging. November 20 , 2003 58 1 2 MS . WICKHAM: That' s a good point though. That preliminary part of the driveway 3 within the 30 foot area has been a driveway for a long time; whether much needs to be 4 scooped out there I think is a question, certainly as you go out around the corner to 5 the back you' d need your normal six inches . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Base . 6 MS . WICKHAM: To remove and stabilize the base . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, so I' ll be down there Saturday. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have no 9 questions . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm 10 probably not going to do a test hole . Just going to look. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, we will close the hearing and reserve decision until 12 later. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor, (Whereupon, all Board members 14 responded in favor. ) . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Motion to recess 15 for lunch. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I' ll 16 second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 17 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor, and a lunch recess was 18 taken from 11 : 55 a.m. to 1 : 00 p.m. ) ---------------------------------------- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to motion to reconvene . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board members 23 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 24 Our 1 : 00 p.m. hearing is Karen Brown, this is a request for a variance for an 25 addition to the existing dwelling at less than 10 feet on a single side yard, at 1300 November 20, 2003 59 1 2 Founders Path, Southold. Mr. Strang. MR. STRANG: Good 3 afternoon. Garret Strang, Architect, representing Karen Brown with respect to this 4 application. Quick overview of the project here 5 is we have an existing one-story, single-family cottage with two very small 6 bedrooms and one bath which has been used as a part-time vacation residence, weekend 7 residence . The proposal for this is to maintain it as a one-story, single-family 8 residence, but to make it full-time use as the owner will be retiring here full time, and to 9 enhance it so that it has three bedrooms and two baths . 10 The additions that are being proposed are basically needed to meet not only 11 the owner' s criteria to convert this from a cottage to a full-time residence, but to 12 address nonconforming bedroom sizes into code compliant bedroom sizes and create a master 13 bedroom and bath area so that it would be compatible with full-time use . 14 The challenges that we've met here is that the house is on a 76 or 75 foot wide 15 lot, and the house sits askew on that lot . If it were parallel with the side lot lines we 16 wouldn' t really need to be before the Board. Unfortunately is sits askew, and the 17 existing location of the house dictates the location of where the bedrooms are and where 18 they will remain, be increased in size and to address the code issues with respect to the 19 size . And there' s really no other practical alternative available to us for placement of 20 these expansions . Therefore, we need and are seeking the relief from this Board. 21 Things that we' d like the Board to consider in making a determination is the fact 22 that what we are seeking for relief is minimal since the areas that are or will become in 23 violation to the codes are triangular in shape, they' re stepped back from the property 24 line intentionally so as to minimize the impact on the side yard, and they total the -- 25 how should I say -- the area that' s nonconforming or will become nonconforming, November 20 , 2003 60 1 2 totals ten square feet and six square feet respectively, and they are in one-story 3 addition; we' re not going up a second story in the house . The remainder of all the additions 4 are compliant with the zoning as are the front and rear total side yards . 5 If the Board has any questions, certainly I' d be happy to address them at this 6 time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there and 7 is there any way on that one side yard instead of a 10 . 2 setback you couldn' t -- it' s just a 8 tiny piece there that you' re coming out . Could you just do that in line in the 9 front and back instead of coming out? MR. STRANG: We investigated that 10 and the addition to the rear of the house is for the master suite, and the addition toward 11 the front is to create a little area that would be sort of a computer room or a little 12 den or office toward the front . So that whole side of the house would basically be a master 13 suite . The opposite side of the house is the other two guest bedrooms . If we can' t come 14 forward -- there' s a bath in the middle now that we' re going to enhance . We' re trying to 15 keep the plumbing and everything that' s there in place . As I mentioned earlier, we did step 16 it back to try and keep that reduction. If we were to try and come forward and maintain that 17 10 . 2 , that room in the front would be unusable in size and not compliant with the code as far 18 as the minimal dimensions that are required by code. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The one 20 story addition is going to be how many bedrooms you said? 21 MR. STRANG: The total in the house will go to three bedrooms . 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So in the 14 by 27 addition that you' re doing? 23 MR. STRANG: The 14 by 27 foot addition encompasses the master bedroom and 24 master bath. The other two bedrooms are enhanced by the addition on the opposite side 25 of the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s my November 20 , 2003 61 1 2 understanding that this is an A frame house, a cathedral ceiling? 3 MR. STRANG: It' s a cathedral ceiling in the living area, which is in the 4 middle of the house . Obviously the house was a little tiny cottage and had some bumps put 5 on it over the years . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The ten 6 foot setback line, is that where you have marked 27 on the survey, there' s a variegated 7 line . And it says on the line it' s almost even where the measurement 27, is that the ten 8 foot setback? MR. STRANG: The ten foot setback 9 is basically the corner of the existing, where it says 10 . 2 in the unhighlighted area or the 10 clear area, it says 10 . 2 on the front of the house, that corner on the property line is 11 10 . 2 as it presently exists . BOARD MEMBER ' TORTORA: I was 12 trying to visually see which, of what portion of those juts are nonconforming and there' s no 13 way for me to ascertain that on this survey? MR. STRANG: I only have one copy 14 of this, but I' d be happy it to share, leave it with you. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:� This line here . 16 MR. STRANG: Right . That is the ten foot setback required by zoning. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things, on the face of it, those little juts 18 are insignificant . MR. STRANG: Yes . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: However, if we grant it, if the Board were so inclined to 20 grant an eight foot minimum setback, it would be only for these plans? 21 MR. STRANG: That' s perfectly fine . 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So if they were modified to increase that , and it would 23 be very specific to that little juts and these plans so, if the Board -- so that you couldn' t 24 come back and say oh, my gosh, we' re going to go all along the property line . 25 MR. STRANG: No, I do have a floor plan already prepared and submitted to the November 20 , 2003 62 1 2 owner for their review and have given a positive response to which relates to the 3 relief that we' re seeking here . So. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You would 4 agree -- MR. STRANG: We would agree . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- that this relief would be specifically to these 6 plans in so far as that side yard is concerned? 7 MR. STRANG: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I go next? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes; Mr. Goehringer. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll even go a little bit farther than that and 11 that is the plans are generic or site specific to this particular one-story structure and 12 that there be no further trying or attempting to develop that vacant piece of property, 13 which I know has a garage on it, but would have a significant impact if the Board were so 14 inclined to grant this to create another lot on Hobart? 15 MR. STRANG: I believe the lots are merged. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand they' re merged. But one never 17 knows what' s going to happen to zoning in hamlet areas . 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: He' s got a garage on there . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wouldn' t make any difference . It' s still succinct and 20 still separate from the existing house . It would double the lot coverage if they tried to 21 split that off . Again, I would like to mention within the decision assuming the Board 22 was so inclined. MR. STRANG: If the Board was so 23 inclined to grant what' s been applied for here with the condition on that -- I'm just trying 24 not to put my client in a corner, if you will -- could that condition be read that they 25 have to come back before this Board if they were to entertain the idea of splitting that November 20 , 2003 63 1 2 off? I don' t know that they have any intention. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They would have to anyway. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They would have to anyway, Garrett . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The feeling here is that we' re looking at one lot now. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . MR. STRANG: Exactly. 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We' re looking at a plan to develop one lot . If 8 there are planning to be two lots, I wouldn' t be inclined to grant any variances because it 9 would be overcrowded. MR. STRANG: There' s no plans to 10 that nature to my knowledge . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think 11 that' s where we' re all going here . MR. STRANG: I don' t have a 12 challenge with it . I just, if the wording is such that they' d have to come back and there' s 13 no guarantee the Board would grant that lot be split off, I 'm just -- 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, mainly because it would be probably be 24 15 percent lot coverage then or maybe even greater, or it may be 34 . 16 MR. STRANG: It would depend on the ground where that lot line fell it would 17 necessitate a rear yard variance . It' s not the intention of my client to split that 18 lot . Right now they enjoy a nice view from their rear yard of their house and their deck 19 across that vacant piece of property to that creek. Fortunately, the neighbors across 20 Hobart are staggered in such a way that they do have a view of that creek, and I think that 21 they' d want to maintain that so there' s never been a discussion or intention to try and 22 split that lot . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No questions . Wait, I do have a question. On 24 the eastern side of the survey you have with the master bedroom suite, et cetera, is that a 25 hallway, that narrow hallway connecting? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What you November 20 , 2003 64 1 . 2 propose to be a computer room in the front . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are you 3 just blowing out the wall of the existing -- MR. STRANG: This may help . This 4 is the proposed floor plan that the original wall of the house is along here, actually, 5 it' s along here comes across here . It' s not a hallway, it' s a bump to accommodate the master 6 bath, part of which is already in this area as the only existing bath in the house . The 7 hallway' s internal . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is 8 actually original; where is the original -- MR. STRANG: The original building 9 line is about where the fireplace is here . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This way? 10 MR. STRANG: That way it' s pretty much about here . Actually may be all the way 11 out, I'm sorry. It may be all the way out . I don' t have the existing condition overlay to 12 relate to that . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I was just 13 curious about this little piece here, I mean if there was a wall on either side it would 14 make me wonder. MR. STRANG: No. There' s not a 15 wall . The exterior wall will be removed. MS . KOWALSKI : Would any board 16 members like extra copies of it? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have to 17 write this thing so it might be helpful . MR. STRANG: Will you like more 18 copies of this? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We don' t 19 have one for the file . Proper protocol, file first . 20 MS . KOWALSKI : Then just a photocopy of the survey that you were 21 referring to earlier. MR. STRANG: But a couple of 22 additional copies . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Please, 23 just make sure I got one because this is my file, please . 24 MS . KOWALSKI : At least two more, Garret . 25 MR. STRANG: No problem. You' ll notice when you look at that proposed floor November 20 , 2003 65 1 2 plan that the spaces, the additions are quite modest, it' s not anything palatial we' re 3 proposing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Board members 4 , have any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or 5 against this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 6 decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members 8 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Next hearing is Dimitri and Helen Sogoloff, and a 10 request to have a new deck construction at less than 100 feet from the sound bluff or 11 bank. Mr. Lark, I have a little 12 problem. The notice of disapproval says that the as built deck is noted as being 49 feet 13 from the bluff . There' s no deck. MR. LARK: I know that . I can 14 explain it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope so. 15 MR. LARK: If I might . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I 16 walked all around looking for that deck. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You 17 didn' t fall in the swimming pool, I hope? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. It' s a 18 very nice swimming pool . MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road 19 Cutchogue, New York for the applicants . This is an application for a 20 variance requiring the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance 100-239 . 4, which requires all 21 buildings or structures to be 100 feet back from the top of the bluff when the property 22 faces on Long Island Sound. The application has two proposals; one to obtain a variance 23 from the 100 foot requirement for the proposed 14 and-a-half by 16 foot bedroom to be added 24 onto the westerly portion of the house, and to obtain approval of the reconstruction of the 25 wood deck, which was also within the 100 feet . And I' ll do the bedroom first then the house November 20 , 2003 66 1 2 second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But your notice 3 of disapproval doesn' t say that . MR. LARK: I can' t speak for their 4 English, Mrs . Oliva, but the application clearly before you and the plans and 5 everything were for the bedroom and the application submitted to the building 6 department was, in fact, for the bedroom. I' ll explain the deck. The deck was there at 7 the time the original application was made . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then what 8 happened? MR. LARK: To the deck? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MR. LARK: Very simply, the 10 builder dealing with the building department, as you see in the notice of disapproval there 11 he said the deck illegal, I cannot give you a permit for your addition. He then told the 12 contractor that if you remove the deck, since the addition is not going to be any more 13 forward toward the bluff than the existing house, which sits back that 64 feet, I will 14 give you the permit . Against my advice, the contractor removed the deck that was there and 15 so hence you do have -- and then the building inspector denied -- he lied, and he denied. 16 He' s lied, it' s as simple as that, and then he still had to come for his variance because he 17 wouldn' t give him the building permits for the bedroom, which is what the initial application 18 was . And I 've got that covered in my presentation but that' s what happened. Okay. 19 First of all, as I understand it, the bedroom is the primary application. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the west side of the house, correct? 21 MR. LARK: The west side, yes, ma' am. I think you have photographs of it and 22 I think it' s shown on the survey the proposed addition. I understand from the past action 23 of the Board of Appeals, that the balancing test, criteria, which you made the benefit of 24 the applicant against the detriment -- the welfare of the neighborhood, will be utilized 25 like we do in area variance cases to be applied to this application. November 20 , 2003 67 1 2 When I first got the application to look at it, as I said, the deck was there . 3 I went to the property to see what was involved with the setback and I was 4 immediately impressed by the mature growth of the trees and the shrubs in the rear yard 5 area, and having some experience in bluff erosion and knowing the reason for the 100 6 foot setback, I then went down to the beach to investigate what the story was on the bluff, 7 and if you've been to the property, you' ll see how, ' cause I was very impressed, how lush or 8 well-established it was, and there was little or no erosion. I was particularly concerned 9 because there was no bulkhead on the property or rock rip wrap. I was there fortunately at 10 a period of high tide, and I noticed that the high tide that the water did not come anywhere 11 near the tow on the bluff, storm water at will, so I looked around and there was no 12 evidence of erosion there that had taken place on the tow of the bluff . I thought, all 13 right . This has been here a goodly amount of time. I think this application will be 14 okay. Then I updated the survey to determine exactly how far the existing house and the 15 deck was, and I think you have that before you. Mr. Metzger did the survey and the house 16 is 63 feet and the deck was 47 . It was a little difficult for me to guesstimate 17 accurately because of the irregularity of the top of the bluff ,line coastal thing is at that 18 point . In any event, that' s what the distances are . Then I looked, ' cause I 19 noticed the unusual architecture of the house, and I looked at what was going on there with 20 why they were proposing it . It turned out that the house itself, it has a -- I 21 investigated then as to what the story was on building permits and everything, and I 22 discovered that the house was built in 1975 and it was a Charles Moore house . I didn' t 23 know who Charles Moore was, but little investigation I found out he was a famous 24 architect and there' s only two houses on Long Island that he did, one here and one over in 25 East Hampton. This one here and the one over in East Hampton. I found that out. from November 20 , 2003 68 1 2 Mr. Sogoloff because he went back to that architectural firm. He didn' t want to do 3 anything with the integrity of the house, that' s who designed -- with the plans I think 4 you have before you -- that' s who designed the one story bedroom. 5 So in any event, that' s what the story is on the house . The building CO on 6 that was issued by Howard Terry in 1975 , and as I looked at the original plans and that 7 deck was on the original plans, and if you go to the property, it' s obvious in order to get 8 out of the French doors into the living area, you got to have some sort of landing or deck 9 because it' s about two feet . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you 10 going to recreate this deck? MR. LARK: That' s what the 11 proposal was . If you look on the plans, he was going to replace the decking because when 12 I saw it they had deteriorated over time . It' s all landscaped around it so it' s going to 13 go in that little alcove situation there . Because I just couldn' t understand when I get 14 to that with the building department, I 'm not into this building business like architects 15 are, but they put that guest cottage connected to the house with the front deck in the front 16 in 1998 or 199, and if the deck was illegal then, Mr. Forester I'm sure would have never 17 given them the permits or the COs at that time to do that because deck was involved, even 18 though it was on the front of the house at that time . But in any event, that was in 199 19 and then for the house, and so and the original plans did that have that deck in the 20 back. In fact, the assessors have been assessing it ever since then because I checked 21 the assessments role and they calculated it to be 63 by 14 feet when they calculated for 22 their assessment . From personal experience having been there can say it was obviously 23 there a long time because I could look at the decking itself, the wood and a lot of it 24 needed to be replaced. But the main thing that they wanted to get approval not only to 25 put that back and that same exact footprint, but also to get the permit for the bedroom November 20 , 2003 69 1 2 because of the way the house is configured, they have two small children and they need 3 another bedroom. Although I was kidding with the client, I said when they' re teenagers they 4 will want the guest cottage, not to be in your bedroom, not in the house under your 5 control . But taking everything into consideration all the standards that you have 6 to apply and the balancing test, I don' t think there will be any undesirable change in the 7 neighborhood at all, especially with the addition of the one bedroom and the 8 replacement of the deck that existed. The relief is not substantial . The bedroom' s only 9 232 square feet, footprint of 1, 582 as you have on plan. There should be no adverse 10 impact on the environment . I was gratified I got a copy of the soil and water conservation 11 department in Suffolk County and they had confirmed all that I had found when I went 12 there several months prior. The one thing they did point out, and I think it' s a valid 13 point and I will bring it to the Board' s attention also, not only with the new 14 construction but it' s much better to have dry wells for the roof runoff in that particular 15 property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think the 16 trustees will be -- MR. LARK: I think that will be a 17 good condition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They never did 18 have a CO for that deck? MR. LARK: I say they did. 19 Mr. Terry was very prone to give a one-family house . That' s all he wrote on the thing. It 20 could have a detached garage; it could have an attached garage, not a swimming pool, a deck. 21 and he never mentioned them. I could show you many, many, and it' s only been the last ten 22 years and they were given all this proof of the original plans, and it' s only been this 23 last ten years that the building department has taken great delight because it' s not 24 spelled out specifically to say it' s illegal . How they can make a determination it' s illegal 25 anyway, the common sense of this one just absolutely blew my mind because it was clear November 20 , 2003 70 1 2 that had been there a long, long time and the house was built in ' 75 and the original 3 architect plans and everything when you consider everything, it made no sense not to 4 have it built at that time . How would you get out of the French doors from the living area 5 to get outside? And when you look at the vegetation that surrounded it, it was -- they 6 were obviously not fresh planted. They have been there 20, 30 years, especially the 7 cedars . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Lark, I 8 see, actually, we had one quite similar to this this morning. It was handled 9 differently. But we did have one quite similar to this . Run it by me again how they 10 got you to destroy the deck. MR. LARK: Can I have my secretary 11 in my office is my witness ' cause I couldn' t believe it . Told the builder the deck is 12 illegal . If you take down the deck, I ' ll give you your permit because your bedroom addition 13 is not any more forward than the existing house . The builder, against my advice and 14 told the client it would expedite the permit, you wouldn' t have to go to the Board, you 15 wouldn' t have to do all these things to expedite it, and took it down. It was not a 16 big deal when they went back to get the permit issued, and which they already applied there 17 and which you see two different dates . He said sorry about that, I made a mistake . I 18 can' t do that . You still have to go before the Board of Appeals . And I said now you 19 really have to go to put the deck -- there is no deck. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm just a little amazed, as I 'm sure my colleagues are, 21 and having gone through a similar situation with the applicant this morning. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same exact thing happened with McAllister, where 23 they enjoyed the house and the swimming pool . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But the 24 same thing. I don' t have any questions . MR. LARK: That' s what happened. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I went looking for a deck and I couldn' t find it . November 20, 2003 71 1 2 MR. LARK: It was there, I saw it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I suspect that is the reason why the deck 4 deteriorated was in 1975 when the deck was built, there was no CCA. 5 MR. LARK: That' s what it was . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s 6 all I can say. I concur with your environmental analysis . 7 MR. LARK: It' s pretty nice back there. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s very, very, nice, and I have no objection. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: George . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: All set . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, we have to give you a variance for the deck 11 and for the bedroom addition. MR. LARK: I was hoping just the 12 bedroom addition but that' s what we developed into . 13 MS . KOWALSKI : Is the bedroom addition there? 14 MR. LARK: No. You have the photographs . There' s too much money involved 15 here to be messing around with that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Very nice 16 house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very nice 17 putting a nice grape arbor in there . Anybody in this audience that wishes to speak for or 18 against this application? If not, I ' ll close the hearing and reserve decision until letter. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. 20 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. ) 21 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 22 hearing is Marion Jones number, 5420 request for a variance, notice of disapproval for the 23 garage that you would like to convert that to accessible space . Is there anybody here to 24 speak for the application? MS . JONES : I'm Marion Jones, good 25 afternoon. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon; November 20 , 2003 72 1 2 how are you this afternoon? MS . JONES : I'm okay. We' re here 3 because we relied on the plans . We liked the design that he made, and the Town approved the 4 plans . So we built what was on the plans . We had absolutely no idea anything was wrong with 5 the cupola design until the building inspector came and told us we had to take the floor out, 6 which had already been installed. We know at this point that the architect made several 7 serious errors in the design, and specifically with regard to the cupola. Right now we have 8 this structure on top of our house, it' s just sitting there, and we would like to ask the 9 Board for relief in order to convert that cupola space, which is right now a big open 10 space with a steel beam running through it, to an accessible space with limited use so that I 11 can get up there and clean the windows and open and shut them in the summer, and so we 12 can occasionally go up and look at the view ' cause you can see Horton' s Point and 13 Goldsmiths, and watch the sun go down and things like that . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is open from the second story I take it? You can' t 15 see it from the first floor. MS . JONES : You come up the stairs 16 and there' s a big wide open space; there' s a bathroom and a bedroom and another bedroom and 17 a little study area. That's the big story part of it . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, you wanted? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was going to say, this is very similar to Levine 20 and at Grand View. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a 21 ladder stair. MS . JONES : That' s the design as 22 it was proposed, yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is it a 23 pull-down thing or permanent fix? MS . JONES : ' A permanent thing. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are you providing for any kind of fire prevention or 25 fire extinguishing system up there or anywhere in the house? November 20 , 2003 73 1 2 MR. JONES : There isn' t right now. My name is Bob Jones, I'm the husband. And 3 that' s one of the dilemmas we have . This was a renovation of the summer cottage that we' re 4 going to retire out here to, and we would have to undo almost the whole structure to put a 5 sprinkler system in at this point, and what we wanted to do was to very occasionally use and 6 really what Marion' s saying, to do the windows also to occasionally look at the view. It' s 7 not going to be a bedroom or a sleeping room or a den. 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Again, tell us, you got a building permit, did you? 9 MR. JONES : The original plans called for what you have . We got a building 10 permit . I mean, ' the building department inspected periodically. When it was 11 substantially finished, the building inspector told us it was illegal . We had already -- I 12 mean, we paid for everything we put the floor in and everything. 13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They had your plans with the cupola, gave you the 14 building permit? MR. JONES : Yes, and we built it 15 and then after we built it, when we were going for the certificate of occupancy we were told 16 we' d have to take the floor out in order to get a CO, that it was in violation, the 17 numbers in the variance thing. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They think 18 you -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would have 19 made it a third story, which is not allowed. MR. JONES : Right . We know that 20 now. We didn' t do this willfully. We kind of relied on the architect . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I understand. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn' t say you did. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No 24 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really don' t know what to do on this . November 20, 2003 74 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only 3 concern that I really have is from a safety point . I just wanted to know if the building 4 department approved that type of ladder. MR. JONES : It was in that type of 5 plan, that it would be like a ship' s ladder. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s no 6 problem with that? MR. JONES : There wasn' t when we 7 got the permit . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 8 ask a question? Are you going to be there on Saturday? You actually were there when I was 9 there one Saturday, but it was extremely early in the morning. 10 MR. JONES : Marion' s there from now until Monday. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I could come over like 10 : 00 , 10 : 30 on Saturday? 12 MR. JONES : Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it 13 will be before 12 : 00 , I can' t guarantee . MS . JONES : That' s fine . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have your telephone number? 15 MS . JONES : 631-- Southold 5 -- 765-5489 . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You would be installing some sort of flooring up there? 17 MS . JONES : Yes . MR. ALLEGRO: My name is George 18 Allegro, and I -was the construction manager of the project . The plans. that were approved 19 showed a wood floor with spaces between them so that the air from the six windows 20 surrounding the cupola would filter down and ventilate the second floor. 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Talking a couple inch space? 22 MR. ALLEGRO: Just a half inch. And five-quarter by four decking over 2 by 10 23 joists, which the new plan calls for a little heavier joist . That was my idea to make it 24 more decorative because the joists are going to be visible from underneath. At any rate, 25 it calls for a ship' s ladder and I have the approved plans, if you would like to see, and November 20, 2003 75 1 2 opening on the top . And I just, if I may, just wanted to add the fact that the Joneses 3 have spent an awful lot of money on this renovation, and the high point of it was the 4 cupola. It looks beautiful from the outside but it serves no purpose on the inside . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree . MR. ALLEGRO : Even though they 6 have spent a lot of money, they have to spend more now to install a new floor and new joists 7 and so forth, and even though that' s a financial hardship. I think it would be a . 8 greater hardship to them if they were not able to utilize that space . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would 10 like to speak for or against this application? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would 11 like to say one thing. If it suits the Board, Madam Chair, I suggest that we recess this to 12 the December 4th hearing, and let me just tell the Board what I see when I go and inspect it . 13 And we' re not going to continue the hearing, we' re just going to basically close it to all 14 verbatim testimony. MS . KOWALSKI : That' s not -- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I prefer to close it, reserve decision, and give us 16 whatever input you have . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It may 17 include a covenant that the Joneses do not utilize it for any other reason. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Much 19 more than just a condition. We' re treading on new water here . 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Without a fire suppression system. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have no objection to that? 22 MS . JONES : No, that' s fine . MS . KOWALSKI : I have a question 23 about the size of it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the 24 overall size of the cupola? MR. ALLEGRO: Roughly 12 feet by 25 12 feet outside measurement, about 144 square feet . November 20 , 2003 76 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is it round? MR. ALLEGRO: No, it' s six-sided. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unless you have something else to say. 4 MS . JONES : That' s all, thanks . MR. ALLEGRO: If I may, I' d just 5 like to give you the photographs from the outside of what it looks like . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could I ask you one more question, are you going to put any 7 furniture up there? MR. JONES : No. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One more final question, the estimated cost that you 9 think this could cost you construction-wise, just for the cupola? 10 MR. ALLEGRO: For what we have to do now? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, what the actual cost of construction was . 12 MR. JONES : At this point we' re sufficiently distressed with the architect 13 that we' re suing him. The lawsuit' s for over $100 , 000 because we had to put a steel beam, I 14 mean, there' s a staple in the house, if there' s ever a hurricane that hits Southold at 15 least the beams will still be there . There' s a steel beam that we had to put in and have 16 fabricated to build that thing to support the weight of the cupola. We would never have 17 done any of that if we were just going to have the second floor. It' s been a huge expense to 18 do that anyway. It was all in the original plans so that' s what' was so difficult for 19 us . So it' s probably about $100 , 000 to get it to this point, and I guess to finish I ' d love 20 to hear Buddy' s answer what it will cost to finish. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to make a motion closing this hearing and 22 reserving decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board members 24 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is Joseph and Danielle Helinski, November 20 , 2003 77 1 2 this is on Tucker' s Lane, Route 48 addition less than 35 feet from the property line . Is 3 there somebody here who would like to speak to the application? 4 MR. HELINSKI : My name is Joe Helinski, I reside at that property. We are 5 here today for your consideration for a variance to our property to add an open porch 6 at the south and north sides of our house . The variance is for the reasons that you 7 mentioned, the 35 foot setback. A point to note the corner of the existing structure is 8 two feet to the property line . That was reduced to two feet when the county put the 9 road in numerous years ago, unfortunately. The distance to the corner of the proposed 10 porch would be 2 . 3 , not much of a difference . Our reasons for wanting the porch 11 are simple, we would just like to have a porch to sit on. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Watch the traffic go by? 13 MR. HELINSKI : That' s always fun. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, 14 question please, you said the county expanded the width of the road; did they own the right 15 of way or did they expropriate? MR. HELINSKI : Eminent domain. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many years ago? 17 MR. HELINSKI : 167 . I can' t calculate a footage difference, but I can show 18 them to you, you may be able to approximate . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: If you 19 could submit those . MR. HELINSKI : Sure . In fact, I 20 dug those out earlier today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you' re installing a porch across the entire 22 front of the house? MR. HELINSKI : Yes . It will be a 23 wraparound porch. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have it 24 staked? MR. HELINSKI : Yes . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Not to be silly but why would you want to have a porch November 20 , 2003 78 1 2 two feet from County Road 48? MRS . HELINSKI : Can I answer that? 3 MR. HELINSKI : The house is two feet from County Road 48 . 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know, but in all reality -- 5 MRS.. HELINSKI : It' s for our safety. It' s going to be a nice thing to have 6 on the home. The home is very plain, very farmhouse looking, which I don' t mind, but I'm 7 trying very hard to improve the look of the house and where it' s situated it' s a hard 8 place to live to begin with, I can guarantee you that, but my thinking was is with having a 9 porch on the corner, that corner' s my bedroom, and I can tell you how many times I 've come 10 out of my bed at night . MR. HELINSKI : There' s been 11 numerous times over the years where vehicles have wound up in our yard and a secondary 12 structure may be enough to slow things down. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have 13 just witnessed me that this is a safety issue to me . 14 MR. HELINSKI : We are in contact with Suffolk County Department of Public Works 15 about that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a 16 safety issue . The idea of having a porch is a wonderful idea. The idea of putting the porch 17 two feet from a county road where people and children could be there, I mean, I simply 18 could not envision it . I wouldn' t want my grandchildren on a porch, yes, it' s right in 19 front of your bedroom now, but if you have company and they' re walking on that porch and 20 you've already stated for the record that you had near accidents right there . It' s simply 21 too close . There' s got to be a better method for you to be able to protect yourself while 22 creating, in my view, what' s going to be a very serious hazard. 23 The back part of the wraparound porch I have no problem with. 24 MRS . HELINSKI : If you would just understand where we' re coming from, I 'm not 25 going to use that front . If you want to know the God' s honest truth about it . November 20, 2003 79 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You may not always own this house, and the next owners 3 may, and what you' re asking us to do is to approve a variance after stating right here 4 that it' s a safety factor because it really puts us in an awkward position. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They have to do the same thing that we may be doing 6 on the last hearing. They have to issue a covenant that they will not utilize the porch. 7 The purpose of the porch is cosmetic only. At least it goes on the deed for future owners . 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s not enforceable . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care if it' s enforceable . All it does is put 10 the neighbors on notice, the current and future owners . That' s the purpose of the 11 covenant . MS . KOWALSKI : Is this a copy we 12 could keep for the record? MR. HELINSKI : That' s fine . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: All set . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I really, I know that corner because I go by it almost every 15 day, and it really is a dangerous corner, and Mrs . Tortora does have a point there . I 16 understand how you feel about it . I don' t know if there' s some other way you can solve 17 your problem. MRS . HELINSKI : Not that' s going 18 to cost us so much money. I 've tried to get kickbacks or something with the highway 19 department, and pleaded with these people, and said, come sleep in my bedroom for one night . 20 Just go through what we go through. It' s a nightmare . This is our home, and it' s been in 21 his family for 150 years, and we've looked at moving that home . We just don' t have the 22 money for that . You know, we' re a young couple . We' re trying very hard to maintain 23 the home that we have because I think it' s a very old home for Southold, and I try very 24 hard to keep it in the restriction and guidelines that Southold Town has, but my only 25 problem is any time I can try to find out anything I can do, I've been told, you know, l November 20, 2003 80 1 2 how much money do we have to spend, and we don' t, that' s our whole problem. 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What kind of foundation does the building have? 4 MR. HELINSKI : Brick. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is there a 5 basement? MR. HELINSKI : There' s a cellar in 6 the middle of the house . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Have you 7 gotten any estimates on moving it? MR. HELINSKI : It' s a very 8 delicate structure to move . MRS . HELINSKI : It' s all plaster 9 lathe, and they told us if we try to pick that up it' s going to fall apart . 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So you don' t have any estimates? 11 MRS . HELINSKI : No. We have been told that number one they have to come in and 12 take down lines . We have to have the power company come out and take down lines . 13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It would be cheaper to demo the building and put another 14 one on the site . MRS . HELINSKI : Basically it 15 probably would, but because this is a family home, we' re trying to so hard to keep it 16 intact . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What did 17 the department of transportation tell you? MRS . HELINSKI : I've been passed 18 around to about 40 different departments, but the last gentleman I spoke to actually was 19 only a couple of weeks ago, had said to me that just like you guys, he can' t determine 20 the right thing to do. He' s going to come out . He' s the first one to come out and look 21 at it for me though, and I'm so happy. And he is proposing that when you come to the end of 22 Tucker' s Lane that it' s a right turn only, which would be a huge, huge, safety thing. 23 And I told him that . MR. HELINSKI : Not only that but 24 reducing the speed limit to 45 . It' s a terrible intersection. Everybody knows that . 25 It' s a blind merge . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I never want to November 20 , 2003 81 1 2 come out of that . MR. HELINSKI : We sit there on the 3 weekend and watch the -- to put it mildly -- the stupidity that people do when they try to 4 jump ahead of each other. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 5 sympathize with you. I simply don' t know whether this is the solution. I say to 6 myself, if something happened and you did sell the house and here we grant a permit for you 7 to create a porch in an area that' s virtually two feet from a very dangerous intersection. 8 I would feel horrible if anything happened there and it doesn' t matter about covenants 9 and restrictions because they' re not enforceable . 10 MRS . HELINSKI : We have a front door, I've never been out the front door. 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I can see why. 12 MRS . HELINSKI : I tell people do not go in my front yard. I have lots of 13 family that come up from down south that come visit, and I can tell you I do not let kids in 14 my front yard. I don' t go in my front yard. I had the surveyor that came out, and he 15 happened to be standing on the corner of that house, I was standing there with him, and 16 somebody hit their brakes, and we've got bushes so you can' t see, and he said Oh, my 17 God, I feel so bad for you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm on the 18 transportation committee, why don' t you appear before them and they could probably go to the 19 DPW and ask the DPW if they couldn' t make the single lane? 20 MR. HELINSKI : That' s what we were trying to do . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Way before you get to Tuckers Lane . 22 MR. HELINSKI : But have a merge . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But I do know 23 somebody down there, and I would be more than happy to be of assistance in any way I can if 24 I could change that . MRS . HELINSKI : That would be 25 absolutely great . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Check with the November 20 , 2003 82 f 1 2 town clerk when we' re meeting again, and ask for an appointment to come see us . It' s 3 usually a Monday morning around 10 : 00 . And we've done it other places . We've changed the 4 whole, direction there at Boyce' s . MR. HELINSKI : They started, they 5 made a right turn lane on to Tuckers . MRS . HELINSKI : I don' t know if 6 that was directly from my calls or not, that was one thing that was done . It does help a 7 little bit, but it doesn' t stop people from going over to that lane and trying to pass . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why I think you should have a single lane . 9 MR. HELINSKI : If that was a single lane, would you feel more comfortable 10 with granting a variance? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' d think 11 about it . MRS . HELINSKI : But you don' t know 12 how many years down the line that would be . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That is in the 13 works . I can tell you to redo that whole stretch there of Route 48 . There is not money 14 in the budget this year but it might be two, three years down the road depending on 15 finances with the county, but they can restripe things; that' s an easy thing to do . 16 MRS . HELINSKI : It' s also an easy thing for them to do to make it right turn 17 only. I've been here for 12 years . And in the 12 years that I've been here, every year 18 it just gets worse and worse .and worse . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. 19 MRS . HELINSKI : As far as Mrs . Tortora' s worrying about us selling the 20 property, I can' t get him out of that house, and I'm going to spend my final days there, 21 period. We don' t have enough money. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Do make an 22 appointment . Let' s see what we can do to make it safe . 23 MRS . HELINSKI : I 'm open for any suggestion. 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the wood steps, I have no problem with any of 25 that . MRS . HELINSKI : That' s why I made November 20 , 2003 83 1 2 it, if you see those corner steps the architect kept arguing with me, let' s put them 3 in front, I said, no, no, put them on the side because it' s away from that corner. And like 4 I said, the only reason why I want that porch extended the way -I do is because I don' t 5 want -- if somebody ever crashes into our house Number one, god fearing that we' re not 6 killed, our bed is as far away from that corner and in one spark that house is so old 7 it will be gone, and I'm so terrified with it, and I live with it every night of my life and 8 I come out of my bed at least once or twice every night especially on weekends with the 9 kids screeching out of there . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What you 10 really need to do is get the county to give you back about five feet of that road. 11 MR. HELINSKI : I know that . In hindsight it would have been better to 12 terminate that road on a straight away. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The angle' s 13 that way anyway. If you look at the survey you can see it' s angled, and it' s the angle 14 that cuts right down to give you that into your property where it gives you that two 15 feet . MR. HELINSKI : No argument from 16 me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can recess 17 this hearing for two months to see if we can find resolution to your problem. 18 MR. HELINSKI : Sounds good to me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make 19 a motion recessing this hearing to January 22nd. 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. MS . KOWALSKI : 9 : 30 in the 21 morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 22 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. ) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing -- 24 MRS . HELINSKI : Excuse me, I got a neighbor here . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry. Please, do get up. November 20 , 2003 84 1 2 MR. MOTT: Indeed privileged I am to be afforded this opportunity talk in 3 defense our good neighbors, the Helinskis, on their appeal . And I have always prided myself 4 what with a terrific memory; however, I find as I age it' s sometimes appears microscopic, 5 and therefore, I find it easier if I write down things on paper. So I'm going to refer 6 to my paper, if you will . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine . 7 MR. MOTT: My bride and I when we came to this area we met all our neighbors, 8 the Donohues, they were four brothers who worked very hard, friendly God-fearing 9 compassionate and always helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, genuine pleasure for us . And 10 it' s so comforting in finding that some people are really doing their jobs like this Board 11 is, though we must recall that all of these homes were built long before zoning, and 12 that' s so easy for us to say we should have or we could have . When this North Road was 13 upgraded, many of us lost considerable property, although we were compensated fairly 14 supposedly. It has never been the same . Leaving us with a strong, extremely hazardous 15 corner, very unsafe, and this still has not been addressed. Now come the Helinskis, who 16 are found to be, just like the others, just good neighbors who too will do anything for 17 you. Upon knowing all these people for 18 over 50 years, we' re pleased to say we couldn' t ask for any better. The questions we 19 must address now is this extreme, unsafe, hazardous situation. We just can' t wait any 20 longer for more serious accidents to happen. Therefore, we know that you will do the right 21 thing and respecting their wishes there' s not more that I can say except we all know it is 22 Lord, our God who built the entire world in eight days, but he sure didn' t need any 23 building permit . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is your 24 name, sir? MR. MOTT: I'm sorry, I couldn' t 25 hear you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you give November 20 , 2003 85 1 2 us your name, please? MR. MOTT: Jim Mott of Southold, 3 M-O-T-T. ---------------------------------------- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Our next hearing is for Jeffrey Forchelli . It' s a 5 request for a variance for a proposed addition at less that ten feet on a single side yard 6 and lot coverage excess of code limitation of 20 percent at 405 Lake Drive, Southold, and 7 Miss Moore . MS . MOORE : Good afternoon. I 8 want to begin with responding to a letter that you have in your -- before I start, I'm sorry, 9 I have the green cards that came in, so I want to make sure I submitted them (handing) . 10 I want to give you a little bit of background here because every effort was made 11 to avoid this variance at least to the side property line . The vacant lot, known as Lot 12 6, Mr. Rapp, who you received a letter from earlier today, and I thank you for forwarding 13 it to me, he' s voiced his objection and made some statements in the letter that I want to 14 respond to and I want to include exhibits into your record. 15 This lot, Lot 6, Mr. Rapp had sought to get approval to construct a house on 16 this property, and as with any parcel that doesn' t have public water, needed to go to the 17 health department board of review for separation of sanitary from the neighbor' s 18 wells . That resulted in a hearing at the board of review where the two property owners 19 across the street, across from Lake Drive, Mrs . Forchelli, who is the owner of this 20 parcel, with her husband and the parcel to the west, which is Mr. Pinkum, they all objected 21 to the development of this property and actually offered at the hearing to purchase 22 the property from Mr. Rapp and keep it as -- sterilize the property, and ultimately it 23 would become, it would be eventually lot line changes would be pursued Forchelli and Pinkum 24 would do a lot line change and reserve a right of way for the two property owners across the 25 street, essentially you would end up with nondevelopment, sterilization of this November 20 , 2003 86 1 2 property. Through the board of review 3 hearing, I guess the board of review ignored the objections of the neighbors, a lawsuit in 4 Article 78 ensued and the court ultimately ruled that the board of review should have 5 considered one of the issues be it that the neighbors had offered fair market value for 6 the property. So it was remanded back to the board of review, and during that period of 7 time there were contracts that were actually prepared, that' s how I originally knew about 8 this property. A contract prepared by -- excuse me, Forchelli agreed to pay for all 9 preparation and contract payment of the transfer tax. There would be no expenses to 10 Mr. Rapp, including there would be no broker' s commission. It was a sale with 100 percent of 11 the proceeds going to Mr. Rapp . After the contracts had been prepared, Mr. Rapp 12 rescinded the agreement to sell the property, and that' s where it stands today. Still 13 Mr. Rapp is the owner of the property and Forchelli, actually realizing that this could 14 go on for some time, made an application to this Board for renovations to his house that 15 would necessitate the variance for the side yard. 16 The actual variance that is before you is to maintain the existing setback of the 17 existing house . In addition, the wraparound or the bay window in the front is again, less 18 than the front yard, the established front yard of 42 . 5 . I also provided you a survey 19 that the stoop or the steps have now been included, that would not have been considered 20 lot coverage or setbacks, but rather than have any confusion about when this building permit 21 was issued we had that submitted to you in the interim. 22 This is a very straight forward application. It' s an old home in Braden 23 Shores . This is a well-established community. The setbacks have been established for many 24 years and the owner is doing a relatively modest renovations, a dormer on the second 25 story and the renovation on the first floor and the need for the additional -- November 20 , 2003 87 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me, this is a one story? 3 MS . MOORE : Well, it doesn' t have the dormers upstairs, so they' re popping out 4 two window dormers . So I believe the height of the building is staying pretty close to 5 what it is, but the dormers are going to be considered an expansion up . 6 I believe I did submit the front elevation for you. It appears that the roof 7 line remains the same, but I could confirm that . I don' t believe that there is a 8 variance with respect to the height of the roof . Everything will stay within the 35 foot 9 limitation. For the record, here is the 10 contract for the purchase of the Rapp property, and here is the decision remanding 11 the case back to the board of review with my client' s cover notes, so . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The board of review then subsequently they made no 13 ruling then because they were really interested in the sterilization? 14 MS . MOORE : No, actually, what happened was there original ruling was to 15 grant the variance to Rapp to install the sanitary system at less than the 150 foot 16 setback required. That decision was overturned by the court and remanded. So the 17 status of the board of review I don' t know ' whether it' s -- it' s been remanded whether or 18 not they continue the hearing, I don' t believe they've continued the hearing. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No 21 questions, in fact, I've got to go. MS . MOORE : Goodbye, Mr. Horning. 22 (Whereupon, Mr. Horning left the hearing room. ) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was 24 'there at any time any thought of just trying to increase that side yard, or was there 25 always just the time of maintaining the side yard? November 20 , 2003 88 1 2 MS . MOORE : Where it shows 13 feet right now I believe is the bedroom, and see 3 where it says "proposed addition" with an arrow, it has a 13 foot line? I assume you' re 4 asking me about the five foot setback. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 5 MS . MOORE: Where it says 13 or subsequently where it says 19 . 16, that area 6 there, that corner I believe is the bedroom; so they' re enlarging the bedroom, and they are 7 having it meet up with the existing footprint, which shows as a 5 by 12 pop-out . So that 8 was -- again, this a relatively modest renovation given the homes that you've been 9 seeing in the renovations that have been occurring routinely in the town. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At all times it' s been maintaining? 11 MS . MOORE : Yes . I mean, the five foot setback was the proper setback at 12 the time; that was the conforming setback. This lot, I mean, it goes to the bulkhead; if 13 it were just 1, 662 square feet less, we' d be meeting the setback requirements . You've seen 14 a lot of these type of applications where the difficulty arises and the 10, 000 to 20 , 000 15 square foot lot size . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re in 16 single side yard and lot coverage . MS . MOORE : Yes, single side yard 17 and lot coverage . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which is 18 one percent only. MS . MOORE : Right . It' s 21 19 percent total . Do you have a question, Mrs . Tortora? 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was looking at the map but I was looking at it 21 upside down. MS . MOORE : Okay. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Now that 23 I'm looking at the map right side up. MS . MOORE : The renovation is 24 where it says existing is the bedroom now. It' s enlarging the bedroom, providing a closet 25 in the bedroom, and there' s a new bedroom, the front bedroom with a closet . So that' s what November 20, 2003 89 1 2 the addition is . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And 3 otherwise could be accomplished by utilizing any of the other areas that would not require 4 a variance? MS . MOORE : No . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, the deck area in the rear. 6 MS . MOORE : What about the deck area in the rear? 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You can' t make these types of additions? 8 MS . MOORE : No, that' s probably where the kitchen is . I don' t have the whole 9 layout of the house but my guess is the kitchen' s in the back. The bedrooms are in 10 the front . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is 11 going to be a one-story addition? MS . MOORE : No, I believe that 12 there' s -- well, the picture that I have, the elevation, shows two windows on the top floor 13 that are dormer windows . I looked at the house, the windows were there but at this 14 point I can' t visualize whether those two little windows were there or not . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think SO. 16 MS . MOORE : You don' t remember the windows? I can' t recall . I wasn' t really 17 paying attention to the windows . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I remember 18 one, I can' t remember the other one . MS . KOWALSKI : One story with 19 dormers then is that what you' re saying, Pat? MS . MOORE : I'm saying it shows on 20 the survey, the one story framed house, but the picture shows the two windows . So I would 21 imagine it' s either getting the second story or half story to provide the dormer, or it' s 22 got them there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Both dog 23 house dormers on are on the assessor' s plan. MS . MOORE : Thank you. So they' re 24 there already so the renovation is just the first floor. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why, Miss Moore, is probably because November 20 , 2003 90 1 2 they probably have to bring a little bit of the roof line down to encompass a part of it 3 so the water doesn' t become a sleuth slay between this whole new addition. 4 MS . MOORE : Okay. And eventually we hope that everybody will agree on the 5 purchase of this lot, then there wouldn' t be a need and the variance would be limited because 6 the property line will have been increased, the side property line . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So Mr. Forchelli would like to buy it? 8 MS . MOORE : It' s not just Forchelli; it' s Forchelli, Pinkum and the two 9 property owners across the way. The contract I have varies . I think the price had been 10 upped, let me see if I have my notes, there had been counteroffers up to 340 , and Mr. Rapp 11 reneged, so. And they' re not that far apart if he believes that the appraised value is 400 12 with a broker, then the offer is not too far away. I hope that they' ll go back to the 13 bargaining table . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody 14 in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? Any other questions 15 from our from Zoning Board? If not, I ' d like to -- 16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Did we get a letter on this to -- 17 MS . MOORE : That' s how I knew about it . It got faxed to you today 18 apparently, and I received it, thank you very much, that way I could respond to it . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no other questions, I will close this hearing and 20 reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members 22 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Douglas and Lydia Defeis, 24 and this is for a front yard setback at less than 35 feet from the front line . We have 25 already given a variance I believe from to push it further away from the bulkhead and now November 20 , 2003 91 1 2 you need a variance for the front yard. MR. DEFEIS : Yes, I think it' s 3 necessary because part of the conditions for the zoning, the ZBA' s approval was for us to 4 move the house four feet closer to the road and away from the bulkhead, and consequently 5 we were requested to have Mr. Joe Fischetti redesign the septic system, which we had done 6 to conform to everything. And we didn' t realize that we would be in a situation where 7 we were being asked to create the nonconformity to comply. So we' re here in 8 front of you to accommodate an entry that was designed. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a covered porch? 10 MR. DEFEIS : The entry was covered, the boot scrape area a little to the 11 left, which is a trellis feature . The final grading of the property hasn' t been done yet . 12 I know you guys probably went out there . Probably could grade the area so we could do 13 away with two of the risers so that would consequently have less of an impact of those 14 stairs coming to the road a little more . So what you' re seeing is the drawing probably 15 will be changed when we have the ability to finally grade the site and do away with at 16 least two of those risers, get us at least another 16 or 20 inches closer to the 17 structure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You didn' t need 18 any new building department okays for that deck, your double deck actually? 19 MR. DEFEIS : No, it was all we had gotten approval . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gave them all the plans for the decks and so on and so 21 forth? MR. DEFEIS : We actually had 22 Trustee approval, because we had them to begin with, and it was there pre-wetlands 1968 it 23 has been in the family 38 years or so. And what happens is the fact that the way this 24 house was built, we have a ten inch, in other words, the ceiling of the first floor is not 25 the floor of the second floor. It' s actually another ten inches, so you ended up a little November 20 , 2003 92 1 2 bit higher, but still within the limits of height structure- requirements of the town. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course you haven' t graded it and landscaped it, which 4 makes a big difference . Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In 5 writing this decision, if I refer to this as a trellis and covered porch or entry porch of 5 6 by 16 and-a-half, I would be correct; is that correct? 7 MR. DEFEIS : Well, it would be 5 deep, the entry feature itself would be 8 10-4 , I believe . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 16 9 and-a-half . MR. DEFEIS : That' s correct . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s the step area. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because the step area is exempt . 12 MS . KOWALSKI : Only if it' s exempt of -- only if it' s 70 square feet . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it' s 18 then from the property line . 14 MS . KOWALSKI : Plus 20 inches less you said? 15 MR. DEFEIS : Right . So it would probably be closer to 20 feet, and again, 16 we' re probably going to landscape like a mound, again in front of that so it will 17 soften the approach from the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any questions . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think I have any questions . Is there anybody in the 20 audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, I 21 would like to close this hearing and reserve decision until later. So moved. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 23 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. ) 24 ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 25 application is for John and Kathy Cheska on Minnehaha Boulevard. We had already given you November 20, 2003 93 1 2 a decision to go do a second story, I do believe . 3 MR. RAGARABI : Yes, ma' am. Daria Ragarabi, John and Kathy can' t make it . In 4 fact, they' re on the American Institute of Beirut . They won' t be available for a few 5 months . Originally, when I came before you 6 they wanted to create a second floor basically for the sake of a master bedroom suite . Since 7 that time Kathy has experienced a problem with her knees . It' s become quite apparent that 8 she' s going to need knee replacement, not in one knee but both knees, rather unpleasant as 9 you might imagine . So the whole second floor idea has been scratched. The house is still 10 small, still on a small lot . They still would like to retire there, many of the issues are 11 still the same, however, the stairs have become an issue . 12 So, in essence, as opposed to putting a master suite on the second floor, 13 we' d like to put a master suite on the first floor, scale it down just a bit . But the 14 nature of the house, the nature of the lot being the lot is about 7, 500 square feet; the 15 house is roughly 19 . 4 percent of that coverage, just about anything we do to the 16 house will infringe on the lot coverage . So what we've done is proposed adding a small 17 addition to the back, this way we can add the master bedroom. We can add additional bath 18 and provide some closet space that the Cheskas' can make use of . We have not 19 infringed on any of the side yards . We have tried to keep it as close to the rear yard as 20 possible . However, we are, I think it' s 3 . 3 percent over, I don' t remember the number off 21 the top of my head, something along those lines, three percent over the 20 percent limit 22 and that' s what we' re here to ask for a variance for. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I realize it is a very small lot . It is a very charming 24 house . You don' t have too much to work with. Mrs . Tortora, do you have any questions? 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No . I remember the lot from last year, and you November 20 , 2003 94 1 2 frankly, don' t really have any other options . To your credit you will be meeting both the 3 side yards, and the rear yard, and it' s a very modest addition, and you have absolutely no 4 problems with it . MR. RAGARABI : Thank you. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What did 6 you say the square footage of the house was presently? 7 MR. RAGARABI : I don' t remember the exact, if I look on this I believe you 8 have this print as well . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said 9 something before in reference to square footage . 10 MR. RAGARABI : 19 . 4 percent . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said 11 something in reference to square footage . MS . KOWALSKI : That was the lot 12 size. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was 13 the 7, 500 . Can you furnish us with what the square footage is? 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Dwelling is 1, 022 , garage is 301 and the deck is 156, so 15 we' re at 1, 459 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 16 That' s all I needed to see, thank you, I missed it . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody here to speak for or against this 18 application? Yes, sir. MR. MATHIE : Ray Mathie, I 19 represent my wife, Joan Mathie . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you speak 20 into the mike? MS . KOWALSKI : Could you please 21 spell your last name? MR. MATHIE : I'm Raymond Mathie, 22 M-A-T-H-I-E. My wife is Joan Mathie . We have no objection of seeing a place enlarged three 23 percent over the 20 percent . I think it' s an improvement over looking at a two-story house 24 where we always used to look at one-'story houses . We have a two-story house just to the 25 north of them going up now, and I'm planting white pines . This would make an improvement November 20 , 2003 95 1 2 over that . I would like to see them remove the garage some day because it' s rotting 3 apart . And put a shed up into the north corner behind my garage and clean up 4 everything, because the garage existing is rotting apart . The rain gutters are falling 5 off; the facia boards that hold the gutters are rotting out . I don' t know why they keep 6 it . I don' t think they have anything in it, but if they want a shed, put a shed behind my 7 garage, that' s fine, the northwest corner. We have no objection at all . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much, sir. Anybody else want to speak for or 9 against this application? Otherwise I ' ll ask for a motion to close the hearing and reserve 10 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 11 moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. All in 12 favor? (Whereupon, all Board members 13 responded in favor. ) ---------------------------------------- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our last application. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second to last . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second to last Mr. Pagano. Who lives on -- trying to build a 17 house on East Gillette Drive in East Marion, and he would need a front yard setback of less 18 than 35 feet . Yes, sir. MR. DENICOLA: Good afternoon, my 19 name is Pete DeNicola, here representing the Paganos . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . MR. DENICOLA: Basically we' re 21 asking for a front yard variance of five feet, and the Paganos spent quite a bit of money on 22 designing this house, and I think it would be an asset to the community, the neighborhood. 23 It' s got a lot of curb appeal and that neighborhood in particular has been subject to 24 quite a few variances in similar matters . And I guess that' s about it . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house is is going to be 28 . 3 feet by 60 feet . November 20 , 2003 96 1 2 MR. DENICOLA: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I said the house 3 I going to be 28 . 3 feet by 60 feet? MR. DENICOLA: Not including the 4 porch. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 5 MR. DENICOLA: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, Mr. DeNicola, we have had substantial 7 variances as I think you mentioned in this area mainly because of the depth of the lots, 8 right, and I have absolutely no objection to this application. The only thing I do have 9 objections to in future situations people want to build large extensive decks on the backs of 10 their houses after we've already granted a rear yard setback, and I want you to go back 11 to the applicant and tell them I would not like to see a large extensive deck built on 12 this house . If they should do so, it should be at ground level . 13 MR. DENICOLA: Okay, that' s no problem. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no 15 objection. However, I will say the variance in question on the front yard and we've done 16 this on a lot of others on the Gillette Drive because what you' re proposing the covered 17 porch area, that' s the area that' s going to be the area of encroachment, so that if we grant 18 a variance, the variance for the 30 feet, it' s not going to run the entire length of the 19 house . MR. DENICOLA: No. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It will only be for the porch. 21 MR. DENICOLA: That' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no 22 further questions . So I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision unless 23 there' s anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application. 24 I will make a motion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board members November 20 , 2003 97 1 2 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 3 Thank you very much for coming in. ---------------------------------------- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our final hearing is for Raymond Nine . Your wish is to 5 have a merger, Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: Good afternoon, I'm 6 sure you' re not unhappy to see us because we' re the last ones . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re never unhappy to see you, sir. 8 MR. CUDDY: Thank you. This is an application, as you said, pursuant to 100-26, 9 which is a waiver of merger, I think you have before and if not let me know I' ll make you 10 copies, but we have submitted a map to you which shows three lots that were created at 11 different times . The lot on the right-hand side, the east side, was purchased by Mr. Nine 12 in 1964 ; the lot on the left-hand side, which is the lot that' s actually the subject at this 13 proceeding, was purchased in -- I said before 1964, this was 163 , this lot was ' 64 , and then 14 there' s a northerly lot that was purchased in 1970 . Each of the lots as shown in the areas 15 the way the deed description is, in other words, there' s been no change in that all that 16 time . He has a house on the lot on the right-hand side, that lot has remained vacant 17 on the left-hand side, and in back of the existing house, there' s a third lot which has 18 on it sand and gravel, and which is part of Mr. Nine' s business . 19 These lots were taxed separately when they were set up, and I'm going to put 20 into evidence the tax bills from 1966, 167, which shows the two lots, and then there are 21 two additional bills from 1970 , 171 at that time they had merged two of the lots,- but in 22 each instance they recognized the separate lot which is the tax lot that we' re talking about 23 here. They did that in 1966 , 167 . I' d like to offer these and put them in evidence, if I 24 may (handing) . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 25 MR. CUDDY: I would also offer up a certified copy of the building zone November 20 , 2003 98 1 2 ordinance, which is dated 1958 , and also one from 1965, just to establish that when these 3 lots were created, particularly this 20 , 000 square foot lot that they met the code 4 requirements, which were much, much less . They were 12 , 500 square feet (handing) . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. MR. CUDDY: I have one other item 6 that I would like to give each of you a copy of and that is the current tax map for this 7 particular street, which is New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck (handing) . 8 The reason that I offer this up is to show you first, again, his lot which is 9 outlined and highlighted, and .then I placed X' s on all of the adjoining residential lots . 10 There is a house on every single lot with an X on it; in other words, that entire street has 11 houses . There is no other vacant lot that' s there . And if you' ll notice, there is only 12 one lot that is even an acre . His has 1 . 6 acres . If you take out the half acre, you 13 have left 1 . 1 acres, he is the only lot -- it' s unique in that sense -- he' s the only lot 14 that that can occur to. He will have more than an acre in this R40 district, .and this 15 entire area here is R40 . So it makes some sense to say that here, for the only time that 16 I 've been doing mergers and unmergers, you actually end up with the second lot which is 17 exactly the requirement of the zoning code . I' d like to go through, if I can 18 just briefly, the requirements of 100-126 . It says there that you can' t have -- that you 19 cannot have this unmerger result in any significant increase in density. Again, 20 that' s why I put the tax map in; there is going to be no real increase in density. In a 21 couple thousand feet there' s going to be one house . Secondly, it says it must be 22 consistent with the neighboring lots and again the tax map shows that half-acre lot is what 23 most of these are, and, in fact, many of them are much less than a half acre . Thirdly, it 24 talks about economic hardship . As a real estate attorney I think I can say to you, and 25 having done many, many closings in the Town of Southold, that there is no vacant lot right November 20, 2003 99 1 2 now that' s a half acre that sells for less than $150 , 000 . The lots at Laurel and Laurel 3 Links, which are three-quarter acre lots sell for $300, 000 . They' re lots on a golf course . 4 There are lots that I deal with Rock Cove Estates, which is just at the edge of 5 Greenport, those lots are also under an acre; they start at $230, 000 . So, to have this lot 6 not available to him, would mean that not only would he lose the money from it, but he would 7 have paid taxes on something for years that has no meaning to him. 8 His son is with him today, and the reason that his son is with him is he intends 9 that his son use this lot to move next door to him, so as he gets older he has his son and 10 daughter-in-law to assist him in whatever he' s doing. If he didn' t have that he would have 11 to sell the lot to have some money, a significant amount of money, so he could 12 assist himself as he got older. So, not to have the use of this lot is an enormous 13 hardship. The final item is that you can' t 14 have any change in slope or contours; in other words, the character of the area doesn' t 15 change geographically. This is a flat piece of land. If you see this land, he hasn' t done 16 anything to it, he' s mowed it all these years, kept it in decent shape . But there' s nothing 17 on the land. There' s no shed. There' s virtually nothing, except bushes or trees, 18 it' s an open piece of land that would be utilized as he intended to use it, for a 19 dwelling. So I think he meets all the 20 requirements that are set forth there . The deeds were taken separately, if he had known 21 that a stroke of the pen could have put his wife' s name on it, he wouldn' t be here today. 22 But people don' t know that and also in fairness to Mr. Nine, was one of the reasons 23 it didn' t happen was he could show that his business -- he' s always been in business here 24 in Mattituck -- and that he had some assets and they were in his name, so when we got 25 loans for his business he had property that he could show to secure those loans . So he took November 20 , 2003 100 1 2 them that way. If he had known differently, I'm sure he would have taken them differently, 3 but he did not . , I think at this point in time, his 4 lot is not going to impact the neighborhood. His neighbors, three of them have written in, 5 I think you have letters from two, I will introduce, if I may, a letter from a third 6 person, that' s the realty company that' s right behind his back lot . And also bring up the 7 last, the green cards (handing) . MS . KOWALSKI : Thank you. 8 MR. CUDDY: I think that Mr. Nine would just like to say one or two words, if he 9 may. MR. NINE : Good afternoon, Board, 10 thank you for this hearing and my name is Raymond Nine . I am the owner of the property 11 and everything that Charles Cuddy has stated is the complete truth. I do have my son here 12 with me today, and he and his wife would love to move back to Mattituck and be next door to 13 us, and, of course, we would like nothing better. 14 I'm 63 years old and it' s becoming more difficult for me to keep my place and do 15 things, and he would be here to help me, and I certainly hope and pray that that will take 16 place, and if anyone has any questions to ask me about it, I would be very happy to answer 17 any questions that the Board would have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora. 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How did you end up with a split zoning? 19 MR. NINE : Pardon me? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How did you 20 end up with a split zoning? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what I' d 21 like to know. MR. NINE : John Wickham bought the 22 property from the same people I bought the property from, and like Charles said, three 23 separate lots bought three separate times . John Wickham bought all the property -- there 24 was probably about four or five acres of property in there, and it had greenhouses on 25 it, and eventually John took down the greenhouses and he was chairman of the November 20 , 2003 101 1 2 Southold Town Planning Board and he had the property put into business zone, and that 3 butted up to my property, and John had come to me and asked me if I ' d be interested in 4 filling out the corner. He said there' s that piece in the corner, Ray, that I have that' s 5 business property he said you have your property there would you be interested; and I 6 said absolutely. And I bought it from him, and I still use that actively. I have a 7 letter from -- you guys probably remember -- Howard Terry, he was the first building 8 inspector in Southold Town. I have a letter from Howard back in the 170s stating that if I 9 bought that property, it was business zoned and I would be able to use it for a storage 10 yard. You could not use it as a mining place you can' t dig in the ground and mine it, but 11 he said it is business zoned property that can be used for your use . And that' s what I've 12 done, and I still maintain that storage yard today. 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So probably in 1989 it went from business to hamlet 14 business which is the same thing. MR. NINE : Same thing so I assume, 15 I still -- I've never had a problem using and I still would like to continue to do that . 16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was just curious . 17 MR. NINE : That' s actually how it happened. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Didn' t he take those greenhouses and take some of the glass 19 and put it back on the farm? MR. NINE : He did. He actually 20 moved I think one or two of those greenhouses, he moved them down to Cutchogue . When we 21 bought it originally he was intending to work there for a few years and then move all the 22 greenhouses down to Cutchogue . But it was a big project because those greenhouses were all 23 concrete and glass . The glass wasn' t so bad; they took most of the glass out, but the 24 concrete was just impossible to do anything with that so he wound up not putting them back 25 up again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. November 20 , 2003 102 1 2 Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 3 Nine, you will see that this is one of the rare times I am in favor of this unmerger, and 4 I am in favor of it for two reasons : Number one, because it basically reinstates the 5 original lot lines; and it Number two, it has been my past practice to vote on an unmerger 6 on any application that concerns the creation of a lot for another family that wants to move 7 in, particularly relationship situations as in this particular case . 8 MR. NINE : Thank you for that comment . I'm not doing this to generate 9 dollars, to make a big profit . I'm doing this so my son will have the lot hopefully forever. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that would like 11 to speak for or against this application? If not, I would make a motion to close the 12 hearing and reserve decision. MR. NINE : I ' d like to thank you 13 all very much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board members 15 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 16 (Time ended: 3 : 10 p.m. ) 17 18 R 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 November 20 , 2003 103 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 6 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true 8 record of the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to 11 this action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the 13 outcome of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 20th day of October, 2003 . 16 17 18 19 41orence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 November 20 , 2003